. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12083

. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FRIDAY,i JULY 29, 1955

The House met at 11 o'clock a. m. The Chaplai~ Rev. Bernard Braskamp,

D. D., offered the following prayer~ Almighty God, who art our refuge and

strength and whose divine providence is ever 'round about us, we desire to begin, to continue, and to end this day with Thee.

May it be a day of new adventures and advances- :tn faith and in friendship with Thee and with all mankind.

Grant that it may be the purpose of our minds and the passion of our hearts to harness all the forces of righteousness in the great spiritual task of building a better world.

We beseech Thee that the spirit of men everywhere may have in it a _new dimension of understanding and good will and a new sense of responsibility for the welfare of humanity.

Hear us, in Christ's name. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of yes

terday was read and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr.

McBride, one of its clerks, announqed that the Senate had passed without amendment bills of the House of the following titles:

H. R. 291. An act to extend the retirement tnconie tax credit to members o! the ~rmed Forces~

H. R. 542. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code;

H. R. 7.27. An act to authorize the conveyance of certain land to the Pecwan Un.ion School District for use as the site of a school;

H. R. 898. An act to provide f'or the approval of deeds executed by the heirs of Anna Hollywood. Fickz;

H. R. 910. An aet to . authorize and direct the sale- of certain land in Alaska to John Ekonomos, of the Fairbanks Precinct, Alaska;

H. R. 939. An act, for the relief of Laura Saflr;

H. R. 999. An act for the relief of Nurith Spier;

H. R. 1159. An act. for the relief of Anna Histed {nee. Wiesneth); .

H. R. 1160. An act for the relief of Vittorio Capano;

H. R. 1408. An act for the relief of Caterina Ruello;

K R. 1976. An act for the relief of Luigi Tomasella; ·

H. R. 2788. An act for the relief of Miguel Sandoval-Michel (also known as Arturo Rodriguez-Gomez);

H. R. 3437. An act to am.end the rnternal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a maximum manufacturers' excise. tax on the leases of certain automobile utility trailers;

H. R. 3587. An act granting the consent of the Congress to the negotiation of a compact relating to the waters of the· Klamath River by the States of Oregon and California;

H. R. 3626. An act for the relief of pse Werner;

H. R. 3712-. An act to extend the period during which claims for floor stocks refunds may be filed with respect to eertaih manu!acturers' excise taxes which were reduced by the Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954;

H. R. 3856. An act for the relief of Leopoldine Simonetti;

H. R. 3956. An act for the rellef cf Eliza-beth Rotics Whitney; .

H. R. 4718. An act to authorize and dir.ect. the issuance of patent to Robert W. Retherford, of Anchorage, Alaska; to certain land in Alaska;

H. R. 4970. An act for the relief of Edeltraudt Margot Gallagher, nee Hackelbe:rg;

H. R. 5080. An act for the relief of Florence E. McConnell;

H. R. 5767. An act for the relief of Sally s. Shulman or Zell Sholman;

H. R. 5936. An act to provide wage credits under title II of the Social: Security Act for military service before April 1956, and to permit application for lump-sum benefits under such title to be made within 2 years after interment or reinterment in the case of servicemen dying overseas before April 1956;

H. R. 6002. An act for the relief of Helene Rapp;

H. R. 6036. An act for the relief of Mrs. Florentine Kintzel;

H. R. 6886. An act to amend the act of October 19, 1949, entitled "An act to assist States in collecting sales and use taxes on cigarettes";

H. R. 6896. An act for the relief of Luisa Guidi Miller; and

H. R. 7148. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Codes so as to provide a personal exemption with respect to certain depend'en ts in the. Republic of the Philippines~

The mesrnge also announced that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, bills of the House of the following tit!es:

H. R. 100. An act to permit the mining development and utilization of the mineral resources of all pub-lie lands withdrawn or reserved for power developme:r.t, and tor other purposes;

H . R. 1393. An act for the relief of the E. 3. Albrecht Co.;

H. R. 4744. An act to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937. as amended, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act;

H. R. 5546. An act for the relief of Fran-cisca Alemany; . .

H. R. 688'7. An act to extend' for ! year the application of section 108 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code or 1954 (rerating to income o! a railroad'. corporation from diis,charge of ind'eb1redness);

H. R. 7024. An a.ct to remove the manufacturers' excise tax from the sales of certain component parts for use in other manufactured articles, and to confine to entertainment-type equipment the tax on radio and television apparatu~.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills and a joint resolution of the following, titles~ in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 366. An aet. for the relief of Bart Krijger; S. 421~ An ac.t for the relief of Jose Alvarez; s. 433-. An act, !or· the relief of Markos

Demetrius Spanos; S. 912. An act to amend the act of April

23, 1930, relating to a uniform retirement date for authorized retirements of Federal personnel, and the Foreign Serv-ice Act of 1946, as amended;

s. lU>5. An. act for the reUef of Mrs.. Lieselotte Emilie Dailey;

S. 1118. An act for the relief of. Katherine Laiimodiere (nee Schneeberger);

S. 1125. An act for the. relief of Stephen Fodo;-

S. 1226. An act for the relief of So-terios Christopoulos;

s . 1299. An act !'or the. relief of Mrs. ES:tenl Rodriguez Estopinan de Witlicki;,

S. 1348. An act for the relief of Anna Jer-man Bonito; ·

s. 1357. An act for the relief of Ingeburg Edith StallingS' (nee Nitzkf};

s. 1594. · An act for the relief of Dosinda. Gonzalez Mendez;

S. 1676. An act for the relief of Antonio Domenico Narciso Bianchi; ·

S. 1682. An act for the relief of Maria Del Carmen Intriago Martinez;

S. 1706. An act for the relief of Spyridon Satntoufis and his wife, Efrossini Saintoufls;

S. 1732. An act for the relief of Panagiotis Nicolas Laios and his wife, Antyro Panagiotis Lalos;

S. 1787. An act for th.e relief of Edith Kalwies;

S. 1818. An act to limit the amount of land on Federal irrigation projects which may be exchanged under the act of August 13, 1953;

S. 1882'. An act for the relief of Constantine Sailmon;

S. 1888. An act for the relief of Cesare Picco;

S. 1905. An act for the. relief of Winston Bros. Co. and the Utah Construction Co. and the J. A. Terteling & Sons, Inc.;

S. 1917. An act to authorize the construction within Grand Teton National Park of an alternate route to United States Highway No. 89, also numbered U.S. 187 and U.S. 2'6, and the c.onveyance there.of to the State of Wyoming, and for other purposes;,

S. 1933. An act for the relief of Dr. Elpidio Dosado, Aurelia, Deanna, Elpidio, Jr., and Ambrosio Dosado;

S. 1965. An act to repeal a particular contractual requirement with respect to the Arch Hurley Conservancy District in New Mexico;

S. 1972. An act for the relief of William Theodore and Emily Sammr Saad;

S. 1973. An act for the relief of Toufic N, Jildeh;

S. 1983. An act for the relief of Myra Louise De~

S. 2036. An act for the relief of Rosa Roppo; S. 2053. An act for the relief of Ivan

Gerasko; S. 2060. An act to a.mend the act of March

3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1449), as amended, to incorporate in the Organic Act of the National Bureau o:f Standards the autho:rity to use the working capital fund,, and to permit certain improvements. in. :flseal practices; ·

S. 2087. An act to amend the act of Ma.y 19, 19-17 (ch. 80, 6'! Stat. 102), as amended, so as to permit per capita payments· to the individual members of the Shoshone Tribe and the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, to be made quar.;. terly;

S. 2197. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to distribute equally to members o! the Kaw Tribe of Indians certain moneyS' to the credit of the tribe in. the United States Treasury;

S. 2556. An act ta provide assistance for certain landless Indians in the State o! Montana;

S. 2569. An act to provide certain basic authority for the Department of State;

S. 2575. An act for the relief of Mrs. Gertrud Hildegard Nichols~ and

S. J. Res. 82. A joint resolution to authorize the Secreta:ry of the Inte:Pior to execute a certain contract wi.th the. Teston IrrigatJoi;i District, Mont.

The message also anriounced that the Senate· agrees to the amendment of the ·House to a bill of the Senate of the followfng ·title:

S. 665. An. act to revive section 3 of the Dfstrict of Columbia Public. School Food Services Act.

The message also announced that the .Senate had passed~ with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is

12084 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.:..:. HOUSE

requested, a bill of the House of the following title:

H. R. 5881. An act to supplement the Federal reclamation laws by providing for Federal cooperation in non-Federal projects and for participation by non-Federal agencies in Federal projects.

The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments to the foregoing bill; requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. LONG, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. MILLIKIN, and Mr. WATKINS to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7224) entitled "An act making appropriations for Mutual Security for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes."

The message also announced that the Vice President has appointed Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina and Mr. CARLSON members of the joint select committee on the part of the Senate, as provided for in the act of August 5, 1939, entitled "An act to provide for the disposition of certain records of the United States Government" for the disposition of executive papers ref erred to in the report of the Archivist of the United States numbered 56-3.

REPORT ON H. R. 7466 Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means may have until midnight tonight to file a report, including any minority views, on the bill H. R. 7466.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request o: the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. COOPER]?

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, as I understand it, that would give me until midnight, and, if I were to object, there is a possibility it might give me until tomorrow sometime, in order to be able to compose my minority views. Is that correct?

Mr. COOPER. No; I think the reverse ls true. It would mean you would have to file them today, because the report will be filed today if this consent is granted.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection.

TAX ON ADMISSIONS TO ATHLETIC EVENTS .

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Ways and. Means, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (H. R. 7095) . to provide that the tax on admissions shall not apply to certain athletic events held for the benefit of the United States Olympic Association which was unanimously reported favor~ ably by the Committee on W~ys and Means.

· The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I wish to say again, as I have said before when the gentleman from Tennessee has presented bills of this character for consideration, that he will present several bills today. I want to state to the Members of the House that every one of these bills has been very thoroughly gone into. They are devoid of politics and devoid of any consideration except the real merits of the bill. There is no bill in the group to be called up except those which have been accepted unanimously by the Ways and Means Committee. _ For that reason, I hope that every bill called up by the gentleman will be accepted and passed without objection.

Mr. WILSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do so for the purpose of asking the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee when they are going to get to some of the bills that some of us have introduced and are interested in just as much as members of the Ways and Means Committee are interested in their bills?

I think the gentleman knows the bill in particular to which I am referring and that is the one pertaining to depletion allowances for minerals which provision was in the act at the time H. R. 8300 was passed. It was merely an oversight in the drafting of the bill H. R. 8300 that this matter was not taken care of. It is thoroughly meritorious. It is .merely corrective legislation. I · introduced the bill. I wrote to the Treasury for clearance on the bill.

Lack of the reenactment of this provision is putting some of these companies to terrific disadvantage. Some are on a calendar year, some are on a :fiscal year. Unless this bill is passed one limestone company with a February 1st :fiscal year will have a 10 months' advantage in depletion allowance over another company which is on a :fiscal year ending November 30, or beginning December 1.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WILSON of Indiana. I yield. Mr. COOPER. I know about the gen

tleman's bill, and will state that it is ·scheduled for consideration by the committee today. We expect to return to our meeting as soon as these bills are disposed of. These bills already have been unanimously reported by the committee and many of these bills are by Members of the House who are not members of the Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Committee is now, and has been for about 3 weeks, giving consideration to bills introduced by Members of the House, not just members -of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. WILSON of Indiana. My bill was brought up at one time but was passed over and then was set down at the bottom of the list. I have never been able to understand why. It must have been because of some misunderstanding. It. was the law. It is merely correcting a mistake made in the passage of H. R. 8300, in which bill it was omitted.

I am going to withdraw my reservation of objection for I know that the gentleman from Tennessee is . acting in good faith. I am acting in good faith but I feel I am derelict in my .duty in letting all these bills go through which are no more meritorious than mine. My bill ~pparently was put at the bottom of the list just because somebody else wanted their bill :first.

I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. COOPER. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is mistaken in that respect. The gentleman's bill 'is just like about 46 other bills, some of them by members of the Ways and Means Committee, that were brought up. It was found that some additional information was needed. They were passed over for that reason in most instances. As stated to the gentleman, his bill is on the list to be considered today, and the sooner we can get through with these bills the sooner we can get to the consideration of it.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WILSON of Indiana. I yield. Mr. McCORMACK. I understand the

bill under consideration is one I introduced. Is that correct?

Mr. COOPER. That is correct. Mr. McCORMACK. I just came into

the Chamber a moment ago. I introduced that bill at the request of the officials of the United States Olympic Association. It has t.o do with the games to be held in this country next year.

Mr. WILSON of Indiana. I have no objection to the gentleman's bill, understand, and I withdraw my objection. I merely wanted information from the gentleman from Tennessee on my bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That section 4233 (a)

(1) (C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to denial of exemption from tax on admissions to certain athletic events, etc.) is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "Clauses (1) and (11) shall not apply in the case of any athletic event if all the proceeds of the admission inure exclusively to the benefit of the United States Olympic Association."

SEC. 2. The amendment made by the first section of this act shall apply only with respect to amounts paid on or after the first day of the first month which begins more than 10 days after the date of the enactment of this act for admission on or after such first day.

With the following committee amendment:

Page 1, strike out all of lines 3 to 10 inclusive and insert the following: "That amount 4233 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to exemptions from the admissions tax) ls hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"(10) Athletic events for benefit of United States Olympic Association: Any admissions to an athletic event, if (A) such event is conducted by the United States Olympic Association, or the conduct of such event for the benefit of such association is authorized in advance by such association, and (B) all the proceeds of the admissions inure exclusively to the benefit of such association."

The amendment w.as agreed to.

1.95·5 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12085 · The bill was ordered· to be engrossed

and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon• .sider was laid on the table . . Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the United States is one of the few remaining nations of the world which do not subsidize the athletes who represent them in the Olympic games. As a nation, we are justifiably proud of the 'fact that the United States Olympic Association can raise all of the funds necessary for sending our athletes to the Olympic and pan-American games by public gifts and subscriptions.

H. R. 7095 would provide an exemption from the admissions tax now levied upon athletic events where the event is being sponsored by the United States Olympic Association. The athletic event must be conducted by or for the United States Olympic Association and all of the proceeds must inure exclusively to the benefit of the association, otherwise the exemption would not be granted.

The bill was unanimously reported by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 7095 provides that the tax on admissions shall not apply to certain athletic events held for the benefit of the United States Olympic Association. The bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD on the bill just passed and I also ask unanimous consent t:tiat immediately follow-1ng consideration of each of these bills I may extend my remarks in the RECORD at that point ·giving an explanation of the bill. ·

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?

There was no objection. Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that I may be permitted to extend my remarks in the RECORD immediately after consideration of these bills that we are about to consider.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection. Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Members who desire to do so may extend their remarks in the RECORD immediately following the consideration of each of these bills.


There was no objection.

AMENDING TARIFF ACT OF 1930 TO PROVIDE FOR FREE · IMPORTATION OF AMORPHOUS GRAPHITE Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by direc-

tion of the Committee on Ways and Means, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the -bill (H. R. 3653) to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 'to provide for the free importation of amorphous graphite. which was unani• mously repor.ted favorably by the Com• mittee on Ways and Means.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman ·from Ten• nessee?

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted. by the Senate and. House of Representatives of the United. States of America in Congress assembled., That para.: graph 213 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is hereby amended by striking out "Amorphous, 10 percent ad valorem;". Title II of the Tariff Act of 1930 (relating to the free list) _ is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"PAR. 1818. Amorphous graphite or amorphous plumbago."

SEC. 2. The amendments made by the first section of this act shall apply with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, after the date of the enactment of this act.

Favorable reports on thls legislation were received from the Departments of State and Treasury.

The amendments approved by the Committee on Ways and Means are tech• nical in nature.

H. R. 3653, as amended, was approved by the unanimous vote of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr . . Speaker, H. R. 3653 amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to transfer amorphous graphite or plumbago from paragraph 213 of the dutiable list to the free list. All .of the interested agencies of the Government have furnished favorable reports on this legislation, and it was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

EXEMPTING FROM DUTY IMPORTA-With the following committee amend- TION OF CERTAIN HANDWOVEN

ments: FABRICS Page 1, line 8, strike out "1818" and in•

sert "1819." . Page 1, line 9, after the word "plumbago",

insert "crude or refined."

The committee amendments were agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 3653 would amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to transfer amorphous graphite or plumbago from paragraph 213 of the dutiable list to the free list.

Amorphous graphite or plumbago, crude or refined, was made dutiable in the Tariff Act of 1930 at the rate of 10 percent ad valorem. This mineral is presently dutiable at 2.5 ·percent ad valorem, pursuant to negotiated tariff reductions under the trade agreements authority.

Imports of the natural amorphous material come principally from Ceylon. These imports are of a high quality especially suitable for certain strategic items required by the Air Force. This material is listed by the Federal Government as strategic and critical for stockpiling purposes.

Amorphous graphite is a mineral having awidevarietyof essential uses; for example, it is used for foundry facings and in the manufacture of carbon brushes, dry-cell batteries, and paints. Although the United States is probably the world's most important consumer of amorphous graphite, it depends upon foreign sources to furnish approximately 90 percent of its requirements. During the 1950-54 period the average annual domestic consumption of amorphous graphite was almost 40,000 short tons. Of this amount, domestic mines supplied only about 3,000 tons a year or 8 percent of the total consumed. Domestic reserves of amorphous graphite are small and generally are of low quality.

The Department of Commerce's report to the Committee on Ways and Means in support of the enactment of H. · R. 3653 stated as follows:

It is believed that the abolition of the import duty on amorphous graphite may aid domestic consumers without affecting ·ad-versely domestic producers. ·

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill <H. R. 4376) to exempt from duty the importation of certain handwoven fabrics when used in the making of religious vestments which was unanimously reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?


Be it enacted, etc., That title II of the Tariff Act of 1930 (relating to the free list) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"PAR. 1818. Handwoven fabrics imported in good faith by a society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious purposes, to be used by such society or institution in making religious vestments for sale, if there is presented to the Collector of Customs an affidavit of a responsible officer of the importing society or institution, that the substantial equivalent of the · fabric is not handwoven in the United States/'

SEC. 2. The amendment made by this act shall apply to articles entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the day following the date of enactment of this act.

With the following committee amendments:

Page 1, line 6, strike out "1818" and insert "1819."

Page 1, line 10, after "Customs", strike out "an affidavit" and insert "a written declaration."



Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 4376 would amend title II of the Tariff Act of 1930-relating to the free listby adding a new paragraph to allow free entry to handwoven fabrics imported by certain religious societies or institutions for their use in making religious vest .. ments for sale if a written declaration is presented showing that the substantial equivalent of the fabric is not handwoven in the United States. ·

12086 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 29

Congress has historically extended limited exemptions from duty on articles imported by or for the use of religious societies and institutions. During our consideration of this legislation it was brought to the attention of the Committee on Ways and Means that certain religious orders are required to pay duty on certain handwoven .fabrics imported for the purpose of making religious vestments.

The committee was advised that little or no handwoven fabrics are produced commercially in the United States in any appreciable quantities; nor is it likely that the enactment of H. R. 4376 would result in any large scale imports of handwoven fabrics by religious societies or institutions for the manufacture of religious vestments.

H. R. 4376 is safeguarded against abuses by the provision in the bill which requires that the exemption would be accorded only in those instances where an officer of the importing institution or society presents to the Collector of Customs a written declaration that the substantial equivalent of the fabric is not handwoven in the United States.

The amendments to H. R. 4376 as approved by the Committee on Ways and Means are technical in nature.

The Committee on Ways and Means is unanimous in urging the enactment of H. R. 4376, as amended.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 4376 exempts from duty the importation of certain handwoven fabrics when used in the making of religious vestments for sale. The bill requires that a written declaration be presented showing that the substantial equivalent of the fabric is not handwoven in the United States. The bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

AMENDING SECTION 4091 OF ·THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954 RELATING TO IMPOSITION OF TAX UPON LUBRICATING OILS AND AMENDING SECTION 6416 (B)

OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE RELATING TO OVERPAYMENTS OF TAX Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by direc

tion of the Committee on Ways and Means I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill <H. R. 4581) to amend section 4091 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, relating to imposition of tax upon lubricating oils, and to amend section 6416 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to overpayments of tax), which was unamimously reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means.


the request of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. CooPER].


Be it enacted, etc., That (a) section 4091 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 1s amended to read as follows: "SEC. 4091. Imposition of tax.

"There is hereby imposed upon lubricating oils sold in the United States by the

manufacturer or producer a tax at the rate of 6 cents a gallon (except t~at, in the case of cutting oils the tax shall be 2 cents per gallon), to be paid by the manufacturer or producer. For the purposes of this section, the term "cutting oils" means oils sold for use in cutting and machining operations (including forging, drawing, rolling, shearing, punching, and stamping) on metals."

(b) Section 6416 (b) (2) (H) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is amended by striking the period at the end thereof, inserting a semicolon and inserting a new subparagraph (I) to read as follows:

"(I) in the case of lubricating oils, used or resold for use as cutting oils: Provided, That such credit or refund shall not exceed the difference between the tax imposed upon lubricating oils and the tax imposed upon cutting oils. For the purposes of this subparagraph the term "cutting oils" means oils shown under section 4091."

( c) The amendments shall take effect on the first day of the first quarter which begins more than 10 days after the date of the enactment of this act.


Page 1, strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: "That (a) section 4091 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is amended to read as follows:

•• 'SEC. 4091. Imposition of tax . •• 'There is hereby imposed upon the fol

lowing articles sold in the United States by the manufacturer or producer a tax at the following rates, to be paid by the manufacturer or producer:

"'(l) cutting oils, 3 cents a gallon; and "'(2) other lubricating oils. 6 cents a

gallon.' "(b) Section 4092 of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1954 is amended to read as follows: " 'SEC. 4092. Definitions

"'(a) Certain vendees considered as manufacturers: For purposes of this subpart, a vendee who has purchased lubricating oils free of tax under section 4093 shall be considered the manufacturer or producer of such lubricating oils.

" ' ( b) Cutting oils: For purposes of this subpart, the term "cutting oils" means oils sold for use in cutting and machining operation (including forging, drawing, rolllng, shearing, punching, and stamping) on metals.'

" ( c) The table of sections to subpart B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is amended by striking out 'Definition of certain vendees as a manufacturer' and inserting in lieu thereof 'Definitions.'

"SEC. 2. Section 6416 (b) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is amended by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon, and by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following new subparagraph:

"'(I) In the case of lubricating oils in respect of which tax was paid at the rate of 6 cents a gallon, used or resold for use on or after tbe effective date of this subparagraph as cutting oils (within the meaning of section 4092 (b)); except that the amount of such overpayment shall not exceed an amount computed at the rate of 3 cents a gallon.•

"SEC. 3. The amendments made by this act shall take effect on the first day of the first calendar· quarter which begins more than 10 days after the dat_e of the enactment of this act."

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the. third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

,:'he title was amended so as to .read: •• A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to the tax on cutting oils."

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the Excise Tax Reduction Act ·of 1954 defined cutting oils to mean oils "used primarily in'' cutting and machining operations on metals and "known commercially as'~ cutting oils. The act also imposed an ad valorem tax on cutting oils at the rate of 10 percent, but provided that the tax imposed should not exceed 10 percent of the manufacturers price.

Neither of these changes has worked out very well in practice.

A specific gallonage tax is to be pref erred in the case of cutting and other lubricating oils both because the industry is accustomed to this type of tax and because it provides a uniform tax irrespective of whether the manufacturer sells at the wholesale or at the retail level. The cutting oils industry has had difficulty with the definition of cutting oils adopted by the Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954 because there is no uniform agreement as to what oils are "used primarily in" and ''known commercially as'' cutting oils.

To correct these mistakes, H. R. 4581 redefines cutting oils and provides a tax upon them on a specific gallonage basis.

This bill was unanimously reported by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 4581 revises the application of the lubricating oils excise tax in the case of cut .. ting oils to provide that the tax on such oils is to be 3 cents per gallon. The bill also provides certain clarifications in the definition of the term "cutting oils!' The bill, which was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SIMPSON], was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

AMENDING THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954 TO PROVIDE FOR REFUND OR CREDIT OF CERTAIN INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES AND CUSTOM DUTIES Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by di

rection of the Committee on Ways and Means, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill <H. R. 5249) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of · 1954 to provide for refund or credit of internal revenue taxes and custom duties paid on distilled spirits and wines lost, rendered unmarketable, or condemned by health authorities as a result of the hurricanes of 1954, which was unanimously reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection· to


There being- no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: ·

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to make refund, ·or allow credit in the· case of a distiller, winemaker. or rectifier if he so elects, in the amount of the internal revenue tax and customs duties paid on distilled spirits and wines previously withdrawn, and lost or rendered unmarketable

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12087 or condemned by a duly authorized health official of the United States or of a State by reason of the hurricanes of 1954 while such spirits or wines were in the possession of ( 1) the person originally paying such tax, or such tax and duty, on such spirits or wines, (2) rectifier for rectification or for bottling; or which have been used in the process of rectification, under Government supervision as provided by law and regulations, or (3) a wholesale or retail liquor dealer, all hereinafter referred to as the possessor or possessors. The refunds and credits authorized by this act may be made to ( 1) any of the possessors, except a retail liquor dealer, or (2) to any distiller, winemaker, rectifier, importer, or wholesale liquor dealer who replaced for the possessor the full equivalent of the distilled spirits or wines so lost or rendered unmarketable or condemned, without compensation, remuneration, payment, or credit of any kind in respect of the tax, or tax . and duty, on such spirits or wines. A claim for the amount of such tax, or such tax and duty, shall be flied with the Secretary of the Treasury within 90 days from the date of enactment of this act. The claimant shall furnish proof to the Secretary's satisfaction that (1) the internal revenue tax on such spirits or wines, or the tax and duty if imported, was fully paid, (2) such spirits or wines were lost or rendered unmarketable or condemned by a duly authorized health official of the United States or of a State, (3) the claimant was not indemnified by any valid claim of insurance or otherwise against loss of the tax, or tax and duty, paid on the spirits or wines, and (4) in those cases where applicable, that the claimant has had replaced for the possessor the full equivalent of the spirits or wines so lost or rendered unmarketable or condemned, without compensation, remuneration, payment, or credit of any kind in respect of the tax, or tax and duty, on such spirits or wines.

(b) When the Secretary, pursuant to this act, makes refund, or allows credit; in the amount of the tax, or tax and duty, on spirits ·or wines rendered unmarketable or condemned by a duly authorized health official, such spirits or wines shall be destroyed under the supervision of the Secretary or his delegate, unless such spirits or wines were, prior to the enactment of this act, destroyed under the supervision or observation of the Secretary or his delegate.

(c) Where credit is allowed to a distiller, winemaker, or rectifier for the internal revenue tax previously paid as aforesaid, the Secretary is authorized and directed to provide for the issuance of stamps to cover the tax on distilled spirits or wines subsequently withdrawn or rectified to the extent of the credit so allowed.

(d) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.


Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the various hurricanes which occurred in 1954 resulted in large losses of distilled spirits and wines held by wholesale, retail; and other liquor and wine dealers. In these cases much of the price of the lost or damaged spirits or wines represented excise tax paid the Federal Government upon withdrawal from bond of the spirits or wines. The large portion of the price represented by tax distinguishes these beverages from other tax-paid products which also were destroyed by the hurricanes in 1954.

This bill relieves this situation by providing for refunds or credits in the case of distillers, winemakers, or rectifiers for the excise tax and customs duties paid on distilled spirits and wines lost, rendered unmarketable, or condemned by reason of the 1954 hurricanes.

The refunds may be made with respect to tax paid on distilled spirits and wines which were still in the possession of the original taxpayer, a rectifier, or a wholesale or retail liquor dealer. However, to avoid administrative complications, the refunds may not be made directly to a retail liquor dealer. A credit or refund may also be made to a distiller, winemaker, rectifier, importer, or wholesale liquor dealer who replaced spirits or wine of others holding such stock for sale.

To be sure that only proper credits or refunds are made, the claimant of a credit or refund must furnish proof that--

First. The tax and any duty has been paid;

Second. The beverages were lost, were rendered unmarketable, or were condemned by a duly authorized health official;

Third. The claimant is not indemnified by insurance or otherwise against loss of the tax and any duty; and

Fourth. Where applicable, the claimant has replaced for the possessor the equivalent of the spirits or wines lost, rendered unmarketable, or condemned without compensation for the tax and any duty.

Where the beverages have been rendered unmarketable or condemned the bill provides that the beverages must be destroyed under the supervision of the Secretary or his delegate. Any claim for refund or credit must be filed with the Secretary within 90 days of the enactment of this bill.

This bill has been reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 5249 amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for refund or credit of internal-revenue taxes and custom duties paid on distilled spirits and wines lost, rendered unmarketable, or condemned by health authorities as a result of the hurricanes of 1954. The bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

AMENDING INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954 RELATIVE TO TRANSFEREES AND FIDUCIARms

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by direc-tion of the Committee on Ways and Means I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (H. R. 5428) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that chapter 71 relative to transferees and fiduciaries shall apply with respect to any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which was unanimously reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means.


the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?.


Be it enacted, etc., That section 7851 of the Internal Revenue Code is hereby amended by adding to subsection (a) (6) · (C) a new subparagraph as follows:

"(i) Chapter 71, relating to transferees and fiduciaries."

SEC. 2. The present subsections (1) to (viii), inclusive, are renumbered (ii) to (ix), inclusive.

SF.C. 3. This act shall be effective in all cir-· cumstances in which, and applicable to all taxes to which, it would have been effective or applicable if it had been enacted into law as part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.


Page 1, strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: "That sec• tion 311 (b) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 is hereby amended by inserting '(A)' after '(4)' and by adding at the end thereof the following:

"'(B) For the purpose of determining the period of limitation on credit or refund to the transferee or fiduciary of-

" '(i) overpayments of tax made by such transferee or fiduciary, or

" ' (ii) overpayments of tax made by the transferor of which the transferee or fiduciary is legally entitled to credit or refund, the agreement referred to in subparagraph (A) and any extension thereof shall be deemed an agreement and extension thereof referred to in section 322 (b) (3).

"'(C) If the agreement referred to in subparagraph (A) is executed after the expiration of the period of limitation for assess• ment against the taxpayer with reference to whom the liability of such transferee or fiduciary arises, then, in applying the limitations under section 322 (b) (3) on the amount of the credit or refund, the period specified in section 322 (b) (3) shall be increased by the period from the date of such expiration to the date of the agreement.'

"SEC. 2. This act shall be effective in all circumstances in which it would have been effective if it had been enacted on August 17, 1954."



The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 with respect to the period of limitation for filing claims by certain transferees and fiduciaries for credit or refund of income taxes."

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 5428 amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 to provide that an agreement extending the period within which the lia~ bility of a transferee or fiduciary with respect to income tax may be assessed shall also extend the period within which a credit or claim for refund of such liability can be made.

Section 311 of the 1939 Code permitted the period of limitations for the assessment of the income tax liability of a transferee or a fiduciary to be extended by an agreement between such taxpayer and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. However, such an agreement did not extend parity of treatment by grant .. ing an extension of the time for the fll .. ing of the claim for credit or refund by the transferee or fiduciary in most cases.

12088 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--· HOUSE July 29

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 removed this inequity with respect to the_ liability of transferees or :fiduciaries, but only in the case of taxes imposed by this Code. H. R. 5428 would grant similar treatment to transferees or fiduciaries with respect to income · taxes imposed under the 1939 Code, as if it had been enacted on August 17, 1954.

This bill was unanimously reported by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 5428 amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 to provide that an agreement extending the period within which the liability of a transferee or :fiduciary with respect to income taxes may be assessed also extends the period with. respect to credit or refund of such liability. The bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

REMITI'ING THE DUTY ON CERTAIN BELLS TO BE IMPORTED FOR ADDITION TO THE CARILLONS OF THE CITADEL, CHARLESTON, S. ·c. Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by direc-

tion of the Committee on Ways and Means, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill <H. R. 6122) to remit the duty on certain bells to be imported for addition to the carillons of The Citadel, Charleston, S. C., which was unanimously reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means.




Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to admit free of duty 12 bells imported for addition to the carillons possessed by The Citadel, an educational institution situated in Charleston, S. C.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, -and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 6122 would provide for the admission free of duty of 12 bells imported for addition to the carillon possessed by The Citadel, an educational institution located in Charleston, S. C.

Carillons and parts thereof are subject to duty · under paragraph 1541 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified. The duty originally fmposed on carillons and parts under the Tariff Act of 1930 was 20 percent ad valorem. A reduced rate of 10 percent ad, valorem is in effect on carillons containing over 34 bells, and parts thereof, pursuant to tariff reductions effected under the trade agreements authority,

The original carillon for which the additional bells are intended was admitted duty free under Public Law 580 of the 82d Congress. Public Law 499 of the 83d Congress authorized the admis..: sion free of duty of 24 bells by The Cita..: del for addition to the original carillon. As stated in the Commerce Department

l!eport, favoring the enactment of H . . R. 6122: · · The benefits of the action proposed by this legislation will accrue to the general public as well as the importer of the bells. .

Favorable reports on this legislation were received from the Departments of State and Commerce.

H. R. 6122 was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 6122 simply provides for the duty-free admission of 12 bells imported for addition to the carillons of The Citadel, an educational institution located in Charleston, S. C. This bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE ESTATE TAX Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by di

rection of the Committee on Ways and Means, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (H. R. 6595) to amend certain provisions of law relating to the estate tax, which was unanimously reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means.



There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: · Be it enacted, etc., That if, in the case of property transferred by a decedent dying after November 11, 1935, and before January 30, 1940, refund or credit of any overpayment resulting from the application of subsections (a) and (b) of section 7 of the act entitled "an act to amend certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code," approved October 25, 1949 (63 Stat. 891; Public Law 378, 81st Cong.), was prevented on October 25, 1949, by the operation of any law or rule of law ( other than sec. 3760 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, relating to closing agreements, and other than sec. 3761 of such Code of 1939, relating to compromises), refund or credit of such overpayment may, nevertheless, be made or allowed if claim therefor ls filed within 1 year from the date of the enactment of this act. No interest shall be allowed or paid on any overpayment resulting from the application of this act.


Page 1, after line 9 insert "or from the application of the first sentence of section 207 (b) of the Technical Changes Act of 1963 (67 Stat. 615; Public Law 287, 83d Cong.)." . Page 2, line 9, strike out "No interest shall be allowed or paid on any overpayment resulting from the application of this act."

Page 2, after line 11 insert the following: "SEC. 2. The amount of the reduction re

ferred to in the first section of this act ls the amount of gift tax refunded (together with interest paid thereon) by the United State~ .by reason of the inclusion in the gross estate of the value of the property causing the overpayment resulting from the application of subsections (a) and (b) of section 7 of the act approved October 25, 1949, or from the application of the first sentence of section 207 . (b) of the Technical Changes Act of 1953. . . _

"SEC. 3. No interest shall be allowed or paid on any overpayment resulting from the application of this act."

The committee amendments · were agreed to.

The bill was ordered· fo be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, in 1949 the Supreme Court decided the famous Church and Spiegel cases which radically changed the principles of law governing estate planning and because they had not been anticipated, worked hardship in many cases. In 1935, the Supreme Court decided Helvering v. St. Louis Union Trust Company (296 U.S. 39) which held that a trust was not subject to tax by reason of a contingent reversionary interest in the grantor. The Tre~sury Department's regulations were to the same effect. However, the Court changed its mind in 1940 and overruled the St. Louis Union Trust Co. case in H elvering v. Hallock (309 U. S. 106). Thus, those who had relied upon the principle of stare decisis were adversely affected by the decisions in the Hallock, Church, and Spiegel cases.

In 1949, Congress provided relief from the effects of the Church and Spiegel cases. However, the relief provided in the so-called Technical Changes Act of 1949, as amended, applies only to cases which were not barred on January 16, i949, the date of the decision in the Church case.

H. R. 6595 reopens cases involving persons dying after November 11, 1935, the date of the decision of the Supreme Court in Helvering against St. Louis Union Trust Co. _and before January 30, 1940, the date of the Supreme Court decision in Helvering against Hallock. The bill would permit a refund or credit otherwise prevented on October 25, 1949, by any law or rule of law other than a closing agreement or compromise settlement if a claim is filed within 1 year from the date of the enactment of the bill. In essence, the bill will authorize refund to estates of decedents who, because of the date of their death, could not protect themselves against the unanticipated effects of the Church and Spiegel cases. . This bill was unanimously reported by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 6595 provides that in the case of certain transfers of property described in the Technical Changes Act of 1949 by persons who died after November 11, 1935, and before January 30, 1940, refund or credit of any overpayment of estate tax may be made if it was presented in 1949 by any law or rule of law-other than a closing agreement or compromise-and if a claim is filed within 1 year from the date of enactment of this bill. The bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

TECHNICAL CHANGES ACT OF 1953 Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by direc

tion of the Committee on Ways and Means, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill '(H. R. 7012) to amend section 209 (a) of the Technical Changes Act of 1953 which was unanimously reported favor~

1955 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD,-=:- HOifSE 12089 ably by the Committee on Ways and M.r. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. Means. · 7012 applies the same incidents of own-

The Clerk read the· title of the bill. er ship test for determining whether in-The ·sPEAKER. 'Is there ·objection to ' surance on the life of any decedent who ·

the request of the-gentleman from Ten- · died between February 10, 1939, and · nessee? · January 11, 1941, is to be included in his ·

There was no objection. gross estate for estate-tax purposes as The Clerk read the bill, as follows: applies in the case of a decedent who '

died after January 11, 1941. In such Be it enacted, etc., That ·(a) section 209 c·ases, insurance on the life of a decedent

(a) of the Technical Changes Act o! 1953 is · payable to beneficiaries other than the hereby amended by striking out the date "January 10, 1941,." and inserting in lieu . executor is not included in the gross es- · thereof the date "February 10, 1939": Pro- tate of the decedent if the only incidents vided, That in the case o! the estate of any of ownership in the policy he possessed decedent dying after February 10, 1939, and at the time of his death were reversionbefore January 11, 1941; the decedent shall _ ary interests not in excess of 5 percent · be deemed to possess incidents of owner- of the value of the policy. The bill was ship in any policy of insurance wherein he reported unanimously by the Committee had a reversionary interest which, at the d M date of his death, had a value exceeding 5 on Ways an eans. percent of the value of the policy and which arose by the express terms of the policy or other instrument and not by operation of INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1939 law. -

(b) If refund or credit of any overpayment resulting from the application of subsection (a) is prevented on the date .of the enact-· ment of this act, or within 1 year ~rom such, date, by the operation of any law or rule of law ( other than section 7121 or section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding provisions of prior law, relating to closing agreements and compronxises), refund or: credit of such overpayment may, nevertheless, be made · or allowed if claim therefor is filed within 1 year from the date of the enactment of this act. No interest shall be. allowed or paid on any overpayment resulting from the application of subsection (a) with respect to any payment made prior to the date of the enactment of this act.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, end a motion ·to reco:o.-· sider was laid on the table.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, prior to January 10, 1941, life insurance was taxed. in the gross estate of .a decedent only if he possessed an "incident of own-. ership" in the policy at the time of his death. However, on that date the Treasury issued a decision which for the first time imposed a "pre.mium payment" test: In the Revenue Act of 1942 this test was. limited to premiums paid after .January 10, 1941, . if the decedent possessed nQ "incident of ownership" in. the policy after that date. Later the Revenue Act of 1950 provided that the term "incident of ownership" as used in the act should not include a reversionary interest which at the time of the death of the decedent did not exceed 5 percent of the policy or one which arose oniy by operation of law. The Technical Changes Act of 1953 further extended the application of these rules to decedents who died after the announcement of the Treasury's ruling of January 10, 1941, and before the date of enactment of the 1942 act.

It is the belief of the Committee on Ways and Means that the treatment granted by these acts should be further extended .to the estates of persons dying between February 10, 1939, the effective date of the 1939 code, and January 11, 1941, the date to which the Technical Changes Act of 1953, has· already ex-tended this treatment. Accordingly~ H. R. '1012 extends relief -in such cases;

This bill was unanimously .reported by. the Committee on Ways and -Means.

cI--760

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Ways and ¥eans, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill. (H. R. 7054) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 to provide a credit against the estate tax for Federal estate taxes paid on certain prior transfers, which was unanimously reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means. . ·


the request of the gentleman from Ten-nessee?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

· Be - it enacted, etc., That subpart I o! part II of subcha,pter A of chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 · (relating to computation of. estate tax) is hereby amend-· ed by adding at the end t~ereo.f the following new section:

"SEC. 814. Credit for tax on certain prior transfers,

· " (a) General - rule:_ If the executor so elects, the tax imposed by sections 810 and,_ 935 in the case of a decedent dying after December 31, 1951, shall be credited with all or a p.art-of the amount of the. Federal estate tax paid with respect to the transfer of property (including property passing as a result of the exercise or nonexercise of a power of appointment) to the decedent by or from a person (herein designated a$ a. 'transferor') who died within 6 months before the decedent's death. The credit shall be the amount determined under subsections (b) and (c). · "(b) Computation of credit: Subject to the limitation prescribed in subsection ( c), the credit provided by this section shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to the estate tax paid (adjusted as indicated hereinafter) with respect to the estate of the transferor as the value of the property transferred bears to the net estate of the transferor (determined for purposes of the estate tax) decreased by any death taxes paid with respect to ·such estate and increased by the exemption provided for by section 935 (c) in determining the net estate of the transferor for purposes of the estate tax. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the estate tax paid shall be the Federal estate tax period increased by any credits allowed against such estate tax und_er sections 813 (a) and 936 (h) on account of gift tax, and "for any credits allowed against such estate tax under this section on account of prior transfers where. the transferor acquired prop-

erty from a person who died within 6 months before the death of the decedent • .

"(c) Limitation on credit: " ( 1) In general: The credit provided in

this section shall not exceed the amount by which- ' · · · ·

"(A) the estate tax imposed by sections 810 and 935 (after deducting the credits for State death taxes, gift tax, and foreign death taxes provided for in section·s 810, 813, · and 936) computed without regard to this section, exceeds

"(B) such tax computed by excluding from the decedent's gross esta.te the value ·of . such property transferred and, if applicable, by making the adjustment hereinafter indicated. If any deduction is otherwise allowable under section 812 (d) (relating to charitable deduction) then, for the purpose of the computation indicated in subparagraph (B), the amount of such deduction shall be reduced by that part of such deduction which the value of such property transferred bears to the decedent's entire gross estate reduced by the deductions allowed under section 812 (b) (relating to deduction for expenses, losses, etc.) . For purposes of this section, the value of such property transferred shall be the value as provided for in subsection ( d) of this section. _ "(2) Two or more transferors: If the credit

provided in this section relates to property received from two or more transferors, the limitation provided in paragra.ph (1) of this· subsection shall be computed by aggregating the value of the property so transferred to · the decedent. The aggregate limitation so determined shall be apportioned in accordance with the value of the property transferred to the decedent by each transferor.

"(d) VaJ.uation o! property transferred: · The value of property transferred to the decedent shall be the value used :for the purpose of determining the Federal estate tax liability of the estate of the transferor but-

"(1) there shall be taken into account the effect of the tax imposed by sections 810 and 935, or any estate, succession, legacy, or inheritance ta.x, on the net value to the decedent of such property;

"(2) where such property is encumbered in any manner, or where the decedent incurs ~ny obligation imposed by the transferor with respect to such property, such encuml;>rance or obligation shall be taken into account in the same manner as if the amount of a gift to the decedent of such property was being determined; and . " ( 3) if the decedent was the spouse of the transreror at the time of the transferor's death, the net value of the property transferred to the decedent shall be reduced by the amount allowed under sebtion 812 (e) (relating to marital deductions) as a deduction from the gross estate of the transferor. . " ( e) Property defined: · For purposes or this section, the term 'property' includes any beneficial interest in property, including a. general power of appointment (as defined in section 811 (f)), · "(f) Denial of deduction for property pre-vlously taxed: If the executor elects the credit provided by this section, the deduction provided by section 812 ( c) shall no~ be allowed."

SEC. 2. The amendment made by the first section of this act shall apply with respect to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 1951, and· on or before .August 16, 1954 (the date of the enactment of the Internal :f?,evenue Code of 1954).

With the following committee amendments: . Page 2, line 1, after "decendent", Insert "(but only if the decendent was a citizen or resident of the United Sta.tes at the time o! his death)." · Page 2, line 17, strike out "estate tax" and insert "tax imposed by section 935."

12090 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 29

. Page 5, strike out lines 15 to 19, inclusive, and insert:

"SEC. 2. No interest shall be allowed or paid on· any overpayment resulting from the amendment made by the first section of this act."



Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, section · · 812 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of

1939 provided that the value of any property previously taxed either as a gift or in the gross estate of a person dying within 5 years prior to the death of the decedent could be taken as a deduction from the gross estate of the decedent for estate-tax purposes. As a result of general dissatisfaction with the operation of that deduction, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 treated the problell\ differently by allowing a credit against the estate tax imposed upon the decedent of all or a portion of any estate tax previously paid with respect to property transferred to the decendent within 10 years prior to his death.

It is the belief of the Committee on Ways and Means that this treatment should be applied to certain hardship cases arising under the 1939 Code. For example, cases where a husband and wife have died within a short time of each other, and where most of the estate of. the decedent first dying has passed _to the other spouse. In such cases the 1939 Code denied the deduction for previously taxed property to property received from the decedent's spouse. Therefore, to the extent that the property passing to the spouse exceeded the amount which could be taken as a marital deduction there resulted a substantial diminution of the estate by the successive levying of estate taxes within a brief period of time.

H. R. 7054 would give relief to these cases 'by making the credit granted by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 available in cases arising under the 1939 Code. The Committee on Ways and Means unanimously reported this bill.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 7054 adds a new section 814 to the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 providing that an executor of an estate may elect to take a credit against the estate tax for the amount of tax paid on property passing to the decedent from a person who died within 6 months prior to decedent's death. Those who claim such a credit must forego any deduction for previously taxed property allowed by section 812 (c) of the 1939 code. This new election is to be available with respect to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 1951, and before August 16, 1954. Mr. Speaker, this bill corrects a very severe hardship under the 1939 tax laws. The legislation was sponsored by the distinguished gentleman from. Tennessee [Mr. BAKER] who is to be congratulated on bringing the matter to the attention of our committee. The bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means.

DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, by direc

tion of the Committee on Ways and Means, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (H. R. 7364) relating to the application of the documentary stamp tax to transfers of certain installment obligations, which was unanimously reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means.



There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That effective as of

January 1, 1955, section 4332 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to exemption from tax on sales or transfers .of certificates of indebtedness) is hereby amended by relettering subsection (b) as subsection (c) and by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:

"(b) Certain installment obligations: The tax imposed by section 4331 shall not apply to any instrument under the terms of which the obligee is requested to make payment therefor in installments and is not permitted to make in any year a payment of more than 20 percent of the cash amount to which entitled upon maturity of the instrument."

With the fallowing committee amendments: .,

Page 1, line 9, strike out "Certain Installment Obligations" and insert "Installment Purchase of Obligations.''

Page 2, line 2, strike out "requested" and insert "required."


The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended so as to read: ''A bill relating to the application of the documentary stamp tax to transfers of certain obligations paid for in installments."

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, section 1801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 imposed a tax upon the issuance of certain certificates of indebtedness. However, this tax was specifically inapplicable to any instrument with respect to which the obligee was required to make payments in installments and was not permitted to make in any year a payment of more than 20 percent of the cash amount to which the obligee was entitled upon maturity of the instrument. Section 3481 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 imposed a documentary stamp tax upon the transfer of instruments subject to the stamp tax at the time of their issuance.

As a result of a mistake, section 4331 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which imposes the stamp tax on transfer of certificates of indebtedness imposes the tax on any certificate of indebtedness issued by a corporation rather than on instruments subject to tax on issuance, thereby omitting the exemption applicable to certificates of indebtedness payable in installments as · described above. H. R. 7364 corrects this mistake.

. This bill was unanimously reported by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 7364 simply corrects an omission. in the Internal Revenue Code .of 1954 relating to the application of the documentary stamp tax to transfers of certain installment obligations. The bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means. ·

FOREIGN CLAIMS SE~MENT COMMISSION

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H. R. 6382) to amend the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, and for other purpases, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the repart.


the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the statement. The conference report and statement

are as follows:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 1475) The committee of conference on the dis

agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6382) to amend the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, and for other purposes, having met after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 5.

That the House recede .from lt_s disagree"'.' ment to the amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 3, 4, and 6, and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 2: That the House recede from its disagreement to th~ amendment of the Senate numbered 2, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following: "the effective date of this title" ; and the Senate agree to the same.

JAMES P. RICHARDS, CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, THOMAS J, DoDD, JOHN M. VoRYS, FRANCES P. BOLTON,

Managers on the Part of the House. JOHN J. SPARKMAN,

HUBERT H. HUMPHUY, MIKE MANSFIELD, H. ALEXANDER SMITH, BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

STATEMENT

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6382) to amend the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the eff~t of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying conference report as to each of such amendments, namely:

There are six Senate amendments to the House bill which were in conference. The managers on the part of the House receded in five instances and the Senate in one.

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12091 The bill passed by the Senate, except for

these six amendments, incorporates the language of the blll passed by the House. It was reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs after extended hearings and substantial rewriting by the committee. It was then passed by the House after further amendment. The Senate, by accepting the House bill except for the six amendments in conference, in effect has given recognition to the position of the House on most controversial issues.

Amendment No. 1: This amendment restricts the class of individuals eligible to receive awards for war damage claims against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania. Under general principles of international law a claim against a foreign government must be continuously owned by a national of the claimant state from the time the claim arose until it is presented. The House bill provided for an exception from this rule in cases where the person who suffered the loss was not a national of the United States, but (1) had declared his intention to become an American citizen before the armistice; (2) became a citizen by September 15, 1947; and (3) resided in the United States permanently from the date of the armistice to the date of the peace treaty. The Senate amendment struck out this provision of the House bill, thereby applying the general rule limiting claimants to nationals of the United States. The House recedes.

Amendment No. 2: This amendment broadens the class of expropriation claims compensable from the Bulgarian, Hungarian, and Rumanian claims funds. The House bill authorizes compensation only if the taking occurred before September 15, 1947. The Senate amendment authorizes compensation for any taking occurring before the effective date of the bill. The managers on the part of the House in accepting the more inclusive provision of the Senate bill recognize that United States citizens are entitled to the full support of their Government in pressing their claims against foreign governments, not only in the case of claims for war damage but also 1n the case of nationalization claims. The House recedes with a technical amendment which changes "Act" to "Title."

Amendment No. 3: This amendment rewrites the provision dealing with contract claims (mostly bond claims) against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Ruma'nia, in order to make it clear that the obligations on which such claims are based must be payable in currency of the United States, and that such claims must have arisen in favor of nationals of the United States. The House recedes in the belief that the amendment is fully consistent with and serves to clarify the House bill.

Amendment No. 4: This amendment relates to speculation in claims covered by the bill. The House bill provides that any award under the bill based on a transferred claim shall not exceed the consideration last paid for the claim before January 1, 1953. Any sale after that date -would not affect the amount of the claim, under the House bill. The Senate amendment retains the limit provided for in the House bill, and provides also .that for claims sold at a price lower than this limit after January 1, 1953, and before presentation of the claim to the Commission, the award cannot exceed the lower price. · 'J:'.he managers on the part of the House accept the Senate amendment imposing a more precise restriction on awards to per~ons who purchased claims, which is entirely consistent with the provision in the House bill.

Amendment No. 5: This amendment requires that there be deducted from awards made to claimants the amount of any reduction in Federal or State income taxes

resulting from property losses for which such award is made. The. Senate recedes on this amendment but the committee of conference desires to make clear that this action was taken on the basis of their understanding that there will be no windfalls to claimants receiving awards who had previously written off losses for tax purposes. The committee of conference was impressed by the statement of the Treasury representatives that retention of this provision in the bill would substantially delay the final settlement of claims because of administrative problems which would result.

The position of the Treasury on these points, as stated in letters to the chairmen of the Committees on Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs from Acting Secretary of the Treasury, David W. Kendall, dated July 26, 1955, is as follows:

• • • • • "The Internal Revenue Code makes pro- .

vision for recoupment of any reduction in Federal taxes which resulted from the allowance in prior years of a deduction on account of the destruction or seizure of property for which an award is made. The payment of an award to a taxpayer who has taken a deduction in prior years does not, therefore, constitute a windfall.

• • • • • "The Treasury Department believes that

the language added by the Senate will almost certainly make for delays in the payment of awards. Since the language is not needed to prevent tax windfalls, and in fact would affect what amounts to a second recoupment, the desirability of eliminating it is strongly suggested."

Amendment No. 6: This amendment applies to minority stockholders in corporations the same eligibility requirement as to citizenship as is provided in the language deleted by amendment No. 1. The managers on the part of the House believe that the considerations determining thei;r action on amendment No. 1 apply equally in this case. The House recedes.

JAMES P. RICHARDS, CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, THOMAS J. DODD, JOHN M. VORYS, FRANCES P. BOLTON,

Managers on the Part of the House.

The conference report was agreed to; and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

VTILIZATION OF THE WATER RESOURCES OF ALASKA

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill <H. R. 3990) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to investigate and report to the Congress on projects for the conservation, development, and utilization of the water resources of Alaska, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report.


the request of the gentleman from California?


are as follows:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 1447)

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3990) to authorize the Secretary o! the In-

terlor to investigate and report to the Congress on projects for the conservation, development, and utilization of the water resources of Alaska, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and the Senate agree to the same.

CLAIR ENGLE, WAYNE N. ASPINALL, LEO W. O'BRIEN, A. L. MILLER, JOHN P. SAYLOR,

Managers on the Part of the House. HENRY M. JACKSON, RUSSELL B. LoNG, ALAN BIBLE, THOMAS H. KUCHEL, BARRY GoLDWATER,


STATEMENT

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3990) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to investigate and report to the Congress on projects for the conservation, development, and utilization of the water resources of Alaska, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying conference report: . Language in the House-passed bill would

have required that all unexpended balances of any annual appropriation for carrying out the purposes of the bill be returned to the 'l;'reasury at the end of each fiscal year. The Senate deleted this language on the basis that it was not in accord with the customary practice in appropriating investigation funds and that it would create a grave qanger of unnecessary interruptions each year in the investigations program because the investigations work would have to be qone during a short season with the end of the fiscal year falling in the middle of the season. The conference committee agreed to accept the Senate amendment deleting this language.

With respect to the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget that the word "may" be substituted for the words "shall immediately," used in connection with the transmittal of the reports resulting from the investigations to the Congress, it is pointed out that the purpose of the language in the bill is to make it mandatory that the reports be submitted to the Congress. The amendment recommended by the Bureau of the Budget would make it optional on the part of the Department of the Interior as to whether the reports would be submitted. The committee understands the procedure established by Executive Order 9384 whereby all Departments and establishments of the executive branch are required to submit project proposals to the Bureau of the Budget for clearance prior to transmittal to the Congress and does not consider that the wording of the bill adversely affects this pro-, cedure or prevents ample opportunity for the Bureau of the Budget to review and analyze the project reports prior to such transmittal. The committee understands the language of the bill to mean that the reports shall be submitted to the Congress immediately following the completion of the established executive branch procedures for the review and clearance of project reports. , CLAIR ENGLE,

WAYNE N. AsPINALL,

LEO W. O'BRI!:.N, A. L. MII..LEB, JOHN P. SAYLOR,


12092 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. HOUSE Jul.y 29

The conference report was agreed t.o: and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

LEASING OF RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (S. 34) to authorize the leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report.


the request of the gentleman from California?


are as follows:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H, REPT. NO. 1562) The committee of conference on the dis

agreeing votes · of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 34) to authorize the leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House to the text of the bill, and agree to the same · with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by the House amendment insert the following: "That any restricted Indian lands, whether tribally or individually owned, may be leased by the Indian owners, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, or business" purposes, including the development or utilization of natural resources in connection with operations under such leases, for grazing purposes, and for those farming purposes which require the making of a substantial investment in the improvement of the land for the production of specialized crops as determined by said Secretary. All leases so granted shall be for a term of not to exceed twenty-five years, excepting leases for grazing purposes, which shall be for a term of not to exceed ten years. Leases for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, or business purposes with the consent of both parties may include provisions authorizing their renewal for one additional term of not to exceed twenty-five years, and all leases and renewals shall be made under such terms and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

.. SEC. 2. Restricted lands of deceased Indians may be leased under this Act, for the benefit of their heirs or devisees, in the circumstances and by the persons prescribed in the Act of July 8, 1940 (54 Stat. 745; 25 U.S. C., 1946 edition, sec. 380, as amended): Provtded, That if the authority of the Secretary under this section is delegated to any subordinate official, then any heir or devisee shall have the right to appeal the action of any such official to the Secretary under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe.

"SEC. 3. The Act of March 3, 1909 (35 Stat. 783; 25 U.S. C. 396) is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof the following proviso: •: Provided, That if the said allottee is deceased and the heirs to or devisees of any interest in the allotment have not been determined, or, if determined,

some or all of them cannot be located, the Secretary of the Interior may offer for sale leases for mining purposes to the highest responsible qualified bidder, at public auction, or on sealed bids, after notice and advertisement, upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. The Secretary of the Interior shall have the right to reject all bids whenever in his judgment the interests of the Indians will be served by so doing, and to readvertise such lease for sale'.

"SEC. 4. No rent or other consideration for the use of land leased under this Act shall be paid or collected more than one year in advance, unless so provided in the lease.

"SEC. 5. The Secretary of the Interior shall approve no lease pursuant to this Act , that contains any provision that will prevent or delay a termination of Federal trust responsibilities with respect to the land during the term of the lease.

"SEC, 6. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to repeal any authority to lease restricted Indian land conferred by or pursuant to any other provision of law."

And the Senate agree to the same. That the House recede from its amend-

ment to the title of the bill. CLAIR ENGLE, JAMES A, HALEY, STEWART L. UDALL, E. Y. BERRY, JOHN J, RHODES,

Managers on the Part of the House, JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, CLINTON P. ANDERSON, RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, ARTHUR V. WATKINS, BARRY GOLDWATER,


STATEMENT

The managers on the part of the House, at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 34) authorizing the leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, resJdential, business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying conference report as to the amendments to the text and title of the bill:

Section 1 : As originally approved by the Senate, section 1 of S. 34 provided for the lease by the Indian owners of any restricted Indian lands, whether tribally or individually owned, for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, or business purposes, including the development or utmzation of natural resources in connection with operations under such leases, and for those farming purposes which require the making of a substantial investment in the improvement of the land for the production of specialized crops as determined by the Secretary of the Interior; all leases would be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

The original Senate version provided for a lease term of not to exceed 25 years for all leases, but made provision that leases for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, or business purposes could include provisions authorizing their renewalwith the consent of bath parties--for e.n additional term of not to exceed 25 years.

The House version of S. 34 would have permitted leases for all purposes and would have permitted inclusion of provisions authorizing renewal thereof-with the consent of both parties-for 1 additional term of not to exceed 25 years.

The conference committee has reached agreement with respect to section 1 as follows:

The language of the Senate version which permits leases for the purposes specified has

been amended to permit leases for grazing purposes. All leases granted, except grazing leases, shall be for a term of not to exceed 25 years, but leases for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, or business purposes-with the consent of both parties-may include provisions authorizing their renewal for 1 additional term of not to exceed 25 years. Grazing leases under the language agreed upon shall be for a term of not to exceed 10 years with no authority for including a renewal provision in such initial 10-year lease.

The conference committee is in agreement that authority for grazing leases for the limited period indicated may serve to encourage attraction of private loans for grazing purposes.

Section 2: The Senate conferees have agreed to the House amendment to section 2 of S. 34. This amendment, in the form of a proviso, provides that if the autho~ity of the Secretary to lease restricted lands of deceased Indians for the benefit of their heirs or devisees is delegated to any subordinate official, then any heir or devisee shall have the right to appeal from the action of the official to whom the Secretary's authority has been delegated. The conference committee is in agreement that this basic right of appeal, comparable to the right of nonIndians to appeal to a district court from the decision of a court having probate jurisdiction, should be preserved to the heirs or devisees of deceased Indians.

The balance of the amendment to the text of the bill contains language upon which there was no disagreement.

Title amendment: .The managers on the part of the House have agreed to the Senate title language, which accurately reflects the language incorporated in section 1 by the conference committee.

CLAIR ENGLE, JAMES A. HALEY, STEWART L. UDALL, E. Y. BERRY, JOHN J, RHODES,


The conference repcrt was agreed t.o: and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

INTERSTATE COMPACT ON APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATERS OF THE RED RIVER The ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 2260) granting the consent of Congress to the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and

·Texas to negotiate and enter into a compact relating to their interests in, and the apportionment of, the waters of the Red River and its tributaries . .

The SPEAKER. Is there objection · to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the consent of

Congress is hereby given to the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas to negotiate and enter into a compact relating to the interests of such States in the development of the water resources of the Red River and its tributaries, and providing for an equitable apportionment among them of the waters of the Red River and its tributaries, and for matters incident thereto, upon the condition that one qualified per-· son appointed by the President of the United States shall participate in such negotiations as chairman, without vote, representing the United States, and shall make a report to the President of the United States and the Congress of the proceedings and of any com-

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12093 pact entered into. Such compact shall not be binding or obligatory upon any of the parties thereto until it shall have been ratified by the legislatures of each of the respective States, and approved by the Congress of the United States.


Page 1, lines 5, 6, and 7, strike out the words "relating to 'the interests of such States in the development of the water resources of the Red River and its tributaries, and."

Page 1, line 9, strike out the words "and for matters incident thereto."


The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended so as to read:· "A bill granting the consent of Congress to the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas to negotiate and enter into a compact providing for the apportionment of the waters of the Red River and its tributaries."


Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD on the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

There was no objection. Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.

Speaker, I am supporting this compact legislation on Red River because the time has come when it is necessary. The increasing population in the Southwest has stepped up the consumption of water in this part of the United States. This water is being used in increasing quantities by the cities, towns, and villages throughout this great area of the country. During the last 12 months rainfall has been much less than normal, and the need of water for irrigation purposes and for the crops has been much more than usual. Those who have made a study of the situation feel that the time has come to take some mutual steps to properly use the waters of this stream. ·

I have been guided in my decision on this matter by engineers who have made a study of the local water conditions. Under this ·enabling act, engineers from my own State will go to work with those of other States to form an agreement which will be mutually satisfactory to each of the States involved. At a later date we will have an opportunity of studying the work accomplished and judging for ourselves as to how close we have come to our objectives.

FEDERAL COOPERATION IN NON• FEDERAL PROJECTS

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill <H. R. 5881) to supplement the Federal reclamation laws by providing for Federal cooperation in non-Federal projects, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to · the request of the gentleman from Cali.:. fornia? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, and appoints the fallowing conferees: Messrs. ENGLE, ASPINALL, O'BRIEN of New York, MILLER of Nebraska, and SAYLOR,

TO AMEND CIVIL SERVICE RETffiEMENT ACT OF MAY 29, 1930

Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (H. R. 7618) to amend section 8 of the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended.



Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand the report of the committee is unanimous, and has the approval of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES], the ranking Republican member?

Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. That is correct. It is a unanimous report of the entire committee; also, it is not objected to by the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that this is the bill which provides for an increase in pensions of retired civil-service employees; is that correct?

Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. This is the bill to provide an increase in the annuities of retired employees.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the chairman and the members of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service for bringing this bill before us, prior to adjournment, so that we may pass it and put it into effect.


Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, is there a provi-

sion in this bill in behalf of survivors of annuitants?

Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. No; this bill gives an increase to retired employees of 12 percent on the first $1,500 and 8 percent thereafter, up to $4,000.

Mr. CANFIELD. There is nothing provided for survivors?

Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. No; that is not included.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may I say at this time that I want to express my appreciation to the committee of their efforts to look after our retired people. I commend the chairman and the committee for bringing out this legislation, even at this late date.

Mr. WIER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the bill, but does this bill have application only to retired employees?

Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. It aplies also to employees that retire through December 31, 1957. It provides first 12 percent, and then it graduates 1 percent less in each 6-month period until December 31, 1957.

Mr. WIER. I was concerned that other employees might be included in this bill, but it applies only to retirement, fine.


There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That section 7 of the

Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended ( 6 U. S. C. 736c), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

"(d) (1) The annuity of any person who now or hereafter is receiving or entitled to receive an annuity from the civil-service retirement and disability fund shall be increased, effective on the first day of the second month following enactment of this amendment or on the commencing date of the annuity, whichever is later, in accordance with the following schedule:

"If annuity commences between-Annuity not in excess

of $1,500 shall be increased by-

Annuity in excess of $1,500 shall be increased by-

The total increase in annuity may not exceed-

Aug. 20, 1950, and June 30, 1955.......... 12 per centum .•••••••. 8 per centum .••••••••• $360. July 1, 1955, and Dec. 31, 1955............ 10 per centum......... 7 per centum.......... $300. Jan. 1, 1956, and June 30, 1956............ 8 per centum.......... 6 per centum.......... $240. July 1, 1956, and Dec. 31, 1956............ 6 per centum.......... 4 per centum.......... $180. Jan. 1, 1957, and June 30, 1957 •••••••••••• 4 per centum.......... 2 per centum.......... $120. July 1, 1957, and Dec. 31, 1957 •••••••••••• 2 per centum.......... 1 per centum.......... $60.

"The monthly installment of each annuity so increased shall be fixed at the nearest dollar.

"(2) The increases provided by this subsection, when added to the annuities of retired employees, shall not operate to increase the annuities of their survivors, except that the annuity of any such survivor who becomes entitled to annuity shall be increased by the percent provided in subsection

"Schedule:

(d) (1) of this section appropriate to the commencing date of such survivor's annuity."


Page 1, line 3, after "section", strike out "7" and insert "8."

Page 2, line 3, strike out "schedule:" and the accompanying table and insert the following:

If annuity commences between- Annuity not in excess of $1,500 shall be increased by-

Annuity in excess of $1,500 shall be increased by-

August 20, 1920, and June 30, 1955. .• ••••• 12 per centum..................... 8 per centum. July 1, 1955, and December 31, 1955....... 10 per centum..................... 7 per centum. :fanuary 1, 1956, and June 30, 1956......... 8 per centum...................... 6 per centum. July 1, 1956, and December 31, 1956....... 6 per centum...................... 4 per centum. January 1, 1957, and June 30, 1957 .•••••••• 4 per centum...................... 2 per centum. July 1, 1957, and December 31, 1957....... 2 per centum ...........••••.•.•••. 1 per centum.

12094 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 29_

such increase in annuity shall not exceed · the sum necessary to increase such annuity. exclusive -0f annuity purchased by voluntary contributions under the second paragraph of section 10 of this act, to $4,000.



SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR CIVIL DEFENSE PURPOSES

Mr. BROOKS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on_ Government Operations, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill <H. R. 7227) to amend further t:t.e Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, to authorize the disposal of surplus property for civil defense purposes, to provide that certain Federal surplus property be disposed of to State and local civil defense organizations which are established by or pursuant to State law, and for other purposes.

I may say that this bill was unanimously reported favorably by the Committee on Government Operations.


the request of the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I understand this is the measure our committee reported unanimously.

Mr. BROOKS of Texas. Yes. Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr.

Speaker, reserving the right to object, is this the bill which gives certain rights to the civil defense agencies to take over property?

Mr. BROOKS of Texas. This is the bill which enables the Federal and State civil defense agencies to utilize property declared surplus by the Federal Government.

Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. I will certainly not object. I congratulate the gentleman from Texas and the whole committee on getting this bill through.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That paragraph (1) of

section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: "Under such regulations as he may prescribe, the Administrator is authorized in his discretion to donate for educational purposes, for civil defense purposes or pu~lic health purposes, including research, in any State without cost (except for' costs of care and handling) such equipment, materials, books, or other supplies whether or not capitalized in a working-capital or similar fund under the control of any executive agency as shall have been determined to be surplus property and which shall have been determined under paragraphs (2), (3), or the new paragraph (6) added by section 4 of this act to this subsection to be unable and necessary for educational purposes, for civil defense purposes or public health purposes, including research. In determining whether or not -property is to be donated under this s.ubsect.ion, no distinction shall

be made between pr0perty capitalized in a working-capital fund establ,isbed pursuant to sectioi:i 405 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, or any similar fund, and · any other property."

SEC. 2. The parenthetical expression appearing in paragraph (2) of section 203 (j) of said act is amended to read as follows: "(except surplus property donated in conformity with para.graph (3) or the new parag1·aph (6) added by section 4 of this act to this subsection.)"

SEC. 3. That paragraph (3) of section 203 (j) of said act is amended to read as follows:

" ( 3) In the case of surplus property under the control of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense may determine whether such property is usable and necessary for educational activities that are of special interest to the armed services, such as maritime academies or military, naval, Air Force, or Coast Guard preparatory schools; or the Secretary of Defense may determine whether such property is usable and necessary for civil defense activities t_hat are of special interest to the armed services such as State and local civil defense organizations which are established by or pursuant to State law. If such Secretary shall determine that such property is usable and necessary for such purposes, he shall allo-. cate it for transfer by the Administrator to such educational or civil defense activities. If he shall determine that such property is not usable and necessary for such purposes, it may be disposed of in accordance with paragraph (2) or the new paragraph (6) added by section 4 of this act to this subsection."

SEC. 4. After the last paragraph of section 203 (J) of said act, insert the following new paragraph:

"(6) Determination whether such surplus property (except surplus property donated in conformity with paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection) is usable and necessary for civil defense purposes shall be made by the Federal CiVil Defense Administrator, who shall allocate such property on the }?asis of needs and utilization for transfer by the Administrator of General Services to civil defense organizations of the States, political subdivisions and instrumentalities thereof which are established by or pursuant to State law, except that in any State where another agency is designated by State law for such purpose such transfer shall be made to said agency for such distribution within the State."

SEC. 5 . Section 203 (k) of said act is amended as follows:

(a) By deleting the comma and the words "is authorized and directed" in the last line of subparagraph (2) (D) and by inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word "or".

(b) By inserting the following new subparagraph after sub.paragraph (2) (D):

"(E) the Federal Civil Defense Administrator, in the case of property transferred pursuant to this act to civil defense organizations of the States, political subdivisions and instrumentalities thereof which are established by or pursuant to State law, is authorized and directed-".

SEC. 6. In carrying out the responsibilities of the Federal Civil Defense Administrator under this act, the pro-visions of sections 201 (b), 401 (c), 401 (e), and 405 of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950. as am.ended, shall apply.


Page 3, strike out lines 5 to 9, inclusive, ending with the word "law" and insert "the Secretary of Defense may determine whether only such property as is peculiarly adaptable for civil defense (not to include common-use items) is usable and necessary for State and local civil defense activities,

established by or pursuant to State law, that are of special interest to the armed services."



Mr. BROOKS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at 'this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection. Mr. BROOKS of Texas. Mr. Speaker,

this bill, H. R. 722'1, further amends the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the disposal of surplus property for civil defense purposes.

H. R. 7227 was passed unanimously by the Government Operations Committee after minor amendments were adopted and is the product of 2 years of intensive, continuous study by the committee and various Government agencies, particularly interested in the surplus disposal program. The worthwhile object of this legislation has been approved by all of these agencies and the Bureau of the Budget.

According to testimpny from a representative of the General Services Administration during hearings on H. R· 7227, personal property which cost taxpayers about $2,800,000,000 will be declared surplus by the Federal Government during the current fiscal year. Indications are that the disposal program will remain at the $2 billion level for some years to come. . This is property that the American public has paid for.

Recent reports from Government agencies reveal that when personal property is sold as surplus the Government gets an average of less than 10 cents on the dollar of what it originally cost. It is the intent of H. R. 7227 to get a higher value received from the tax money spent on this property by continuing to keep equipment that can be used for civil defense purposes in the public use rather than dumping it to junk dealers~

At least one outstanding example of how the Federal Government can actually save cash as well as better serve the public need was brought out in committee hearings. The case of the State of Connecticut was cited in which the State bought 10,000 litters for civil defense work at $9.98 apiece. Later the State officials discovered that the dealer who had sold the litters had purchased them from Government surplus stocks for only $4 apiece. The Federal Government alone, which shares the cost of some State civil defense expenditures, would have saved 99 cents in cash on each litter if they had been assigned to the civil defense agency ·in the first, place, and the taxpayers in Connecticut would have saved almost $100,000 if they had not been put in the ridiculous. position of having to buy back public property for civil defense. · More than 75 Members of Congress have expressed a pers·onal interest in support of this legislation, a1;1~ hundreds of favorable telegrams, telephone calls, and letters have been received by the

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12095 committee from civil defense -officials over the entire country.

In an effort to more fully utilize the taxpayers' investment in this surplus property, which cost us billions of dollars, by making civil defense organizations eligible to receive equipment which is desperately needed in every State, I respectfully urge the favorable adoption of this bill.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TEACHERS' SALARY ACT OF 1955

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill <S. 1093) to fix and regulate the salaries of teachers, school officers, · and

other employees of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers

· on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report.


the request of the gentleman from Mississippi?


are as follows:


agreeing votes of the two Houses on the

amendments of the House to the bill (S. 1093) to fix and regulate the salaries of teachers, school officers, and other employees of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its amendments numbered 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9.

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the House numbered 6 and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 1: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 1, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amendment insert the fol-

· lowing:

"Salary class and position Service step 1

minimum Service step 2

Service step 3

Service step 4

Service step 5

Service step 6

Service step 7

Class 1: Superintendent of schools: Bachelor's degree ________________________________________________________________ _ Master's degree _____________ --- ______________ ------- ----- ----- ----- ------ --- --- ---Doctor's degree __________________________________________________________________ _

Class 2: Deputy superintendent _____________________________________________________ _ Class 3: Assistant superintendent; president, teachers college ________ ________________ _ Cla"S 4 ________________________ -- ----------- ---------------- --- --------------------- - -Class 5:

Group B, ma..c,ter's degree __________________ ---------- ____ ---------------------- __ _ Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ___________________________________ _

Class 6: Group A, bachelor's degree ________________________ -------------------------------Group B, master's degree ________________________________________________________ _ Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ___________________________________ _

Director, Department of Food Services Class 7:

Group B, master's degree _________________ --------------------- _______ ------------Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ___ ---------------------------------

Chief Examiner Director Principal, senior high school

Class 8: Professor, teachers college ___________________________________________________ _ Class 9:

Group B, master's degree __ ____ __________ -----------------------------------------Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours--------------------------~--------

Principal, vocational high school Principal, junior high school ' Principal, Americanization school

Class 10: Group B, master's det?ree ____ __ ------- ----- --------------------- --- - -- ------------Group C, master's degree, plus 30 credit hours ___________________________________ _

Director, Department of School Attendance and Work Permits Superivising Director Principal, elementary school Principal, laboratory school . Class 11: Associate professor, teachers college ________________________________________ _

Class 12: Group A, bachelor's degree ______ ---------_ -- --- ---- ------ ----- ----- ------------- -Group B, master's degree ___ _ -------------------------------------- - ----------- __ _ Group C, master's degree, plus 30 credit hours _____________________ . ______________ _

Assistant Directo1, Department of Food Services Class 13:

Group B, master's degree ______ -- --- ------ --- ------------------------------------ -Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ____________________________________ _ Assistant Director Principal, Capitol Page School Assistant principal, senior high school

Class 14: Assistant professor, teachers college; chief librarian, teachers college ________ _ Class 15: . Group B, master's degree ________________________________________________________ _

Group C, master's degree, plus 30 credit hours ___________________________________ _ Assistant principal, vocational high school Assistant principal, junior high school

Class 16: Group B, master's degree _____ ------------------------ __ :_ ________________________ _ Group C, master's degree, plus 30 credit hours ___________________________________ _

Class 17: Group B, master's degree ____________________________________________________ :; ___ _ Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ___________________________________ _

Assistant Supervisor Chief attendance officer

Class 18: Group A, bachelor's degree ______________________________________________________ _

Group B, master's degree ___________ ----------------------------------------------Group 3, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ____________________________________ _ Instructor, teachers college Librarian, teachers college Teacher, senior high school Teacher, vocational high school Teacher, junior high school Teacher, elementary school School librarian Counselor Research assistant

Ola&<! 19: Group A, bachelor's degree ______________________________________________________ _ Group B, master's degree _______________________________________________________ _

Attendance officer Child-labor inspector Census supervisor

. '

$14, 000 16,000 18,000 11,700 10, 100 9,500

8,600 8,800

7,700 8,200 8,400

7,700 7,900

7,700

7,200 7,400

6,800 7,000

6,800

6, 300 6, 800 7,000

6,100 6,300

6,100

5,900 6,100

5,700 5,900

5,400 5,600

3,900 4,400 4,600

3,000 4,400

. -~

------------------------

$12,000 10, 400 9,700

8,800 9,000

7, 900 8,400 8,600

7,900 8,100

7,900

7,400 7,600

7,000 7,200

7,000

6,500 7,000 7,200

6,300 6,500

6,300

6,100 6,300

5,900 6,100

5,600 5,800

4,060 4,560 4,760

.

------------------------$12,300 10, 700 9,900

9,000 9,200

8,100 8,600 8,800

8,100 8,300

8,100

7,600 7,800

7,200 7,400

7,200

6,700 7,200 7,400

6,500 6,700

6,500

6,300 6,500

6,100 6,300

5,800 6,000

4,220 4,7ro 4,oro

4,220 4, 1ro

------------------------

$12,600 11,000 10,100

9,200 9,400

8,300 8,800 9,000

8,300 8,500

8,300

7,800 8,000

7,400 7,600

7,400

6,900 7,400 7,600

6,700 6,900

6,700

6,500 6,700

6,300 6,500

6,000 6,200

4,380 4,880 5,080

------------------------

$12,900 11,300 10,300

9,400 9,600

8,500 9,000 9,200

8,500 8,700

8,500

8,000 8,200

7,600 7,800

7,600

7,100 7,600 7,800

6,900 7,100

6,900

6,700 6,000

6,500 6,700

6,200 6,400

4,540 5,040 5,240

4,540 5,040

------------------------$13,200 11,600 10,500

9,600 9,800

8,700 9,200 9,400

8,700 8,900

8,700

8,200 8,400

7,800 8,000

7,800

7,300 7,800 8,000

7,100 7,300

7,100

6,900 7,100

6,700 6,900

6,400 6,600

4,700 5,200 6,400

4,700 5,200

--------------------------------- ---

$13,500 11,900 10,700

9,800 10,000

8,900 9,400 9,600

8,900 9,100

8,900

8,400 8,600

8,000 8,200

8,000

7,500 8,000 8,200

7,300 7,500

7,300

7,100 7,300

6,900 7,100

6,600 6,800

4,860 5,360 6,560

4,860 5,360

12096 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July' 29

"Salary class and position Servire step 8

Servioo step 9

Service ateJ)lO

Service .step-11

Service step 12.

Service step 13

g:! i: ~:U~~~:1!t~J~~ils ___ :~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::.:::: :::::::::::::: ::::::: · :::: g;;; ~: Assistant superintendent; president, teachers college-------~------------------ ------$io;ooo- ------$ii;ioo- ------------:- ,-------------- -------------- -------::::: Class&:

Group B, master's degree ________________ -----------------------------------------Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ___________________________________ _ Class 6: .

g~~~g t: ~~!~~~1:i:~--====:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I Group C, masters degree plus 30 credit hours ____________________________________ _ Director: Department of Food Services

Class 7: Group R, master's degree ________________ -- -------------------------------·------Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ____________________________________ _

Chief Examiner Director Principal. senforhlgh school Class Sl: Professor, teachers college ____________________________________________________ _

Class 9: Group B, master's degree ___ ------------------------------------------------------Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ____________________________________ _

Principal. vocational high school Principal, junior high school Principal, Americanization school

Class 10: Group B, master's degree ____________ ---------------------------------------------Group a, master's degree plus 30 credit hours _________ ______ _____________________ _

Director, Department of School Attendance and Work Permits Supervising Director Principal, elementary school Principal, laboratory school Class 11: Associate professor, teachers college _________________________________________ _

Class 12: Group A, bachelor's degree _______________________________________________________ _

Group B, master's degree, ___ ------------------------------------------------------Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours __________________________________ _ Assistant Director. Department of ]food Services

Class 13: Oro up B, master's degree ___ -- _ ------------- ------------------------------------ _ Group C, master's degi,ee plus 30 credit hours ____________________________________ _

Assistant Director Principal, Capitol Page School Assistant principal, senior high ~choo.

Class 14: Assistant professor, teachers college; chie: librarian, teachers college _________ _ Class 15:

Group B, masters degree __ -------------------------------------------------------Group C, master's degree, plus 30credit hours ___________________________________ _ Assistant principal, vocational higb school Assistant principal, junior high school

Class 16: Group B, master's de.gree ___________ ______ __ ------------------------------------ _ Group C, master's degree, plus 30 credit hours ___________________________________ _

Class 17: Group B, master's degree ___________________ -------------------------------------Oroup C, ID.a&ter's degree plus 30 credit hours ____________________________________ _

Assistant Supervisor Chief attendance officer

Class 18: Group A, bachelor's degree _______________________________________________________ _

Group B. master's degree ________________ ----------------------------------------Group C, master's degree plus 30 credit hours ____________________________________ _

Instructor, teachers college Librarian, teachers college Teacher, senior bigh school Teacher, vocational high school Teacher, junior high school Teache1, elemenwy school School librarian CotIDSeior Research assistant

Class 19: Group A, bachelor's degree ______________________________________________________ _

Group B, master's degree_-------------------------------------------------------_ Attendance officer Child labor inspector Census supervisor

10,000 10,200 I

9,100 9,600 9,80()1

9,100 9,300

~9, 100 ,

8,600 8,800

8;200 8,4.00

8,200

7,700 8,200 8,400

7,500 7,700

7,500

7,300 7,500

7,100 7,300

6,800 7,000

5,020 5,520 5,720

5,020 5,520

10,200 10,400

9,:::oo 9,800

10,000

9,300 9,500

t9, 300

8,800 9,000

8,400 8,600

8,4.00

7,900 8,400 8,600

7,700 7,900

7,700

7,500 7,700

7,300 7,500

7,000 7,200

5,180 5,680 5-,880

5,180 5,680,

And the House agree to the same. Amendment numbered 3: That the Senate

recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 3, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows:

"(3) The terms 'Board' and 'Board of Education' mean the Board of Education of the District. of Columbia.

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amendment insert the following:

" ( c) When used in this Act-" ( 1) The terms 'master's degree' and

'doctor's degree• mean, respectively, a master's degree and a doctor's degree granted in course by an accredited higher educational institution.

"(2) The term 'plus thirty credit hours• means the equivalent of not less than thirty graduate credit hours in academic, vocational, or professional courses beyond·a master's degree, representing -a definite educational program satisfactory to the Board. Graduate credit hours beyond thirty which were earned prior to obtaining .a master's degree may be applied in computing such thirty credit hours.

"(4) The term 'Salary Act of 1947' means the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1947, as amended."

And the House agree to the same, T. G. ABERNETHY, JAMES C. DAVIS, WOODROW W. JONES, A. L. MILLER,

DEWITT s. HYDE, Managers on the Part of the House.

ALAN BIBLE, J. GLENN BEALL,


STATEMENT

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 1093) to fix and regulate the salaries of teachers, school officers,

-------------- -------------- -------------- i ___________ _

---------·---- -------------- --------------- ' - -----------

-------------- -------------- --·------------ 1 __ • _________ _

$5,340 5,840 &,040

5,34.0 5,840

$5, 5001

6,000 6,200

5,500 6,000

$5,660' u, 160 6,360 ,

5,660 6,160

$5,800 6,300 6,500

5,800 6,300"

and other employees of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of th.e action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference report:

Amendment na.1: This amendment struck out the salary schedule contained in the Senate b1ll and inserted a new salary schedule which differed from that contained in the Senate bill in the following ways:

( 1) The House amendment increased the salaries for teachers, school officers, and other employees of the Board of Education of the District of Colum):>ia (except the superintendent of Schools} by $100 over the amounts proVided in the Senate bill.

· (2) The House amendment provided a salary of $18,000 for th~ Superintendent of Schools of the District of C'olumbia if he has a doctor"s degree, $I6',000 tr he has a master•g degree, and $14,000 if he has a bachelor's de-

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12097 gree. The Senate blll provided a flat salary of $18,000 for the Superintendent of S~hools.

(3) The Senate bill contained a subclassification in classes 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16. 17, and 18 of the salary schedule providing different salaries for teachers, school officers. and other employees who have a master's degree plus not less than 30 graduate credit hours in academic, vocational, or professional courses beyond a master's degree, representing a definite educational program satisfactory to the Board of Education of the District of Columbia. Teachers, school officers, and employees in this subclassification. designated group C, would have received salaries $300 above teachers, school officers, and employees who have only a master's degree. The House amendment eliminated this subclassifl.cation.

The conference agreement retains the schedule of salaries provided in the House amendment but adds thereto the group C subclassification contained in the Senate blll. However, teachers, school officers, and employees in this subclassification will receive only $200 more than teachers, school officers, and employees who have only a master's degree.

Amendments nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9: These were clerical amendments made by reason of the amendment of the House in eliminating the group C subclassifl.cation contained in the Senate bill. In view of the action of the conferees on amendment numbered 1, which restored this subclassification. the House recedes.

Amendment no. 3: This amendment also was made by reason of the amendment of the House in eliminating the group C subclassification contained in the Senate bill. The Senate recedes with a technical amendment which restores, in substance, the provision of the Senate bill.

Amendment no. 6: This was a clerical amendment to correct a mistake in the Senate bill. The Senate recedes.

T. G. ABERNETHY, JAMES C. DAVIS, WOODROW W. JONES, A. L. MILLER, DEWITI' s. HYDE,


The conference report was agreed to; and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION

Mr. DAWSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Government Operations, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill <H. R. 6182) to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to make temporary provision for making payments in lieu of taxes with respect to certain real property transferred by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and its subsidiaries to other Government departments.

This bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Government Operations.


the request of the gentleman ·from Illinois?

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not object, I wish to commend the chairman for having brought this bill up for consideration and passage before adjournment. I also commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MEADER], with whom I have cooperated on this type of

Jegisla tion. I think it is an excellent start.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the table of con

tents contained in the first section of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 is hereby amended by inserting immediately below "Sec. 605. Effective date." the following: "Title VII-Property trans/ erred from the

Reconstruction Finance Corporation ''Sec. 701. Declaration of policy. "Sec. 702. Definitions. "Sec. 703. Property transferred by the Re

construction Finance Corporation.

"Sec. 704. Limitations. "Sec. 705. Effective date."

SEC. 2. Section 3 of such act is hereby amended by inserting immediately after "As used in" the following: "titles I through VI of."

SEC. 3. Such act ls hereby further amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "TITLE VII-PROPERTY TRANSFERRED FROM THE

RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION

"DECLARATION OF POLICY

"SEC. 701. The Congress recognizes that the transfer of real property having a taxable status from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or any of its subsidiaries to another Government department has often operated to remove such property from the tax rolls of States and local taxing authorities, thereby creating an undue and unexpected burden upon such States and local taxing authorities, and causing diSTuption of their operations. It is the purpose of this title to furnish temporary measures of relief for such States and local taxing authorities by providing that payments in lieu of taxes shall be made with respect to real property so transferred on or after January 1, 1946.

"DEFINITIONS

·'SEC. 702. As used in this title-"(a) The term 'State' means each of the

several States of the United States and the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii.

" ( b) The term 'real property• means ( 1) any interest in land, and (2) any improvement made thereon prior to any transfer thereof occurring on or after January 1, 1946, from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to any other Government department, if :for the purpose of taxation such interest or improvement is characterized as real property under the applicable law of the State in which such land is located.

" ( c) The term 'local taxing authority' means any county or municipality, and any subdivision of any State, county, or municipality, which is authorized by law to levy and- collect taxes upon real property.

"(d) The terms 'real property tax' and 'real property taxes' do not include any special assessment levied upon real property after the date of a transfer of such real property occurring on or after January 1, 1946, from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to any other Government department.

"(e) The term 'Government department' means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, except the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

"(f) The term 'transfer' means--"(1) a transfer of custody and control of,

or accountability for the care and handling of, any real property, or

"(2) a transfer of legal title to any real property.

"(g) The term 'Reconstruction Finance Corporation' includes all subsidiaries of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

"PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE COBPORATION

"SEC. 703. Where real property has been transferred on or after January 1, 1946, from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to any Government department, and the title to such real property has been held by the United States continuously since such transfer, then on each date occurring on or after January 1, 1955, and prior to January 1, 1959, on which real property taxes levied by any State or local taxing authority with respect to any period become due, the Government department which has custody and control of such real property shall pay to the appropriate State and local taxing authorities an amount equal to the amount of. the real property tax which would be payable to each such State or local taxing authority on such date if legal title to such real property had been held by a private citizen on such date and during all periods to which such date relates.

"LIMITATIONS

"SEC. 704. (a) The failure of any Government department to make, or to make timely payment of, any payment authorized by section 703 shall not subject-

" ( 1) any Government department, or any person who is a subsequent purchaser of any real property from any Government department, to the payment of any penalty or penalty interest, or to any payment in lieu of any penalty or penalty interest; or

"(2) any real estate or other property or property right to any lien, attachment, foreclosure, garnishment, or other legal proceeding.

"(b) No payment shall be made under section 703 with respect to any real property of any of the following categories: .

" ( 1) Real property taxable by any State or local taxing authority under any provision of law, or with respect to which any payment in lieu of taxes is payable under any other provision of law.

"(2) Real property used or held primarily for any purpose for which real property owned by any private citizen would be exempt from real property tax under the constitution or laws of the State in which the property is situated.

" ( 3) Real property used or held primarily for the rendition of service to or on behalf of the local public, Including (but not limited to) the following categories of real property: courthouses; post offices, and other property used for purposes incidental to postal operations; and federally owned airports maintained and operated by the Civil Aeronautics Administration.

"(4) Office buildings and fac1llties which are an integral part of, or are used for purposes incidental to the use made of, any properties described in paragraph ( 1) , ( 2) , or (3) of this subsection. .

" ( c) Nothing contained In this title shall establish any liability of any Government department for the payment of any payment in lieu of taxes with respect to any real property for any period before January 1, 1955. or after December 31, 1958.

"EFFECTIVE DATE

"SE~. 705. This title shall take effect as of January 1, 1955." PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES ON CERTAIN FEDERAL

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Speaker, this bill will correct an inequity, enbance the vitality and financial stability of local governments and contribute materially to the betterment of relations between the Federal Government and State governments and their subdivisions. It provides payments in lieu of taxes on certain Federal industrial properties to local units of government.

Mr. Speaker, in a sense this legislation was made necessary as a result of


unusual measures taken in the defense of our country in World War II. Our plant capacity at the beginning of World War II was wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of war production and at the same time fill necessary civilian wants. Accordingly, of the $20 billion plant expansion in World War II, $15½ billion, over three-fourths of the total, was financed by the Federal Government. Many of these factories were built by the Defense Plant Corporation, a subsidiary of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. ·

At the end of the war, as these plants were no longer needed for war production, many were sold to private business concerns, but others were simply declared excess to the needs of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and found their way into the custody and control of other departments of the Government. Many of these plants were transferred to the various branches of the armed services.

Mr. Speaker, when the Congress· provided for the financing of these plants through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and its subsidiaries, it properly and wisely provided that local realestate taxes should be paid on these plants the same as if they were privately owned. Thus, federally owned property contributed its fair share of the cost of services provided by local units of government.

July 15, 1952, the United States Court of Claims handed down its decision in the Sedgwick County case-Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County v. United States (123 C. Cls. 304). october 6, 1952, the Comptroller General issued an opinion to be found in 32 Comptroller General 164. The effect of these two decisions was to declare that when industrial plants built by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or its

subsidiaries were declared excess to the needs of those agencies, the sove:reign immunity of the Federal Government from taxation by local units of government attached and the statutory authority of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to make payments in lieu of taxes on its real property ceased.

One such plant, an aluminum extrusion plant, constructed at a cost of $25 million, is located in the city of Adrian, Mich., in my congressional district. From the time of its construction until 1952 that plant paid taxes to the city of Adrian, the school district, the township, and the county, These taxes totaled approximately $90,000 annually and represented about one-tenth of the total revenues of the local units of government.

The abrupt cessation of these Federal tax payments, which were stopped without warning in 1952, caused these local units of government, whose budgets had already been set and taxes assessed, undue hardship requiring them to perform 100 percent of the local services on only 90 percent of the revenue. In subsequent years, of course the share which the Federal Government had been contributing was thrown upon the remaining taxpayers who were thus forced to pay more than their rightful share of the cost of local services. The Government-owned aluminum plant, however, continued to enjoy services such as police and fire protection, sewage, water, street repairs, and educational facilities.

For 1952 and subsequent years the Federal Government has thus been getting a free ride for its industrial properties, and local units of government with their limited resources for raising tax revenue have been hard pressed.

The measure before the House would alleviate that distress and correct the inequity.

Mr. Speaker, it might be interesting to note that during the hearings of the House Government Operations Committee it developed that the General Services Administration in leasing some of these industrial plants to private manufacturing concerns incorporated. in the lease a provision requiring the tenant to pay in addition to rent an amount equal to the local taxes. The sums received, however, are not turned over to the local community which provides the services but are covered into the Federal Treasury. I claim this constitutes an unjust enrichment of the Federal Government and rightfully engenders resentment on the part of the local communities deprived of . the funds so badly needed to defray the cost of the services they render.

It should be stated that this policy on the part of General Services Administration was not for the purpose of getting additional funds for the Federal Government but rather to avoid a windfall to the tenant and to prevent the tenant from being at an advantage over his competitors . .

Mr. Speaker, this is admittedly piecemeal legislation. It relates solely to properties of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and its subsidiaries and is temporary, expiring January 1, 1959.

The objective of this legislation is in complete harmony with the recent recommendations of the Intergovernmental Relations Commission in providing relief for distressed localities by a Federal payment in lieu of taxes program particularly on industrial and commercial properties.

For the benefit of the membership and others interested, I incorporate at this point in my remarks a list of the properties which have tentatively been identified by the executive departments as being affected by the terms of my bill:

List of properties subject to payme?ds in lieu of taxes under the provisions of H. R. 6182

A. PROPERTIES ON WHICH PAYMENTS WOULD BE MADE IF THE LEGISLATION WERE ENACTED

Property Reporting agency

California: .AF Plant No. 14 (Lockheed), Department of Defense-Air

Burbank, Force. Pl. 236.

Columbia Steel, Pittsburg ________ Department of Defense-Army •••• Pl. 516.

Riverbank Ordnance Plant, ••••• do •••••••••••••••••••••••••••. Riverbank. Pl. 226-A-4.

Douglas Aircraft Oo., El Segundo t__ General Services Administration-Pl. 890. PBA.

Permanente Metals Corp., General Services Administration-Manteca. FW A,

Pl. 707. Rohr Aircraft, Chula Vista....... General Services Administration ••

Pl. 993. Connecticut:

Na val Industrial Reserve Aircraft Department of Defense-Navy··-_ Plant (United Aircraft), South-ington.

Pl. 612. New England Lime Co., Canaan.. General Services Administration-

Pl. 547, FWA. Illinois:

AF Plant No. 39 (Chrysler- Department of Defense-Air Dodge), Chicago, Force.

Pl. 792. Chicago Ordnance Plant, Chicago. Department of Defense-Army_ •• _

Pl. 91. Chicago Vitreous Enamel Co,, Department of Defense-Navy ••••

Chicago.2 Pl. 631.

· 1 Used for office space, possibly exempt under sec. 705 (b). 2 Used for Marine Corps Reserve training center, .

Annual tax payments at time of transfer

to agency

$33,400

52,834

55,512

13,166

41,430

50,000

60,840

14,380

301,000

57,600

6,875


Indiana:

Annual tax payments at time of transfer to agency

.American Steel&: Foundry, East Department of Defense-Army •• __ $113,976 Chicago.

Pl. 269. Allison Division, General Motors, ••••• do.··························- (S)

AF 26, Indianapolis, Pl. 548-A.

Louisiana: Beaird Co.• •••••••••••••• ··-····-· _____ do.·········--·······-········ (S)

Pl. 2190. Maryland:

Revere Copper &: Brass Co., Hale- General Services Administration.. 33, 857 thorpe.

Pl. 1778, Massachusetts:

AF Plant No. 28 (GE), Everett... Department of Defense-Air Force 59, 800 Pl. 46.

AF Plant No, 29 (GE), West _____ do ••• ·-·····-·················· 10,423 Lynn.

Pl. 864. Naval Industrial Reserve Gear Department of Defense-Navy-··· 66,480

plant (GE), Lynn. Pl. 153-G.

Michigan: Bohn Aluminum & Brass, Bridge- Department of Defense-Air Force 87, 000

port Brass, Adrian. Pl. 324.

Continental Motors, Muskegon •• Department of Defense-Army ••• _ 195,520 Pl.166-M. .

Dow Chemical Co., Bay City.... General Services Administration- 7, 212 Pl, 988, FW A,

• Not available; • 'Used for Organized Reserve.

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - -HOUSE 12099 List of propcrt-ies subject to payme1ds in lieu of taxes under the provisions of R. R. 6182-Continued A. PROPERTIES ON WHICH PAYMENTS WOULD BE MADE IF THE LEGISLATION WERE ENACTED

. Property Reporting agency

Minnesota: Engineering Research Associates Department of Defense-Navy ___ _

(Northwestern Aeronautical), St. Paul.

Pl.1931. Missouri:

Scullin Steel Co., St. Louis _______ Department of Defense-Army ___ _ Pl. 1672.

Naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Department of Defense-Navy ___ _ plant (McDonnell), St. Louis.

Pl.17-A, -Montana:

Anaconda Copper Mining Co., General Services Administration __ Columbus,

Pl.133. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., _____ do ____________________________ _ Columbus,

Pl. 587. Domestic Manganese & Develop· _____ do ____________________________ _ ment Co., Butte.

Pl.1804, Nevada:

Ba.sic Magnesium, Inc., Hender- Interior-Bureau of Reclamation __ son.1

PI. 201. New Jersey:

Burlington Ordnance Plant, Department of Defense-Army ___ _ Burlington.

Pl. 226-A3. Naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Department of Defense-Navy ___ _

Plant (Bendix), Teterboro. Pl. 132 and 8.

New York: Air Force Plant No. 18 (Curtiss- Department ol Defense-Air

Wright) Kenmore. Force. Pl. 746. Air Force Plant No. 40 (General _____ do ____________________________ _

Motors), Tonawanda. Pl. 155. General Electric, Johnson City ________ do ____________________________ _ Pl. 821.

General Electric Co., Schenec- General Services Administration •. tady.•

Pl. 174. Merganthaler Linotype Co., ••••• do ____________________________ _ Brooklyn,7

Pl. 472. Aluminum Company of America, Department of Defense-Navy ___ _

Maspeth, Long Island.• Pl. 226-Al.

Amco Magnesium Co., Wingdale. General Services Administration-Pl. 546. FW A.

Columbia Aircraft Corp., Valley General Services Administration .. Stream, Long Island.

Pl. 1266. · Utica Drop Forge & Tool Co., .•••. do ____________________________ _ Utica.

Pl. 2386. NIRAP (Symington-Gould), Department of Defense-Navy ••••

Rochester. Pl. 901.

Ohio: Air Force Plant No. 36 (Wright Department of Defense-Air

Aero.), Lockland. Force. PJ.10. Air Force Plant No. 41 (Cham- ••••• do ____________________________ _

pion Forge), Cleveland. Pl.145.

Annual tax pay-ments at time of transfer

to agency

$20,102

42,599

20,224

1,200

4,740

1,072

3,614

77,000

, 3,002

'

49,968

74,040

71,725

30,000

50,020

150,245

36,410

8,3<12

4,408

41,436

27,241

19,620

I


Ohio-Continued

Annual tax payments at time of transfer

to agency

Ohio Steel Foundry, Lima~______ Department of Defense-Army __ • $7, 200 Pl. 875.

Naval Industrial Reserve Plant Department of Defense-Navy____ (') (Lustron), Columbus.

Pl.18. Diamond Magnesium Corp., General Services Administration- 39,876

Painesville. FW A, Pl. 244.

Magnesium Reduction Co., _____ do_.-------------------------- 7, 462 Luckey.

Pl. 669. National Carbide, Ashtabula_____ General Services Administration__ s, 432

Pl. 1166. CIUton Products,• Painesville _________ do____________________________ 3,332

Pl. 1716, 1911. Oregon:

Portland Disposal Center No. 1, Department of Defense-Army____ 276 Troutda.Je.to

LSR-563. Pennsylvania:

Continental Foundry, Coraopolis. _____ do __ •• · _________________ ' ____ 16,416 Pl. 294-00.

Naval Industrial Reserve Ord- Department of Defense-Navy____ 7,944 nance Plant (Bethlehem-Leb-anon Co.), Lebanon.

Pl.400. Aluminum Forgings, Inc., Erie___ General Services Administration__ 19,996

Pl.1395. Benjamin Franklin Graphite Co., _____ do____________________________ 1, 176

Chester Springs. Pl. 1254.

U~~ J!f~eering & Foundry, _____ do __ -------------------------- 110, 003

Pl. 765. NIR Gear: Plant, Lester __________ Department of Defense-Navy____ 83, 767

Pl.181, Texas:

Hughes Tool Co., Houston '------ Department of Defense-Army __ • 2,854 Pl. 143.

Naval Industrial Reserve Air- Department of Defe~Navy____ 2,473 craft Plant (Globe Aircraft), Saginaw.

Pl. 898. Dow Magnesium Corp., Velasco_ General Services Administration- 123, 000

Pl. 243. FWA, Washington:

AF Plant No. 17 (Boeing), Seattle_ Department of Defense-Air Force- NIL Pl. 1577.

Boeing, Renton ______________________ do____________________________ 178,222' PI.156.

Wilkeson Products Co., Tacoma__ Department of Defense-Army___ 69 Pl.602.

Bonneville Power Administra- General Se.rvices Administration_ 1, 104 tion, Electro-Metallurgical Co. powerlines, Spokane.

Pl.1008. Electro-Metallurgical Co., Spokane_ General Services Administration__ 33, 646

Pl. 571. . Pacific Car & Foundry Co., Ren- _____ do_____________________________ 18, 12t

ton. Pl. 303.

Wisconsin: AC Spark Plug, A. O. Smith, Department o!Defense-Alr Force. 31,461

Milwaukee. Pl. 220.

B. PROPERTIES ON WHICH THE LESSEE IS NOW MAKING PAYMENTS

Alabama: Republic Steel Corp., Gadsden___ General Services Administration._ (a)

Pl. 269, Illinois:

Eversharp, Inc., Chicago ______________ do_____________________________ (') Pl. 1372. Granite City Steel Co., Granite _____ do __________ . __________________ (J)

City. Pl. 312.

Louisiana: Mathieson Alkali Works, Lake _____ do_____________________________ u $8,124

Charles. Pl. 264.

?viassacbusetts: Wyman-Gordon, Grafton 12 _______ Department or Defense-Air 40,000

Pl. 2304. · Force. Michigan:

General Motors Corp., Saginaw__ General Services Administration__ (I) Pl. 446,

Nevada: Basic Magnesium, Inc., Gabbs _____ do-----------···--·------------ 8, 921

Townsite. Pl. 201-H,

1 May be exempt under sec. 705 (b) (3), • Lease in effect requires lessee to make payments in lieu oftaxes if required by act

or Congress. 1 To be used for office space, possibly exempt under sec. 705 (b), I Used a8 shipyard. • Title still in RFC; declared surplus July 11, 1947. 10 Sold to Army engineers for concrete soils laboratory. 11 Taxes paid in 1954 on Government-owned property.

New York: National Lead Co. (Railroad), General Services Administration __

Tahawus. PI. 1245. General Electric, Syracuse 11 ___________ do ____________________________ _ Pl. 788. ·

North Carolina: Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., _____ do ____________________________ _ Burlington.

Pl. 506/506a. Obio: American Rolling Mill, Hamil- _____ do. ___________________________ _

ton. Pl. 759. Republic Steel Co., Warren and _____ do __________________________ _

Youngstown. Pl.259W. &Y. Waco Aircraft Co., Troy _______________ do ____________________________ _

Pl. 398.

$34,937

29,111

(')

12 Title is still in RFC,.which is to declare plant excess for transfer to the Air Force. Under a special contractual arrangement, the local taxes are paid by the Air Force contractor. The Air Force points out that 99 percent of the output of the plant is sold to the Air Force, and that the price paid by the Air Force includes an amount to cover such taxes.

11 Leased by GSA to the New Process Gear Co. The lease, which expires Jan. 31; 1956, provides for payment of local taxes by the lessee. The property was transferred from RFC on Mar. 27, 1950.

12100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE July 29

The reason it is pecessary to adopt this · temporary piecemeal legislation at this time is because there will be some necessary delay while various categories of federally owned property are inventoried and studied so that national policy may be determined with respect to which properties should and which should not contribute payments in lieu of taxes on a permanent and comprehensive basis.

The limited category of plants affected by my bill is clearly defined, and the relief with respect to them is urgent. In fact, it has been too long delayed.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives in the 83d Congress .passed similar legislation which was favorably reported by the Senate Government Operations Committee. · It failed of passage in the waning hours of the last Congress when it was objected to on the Senate Consent Calendar. This relief is long overdue and should not be further postponed.

I might also mention, Mr. Speaker, that taking this step in an area which is clear cut, where the property was formerly on the local tax rolls and where it is occupied by industrial concerns, some of which produce a substantial amount of -civilian products in addition to defense production, should provide a basis of experience which will lead to a more intelligent and effective handling of the broader and more permanent payment in lieu of taxes program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of H. R. 6182.

Mr . . MACDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my interest in the bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 making temporary provision for payments in lieu of taxes with respect to certain real property transferred by the ·Reconstruction Finance Corporation and its subsidiaries to other Government departments. I introduced H. R. 7291 which is the same as H. R. 6182 introduced by Congressman MEADER.

This bill is designed to assist municipalities to overcome what has become one of their major problems-that of the Federal Government taking a way tax revenue from the municipalities which had been paid on large amounts of real property.

This bill prevents this great inequity created in all our many municipalities when the Federal Government moves in and takes off the local tax rolls billions of dollars of assessed valuations that have heretofore been subject to local taxation.

This inequity is clearly illustrated, in capsule form, by the plight in my own Massachusetts Eighth Congressional District of a serious tax problem created in the city of Everett by the General Electric Corp. operation of a plant for the United States Air Force. This plant is known as Air Force Plant No. 28. The whole area of which I speak was owned by the General Electric Corp. from 1911 to 1941. Local taxes were paid to the city of Everett on this area by the General Electric Corp. On March 13, 1941, the area was acquired by the Defense Plant Corporation. Air Force Plant No. 28 was built in Everett by the Defense Plant Corporation and leased to the ,General Electric Corp. · during World ·

War ·u and was then known as Plancor 46. It is to be noted that the Defense Plant Corporation during World War II paid taxes to the city of Everett during the fiscal years of 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945.

The Defense Plant Corporation was dissolved July 1, 1945. The same day, July 1, 1945, the property in question was then acquired by another governmental agency, namely, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Once again taxes were paid by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to the city of Everett for the fiscal years of 1946, 1947, and 1948. In 1948 the property was assessed to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 'the amount of $1,905,000.

This property was then conveyed to the .Air Force of the United States by the purely paper sale under the provisions of Public Law 364, 80th Congress, on a nonreimbursable basis. Approximately $50,000 of new construction has been added and approximately $125,000 has been required for rehabilitation. However, Mr. Speaker, I call to your attention that from September 7, 1948, up until the present time not 1 cent of taxes has been paid to the city of Everett for this very valuable property. This has resulted in an unfair tax loss to the city of Everett of approximately $90,000 annually. In view of the mounting cost of welfare, fire, police, and other services afforded by Everett to its citizens and taxpayers this tax loss has become a severe hardship on the people of that hard-working community. What is more amazing, Mr. Speaker, is that during this period and despite the fact that the city of Everett has not received 1 cent of tax from any source on that valuable property, there has been no hesitation · to demand from the city of Everett that this factory be supplied water, fire and police protection, and adequate sewerage facilities. What is even more astonishing is the fact that during the summer of 1953 when the duly accredited collective bargaining agency was out on strike at this General Electric operation the officials of that company demanded that the city of Everett furnish police coverage at the plant with no expense to be charged to the General Electric plant.

It is pointed out that police coverage was furnished. Who paid the cost? · The long-suffering taxpayers of the city of Everett. It is interesting to note that at the time of the request for police protection no request was made for same by the Federal Government who are supposedly owners of the plant. Here we have a Government-owned plant which is operated by a private corporation for one purpose and one purpose only: that of making a profit for the stockholders of the company. While it is perfectly clear that this is a legitimate ambition and one to be encouraged under our freeenterprise system, it also seems to me that such a company which is privately operated should not be operated at the expense of the long-suffering local taxpayers of the city of Everett.

It is clearly not fair nor in. keeping with the best tradition of the free-enterprise system to have property of this nature tax free while other similarly lo-

cated plants pay their fair share of costs to the city from whence their necessary local services flow.

I ask the question: Why should the Army Air Force be the first of a number of Government agencies to refuse to pay taxes when in fact the Army Air Force does not run the factory but merely is the fee holder of ownership -papers? It is perfectly clear that the · General Electric Corp. runs and operates this factory, and it is equally clear that General Electric, along with the other · industries of the city of Everett, should pay their fair share of the tax-poor city.

The city of Everett has a population of some 46,000 but an area of only 3.61 square miles, so you can readily see that available land is at a premium and that the city of Everett can ill afford to lose any valuation. Their assessed valuation, both real and personal, approximates some $99 million. There are in the city of Everett 6 major industries, 5 of which pay taxes, and the 6th of which I speak does not, yet receives the same benefits and privileges as the other 5 major industries, including access to a highly skilled labor market.

I say to the members of this Committee that this situation in Everett cannot be permitted to go on year after year. It is clearly not fair that this transfer of property from one Government agency to another Government agency should change the tax rights. The first Government agency paid taxes to the city of Everett; why should the second Government agency, acting merely in its capacity as landlord, not pay. The inhabitants of the city of Everett, as a majority, are a working class ranging in salary from $3,000 to about $6,000 per year, with the average home being assessed in the neighborhood of $5,000. The good people of Everett can no longer afford to carry the United States Government or the General Electric Co. on their back to the tune of a $2 million valuation free ride.

It is to meet situations of that character that this proposed legislation was introduced.

Some 60 other properties, largely in- · dustrial in nature, in 20 States would also be aff ecte<;l by my bill, according to a list furnished by the Bureau of the Budget. I would like to point out that the payments assured by my bill will provide badly needed revenue for State and local governments and school districts in which those plants are located. In my home State of Massachusetts there are at least four such plants receiving services such as sewage disposal and water without reimbursing localities in like proportion to other similar plants. It has also been brought to my attention that school districts throughout the Nation have been educating children of parents employed in many of those federally owned plants also without paying for those services in like proportion to other school taxpayers.

The President has recognized the plight of local units of governments and their difficulty in obtaining adequate revenue to provide necessary local services, particularly in the light of heavy Federal taxation and extensive real

1955 ., ·- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12101 property holdings by Federal agencies. In fact, on March 30, 1953, he requested the establishment of a commission to study and make recommendations with respect to the Federal Government programs as they affect States and their political subdivisions. This Commission, better known as the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, after 2 years of study, has recently filed its comprehensive report. On the subject of payment in lieu of taxes the Commission said in part:

The Commission recommends that the National Government inaugurate a broad system of payments in lieu of property taxes to State and local governments. The most important class of properties on which such payments should be made is commercial or industrial properties. Special assessment payments and transitional payments in lieu of taxes should be made in certain cases.

The Commission believes that these payments are necessary to help preserve financially healthy local governments. Present tax immunities of Federal property have weakened many local governments. The States and the National Government share in the responsibility for avoiding actions which impair the financial ability of local governments. Equity as between Federal and local taxpayers requires the National Government to make appropriate payments. These should be based largely on the property tax system, which is the main source of local revenue.

I am happy that the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations endorses the objective of this bill. I am firmly of the opinion that the Federal Government does have an obligation and a positive duty to correct situations that arise through no fault of the local governments whose tax base is being whittled away through exemption rights possessed by the Federal Government.

I sincerely hope that favorable consideration by the Congress can be given this bill in order to alleviate the :financial injustice to municipalities which exists under the present state of our law.


Mr. MEADER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill H. R. . 6182, immediately prior to the passage of that bill today. ·

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?


POLIOMYELITIS VACCINATION. PROGRAM

Mr. O'NEIL (at the request of Mr. SMITH of Virginia), from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 330, Rept. No. 1574), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H: R. 7126) to provide grants to assist States to meet the cost of poliomyelitis vaccination programs, and for other purposes. After

general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally di,vlded and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At

, the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORTS

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the remainder of the 1st session of the 84th Congress it shall be in order to consider conference reports at any time they are reported, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?


MEXICAN FARM LABOR-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H. R. 3822) to amend title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, and I ask unanimous consent that the report be read rather than the statement.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the conference report. The conference report and statement

are as follows:


agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3822) to amend title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, having met after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its amend-ment.

HAROLD D. COOLEY, W.R. POAGE, G. M. GRANT, E. C . . GATHINGS, CLIFFORD R. HOPE, AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, WILLIAM S. HILL,

Managers on.the Part of the House. ALLEN J, ELLENDER, OLIN D. JOHNSTON,

SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, GEORGE D. AIKEN, MILTON R. YOUNG,


STATEMENT

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing positions of the two Houses on H. R. 3822, as originally passed by the . House .and as amended by the Senate, to amend title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference report: ·

The only amendment made by the Senate was to change the period of extension of the

act from the 3 ½ years provided in the House bill to 1 ½ years. The Senate committee did not hold hearings on the bill but indicated in its report that its action in reducing the period of extension was taken as the result of a statement made to the committee by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization and for the purpose of providing congressional review of the legislation at an earlier date. It was the Commissioner's contention that some employers have not been paying the full wage required under the contract of employment and that the Immigration and Naturalization Service should have authority to check on contract compliance.

Although the Department of Justice was invited by the House committee to appear on this legislation and a spokesman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service did, in fact, testify at the hearings, no evidence of the type described in the Senate report was presented to the House committee. On the contrary, the representative of the Immigration and Naturalization Service strongly endorsed the present program and apparently favored indefinite extension of the act.

The matter of compliance with the work contract is fully covered by the international agreement entered into by the United States and Mexico, and a specific procedure is provided to assure that the worker will be paid in accordance with the contract of employment. The Mexican consulate and representatives of the United States Department of Labor are given full authority to see that the contract provisions are carried out. To give the Immigration and Naturalization Service similar authority would necessitate a revisi9n in the international agreement, create dual jurisdiction among Federal agencies and confusion of administration, and would necessarily increase the cost of the program without any corresponding benefits.

Both the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of Labor have duties and responsibilities in connection with the entry of Mexican nationals into the United States for farm employment. The duty of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ls to see that entry into the United States is in compliance with our laws and that aliens illegally in this country are apprehended and deported, The duty and responsibility of the Department of Labor is to administer and enforce the laws relating to the employment of Mexican nationals as farm workers in the United States pursuant to this act, the agreement with the Government of Mexico, and a work contract with the Mexican national.

While these responsibilities relate to the same general subject, they are by no means identical or overlapping. Each agency has its own duties to perform in its own field and, from evidence presented to the House committee, which went exhaustively into this subject, it appears that both the Department of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service have, particularly in the past year, been doing a very effective job.

It was the sense of the committee of conference that there has been substantial improvement in the situation in the past few months as the result of effective administration and the cooperation of these two agencies of government. It was the further sense of the committee that there should continue to be a high degree of cooperation. If the Immigration Service, in the performance of its duties, has information which would indicate a violation of the work agreement, it should furnish that information to ·the Department of Labor in order that the agency to which Congress has delegated the responsib11ity of administering the program may take appropriate action under the procedures authorized by the act and written into the international agreement.

It is in anticipation of this type of cooperation that the committee of conference

12102 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 29 has agreed to the 3 ½ years' extension of the act as provided in the House bill, It is the view of the committee, however, that the respective legislative committees of the House and Senate should maintain a close oversight of this program and that the agencies concerned should keep the chairman of the respective committees informed of their operations in this field not less frequently than once each 6 months.

HAROLD D. COOLEY, W.R. POAGE, G. M. GRANT, E. C. GATHINGS, CLIF,oRD R. HOPE, AUG. H. ANDRESEN, WILLIAMS. HILL,


The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.

The conference report was agreed to; a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

MEAL AND FLOUR FOR RELIEF Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I call up

the conference report on the bill (H. R. 2851) to authorize the Commodity Credit Corporation to process food commodities for donation under certain acts, and for other purposes, and I ask unanimous consent that the statement be read in lieu of the report.


the request of the gentleman from North Carolina?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the statement.

. The conference report and statement are as follows:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 1450) The committee of conference on the disa

greeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 2851) to authorize the Commodity Credit Corporation to process food commodities for donation under certain acts, ~aving met, a,fter full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: · That the House recede from its disagree

ment to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to the same.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the title of the bill and agree to the same.

HAROLD D. COOLEY, GEORGE M. GRANT, W. PAT JENNINGS, CLIFFORD P. HOPE,

AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, WILLIAM S. HILL,

Managers on the Part of the House. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, CLINTON P. ANDERSON, GEORGE D. AIKEN, JOHN J. WILLIAMS,


STATEMENT The managers on the part of the House

at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of tbe Senate to the bill (H. R. 2851) to authorize the Commodity Credit Corporation to process food commodities for donation under certain acts, submit the following statement in explanation of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying conference · report:

As passed by the House, this bill transferred from the Secretary of Agriculture to

the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare responsibility over the distribution of surplus agricultural commodities for relief purposes in two specific types of distress areas-those designated by the Secretary of Labor as areas of "substantial labor surplus" and those designated by ·the President as warranting assistance by the Federal Government under Public Law 875, 81st Congress, because of a major disaster.

Those agricultural commodities of a perishable nature which are acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation in its pricesupport operations and must be disposed of within a limited period in order to avoid deterioration and spoilage, would have been donated to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare without charge for use in its relief operations. Storable commodities, such as grains, would have .been processed into fl.our or meal at the request of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, transferred to that agency for relief distribution, and the cost thereof charged to that Department.

The bill as passed by the House gave expression to the principle which has often been stated by the Committee on Agriculture that a line of distinction should be drawn between that distribution of surplus agricultural commodities which is a necessary and integral part of our support program and that distribution which does not contribute directly to the farm program but which is, in fact, a relief operation. The free distribution of cereals which are not in imminent danger of deterioration or spoilage, particularly when such distribution is in the form of processed products, is clearly within the field of relief operations and not a part of the farm program. No matter how worthy the operations may be, it is clearly one which should be charged to relief .and welfare and not to agriculture.

The Senate amendment strikes out all of the provisions of the House bill and substitutes the provisions of a Senate bill which merely authorizes, until June 30, 1957, distribution of wheat flour and cornmeal to needy individuals and families upon the specific request of the governor of a State. The distribution to a · central location or locations in each State will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture using funds, limited to $15 million a year, available under section 32 of the act of August 25, 1935.

The conferees on the part of the House have reluctantly accepted the Senate substitute not because they have changed in any degree their belief in the principle represented by the House bill but because they know that the need among unemployed coal miners and others is very great and believe that the only possibility of affording them this relief at the present time is to accept the Senate amendment.

The committee of conference considered malting the relief action mandatory, rather than a mere authorization as contained in the Senate amendment. The conferees on the part .of the House did not insist upon this change on assurance that the Senate amendment has the approval of high officials of the Department of Agriculture and that the Department does, in fact; intend to carry out the authorized program,

HAROLD D. COOLEY, GEORGE M. GRANT, W. PAT JENNINGS,

CLIFFORD R. HOPE, AUG. H . ANDRESEN, WILLIAMS. Hn.i:,,


The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.

The conference re:i;>ort was ·agreed to; a motion to .reconsider was laid on the table.

H~ CANYON

Mrs. PFOST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to_ extend .my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include an editorial.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Idaho?

There was no objection. Mrs. PFOST. Mr. Speaker, the Hells

Canyon fight is approaching a climax. Subcommittees of both the House and the Senate have held successful hearings and reported the Hells Canyon bill. Final oral arguments have been heard by the Federal Power Commission on the Idaho Power Co. application to squander the great Hells Canyon site by building one or more low, single-purpose power dams, and an FPC decision is expected in the near future.

Those of us who are fighting for full multiple-purpose development of a great natural resource that belongs to all of the people were heartened yesterday by the appearance in the New York Times of an editorial supporting the Federal Hells Canyon Dam. The endorsement of this important eastern newspaper is indicative of the vast significance of the Hells Canyon fight not only to the people of the West but to those to the East and South as well.

Under unanimous consent, I include the editorial in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as part of my remarks: [From the New York Times of July 28, 1955 J

HELLS CANYON Hells Canyon, in the remote fastnesses of

the Snake River on the Oregon-Idaho border, is one of the finest unexploited power sites in the country. For at least 8 years the dispute has raged over the question of how the great hydroelectric potential there should be developed, whether by public or private enterprise. The solution cannot be put off much longer.

Senator MORSE and a large number of other Senators have been sponsoring a bill authorizing Federal -construction of a 600-foot dam at Hells Canyon to produce over 900,000 kilowatts of power, as one more giant addition to the integrated system of Federal dams in the Columbia Basin. The Idaho Power Co., on the other hand, is proposing to build three smaller dams on the river, producing fewer kilowatts, as a strictly private operation. One thing is certain: one side or the other will have to ,give, because the high Federal dam and the three small private dams are incompatible.

It seems to us that the Federal proposal for a high dam at Hells Canyon would provide for realization of the full potentialities of this enormously valuable water resource, while the company's proposal for a series of low dams-only one of which would be authorized at the present time-would lead to a piecemeal development of the river and probably prevent its full utn~zation.

This is a natural resource that belongs to all the people. It seems clear that the m•aximum benefl t from -the resource in this case, in respect to power, irrigation, navigation, and the other facets of an integrated river program, can only be obtained by largescale Federal investment.

ORRIN J. BISHOP-CONFERENCE REPORT -

Mr. LANE submitted a conference report and statement on the bill <H. R. 4249) for the relief of Orrin J. Bishop.

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12103 SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

Mr. HOLIFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House for 15 minutes today, following the legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered, and to revise and extend those remarks.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois asked and was given permission to address the House for 30 minutes today, following the legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered, and to revise and extend those remarks.

COL. McFARLAND COCKRILL Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 2747) for the relief of Col. McFarland Cockrill, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend

ments as follows: Page 1, line 3, after "That" insert ", ex

cept as hereinafter provided." Page 1, line 10, strike out all after "in

clusive" over to and including line 4 on page 2 and insert": Provided, however, That any sums heretofore withheld from the retired pay of Colonel Cockrill shall be retained by the United States."


There was no objection. The Senate amendments were con

curred in; a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

PRISCILLA LOUISE DAVIS Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 1751) for the relief of Priscilla Louise Davis, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend

ments, as follows: Page 1, line 10, strike out "1943" and in

sert "1942." Page 2, lines 5 and 6, strike out "in excess

of 10 percent thereof."

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to ihe request of the gentleman from Mas-sachusetts? .

There was no objection. The Senate amendments were con

-curred in; a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts asked

and was given permission to address the House for 5 minutes today, following the legislative program of the day and any special orders heretofore entered.

CONTINUE EFFECTIVENESS OF ACT OF JULY 17, 1953, PROVIDING CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER AUTHORITY Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, :r ask

unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S.1138) to con-

tinue the effectiveness of the act of July 17, 1953 (€7 Stat. 177), as amended, providing certain construction and other authority.


the request of the gentleman from North Carolina?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the provisions

of the act of July 17, 1953 ( 67 Stat. 177), as amended and extended by the act of July 26, 1954 (68 Stat. 531), shall remain in full force and effect until 6 months after tlie termination of the national emergency proclaimed by the President on December 16, 1950, or until such date as may be specified by a concurrent resolution of the Congress, or until July 1, 1956, whichever is earliest.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

CHANGING NAME OF GARZA-LITTLE ELM DAM, TEX.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Public Works I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill (H. R. 6102) to change the name of Garza-Little Elm Dam, located in Denton County, Tex., . to Lewisville Dam.



There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the dam, known

as Garza-Little Elm Dam, in Denton County, Tex., shall hereafter be known as Lewisville Dam and any law, regulation, document, or record of the United States in which such dam is designated or referred to under the name Garza-Little Elm Dam shall be held to refer to such dam under and by the name of Lewisville Dam.


CONVEYANCE OF LAND WITHIN GRAPEVINE DAM AND RESERVOIR PROJECT,TEXAS Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, by direc

tion of the Committee on Public Works, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill <H. R. 6634) to provide for the conveyance of one and eighth-tenths acres of land, more or less, within the Grapevine Dam and Reservoir project to the city of Grapevine, Tex., for sewage disposal purposes.



There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of

the Army is authorized and directed to convey to the city of Grapevine, Tex., a portion of tract A-28 within the Grapevine Dam and Reservoir project, not to exceed two acres, required by the city for the expansion of its sewage tre~tment plant located on adjoining land belonging to the city, the convey-

ance to be by · quitclaim deed and without monetary consideration therefor, but on condition that in the event the property so conveyed shall fail or cease to be used for disposal purposes, the title thereto shall revert to and revest in the United States; and subject to such reservations, including flowage easements, restrictions, terms, and conditions, as the Secretary of the Army determines to be necessary in the interest of the United States.


RECONVEY ANCE OF LANDS IN CERTAIN RESERVOIR PROJECTS IN TEXAS Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, by direc

tion of the Committee on Public Works, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill <H. R. 7195) to provide for the reconveyance of lands in certain reservoir projects in Texas to former owners of such lands.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. · The SPEAKER. Is there objection to


There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That (a) the Secretary

of the Army is authorized and directed to sell any land, or interest therein, acquired by the United States for or in connection with the reservoir projects as identified in section 2 of this act, to former owners of such land, whenever (1) he shall determine that such land or interest is not required for public purposes, and (2) he shall have received an application for reconveyance as hereinafter provided.

(b) The Secretary shall give notice, in such manner (including publication) as he shall by regulation prescribe, to the former owner of such land or interest, and any such sale of any such land or interest shall be made only after the Secretary has received an application for the reconveyance of such land or interest from such former owner, in such form as he shall by regulation prescribe. Such application shall be made within a period of 90 days following the date of issuance of such notice, but on good cause the Secretary may waive this requirement.

(c) Any reconveyance of land or interest therein made under this act shall be subject to such exceptions, restrictions, and reservations (including a reservation to the United States of flowage rights) as the Secretary may ·determine are in the public interest, except that no mineral rights may be reserved in said lands unless the Secretary finds that such reservation is needed for the promotion of the efficient operation of the reservoir projects listed in section 2 of this a.ct.

(d) Any land or interest therein reconveyed under this act shall be sold for an amount determined by the Secretary to be equal to the price for which the land was acquired by the United States, adjusted to reflect (1) any increase in the value thereof resulting from improvements made thereon by the United States (the Government shall receive no payment as a result of any enhancement of values resulting from the construction of the reservoir projects listed in section 2 of this act), or (2) any decrease in the value thereof resulting from (A) any reservation, exception, restriction, and condition to which the reconveyance is made subject, and (B) any damage to the land or interest the~ein caused by th_e United States.

12104 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE- Jul.y 29

(e) The requirements of this section shall not be applicable with respect to the disposition of any land, or interest therein, de• scribed in subsection (a) 1f the Secretary shall certify that notice has been given to the former owner of such land or interest as provided in subsection (b) and that no qualified applicant has made timely application for the reconveyance of such land or interest.

(f) As used in this section, the term "former owner" means the person from whom any land, or interest therein, was acquired by the United States, or 1f such person is deceased, his spouse, or if such spouse is deceased, his children.

SEC. 2. The reservoir projects to which this act is applicable are: Belton Reservoir, Texas; Benbrook Dam and Reservoir, Texas; GarzaLittle Elm Dam and Reservoir, Texas; Grapevine Dam and Reservoir, Texas; Whitney Reservoir, Texas.

SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Army may delegate any authority conferred upon him by this act to any officer or employee of the Department of the Army. Any such officer or employee shall exercise the authority so delegated under rules and regulations approved by the Secretary.

SEC. 4. Any proceeds from sales made under this act shall be available for use in administering the provisions of this act and any surplus shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.

SEC. 5. This act shall terminate 3 years after the date of its enactment.

Page 1, strike out lines 3, 4, 5, and 6 and insert in lieu the following:

"That (a) in order to provide for adjustments in the lands or interests in lands heretofore acquired for the reservoir projects identified in section 2 of this act to conform such acquisition to a lesser estate in lands now being acquired to complete the real estate requirements of the project, the Secretary of the Army is authorized to reconvey any such land or interests in land heretofore acquired to the former."

Page 1, line 7, following the word "land," insert the following: "or the grantee, devisee, or successor in title of said former owners of contiguous property when rights to such property are, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army, equitably superior in said successors in title."

Page 1, line 8, following the word "purposes," insert "including public recreational purposes,".

Page 2, line 2, following the word "interest," insert the following: "or the grantee, devisee, or successor in title of said former owner of contiguous property when rights to such property are, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army, equitably superior in said successors in title."

Page 2, line 3, strike out the word "sale" and insert in lieu thereof "reconveyance."

Page 3, 14le 6, add the following: "In addition, the cost of any surveys neces

sary as an incident of such reconveyance shall be borne by the grantee."

Page 4, line 4, strike out entire section 4 and insert in lieu the following:

"SEC. 4. Any proceeds from reconveyances made under this act shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts."


The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to provide for adjustments in lands or interests therein acquired for reservoir projects in Texas, by the reconveyance of certain lands or interests therein to the former owners thereof."


REPORT FROM COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means may have until midnight to file reports on such bills as it may order reported today.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection.

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A further message from the Senate, by Mr. McBride, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:

H. R. 7117. An act making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments to the foregoing bill requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. CLEMENTS, Mr. CHAVEZ, Mr. HAYDEN, Mr. BRIDGES, and Mr. SALTONSTALL to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

_The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:

H. R. 6232. An act to include as SpanishAmerican War service under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration certain service rendered by Stephen Swan Ogletree during the Spanish-American War.

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the reports of the committees of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to bills of the House of the following titles:

H. R. 4249. An act for the relief of Orrin J. Bishop; and

H. R. 4778. An act to provide for the purchase of bonds to cover postmasters, officers, and employees of the Post Office Department and mail clerks of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

NATIONAL FARM-CITY WEEK Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent for the present consideration of House Joint Resolution 317 designating the last week in October of each year as National Farm-City Week.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, reserv

ing the right to object, may I inquire whether or not this proposal has been cleared with the minority members of the committee involved or with the minority leaders?

Mr. ASHMORE. It has been. Mr. KING of Pennsylvania. Mr.

Speaker, I object.

HOUSING AMENDMENTS OF 1955 Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, by di

rection of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 326 and ask for its immediate consideration. ·

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

.Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Unlon for the consideration of the bill (S. 2126) to extend and clarify laws relating to the provision and improvement of housing, the elimination and prevention of slums, the conservation and development of urban communities, the financing of vitally needed public works, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, the bill shall be read and after the reading of the first section of such bill it shall be in order to move to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert -as a substitute, the text of the bill H. R. 7473, and all points of order against such substitute and the committee amendments printed in the bill S. 2126 are hereby waived. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bil.l S. 21~6. the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ALLEN] and at this time I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls up the rule for debate and consideration of S. 2126, known -a:s the housing legislation. The legislation calls for the improvement ..and expansion -of suitable housing for low and middle-income g:roups, the ·elimination and prevention of slums, the conservation and development of urban communities, the financing of vitally needed public works and for other purposes. The time set by the Rules Committee for general debate is 2 hours which will be divided equally between the chairman and ranking member of the Banking and Currency Committee.

Members of Congress are all familiar with the fact that home construction plays an important roie in our economy, In spite of propaganda and false information to the contrary, home building in the metropolitan and industrial centers throughout the United States is far below the needs of millions who are in dire need of suitable living quarters for themselves and families .. It is estimated by surveys made in urban areas that onethird of our.housing units are substandard.

If approximately 1 ½ million low-rent and low-priced housing units were built between now and 1970, we would still have at that time, over 14 million substandard dwellings throughout the country. In the last few years, by reason of the indifferent attitude of the Congress, the program for low-priced housing has been reduced and diminished. This fact is revealed by the records which show that public housing in 1954 was 50 percent less than in 1953. And in 1953 .it was but one-half of the low-priced housing construction in 1951. Under the Housing Act of 1949 which the late Senaior Robert Taft helped write, 135,000

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12105 low-priced units were permitted to be built annually. At that time, substantial evidence was presented before both the committees of the Senate and the House that 200,000 units would be needed to provide suitable living conditions for millions in industrial and urban areas who were raising families in slums and substandard· homes.

During the period after World War II, almost all the low-priced housing which was erected, was too small for a family of more than 2 or 3. We learn now that the families of returning veterans have expanded and increased to such an extent that thousands of 3-bedroom homes are now needed for lowincome groups. It has been testified before the Committee by mayors and experts on housing conditions that it is impossible for a low-income family to buy a 3-bedroom house for less than $12,000. These houses are far beyond the income of most families and cannot provide for their urgent needs. If an average factory worker makes $75 per week, 20 percent of his wages must go for housing which would be approximately $65 a month. The Bureau of Labor Statistics stated that in the last quarter of 1954, the average $12,000 house in a metropolitan area would cost $125 per month minimum to the purchaser. This is far beyond the reach of millions of low-income workers throughout America. Public Housing commissioner Slusser testified before the committee that public housing has a great impact in preventing juvenile delinquency; that it is very helpful and beneficial to the communities. He also testified that on surveys made in different cities, police calls, .fire calls and other services are far less than in areas where public housing and standard residential conditions are enjoyed by the people. Mr. Slusser also testified that the surveys made by his department bring out the fact that public housing has been the best slum-clearance weapon that the Government has had so far.

It is astounding to realize that our Government has not carried out its commitments in regard to aiding millions to secure adequate housing. Six years have passed since the 1949 act which called for ·l35,000 units. By this time, if that act were followed through, 810,000 units should have been built and occupied. It is astounding to know that only 350,000 have been authorized during this time and but only 164,000 have been actually built. From these :figures, our commitments are about 650,000 short of what was provided for in the 1949 act. This bill also provides for public-facility loans. For 21 years the public agency division of the RFC assisted sewage and water districts throughout the country to obtain these necessary public facilities services. One and one-half billion dollars were loaned for this municipal service without a loss. During the last few years, this necessary governmental function to improve public facilities has come almost to a standstill. Out of 308 atplicants for public facility loans in 1954, only 7 were processed by the department. The American Municipal Association representatives made up of over

CI--761

12,000 cities --throughout the country. which were represented by Mayor Clark at the hearings, stated that there is immediate need today in metropolitan areas for over 200,000 low-rent public housing units. It is indeed unf-ortunate that this bill has been so long delayed in this session of Congress that the Members are compelled to debate and consider it at these closing hours of the first session of the 84th Congress.

Candidate Eisenhower in the fall of 1952, made beautiful speeches in New York and Chicago, regarding the need for adequate public housing for the lower income groups. The Democratic platform also endorsed the 1949 Public Housing Act which called for 84,000 units.

The mayor of my home city, Gary, Ind., testified that the city is in a crisis as far as slum clearance is concerned. The reason is that the city has no adequate low-income public housing to accommodate the tenants who are removed from the slum and substandard areas.

The hearings before the Banking and Currency Committee reveal by witness from the Municipal League representing 12,000 cities and towns that they are in a critical low-income housing scarcity. I hope this bill is passed as reported out of the banking and currency as sponsored by Chairman Spence.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HYDE].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I take these few moments to urge upon the Congress the necessity for taking some action before it adjourns which will enable the officials of the District of Columbia adequately to cope with the transit strike which has been ·paralyzing the Nation's Capital for nearly a month.

Overnight developments would seem to indicate that the Congress must at least give the District Commissioners authority to take whatever action becomes necessary in order to prevent an indefinite paralysis of public transportation.

I strongly urge upon the Congress not to adjourn without some action on this troublesome problem.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. COLMER].

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt to make any extended remarks on this subject at this time. I think this House knows what the issue is, and it is going to be up to the House today to reaffirm its traditional stand on this difficult question of public housing or to recede and turn coat from that traditional position.

As I understand, there will be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOLCOTT] which would retain and continue the provisions of the Housing Act that are necessary and desirable to so many people. The public housing will be left out of that if the House sees fit to adopt the Wolcott amendment.

Mr. Speaker, public housing, as the result of the action of this committee and this House for the past 3 or more years is dead. This committee bill would re-

vive it. The Wolcott amendment would keep it the corpse that it is. I just cannot believe that this House, even though it is anxious to adjourn, is going to change its position at this time.

There are so many reasons that I could reiterate here if it were necessary, but I do not think it is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, when the roll is called, I hope that the Members of the House will place the welfare of the country above any desire to adjourn, and that the House will maintain its traditional position on this question of public housing.

Back during the early days of the Roosevelt administration the construction of low-rent public housing was first authorized. The bill set up housing authorities for the announced purpose of replacing the slums in our great metropolitan centers with modern housing at low rentals that low-income families could afford. The housing was to be built with funds received from the sale of Government-backed, tax-exempt bonds. Since the rental was to be based upon ability to pay and only people with low incomes were to be eligible for occupancy, the cost of maintaining and operating these housing units and retiring the bonds would be more than the income from them. This difference was to be made up by an appropriation by C_ongress each year; in other words, by other taxpayers. .

In actual practice, although thousands of these units were built, the slum dwellings in the big cities, with few exceptions, were not torn down. Also, the Public Housing Administration got more and more ambitious, as governmental bureaus have a way of doing, and began expanding all over the country in areas far removed from big city slums.

The House finally rebelled against the fantastically mounting cost of the program and for the past 3 years has refused to continue it, only to have the Senate insist upon restoring it, with a resulting compromise.

Personally, we have opposed this program from its inception. Our opposition is based on the following facts:

First. The cost of the program is prohibitive. For example, it was shown in the hearings that if the Government built the housing requested in the overall program and then gave them. outright to the tenants, it would save $14 billion. That "saving" illustrates the astronomical costs involved.

Second. It is unsound for any agency to be able to issue its own Governmentbacked bonds without coming back to the Congress for approval. Such a practice could destroy the credit of the Government.

Third. It kills the initiative of the individual. For, once a person becomes a tenant, he cannot substantially improve his lot in life without being removed from his house as above the income limit.

Fourth. It is unjust and unfair for the Government to tax one individual, who is frugal and industrious and builds his own modest little home, to furnish a man who works alongside him, but who is not frugal and industrious, a better home than the taxpayer can afford.

12106 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE · July 29

Fifth. such a program results in the regimentation of the tenants, for it was disclosed in the hearings that in many instances the tenants were required to vote "right" or face removal. This is governmental regimentation at its worst.

Sixth. But aside from the merits of the legislation, there is another very serious objection. The Supreme Court recently held that, since these projects involved Federal funds, there could be no segregation bf the races in them. This simply means that the widespread construction of these units would furnish additional causes for friction among our white and colored people, which is already bad enough with the Supreme Court ruling on school segregation.

Since my people believe in segregation of the races in housing as well as in the schools, this simply means that they would be taxed to build and maintain this type of housing for other sections, for assuredly they would not tolerate the construction of integrated housing.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired.

CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, this is

a very important matter, and I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently no quorum is present.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

A call of the Ho1,1se was ordered, The Clerk called the roll, and the f9l- .

lowing Members failed to answer to their names:

[Roll No. 139) Anfuso Hoffman, Radwan Barden Ill. ·Reece, ':':'enn. Buchanan Kearney Reed, N. Y. Celler Krueger Rivers Chiperfield McGregor Shelley Clevenger - Morrison Sheppard Dingell Mumma TU ck Eberharter Perkins Vursell Gray Phillips Whitten Gl'egory Powell Williams, Billings Prouty N. J.

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 405 Members have answered to their names, a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed . with.

REPORT OF BOARD OF VISITORS · TO THE UNITED STATES COAST

GUARD ACADEMY .

Mr. GARY submitted the following report of the Board of Visitors to the United States Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn., May 6, 1955: ThePu:smENTOFTHESENATE. The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA•

TIVES.

GENTLEMEN: Pursuant to section 194 of title 14 of the United States Code, the following Senators and Members of the House of Representatives were designated to constitute the 1955 Board of Visitors to the United States Coast Guard Academy:

By the Pl'esident of the Senate: Senator PRmcOTr BusH, Republican, Connecticut.

By the c~IrJnan of the Sen~te Committee ,on Inte~sta~ and Fo]'.eign Commerce: senator JOHN o. PASTORE. Democra_t, Rhode Is-

land; Senator WILLIAM A. PuRTELL, Republi• can, Connecticut.

By the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Representative J. VAUGHAN GARY, Democrat, Virginia; Representative FRANCIS E. DORN, Republican, New York; Representative JOHN J . .ALLEN, Jr., Republican. California.

By the chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries: Representative EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Democrat, Maryland; Representative LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, Democrat, Missouri.

Ex-officio members: · Senator WARREN A. MAGNUSON, Democrat, Washington ( chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and ,Foreign Commerce); Representative HERBERT C. BONNER, Democrat, North Carolina ( chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries) .

A meeting of the Board of Visitors was held at the Academy on May 6, 1955. The following members of the Board were present: Senator WILLIAM A. PURTELL, Republican, of Connecticut; Representative FRANCIS E. DORN, Republican, of New York; Representative J. VAUGHAN GARY, Democrat. of Virginia; Representative HERBERT C. BONNER, Democrat, of North Carolina; Representative JoHN J. ALLEN, Jr., Republican, of California; Representative EDWARD A. GARMATZ. Democrat, of Maryland.

The following officials of the United States Coast Guard, headquarters, were also present: Rear Adm. A. C. Richmond, Commandant; Rear Adm. W.W. Kenner, Chief of the Office of Personnel; Capt. Allen Winbeck, Assistant Chief of the Office of Personnel; Capt. W. P, Hawley, Chief of the Personnel ,Training and Procurement Division; and Capt. A. J. Hesford, Liaison Officer.

INSPECTION TOUR OF GROUNDS AND BUILDINGS Upon arrival at the Academy the Board, ac

companied by Rear A9m. R. J. Mauerman. Superintendent of the Academy, and members of his staff, made an inspection tour of the Academy grounds and buildings. A battalion review was taken by all members of the Board. The Board then had luncheon with the Corps of Cadets.

MEETING OF THE BOARD

Following luncheon, the Board members were joined by Admiral Richmond, Admiral Mauerman, and Capt. L. H. Baker, Assistant Superintendent of the Academy, in formal session during which the Honorable J. Vaughan Gary was elected Chairman of the Board. The general comments and specific recommenctations arrived at by the Board are herewith presented for the serious consideration of the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives:

GENERAL COMMENT~

The.matter of possible. sources of procurement for officers of the Coast Guard was discussed. Licensed officers of the merchant marine, and college graduates and enlisted men ·attending officer candidate school are the sources presently used, outside the regular Academy. Seventy perqent of the officers commissioned in the regular Coast Guard come from the cadet corps each year.

The suggestion was made that all members present do everything possible to interest their colleagues in disseminating information about the Coast Guard to eligible constituents.

The Board discussed the physical faciUties of the Academy and the Superintendent listed the following needs in order of priority.

Installation of al} oll-burning boiler and tanks to replace present heating plant. (Cost approximately $190,000, but this would be offset within 5 years by the saving ln manpower and fuel.) . Co1J,structic;>n of a new messhall to adequately provide for all cad,ets. ( Cost ap-proximately $~70,000.) ·

Extension of present dormitory to house entire cadet corps. Many students live in temporary wooden barracks and adequate quarters should be provided. (Cost approximately $1 million.)

Heating of field house to permit use of this as a drill hall in winter weather. (Cost approximately $10,000.)

The completion of these items would place the facilities of the Academy in good condition. The expansion is necessary since the plant was originally designed to hold approximately 200 cadets, and the student body runs over 500 every year, necessitating the use of the temporary buildings constructed during World War n. · The Board also met in informal private session with the principal battalion officers of the corps of cadets without the presence of officials bf the Coast Guard. The Board .was impressed with the character and caliber of the members of the cadet corps, and with the high morale evident among the cadets.

In the discussion with the cadets, the following improvements were suggested:

Improvement in room lighting for study purposes (funds have been requested for this item; estimate $7,500).

Additional showers room in gymnasium for visiting teams (if funds can be made available in fiscal 1956, this will be accomplished; estimate $6,000).

Additional squash courts (in view of other priorities, this cannot be accomplished at present; estimate $25,000).

Questions on curriculum, honor system, class spirit, and fraternization are all under study by the Advisory Committee, the Academic Board, and the Superintendent. The question of longevity credit for time served as a cadet was presented. Various legislative b11ls · to secure such credit have been introduced from time to time, but to .date none have passed.

During the course of the visit individual members of the Board arranged for private interviews with the members of the Cadet Corps from their respective districts. These discussions bore out the general impression of the high standards of the Academy and its curriculum, and the superior quality of its staff and Cadet Corps. The Board found that almost all States and Territories of the United States are represented in the Cadet Corps, even though entrance to the Academy is gained only by means of a nationwide competitive examination •.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The installation of two new oil-burning boilers in the heating plant to replace the present coal-burning plants. This will result in a saving of manpower and fuel costs, and will eliminate the necessity of costly and uneconomical repairs to the present system. · · · ·

2. Construction of a new cadet messhall ·large enough to accommodate 560 cadets. The galley has been completed, but at present it is necessary to use three connected messhalls to accommodate the cadets and officer candidates.

3. Construction of a new extension on the dormitory to house the expanded Cadet Corps. The cadets are now crowded 3 in a room and it is necessary to us·e a 3-story World War II temporary barracks to accommodate the overflow.

4. Heating of the fieldhouse which is used as a drill hall to permit its use during the winter weather. All of these Items are carried on the agenda for action at such time as funds can be made available.

CONCLUSION The Board is pleased to enter upon the

r•cord its admiration of the excellent morale and spirit that exists throughout the Academy.

The Board commends the Superintendent. .Rear Adm. R, J. Mauerman, and his staff for their untiring efforts in mainta~ning '. the

19S-5 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - - HOUSE 12107 high standards in evidence of this outstanding institution.

The Board wishes to ex,iend its thanks to Vice Adm. A. C. Richmond, commandant; Rear Adm. W. W. Kenner, Chief of the Office of Personnel; Capt. Allen Winbeck, Assistant Chief of the Office of Personnel; Capt. W. P. Hawley, Chief of the Personnel Training and Procurement Division, and Capt. A. J. Hesford, liaison officer, for the assistance rendered by them.

The Board earnestly recommends to an Members of the Senate and House of Representatives that they assist in every way possible in bringing the Coast Guard Academy to the attention of eligible candidates, and urging their constituents to participate in the nationwide competitive examination held on the fourth Monday and Tuesday in February each year.

The Chairman and members of the Board wish to express their appreciation to the battalion officers and other members of the Cadet Corps for their very helpful assistance in enabling the Board to understand fully all aspects of the functioning of the Academy.

The Board strongly recommends to all Members of the Senate and House of Representatives that at a convenient opportunity they visit the institution, inspect its grounds and buildings, classrooms and laboratories, and judge for themselves its · facilities and needs. There is every reason to be proud of the plant, -equipment, and accomplishments of the Coast Guard Academy.

J. VAUGHN GARY, Chairman. FRANCIS E. DORN. HERBERT C. BONNER. WILLIAM A. PURTELL,

JOHN J. ALLEN, Jr. EDWARD. A. GARMATZ.

HOUSING AMENDMENTS OF 1955 Mr. ALLEN. of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,

I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. MORANO],

Mr. MORANO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July_ 28, the Senate confirmed, among other nominations, the nomina:tions of the Honorable BROOKS HAYS, of Arkansas, and the Honorable CHESTER E. MERROW, of New Hampshire, to be representatives of the United States to the 10th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I wish to commend our President for having made these two splendid choices. Both of these distinguished colleagues are conscientious and hardworking members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and will bring to their new assignment at the United Nations rich experience in the field of international organization affairs.

In the- fall of 1953, along with the distinguished gentleman from Michigan {Mr. BENTLEY], I had the honor of serving as a member of a special study mission of the Foreign Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the distin:guished gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. MERROW], which visited an of the specialized · agencies of the United Nations in Europe. The study mission filed a very thorough report, House Report 1251, 240 pages in length, covering the relations of the United States and the Specialized agencies of the United Nations and also other international organizations in which the United States par; ticipates. During the 83d Congress, thorough . and exhaustive hearings were condv.cted by_,the Subcommittee on In-

ternational Organizations and Movements, under the chairmanship of Mr. MERROW, and of which Mr. HAYS was a member. These hearings were held during both the first and second sessions and the printed copies are still in great demand by the public and officials throughout the Government. The hearings reflect the painstaking efl'orts which the chairman, Mr. MERROW, took in placing all the facts before the public in a spirit of complete fairness.

Truly, Mr. Speaker, these two distinguished members of the Foreign Affairs Committee are eminently fitted to represent the United States at the forthcoming session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I feel certain they will bring to this assignment the same zeal, the same· diligence, the same statesmanship, and the leadership which they have constantly demonstrated as members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. BUDGE].

Mr. BUDGE. Mr. Speaker, although the parliamentary situation is somewhat confusing, it is my intention to offer an amendment either to the Wolcott substitute or to the committee bill which will grant the Atomic Energy Commission the same right as the Secretary of Defense in making certifications for assisting in financing housing in areas where the Atomic Energy Commission shall find that acute shortages exist.

The purpose of the amendment would be to give the Atomic Energy Commission this right, even though it may never be used, so that in the event its utilization should become necessary the Commission will have the statutory authority.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. SMITH].

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, here we go again on the famous social~ ized public-housing project which we have been dealing with for the past 5 years. This House has defeated it repeatedly. The other body has put it back in. It has always gone to conference, and we have gotten ·beaten in conference, of course. Last year we repealed public housing. We repealed the authorization for public housing, Public housing is as dead as a doornail, and the simple question that is going to be presented to the House on this measure is whether or not you propose to re-enact a measure that this House has four times repudiated and once repealed.

That is the question that is going to be presented. And the way it is going to be presented is by this method of ha vin&" a very popular bill come up in connection with a very unpopular bill and trying to have the popular bill carry the unpopular bill. And if it does not do it, get it over into the other body and have it put on over there and come back with it.

This bill as framed undertakes to carry along the weak and repealed and repudiated socialized housing in the popular bill for FHA. And, as i; say, if it does not do that here they propose to go over to the other body and after conference bring it back to us here, when nobody

is looking, when everybody is busy with something else, and pass it; which will have the effect of reenacting the repudiated housing bill. That looks like skulduggery and I am opposed to all skulduggery, except when I am a party to it. I just do not like the other fellow's skulduggery.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I just

want to say that I never knew the gentleman to be engaged in any skullduggery.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Well, I do not publish it.

I want to tell the House what has happened on public housing. It was enacted in 1949. The House discovered that it was socialism, pure and simple, when it came here. Those were the days of the Fair Deal, you know. And my friends on the Republican side made a ·noble fight to defeat that piece of socialistic legislation. And we came within four votes of defeating the original bill.

Then we came along in 1951, and the Gossett amendment was put in to strike it out of the appropriation bill. My friends on that side made a noble fight again for honest democratic government. We defeated it 181 to 113.

Then again in 1952, on the Fisher amendment, my conservative, solid, sound Republican friends on that side of the aisle, before we had elected Mr. Eisenhower, made another noble fight and it was defeated again by 192 to 168.

In 1953 we repealed it by a vote of 245 to 157. Last year we voted it down again by a vote of 211 to 176.

Of course, we are going to have to fight socialism all through the years. You will be fighting it when I am gone from this floor, and I hope you will continue the fight. We are fighting it again this time and I am appealing to my friends on that side of the aisle, who went to the country in 1952 and gave the country great hope that they, the great conservative party of the country, were going to restore to us sound government and sound financing. I wonder if they are going to do it today. Some of them have not been doing it and I have chided them before and I warned them before. I do not understand why you do not understand it. You lived with the New Deal for 20 years. You lived with the Fair Deal for 10 years. Those boys have the experience and the knowledge. You cannot come here and out-deal them with the Ike deal; you cannot do it. You keep on trying and you are losing a lot of friends who believe in sound, conservative government. I just hope that you are going to stand up with your other conservative friends and restore our faith, which we have had in your philosophy of sound government and :vote down this public housing,

Do you know what public housing is? I know our old Members do; some of the new Members do not. But put in its simplest terms, here is what the socialized public housing in this bill contains, in its simplest terms. in one sentence: It taxes one citizen and takes the money out of his pocket .to. pay the house rent of another citizen.


Mr. TABER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. TABER. Does the gentleman know and does the House know that if we go ahead with this setup and keep going on with it year after year the cost will run to $8 billions to the Federal Government for subsidies?

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I think the gentleman minimizes the figure. It has been estimated before the Rules Committee it will run as high as $18 billions before this program is concluded.

Mr. TABER. That may be, and that makes it worse.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. But if you have no intention of balancing the budget, if that idea has been totally abandoned under the present administration, I do not know that there is very much we can do about it.

Mr. Speaker, I just hope that we are going to do what we have been doing. I hope when this piece of skullduggery, of bringing it back here in a conference report, reaches its culmination and it is presented to the House again, we will stand up again and stay here until Christmas before we ever agree to this kind of outrageous piece of socialistic legislation that takes the money out of the pocket of one of your constituents and pays the house rent of another. Who can justify it? Nobody.

Mr. Speaker, there will be presented today a bill from your leader on the Committee on Banking and Currency, the former chairman and now ranking ·minority member of that committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WoLcoTTJ. That will be presented as a substitute bill. It gives you everything the country needs except public housing, and it strikes out public housing. If you all over there will stand with the conservatives over here, and give the country some encouragement that you really are for a conservative, sound, sane, democratic government, we are going to beat this thing. I look to you to stand with us as you have stood before and defeat this monstrosity.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COOLEY. If we all vote this time as we did last time we will certainly beat it. The gentleman does not mean to intimate that any of these gentlemen are going to change in 6 months?

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Some funny things have happened around here in the last few days. I think that some of my dear friends on the other side of the aisle, having been subjected to the cruel whiplash of party discipline, come here this morning with bowed head and humble heart.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MARTIN. May I ask the gentleman from Virginia if he has not seen a few changes on his side of the House in the last few days? Some of them were so whiplashed we did not get a single vote on that side.

. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I deplore it on both sides.

Mr. MARTIN. I wish the gentleman had set the example. Then they would not need it.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I think I have done pretty well in my time. May I say to my dear friend, the distinguished minority leader, that all of us slip sometimes, and I think that is true even of our distinguished minority leader.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LATHAM].

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who has just addressed the House is one of the :finest and one of the greatest Americans in this Congress. It has been a pleasure to serve with him on the Committee on Rules. I agree completely with most everything that he has said this morning on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, the bill which was brought before the House this morning under the rule is not at all the President's program. It is not the President's program insofar as the number of units is concerned. It is not the President's program with · regard to many other very, very important substantive matters. If you will turn to the report on page 33, you will :find there listed 4 or 5 of the very important items which were stricken from the proposals of this administration and the existing law.

The :first thing that was stricken, I am reading from page 33 of the report, was an amendment which provides for negotiation and settlement of contracts for public housing which has not been completely constructed where disapproval of the public housing to be provided under the contract has been expressed by referendum.

In other words, under this bill, as it is before the House today, which the gentleman from Vir.iginia [Mr. SMITH] has asked you to turn down, you can force public housing down the throats of a community that has voted against it.

Another provision which has been stricken from the bill presently before the House, and again this is to be found on page 33 of the report, is:

(2) A proviso that no new contracts with respect to public housing shall be entered into which would bind PHA for any future years with respect to loans or annual contributions for any additional dwelling units unless authorized by Congress to do so.

That is a very important restriction which was taken out of the legislation presented to the Committee on Banking and Currency by the administration.

Third, the so-called Roanoke amendment has been stricken, which prohibited the Public Housing Administration from authorizing the construction of any projects in any locality in which the projects have been rejected by the governing body.

In other words, these 3 provisions have been stricken from the bill so that they can force public housing down the throats of people who do not want it, and who voted against it.

The fourth ancl a very important provision they have eliminated is the requirement for the so-called Gwinn amendment. The report does not say

what the Gwinn amendment is, but most of us know it is the requirement that before any person can get a housing unit, he must sign a statement that he was :pot a member of a subversive organization. That provision has been stricken by the Committee on Banking and Currency from the bill which is now before you.

I might ask the question generally: Why is it that they do not want such a statement to the effect that they are not subversive? Why is that so?

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for an answer to the question?

Mr. LATHAM. I yield. , Mr. MULTER. The reason that provision was eliminated is that except in the State of New York, in almost every other State, and there were at least 7 other States where the courts have passed on the question in each of those States where the highest court in the State decided the question, the State courts have held that that provision is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Mr. LATHAM. I challenge that statement. I say that the question has not yet been definitely decided by the higher courts. There have been some decisions but they have been in conflict.

Mr. MULTER. In the State of New York it has not been passed on by the court of appeals.

Mr. LATHAM. Why did the Committee on Banking and Currency have to lean over backwards, and before there was a final . determination, · and strike this provision out of the bill. I am sorry, I decline to yield further. .

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Members of the House there is_ as much difference between the President's program on housing and this banking and currency bill as there is between Neapolitan ice cream and limburger cheese.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. I yield. Mr. FULTON. What is the difference

between this bill as it now stands and the President's program on the number of housing units? Can the gentleman spell that out a little more in detail?

Mr. LATHAM. I believe, there are 10,000 units for college housing which were not in the President's program and 10,000 units for people over 65 under very vague general conditions.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time on this side, 5 minutes, to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA].

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am mindful that this is the administration of which Senator Taft might have been the head. I am mindful that during this administration Senator Taft was borne to his grave and the Nation grieved. I am mindful that public housing, as we expressed it in the law of 1949 was the child of the brain and the creation of the heart of Senator Taft. I am mindful that the man now in the White House-and but for a little turn of fate it instead might have been President Taft-because many called him "Mr. Republican" as for years he had carried

1955, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE 12109 the banners of the Republican PartyI am mindful that the man now in the White House said, "Yes, we must have public housing.'' And the bill that is now presented to you-and I do not care what they say-I do not like this knifing, this bringing up -poisonous prejudices-the bill incorporated here is substantially the program of the President of the United States. Where do you Republicans who followed Senator Taft land if you. reject the bill . to keep alive Senator Taft's program? Where do you Republicans who were elected hanging to President Eisenhower's coattails land if you reject the bill that incorporates his program?

I do not want controversy. I wish we might ha-ve understanding. We of the urban centers try. to understand the problems of the farmers of the West and of the South. We even try to understand the problems of the peanut growers. We want this to be a bigger and a finer Nation, and to realize the responsibilites of its destiny by knitting closer together all our ·people . . As we of the urban centers try to understand your problems, can we not expect of you a similar willingness in trying to understand our problems?

The great mayor of Philadelphia came before our committee and said that urban democracy is dying.

In the city from which I come, within the last 5 years we have had an increase in population of over 600,000 persons, and included in that were 3,000 American Indians, who are now seeking housinri' in . the district that I represent. .

You in the Congress and in your wisdom drew up the Indian relocation program, and you provided that the Indians who wished to leave tribal lands and come to the city might do it. As a result of this program that you provided, we in Chicago and in the district that I represent have 3,000 American Indians that we are trying to take care of, to educate in urban ways and meanwhile to house in an area already suffering from a housing shortage.

I hope there will be understanding. I hope that my dear friends from Virginia and from Mississippi-Jmd I know how true are their hearts if once understanding comes to dispel confusion-I wish they would try to understand our problem and to help us. I am in complete agreement with that great statesman from Mississippi when he said we should legislate today not for one group but we should legislate for all America. That is what we are asking you to do. If urban democracy falls, all democracy falls.

Do· not let a death blow fall upon the public housing program that is an everlasting monument to the memory of Senator Taft. Do not let that for which he lived pass with his passing. When that great statesman from the wonder• ful · State of Virginia turns to you Republicans to court you and to say, "Come along with us and be merry while the flames destroy the structure and the democracy of the big cities," may I suggest that you go not a-flirting but in.stead retire for contemplation to the grave of one who was your great leader who today might have been President

and who said on April 21, 1949, on the eve of the enactment of the Housing Act of 1949 that today it is sought forever to destroy:

The general theory of subsidizing lowincome groups is not a new theory in AngloSaxon political life or Anglo-Saxon economic life. The . general theory that the government has a duty to assist the lowest income groups has been accepted in England for centuries; it is accepted today. It is accepted in every State of the Union, and it does not involve · any depart;ure in principle from that which we have pursued during the 150 years of the life of the Republic. We have tried different methods of accomplishing the result. . We have had poorhouses. We have county homes in nearly every county of the United States to look after those who cannot take care of themselves. ·Every city in the country provides free hospitals and free medical care. Every city and every township recognizes the obligation to provide food relief and to provide clpthing relief for. those who have no other means of obtaining the absolute necessities of life. I thin),t all of us acknowledge the duty of the community to take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves. That duty has been taught by every Community Chest in the United States. The American people are a charitable and ·humane people, and they do not want to see hardship and poverty in the midst o.f plenty.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON].

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Mr~ Speaker, I .confess that I agree .most heartily with the distinguished gentleman from New York that it is to be deplored that the-administratio_n's program has been so little regarded by the eminent Committee on Banking and Cur• rency. It is my earnest hope that there may come out of our deliberations today and possible conference with the other body a wise and farseeing housing legislation. It is not surprising that I should favor such legislation, for 22 years ago Ohio was the first State to enact a public housing law, and in 1934 the City of Cleveland was the first community in the Nation to begin low income public housing projects. Now the Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority owns and operates 5,585 low income public housing units which we feel are vital to the welfare of our community.

But, Mr. Speaker, housing need not and should not be a creature of Federal bureaucracy. We are demonstrating in Cleveland that there is a natural partnership ·between private enterprise, public assistance, and community support. The continuation of this endeavor depends entirely on the enactment of the legislation now before the House . .

For as long as I can remember the Kingsbury Run area in Cleveland has been a blight upon the landscape. It has never before been developed and it has long been associated with some of the city's most shocking crimes.

Now, an all-out effort is being made to create a model development in the area. Private builders, the City of Cleveland and the housing authority are developing 230 acr·es of Kingsbury Run into the Garden Valley project.

Here is what they intend to do, and how it relates to Federal legislation:

The land is being filled and a ravine culverted with Federal aid under the redevelopment program of the Housing Act of 1954.

About 450 private housing units will be erected to take care of self-sustaining families who are being dispossessed from another slum area now being torn down. These units will be built by the Cleve .. land Development Foundation, a non• profit organization formed by the· lead• ing industrialists in the Greater Cleveland area. These civic-minded business .. men have contributed $2 million to the development foundation. But they need credit advantages of t~is proposed legislation through the amendment of section 220 of the Housing Act of 1954 if the foundation's private money is to do the maximum job.

The Cleveland Metropolitan Housing · Authority will erect 784 low-income public housing units under authorization already granted.

The City of Cleveland will build a park, outdoor swimming pool, a baseball field, and so forth, as its contribution.

In one corner of this new area property owners will be encouraged to improve their homes under the urban re• newal program of the Housing Act of 1954.

HOUSING FOR ELDERLY FAMILIES

, This legislation also proposes the authorization of 10,000 dwelling units for the elderly for each of the next 2 years. Here again, Cleveland can advise the Na· tion on the benefits of sucli 'construc-tion. ·

Through the foresight and planning of Ernest J. Bohn, director of the Cleve• land Metropolitan Housing Authority, we have already opened a 14-story, 156-unit apartment building for elderly per• sons needing public low-income housing. The building offers two elevators, canti• levered galleries to provide maximum sitting and exercise space, with the sun on the east in the morning and on the west in the afternoon, hand bars for bath tubs, rails on the balcony corridors, lowset kitchen cupboards, automatic washers and driers, nonskid thresholds and many other essentials for the comfort and safety of the aged.

A home atmosphere, rather than that of an institution, pervade the building, since some young families with children are being placed on each floor. The as• sociation with younger couples will have a healthy psychological effect on the senior citizens.

Here again, private interest played an important part. Generous Clevelanders contributed to the creation and operation of the Golden Age Center-located on the main floor of this public building. The quarters include a game room, sew• ing room, craft room, lounge, kitchen, dining and meeting rooms. All are operated by a trained staff paid by this af .. filiate of our welfare federation, and is for the use of residents of the building as well for older persons in the Cleveland metropolitan area.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our housing progress in Cleveland and of Ernie Bohn, who is the moving force behind it. And we all agree with Mr.

12110 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE Jul.y 29

Bohn that good housing is the result of partnership. It cannot be done without local support. Neither can it be done without some help from the Federal Gov-ernment. _

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BAssl.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, it might seem strange that a country Congressman, so to speak, representing 16 rural counties in the great State of Tennessee, should come bef or~ this House in support of public housing.

After the Public Housing Act of 1949 became law, a city official of my hoi:netown of Pulaski, Tenn., asked me 1f I would · assist him in organizing a public housing authority for our town. I said, "Public housing? We do not need public housing here." He asked, "Will you take a trip with me?" I said I would.

He took me through some areas of my hometown that I did not know existed, where I saw people living in conditions I thought no American would live, in substandard housing, young children being raised under conditions that were worse than poverty.

Mr. Speaker, public housing is not designed to aid the generation that pays the rent-no; it does not aid the rentpaying generation, but it makes citizens, it makes real Americans out of those little boys and girls who live in the public housing units.

I have seen such changes occur in them after being placed in public housing units in my town. I have talked to the schoolteachers about the effect of public housing on the children, and the teacher said that after these children were placed in clean standard living conditions their attitude changed. The report was astounding-how their clothes were cleaner, their own personal appearance improved, their outlook on life improved. ·

Mr. Speaker, we hear many things about subversion and the threat of communism in America. The very breeding ground of communism is poverty. Poverty, hunger, and substandard housing as the late President Franklin Roosevelt once said, "Is the breeding ground of that element of society that would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nest." The only way that we can ever keep this country of ours strong is to have a well-housed and a happy America. A well-housed youth is a happy Nation. A happy America is a strong America. Yes, the strength of our Nation, Mr. Speaker, rests on the advancement of the youth who are being taken care of in our public housing units. I am not interested in decreasing the rents of the adults or that generation which pays the rents in these public housing units, but I am happy to stand on the floor of the House and endorse a program which I think advances the welfare of the youth of the Nation.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. ·

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Is the gentleman not confused between public housing as carried in this bill and what is known as slum clearance? What the gentleman has been describing pertains to the slum-clearance program.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. I am not confused. I am well a ware of the difference between the two programs.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. What I have been talking about, public housing, is not slum clearance and slum clearance is safe in the bill.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. I certainly am not confused, because I have worked as an unpaid commissioner of public housing for the past 6 years. I served as president of the Public Housing Officials of the State of Tennessee. I am aware of the full course that this program would take. I am aware of the fact that the slum clearance became a requisite for public housing in the last Housing Act passed by this Congress.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HOFFMAN].

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker what the gentleman from Tennessee '[Mr. BAssl, who just left the well has been saying you might have heard as long as I can remember from any soap box or pulpit anywhere in any city or town. It was a plea to take care of the undeserving as well as the deserving, who were in need. Of course, we all feel the same way about the unfortunate, but we do not all like to aid the la-zy, the indolent, or the wasteful. I do not know where the gentleman has been living and, while I am not a Pharisee, I want to thank God I do not live in the kind of a community he has described. In our country we have always taken care; we now take care of the unfortunate people who are unable to adequately care for themselves. In all my years I never knew one man, woman, or child who was hungry, in need of clothing, or without adequate shelter, without adequate fuel even the in cold North, in the district in which I live, that did not receive assistance. If the conditions to which the gentleman ref erred exist where he lives, all I have to say is that the people down there who were charitable, kindly, and Christian, were either blind or did not know the situation, or they did not perform their duty toward their un!ortunate fellow citizens.

What he would do, if I get his argument correctly, is to take everyone who does not have what he thinks he ought to have, give him a wet nurse or a bottle, and when he gets old enough to be weaned, take care of him the rest of his life.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. No. Mr. BASS of Tennessee. I did not

think you 'would. · Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Then

why did you ask? Mr. Speaker, I have heard his story

time and time again; it always appeals to and is effective with not only the kindly and generous, but with the

thoughtless, and while we all agree with the thought that we should take care of the unfortunate people no matter what the cause; except where they are lazy and will not work, we should let them go hungry or as we used to do in years gone by in our country, let them work on the rockpile making little ones out of big ones when the cause of their misfortune is their own disinclination to help themselves.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. In Berrien County and that great congressional district · the gentleman so ably represents, and where I was born--

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. And from which I am sorry the gentleman ever departed.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. They did have public housing, did they not?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. In Ber-rien County? ·

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois . . Yes; in Berrien County.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. When the factories came in there--. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. No; when

you and I were boys. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Oh, no.

We took care of our people. We took care of these people over there, as the gentleman well knows.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Sure we did, and we call those public houses poor houses.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. And a few of the homes may have been a disgrace to the community in which they existed. But the overwhelming number of the unfortunate were adequately and in kindness cared ·for by relatives or by the local communities. Today, for those who have no way of caring for themselves, we have homes with pleasant rooms or apartments, electric equipped, hot and cold water, food that is ample and tasty, quarters and surroundings equal to and in some. places better than the homes from which they came. The gentleman knows that many an individual cannot care for himself; that the Government cannot supply a home and an attendant for each and every dependent. With as much reason he might argue that each ill individual should be treated in his own home.

Oh, poorhouses. I know what the g~ntleman is talking about.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DONDERO]. .

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal already today, and we will hear more about low-cost housing and low-rent housing on the bill before us, S. 2126. Neither one exists in the United States. They both mean subsidized housing; subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers of the country. ·

Mr .. Speaker, I come from Oakland County, Mich. It. is the second largest county in the State. The population is about half a million. The county seat is Pontiac, where one of the great divisions of General Motors is located, the one

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12111 that makes.the Pontiac motorcars. Pontiac cars stand at nearly every curb in every town in the United States. Some other General Motors plants are located there-General Motors truck, Baldwin Rubber ·Co., Wilson Foundry, all connected with the automobile industry. It is an industrial city, with its environs, of nearly 100,000 population.

The city commission of that city, upon the request of citizens by the thousands who signed petitions, not only passed a resolution to express their opposition to public housing, but they went further than that. They passed an ordnance under the charter provisions of the city of Pontiac, prohibiting public housing and I am going to read that ordinance to you. It was passed on the 19th day of April this year, and here it is: ·

SECTION 1. That the citizens and taxpayers of the city of Pontiac oppose the establishment of additional public housing rental units in the city of Pontiac either through the use of municipal funds or with the financial assistance of the county, State, or Federal Government.

SEC. 2. Therefore, neither the city commission, city manager, Pontiac Housing Commission, or any other city of Pontiac employee or agent shall establish or in any manner negotiate, assist, or cooperate in the establishment of additional public housing · rental units in the city of Pontiac with either the county, State, or Federal Governments or any instrumentality of the county, State, or Federal Governments,

That is attested, passed, and adopted April 19, 1955, and became effective April 29-, 1955. .

Now, in addition to that, in the report on this bill on page 33 you will find a provision which, if thfs bill is adopted, repeals what is known · as the Roanoke amendment. What is the Roanoke ame~dment? It provi~~s. and I read:

. (3) The so-called Roanoke amendment which prohibited PHA from authorizing the construction of any projects in any locality in which the projects have been rejected by the governing body of the locality or by public vote unless the projects are subsequently approved by the same procedure through which they were rejected.

So, you are going to have this thing rammed down the throats of your city or any community in your district if this bill becomes law. The Roanoke amendment should stay in the law as it is. I am not in favor of the public housing sections of this bill. I am opposed to it.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The ques'tion is on

the resolution. The resolution was agreed to. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House resolve itself into the · Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 2126) to extend and clarify laws relating to the provision and improvement of housing, the elimination and prevention of slums, the conservation and development of urban communities, the financing of vitally needed public works, and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly, tb.e House resolved itself

into the Committee of the Whole House · on the State of the Union for the con-

sideration of the bill S. 2126, with Mr. WALTER in the Chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read

ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the issue has

been stated by the gentlemen who preceded me. This is a question whether you want to continue low-rent public housing or whether you want to kill it.

I think we all recognize that housing, and good .housing, is essential to the stability of our institutions and the happiness of our people. That is the issue. And I know of no question that has been presented to the Congress where there is so much diversity of opinion and so many irreconcilable statements as in regard to public housing.

I may say that you ought to be somewhat grateful to the Committee on Banking and Currency, for if it had not been for the patience and the perseverance of that committee who went before the Committee on Rules and obtained a .rule, you might not have had the opportunity to express your views or vote on this subject.

The Constitution of the United States places the legislative power in the Congress and not in any committee of the Congress. The Congress has never delegated to any committee the right to usurp its functions.

After a month, more than a month of delay, the Rules Committee has finally granted a rule. It has granted a rule in conformity with our wishes, but in that rule it has provided that the Wolcott amendment is in order as a substitute. That substitute was in order under 'the rules if it had not been stated in the rule itself. So we ask you in the consideration of this bill to consider it in some kindness to the Committee on Banking and Currency, who have by their persistence given you the opportunity to cast your vote upon it.

Is public housing socialistic and subversive of the fundamental principles of our Government, as those who fight it say it is? It has been supported through the years on both sides of the aisle by able conservative men who have been very much in favor of public housing. The President of the United States says he is in favor of public housing. In his message on January 6, on the State of the Union he said he was in favor of a firm commitment to authorize the construction of 70,000 low-rent public housing units. 35,000 a year over a period of 2 years. In his budget message on January 17, and it is in his budget now, he asked that 70,000 units be authorized over a period of 2 years. In his economic report he repeated that, and he said he wanted 70,000 low-rent public housing units.

Here are the excerpts from the three messages of the President:

State of the Union address, January 6, 1955: "We must also authorize contracts for a firm program of 35,000 additional public housing uni ts in each of the next 2 fiscal years.."

The budget--message from the President, January 17, 1955: "I recommend a 2-year authorization for contracts with local hous-

1ng authorities to pay cont:t:ibut~ons for an additional 35,000 low-rent units each year. Funds necessary for this purpose have been included in this budget."

Economic report of the President, transmitted· to the Congress, January 20, 1955: "For its part, the Cohgress should authorize the Public Housing Administration to enter into contracts for 35,000 additional units of low-rental public housing in each of the · next twc;> fiscal years, in· order to assist in the relocation of families displaced as a result of slum clearance, redevelopment, or · renewal programs."

Three times this year he said he was in favor of public housing, and I searched the record and he never said anything contrary to it.

I know when the issue is made we will find some gentlemen say that the President does not want it. We can rely only upon what the President says in his messages. He says it then not only to the Congress of the United States, he says it to the American people, so that every man, woman, and child in the United States who can read may know what he says. I think it is a reflection upon him for gentlemen of his own party, nien who are .intimate with him, to come here and say, "We had an interview with him and he does not want what in the well-considered messages sent to the American people he has told you he wants. He wants something else."

Mr. WOLCOTI'. Mr. Cha,irman, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, probably the issues have pretty much narrowed in this bill, as usual, to the question of public housing, It was advisable that a rule be granted in order that the House solve once and for all aga,in this question of public housing, So it was necessary that the Committee on Rules make in order, if they reported out any rule, the Senate bill. The Senate bill was before the House committee and the Senate-I should, in this respect, say the other body did a deplorable job on the housing bill. We have had housing legislation before us to my knowledge since 1937. I never saw a worse mess than what came to us from the other body. I am quick to add that the great House Committee on Banking and Currency, of which we are usually very proud, at least I am, did not do a, much better job. Neither the Senate bill nor the House amendments to the Senate bill constitute the President's program on housing-anything to the contrary notwithstanding. So it was thought advisable in an attempt to salvage something of the housing program that we start a,lmost from scratch again and see what could be done. So at the suggestion of the administration I prepared and introduced a bill, the bill H. R. 7473, but minus any public housing provisions. The provisions contained in the Senate language, the pro• visions contained in the House language do not reflect the wishes of the President in respect to public housing. The only similarity, even the much touted House committee language, is that it just hap.Pened by coincidence, perhaps, that both the President's recommendation and the action taken by the House committee provide for 35,000 units-a,nd there the similarity ends,


The bill, H. R. 7473, which is introciuced, will be offered as a substitute for both the Senate bill and the House amendments after the first section is read. It is a streamlined, stripped-down bill, but it contains all the essentials-every one of the essentials necessary to continue the housing program. It provides that title I, in respect to modernization loans, be continued until July 1, 1956.

It provides in effect and in substance and in fact for a continuance of the li'HA financing, and provides for addi'."' tional insurance authorization sufficient to carry the FHA program ·throughout this fiscal year 1956. It increases the authorization for that purpose by $3,-400,000,000. It is estimated that something less than that will be necessary to carry the program at the rate it is now going for the balance of this fiscal year. It provides for some military housing under the so-called Wherry Act, title VIII of the act, not as broad or as comprehensive as the House language provides for, nor as specific as the Senate language. But nevertheless, at the suggestion of the administration, Wherry financing is continued, but only for those projects which have already been certified by the Secretary of Defense.

Section 4 of the bill makes some technical changes which .we can pass over.

Section 5 of the substitute provides an additional $500. million for capital grant authorization for the urban renewal programs. That section also increases the amount of the capital grant authorization which could be used in any one State from $35 million to $70 million. All of the other provisions are controversial provisions, many of which, most of which, have not been parts of, and never have been included in any housing bill which we have enacted ..

It is unnecessary to enlarge the concepts of the housing program, for the reason that as of this moment we are building at an annual rate of 1,320,000 units, the greatest number which has ever been built in any 1 year. I may be in error. There might have been 1 cal_endar year when we got up to 1,400,000.

So it is not necessary to take up all of these controversial matters. If you want the program continued at the same rate that we are building housing units at the present time all we need to continue at that rate is this additional insurance authority.

I hope we take into consideration the potentialities of the actions which we might take and be realistic about this situation. If my substitute is adopted, it will continue the program about as is for another year.

If it is adopted and passed by the House the matter will go to conference, and I do not know of anything that is not in the Senate bill; I cannot conceive of anything in respect to housing that is not in the Senate bill, so almost anything that you can imagine will be before the conference, including public housing.

This House, as the gentleman · from Virginia has so rightly said, has denounced and refused to approve public housing on 4 or 5 occasions.

May I take just a ·moment to clear up in your minds my understanding of

the President's position on public housing? We must go back a year to the time when we were considering the ·Housing Act of 1954. You will recall that somebody had contended that the President wanted 140,000 housing units over a 4-year period. We had conferences with the President. The President, I believe, announced publicly, but surely privately, that his concern was only that :we have enough authority to build suffldent public housing units to house the people who were to be displaced by slumclearance project, urban-renewal projects, or because of other action taken .by the Government; in other words, if by Government action a person's shelter is taken away from him, then it is the duty of the Government to make available_saf e, sanitary shelter.

That was his purpose, and that is all we should provide for, and that is all we did provide for. We provided ample units, because it was at the President's suggestion that we wrote into the act these standards under which we have worked all this last year. Although we gave him an authorization of 35,000, and they have been working tinder standards which the President himself set up, they found in 51 weeks there was necessity for building only 142 of the 35,000 units; in other words, replacements of -safe, sanitary housing was found for all but 142 families who were displaced.

That is all the President wants; that is all he asked us to give him, and my bill does it.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PATMAN].

SHOULD BUILD 2 MILLION HOUSES A YEAR

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOLCOTT] that we are building enough houses, 1,320,000 a year; I think we should be building at least 2 million houses a year, at least 2 million.

At this time there is objection to the building program because they claim it will be inflationary. I do not agree that we should cut down on housing because of that danger, if it is a danger, because it can be corrected in a different way. . I do not believe we should cut down on installment purchasing because it is inflationary; you can deal with the inflationary problem in a different way from that; we do not have to deal with it in that way.

Mortgages that will be issued under the Wolcott bill will be one type that will be salable. They will go up and they will go down. The other type will be modernization loans. 'I'he bankers will receive 9.7 percent interest on a riskless security. The former will be sold in the open market and eventually they will go up and down. just like the United States Government bonds go up and down. It is a disgrace that our Government bonds go up and down just like a game of dice. These [indicating] are not a gambling device. They are too big for that. They are made large because no one by any stretch of the imagination could say that they are a gambling device. But they are used to illustrate the point I want to make.

· It is like using loaded dice. I have been told that if you roll the dice and on top there is either a 7 or an 11 you win your point, and the other person has lost. Somebody loses every time. These are loaded dice. They are so arranged that they will come up 7 or 11 every time There is no way to fail.

That is the way this Government bond market is operated. It is like loaded dice, they cannot fail. When they know what the market is going to do, and they do know what the open market is going to do because they are in the know, they can go ahead and sell bonds short until the market reaches a low point; then they can buy low and the same people with the same loaded dice will cause the market to go up and they sell those bonds high.

In 1954, under the loaded dice process, the large banks, principally in New York and the large cities, made $254 million, a quarter of a billion dollars, just on the increase in value of Government securities, in addition to the interest on those bonds. · That has become another important part of our banking system. It is a bad part and it should not exist. It gets good bankers out of the banking business into the gambling business and every time they win somebody else loses. It should not be that way. In 1953 they forced the price of bonds down, using loaded dice.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. - Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 5 additional minutes.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PATMAN. Briefly. Mr. KEARNS. I would like to ask the

gentleman, Did he support the highway bill and all the inflationary aspects of that bill?

Mr. PATMAN. I did not support the inflationary aspects of that bill. I did not support the administration's $21 billion bond proposal. This is the first time I have ever known the Republicans in one package vote for inflation, a cheaper dollar, an unbalanced budget and fiscal irresponsibility all at one time as they did when they voted for creating $21 billion in new money and credit. That is exactly what you did in that bill. I regret that my very good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MARTIN] for whom I have a high regard-he is one of our greatest Americans-kind of hit me below the belt the other day. Of course he did not intend .to and I forgive him for it. He claimed I had a worse record on sound money than he did.

Now, I know that is not true. There is not a Member of this House who has a better record on sound money and against inflation than I have. I will put it up against anybody, not only in this body but the other body, because in time of war, when it was necessary to have these controls, and what they called regimentation, I was down here fighting for them, and a lot of the Mem·bers on the other side were opposing them all the time although they were needed in time of war. So, my record is as good as that of any Member of this House or the other body on sound money

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12113 and against inflation and for fiscal responsibility and against unbalanced budgets.

I was sorry to see my good friends on the Republican side the other day come out in favor of all four of them at one time. Now, there is not a Member of this House that I dislike. I like them all. I have a high regard for every Member of this body and I am not personal when I attack the stand of our Republican friends on issues.

Now, in selling these Government bonds-I am telling you something that has not been known to too many-they are actually selling United States Government bonds short using the Open Market Committee to profit from it. In this morning's American Banker, July 29, 1955, on the editorial page-imagine this-it says: "The dealers who were selling 3's"-that is, United States Government securities at 3 percent-"for future delivery at slightly under par have already done very well."

LOADED DICE

In other words, they are selling their own United States Government securities in New York short and making all kinds of money out of it. Of course, naturally, they can. They are playing with loaded dice.

CHARGES

I think the Open Market Committee is guilty of malfeasance-and I want the gentleman from Michigan to hear thisI think the Open Market Committee is guilty of malfeasance and could be convicted of malfeasance. Of course, there is no specific crime or penalty for malfeasance in that office, but you can be guilty of it just the same. That board is composed of 7 members of the Board of Governors and 5 representatives of the private bankers, and I believe if the proper investigation were made, leaks will be shown, leaks that have made hundreds of millions of dollars for people in the know, for their friends, for their relatives, and -for- their business associates. The $410 million made by the commercial banks in 1954, which we know about, was chicken feed compared to what was made by persons, firms, and corporations generally who were in the know. And, I believe when we get the right kind of investigation-and that is what I wanted the gentleman to hearwe will disclose and discover corruption in the administration of this crapshooting with loaded dice in the New York Federal Reserve Bank, condoned and approved by the Open Market Committee of the United States Government. Why does the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee so violently oppose such an investigation? THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION AND THE BANKS

First. One of the first tasks to which the new administration turned after the election of 1952 was to install bankers and their associates in the key bottleneck and high policy positions in Government. The single most important job of the new administration was in their own words· to restore "freedom in the money market."

Second. The first appointments made by the new administration were the important Treasury and Budget Bureau

top-level jobs, where the finance decisions are made. These went to George Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, a. member of the executive committee of the National City Bank of Cleveland; W. Randolph Burgess, formerly economic policy adviser to the American Bankers Association, served as president of the American Bankers Association, served as manager of the Open Market Account at the New York Federal Reserve Bank, chairman of the executive committee of the National City Bank of New York, and was appointed Assistant to the Secretary of Treasury in charge of debt-management and monetary affairs; Joseph M. Dodge, appointed to be Director of the Bureau of the Budget, was president of the Detroit National Bank and a former president of the American Bankers Association.

In addition to these appointments, General Eisenhower announced on December 19, 1952, that he had asked former New York Stock Exchange President William Mcchesney Martin to continue to serve as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The Wall Street Journal J?Ointedly commented:

General Eisenhower has asked Mr. Martin to keep the post, and he has decided to do so. Until this surprise development, Mr. Martin had planned to resign as Chairman but stay on as a member of the Board. The significance of the Eisenhower action is this: His administration will look on the Federal Reserve not so much as an instrument to support Government bond prices but as an agency to regulate the supply and value of money. Mr. Martin is a strong believer in an independent Reserve System-working in partnership with the Treasury. ·

Third. In addition to these men of finance and banking, the President called in the following top-level officials from the financial world:

Robert Cutler, Boston investment banker, to serve as the President's Special Assistant;

Kenton R. Cravens, St. Louis banker, to liquidate RFC and supervise sale of its earning assets to financial institutions.

Guy M. Gidney, President Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, as Comptroller of the Currency.

Marion Folsom, Directo1 New York Federal Reserve Bank, Under Secretary of Treasury on tax affairs.

R. B. Anderson, Deputy Chairman, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, Secretary of the Navy, later Deputy Secretary of Defense.

In addition, Philip Young, Director, New York Federal Reserve Bank, was installed as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. The bankers were taking no chances. Not a single bottleneck position was left uncovered. Even selection of lower echelon personnel would not escape scrutiny by some member of the banking fraternity.

Fourth. During the consideration of a bill to increase the debt limit from $275 billion to $290 billion in the first session of the 83d Congress, a Member of Congress asked the Secretary of the Treasury the following question and received the following reply:

Question. We have to keep these balances in the banks, upon which they pay us no interest, and on every dollar they loan the

United States Government, we pay them interest on it. We don't have to bribe them or subsidize them to buy Government bonds <io we?

Secretary HUMPHREY. Yes: we do.

During hearings on United States . monetary policy conducted by the Joint Committee on the Economic Report in December 1954 questions were submitted to the Secretary of Treasury, including one which sought to determine whether in handling Government transactioilS4 the banking system "is being excessively compensated or undercompensated ?" W. Randolph Burgess, Under Secretary for Monetary Affairs, replying, answered in part:

Bank profits have not been high compared with other kinds of business and compared with the need to build up capital funds to protect their customers• funds.

· Fifth. One of the very first moves in the field of financing residential construction benefited investment and mortgage bankers tremendously. It involved a rather curious action which the Secretary of the Treasury has been invited to explain on a number of occasions but has not done so satisfactorily yet. The Senate Banking and Currency Committee in January 1953, soon after the inauguration of the President, called in the VA and FHA officials-Mortgage Interest Rate Problem, hearings, January 28, 1953-in an effort to get them to agree to an increase in the rate of interest that might be charged on Government-underwritten mortgages. To the credit of those public officials they insisted that the prevailing 4-percent rate on VA mortgages and the 4 ¼-percent rate on FHA mortgages were effective rates and did not need to be raised.

On April 9, 1953, Secretary Humphrey announced he was offering a 30-year bond at 3 ¼ percent. On April 10, 1953, the president of the National Association of Home Builders said:

Treasury action in announcing a 3¼-percent interest rate for long-term Government bonds has transformed the tight market for VA and FHA mortgages into a national emergency. This action kills the GI homebuilding program unless corrective action is taken.

On Saturday, May 2, 1953, a day not ordinarily devoted to the conduct of Government business, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the reluctant Veterans' Administrator to raise the VA mortgage rate from 4 . percent to 4 ½ percent. The- FHA immediately announced that they would raise their rate from 4¼ percent to 4½ percent.

The increase was unnecessary because on May 6, just 4 days later, the Federal Reserve reversed policy and began pumping credit into the system. Both Secretary Humphrey and Reserve Board Chairman Martin have testified that cordial relations exist between the two agencies and each keeps the other informed as to their respective plans. The Reserve Board did not decide on May 6 that it would change policy, Such a move had been under discussion for some time. It is inconceivable that the Treasury was not advised about ft.

The single decision by the Secretary of the Treasury to raise the rate on Government-underwritten home mortgages


has meant millions of dollars of extra profits for bankers and millions of extra interest expense for home buyers.

Another act of intervention by the Secretary of the Treasury which has

.helped sweeten the pot for bankers relates to the expanded use of the certificates of interest pool by the CCC. According to testimony submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture before a committee of this House, Secretary Humphrey urged that the CCC make greater use of the private banks in firi'ancing the commodity credit crop supportprogram rather than borrowing directly from the Treasury. The result · is a hig,her interest charge which is charged up to the cost of the farm program and greater profits for the bankers.

Sixth. Another early target of the bankers was the RFC. Liquidation of the RFC and disposition of its most valuable earning assets to the big banks and life insurance companies was carried out under the supervision of a St. Louis banker, Mr. Kenton Cravens.

In place of RFC the Small Business Administration was created. Care was taken so that his agency would provide little or no credit aid to small business and would in no way hamper the banks. Interest rates on direct loans were raised 20 percent above the rate charged by the RFC; that is, from 5 percent to 6 percent. The revolving fund was cut from the

· $100 million authorization available to RFC for small business, to less than $50 million under SBA. ·

To oversee the operations of SBA and keep a tight checkrein on its policies, the Secretary of the Treasury, referred to in some knowledgeable quarters as the choice of the Wall Street bankers, was named a member of the Loan Policy Committee. Along with the Secretary of Commerce we have former big business and big banking figures dominating the three-man Loan Policy Board of SBA.

The American Bankers Association has, however, never concealed its opposition to even a limited Small Business Administration. The recent action of the Banking and Currency Committee to raise the maximum amount that SBA could lend unquestionably caused great alarm among the ABA leadership. It would not be surprising to find that the ABA had communicated its views on this matter to the chairman of the Rules Committee if he had not already known about them.

Seventh. The banking and financial fraternity have had a number of other reasons to be thankful to this administration and to the Republican Party. When it was proposed that Congress look into the operations of the Federal Open Market Committee and the half a billion dollars in profits banks made on Government securities transactions in 1954 the Republicans met in conference and decided to k111 House Resolution 210. As in the case of the Small Business Administration amendments, my good friend, Judge Smith, also lent a helping hand; worked for the def eat of House Resolution 210.

Eighth. Many members of the bank, ing fraternity have ·expressed · their · alarm at the rate of home b.uilding · and what is regarded as an excessive

amount of mortgage lending which may be left exposed if an oversupply of housing results in some decline in prices and values. This fear, I am sure, is not unrelated to the fact that we do not have a housing bill this session.

Ninth. In preparation for the 1954 congressional elections the Republican National Committee realized that the result of fallowing bankers' policies had not endeared them to the electorate. What was more natural than to decide that since bankers had been the beneficiaries of policies which made the Republicans' election tasks more difficult, they should take over some of the burden of the 1954 campaign. It was not surprising, therefore, that the last president of the American Bankers Association, W. Harold Brenton. was named chairman of the Finance Committee for the 1954 election campaign,

Tenth. With the results of the 1954 election not reassuring to the bankers it was decided to accelerate carrying out the program to enrich bankers.

The expanded highway program was a natural. The job of coming up with the recommendations for financing was left to a five-man committee. This committee, appointed by President Eisenhower, had three banking representatives. The banks represented: Marine Midland Trust, J.P. Morgan, and Bankers Trust, of New York, are all in the business of investing in governments. Bankers Trust is, in fact, a member of that inner circle of recognized dealers in governments. It has been estimated that the $21 billion bond issue which the Clay committee recommended could not be marketed at less than 3¼ percent under the conditions set up by the committee; that is, that they would be obligations of a Government corporation. The interest cost on these 30-year bonds would run about $13 billion, more than half of the sum available for highway building. The committee's · proposal would actually involve about $3 billion in higher interest costs than if the same amount of money was raised directly by the Treasury at 2½ percent.

The reason there is no highway bill today is that the Republicans were for a bill with a bankers' bonus or no highway program at all.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is · not present.

The CHAIRMAN. One hundred and ten Members are present, a quorum.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. CANFIELD].

Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA] was quite right in his ref-erences to the late Senator Taft as a champion of public housing, The Senator was an original sponsor of the program and he never wavered. His last public address was as a speaker at the banquet concluding the annual convention of the National Housing Conference at the Hotel Statler here in the Nation's

· Capital late in May 1953, and in this address J?.~. reaffirmeq. ·e:µii>haticaUy · his strong belief in publie housing.

Nor can anyone dispute the fact that President Eisenhower is a strong advocate of this program and has recommended its continuance. I recall that when he addressed a large audience at the dedication of a public housing project in New York City some months ago he said that he saw before him more than brick, stone, and glass. He saw "the soul of America."

The President is not trying to drive America into socialism. Nor was "Bob" Taft, whom so many knew as "Mr. Republican."

Yesterday in this Chamber there was approved without dissent a conference report--the final vote-on the multibillion-dollar · foreign-aid bill. Check with the staff of the House Appropriations Committee, and you will note, among other things, this bill provides for the expenditure of millions of dollars for social welfare and housing in foreign lands. There was no argument about this item. But when we now, as in the past, seek to authorize the continuance of a housing program for our own people, we are "wasters and socializers."

Go to the top of our congressional office buildings, and we can see slum areas within a few blocks most unworthy of our America. . I am informed that the net income

of families which were admitted to lowrent public housing projects in 1953-the last year for which full figures are readily available-averaged $2,042 a year, and of these families 23.5 percent had incomes of less than $1,500.

It disturbs me greatly to have to listen to the argument that while the Senate has approved a public housing program in its housing bill we should pass "only a skeleton bill in the hope that House and Senate conferees will come up with something that may be all right." This contention, of course, is advanced only by those who would kill all public housing, .

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BROWN].

Mr. BROWN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of S. 2126. The bill, as reported, is a comprehensive measure designed to extend and clarify laws relating to housing, · to assist our people to acquire good homes, and to assist our communities to develop wholesome neighborhoods. In addition to general housing amendments, the bill provides programs in the areas of public facilities loans, college housing, armed services housing and farm housing,

Mr. Chairman, we spent several days in consideration of this bill in the committee. There was no mention of a substitute and no discussion of a substitute. There are some things in this bill that I do not like so well; others I do. The proper thing to do is to take this bill up, read it section by section, and amend it. I, myself, would like to vote for 1 or 2 amendments that might be offered.

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

Up to 1932 most prospective buyers ha:d to make a downpayment of at least 25 per¢ent of the appraised: value of the ·, property. A first mortgage would prob-

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE 12115 ably be limited to a half or two-thirds of the appraised value. On this mortgage the borrower would pay anywhere from 6 to 8 percent interest.

The loan would have a maturity of .3, 4 or 5 years, but sometimes less. If a second mortgage was necessary, as it usually was for families of moderate incomes, the purchaser could obtain one by paying a discount to the lender and perhaps a commission may have amounted to 15 or 20 percent of the loan. Interest on the second mortgage would be 8 percent or more.

The borrower was periodically at the mercy of arbitrary and unpredictable forces in the money market. When money was easy to get, renewal every 1 to -5 years was no problem. But if his mortgage expired at. a time when money was hard to get, it might be impossible for the homeowner to secure a renewal, and foreclosure would ensue.

This was . the situation in the early thirties. Foreclosures totaled 150,000 in 1930, nearly 200,000 in 1931, and 250,000 in 1932.

The Federal Housing Administration has changed all this. Today the home buyer faces no such formidable conditions. He can make a downpayment of as little as 5 percent. If he is a veteran he may not need to make any downpayment at all.

His interest on an FHA-insured loan is 4 ½ percent plus ½ percent to cover the cost of insurance. The loan may run for as long as 30 years. On a VAguaranteed loan,· the interest is 4 ½ percent net.

During this entire period he will have no cares about periodic renewals. At the end of the period the title to his property will be clear. The house will belong to him.

, The character of the loan was changed. It is an amortized loan on which payments of both interest and principal (and, in many cases, taxes and insurance as well) are made monthly during the life of the loan. Making arrangements for financing the home has become a one-time transaction. Monthly payments are geared to the borrower's prospective income.

In the twenties a family could acquire a home only after many years of saving to meet the high initial costs. After a downpayment was finally made, interest costs on payments were high. Hopes of owning a home usually were deferred to middle or later life. There always was the risk of sudden foreclosure and liquidation.

Today a family can get a home early in life. The initial cost is relatively low. Monthly payments are reasonable and there is protection against sudden foreclosure caused by economic fluctuations.

The home has become a reality to most A:merican families when they need it most-to bring up the family, not simply to retire to· when _the children have grown up. · · Earlier this year the Congress enacted

S. 2126 which would authorize FHA mortgage· insurance up to the aggregate of . outstanding insurance liability and commitments on .June 30, 1955, plus $4 billi,on. The amount of unused authori.;. · zation under existing legislation remain-

ing on June 30, 1955, would be merged with the new additional authorization. As it is estimated that such unused amount will be over $600 million, the actual increase in authorization provided by the bill would not exceed $3,400,000,-000. This increase, plus the $1 ½ billion increase granted earlier this year, would be within the amount prescribed for this purpose in the budget submitted by the President to the Congress in January.

Estimates of mortgage-insurance operations during the 1956 fiscal year indicate a gross use of insurance authorization totaling about $7,400,000,000. After allowance for return of authorization through expiration of commitments, scheduled repayments on insured mortgages, and prepayments of such mortgages, the net use of insurance authorization for FHA mortgage-insurance programs during that fiscal year is estimated at approximately $4 billion.

Title I of the National Housing Act, authorizing the FHA repair and modernization program, would expire under existing law on June 30 of this year. The bill would extend title I 1 year.

The title I program of insurance for modernization and repair loans constitutes an integral part of the urban renewal program for neighborhood conservation and improvement which was adopted in the Housing Act of 1954. The continuation of the title I program is also important to the maintenance of a high level of general construction activity, improvement of , individual properties in need of modernization or repair, and proper maintenance of the existing housing inventory of the Nation. All are vitally affected by the availability of adequate consumer credit for modernization and repair loans and the title I program has contributed significantly toward assuring that supply of credit.

Availability of FHA insurance for this type of credit encourages lenders to make the loans available to borrowers in smaller communities and to eligible borrowers in larger communities who might otherwise have difficulty in arranging loans. It should be recognized that, without such insurance, credit for home repair purposes would not be as readily available as consumer credit for other consumer durable goods, such as automobiles and appliances. In other fields, the dealer frequently recejves credit support from the manufacturer. In the case of home repair loans, however, manufacturers of building products are each likely to have a relatively small financial interest in the repair or improvement job done by the local firm. Naturally, the manufacturer or wholesale supplier is thus rarely interested in backing up credit for a repair or improvement job, especially when the largest cost item is labor at the site. Also consumer items can normally be made subject to a chattel mortgage and can be repossessed, while items financed under title I become part of the house and cannot be repossessed. Neither is it generally practical in the case of a · repair · loan to go through the expense of obtaining real property-mortgage security. For these reasons home repair ·or improvement loans, in the absence of

title I aids, would be unavailable to many borrowers, or else be available at exorbitant interest rates or fees.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

The Housing Act of 1954 provided that' the prices to be paid for mortgages by the rechartered FNMA should be established from '.;ime to time by FNMA "at the market price for the particular class of mortgages involved." I believe that the effect of setting FNMA purchase prices at the market price for the several classifications of FHA-insured and VAguaranteed mortgages is to require substantial discounts, increasing in amount the farther removed geographically an 6.rea may be from sources of long-term investment capital. Thus, the States which historically have found themselves most in need of the facilities of FNMA's secondary market whenever mortgage funds became scarce are roughly the same States which must pay the heavier discounts under these purchase price schedules.

Unquestionably, FNMA's price schedule freezes into the mortgage lending system a practice of discounting FHA-insured and VA-guaranteed mortgages. While FHA and VA regulations may be effective in preventing immediate transfer of these heavy FNMA financing costs onto the home buyers, over the long run they must surely result in raising the costs of housing in such areas.

Moreover, it must be presumed that these are good, sound mortgages in order for them to have obtained FHA insurance or VA guaranty. As Governmentbacked loans, they have an intrinsic value which, though subject to some degree of normal market fluctuation, should nevertheless bring close to par in the mortgage market. The operation of the FNMA secondary market, therefore, should not be such as to encourage the discounting of FHA-VA loans but should accord them the recognition that should be-but is not necessarily at the time-granted by the mortgage market. Obviously, if FNMA's price schedule sets a 2-, 3-, or 4-point discount upon a class of FHA or VA loans, the private market is not inclined to fix a higher value on them. Thus, the FNMA discounts serve to depress rather than aid a sagging mortgage-loan market.

S. 2126 would amend FNMA's authority to enable it to buy loans at "a reasonable price level" as determined by it from time to time rather than at the market price. This would permit FNMA to take into consideration the market price together with the reasonably foreseeable market for mortgages, Government bonds, and other forms of long-term investment. It would thereby afford to FNMA the necessary freedom of action to lead the market when necessary in certain areas or during periods of temporary money shortage. By taking into account future trends, it would enable FNMA to raise its purchase prices slightly to support a sagging market or t0 drop its prices when the market is strong. This should tend to stabilize the market for mortgages at a level much closer to par than has prevailed for the past year. Thereby it should provide more favorable and more uniform prices


for those areas in the South, Southwest, and Far West which necessarily at times are most dependent upon the FNMA secondary market operation.

HOME LOAN BANK BOARD

S. 2126 would make the Home Loan Bank· Board an independent agency. It has always been my belief that since the Board is essentially a regulatory agency and exercises administrative, legislative, and judicial powers somewhat analogous to those performed by the Federal Reserve Board, it should not be subject to the authority of the Administrator of HHFA to transfer funds and functions to other agencies within his jurisdiction. Most, if not all, comparable regulatory agencies have independent status, reporting directly to the Congress and to the President. Furthermore, the Federal Home Loan Board system is a mutual institution owned entirely by its members. Section 109 will return to the Home Loan Bank Board the independence it had from its creation in 1932 to 1939, when it was made a part of the then Federal Loan Agency.

COLLEGE HOUSING

Title III of this bill is intended to renew and invigorate the program inaugurated by the Housing Act of 1950, which inaugurated a program of long-term loans at low interest rates to provide funds for the construction of dormitories and residences.

The amendments under this title would expand the purpose of these loans to include such other . revenue-producing educational facilities as cafeterias, dining halls, student centers, infirmaries, and other service facilities, but not including such items as gymnasiums or stadiums. The authorization for this program would be increased from $300 million to $500 million, and the amendment would fix the rate of interest which the Housing and Home Finance Agency pays to the Treasury at 2 ½ percent, or the average rate on all interest-bearing obligations of the United States, whichever is the higher. The provisions of the title would also require HHFA to charge colleges a rate of interest of 23/4 percent, or one-fourth of 1 percent more than that paid by HHFA to Treasury, .whichever is the higher.

PUBLIC FACILITY LOANS

The primary purpose of title II of S. 2126 is to assist, wherever possible, States and their political subdivisions, with preference to small municipalities, in providing sewage, water, and other necessary public facilities essential to the health and welfare of their people. The program would be administered under the supervision of the Community Facilities Commissioner of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. Restrictions are placed upon municipalities desiring assistance under this program to those that are unable to secure such financing on reasonable terms, and loans must be of such sound value as to give reasonable assurance of retirement or payment. The loan maturities are limited to 40 years and a priority is given to applications from small municipalities with populations of less than 10,000.

HHFA would be authorized to issue to· the Secretary of the Treasury notes and other obligations not exceeding $100 million at any one time.

FARM HOUSING

Title V of S. 2126 would provide for a continuation through fiscal year 1956 of the farm-housing assistance program authorized in title V of the Housing Act of 1949-Public Law 171, 81st Congress. The bill as reported would authorize appropriations of an additional $100 million for farm loans authorized to be made on adequate farms, an additional $2 million to permit the payment of annual contributions made in connection with loans on potentially adequate farms, and an additional $10 million for special grants and loans required to make farm housing safe and sanitary.

During the entire life of the farm loan program under title V some 19,000 initial loans were made for a total of $97 million. This program has not been operative since June 30, 1954, but the need for it is shown by the increase in loans made under the Bankhead-Jones Act during the same period. Despite the fact that the Bankhead-Jones Act does not provide the full coverage of title V, its loan volume increased from $28 million in 1954 to $41 million for the first 10 months of 1955. From the standpoint of economic soundness the records of the title V farm-loan program indicate that a great preponderance of the loans made have been sound. As of December 31, 1954, the regular payments as a percentage of the scheduled installments on these loans were 105.6 percent. There have been very few foreclosures under the program.

Last year your Banking and Currency Committee reported and the Congress enacted as part of the Housing Act of 1954 a similar extension of the title V program. I deeply regret that the executive branch of the Government did not see fit to request any funds to carry out the intent of the Congress in this matter. As a result, the title V farm housing program has been dormant since June 30, 1954. It is my hope that this act of omission will not be repeated this year.

In conclusion, gentlemen, let me emphasize that I believe that s. 2126, the housing amendments of 1955, provides a sound and conservative solution for our national housing problem. I sincerely hope that this body will not devote an undue amount of time or effort to one controversial but relatively small section of the bill. It is imperative that the FHA mortgage insurance authorization be increased if we are to avoid a complete stoppage of our private housing program. It is also of vital importance that we extend the authority of the FHA to insure title I repair loans and that we liberalize the charter of the Federal National Mortgage Association. Housing is a far too important prop to our national economy to become a partisan political issue. I strongly urge a favorable vote on the pending measure, s. 2126.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. RAINS].

Mr . . NICHOLSON. Mr. ·Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAINS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. NICHOLSON. How many hous~ ing units has the Committee on Banking and Currency authorized since 1948, the 80th Congress?

Mr. RAINS. The 1949 act authorized about 810,000 units, and we have not begun to build even any small part of that number.

Mr. Chairman, we approach this bill today under rather peculiar circumstances. The House · Committee on Banking and Currency spent 11 days hearing witnesses. We spent 7 consecutive days in executive session in that committee on the Senate bill which was passed known as s. 2126.

We did a hard, long, studious, and laborious job on this bill. I am disappointed, and I hope my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Michigan, will listen-I am disappointed that my friend from Michigan, who I understand had an important matter back up in Michigan, would leave us in the closing days of the executive session and have nothing further to do with the writing of the bill which the Senate already had passed and which the House was trying to perfect, and then come in without conference with any of the members of the Committee on Banking and Currency on the majority side and introduce a little bobtailed no-housingbill-whatsoever, and call it a substitute to the bill which w~s, passed by a big majority in the other body, and which was reported ·by an overwhelming majority favorably by the House Committee on Banking and _Currency. We are playing in the sand-and the gentleman from Michigan knows he is play-· · ing in the sand. He may win a· cheap, shallow victory with his little bobtailed . bill on housing here today, but in the long run the bill which will pass, if any bill passes at all, will be either S. 2126 or the bill as we have amended it. When you consider the amount of public housing in the Senate bill, when you consider that in the Committee on Banking and Currency some of us labored with might and main on the majority side to try to get an acceptable bill in keeping with the President's program, I think it is absolutely ridiculous to consider a simple extension of a few items which the other body is not going to accept. Then what happens? We come back from the conference with more public-housing units than we have in this bill, and you have an hour to take it or leave it. You say, "Leave it''? Sure, leave FHA, leave college housing, leave title I, leave community facilities, leave farm housing, leave all the rest--this House is not going to do that. so in the practical reality of the situation which we have today, we should do as my · esteemed< friend, the gentleman from Georgia, said-if you do not like the bill which_ the Commit~ tee · on Banking- and Currency submitted, amend it-that is 0. K., but let us not send · some short substitute over without the essential ingredients of a, real housing bill incorporated in it.

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12117 Mr. MORANO. Mr, ' Chairman, will

the gentleman yield? Mr. RAINS. I yield. Mr. MORANO. The gentleman is

making a fine, sound statement, and I want to associate myself with the remarks he is making, I would like to ask the gentleman this question. Is there additional housing over the number that the President recommended in this bill, and if so what is that additional housing?

Mr. RAINS. In addition to the 35,000 units which the President has recommended, which Mr. Cole came before our committee and said he; wanted, there are 10,000 units for elderly people put in on an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARAl. That is the only additional amount of units in this bill above the President's requested program to the Committee on Banking and Currency. · ·

Mr. MORANO. Can the gentleman state what the vote was in ·committee to report this bill out? .

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so that I may answer that question?

Mr. RAINS. I yield. Mr. MULTER. The vote to report the

bill out was 19 to 3. · Mr. RAINS. Mr. Chairman, my es

teemed friend, the gentleman from Virginia, made the statement that he regretted and thought it was unfortunate that this bill should come here in the closing hours of this session of the Congress. Well, now, just how naive does the gentleman from Virginia think thjs Congress is? We reported this bill to the Committee on Rules on July 1 of this year, and it has been hanging there in the hope that there would be some way whereby the Committee on Banking and· Currency would back up and cut out public housing and extend only the FHA, which is the bill of the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SCOT!'. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAINS. I yield. Mr. SCOTT. The plea of the distin

guished gentleman from Virginia reminds me of the lady who killed her husband and then asked the court for mercy on the ground that she was a widow. · Mr. RAINS. I think that statement

is very apt. · Mr. HALLECK. Mr. ·chairman, will

the gentleman yield? Mr. RAINS. I yield. Mr. HALLECK. If I understood the

gentleman correctly, he saia that if this bill went to conference, it would come back with more than 35,0-00 public housing units?

Mr. RAINS. That, or more, is my opinion.

Mr. HALLECK. I would like to ask the gentleman on what information he bases that.

Mr. RAINS. The Senate bill contains 135,000 units. We are going to have to do a. lot of hard trading to get what the House Committee on Banking and cur .. l'ency reported.

Mr. HALLECK. My information is that the program as outlined by the President, which is for 35,000, is the one

that probably would be- agreed upon quite quickly.

Mr. RAINS. That is the one which is written in the House Committee on Banking and Currency bill, with minor variations.

Mr. HALLECK. Of course, there. are many other things in your bill that are not in line with the President's program.

Mr. RAINS. In some other particulars it is not. Neither is the Senate bill in line with the President's request. .

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. RAINS] has expired.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentieman 3 additional minutes.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? .

Mr. RAINS. I yield. . Mr. BURLESON. I want to ask the

gentleman if he can briefly emphasize his ideas on military housing in this bill. Permit me to say that I have a situation in my district, an Air Force base in process of construction costing around $80 million. They are unable to get bids for the so-called Wherry housing. They have no other source to turn to. They are in dire need of some relief.

Mr. RAINS. I will say that in the Senate bill there was a provision on military housing which, in the opinion of the Committee on Banking and Currency of the House, amounted to a direct appropriation out of the Treasury. The House committee put in an expanded Wherry provision instead. In later days there has been mµch work between the staff of the Committee on Banking and Currency and the military housing officials on a substitute. We have had no hearings on military housing and no request was made for any hearings. I introduced a bill yesterday which is different from the Capehart amendment, in addition to the Wherry amendment, and I had hoped to offer it today. But -I talked to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], and I have not yet received his approval. I am not going to off er any military amendment to this bill unless I have the approval of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON].

Mr. BURLESON. Unless you offer your amendment, no military housing can be built under this bill?

Mr. RAINS. Under · the present Wherry Act, which is included in the bill offered by the gentleman from Michigan, no military housing is being built, so the military say. However, the military title in the House banking and currency bill is an expansion of the Wherry. Housing Act, and would, in my judgment, get military housing, but not as much as a direct approach which was in the bill which is on Members' desks, which I introduced last night. I hope something can be worked out, because the need for on-base housing is great.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAINS. I yield. Mr. BASS of Tennessee. It is a fact

that they are building military housing at the present time under the previous act.

Mr. RAINS. Oh, yes; under the act from the Committee on Armed Services;

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a detailed analysis of the amendments to S. -2126, as reported by the Banking and Currency Committee.

The amendments contained in title I of the bill would provide the necessary law for continuing the several major housing programs administered by the . Housing and Home Finance Agency and its constituent agencies. These amendments would also make a number of changes in existing law designed to enable the Agency more effectively to carry out the objectives of the existing law. ·

F_EDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

I will discuss ijrst the provisions of the bill which would apply to the programs administered by the Federal Housing Administration. -The bill would extend the title I-Home Repair and Modernization Program for 1 year and would increase the maximum amount on home improve- : ment loans from $2,500 to $3,000.- It would modify the provision contained in the Housing Act of 1954, whi~h provides that this type of loan could not be made on new residential structures until such new housing had been completed and occupied for at least 6 months. The committee reduced this waiting period to 2 months as it believes the 6-month· waiting period unduly restrictive and prevents new home owners from financing desirable improvements permitted under the FHA title I programs.

The committee has also revised the present mortgage limitation in the National Housing Act with respect to multi· family projects. We have increased the present $5 million mortgage limitation, generally applicable to all such projects with private sponsorship, to $12.5 million. The committee took this action principally because of the increase in construction costs which has occurred since 1938 when the $5 million limitation was enacted.

The administration in its recommendations on this subject also urged the extension of the limitation of $12.5 million beyond the amount of each individual mortgage in order to make it applicable to the total amount of commitments issued and outstanding at any one time with respect to a project or projects in the same housing market area, involving the same mortgagor. The committee was not impressed by the reasons advanced by the administration in support of this recommendation. It should be pointed out that in the larger metropolitan areas proper use of available sites and the economies obtainable through . continuity of building operations on such sites require the development of large rental projects. In the judgment of the committee, this additional limitation would have acted to further discourage the construction of much needed multifamily housing in our · large metropolitan centers. At this point I believe. it important that the following statement contained in the committee report be set forth in the RECORD:

For the express guidance of the Federal Housing Commissioner, your committee again reiterates its intention that the •12,-500,000 llmitation shall be applicable to the amount of each individual mortgage and that 1ihe administrative practic.e heretofore

12118 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Jul.y 29

ai,plled is to be continued so as to permit several contiguous projects under common ownership so long as the amount of the mortgage on any such project does not exceed the dollar limitation and each such contiguous project is a separate project which, in the event it should become necessary, can be sold separately and managed separately from the other contiguous projects.

The committee has included provisions in the bill designed to reactivate the cooperative housing program established by Congress in 1950. While the program proved successful to the middleincome group initially it has been restricted drastically by provisions contained in the Housing Act of 1954. The committee believes that one of the principal obstacles to the continued success of this program is an amendment, recommended by the Federal Housing Administration and enacted last year, which had the effect of reducing the maximum amount of the mortgage eligible for insurance. This provision changed the basis for determining the maximum amount of the mortgage from "estimated replacement cost" to "estimated value." Our amendment provides that "estimated replacement cost'' shall be the basis for making this determination in the future. In addition we have authorized FNMA to make advance commitments for this program in an amount not to exceed $50 million at any one time. Another amendment would provide for the appointment of a special assistant for cooperative housing. The special assistant would be expected to give impetus and direction to the program to the end that its principal objective be achieved-the provision of good housing at lower cost and at lower monthly carrying charges for the consumer, particularly those in the middle-income group. The bill also provides for a reduction in the required percentage of veteran participation in the cooperative projects from 65 percent to 50 percent in order to obtain the maximum allowable mortgage. Finally a provision was added which makes it possible for cooperative groups of Government-owned housing projects to use the cooperative mortgage provisions of this program in purchasing such projects on a cooperative basis.

The bill would also increase the general insurance authorization of the Federal Housing Administration. This amendment would authorize FHA mortgage insurance up to the aggregate of outstanding insurance liability and commitments on June 30, 1955, plus $4 billion.

The committee has proposed several amendments which affect mortgage insurance for housing in urban renewal areas. The first amends section 220 to provide that the maximum mortgage amount be computed on the basis of the "estimated replacement cost" of the property or project rather than the "estimated value." We believe this action is required if we are to have community action and gain the support of builders lenders, and others in the rehabilitatio~ of blighted areas.

Testimony received by the committee clearly indicated that the problem of

securing satisfactory FHA valuations under section 220 in the older neighborhoods, where urban renewal and urban redevelopment are urgently needed, is one of the -principal reasons for the absence of production under this program. We believe the new standard will eliminate or reduce some of those difficulties. While it is possible that in the course of a considerable period of time FHA's normal "valuation" procedures could be adapted to the new and different requirements of urban renewal and the necessary uniformity of these subjective judgments obtained on a basis which would eventually permit the urban renewal program to move ahead, your committee feels that the latter program is so important and urgent that we cannot afford the luxury of the slow and time-consuming process apparently required for the appropriate adjustment of FHA's valuation procedures.

The bill would extend title IX of the National Housing Act and contain other special aids for critical defense housing areas for 1 year on a standby basis. This would continue the present status of these programs, which require special action by the President for each new project undertaken. . FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

The bill would make two changes in the charter of the Federal National Mortgage Association. One of these changes, discussed previously, relates to the association's authority to enter into certain advance-commitment contracts to purchase section 213 cooperative housing mortgages.

The second amendment would provide· that FNMA shall purchase, in its secondary market operations, home mortgages at a reasonable price level. The association must consider, in establishing this price level, the market for mortgages of the same general class, and current · yields on, and reasonably foreseeable price trends of, long-term Government bonds and other forms· of iongterm investment.

SLUM CLEARANCE AND URBAN RENEWAL

The bill would increase the authorization in title I of the Housing Act of 1949 for capital grants for slum clearance and urban renewal by an additional $200 million to be made available on July 1, 1955, and another $200 million to be made available on July 1, 1955. Also the President would be authorized to increase the authorization at any time or times by an additional $100 million. In providing for a 2-year authorization, the committee was impressed with testimony received with regard to the need requiring the use of these funds over a period of more than 2 years. The need arises because of the type of program which is involved. The committee recognized that many months of preliminary work are required by local communities to develop an urban-renewal project. In order to undertake such time-consuming activities, local communities need the assurance that capital-grant funds are authorized and will be available when needed.

Under existing law, not more than 10 percent of the total title I capital grants authorized. may be expended in any one

State, except. that an additional $35 million may be allocated for use in States where more than two-thirds of the amounts they could 0therwise receive have been legally obligated. The proVisions of the bill would increase this cushion from $35 million to $70 million. Information has come to us that this increase is necessary since the present limitation has been reached by several States.

The bill would also amend the Housing Act of 1949 so as to permit loans and advances in order to assist in the redevelopment of either predominantly open land or open land for industrial or other nonresidential uses. Such advances would be limited to not more than 2 ½ percent of the estimated gross project costs of all other projects undertaken by a public agency; The local governing body would be required to determine such redevelopment is necessary and appropriate to aid in the sound development of the community.

The bill would also amend the Territorial Enabling Act of 1950 to broaden the authority of the governments of the Territories to enact laws for urban renewal activities. We find this amendment is necessary since the present authority for territories to enact urban redevelopment laws is too limited and restricts the governments from enacting broader urban renewal laws, .so that they may participate fully in the total program.

PUBLIC . HOUSING

The next section of the bill extends the authority of the Public Housing Administration to. assist communities undertaking low-rent housing. You will recall that this program was established initially by .the United states Housing Act of 1937. The program was implemented by the Housing Act of 1949 which authorized a program of public housing of not mor.e than 810,000 dwelling units. The program, authorized in the 1949 act. has been cut down by restrictions .in appropriation acts in successive years until finally the Appropriation Act for 1954 prohibited any further public housing contracts unless expressly authorized by Congress. The House, last year. authorized 35,000 additional units during fiscal year 1955.

The Banking and Currency Committee recognized that if the slum clearance and urban renewal program ·is to go forward, public housing must be provided for low-income families displaced by these operations. The administration has recommended an extension of the present program with authorizations to contract for 35,000 additional units for fiscal year 1956 and an additional 35,000 units for fiscal year 1957. . Your committee . is recommending,

therefore, that PHA be authorized to use any remainder of the authorization for 1955 and to enter into further con ... tracts for 35,000 additional units in fiscal year 1956 and a like number in fiscal year 1957. Any· authorization not used during those fiscal years would be availa.ble until June 30, 1958.

We have also recommended the repeal of certain provisions in the Housing Act of 1954 which have unduly restricted the public housing program and which

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. HOUSE 12119

have tied it exclusively to the slum clearance and urban renewal program. We have also recommended the repeal of· several provisos in ,the Appropriation Acts.for 1952, 1953, and 1954 which have had the effect of limiting the provisions of the Housing Act of 1949. .

A further amendment would increase from 10 percent to 15 percent the total amount· of financial assistance which can be made available for low-rent housing in any one State. The IO-percent limitation has· proved to be too restrictive in the case of some States. HOUSING FOR ELDERLY FAMILIES OF LOW INCOME

In order to assist in meeting the everincreasing housing problems of elderly persons of low income your committee has recommended a new subsection to the Housjng Act of 1937. The amendment would authorize the Public Housing Administration to enter into annual contribution contracts for 10,000 units for each of 2 years for this purpose. Such units would in general be incorporated in other projects in order to permit the elderly to remain in contact with other families. In addition the bill would provide that persons 65 years of age or over would be included in the definition of elderly families. First preference is provided for sue}]. elderly families in admission to all units developed under this section ~nd a first preference could be exten.ded in oth,er low rent units up to 10 percent of the estimated admissions in any given year. Public Housing Administration would be ~uthorized to perm.it local public housing· agencies to reconstruct or remodel aJlY low-rent housing to provide accommodations designed for elderly families.

DISPOSITION OF LANHAM ACT PROPERTY

The bill would also amend the Lanham Act to authorize the Housing and Home Finance Administrator to acquire by condemnation a fee title to certain lands in Richmond, Calif., in which the Administrator now holds less than fee simple interest, for use in war housing and veterans' housing programs. The Administrator would be authorized, at the request of the city, to sell such land at fair market value to . the city under certain terms and conditions.

HOME LOAN BANK BOARD

The next several sections of the bill would make changes in the law being administered by the Home Loan Bank Board.

The bill would remove the Home Loan Bank Board, including the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, from the jurisdiction of the Housing and Home Finance Agency and establish it as an independent agency and change its name to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. · Your committee believes that the Board should again be made an independent agency of Government. Your committee was guided in arriving at this decision by the fact that the Board's operations are entirely self-supporting; the Federal home loan banks are completely owned by their member institutions; and the fact that the Board was created originally as an independent agency.

In addition the bill would define the tion of which was completed prior to the authority of the Board to terminate filing of a loan application. membership in the bank system; increase Your committee added a cost-certifithe number of elective directors in cer- cation requirement to the college-loan tain Federal home-loan banks; change provisions o,f the bill. This cost-certiflthe admission fee requirements of the cation requirement is consistent with FSLIC program; and raise the maximum the cost-certification requirements in the dollar loan for noninsured on nonguar- National Housing Act and requires a anteed home improvement loans and re- borrower to apply the surplus, if any, of moves the limitation on FHA and VA loan proceeds over actual costs to reduc-improvement loans. · tion of the loan. In practice such cost

coMMUNITY FACILITIES certification is already required by regu-The bill would modify and extend the . lations issued under the college housing

present advance planning program and program, but the committee was of the the Housing and Home Finance Adminis- opinion this should be a statutory retrator would be authorized to establish quirement. a revolving fund for the making of plan- TITLE IV. MILITARY RENTAL HOUSING ning advances to local agencies for the This title relates to amendments to preparation of a reservoir of planned title VIII-Wherry-Spence Act-of the public works. The bill would authorize, National Housing Act, as amended. The in additional to the $10 million author- amendments, in the judgment · of the ized under the present law~ appropria- committee, will do much toward making tions. of $12 million in 1956, another $12 the program more workable, and thus million in 1957, and $14 million in 1958. providing needed military housing which

The bill would also raise the annual will be built by private enterprise with sayary of the Community Facilities private funds. Commissioner from $14,800 per annum The bill would extend the program to $15,000 per annum in order that such for 3 years. The committee believes salary would be the same as the heads this 3-year extension necessary in order of the constituent agencies of the Hous- that the military may have adequate ing Agency. time for planning and development of

TITLE II. PUBLIC FACILITY LOANS such housing, The bill would also eliminate the present requirement that

The primary purpose of this title is to the military installation must be a perassist, wherever .possible, States and their manent part of the Military EStablishpolitical subdivisions, with preference to ment. It . would increase the present small municipalities, in •providing sew- mortgage amount per unit for both mul .. age, water, and other necessary public · tifamily housing and single-family housfacilities essential to the health and wel- ing, The former-multifamily hous .. fare of their people. The program would ing-would be raised from $8,100 -to · be administered under the supervision of $9,900 with discretion in the Commis .. the Community Facilities Commissioner sioner to increase . the mortgage amount of the Housing and Home Finance in high-cost areas to $10,800. The Agency. Restrictions are placed upori mortgage amount · for · single-family municipalities desiring assistance under housing would be increased from $9,000 this program to those that are unable t'o to $10,800. Allowance would be made secure such financing on reasonable for contractor's or builder's profit of 10 terms, and loans must be of such sound percent of actual costs. value as to give reasonable assurance of The bill also includes a provision which retirement or payment. The loan ma .. turities are limited to 40 years and a would permit the military to purchase

any Wherry Act project at the fair priority is given to applications from market value of the property as deter-small municipalities with populations of mined by independent appraisal or to less than l0,000. · acquire the property by condemnation in

HHFA would be authorized to issue to case reasonable efforts to purchase such the Secretary of the Treasury notes and projects are unsuccessful. · The bill other obligations not exceeding $100 mu.. would require that a project's fair market lion at any one time. value shall not be less than the cost of

TITLE In. coLLEGE HOUSING construction, less normal depreciation, Title III of the bill would make several where there has been no deterioration

amendments to the college housing pro.. chargeable to the negligence or fault of gram administered by the Administrator the builder. of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. These amendments would, first, broaden the loan authority to include loans for other essential service facilities; second, extend the maximum loan term from 40 years to a maximum of 50 years; third, change the interest .. rate formula which at the present time would provide a 23/4-percent interest rate on new loans and be made applicable .to loans now under contract but on which final disbursements have not been made; fourth, relate the test of availability of outside financing to terms "equally as favorable" rather than "generally comparable"; fifth, increase the revolving fund by $200 million; and, sixth, prohibit any loan on a facility the construe ..

TITLE V. !'ARM HOUSING The last title of the bill would provide

for a continuation of the farm housing assistance program, authorized in title V of the Housing Act of 1949, for 1 year. The bill would authorize appropriations of an additional $100 million for farm loans to be made on adequate farms, an additional $2 million to permit the payment of annual contributions in connection with loans on potentially adequate farms, and an additional $10 million for special grants and loans required to make farm housing safe and sanitary.

Your committee recommended and Congress enacted a similar extension of this program last year. The executive branch of the Government, however, did


not see fit to request funds to carry out the intent of Congress in this matter .. As a result this program has not been operative since June 30, 1954. Your committee believes there is a real need for the program, this need, we believe, is shown by the increase in loans made under the Bankhead-Jones Act. Though this act does not provide the full coverage of title V, its loan volume increased from $28 million in 1954 to $41 million for the :first 10 months of 1955. It is the hope of your committee that this act of omission by the executive de-· partment will not be repeated this year.

The bill would also authorize the Public Housing Administration to transfer farm-labor camps without monetary consideration to any local public-housing agency whose area of operation in-eludes such a project. The amendment would establish preferences of occupancy with first preference being given to low-income agricultural workers and their families. Provision is also made for reservation to the United States of all mineral rights upon, in, or under the property.

This is a good bill and ought to be perfected by amendments and passed.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. RAINsl has again expired. ·

Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WIDNALLJ.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WIDNALL. I yield. Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Chairman, I

ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection. Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Chairman, as

indicated by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. RAINS] it appears that there is nothing in this bill which will facilitate the building of military housing. I hope the gentleman will off er his amendment to which he ref erred in order that something can be done in those areas where an immediate critical situation exists.

Under the present law, bids cannot be received to erect housing on a $75 million airbase now under construction at Abilene, Tex., located in my congressional district.

In discussing this matter with military officials, it seems what they need is a direct approach whereby the military can build on-base housing. The present Wherry Act is not doing the job.

From some source, housing must be provided on this base and unless something is done in the immediate future, there is good reason to believe the operation of the base may be delayed. It is an extremely important strategic air! base and it makes no sense that housing for personnel should not be provided from some source and at a very early date.

It seems to me that there are more reasons found by those responsible as to how not to do.something, rather than to find a way to 'do the job.

Although r continue to think that direct appropriated funds would be more desirable, I hope the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. RAINS] will introduce his amendment to the pending bill and that it will be adopted. If such an amendment as the gentleman proposes can be adopted, then surely something satisfactory could be worked out in a conference with the Senate, between the two versions.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Chairman, since I :first came to the House in 1950 I have supported public housing as part of the housing needs of the people of America. i felt there was a definite place for public housing in a well-rounded housing program. My thoughts along that line have been that we should have some public housing units built each year un-· til private industry showed that they could build some comparable units available at low rent for people with low income who did not have the financial ability to provide ~ decent, adequate, sanitary home for themselves.

Last year a provision was adopted in the conference between the House and the Senate tying the 35,000 units that · were to be built during the coming :fiscal year to a workable slum clearance and urban renewal plan. I offered that amendment in the House. It was only because of the inclusion of that provision that we· passed the continuance of a public housing program. . Under this proposed bill the tie-down to slum clearance is removed. I read the early debates in connection with the need for public housing. It was projected to the Congress that public housing was needed in order to take care of clearing up the slums and providing the slum dwellers with better houses. Each time a housing program is considered Representatives argue almost tearfully for continuance of public housing. They plead to help the. slum dwellers, yet those same Representatives vigorously oppose tying down public housing for that purpose.

The amendment I offered last year sought· to i:>rovide a workable plan, so that not only there would be slum clearance, but also it would be insured that there would be no slums of tomorr.ow.

I remember very well the attacks made on that amendment in the last election, saying that the administration, the Republicans, had killed public housing in America. The record does not bear that out. I would like to call your ·attention to the fact that since the pro.:. visions of the act became effective on August 2 of 1954, 53 cities varying in size from 7,000 population to more than 7 million, have gained approval of their workable programs for clearance of slums, rehabilitation of · savable substandard housing and coordination of good housing in what are now slum areas. · Mr. BROWN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WIDNALL. I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia. · Mr. BROWN of Georgia. The gentleman claims that public housing ought

to be tied down· to slum cleatance. Pub_. lie housing is for every section of the country. If the gentleman's idea were carried out, just a few big cities would have public housing and the rest of the country would be left out.

Mr. WIDNALL. Visibly the need is greatest in the big cities, where there is the impact of a concentrated population and you do not normally have the ability to seek out new quarters because all of the available land has been built on. · Seventy-three other communities are in the position of awaiting Federal ap .. proval of their workable programs.

Eligibility for low-rent public housing was predicated in the 1954 act upan the need for relocation of families displaced by slum-clearance activities. Those who desire unlimited and unrestrained public housing claim that the integration of public housing with our slum-clearance program is undesirable and unworkable. Permit me to dispel this myth. Of the 35,000 public-housing units authorized by Congress for :fiscal .1955, 29,509 ·were put under contract by June 30. If we recognize that this was done not throughout the full year, but in the period from November 1954 to June 30, 1955, approximately 7 months, it can readily be seen that the amount of public pousing authorized by Congress can be made available through this method. !Ii the communities certified for the more than 29,000 units there was a demonstrable need for -71,972 units over the total period of urban renewal activities, permitting in subsequent fiscal years allocation of 42,463 units, or more than Congress has authorized in the preceding years. With 73 additional communities waiting approval of their workable programs this number will increase proportionately. The only conclusion we may reach is that integration of public housing with urban renewal and workable program provisions is desirable and workable.

The general prosperity of our Nation under the Eisenhower administration, coupled with the liberalized provisions of the 1954 Housing Act with respect to home mortgages, have increased home ownership to 56 percent of American families, an unprecedented percentage. For 3 consecutive years more than 1 million nonfarm homes have been constructed annually. The construction rate for this year indicates that there will be approximately 1.4 million private housing starts in the current year.

These are concrete accomplishments 'Which we wish to preserve and continue. Adoption by Congress of housing legislation in conformity with that proposed by President Eisenhower will assure that America will be a land of safe, sanitary, ·and decent homes.

Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr. ·Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at' this point in the RECORD.

The CHAmMAN. Is there objection .to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection. Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr.

_Chairman, I would like to address myself to the public housing ·sections of the

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE' 12121 housing blli, fricludirig the · p.rovision for" housing units for the aged.

First let me say that I am gratified· that the deadlock on the Rules Commit-· tee, which has stalled this legislation for the past month, has been broken and· that we are thus given the opportunity. of openly debating the issue on the House floor; ·

Mr. Chairman, it is shocking. to realize that in this great land of ours, where we enjoy the highest standard of living in human history, one out of every five non-· farm homes are substandard. According to the 1950 Census of Housing, 8.5 million of the 40 million nonfarm homes· still lack private indoor flush toilets. In addition another 3.2 million dwellings are classified as dilapidated, or on the verge of becoming substandard. Of course our critical housing problems are concentrated among the lower income groups, people averaging about $2,000 a year income.

The housing industry boasts of its accomplishme.nts in postwar housing, having built over 90 percent of all homes constructed. It is true that in 1954, for instan·ce, 1.2 million housing starts were made. However, of this total, 306,000 were built under VA-guaranteed loans and another 270,000 constructed ·under FHA loans-almost half the total number of housing starts. Such loan guar-. anties cut ·the financial risks of the builders to a minimum. In effect private builders have been subsidized by the Federal Government.

Yet, when legislation has come before Congress to provide Federal assistance in the construction of public housing for low-income people whose needs the building industry has ignored because it would not be profitable, these same groups vigorously oppose what they term "subsidized" or "socialized" housing.

I will not dwell upon the blight of slums in our cities and the resulting high costs of police and fire protection, and its influence on juvenile delinquency and crime rates. This is an area of the problem which is well known and debated at length many times before.

The 1949 Housing Act sought to provide a workable long-range solution to the housing problems of the low-income and farm· groups~ . A total of 811>,000 public-housing units were authorized over a 6-year period: However. crippling and restricting amendments added by Congress in subsequent years have prevented more than a token beginning toward solution of this housing shortage.

Mr. Chairman, we are now at the crossroads of our public-housing program. The Senate has passed a bill to renew the farsighted housing objectives of the original 1949 act to provide for 135,000 public-housing units annually until the full 810,000 units originally authorized are completed. It also provided 10,000 public-housing units for each of 5 years for aged persons. Other Federal housing activities, including mortgage insurance for. private construction were also authorized. -. · .

We in the House must face up to the tremendous need for public housing in our communities across the Nation. Unfortunately, the House bill falls far short of actual needs. Thirty-five thousand

CI--762

units of · public · housing· for ·ea·ch · of 2' years is woefully inadequate, as is the 10,000 aged housing units per year also provided for in the House bill.

It is my sincere hope that adequate increases in public housing units will be voted.

Mr. Chairman, I now turn to a rela-tively new concept in housing which I have favored for some time. · I refer to the provisions for public housing for our aged citizens. As I pointed out last week, iri a discussion of the Townsend plan, more than 25 percent of persons aged 65 and over· have no money income from any source. The average per capita income of all such persons was only $1,227 in 1953. This is the group of our citizens who are so badly in need of housing assistance. According to the latest available figures, there are now 13,707,000 persons aged 65 and over. Our aged population is growing at a rapid rate. There is an increasing demand for a housing program which will meet the needs of many of these senior citizens.

I need not dwell on the problems caused by old folks doubling up with their children or other relatives, often in already overcrowded quarters. All of us can fully realize the nature of this situation and its inherent dangers to· our society. We must ~eet the social and economic problems resulting from the tremendous progress made by medi~al science to prolong life expectancy. Housing for the _aged is a positive step toward solution of one of the most vexing of these problems.

The aged housing provisions of the pending legislation are quite simple. It would provide 10,000 public housing units for each of two years for pe·rsons or couples 65 years of age and over. First preference could be extended to elderly families in other low-rent housing up to 10 percent of the estimated admissions in any given year; In addition, the public housing authority would be authorized to permit local public housing agencies to reconstruct or remodel any low-rent housing to provide accommodations designed f'or elderly families. · Experience has shown that old folks dislike. being segregated into housing projects of their own age groups. Integration of these people into public housing developments containing younger families has worked to the advantage of both young and old.

It is my hope that the aged housing provisions of this bill will be wholeheartedly accepted by the House as an important step toward simple economic justice for our deserving senior citizens. . Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. MULTER].

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed, unfortunate that some of the Members opposed to this legislation neither attended the hearings before the Committee on Banking and Currency nor obviously have taken the time to read the testimony adduced there as set forth in some 627 pages of hearings before our. committee. While pretending to know all about the bill they make some statements which merely becloud and confuse the issue, and then leave

the floor so as hot. to hear the answers to the issues they attempted to raise .. Nevertheless, I will try to clear up some of these matters at the present time in. the hope that those Members will read the record before they vote on this bill ..

Mr. Chairman, we heard during de-· bate on the rule the old cry that this bill is socialism. I am happy to note that now added to the long roster of "Socialists" who have advocated public· housing, such as Roosevelt, Truman,. Taft, Wagner, Ives, Ellender, Dewey, Harriman, and too many others to men-· tion here, we now add a former very dis- · tinguished member of our own Banking and Currency Committee, and a good Republican, the Housing Administrator, Mr. Cole; we also add a very distinguished gentleman who is now the Public Housing Administrator, the former Republican mayor of a very fine Republican city, Akron, Ohio; and we also add to this fine roster of "Socialists" the distinguished name of our very fine President, Mr. Eisenhower.

If all these men are really the kind of "Socialists" that are bad for this country you should vote to eliminate public housing and kill the program. If you think those men really had the interests of our country at heart and those who are still with us have the interest of our country at heart, then you are going to meet this issue head-on and forthrightly. You will not accept the Wolcott substitute when it is offered. You will take this bill as reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency and when we get to the public-housing title you will debate that issue on its merits, then determine whether there should or should not be any public housing and, if so, how much.

There has been a · great deal said about the time to consider the bill and i~ coming up so late in the session. It has already been pointed out to you that if there has been any skullduggery, and the word is borrowed from the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee as he used that word on the floor this very day, I repeat, if there has been any skullduggery, I think he and the Republican members of the Rules Committee will have to assume the burden of that, and enter a plea of confession but certainly not of avoidance. . As has been already pointed out, this bill has been lying in the Committee on Rules for almost a full month, and what they have done by bringing out this rule now could have been done a month ago, and we would not have been under the pressure of trying to enact this legislation in the last hours of this session.

There has been an attempt to make you believe that the 2-page bill introduced by the distinguished ranking minority member of our committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WoL:. coTT] is the President's program. His bill runs exactly 2 pages. The bill as sent to us from the other body after that body passed it consisted of 77 pages. The House Committee on Banking and currency considered that_ bill along with the Spence bill, H. R. 5827, which runs some 16 pages and which I also hold in my hand. But, the significant thing·


about that is just this: If you take the Spence bill as we considered it before our committee and take the Senate bill, s. 2126, which we are now considering, as amended and reported out by the House Committee on Banking and Currency, you will find that that bill is as close to the President's message and as close to the administration policy as you can possibly get, having in mind that as to some of these details there necessarily is controversy and difference of opinion.

Let us take the basic provisions of the bill and see which bill is really the President's program. May I take the time to quote very briefly from the President's housing representative, the distinguished former Member of the House and of our committee, who now is the Housing Administrator, the Honorable Albert M. Cole?

May I digress long enough to say that I remember during Democratic administrations and Democratic Congresses when bills were brought to the floor we always heard someone get up on the Republican side of the aisle and query "Who wrote the bill? Where did it come from? Did it not come from downtown?" I have not heard that in this session. You know why? Because downtown still sends us their programs. The White House representatives still prepare administration and department bills and send them to the Hill here, and Democratic chairmen introduce them as the administration program. Certainly we do not always go along with them in their every detail, and sometimes not in their principle, but we do not hesitate to introduce them when the administration asks for them. So, too, with this Spence bill, H. R. 5827. The administration prepared the bill. I do not care whether you say it was the White House or the Housing Administration. But Mr. Cole is the President's representative; he is tbe President's appointee, and his depai::tment, the President's department, that wrote H. R. 5827 in the flrst instance, sent it up to our chairman, and he introduced the bill as the administration program, and the bill as rePorted is very close to that program, in principle, and in almost every last item of it.

Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNGER. Would the Federal aid highway bill come under that definition of cooperation of your chairman?

Mr. MOLTER. No; it would not come under the scope of our chairman, because our committee had no jurisdiction over the bill. I suggest that the gentleman direct that question to the members of the committee in charge of that bill.

Let us stick to the housing bill. That is what we have before us. Temporarily, the highway bill has been disposed of.

Now, at this time, let us see what the administration wants on housing and let us determine then, is it good or is it bad for the country? If it is good for the country, let us enact it. If it is bad, let us reject it. . What did Mr. Cole say about this when he was before our committee? The dis-

tinguished member of our committee, Mr. REuss, asked Mr. Cole a question, with reference. to H. R. 5827 and I read from the hearing record:

I take it, Mr. Cole, that you are thoroughly in favor of the low-rent public housing section of H. R. 5827 and that it is your hope that the Congress will enact that?

Mr. COLE. That is correct. Mr. REuss. What is the position of Presi

dent Eisenhower on that? Mr. COLE. I reflect his position. This ls the

administration's position and the President's position.

I repeat what Mr. Cole said: This-

That is, H. R. 5827, this bill-is the administration's position and the President's position.

The gentlemen on the Republican side and some on our side who do not want any public housing try to confuse the issue and tell you you have got to take the Wolcott substitute, in order to get the President's program. That just is not so. You do not get any public housing unless you get the President's program. There is not a single unit in the Wolcott bill. You can vote against the President's program, I will say to my friends on my left, if you do not want public housing. Those of you on my right who want public housing will vote for it and we will vote for the other titles in this bill without which you get no housing of any kind.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLTER. I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Do you get the kind of housing in this bill for trailers?

Mr. MOLTER. No, sir; that has been eliminated from the House version of the bill as reported by our committee. And we say in our report that the Subcommittee on Housing will make a further study of the subject and then if it sees flt, will recommend legislation on that subject in the next session.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. MOLTER. I yield further to the gentleman.

Mr. NICHOLSON. How many houses are there that have been authorized but not built since the 80th Congress, but are available under any law?

Mr. MOLTER. Is the gentleman referring merely to public housing?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes. Mr. MOLTER. I think we have built

approximately 400,000 public housing units since 1939 when the law was first enacted and which are available for use.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Can the gentleman tell me why they do not proceed and build some of these 800,000 that we have authorized?

Mr. MULTER. Because as of this moment the law prohibits the building of any more. And unless we enact this program as recommended by the President, as recommended by his Public Housing Administrator, as recommended by the Housing Administrator, and as recommended 19 to 3 by the Committee on Banking and Currency, you can get no more public housing. That is the

issue we must meet on this bill. Shall there be no more public housing or shall we continue to build at the rate of 35,000 units a year for the next 2 years as recommended by the President and his administrators and as recommended in this bill?

Mr. NICHOLSON. How many units have been built in the last 8 years? Is not the figure more than 8 million homes?

Mr. MOLTER. Now the gentleman is not talking about public housing, he is talking about all private housing. Yes, we have been building about 1 million units of private housing per year and we hope that this year we will build 1,200,000 private-housing units. But bear in mind that as against that-if we build 1,250,000 private dwelling units this year as is anticipated under this program, we still will not be able to build more than 35,000 public-housing units if this bill passes.

That is the maximum that our bill will provide.

Mr. NICHOLSON. But private enterprise meets the requirements for a million and a half people in this country.

Mr. MOLTER. A million and a half people who have the money and the income with which to buy or to rent and pay what is required by private enterprise.

I will be the first one to say, "Let us stop this public-housing program," the day that private enterprise comes in and says, "We will build houses that these people in the low-income brackets can afford to rent," the day they come forward and say, "We will build those houses and sell or rent them for sums these people can afford to pay."

We may need no more public housing, President Eisenhower said, if we continue this public-housing program for another 2 years, and if, in the meantime, private . enterprise will take over and begin to produce for this lowest-income group who cannot get any decent housing, sanitary housing, the kind of housing that is flt for human beings to live in. They cannot get it today except through public housing,

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLTER. I yield to the gentle .. man from Ohio.

Mr. ASHLEY. In response to the in .. quiry of our colleague, I think it is interesting that as of June 30, 1955, 489,465 units have been completed under the Housing Acts of 1937 and 1949. Since the 1949 act there have been 172,691 units completed. Further, a total of less than 55,000 public housing starts were made in 1953 and 1954 as compared with nearly 130,000 in the preceding 2· years of President Truman's administration.

Mr. MOLTER. I thank the gentleman for supplying that information to the committee.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLTER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Apropos of what the gentleman has just said, I have here a, wire from the Public Housing Administration dated the 6th of June 1955, stating that they had contracted for 237,108

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12123 of the original 810,000 authorized in the 1949 act, which leaves a balance unobligated of 572,892.

Mr. MULTER. The gentleman's bill will put an end to all of that and stop all future public housing. The bill reported will permit 35,000 units a year for another 2 years. Is that too much?

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?

There was no objection. Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair

man, the rural-housing program as contained in title 5 of the Housing Act of 1949 has been of immense benefit to the farm families of the country. In fact, I believe it can be said that there has never been a program that has served a better purpose or has been of more benefit to the hard working and deserving farm families of America.

It is important to extend the rural housing loan program which has done so much to enable thousands of farm families of America to obtain decent housing,

This housing-loan program has been used extensively by farmers throughout the country and it has been a financial success. It has stimulated and inspired farm people to invest in better living conditions and improve their living standards.

Just how extensively it has been used can best be shown by the following figures. Over $97 million has been loaned to a total of 18,919 borrowers. Most of these loans have been made to the small or family-size farmer. Of the total amount loaned, over $9.5 million has been repaid in full by 2,276 borrowers. Considering the very short time the program has been in operation this is a remarkable record. It is actually one of the best repayment records of any program ever established. It shows conclusively that the program is a useful one and a good investment for our Government.

I also want to point out that the farm loans which have been made to date are only a small percentage of the demand. A large number of applications are on file with the Farmers' Home Administration and cannot be processed because of lack of appropriations. As a matter of fact, the program has not operated since June 1954 because the funds were exhausted.

The continued deterioration of the farm situation makes it more important than ever to extend the existing ruralhousing program. Farm income today is down 22 percent from 1951 and 6 percent from 1954. Farmers more than ever need the assistance of the housing-loan program to help them meet their housing needs as well as the construction of farm buildings so necessary in operating a farm successfully.

There are many thousands of families in the farm areas that still live in substandard dwellings and who are not ,able to obtain the financial backing to do anything about these deplorable conditions~ The loans which might be obtained from private lending agencies are short-term loans. And, as a general rule, farmers

simply cannot repay over a short period of time and at a high interest rate a loan sufficient to construct a dwelling.

Under the rural housing loan program, however, the amortization of the loans is such that the farmers can keep their payments current and meet operating expenses and other necessary obligations.

As author of legislation providing the rural housing program, I have followed its progress and its record very closely. I have seen the improvements made in the farm dwellings and the other farm buildings that have been constructed with these loans. I know what they have meant to farm people and I know, too, that the need is far from fulfilled.

I have studied many hundreds of loans made to farmers living in the Eighth District of Alabama which I represent. These loans have made it possible for farm owners to construct decent and comfortable dwellings for their families. It has helped them build farm buildings such as dairy barns, chicken houses, and so on, which are necessary to get maximum production from their land.

I would like to repeat the words of a resident in Limestone County, Ala., who obtained a loan in 1952 in order to construct a decent dwelling for his family on his 70-acre farm: "The rural housing loan is the only possible way we could have ever had a decent home on our farm. I owed some on the land and was unable to secure a loan from any other source. If I could have secured a loan the intere,st would have been so high and the terms so short I could never have paid for it. I have now paid off the first mortgage and am repaying my farm housing loan."

How much is this program worth to America?

Better homes make better citizens. This is just as true of farm families as it is of city dwellers. When standards of living are improved it brings with it a brighter outlook on life. I sincerely believe that a farm family will work harder, will be better citizens if the farm home is comfortable. If the place is dilapidated and run down, or if it lacks modem conveniences which make life in America the envy of the world, the family is more likely to have an "Oh, what is the use?" attitude. They have less reason to desire to farm efficiently, participate in community affairs.

Of all the housing programs none has been more successful than rural housing. It has been widely accepted by farmers and utilized by them. A program which has demonstrated its usefulness and one which has operated for the benefit of rural people deserves to be continued.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA].

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this time to answer the suggestion that this is a program of socialized public housing and a program that has come to us in these later days.

When my very good friend [Mr. HoFFMANl was speaking of the district in which I was born, my mind went back to my boyhood; the drive 3 miles over roads deep either in dust or in mud in a horsedrawn bus from Berrian Springs to Berrian Center. Looking out from that bus

with its straining horses halfway to Berrian Center, one could see the county poorhouse. There was such a poorhouse in every county, and the poem that everyone knew and recited was entitled "Over the Hill to the Poorhouse." That was the America of my boyhood.

Mr. Chairman, that was public housing. Public housing is as old as the heart of America. We have always had public housing,

In those days, when people were poor, the county poorhouse was the biggest structure in the county because people realized that when people did not have any money and the years were coming· on, you could not just drive them out into the streets and into the cold. People dug deep into their pockets. Those were the days when there was not very much money to provide public housingand we called them poorhouses. Now we are a bigger country, a richer country, but still we have poor people and we have aged people. In making provision for them we are not em.barking upon new ways. We are continuing to follow the path of the heart that always has been the path of our country.

I have here a photograph of a family living in one of the public houses in Chicago, a man 80 years old together with his wife. They had had moneythey had worked to accumulate savings,. but the depression took their money, Now they are living, and thank God we have provided this place for them-they are living in the public housing of Chicago. Does anyone here begrudge that to them?

Mr. Chairman, if understanding comes to them, the great majority of this House will vote the right way, The proposition is made that we should vote down the public housing program which is a continuance in modern times of the pattern of county poorhouses in simpler tim.es. In voting for that amendment or the substitute bill, you vote against everything that America from the very earliest colonial days has believed in. Again I say, as Senator Taft said to you in April of 1949, that America always has rested her faith, as she believed in God and country, upon public housing,

I know that on the Democratic side and on the Republican side, a great majority will say "We have taken our stand long, long ago in our America with humanity, and we do not cast people out into the streets and into the cold."

That is what the Eskimos did at one time when people got old. The old father and mother would walk out into the cold because they could not go on. They did not have the strength, they did not have the means to go on with their families, and they went out into the cold to die.

We today are not going to take that position. My colleagues, I am asking you now, you on the Republican sideto remember the great man you revere.

If you vote today to kill public housing, you are going to his grave not to grieve but to mock. You are going there to say: "We have forgotten you. You are gone. The things that you preached to us and that we said we believed in, now that you are gone we are going to throw into the grave with you and not


to remain alive to live with us. · The public housing that you thought was a part of the very American tradition and a part of the American heart, we are going to cast into the grave with you." You Republicans who are now appropriating money to build a memorial of granite and mortar to the memory of your leader will you deny him the living memorial for which he fought while he was alive?

Do not do what your hearts for bid, you Republicans-and you, Democrats, you great liberal Democrats who have given America a broadening of the horizons of human existence-I have always felt that the Democratic Party was an instrumentality for carrying to political expression the impulses of the human heart, for you there must not be the acquiring of new habits in taking backward steps.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.

Mr. WOLCO'IT. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. ADDONIzroJ.

Mr. ADDONIZIO. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that debates on low-rent public housing have become a permanent item on the House calendar. Not a year goes by without heated and sometimes acrimonious discussion on a program that was first placed on the statute books back in 1937. I often wonder how many volumes of testimony and pages of debate have been printed on this subject. Regular committees, joint committees, and special commissions have devoted untold hours to probing into the. low-rent public-housing program. I am glad to report that it has survived. Its survival is due to its inherent soundness.

Stripped of all the fancy legal language, the federally aided low-rent public-housing program provides decent homes for low-income families at rents they can afford to pay. The Federal Government does not foist public housing upon a community. The Federal statute is crystal clear on this point. The locality must demonstrate conclusively that Federal aid is required to rehouse families from slums. All sorts of local approvals are required as well as certifications by the Federal agencies concerned before a single dollar is loaned to a local housing authority.

For many years now, and 1955 is no exception, the very vocal and well-financed opposition to low-rent public housing has tagged it with an assortment of uncomplimentary names. This program with less than 500,000 dwellings has been called socialistic, fascistic, and communistic. It has been accused of leading the country into ruination~ undermining the construction industry, and in general playing havoc with the Nation's economy. The opposition also charges that public housing is un-American, degrades the families living in it, sets up ghettos, and colonizes voters.

What is American about slums? What is so elevating about an overcrowded, decrepit, 4-story walkup bursting at the seams with an overload of

humanity? As for colonization of votes, ' families with incomes· such as described . families living in low-rent public hous- above. I believe that the Federal Goving vote as they please-as do all Ameri- ernment is acting properly when it moves can citizens. After all, the ballot is to help the Nation's ill-housed families. still secret. And I also maintain that it should con-

The opposition rants against a Federal tinue to do so until private enterprise subsidy for decent low-rent public hous- steps in and takes over the job. ing-but with the same fervor argues in We are not only discussing low-rent favor of subsidies to permit families to public housing today. The entire framepay rents to slum landlords. work of the Federal Government's hous-

Subsidies are not new-public housing ing structure is being carefully examined is not the only recipient of a Federal sub- to correct any flaws. Public housing may sidy. The Federal Government helps de- not be the keystone, but it is an integral fray the cost of agricultural production, part, and it must be recognized as such of mail service, of transportation, and by both sides of the House. To do less highways. It contributes to our progress would be a betrayal of the less fortunate in medical and scientific research. of our fellow Americans.

We also pay subsidies on rosin, pea- Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield nuts, linseed oil, tung oil, and olive oil. such time as she may desire to the What is wrong with a subsidy that helps gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. SuLAmerican families escape from the LIVANl. · squalor of slums? Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, the

Why balk at voting a realistic public- housing bill deals entirely with the welhousing program when we know that. fare of human beings, our friends and private enterprise has not yet shown that our neighbors. It provides an extension it can or will build homes within the of a great program of urban renewal and reach of low-income families? I have 1·edevelopment. It would clear slums. listened to the testimony presented to Experience thus far has proven that the House Banking and Currency Com- when slums are cleared, people are dismittee, of which I am proud to be a mem- placed. It has proven that at least half ber. I have read the testimony given of those displaced have incomes so low before the Senate Banking and Currency that it is impossible for them to achieve Committee. I was amazed at some of proper shelter through normal channels the specious arguments advanced by of private enterprise, and that includes those who maintain that the federally private enterprise as assisted by FHA aided low-rent public-housing program and its numerous titles and VA housing. poaches upon the preserves of private There is no place for them to go except enterprise. I was not convinced by their into other, and often worse, slums. ,If arguments, and I do not stand alone in the slum-clearance program is pursued this respect. They are not building without provision for proper low-rent homes for America's low-income citi- shelter under a continuing public houszens. True, they have embarked on ing program, it will fail. The same "Build Better America,'' and "No Slums process follows when we repair existing by 1960" programs. They have started substandard shelter that may be salrehabilitation and cleanup programs. vaged. The cost of repairs tt, put such All of these are meritorious-all will ulti- property into habitable conditions forces mately result in cleaner American cities rents to go up, and low income families and in a better housed people. But are are forced out. We have that situation they building homes that low-income right here in this neighborhood-Capi-families can afford? tol Hill.

We know that private enterprise is Urban renewal and slum clearance concentrating its building efforts in the would be a hardship-almost a tragedyoutlying areas, in the suburbs. But what to those displaced unless we think in of the close-in, densely populated neigh- terms of human welfare, and of properly borhoods rapidly sliding into blight? housing those we evict from slum areas. Not only do the buildings deteriorate, Slum clearance is a mockery if by clearbut likewise the families who are forced ing out one pocket of decayed shelter to live in them-not by choice, but be- we create even worse situations else-cause they have no alternative. where.

Private enterprise so far has not come Mr. Chairman, let me speak of my own forward with the alternative-but the city, St. Louis. The 1950 census, and Fede~al Government has with its public- we have grown since then, showed that housmg program. we have 251,000 occupied dwelling units

I am informed by the Public Housing of which 88,000 were substandard. I am Administration that during the first half not suggesting that all 88,000 could, or of 1954, a recheck of over 142,000 fam- should, be demolished. Many thousHies living in low-rent public housing ands of them are doubtless subject to showed an average annual income of rehabilitation. We have in St. Louis a $1,852 after allowable exemptions. For great program of urban redevelopment, families admitted during that time, the slum clearance, and urban renewal unflgure was $1,810. No data are yet avail- derway. We have an officially approved able on rehecks for the rest of 1954, but workable program approved under the the 30,000 families moving in during Housing Act of 1954 which includes an October, November, and December 1954 allocation of 1,474 units of public hous-had average annual incomes of only ing from the 35 000 units approved last $1,803 after exemptions, $7 less than year. This bro'ad program has total those admitted in the first half of the community support, including the supyear. port of the great business and banking

I am a stanch advocate of the pri- interests of our city. Recently, the vate enterprise system. But I do not Board of Aldermen of the City of St. believe that it is building homes for Louis adopted a resolution asking for

1955 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE 12125 approximately 4,800 m_ore low-rent pub .. lie ho.using units in connection with present and immediate plans for urban renewal. As our city, in a workmanlike, intelligent manner, attacks the problem of eliminating or rehabilitating our 88,000 substandard homes, we will in the years ahead require· many more units of public housing-many times the number now requested for immediate needs.

And, Mr. Chairman, St. Louis is typical of the urban centers of our country. The 35,000 units requested by the President, and which our committee approved, have no relationship to our national needs. It is only a beginning in the right direction. · ·It is unthinkable that this great body representing all of the American people would turn its back when asked to m:ake a start toward the provision of decent homes for those who desperately need good shelter, including families to be displaced by the clearance of slums in our gigantic effort to restore urban communities to a healthful, sound, social and economic basis.

Housing for our senior citizens is of particular interest to me. The provision of 10,000 additional units a year for 2 years for single persons or couples when they reach the age of 65 is, in my opinion, one of the great forward steps that has been taken in the field of public housing in the last decade. I only wish that we had more detailed information concerning just exactly how our older families are housed. The 1950 census disclosed that we had 12.3 million persons over 65 years of age, representing 8.1 percent of our population, and something over 10.5 million of them living in nonfarm areas of the United States. In St. Louis our city population totaled 865,000 in 1950, of which some 80,000 were 65 years of age or older. From 1940 to 1950 the percentage of these persons to the total population gained from 6.8 to 8.1 percent. As the life span continues to increase the proportion of our elderly citizens will likewise increase.

On page 18 of the committee report it was pointed out that:

The housing conditions of the elderly are, in general, worse than those of other families.

The 1950 census, for example, showed in respect to rented dwellings, that 37 .4 percent of those occupied by families over 65 were substandard, whereas only 29.9 percent of those rented by younger families were substandard.

Mr. Chairman, those families living on social security or old-age assistance certainly are in no position to rent good shelter out of their meager income. The social-security pensioner without substantial savings is in a decidedly poor situation in this respect. And we all know that after rearing a family and educating the children and otherwise launching them on their way, the par-

, ents have usually little left for themselves. Yet they want to remain independent.

I am very pleased that the committee accepted my amendment to define elderly families, for the purpose of this part of the bill, to include single persons over 65, including widows and widowers or unmarried persons, this closes a big gap

ln the present program, since only family units can be admitted to publichousing projects.

Mr. Chairman, I there! ore hope that for the welfare of my community, my State, and our Nation, that S. 2126 as reparted by the Committee on Banking and Currency be passed.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VANIK].

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to indicate my support of the housing bill as it has been reported out of the committee. It is a good bill; it is a bill that we of the committee thought would be acceptable to the majority of the membership of this Congress.

I want to point out that the public .. housing units which are authorized in this bill are . necessary in order to keep up with the local programs which had been started throughout the country, It manifests only a modest interest at the national level in the problem of supplying housing for the low-income families.

I want to point out that in my home city of Cleveland over 30 percent of these public-housing units have been used to take care of families who are receiving some kind of public assistance and who are dependent upon public support. This has been a great way to reduce the load on the State and local governments in order to provide for dependent families who cannot take care of themselves because of the low amount of assistance they receive from other sources.

This bill is only a symbol of what ought to be done. It is an obligation on the Congress, because our local communities have made tremendous investments in planning for slum clearance and urban redevelopment. we need this program to redevelop and redesign our cities to care adequately for the people who reside therein.

People all over America are watching with keen interest to determine whether this Congress will keep faith in its obligation to lift the housing standards ·of America. In the large cities as well as in the villages and rural areas there is need to improve the housing for the families of low and moderate income as well as for the families who have become dependent through no fault of their own.

The housing laws of our Government have contributed perhaps as much to the social advancement of our Nation as any other body of legislation. A higb percentage of our families have been able to acquire a home of their own because of an FHA loan. Urban communities have been able to plan for redevelopment and urban renewal. We must inspire a nationwide effort to make city life more attractive and abate the trend toward suburban living,

The development of suburban living is r.eaching critical proportions . . The exodus to the open country is affording many people with a combination of country-city living, but the roads to and from the employment centers in the cities are glutted with traffic. Public transportation facilities are inadequate

and miserably slow in . heavy traffic. There is no substitute for decent and suitable housing accommodations in close proximity to the areas of employment.

In my own city of Cleveland great progress has been made in developing a program of urban renewal and redevelopment. Our citizens have banded together to help make city life more attractive. The success of our program in Cleveland, as well as the similar programs of other great cities of America, is dependent upon adequate legislation.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GREEN].

Mr. GREEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, more than 50 years ago Theodore Roosevelt said in a message to Congress:

The slum exacts a heavy total of deaths from those who dwell therein. No Christian and civilized community can afford to show a happy-go-lucky lack of concern for the youth of today; for if so, the community will have to pay a terrible penalty of financial burden and social degradation in the tomorrow.

What was true in 1904 is equally valid today-despite the tremendous progress made in eliminating slums and blight through various combinations of local, State, and Federal action. In this regard no one overlooks the contributions by private enterprise in making America a better place to live in.

The International News Service reported recently that this year's housing output would total about 1.3 million units, second highest output in history. For the first 5 months of 1955 builders chalked up a new record-$6 billion in residential construction spending, and the number of starts only ran 2 percent behind the 1950 all-time record.

Despite the private housing output, America still has a considerable number of substandard houses to contend with-houses like those Theodore Roosevelt spake about. The number of existing substandard units is given variously as 8, 12, or 15 million.

In 1950, according to the census, there were 10.6 million occupied nonfarm dwellings which were dilapidated or deficient in plumbing facilities. Of these, 6.1 million were in urban areas and 4.5 million in rural nonfarm localities.

There seems to be general agreement today, however, that about 8 million would be a good estimate of the number of substandard dwellings. Now, I have never heard public housing proponents say that every substandard unit beyond redemption should be replaced by a brand new public housing unit. But they are correct in asserting that public housing has demonstrated that it must be considered an integral part of any systematic attack on America's slums. Local housing authorities throughout the country have built between 5 and 6 hundred projects in whole or in part on slum sites. That adds up to some 22,000 acres or 31 square miles, half the entire area of Washington, D. C.

Cleaning up America's slums is a tremendous, but not .impossible job. The urban renewal concept of the Housing Act of 1954 envisioned a bulldozer attack.


If utilized to the extent possible, urban renewal could give new faces to many of our cities. It should be able to rescue run-down houses, of basically sound construction, by rehabilitation. It can find within its area of operations a place for new private housing that previously could not have been built in some areas, because to do so would have been economic folly.

There is also a place for public housing. As far as I am concerned, and I am not alone, there is no substitute yet for public housing-not if we want to rebuild the sick areas of urban America. Of course there are other proposals, and there will be more. Private enterprise wants to "build a better America" and says "No slums by 1960." Some proposals entail clearing the land, and others build buildings, but they all look to the general welfare of the people. Such objectives are highly laudable. But when some public housing opponents cry that public housing will drive to extinct ion the private home building industry, I am inclined to disregard the charge, especially in view of the past and present performance in the private housfog field.

No one has yet come up with a sa tisfactory substitute for low-rent public housing, It has been called many uncomplimentary names, every one unwarranted. A sober analysis of the views of the antipublic housers, as recently expounded before several congressional committees, only reaffirms my conviction that low-rent public housing is one excellent and tried method of combat-

- ting slums and their expense. It is also an escape hatch for families lost in the hopeless slum environment, and it is the only way that a family, unable to buy or rent in the private market today, can obtain a decent home.

What we must do today is not only vote a realistic public housing program in terms of number of units, but also vote to remove the crippling restrictions that practically rendered the program inoperative in the closing fiscal year.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further requests for time?

Mr. SPENCE. We have no further requests for time.

The CHAIRMAN. There being no further requests for time the Clerk will read the bill for amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be

cited as the "Housing Amendments of 1955."

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I off er an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. WOLCOTT: Page

1, line 3, strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"That section 2 (a) of the National Housing Act, as amended, is hereby amended by striking 'August 1, 1955' and inserting 'July 1, 1956'.

"SEC. 2. Section 217 of said Act, as amended, is hereby amended by striking 'July 1, 1954' and inserting 'July 1, 1955', and by striking '$3,500,000,000' and inserting '$4,000,000,000.'

"SEC. 3. Section 803 (a) of said Act, as amended,' is hereby amended by striking 'pursuant to a commitment to insure issued on or. before such date' and inserting 'pursuant to a certification by the Secretary of Defense or his designee made on or before such date

and a commitment to insure issued on or before June 30, 1956.'

"SEc. 4: The second sentence of section 104 of the Defense Housing and Community Facilities and Services Act of 1951, as amended, is hereby amended by striking in clause (a) thereof 'designate hereunder' and inserting 'designate hereunder or (iii) pursuant to a commitment to insure issued pursuant to the preceding clause (ii).'

"SEC. 5. (a) Section 103 (b) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, is hereby amended by striking '$100,000,000, which limit shall be increased by further amounts of $100,-000,000 on July 1 in each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, and 1953, respectively: Provided, That (subject to the total authorization of not to exceed $500,000,000)' and inserting '$500,000,000, which limit shall be increased by further amounts of $200,000,000 on July 1 in each of the years 1955 and 1956, respect ively: Provided, That.'

· " (b) Section 106 ( e) of said Act, as amended, is her eby amended by striking '$35,000,-000' and inserting '$70,000,000'.''

Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] One hundred and forty-nine are present, a quorum.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the issues here are pretty well crystallized and I doubt very much whether it is necessary for us to discuss this matter any further. I have been close to this subject in recent years, but I do not know of anything which can be said now which would add to the volumes of information which have been written on the question of housing throughout the years.

Some of us recall away back in 1937 when the first Public Housing Act was passed, and then the controversies incident to the continuance of that act in 1938, and the culmination of the pubhousing debates in 1949.

It is interesting to note that statements are made that in 1948 a great and very lovable statesman whom we all admired very deeply, the late Senator Taft, allegedly was in favor of public housing. I do not think that on this issue any 2 men were any closer so far as our understanding was concerned than Senator Taft and I. The proudest and most enjoyable experiences that I ever had were the confer enc es which we had with Senator Taft with respect to the housing bill. Starting in 1947, you recall, through 1948-that was the 80th Congress, and I am surprised that certain gentlemen would contend that anything good ever came out of the 80th Congress, but, if you recall, back in those days we had hardly gotten into the stride of production following World War II and there was a decided shortage of housing of all kinds, and not only the · great humanitarian, Senator Taft, but many others thought that within certain limitations the Government could well provide the incentive to build homes sufficient to take care of the people who were ill-housed. So, many went along with the so-called public housing program at that time because of the same reason that they will go along with any other emergency. But even then there were certain standards set up with which the localities and the public housing had to comply. Senator Taft was even more

anxious than any others that there be standards set up, the interpretation of which was .that the American system of free enterprise should be preserved, and therein lies the difference between the Taft concept of . public housing and the concept of public housing which is now brought before you on the floor of the House. Bob Taft was one of the outstanding free-enterprisers this country has ever known, and public housing to him was a crutch, by which the economy could be supported, temporarily, until nature had cured the illness.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as has been stated, the Committee on Banking and Currency worked long and laboriously over the bill which we have presented here today. It is a bill that has in it substantially what the President said he wanted in his message on the state of the Union. It is a bill that has in it what the President said he wanted in his budget message. It has in it what the President said he wanted in his economic report.

Now, this is a skeleton substitute that has been offered. And, I am surprised always to hear some people talk about private enterprise. What is private enterprise? Is private enterprise a selfsustaining enterprise without Government help? Is private enterprise as independent as the pioneer who built his hut on the mountainside and relied on his rifle for his protection and for his food? No. That kind of private enterprise is gone, and the people that prate mostly about private enterprise have their hands in the Public Treasury. Who is most in opposition to the public housing? Who has fought this bill most vigorously because it contains what they say is a socialistic provision?

It is the builders, my friends. And what do the builders get? The Government now has a potential liability of over $20 billion in FHA insurance in order that the builders might continue to build. They also asked to have Fanny May continued. Fanny May is what? It is a Government operated and controlled mortgage market which would support the builders' operations.

Let somebody talk about private enterprise that has not been the beneficiary of Government help. Let somebody throw the stones at public low-rent housing who is without fault. If we adopt that as a principle, we would have few stones thrown because most of the stones would be thrown by people who themselves are the beneficiary of Government favor.

If you take the substitute of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOLCOTT] who is a very able gentleman, you take a bill that has never been considered by the committee that has jurisdiction of such bills. The gentleman offers a bill in the House for only one purpose, to sabotage by indirection a bill that the Committee on Banking and Currency has brought here after long study and which is entitled at least to your consideration, unconfused by amendments such as this.

They still come here and say that this bill we have offered is not what the President wants. The President said he

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12127 wanted 70,000 units of low-rent housing, 35,000 a year distributed over 2 years. There is not a word in the bill that the gentleman from Michigan has brought before you that has any public housing in it. It is a skeleton bill with but one purpose, to help the builders. I do not object to their being helped in a reasonable way, but if they accept public help they ought not to be so violent against those in great need from obtaining some temporary assistance which will be beneficial to the whole community. The people who have had their hands deepest in the Treasury are the people who are most violently opposed to low-rent public housing.

We have got to take care of our people. We have always done so. Chris- · tianity demands it. This is a better way to do it than the poorhouse.

Mr. RAINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like if I could to get some kind of realistic approach to what appears to me to be a dead-end street.

The gentleman from Michigan is a very astute and keen parliamentarian. The bill which he offers was never offered in the Committee on Banking and Currency, of which he is the esteemed ranking minority member. It was not offered until the committee had reported and had put before the Rules Committee amendments to the Senate bill which passed in the Senate. .

In view of the fact, I assume, that the distinguished gentleman from Michigan speaks for the administration on public housing, I should like to read from the state of the Union message of the President. I would like to know who is right. I would like to know whether the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOLCOTT] is right or whether the plain English in the state of the Union message is correct. This is from the President's state of the Union message of January 6, 1955.

As part of our efforts to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for low-income families, we must carry forward the housing program authorized during the past Congress. We must also authorize contracts for a firm program of 35,000 additional public housing units in each of the next 2 fiscal years. This program will meet the most pressing obligations of the Federal Government into the 1958 fiscal year for planning and building public housing. By that time the private building industry, aided by the Housing Act of 1954, will have had the opportunity to assume its full role in providing adequate housing for low-income families.

I ask you in all sincerity, if you adopt the Walcott substitute and send it to Congress with a 135,000-unit Senate bill in your face, which bill is closest to the President's program, the Banking and Currency Committee bill with 35,000 public housing units, and 10,000 additional for old age, or one without any in it?

Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAINS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McDONOUGH. The gentleman knows the bill we passed last year carried certain restrictions on the building of public-housing units.

Mr. RAINS. Yes; I know that.

Mr. McDONOUGH. The President's state of the Union message said to carry forward the program of the previous Congress.

Mr. RAINS. It does not say that. Mr. McDONOUGH. At any rate, it

was his intention. I think we can agree on that.

Mr. RAINS. I want to be sure the gentleman is correct. It does not say to carry forward the program.

Mr. McDONOUGH. In the bill passed by the Senate and considered by the committee there were no such restrictions on the building of public-housing units.

Mr. RAINS. Mr. Cole, who I assume can speak for the President on public housing, told the Committee on Banking and Currency that he wanted 35,000 units of public housing without it being tied up with unnecessary restrictions. I am not here upholding the amendments. They ought to be considered. The amendment you are speaking about cannot be put into a bill which has no public housing in it. In other words, if it takes the amendments the gentlemc:.n mentions to correct the public-housing units, how are you going to put them onto a bill that has none in it?

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAINS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HALLECK. We are acting on the Senate bill, as I understand, as amended by the House committee.

Mr. RAINS. That is correct. Mr. HALLECK. If the Wolcott sub

stitute prevails, then it will still be the Senate bill, hence all the public housing features of the Senate bill will be in conference.

Mr. RAINS. Also the 135,000 units. Mr. HALLECK. That is right, also

the 135,000 units. So there are ample provisions in the Senate bill to take care of 35,000, if that is what is decided on.

Mr. RAINS. The gentleman does not mean to tell me he expects to go to the Senate with a bill without any in it in order to preserve 2 or 3 restrictions that came in in amendments in the Banking and Currency Committee?

Mr. McDONOUGH. If the gentleman will yield further, another point the gentleman made concerning the substitute bill offered by the gentleman from Michigan was this. He said the committee should have considered it. The committee did consider it. Everything that is in the Wolcott bill was under consideration and subject to hearings. There is nothing in the Wolcott bill that is not in the bill reported out by the committee.

Mr. RAINS. The gentleman will remember that when we considered it, after we had put the 35,000 public housing units in it the gentleman from California made a motion to strike those 35,000 units, and the gentleman will remember the vote of the Banking and Currency Committee on that.

Mr. McDONOUGH. That is correct. That was their intention, and it is my intention now.

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am very much opposed to the Wolcott amendment for the

following reasons: First, it completely eliminates public housing; second, it fails to grant independent status to the Home Loan Bank Board, despite the fact that this Board is primarily a lending rather than a financial agency; third, it eliminates loans to municipalities for public facilities, such as waterworks, sewage plants, and so forth; fourth, it fails to liberalize the present college-building program; fifth, it contains no cooperative housing program for middle-income groups; sixth, it hamstrings FHA section 220 loans-that is, private housing on slum-cleared areas-by keeping them on a value rather than a cost basis; and, seventh, it fails to extend the present farm building program.

Because I don't have time to discuss all of these points in detail, and because the Wolcott amendment is apt to stand or fall on the question of public housing, I want to address the remainder of my remarks to this very important topic. The basic question, it seems to me, is whether or not the problem of providing adequate housing for low-income groups requires for its solution some sort of joint activity by private enterprise and by the Federal Government through a low-cost public-housing program.

From the bleating outcries from some quarters, the impression is often given that Government responsibility in this area is a little more than a deliberate and devious effort to compete with private enterprise or to destroy private enterprise in this area by socialization of the home-construction industry.

For this reason, I would like to say that-during the course of the recent hearings on the legislation before useven the most ardent supporters of public housing agreed outright that the job of providing decent housing at reasonable rates for low-income families is properly the function of private enterprise.

The sole question is whether private enterprise at the present time is doing the job. If not, then it falls within the legitimate province of the Federal Government to meet this human need until such time as private enterprise is able to fulfill the function.

To start with, let us look at the job which the home construction industry faces. According to the figures based on the last census, we have today in the United States 15 million substandard homes-homes which are dilapidated, which are located in slum areas, or which lack interior plumbing facilities. Of these 15 million homes, 10 million must be cleared and replaced, while 4 ½ million additional substandard units may be brought up to standa,rd by rehabilitation and modernization.

On the basis of population figures also obtained from the Bureau of the Census, it is estimated that 1.4 million new units will be needed annually from 1955 to 1960 for new families, for dwellings which are demolished by fire or other disaster, or which are cleared in highwa,y and other construction programs.

So, our total housing requirements in the United States at the present time include 1,400,000 units per year to meet


current growing housing needs, plus replacement for rehabilitation of nearly 15 million units.

Recent history shows that private construction simply has not met this tremendous need. Since 1950, an average of only slightly over 1 million new nonfarm units have been provided by private enterprise. And needless to say, these units have benefited mainly people who have been able to pay the market price of the new homes. There has been practically no abandoning of substandard housing for better quarters provided by private builders.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps these are dry figures which I am citing to point up the need for joint activity by private enterprise and by the Federal Government to meet the housing needs of the Nation. Certainly much more startling is the fact that nearly 20 percent of the metropolitan residential area in the United States is comprised of slum or blighted districts. These blighted areas account for 33 percent of the population, 35 percent of the fires, 45 percent of the major crimes, 50 percent of the arrests, and 55 percent of the juvenile delinquency in the great cities of our country from New York to California and from Minneapolis to New Orleans. Who can say this is not a national problem to be met by the combined facilities and joint efforts of Government and private enterprise?

Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States has gone on record as favoring limited public housing; that is, 35 thousand units for each of the next 2 years. In his budget message last January, the President stated:

The basic principal underlining budget recommendations for programs in the fields of transportation, housing, and business is that the national interest is best served by privately owned and operated industry, which is assisted by a minimum of Federal funds and Federal basic facilities.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that 70,000 public housing units for the next 2 years is a minimum, if not less, of Federal assistance needed to meet the very real and very human need for shelter which exists in our country today.

Mr. BUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the substitute.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. BUDGE to the

amendment offered by Mr. WotCO'IT: On page 2, strike line 3 and insert the following in lieu thereof: " 'issued on or before June 30, 1956', and by inserting before the period at the end of said section •, or (C) pursuant to a certification by the Atomic Energy Commission or its designee made on or before June 30, 1956'."

Mr. BUDGE. Mr. Chairman, the purpase is to include along with the Department of Defense the Atomic Energy Commission, under the title military housing provisions of whichever of these bills which may ultimately be adopted by the House. It would apply in very few places in the country; probably -not over a half dozen at the outside. In my particular district there is a large Atomic Energy Commission installation at Arco, where the atomic submarine was developed and where it is hoped the atomic airplane will be developed. The influx of new people to work in

that plant has ' created a very severe housing shortage in the area, and it is extremely difficult to secure financing to take care of the personnel that the Government· is shipping in to carry out the Atomic Energy program. Certainly it is just as important to the defense of this Nation as are the military installations, and I feel that a certification by the Atomic Energy Commission should be treated in just the same manner as a certification by the Department of Defense.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUDGE. I yield. Mr. WOLCOTT. I have read the gen

tleman's amendment. I think the gentleman has made a very fine point, and as far as I am concerned his amendment should be supported and should be satisfactory to everyone.

Mr. BUDGE. I certainly appreciate the support of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WoLCOTTJ. I hope the committee will see flt to adopt this amendment which may be of extreme importance in a very few areas in the Nation.

Mr. BARRETT of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wolcott amendment. I believe the key to his amendment is to kill public housing. I am for S. 2126. ·

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, which handles all housing legislation, I am proud to have a share in writing the kind of bill that means better housing for all-and particularly for the low-income groups. There is nothing we do in the course of a session of Congress that is more significant or longlasting in improving the lives of the American people than good housing legislation.

The trend, which has greatly changed and improved the housing situation in America, was pioneered by the Democratic Party under the leadership of the late Franklin D. Roosevelt. As a result, today more people own their own homes than rent. This is a phenomenal accomplishment, bringing home ownership within the means of a majority of American families. Further, we have been very successful in putting into operation an excellent low-rent and slum-clearance housing program, which has been beneficial to millions.

In Philadelphia we are deeply proud of our public-housing projects because we know what they have meant to our people. Decent living accommodations . have been substituted for deplorable slums. Families have found dignity in their daily lives because they have been helped to live rather than just to exist. They are better Americans for having had the chance to share in the good things of America, including decent shelter. Slums are a disgrace to our whole country and must be eliminated.

We in Philadelphia, too, have made great progress with our redevelopment work, thanks to the far-sighted legislation passed in 1949 under President Truman. Each year this work is proving to be more and more important to the future growth of America's cities, which previously were strangling in crowded,

deteriorating, high-cost but uneconomic land use. We are bringing fresh air and park vistas and sunlight and vast new beauty to our urban centers, and the city is on its way back not only as a business center, but as a place to live and enjoy the many advantages of city life.

The controversial urban redevelopment programs initiated by our party are now popular with all segments of the community and the business world. Businessmen, including the real estate group, have seen how broadly they benefit because of increased property values in the community and they realize they are contributing to more prosperity for all. · Unfortunately, some of the groups

which so bitterly fought urban redevelopment but finally came around to see the error of their ways still, however, fight against public housing. It seems they hate to see the poor family get any kind of break at all.

Both our efficient mayor, Joseph Clark, and I have repeatedly fought for a more flexible public housing program. During the series of hearings before the Committee on Banking and Currency we urged and recommended that 70,000 public housing units be authorized annually. We further recommended, in addition to adequate provisions for public housing, that those people in the middle income group and those who are elderly be provided with decent housing facilities.

An effort will be made on the floor of the House to report the Wolcott bill, H. R. 7473, which I shall vigorously oppose because it eliminates all public housing. This bill endangers the various programs now in operation by the Federal Housing Administration. It does not provide the changes the Committee believes necessary for rehabilitation of housing and slum clearance in urban areas. It fails to provide for needed corrections for housing for our elderly families. It fails to provide for any of the Administration's recommendations regarding the operation of the Home Loan Bank Board. It makes no provision for public facility loans which would provide needed assistance to the smaller municipalities of the country. The bill makes no provision for any of the needed amendments for the college housing program or for the continuation of the farm housing assistance program. Lastly, no mention is made regarding military rental housing, which is one of the more critical housing programs in existence today. Now you can understand why this substitute bill must be opposed and defeated.

S. 2126, as reported out of our committee, is not as broad as I would like to see. It provides only the 35,000 units a year of public housing the President requested, although I support a much greater amount. But we should pass as at least a bare minimum this 35,000 unit authorization. We in Philadelphia could use twice this number all by ourselves, but if we face the choice of 35,000 units or none, we will settle for this small and insufficient number-for this year, anyway.

The country is waiting to hear and see what is done on this bill in order to get a measure of the degree of humanitar-

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12129 ianism in the Congress of the United States. They must get an answer which tells them Congress is alert to the needs of the people, and cannot again be swayed and deterred by special interests which want only for themselves and would deny the poor.

Mr. Chairman, I favor and urge the passage of a housing bill that will get our people out of slums and into decent places to live. Let all who would vote against this objective know that a negative vote on this bill is a vote for slums.

Mr. BYRNE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARRETT. I yield. Mr. BYRNE of Pennsylvania. I would

like to associate myself with my colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania. [Mr. BARRETT], and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection. Mr. BYRNE of Pennsylvania. Mr.

Chairman, the measure before us today is of vital concern to each and every one of us and to our constituents. We are being asked to consider and act upon legislation to extend and liberalize existing laws regarding housing, It is my firm conviction that this bill is one of the most important presented to us in this Congress. Its passage is extremely necessary to the continued welfare of this Nation.

Perhaps the most significant, and also the most controversial, feature of this bill is the provision for 35,000 publichousing units each year for the next 2 years. This is a far cry from the 135,000 public-housing units each year for the next 4 years provided for in a bill passed by the Senate. Thirty-five thousand units erected throughout the Nation will take care of only a small percentage of the families in dire need of assistance. However, inadequate as this figure is, it is better than nothing. We must support it and trust that a more liberal program will result from the conference between House and Senate Members.

The public-housing program performs a very necessary function in our society. It was set up and has been operated for the benefit of low-income families.

Over the past few years, as the cost of living has risen and the cost of privately owned apartments and homes has increased accordingly, more and more families have been forced to live under conditions that insult the dignity of any individual. In my district in the heart of the birthplace of the Nation, Philadelphia, people are living in squalor and filth. While money is appropriated liberally to improve and beautify the Independence Hall Mall, my constituents are packed into houses, meant for half as many, which lack even the most primitive plumbing facilities. Needless to say, disease runs rampant throughout these areas. In 5 years' time the lower end of the district will be a blighted area.

Accompanying these degrading conditions is the inevitable rise in the crime rate, particularly among adolescents. Juvenile delinquency thrives in areas where there are insufficient playgrounds

and recreation facilities. These youngsters are the future voters and leaders of our country. They are currently in their formative years. What they experience now will influence their outlook in later years. We have a duty not only to them but also to ourselves and to our country to provide them with decent living conditions and adequate play areas.

Benefiting also from this bill will be elderly, low-income families. The number of these families is on the upswing and it is expected that the problems which they face will become more of a concern to the country in the years to come. This bill makes a provision for 10,000 dwelling units expressly for the use of elderly people. This will fill a long-felt need.

Mr. Chairman, I earnestly solicit the support of all the members of this body in passing this bill.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word, and ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks immediately following those of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA] made earlier in the day on this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I

rise in opposition to the pro forma· amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the Members ought to realize the differences between the Wolcott substitute and the committee bill. Of course, outside of the killing of any kind of public housing, the Wolcott substitute for all practical purposes will wipe out the Wherry military housing program. To the contrary, the committee bill broadens existing law.

This particular program is confined to military reservations, and I might say that the Secretary of Defense has already certified that the armed services need at least 110,000 additional units in order to house properly the servicemen and their families.

I might say also that this particular program is carried on by private enterprise through private money. The administration has recommended the extension of it. The Secretary of Defense urgently calls for it, but the substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan, my friend [Mr. WOLCOTT] for all practical purposes will limit the present program to those already certified by the Secretary of Defense but not any more in the future.

So there is a very sharp difference between the Wolcott bill in that respect and the committee bill, and between the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WoLCOTT] and President Eisenhower and Secretary Wilson and the other Secretaries of the Department of Defense.

The first two sections are substantially the same in both bills. Title I relates to the home repair program. There may be a difference in. expiration dates.

Section 2 relates to FHA insurance, authorizing $4 billion of addition authority to the Administration.

Section 4 of the Wolcott bill is the same as the committee bill. This re-

lates to defense housing which at the present time is in an active status but will be continued o::i a standby basis.

Section 5 is substantially the same as the committee bill, authorizing $500 million more for urban redevelopment and slum clearance.

Section 106 of the Wolcott bill is more or less a technical amendment and is in the committee bill.

There are many sharp differences in addition to the one .I have just stated on the housing program for those in the armed services.

Authorized loans on public housing: The Wolcott bill leaves out 10,000 units for the next 2 years for elderly persons. I do not think it is necessary to argue the case for elderly persons.

The only difference between the committee bill and the recommendations of the President is that the administration recommended an additional 10,000 units for each of the next 2 years for elderly persons and the carryover of about 5,400 units from the past fiscal year's authorization.

The President recommended 35,000 units for each of the next 2 years. So in respect to public housing the committee bill is identical with the recommendation of the President, with the exception of the carryover of 5,400 units from the last fiscal year and the 10,000 units for each of the next 2 years for elderly persons. · The Wolcott substitute leaves out perfecting amendments to sections 220 and 221 relating to the FHA but necessary to make the private enterprise phase of urban redevelopment workable. There is the public-enterprise feature, and there is the private-enterprise feature in connection with urban redevelopment. The Wolcott substitute leaves out provisions of the committee bill which will make the private-enterprise feature in connection with urban redevelopment workable.

It also leaves out the broadening of the municipal loan program and it leaves out the college housing program.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.

<By unanimous consent (at the request of Mr. McCORMACK) Mr. McCORMACK wa..s allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. McCORMACK. - Mr. Chairman, the membership ought to have in mind the sharp differences between both bills. The Wolcott substitute not only wipes out public housing but it wipes out several very important activities. We have been through this fight so often on public housing that it is unnecessary to enter into lengthy debate.

I sincerely hope that the authority for 70,000 units in the next 2 years, as recommended by President Eisenhower, which, of course, is consistent with good Democratic policy, and the additional 10,000 units for elderly persons for the next 2 years, will be carried in the bill. For this reason and for other reasons, and in view of the damage that the Wolcott substitute will do, I urge defeat of the Wolcott substitute.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words.


Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset I am for the administration proposal in respect to the housing program and by that I include the request for 35,000 units a year for the next 2 years. It seems to me that if we are for the administration proposal, the only question before us is, How shall we best r-each that result?

The gentleman from Massachusetts, our very amiable and distinguished majority leader, has just referred to the public housing feature as being good Democratic doctrine. I have heard many of his colleagues on his side of the aisle in debate to this point assert that actually that policy originated with and was brought about by the late great Senator Robert Taft of Ohio.

But be that as it may, and speaking for myself, my position through the years has been known. I have not been an advocate of Federal public housing as such, but when the proposals were made by the present administration and I understood the attitude of the administration I took the position, and it is borne out in the last state of the Union message~ that the question was not whether you are for or against Federal public housing, but since we now have something over 800,000 units, When do you end the program?

In that regard I call attention to a statement made in the state of the Union message in which thEJ President used these words:

We must also authorize contracts for a fl.rm program of 35,000 additional public housing units in each of the next two fiscal years. This program will meet the most pressing obligations of the Federal Government into the 1958 fiscal year for planning and building public housing. By that time the private building industry, aided by the Housing Act of 1954, will have had the opportunity to assume its full role in providing adequate housing for low-income fam-111es.

Now, as I read that, it is the express hope of the President that public housing, the need for it, such as there might be said for any need to be, will be over at the time this particular program ends.

So, what is the situation before us? We have, first of all, the bill from the other body. That certainly contains enough provisions for public housing that the conferees could agree on 35,000, if that is what they want to do. Then, of course, we have the bill as reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency,

Now, you can find in that provisions that are in line with the President's program, but you can find many, many more provisions that are not in line with the President's program. For instance, there are 20,000 more units of public housing provided for, and many of the restrictions that were asked to be continued, are not continued in that measure.

So, as I see it, here is where we are. We adopt the Wolcott substitute and go on and pass the bill. 'I'he measure then goes to conference, because the bill we are now considering, the original committee bill, is the Senate bill with certain committee amendments.

As I say, we have been through this controversy time and time again. I

heard the gentleman from Michigan refer back to an original housing bill in 1937. I was here at that time, and I took part in those debates. But we know, through the recent years, at least, that on every occasion these bills are written in conference. So, why not adopt the Wolcott substitute and let it go to conference? I am for that, because I am convinced that in that way we shall more quickly and more nearly achieve the administration proposal, which I say is a good proposal.

Mr. RAINS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HALLECK. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. RAINS. What would be the difference in going to conference on the Banking and Currency Committee bill as amended by the House? Why would there be any advantage in going to conference on the Wolcott bill?

Mr. HALLECK. The difference is that you have an additional 20,000 public housing units, and I assume the figure in the bill from the other body being greater than that, that probably would not be in conference. And many provisions desired by the President are not in either bill and would not be in conference. Unless the Wolcott substitute is adopted many of the proposals of the President would be eliminated.

· But here is a simple and practical matter before you. An amendment could be offered now to put 35,000 units into the Wolcott substitute. I do not know whether it would prevail or not. If such an amendment were offered, let me say for myself I would support it. But I know this, that whatever would prevail, ultimately this bill will go to conference, and when it comes back from conference, then every Member of this House will have an opportunity to express himself with respect to the provisions of the bill. In other words, the quickest way to get at it, the best way to get at it, is to adopt the Wolcott substitute, and that I advocate.

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, it is never pleasing to me to oppose my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOLCOTT]. He is a very fine and able Member of this body, very sincere. But I believe in this instance he is clearly wrong. I believe he has left out too many of the important parts of the bill that we have before us. He . has what could be considered just the bare running gear of the housing bill. I think he reduced it entirely too much, and I hope that his amendment or substitute is defeated.

It is often said and truthfully said that there are four great evils. The great.:. est evils are poverty, ignorance, disease, and crime. I know that public housing will not cure all these great evils, but it is a part of the answer. Many people are criminals and land in our jails and penitentiaries primarily because they did not have an opportunity to enjoy a decent place to live. We have never been economy-minded, we have never pinched pennies when it was necessary to build fine jails. We have built the finest jails in the country and never asked any questions about it. Nobody ever argues

about who is going to occupy those jails. We have never been penny-pinchers when it came to having fine penitentiaries and fine equipment for the penitentiaries, and to take care of those unfortunate people who must go to the penitentiaries.

If we had spent a little more time and a little more money in providing decent housing for people, the people who suffer misfortunes and troubles over which they have no control, who have no decent place on earth to live, I have a feeling that we would have less need for the jails and less need for the penitentiaries.

I know it is contended that they get into this public housing and remain there. Unfortunately, a lot of people have been permitted to remain in these houses who were not qualified. But it was because of the exceptional circumstances. It was right after the war when we had few houses, as few had been built during the war. There was a shortage of houses. Some very deserving people were in these public housing projects who were not qualified to remain there. In some cases they were heroes of the war, IJ}en with families, and although they had incomes larger than would qualify them to remain there, the local authorities would not put them out because it would have been tantamount putting them out on the street. They did not want to do that, so they permitted a great many people to remain on and on in public housing who were really not qualified to remain there, and it was because of an unusual situation over which none of us had any con• trol.

But normally public housing is .intended as a temporary living place for people when they are unable to get any other place. They go there for a period of time which is temporary, until their economic status changes and they can go out and buy a home under pri .. vate enterprise, or in any way they wish. But they need that period of time. It is no more reasonable to say that we should, in order to save money, give a. deed to all the people who are in this public housing than to say that we ought to give a deed to all the inmates of our jails and penitentiaries, because it would be cheaper. That is not the point.

I think a limited number of units of public housing is in the interest of the country. I know that the cities get most of it. I do not have any big cities in the district I have the honor to represent. It probably will not help me at all, I do not know. But I am certainly willing to help the cities. They are not selfish when it comes to helping the country people. I know that our Members here from New York and Chicago and the other great cities of this country, many of them have a better voting record for the farmer than many Mem .. bers who actually come from farming districts in our country, because they are unselfish. They are looking at it strictly from the standpoint of the country.

Although it just helps the rural communities they do not stand back on that, they vote for the rural areas just the same. I feel that it is incumbent on me to be just as unselfish as they are,

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12131

and when they have a problem that takes public funds to help them solve that problem that is in the interest of and for the benefit of the entire country, I feel that we ought to help them, not just to help them but because it is in the public interest.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the substitute amendment and all amendments thereto close at 4 o'clock.

The CHAffiMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?

There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog

nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES].

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have heard many adroit arguments in my time but few to match the one we have just listened to from the minority whip, Mr. HALLECK. He says that he is in favor of the President's program on public housing. Yes; he is in favor of it just so long as it is passed by the Senate and not by the House of Representatives. He says it is perfectly all right with the President for members of the Republican Party in the House to vote against the public-housing program. In this way they will be supporting the President completely inasmuch as the Senate has already approved more public-housing units that the President requested. Does the gentleman really believe we are simple enough to accept such a specious argument? In response to the question from the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. RAINS], he replied: "Let us go to conference on the basis of what the Senate has passed. There is no need for us to approve any public-housing in this body." As far as he is concerned, Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives need take no position at all on one of the most important parts of the administration's national housing program.

The gentleman from Indiana is the President's spokesman in this House. Presumably his advice to his Republican colleagues to refrain from voting for the public-housing program has the President's blessing. How long can the country continue to tolerate such doubletalk where the administrative branch of the Republican Party proposes one course of action and the legislative branch of the Republican Party disposes of such a proposal by taking contrary action?

We see here again an example of what has transpired time and again. The President's so-called dynamic crusade stumbles and founders when it hits the House of Representatives. The Republican Party refuses to support its President on his housing program just as it has refused again and again to support him on other major legislation for which he has sought their assistance.

The President's crusade calls for slum clearance, urban redevelopment and renewal, and municipal rehabilitation. It endorses programs which would destroy slums and rebuild neighborhoods and cities. But these proposals fail to appreciate the consequences which must in-evitably flow if they are to be implemented. What do the gentlemen pro-

pose to do with the people who are displaced by the destruction of their ancient and ill-suited habitats? Where do the gentlemen propose to house those who are displaced? These people cannot be dislodged without giving them the opportunity to find other places to shelter themselves and their children.

Here are but a few basic facts which must be recognized. The first is that when you clear slums you displace people. The second is that nearly half of those families displaced have incomes so low that they must have public housing if they are to secure proper shelter. The third is that the other half of the displaced families generally fall in the middle-income brackets that find it almost impossible to secure adequate homes within their capacity to pay, supplied by private enterprise. Yet the administration would do nothing to give more than token assistance to them. And so we set forth on a crusade to clear slums with all of the skills of the very best public relations experts, lacking fuel and ammunition. It is comparatively easy to tear down slums if we do not care about what happens to people. We happen to care first about what happens to people. The Wolcott amendment would deny them any consideration at all.

It is obvious that we need a housing program that will satisfy the housing needs of all Americans, of every economic level, not just those who can afford to buy their own houses at current prices. We must have a housing program for those who cannot afford to buy current housing, as well. If the Wolcott amendment is passed and the public-housing program rejected, the Government will be depriving a major segment of our people of the opportunity to obtain decent homes in decent surroundings in which to raise their children. I urge that the · Wolcott amendment be voted down.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REUSS].

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Wolcott amendment because I believe what is involved here is the simple issue of whether or not the Federal Government should do its small part in the joint attack by private enterprise and by Government at the city, county, and State level to wipe out slums and to substitute clean, decent housing with adequate green space and light, where kids can play and old people can enjoy the air.

Frankly, I do not follow the argument made by the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK] that the best way to support the President's modest request for 35,000 units for each of 2 years is to vote against it. There have been arguments advanced here this afternoon that the supporters of the 35,000 units are socialistic. If so, this is a Socialist administration, because, as HHFA Administrator Code said on June 8:

I'd like to give you the basis of our thinking behind the administration's public housing recommendation. This administration is convinced that additional public housing 1s absolutely essential for carrying forward the President's comprehensive housing and urban renewal program.

The CHAffiMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of specious arguments in my time, but I think today takes the cake. We have some gentlemen who come up here and say, "If you want to honor the memory of the great late Senator Taft who was for public housing, vote against it." You have heard other Members come here and say, "If you want to carry out Eisenhower's program for public housing, vote against it." You have heard people who only this morning had the chance to listen to an inspiring speech by the President of the United States get up at that meeting and yell, "We want Ike, we want Ike." Now they say the way to be for what Ike wants is to vote against it. In other words, they say, "We want Ike, but we do not want Ike's program." Mr. Chairman, I am for public housing, and I am for the Spence bill. I am against the substitute, and I hope you vote it down.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. FISHER].

(By unanimous consent, the time allotted to Mr. DIES, Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi, and Mr. GRoss was given to Mr. FISHER.)

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for the Wolcott substitute. I think it is imperative in pursuance of an orderly way of handling this situation that it be adopted now. Every year for the last 5 years, this House has gone on record as being apposed to public housing. For the information of the new Members who may not be familiar with what has happened in the past, beginning in 1951, every year we have voted against public housing in the House of Representatives. Usually by overwhelming votes-it has been nothing close. This program is unpopular in the House of Representatives. It would have been killed several years ago except for the insistence of the other body. So we have the same clamor, the same talk, and the same arguments and the same old line .brought in here today in defense of it that we have had every year, year in, and year out. What does this do? Through the years the House very laboriously has been able to adopt a number of restrictive amendments, as they call them-and we will call them that-to eliminate some of the evils of the public housing program as it is being administered. What are some of those evils? What are some of those restrictive amendments? One of them was a law prohibiting subversives from iiving in those places. The committee bill that we are asked to adopt here strikes that out so that they can live in them-do you understand what that means? Second, we were able to get inserted in the law, and it is a law today, if the committee does not repeal it here by the committee bill, a formula so that a. community does not have to accept a. public housing project after it decides .by a ref er end um to reject it. The com-mittee bill strikes that out and it would no longer be the law.

Third, it repeals the Roanoke amend-ment which was previously referred to.

12132" CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 29

which prohibits p-rojects where they have been rejected by public vote unless it is specificaly approved by the same procedure.

That is stricken out of the law under the committee bill.

Fourth. Another requirement which we were able to put in the housing law in the form of a restriction requires that the number of housing units be related to the number of persons displaced by slum clearance. What is wrong with that? They struck that out. That is no longer the law if the committee bill is adopted.

All efforts at progress that have been made in the last 5 years would be wiped out.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISHER. I yield. Mr. HALLECK. I think it should be

pointed out in connection with the statement the gentleman is making that these restrictive provisions are out of the Senate bill; they are out of the committee bill here; so if we are to retain these provisions which should be retained, then we must adopt the Wolcott substitute.

Mr. FISHER. That is another one of the imperative reasons why the Wolcott substitute must be adopted.

No. 5: Another provision that is in the law today which the committee bill . would repeal, provides that no publichousing contracts would be entered into for future years for additional units without the consent of Congress. In other words, they cannot project them into the future. That is the anti-leapfrog amendment which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THor.:AsJ and the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS J fought for for so many years. It is the law today, But the committee bill strikes it out and it will be no longer the law if the committee bill is approved.

Still another one: The committee bill includes 20,000 new units for old folks, known as the Townsend plan, a completely new thing and the beginning of a brand-new program. · Now, they say this is the President's program-the committee bill. But that is not true. Housing Administrator Albert M. Cole, on July 13 last, was quoted as saying the administration wanted the housing bill to require that:

First. Cities develop approved programs of urban renewal prior to participation in Federal public-housing aid.

Second. Public housing be made available only to families displaced by slumclearance projects.

The committee bill contains neither of those provisions. Indeed instead of continuing such requirements. as is now in the law, the committee bill strikes out and repeals both of them. And yet they harp here about this being President Eisenhower's program-the administration's request on the subject of public housing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if you are opposed to public housing, here is a chance to vote against it. Public housing is now dead. It was killed last year by the House and ·the Senate. Today we decide

not whether 'it be-continued but whether we attempt· to breathe the breath of life into the dead carcass. Let 11s not march back down the hill and wipe out the progress that ha:s so laboriously been made in the past. The House has voted against it repeatedly. Of course, if this goes to conference, we have been told already that probably there will be some compromise. There will be a record vote and those who favor it will have a chance to go on record at that time. But at this time the only proper thing to do, if you have any question about the propriety of public housing or if you are for it and you feel it should be restricted to the so-called welfare level, is to vote for the Wolcott substitute.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISHER. I yield. Mr. DIES. There is more reason to

vote against the committee bill today than there was last year; is that not true? ..

Mr. FISHER. Oh, yes. Above everything. Now is the time to strike out the committee bill and to take the Wolcott substitute and let it go to conference and retain these provisions that we have fought for over the years, which in one fell swoop are wiped out by the committee bill. Now is the time to act and not postpone or compromise a decision.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA].

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I wish to touch upon a phase that has not as yet been considered.

I think the Committee on Banking and Currency has a fine reputation in this House. I think over all the years it has been respected as a great committee. The Committee on Banking and Currency worked many days on this bill. There were many days of public hearings, many days in executive session. Finally a bill resulting from weeks of hard labor was reported out. The Rules Committee refused to grant a rule because some of the members did not like some of the provisions in the bill.

A distinguished member of the committee-and no one has greater affection and esteem for the gentleman from Michigan than have I-unfortunately was called from the sessions of the committee in the closing days, and on his return he drew up a bill which was not submitted to the committee. It was his own handiwork.

It was merely a skeleton continuing many of the authorizations that the construction people want. If we pass no housing bill at all we are going to have sorry times because construction is bound to stop with the cessation of governmental financing. So the gentleman from Michigan brought up this bill merely extending those authorizations. He argues that upori the framework of his skeleton the conferees can construct their own creation.

The question presented is whether the House sitting as Committee of the Whole shall substitute for the will of one of its great committees the will of one member of that committee. It is a dan-

gerous .precedent to establish; a precedent that will arise in the future to plague the House.

The adoption of the substitute bill will deprive this body of· the right to pass upon its own bill and turn over to the conferees the rights and responsibilities of this body.

In the bill reported by the Committee is provision for housing for the aged. There is no such provision in the begra vied skeleton of the gentleman from Michigan. There is gravy in the skeleton for others, for the aged there is not even a crumb.

If the majority of this body does not wish to make even a gesture toward helping our senior citizens, it can vote to strike the provision from the Committee's bill. By adopting the substitute of the gentleman · from Michigan it will be sneaking around the corner to avoid showing its intention to give our senior citizens the Eskimo treatment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog .. nizes the gentleman from California [Mr. HIESTAND].

Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted to me may be transferred to the gentleman from California [Mr. HIESTAND].

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, I object. I am back on the job. From now on there will be no more transfers or extensions.

Mr. HmSTAND. Mr. Chairman, in the 11 days of hearings that our committee . had·, no evidence was supplied that we needed any additional public housing, I have gone through the minutes very carefully, No evidence was offered.

We have been told that the President's message of 1955 advocated 35,000 more units. That is not the way he worded it. He said: "Carry out the program of the previous Congress." The program of the last Congress was carefully geared to serve the needs of the country and to carry out the will of the Congress as expressed in the great Housing Bill of 1954. .

Mr. Chairman, the Spence bill is not an administration bill. There are some 11 major points to which the administration objects. It is not an administration bill. It takes away, as the distinguished gentleman from Texas just mentioned, all of the restrictions and safeguards this Congress had voted into the bill as a . protection to the basic principles of free enterprise. The administration bill definitely said it would supply all the needs of the victims of slum clearance.

The Wolcott substitute provides all of the essential parts that need to be carried over.

I advocate the Wolcott substitute. The committee repeals all restrictions

in the Housing Act of 1954. They include:

The requirement that a community must show a workable program of slum· clearance and urban rehabilitation, that the total number of housing units covered by such new contracts shall not

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12133 exceed the total number of dwelling units ton Bureau, National Association for the of families to be displaced as a result of Advancement of Colored People. Federal, State, or local governmental ac- The national housing program is a, tion in such community. cruel and disgusting hoax so far as col-

It would repeal the protection of com- ored citizens of the United states are munities against unwanted projects, as concerned. Each year, through the exat Los Angeles, Roanoke, and many other penditures of millions of dollars in FHA, places. VA, and slum clearance programs, the

It would repeal the Gwinn anti- United States is expanding housing seg-Communist provision. regation.

It completely repeals the administra- It is an incredible paradox that the tion's defense housing request known as same Government which has valiantly the Capehart bill which passed the other and successfully fought racial segregabody. tion on other fronts is actively promoting

We have three times voted down the segregation in the places where our citiSocialist public housing program. This zens live. Spence bill would revive it and revive it An analysis of census data, 1940-50, without limit. The sky is the limit and reveals the following facts: no safeguards. Nonwhites comprised 10.3 percent of

In Los Angeles a hundred thousand the total population in 1950, but occupied people more voted to throw it out than only 8.6 percent of all occupied dwelling voted in favor, yet the public housing units. bureaucrats said "You shall have it any- The nonwhite population increased at way." a faster rate than the number of dwell-

And believe it or not, Mr. Chairman we ing units it occupied-15 percent against had it jammed down our throats,' in 10 percent-wheras the reverse was true spite of the will of the people. for whites-14 percent against 23 per-

Subsidized public housing costs the cent. For nonfarm areas alone, the nontaxpayers of our country $26.90 per white population rose by nearly 40 permonth per unit on the average, and as cent, while the number of dwelling units vacancies climb it will increase. The re- it occupied increased by only 31 percent. quest for deficit coverage has increased The proportion of overcrowded units, from $21 million in 1951 to $87 million with more than 1 ½ persons per room, for this year-and these projects run on among nonfarm dwellings occupied by for 40 years. nonwhites was some 4 times as high as

Let us not reverse our three votes that for whites. against public housing. · The country In nonfarm housing only, the propordoes not want it. Let us let it stay dead. tion of dilapidated homes among non

The Wolcott amendment supplies the whites was 5 times as high as among urgent need. I ask its approval. whites-27 percent as compared to . 5.4

Mr. BUDGE. Mr. Chairman, a parlia- percent-and, in addition, the propor-mentary inquiry. . tion of homes not dilapidated but lacking

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman in one or more of piped running water. will state it. private flush toilet, private bathtub or

Mr. BUDGE. Some time ago I offered shower, was more than twice as high an amendment. I am wondering if it among nonwhites as among whites, 35 would not be well to dispose of that percent as compared to 17 percent. amendment at this point. The amend- Although homeownership rose sharply ment is still pending. among nonwhites during the decade

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair under-· 1940-50, nearly two-thirds of the nonstands that. The request submitted by white households in nonfarm areas were the gentleman from Kentucky related to still renters in 1950 as compared with 45 the Wolcott amendment and all amend- percent of white nonfarm households. ments thereto, which included the Our efforts have been partly successamendment offered by the gentleman ful in that we have ended court enforcefrom Idaho. ment of racial, restrictive covenants.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Where there is a willing seller, and a. PowELL] is recognized. colored purchaser has the money and

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, at 4 access to lending resources, segregation o'clock, after the Budge amendment is is ending in many old housing units in voted on, there will be an amendment metropolitan areas. read by the Clerk which I have pre- In contrast, where new housing is pared, to clean up the slums of un- built with the help of the resources of healthy thinking on the part of our Fed- the Veterans' Administration, the Federal Housing Administrators, which has eral Housing Agency, and other Federal worked contrary to the decisions against agencies, there is an ironclad policy of segregation by the Supreme Court and building whole cities for whites only. policies voiced by the President. What The classic example of this is found in do we have at the present time? A pie- Bucks County, Pa., in a development ture that shows that segregation in the known as Levittown. North is worse than it is in the South I hope the next time that any of you when sponsored by our Federal Hous- gentlemen go to New York you will just ing Authorities. We have more segre- look to the left on the northbound train gation in Levittown, Pa., than we have and see that huge sign which advertises in Jackson, Miss. "Levittown," a whole new city in Bucks

It is time that we pass legislation that County, Pa. will make builders, renters, lenders, buy- The builder of this development could ers, borrowers become Americans. not have done so without the aid of the

I will use as background the statement Federal Government. To many he may of Clarence Mitchell, director, Washing- be the example of a successful builder,

but, in the eyes of minority group mem-. bers who are denied housing by him solely because of race, he is a symbol of the encroachment of police-state methods in America.

In other words, he has, by his personal fiat, with the help of the Government set up a rule in that town of severai thousand people that you may bring a dog in, but you may not buy a house if you are a colored man, even though you have the money.

. ~ comprehensive suggestion for prov1dmg a remedy was submitted to Raymond Foley, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, on January 11, 1952. Mr. Foley and his aides took the suggestions under advisement Nothing was done to correct the problem:

When the new Administrator took office, our organization met with him on March 15, 1953, to discuss the problem and to make recommendations for correction. During that year we had additional meetings with the Administrator on May 7 and July 22. It is significant that in the July 22 meeting seven major national organizations also urged the Administrator to act on this problem.

When the President sent his housing message to Congress on January 25 1954 it contained a reference to the probiem of minorities in the housing field as well as a promise that something would be done about it. Questions on what would be done have been raised with the President from time to time by various organizations, including the NAACP.

On April 7, 1954, Miss Ethel Payne Washington correspondent of the Chi~ cago Defender, asked the President in his press conference what was being done to implement the promise of his January 25 message. At that time he said he would look into the matter. On May 5, 1954, the same reporter asked what had been learned when he looked into the matter, and the President suggested that she check with the housing. agencies for her answer.

The New York Times of August 5, 1954 carried this version of what the Presi~ dent said at his press conference on the previous day when he was asked about minority housing problems:

He had tried as hard as he knew how to have accepted this idea, that where Federal funds and Federal authority were involved, that there should be no discrimination based on any reason that was not recognized by our Constitution, He would continue to do that.

'J:le courts have struck that down by saymg that you can put a restrictive covenant on property, but you cannot enforce it in court. The result is that co~ored people are able to buy in any neighborhood where there is existing housing, if there is a willing seller and if they have the money · to buy. ' The Federal Government has done the thing which the courts, we believe, prohibit and that is, as an arm of Government has said that it will promote and extend racial segregation. The Court has said you cannot enforce segregation through the courts, and it is not being enforced through the courts. It said that the legislatures may not have segregation,

12134 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD - HOUSE July 29

and the legislatures do not have segregation in the laws, but the Federal Government contends that as an administrative arm of Government it is not reached by these Court decisions. and, therefore, they continue to segregate.

Mr. MULTER was on the floor, and I believe Mr. Javits, the present attorney generalof the State of New York, a great liberal, offered an amendment which would have acomplished the purpose that we seek here. Mr. MULTER read into the RECORD some correspondence from Mr. Bovard, who was the counsel for the FHA. The burden of that correspondence was that "we don't need this amendment because w.e can handle it by administrative procedure.''

This was the time when the Democrats were in power.

Then after the amendment was defeated on the floor, because FHA said that they could handle it by administrative regulations, we went to FHA. FHA said, "There is nothing we can do about it because if we do Congress will cut our appropriations and make it tough for us." In other words, it is just a vicious: circle.

How, in your opinion, has the Voluntary Mortgage Loan Organization facili-· tated in any way the lending of money or provisions for lending of money to minority groups?

It is strictly a paper program. I think they have made some 200 or more-201 loans.

Loans under that program, but so far as I know, very few have been for minority groups. The Housing Agency made an announcement when it made a loan to a colored man in Washington. It had a big news release on it and had a picture. It turned out there wasn't r.nything controversial about it. The man .Jived in a neighborhood where colored people were already living and apparently could have gotten aid from another source. In other words, it is sort of a hoax.

Here is an example of brutal Jim Crow in the Housing and Home Finance Agency. On Monday, July 25, Albert M. Cole, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, issued to Frank S. Horne, Assistant to the Administrator, a formal reduction-in-! orce notice, effective midnight August 25, 1955. The notice states:

Budgetary considerations have made a reduction in force in the Office of the Administrator necessary. As a result, the position which you occupy will be eliminated.

Frank Horne was reassigned to the position he now holds in October 1953 in response to nationwide protest over his political ouster from his former civilservice position as Assistant to the Administrator. in charge of the Racial Relations Service. An official HHFA press release, dated October 1, 1953, announcing Frank Horne's replacement as Racial Relations Adviser and bis new appointment as Assistant to the· Administrator, stated:

Mr. Cole also announced that Dr. Fran'.k S. Horne, whom Mr. Ray succeeds, is being named Assistant' to the Administrator. In 'his new responsibility, Dr. Horne will conduct special studies and develop proposals for the

Administrator for possible new approaches to the housing prop!ems of minorities.

"The Agency's policy of giving active a.nd strong support to improved housing opportunities for minorities will continue under these new assignments and the integrity and professional quality of these services will be fully maintained," Mr. Cole said.

"Dr. Horne has had long experience and rendered valuable service in housing and racial relations," Mr. Cole said, "and I believe his abilities will be given broader scope in his new assignment. The need for these services at the policy level is apparent as more and more cities, in their efforts to clear slums and remedy blight, face the need for new ahd more effective means for housing minorities."

Dr. Horne's services from that day to this have been considered by Mr. Cole and his staff as well as by national leadership across the Nation to be highly satisfactory and of the caliber anticipated from a career Federal employee who, through a period of some 19 years of governmental service-17 of those years in the housing agencies--has become recognized as one of the Nation's leading authorities in racial relations and minority group considerations in tbe housing field.

Those who protested the original displacement of a highly effective career employee to make possible a political appointment accepted Mr. Cole's "compromise" action appointing Horne to a new job as having been effected in good faith in order to, as Cole stated, maintain in the Agency the skills and mature experience attained by Frank Horne. National organizations and leadership have felt that Horne's presence in the HHFA reflected the continuing intent of the Federal Government to see to it that Negro families received an equal opportunity with all others to buy or rent good housing in decent neighborhoods anywhere in the community. Mr. Cole's use of budgetary considerations to eliminate Horne from the Agency can,~therefore, but lead us to question the integrity of the original compromise.

This doubt is aggravated by questions arising as to the validity of the budgetary considerations referred to as justification for Horne's reduction in force. The appropriation for the Office of the Administrator for fiscal 1956 is $5 million, as compared to only $2,868,500 last year, during which Horne was maintained in his job. Further, there has been additional recruitment during past weeks which is still proceeding, especially in the urban renewal program, which is an integral part of the Office of the Administrator with which Horne's new activities are associated. In addition, it has been announced that three additional racial relations officers (grade GS-13) are to be appointed to the staffs of the regional representatives of the Office of the Administ:r:ator. It would, therefore, appear at least questionable and even racially discriminatory to absorb budgetary reductions by eliminating 1 of only 8 Negroes employed at grades GS-13 or above, when there are 220 such positions now maintained in the Office of the Administrator. This action of Mr. Cole"s, therefore, would ultimately' necessitate appeal to,..and review by the President's Committee on Government Employment

Policy. If it is possible by partisan po ... litical action, first, to displace such a proficient career employee, with veterans' preference~ from the position in which he attained distinction and civil service status, place him in a new job, also in the classified service, and then subsequently summarily dismiss. him from the Agency by application of budgetary considerations, then no oneregardless of race or status or degree of achievement or political affiliation-can attain any security in Federal employment in a job at any significant profes-~oo~ knl. .

Further, there was considerable question of the legality of Horne's removal from his original position. Although Horne's job was "excepted" from the. Classified Service to make possible a po-

· litical appointment, there remained a question as to his legal right to remain in the position and the right of the. agency to remove him without written notice of the reasons subject to his appeal Such question appears to have been resolved by the decision of the United States Court of Appeals .for the District of Columbia on July 16, 1954, in the case of Roth against Brownell. The Court said:

"Neither the formula of "excepting" the kind of position a person holds, nor any other formula, can obviate. the requirement of the Lloyd-LaFollette ·Act that "no person in the classified civil service of the United States shall be removed • • • therefrom" without notice and reasons given in writing.

This decision was cited by the United States Civil Service Commission in its Departmental Circular No. 789, issued January 24, 1955 which outlined appeals procedure for all other employees against whom previous adverse action may be deemed improper. Frank Horne, in formal memorandum, raised a question with the HHFA some 90 days ago regarding the implications for him of Departmental Circular No. 789. He has as yet received no response whatsoever.

The above facts would lead observers to conclude that the determination now to eliminate Horne's job and, with it, Horne himself from the agency is simply the conclusion of the political ef .. fort to oust him from his original job in October 1953. In that instance, the effort was not to eliminate the job but the man in order to make the position available for patronage. In response to demand by an aroused public opinion which protested loudly the political spoliation of a competent, experienced professional operation, a "new job" was set up for Horne. Now "budgetary considerations" are invoked to eliminate the job and Horne. The result now to be effected is revealed as the original intent. The main issue is still whether or not partisan political action is to disrupt a tested professional operation in the field of racial relations and to dislodge a competent career employee of 19 years' service. If Horne goes through this process, the remaining personnel of the Racial Relations Service, in Washington and the field, can be picked off in the same manner.

Finally, many church, labor, business, consumer, and minority group organizations are seriously questioning Govern-

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12135 ment housing policy in regard to the administration of governmental housing programs as far as Negroes and other racial minorities are concerned. They are insisting that federally aided housing be open to all eligible families without regard to race. Since Frank Horne, over a period of years in public service, has been clearly identified as one of the leaders in the fight for equal opportunity for all families to attain decent housing which results from the use of governmental funds and powers, his elimination at this juncture can only be considered by a very large segment of public opinion as overt repudiation by this administration of his work and of the nondiscriminatory principles with which he has become identified.

My bill would do the following: Section 101, loans for home improve

ments could not be denied to any appli-cant because of race. ·

Sections 102 and · 103, rental projects built with FHA mortgages in excess of $5 million would be available to renters without regard to race; cooperative housing projects :financed under the revived program would be open to all persons without regard to race; any FHA project guaranteed under the $4 million authorization in this act would be open to all applicants without regard to race.

Section 104, any housing constructed under the Defense Housing and Community Facilities Service Act in the year 1955-56 would be open to all eligible persons without regard to race.

Sections 105 and 106, any slum clearance project financed by the money authorized under this section-$200 million for the years 1955 and 1956-must be open to all eligible persons without regard to race.

Section 107, any public housing units authorized under this act must be open to all qualified applicants without regard to race.

Any residences constructed on property acquired by the Housing Administrator under powers granted him under this section and made available for private development for permanent residential development must be open to all applicants without regard to race.

Section 108, any housing for elderly persons made available under this section must be open to all eligible elderly persons without regard to race.

Section 109 relating to the Home Loan Bank Board and section 110, relating to the Home Owners Loan Corporation, would not appear to be affected by title VI.

Sections 202 to 205, any public facility :financed by money advanced by the Federal Government by loan or purchase of obligations of a State or its political subdivisions must be open to all persons without regard to race.

Sections 301 to 303, any college housing constructed with loans authorized under title Ill of this act must be open to all qualified applicants without regard to race.

Sections 401 to 403, any housing constructed under the Wherry Act until 1958 would be available to eligible applicants on an open occupancy basis without regard to race.

Sections 501 and 502, loans made under the farm housing program could not be denied any applicant on the basis of race.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. McVEY] is recognized.

Mr. McVEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOLCOTT] in support of his amendment to H. R. 7473.

It seems to me that the Wolcott amendment provides essential elements for a sound, constructive public housing program. · Much has been said about the administration program here this afternoon. We do not have before this House any administration program in its entirety. S. 212'6 goes much beyond the recommendations of the President of the United States. It provides for 50,400 new housing units. The President asked for only 35,000.

It seems to me that by adopting the Wolcott amendment we should have the best opportunity of coming out of that conference with a bill that will be satisfactory to the President of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. McDONOUGH].

Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the committee's attention to one of the items the gentleman from Texas [Mr. FISHER] referred to that has been repealed by the committee bill. It is a provision in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1954 which provided that no locality, community, State, or other governing body could have public housing facilities built in it without a vote of the governing body.

You are going to give a Federal bureaucracy complete control to walk into any community, as they did in my community, and foist public housing on the people against their will in many instances where they proceeded to condemn property and proposed to build public housing units that the people did not want. We voted against that. On several occasions we have expressed our views and have voted consistently against public housing.

If you adopt the committee bill you are repealing that section that this Congress put into the act in order to protect the local communities from such an imposition of a Federal bureaucracy.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. MULTER].

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that so many Members who speak with such great authority about this bill have not taken the time to read the committee's hearings, the President's messages, the bill or the law. The fact of the matter is that the Roanoke amendment, the Phillips amendment, the McDonough amendment are all covered by the Hiestand amendment which is a part of the law and is not affected by anything in this bill. The President's appointee, Mr. Cole, who came before our committee, said this bill is the President's program. He said the President asked for 35,000 public housing units. That is what we have provided for.

As to the technical amendments in this bill that are not in the Senate bill and will not be in conference if you adopt the Wolcott amendment, let me quote what Mr. Cole said:

And there is another phase of this public housing legislation that is just as vital as the number of units. It is the revision of unworkable and hobbling restrictions that discourage communities from proceeding with their plans and made the authorization itself extremely cumbersome and in some cases impossible of application.

The amendment that you have in the Spence bill to remove the "unworkable and hobbling restrictions" is not in the Senate bill, it is not in the Wolcott bill. Therefore you must vote down the Wolcott substitute if you want the President's program or if you want the public housing program to proceed without the limitations against which the President himself has personally spoken.

The CHAffiMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOLCOTT];

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman from New York brought up that question because I have before me the President's attitude in respect to his stand on public housing. It is stated:

The low-rent public housing legislation requested by the administration, unlike the provisions of S. 2126, would be limited to meeting the relocation needs of families of low income displaced by slum clearance and urban renewal projects or by other governmental action. The legislation proposed by the administration would authorize continuation of the public housing program but would retain present requirements which make public housing a part of the Government's overall program for helping cities to eliminate and prevent slums and urban blight.

Therein lies the fundamental difference between what the House and Senate did and what the President wants.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MARTIN. I might say to the gentleman from Michigan that the administration feels that in adopting the Wolcott amendment and getting the whole subject to conference they will get a bill that more nearly conforms to the wishes of the administration than the bill that is before the House officially today.

Mr. WOLCOTT. I thank the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GREEN].

Mr. GREEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am happy that I have been a stanch supporter of public housing over the years. If I had to depend on what the President stood for and listening to the different members of his own party get up on the floor, I would certainly say that I would be very much confused. I am not voting for the public housing program because of the memory of Bob Taft or because the President is for it. If Bob Taft or the President happen to be for public housing, I am glad to have them associated with me. I think the

1213G CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Jul.y 29

Wolcott amendment should be defeated &nd the committee bill should be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. SPENCE].

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I will not delay the vote very long. It has been suggested by the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK] that the proper way to legislate in the House is to send a skeleton bill to con! erence and work it out in conference. I admit that would be a very easy way for the House to discharge its duty, but I think it is not in conformity with what the framers of the Constitution meant. They wanted us to work it out in this body. I am not in favor of surrendering

. the dignity of the House, the influence of the House, to the Senate by any such proceeding as that ..

Mr. WILSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

The Clerk read as follows: Mr. WILSON of Indiana moves that the com

mittee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with instructions that the enacting clause be stricken out.

Mr. WILSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I just happened to walk in at the time that the gentleman from New York [Mr. POWELL] was·making his plea on behalf of non-segregation, so I take this time to ask the gentleman from New York a question. It was just the other dayI believe it was day before yesterdaythat I offered an amendment to the public roads bill which would have given the Negro an equal opportunity with the whites to work on public works projects, paid for by tax money taken from them both, in building roads. Also to make the facilities built with funds raised through taxes on the Negroes as well as the white people, equally available to all races, colors, and creeds.

Now, I would like to ask the gentleman from New York how he voted on that amendment which I offered.

Mr. POWELL. · Mr.Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I was not here, but if I had been here, I would gladly have voted for it, because the gentleman discussed his amendment with me.

Mr. WILSON of Indiana. I noticed two folks on the gentleman's side of the aisle, great champions of the Negro, who belong to the gentleman's race, stand up and vote against my amendment. Now. I want to know who the real champions of the Negroes are, those who stand on the floor of the House giving lip service to this cause or those who stand on the floor of the House fighting for equal rights for all people regardless of race, color. or creed.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. WILSON].

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the preferential motion.

I certainly do not think the gentleman is serious if he expects the Committee to rise when it has not considered the bill, when we have not voted on a single amendment. Certainly we would be recreant to our duties if we did anything like that. We have spent a long time in the consideration of this bill in com-

mittee. We have considered it today to this point. Not a single person knows what will be done with this bill now.

It has been suggested that we might send over a skeleton bill to the Senate, and let the conferees work our will. I hope, and I sincerely hope, the House will not vote for the preferential amendment. It not only means that we have not considered this great question, but it means that we are unwilling to consider it in the ordinary processes of legislation. Certainly there is no sentiment for such a proceeding as that at this time.

Mr. WILSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. SPENCE. I yield. Mr. WILSON of Indiana. Mr. Chair

man, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the preferential motion.

The CHAIRMAN.. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

Mr. BOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I object. Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield? Mr. SPENCE. I yield. Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I hold

in my hand a copy of the most recent of the press conferences of our great President of this country, which was held on July 27, 1955. At that ti.me he was told of the controversy in the House and in the Congress and asked whether or not the Spence bill or the bill as reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency now before us represented his program, or whether the Wolcott substitute represented his program. His answer was that he wanted public housing without the limitations that are in the existing law, and those limitations, the President in that conference indicated he did not want, are eliminated by the Spence bill or by the Banking and Currency Committee bil! as now before us in the Senate version as amended by us, and not in the Wolcott bill, anything to the contrary by any Member notwithstanding.

Mr. SPENCE. Of course, that is true. The President reiterated it three times previously in state messages.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPENCE. I yield. Mr. DIES. It is my understanding

that the President was misquoted. Mr. SPENCE. Was misquoted by

whom? Mr. DIES. By the press. Mr. SPENCE. You do not have to

look to the press to quote the President. We can read his state papers, three of them, in each of which he said the same thing; one in his message on the state of the Union, another in his Budget message, and another in his message on the Economic Report. He reiterated his position in each. That seems to be what the President wants with reference to public housing and it is certainly a closed issue and to endeavor to debate it any more would almost be a reflection on the President. The President said what he wanted and he said it in unequivocal language.

Mr. BOYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

- Mr. SPENCE. I yield to · the gentleman.

Mr. BOYLE. I have a letter sent to me by the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Authority, which I received this morning. He indicates that the District of Columbia had mortgage commitments for 1,429 public housing units for 1954. I submit that if it is evident, as it surely is, because he so testified in answer to a question I asked, that there were and I quote, "People are living in unsafe and indecent slums and squalor on 7th and 8th Streets," and that he had committed 1,400 units right here in the District of Columbia where you have practically all the money in the world and where about 80 percent of the married couples have two incomes-I submit that if it is necessary here there are a great many other places in the country equally in need of public housing. · Mr. SPENCE. There is no doubt

about that. Our capital is the most beautiful city in the world, but you do not have to go far t.o see slums in this beautiful city.

Mr. BUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. All debate on the preferential motion has ended.

The question is on the preferential motion of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. WILSON].

The preferential motion was rejected. The CEAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. BUDGE] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOLCOTT].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BUDGE) there were-ayes 138, noes 114.

So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer

an amendment to the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr,. PowELL to the

amendment offered by Mr. WoLcoTr: At the GOnclusion of section 5, line 22, add a new section as follows~

"SEC. 6. The aids and powers made available under the several sections of this act are not to be conditioned or limited in any way on account of the race, religion, or national origin of builders, lenders, renters, buyers, or families to be benefited."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. POWELL) there were-ayes 113, noes 168.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. POWELL and Mr. WOLCOTT.

The Committee again ·divided; and the tellers reported there were-ayes 112, noes 158.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WoLCOTT].

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12137 Tellers were ordered, and the Chair

appointed as tellers Mr. WOLCOTT and Mr. BROWN 0~ Georgia.

The Committee divided; and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 200, noes 147. -

So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I am

particularly concerned about title 3 of H. R. 5827, the college housing program. I consider this program to be most worthy and hope that the House sees flt to include it under any House bill finally passed.

I am informed that if the Wolcott substitute passes today, an attempt will be made to insert title 3 in the HouseSenate conference. In reliance upon this information, I shall support the Wolcott substitute in the hope that title 3 will be restored in conference and that the requests of President Eisenhower as to public housing will be complied with.

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, ever since becoming a Member of Congress, I have been vitally concerned about the legislative problem of Federal assistance to provide adequate housing facilities for the American people. As a matter of fact, the first bill I introduced in the Congress was a housing bill to assist our war veterans in the buying and building of homes so that they could resume a natural, normal civilian life with their families.

I rise in support of this housing bill before us now because I very deeply believe that its basic objectives of providing further limited public housing, elimination of slums, and development of urban communities are in the national interest.

It is quite true that we have made some real progress toward reducing the overall critical housing shortage that has existed in this country. It is equally true that there are still a great many cities and communities in desperate need of help for slum clearance and urban development programs. It is also true that there are yet a great many American families who, through no fault of their own, cannot find decent places in which to live.

Under the public housing provisions of this measure, the vast number of low-income families will be afforded vitally needed assistance in locating themselves in wholesome neighborhoods; families. who have been evacuated because of slum clearance will be given assistance in relocating themselves, and families of elderly people, who have so long been neglected in this housing problem, will be extended practically lifesaving aid. It is, therefore, with the greatest sincerity, I urge you to reject any amendments that may be offered here to remove public housing from this bill. I would remind you that the President himself has recognized the need for the continuation of this program and repeatedly requested its retention, advocating authorization for the construction of at least 35,000 units per year for 4 years.

Mr. Chairman, no one will question that slum areas in the cities throughout this Nation are recognized breeding places of crime and disease and as such, should be eliminated. From the evi-

CI--763

dence of record it is obvious that most cities and communities cannot do the job within their own resources and must have Federal help, especially in the matter of relocating the families who formerly resided in those blighted areas. Public housing is absolutely essential in providing that relocation and development. It therefore appears but simple common sense to reasonably continue this program which has proven so beneficial to so many American families at such comparatively small cost, especially when measured against the foreign financial subsidies we so generously grant to allies of dubious friendship.

Mr. Chairman, there are many other commendable provisions in this bill, prominent among which are: the socalled college-loan program authorizing loans to educational institutions to assist in providing housing for their students and faculties; the military rental housing title of the bill bringing the Wherry Act up to date and making it a fully workable vehicle for obtaining privately built, privately financed and privately owned housing in many areas where housing for the military is critically needed; the provision under title II reviving the program of assistance to municipalities in financing public facility improvements, such as sewage and water distribution systems; the provision for the continuation through fiscal year 1956 of the farm housing assistance program, as well as provisions of guaranties that there will be no more windfalls for unscrupulous operators by Federal mortgages and loans for the construction of multidwelling units. All these titles, and the several others in the measure, have been carefully explained by the members of the committee and floor managers of the bill, so I shall not transgress upon the time of this House by expanding on them further.

Mr. Chairman, in substance this measure enables us to grant modest and reasonable assistance to American parents who vitally need help in trying to bring up their families in godly cleanliness, healthful happiness, and patriotic loyalty. It affords us an opportunity to strike a real legislative blow against the danger of any American acceptance of subtle communistic propaganda against our capitalistic system.

Mr. Chairman, the basic unit of this Nation is the American family, and the first necessity for Christian family life is a decent place in which to live. Therefore, I earnestly urge you all to reject any crippling amendments and unanimously approve this legislation designed for the good of all Americans.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, :t am in full accord with the provisions of bill S. 2126 as reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency, -

This extends and clarifies laws relating to the provisions for improvement of housing, the elimination and prevention of slums. the conservation and development of urban communities, and the financing of vitally needed public works.

I prefer this bill to the so-called Wolcott bill because it is more nearly in accord with what the President has recommended, and provides a much more ex-

panded and extensive program than the Wolcott bill.

The bill reported by the committee, and now before us for consideration, is particularly preferable to the Wolcott bill because among other things it provides a program for building 35,000 additional units for each of the next 2 fiscal years. It is now generally recognized that if the s-lum clearance and urban renewal program is to go forward, public housing must be provided for lowincome families displaced by these operations.

Another feature of the bill, as reported, that has a particular appeal to me relates to the provision that makes possible a program ·of housing for elderly families of low income.

The committee in its report to Congress states it has been particularly impressed by the housing difficulties confronting elderly families of low income. We must not overlook the fact that elderly persons are progressively increasing, . not only in number, but also as a percentage of our whole population. In 1940 there were 9 million persons over 65 years who represented 6.8 percent of our population, while by 1950 this number had increased to 12.3 million. representing 8.1 percent of the whole population. As the span of life continues to increase, the proportion of elderly citizens in our population will likewise increase.

A study reveals that the housing conditions of the elderly are, in general, worse than those of other families. This is largely due to the fact that elderly families have lost most of their earning capacity and have much lower incomes than other families.

In order to assist in meeting the housing problems of elderly persons of low income, the bill authorizes the Public Housing Administration to permit local public housing agencies to construct dwelling units designed for use of the elderly, or reconstruct or remodel any low-rent housing to provide accommodations for such elderly families.

There are many other admirable and necessary improvements in the existing public housing program provided for in the committee bill. It is my intention to give such bill my support, and if it should fail of passage in the House then it will be necessary for me to support such measure as will clear the House. In so doing the program for housing will be kept alive sufficiently for the Senate to act and with the hope that the conference between the House and Senate will support the present House committee bill.

Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Speaker, the American taxpayer already is on the hook for $4,700,000,000 to carry out provisions for public-housing units which have been approved by the Congress. If we pass the bill now before us it will add an additional $2,306,000,000 to the backbreaking debt now carried by the American taxpayer.

In short, passage of this bill today will increase the total commitment to over $7 billion over the next 40 years.

The so-called liberals and members of the Americans for Democratic Action do not tell you the real name-and the real purpose-of this evil monstrosity which


is more popularly known as a socialized housing bill. The leftwingers are smart, cunning experts in mob psychology. They call this a low-cost housing bill designed to give shelter to the needy and the homeless. The fact is this is a highcost housing bill and benefits only the privileged classes. If you bear with me a few minutes I will document that statement and any others that I make on this issue.

The purpose of socialized housing is political. There are today 457,000 public-housing units. Here live approximately 1,500,000 men, women, and childred-complete wards of a beneficent Government which now owns their bodies and soon will own their minds.

The economic planners-those who are out to destroy the free-enterprise system-have not yet completed contracts for housing units already approved by the Congress and yet they have the gall to come here today with tear-jerking pleas for additional authority and, of course, additional money.

Using the figures of the housing authorities themselves, we can arrive at an average cost of these so-called low-cost housing units. That figure, for construction and land, is about $10,000 a unit. In practice, however, the figure is much higher. Under terms of its subsidy contracts the Government agrees to pay about 4 ½ percent a year based on the construction costs and this subsidy runs to a maximum of 40 years. The true cost of this scandalous waste, therefore, is 40 years multiplied by 4 ½ percent or 180 percent. You then multiply $10,000 by this 180 percent and you see that these units are costing the public $18,-000. In all fairness, it cannot be said that $18,000 for an ordinary housing unit is low-cost housing.

In the bill before us we find the following items: 35,000 additional units for the coming fiscal year and another 35,-000 units for the year after that-a total of 70,000. There is also an item of 10,000 public housing units for elderly families next year and another 10,000 for the year after that-a total of 20,000 for this item which was inserted to give this bill an emotional appeal that will make it difficult for honest men to vote against it. In the earlier days, the public housing advocates were crying about the welfare of children living in the slums which, they falsely claimed, were the breeding grounds for juvenile delinquency. The second-grade student of American history knows that some of our greatest men and women were born and raised in the slums. They also know that juvenile delinquents are found in the homes of our wealthiest people. At any rate, the public planners and dogooders have changed their mournful pleas from children to elderly families, and I might add that this is one of the sliest bits of propaganda I have ever seen.

But today's bill, the one now under discussion, contains another item of about 15,000 housing units which was approved by the Congress last year but which the planners did not get around to using.

The bill before us calls for the construction of 105,000 units. Despite the fact that of the 35,000 units we per-

mitted them to use last year, on May 23 of this year Mr. Slusser, head of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee that he had actually put under contract only 142 units out of the total of 35,000 the Congress authorized last year. . Later, on June 27, Mr. Slusser informed my office that they had completed letting contracts on 20,000 in the past 30 days. I want to ask you this question: If it took 11 months to put 142 units under contract, how is it possible that Mr. Slusser and his organization became swift-footed enough to put 20,000 units under contract in a little over 20 working days? . You know the answer as well as I do. If they have done it, they have done it with such speed and with so little consideration that it could only result in waste to the taxpayers. Doubtless, their purpose in blanketing 20,000 units supposedly under contract is to get the Congress to give them the authorization they are now asking for.

If it took 11 months to put 142 units under contract, why do they need 35,000 more units, or the 105,000 they are asking for in this bill? It is the old reckless bureaucratic maneuvering.

Here and now I want to make my position clear on this subject. I am opposed to socialized housing in any form. It is dishonest, immoral, and repugnant to the American sense of decency and human dignity. Socialized housing degrades the human being and places him in eternal bondage to Government bureaucratics. Actually, it is offensive to the very people it was intended to help.

I do not know where the planners get their figures for construction of these new units. Why do they say 35,000 units for this year? Why do they not just pull the figure 350,000 or 3,500,000 out of the hat? It would make just as much sense as what they are doing.

Since World II, more than 9½ million privately financed dwelling units have been built and occupied in this country. This fact alone should be enough to call a halt to all of this public housing and it shows beyond doubt that private industry can do the job.

The social planners and the do-gooders with other people's money talk so much about slum clearance that you would think that they alone are opposed to slum clearance. As usual, they try to get across the notion that they have a monopoly on social virtue and that those who oppose public housing are not in favor of slum clearance. This is a bit of devious trickery in argument that not even a child would fall for.

Slum clearance is not a problem of the Federal Government. That problem can and should be solved by the States and local governments. To eradicate their slums, all the big cities have to do is enforce existing housing and sanitary codes that will take the profit out of slum housing. They have this authority. All they have to do is exercise it.

Here, I want to go into considerable detail about this bill to show how far afield it is from the original intent of the Congress when it enacted the first public housing bill in 1937. The sole objective, at that time, was to create shelter

for the very needy and the destitute. The public planners have perverted this original intent to a point where public housing today is a luxury that only the privileged classes can afford.

The poor and the needy-and we shall always have them with us, despite our prosperity-are not qualified for public housing. They cannot afford the high rents which the Public ·Housing Authority charges in an effort to hoodwink the Congress into the belief that public housing is a sound and socially useful venture.

If public housing does not include the poor, if it does not contribute to the social welfare of the country, it has no justification whatever for existence.

Now, here is how it works and you can see for yourselves that the Congress never intended this sort of monkey business with public funds:

The city council sets up the local housing authority. When it approves such a local housing authority, the Federal Government provides for payment of a subsidy of about 4 ½ percent, for 40 years, based on development cost, to the local housing authority. This 4 ½ percent, taken from all of the taxpayers of the Nation, each year subsidizes about onethird of the rental cost to the occupants in the local housing authority.

In other words, none of the tenants is supposed to pay full rental; some pay two-thirds, others a little more or less, while the ordinary taxpayers who pay their own taxes or rent still are called upon by the Government to pay their pro rata share of the rent losses of those who live in public housing.

For example: In Detroit, a family of 2 adults and 3 children can earn as high as $4,500 per year net income, and still have other citizens paying part of their rent.

This is one reason that Walter Reuther and the big labor leaders are so vigorously supporting this public-housing legislation. It wouid be interesting to know the number of thousands of people who earn a high net income, while the other citizens of the Nation are forced to pay a part of their rental.

The public is being deceived in the thought that the really lowest-income group is being housed under this act. Unless they can afford to pay a certain amount per month, they cannot rent these houses. That excludes the lowestincome group which still have to get aid from the townships, counties, and local communities.

More of the lowest income groups could secure housing when the act was passed, but those managing this public housing have continued to raise the ceiling on how much people could earn net and still occupy these houses, with the rest of the people helping to pay their rent. They are now taking in the $4,500 and up to the $5,000 net-income groups and the poor people in greater numbers are excluded from renting these so-called low-cost houses. The people in the greatest need get the cold shoulder from these big-hearted dogooders.

When this law was first enacted it was intended as a welfare measure to house

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-..'.::-- HOUSE 12139 the lowest income group. Now advocates and managers of this welfare program, to perpetuate their socialistic philosophy, and keep themselves in power, and probably to get the support of the big labor organizations, have continued to raise the limit one could earn and yet be a beneficiary of this public housing.

They provide cheap rent to those who are earning net up to $4,000 and $5,000 and live in public-housing units.

The facts are that it is not carrying out the welfare purpose established when this act was first written. It is a hoax. It is a deception. It is dishonest to the public that has to pay the bill and it is a dangerous policy for the Nation to continue to follow.

In 1952, the House voted to end public housing in 1953. The Senate, however, authorized a very limited expansion and the House reluctantly went along. In 1954, on two rollcall votes, the House rejected this program by a substantial majority. Then it went over to the Senate again, and the Senate reopened the program on a modest scale.

Now, the Senate acting on the bill first this time, has authorized over 600,000 units, of which they approve up to 210,-000 units per year. When the House reluctantly went along last year, it served notice that the program must be brought to a close on June 30 of this year. This should be done.

I agree with my colleague the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITHJ that it is an evil program, and that the Members of this House cannot condone . even a small amount of evil. This socialistic waste of the people's money, which, at the same time, destroys the morale of our citizens, who left alone would take pride in owning or renting the roof over their heads, should be completely stopped in this session. It is wasting the substance of all of our citizens, and will continue to waste away the incentive and pride of our citizens as well.

The real promoters of this so-called public housing have used every device to keep themselves in power. For many years, they have played on the emotions of our people by stating their purpose was to help the children in the lowest income group, and now, for the first time, they are making a shabby appeal to the old people by asking that 20,000 of these units be set aside for them.

Back of all of this, down deep in this organization they have two purposes in mind: One is to keep themselves in jobs of power, and the other is to wield a political power, and control, and influence over those who will and do occupy these Government-owned rental units. The more they can convince the citizen that they are dependent upon the Government, the more control they will have over his thinking and his life, and it will be easier to control him politically.

In conclusion, allow me, please, to drive home one important point about this bill. This is not President Eisenhower's bill. The leftwingers and the social planners have planted that notion in the minds of some who might -be inclined to vote against the bill but will go along with it if they feel that the President is behind it.

The bill as it now stands is wide open for all sorts of abuse, waste, and even corruption. They have thrown a_side all of the safeguards we previously had built into this type of legislation. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean:

The bill as it now stands permits Communists, Fascists, and all other members of groups who would destroy our way of life, to take advantage of these low rentals. In other words, American taxpayers are now called upon to carry the freight of free-riding Communists and others who do not believe in our form of government. This to me is one of the most shocking features of this abominable bill. As Members of the House know, we had inserted a clause in previous housing bills-the so-called Gwinn amendment--which required certification by public-housing occupants that they do not belong to subversive organizations. Now, that is knocked out of the bill we are now debating.

Under terms of the present bill, the public housing authorities can ram down the throats of local groups a housing project that they do not want. Imagine that in a free country. Somewhere along the line the so-called Los Angeles amendment was stricken from the bill. That amendment provided a formula whereby a community does not have to accept a public-housing project after it decides by referendum to reject it. Now the local community must accept a public-housing project whether it wants to or not.

The CHAffiMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the Chair, Mr. WALTER, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (S. 2126) to extend and clarify laws relating to the provision and improvement of housing, the elimination and prevention of slums, the conservation and development of urban communities, the financing of vitally needed public works, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 326, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

The question is on the amendment. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that

I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there

were-yeas 217, nays 188, answered "present" 2, not voting 27, as follows:

[Roll No. 140)

Abbitt Abernethy Adair Alexander Alger Allen, Calif. Allen, Ill. Andersen,

H. Carl Andresen,

AugustH. Andrews Arends Ashmore Auchincloss

YEAS-217 Avery Barden Bates Beamer Belcher Bell Bentley Berry Betts Blitch Bolton,

FrancesP. Bolton,

Oliver P. Bonner

Bosch Bow Boykin· Brooks, La. Brown, Ohio Broyhill Budge Burdick Burleson Bush Byrnes, Wis. Carlyle Cederberg Chase Chatham

Chenoweth Holt Rhodes, Ariz. Church Hope Richards Cole Horan Riehlman Colmer Hosmer Riley Coon Hyde Robeson, Va. Coudert Ikard Rogers, Fla. Cramer James Rogers, Tex. Crumpacker Jarman Rutherford Cunningham Jenkins Sadlak Curtis, Mo. Jensen St. George Dague Johansen Schenck Davis, Ga. Johnson, Calif. Scherer Davis, Tenn. Jonas Schwengel Davis, Wis. Jones, Mo. Scrivner Dawson, Utah Jones, N. C. Scudder Derounian Kearns · Selden Devereux Keating Sheehan Dies Kilday Short Dixon Kilgore Siler Dolliver King, Pa. Simpson, Ill. Dondero Knox Simpson, Pa. Dorn, S. C. Laird Smith, Kans. Dowdy Landrum Smith, Miss. Durham Latham Smith, Va. Ellsworth Lecompte Smith, Wis. Fenton Lipscomb Springer Fernandez Lovre Taber Fisher McConnell Talle Fjare McCulloch Taylor Flynt McDonough Teague, Calif. Ford McIntire Thomas Forrester McMillan Thompson, La. Gamble Mc Vey Thompson, Gary Mack, Wash. Mich. Gathings Mahon Thomson, Wyo. Gavin Martin Tuck Gentry Mason Utt George Matthews Van Pelt Grant Meader Velde Gross Merrow Vorys Gubser Miller, Md. Vursell Gwinn Miller, Nebr. Weaver Hale Miller, N. Y. Westland Haley Minshall Wharton Halleck Murray, Tenn. Whitten Harden Nelson Wickersham Hardy Nicholson Widnall Harrison, Nebr. Norblad Wigglesworth Harrison, Va. Norrell Williams, Miss. Harvey O'Hara, Minn. Williams, N. Y. Hebert Osmers Willis Henderson Ostertag Wilson, Calif. Herlong Passman Wilson, Ind. Hess Pillion Winstead Hiestand Poage Withrow Hill Poff Wolcott Hinshaw Ray Wright Hoeven Reed, Ill. Young Hoffman, Mich. Rees, Kans. Younger

Addonizio Albert Ashley Aspinall Bailey Baker Baldwin Barrett Bass, N.H. Bass, Tenn. Baumhart Becker Bennett, Fla. Blatnik Boggs Boland Bolling Bowler Boyle Bray Brooks, Tex. Brown.Ga. Brownson Buckley Burnside Byrd Byrne, Pa. Canfield Cannon Carnahan Carrigg Celler Chelf Christopher Chudoff Clark Cooley Cooper Corbett Cretella Curtis, Mass. Davidson Dawson,Dl. Deane Delaney

NAYS-188 Dempsey Denton Diggs Dodd Doll1nger Donohue Donovan Dorn,N. Y. Doyle Edmondson Elliott Engle Fallon Fascell Feighan Fine Fino Flood Fogarty Forand Fountain Frelinghuysen Friedel Fulton Garmatz Gordon Granahan Gray Green, Oreg. Green, Pa. Gregory Griffiths Hagen Hand Hays, Ark. Hays, Ohio Hayworth Heselton Holifield Holmes Holtzman Huddleston Hull Jennings Johnson, Wis.

Jones, Ala. Judd Karsten Kean Kee Kelly, N. Y. Kelley, Pa. Keogh King, Calif. Kirwan Klein Kluczynskl Knutson Lane Lanham Lankford Lesinski Long McCarthy McCormack McDowell Macdonald Machrowicz Mack, Ill. Madden Magnuson Mailliard Marshall Metcalf Miller, Calif. Mills Mollohan Morano Morgan Morrison Moss Moulder Multer Murray,m. Natcher O'Brien, Ill. O'Brien, N. Y. O'Hara, Dl. O'Konski O'Neill


Patman Patterson Pelly Pfost Philbin Pilcher Polk Powell Preston Price Priest Prouty Quigley Rabaut Rains Reuss Rhodes.Pa. Roberts

Robslon, Ky. Thornberry Rodino Tollefson Rogers, Colo. Trimble Rogers, Mass. Tumulty Rooney Udall Roosevelt Vanik Saylor Van Zi\ndt Scott Vinson Seely-Brown Wainwright Sieminski Walter Sikes Watts Sisk Wier Spence Williams, N. J. Staggers Wolverton Steed Yates Sullivan Zablocki Thompson, N. J.Zelenko Thompson, Tex.

ANSWERED "PRESENT"-2 Harris Jackson

NOT VOTING-27 Anfuso Frazier Ph1llips Ayres Billings Radwan Bennett, Mich. Hoffman, Ill. Reece, Tenn. Buchanan Kearney Reed, N. Y. Chiperfield Kilburn Rivers Clevenger Krueger Shelley Dingell McGregor Sheppard Eberharter Mumma Shuford Evins Perkins Teague, Tex.

So the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following

pairs: On this vote: Mr. Jackson for, with Mr. Shelley against. Mr. Rivers for, with Mr. Radwan against. Mr. Chiperfleld for, with Mr. Anfuso

against. Mr. McGregor for, with Mrs. Buchanan

against. Mr. Shuford for, with Mr. Perkins against. Mr. Harris for, with Mr. Dingell against. Mr. Hoffman of Illinois for, with Mr. Shep-

pard against. · Mr. Krueger for, with Mr. Frazier against. Mr. Teague of Texas for, with Mr. Ayres

against.

Until further notice: Mr. Evins with Mr. Hillings. Mr. Eberharter with Mr. Phillips.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Speaker, on the vote just concluded, I voted "aye." I have a pair with the gentleman from California, Mr. SHELLEY. Had he been present he would have voted "nay." Therefore, I withdraw my vote "aye" and vote "present."

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. DINGELL. If he were present he would have voted "nay." I voted "aye." I withdraw my vote and vote "present."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


The SPEAKER. The question is on the third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op~ posed to the bill?

Mr. MOLTER. I am, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report

the motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. MULTER moves to recommit the bill

S. 2126 to the Committee on Banking and CUrrency, with instructions to report it back forthwith with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and

insert the following: "That this act may be cled, as the 'Housing Amendments of 1955.'

"TITLE I-GENERAL HOUSING AMENDMENTS

"Home improvement loans "SEC. 101. (a) Section 2 (a) of the Na

tional Housing Act, as amended, ls hereby amended by striking 'July 1, 1955' and inserting 'July 1, 1956.'

"(b) Clause (iU) of the second paragraph of section 2 (a) of said Act, as amended, is hereby amended by striking 'six months' and inserting in lieu thereof 'two months.'

"(c) Section 2 (b) of said act, as amended, is hereby amended by striking 'exceeds $2,500' and by inserting a comma immediately preceding 'exceeds $3,000.'

"Mortgage insurance "SEC. 102. (a) Section 203 (1) of said act,

as amended, is hereby amended by striking ', the total amount of insurance outstanding at any one time under this proviso not to exceed $100 million.'

"'(l) not to exceed $12½ million, or, if the mortgage is executed by a mortgagor coming within the provisions of clause (b) (1) of this section, such dollar limit with respect to any one mortgage instrument and with respect to the aggregate amount of such commitments shall be $50 million;';

"(2) by striking clause 1 of section 213 ( b) and inserting:

"'(1) not to exceed $12½ million, or, if the mortgage ls executed by a mortgagor regulated or supervised under Federal or State laws or by political subdivisions of States or agencies thereof, as to rents, charges, and methods of operation, such dollar limit with respect to any one mortgage instrument and with respect to the aggregate amount of such commitments shall be $25 million; and;'

"(3) by striking clause (i) of section 220 (d) (3) (B) and inserting:

"'(i) not to exceed $12½ million, or, if executed by a mortgagor coming within the provisions of paragraph (2) (B) of this subsection (d), not to exceed $50 million; and;' and

" ( 4) by striking '$5 million' in sections 213 (c) and 221 (d) (3) and inserting: '$12½ million.'

"(c) Section 213 (b) (2) of said act, as amended, ls amended by striking out 'the estimated value• both times it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 'the amount which the Commissioner estimates will be the replacement cost.'

"(d) Section 213 (b) (2) of said act, as amended, is further amended by striking out '65 percent' and inserting in lieu thereof '50 percent.'

"(e) Section 213 of said act, as amended, ls hereby amended by adding, in the last sentence of subsection ( d), after the words 'subsection (a) of this section,' the words 'may include eight or more family units and.'

"(f) Section 217 of said act, as amended, is hereby amended by striking 'July 1, 1954' and inserting 'July 1, 1955,' and by striking '$3½ billion' and inserting '$4 billion.'

"(g) Section 220 (d) (3) of such act, as · amended, is amended as follows:

"(l) In subparagraph (A) by striking out 'the appraised value' and inserting in lieu thereof 'the amount which the Commissioner estimates will be the replacement cost, and by striking out 'such value' and inserting in lieu thereof 'such cost;' and

"(2) In subparagraph (B) (ii) by striking out 'the estimated value' and inserting in lieu thereof 'the amount which the Commissioner estimates will be the replacement cost, and by striking out 'value• and inserting in lieu thereof 'replacement cost.'

"(h) In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties vested in him by section 213 of the National Housing Act, as amended, the Commissioner, notwithstanding the provisions of any other

law, shall appoint a Special Assistant for Cooperative Housing, and provide the Special Assistant with adequate staff, whose sole responsibillty will be to expedite operations under such section and to eliminate obstacles to the full utlllzatlon of this section under the direction and supervision of the Commissioner. The person so appointed shall be fully sympathetic with the purposes of such section.

"(1) Clause· (a) of the second sentence of section 227 of said act, as amended, is hereby amended by striking 'under section 221' and inserting 'under section 221 lf the mortgage meets the requirements of paragraph ( 3) of subsection ( d) thereof.'

" ( j) Clause (ill) of section 227 (a) of said act ls amended to read as follows: ' (iii) under section 220 if the mortgage meets the requirements of paragraph (3) (A) of subsection ( d) thereof and covers a dwelllng designed principally for residential use for more than four famllles, or if the mortgage meets the requirements of paragraph (3) (B) of subsection (d) thereof,'.

"(k) Section 221 (a) of said act, as amended, is amended as follows:

" ( 1) By inserting after the words 'in order to assist in relocating familles' the following: 'from urban renewal areas and in relocating famllies;'

"(2) By striking out the words 'to be so displaced' in the first proviso of the second sentence;

"(3) By striking out the words 'to be so displaced and' and inserting 'referred to above' in the second proviso of the second sentence.

"(l) Section 223 (a) of said act, as amended, ls amended by striking out 'section 203 or section . 207' each time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 'section 203, 207, or 213.'

"Federal National Mortgage Association · "SEC. 103. (a) The second sentence of section 304 (a) of said act, as amended, is amended by striking out the words 'at the market price for the particular class of mortgages involved, as determined by the Association' and inserting in lieu thereof 'at a reasonable price level, as determined by the Association, taking into consideration the market for mortgages of the same general class, and current yields on, and reasonably foreseeable price trends of, long-term Government bonds and other forms of long-term investment.'

"(b) Section 305 of said act, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

"'(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the Association ls authorized to enter into advance commitment contracts which do not exceed $50 million outstanding at any one time, if such commitments relate to mortgages with respect to which the Federal Housing Commissioner shall have issued pursuant to section 213 either a commitment to insure or a statement of eligiblllty; but not more than $5 million of such authorization shall be available for such commitments in any one State.'

"Extension of title IX of the National Housing Act

"SEC. 104. The second sentence of section 104 of the Defense Housing and Community Facllities and Services Act of 1951, as amended, ls hereby amended as follows:

" ( 1) By striking out the figures '1955' both times they appear therein and inserting in lieu thereof '1956';

"(2) In clause (a) thereof by striking out the words 'designate hereunder' and inserting in lieu thereof 'designate hereunder or (iii) pursuant to a commitment to insure issued pursuant to the preceding clause (11) •; and

"(3) In clause (b) thereof by striking out the words 'designate hereunder• and inserting in lieu thereof 'designate hereunder or

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12141 thereafter pursuant to a commitment to extend assistance for such community facilities or services or to construct euch temporary housing or community facilities; issued before the close of July 1, 1956.'

"Slum clearance and urban renewal "SEC. 105. (a) Section 103 (b) of the Hous

ing Act of 1949, as amended, is hereby amended by striking '$100,000,000, which limit shall be increased by further amounts of $100,000,000 on July 1 in each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, and 1953, respectively: Provided, That (subject to the total authorization of not to exceed $500,000,000)' and inserting '$500,000,000, which limit shall be increased by further amounts of $200,000,000 on July 1 in each of the years 1955 and 1956, respectively: Provided, That'.

" ( b) Section 106 ( e) of said act, as amended, is hereby amended by striking '$35,000,000' and inserting '$70,000,000.'

"(c) Section 110 (c) of said act, as amended, is hereby amended by inserting between the first and second sentences thereof the following sentence: 'Where land within the purview of subparagraph (1) (ii) or (1) (111) hereof (whether it be predominantly residential or nonresidential in character) is to be redeveloped for predominantly nonresidential loans and advances under this title may be extended therefor if the governing body of the local public agency determines that such redevelopment for predominantly nonresidential uses is necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local community objectives and to afford maximum ·opportunity for the redevelopment of the project area by private enterprise: Provided, That loans and outstanding advances to any local public agency pursuant to the authorization of this sentence shall not exceed 2½ percent of the estimated gross project costs of the projects undertaken under other contracts with such local public agency pursuant to this title.'.

"SEC. 106. The Territorial Enabling Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 344) is hereby amended-

" ( 1) by inserting 'urban renewal,' after 'urban redevelopment,' in the title;

" ( 2) by inserting •, and urban renewal' after 'redevelopment' in the heading of title I;

" ( 3) by inserting 'and urban renewal projects' after the term 'urban redevelopment projects' in each place where that term appears in title I; ·

" ( 4) by inserting 'urban renewal,' after 'redevelopment,' in the heading of title III;

" ( 5) by inserting 'urban renewal,' after 'urban redevelopment,' in sections 301 and 303;

"(6) by inserting 'or urban renewal' after 'urban redevolpment' in section 304;

"(7) by inserting 'as amended,' after '(Public Law 171, Eighty-first Congress),' in sections 101, 301, and 304;

"(8) by inserting 'as amended,' after 'Housing Act of 1949,' in the clause numbered ' ( 1) ' in section 304; and

"(9) by inserting', as amended,' after 'this act' in sections 101, 301, and 304.

"Public housing "SEC. 107. (a) Section 101 (c) of title I

of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, is amended by striking out 'or for annual contributions or capital grants pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, for any project or projects not constructed or covered by a contract for annual contributions prior to the effective date of the Housing Act of 1954,'.

"(b) There are hereby repealed-"(1) the third proviso and clause (2) of

the eighth proviso appearing in that part of the First Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1954, which is captioned 'Annual con-

tributions:' under the heading ·'Public Hous-ing Administration';·

"(2) clause (2) of the third proviso, and the fourth proviso, appearing in that part of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1953, which is captioned 'Annual contributions:' under the heading 'Public Housing Administration';

"(3) the fourth proviso appearing in that part of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952, which ls captioned 'Annual contributions:' under the heading 'Public Housing Administration';

"(4) the sixth and seventh provisos appearing in that part of the First Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1954, which is captioned "Annual contributions:' under the heading 'Public Housing Administration', and the fifth and sixth provisos under the same caption in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1953; and

"(5) as of its effective date subsection 10 (j) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended.

"(c) Subsection (i) of section 10 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"'(i) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law (except as hereinafter provided in this section) the Authority shall not enter into any new contracts for loans and annual contributions for more than 35,000 additional dwelling units during each of the fiscal years 1956 and 1957, and may enter into only such new contracts for preliminary loans in respect thereto as are consistent with the number of dwelling units for which contracts for annual contributions may be entered into: Provided, That in respect to the fiscal year 1956 such number shall be increased by the difference between 35,000 and the number of units for which new annual contributions contracts for additional units were entered into during the fiscal year 1955: Provided further, That any balances of this authorization not utilized in such years shall be available until June 30, 1958: And provided further, That no new contracts for loans and annual contributions for additional dwelling units in excess of the number authorized in this sentence shall be entered into unless authorized by the Congress.'

"(d) Subsection (d) of section 21 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, is hereby amended by striking out the figure '10' in both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof the figure '15,' and by striking out 'of $336 m111ion.'

"(e) The act entitled 'An act to expedite the provision of housing in connection with national defense, and for other purposes,' approved October 14, 1940, as amended, is hereby amended by amending the last paragraph of section 605 (a) to read as follows:

"'In any city in which, on March 1, 1953, there were more than 10,000 temporary housing units held by the United States of America., or any 2 contiguous cities in 1 of which there were on such date more than 10,000 temporary housing units so held, the Administrator may acquire, by purchase or condemnation, a fee simple title to any or all lands in which the Administrator holds a leasehold interest, or other interest less than a fee simple, acquired by the Federal Government for national defense or war housing or for veteran's housing where (1) the Administrator finds that the acquisition by him of a fee simple title in the land will tend to expedite the orderly disposal or removal of temporary housing under his jurisdiction by facilitating the availability of improved sites for privately owned housing needed to replace such temporary housing and will tend to expedite the transition of the city from a war-affected community containing, as of said date, a large number of temporary houses to a community having additional permanent, well-planned, resi-

dential neighborhoods, (2) the local govem.ing body of the city makes a like finding and requests the Administrator to acquire such title to the land, and (3) the city has fur• nished assurances satisfactory to the Ad· ministrator that no individual who is employed by, or is an official of, the government of the city in which t1le land is located, or any agency thereof, shall be permited, di• rectly or indirectly, to have any financial interest in the purchase or redevelopment.of such land: Provided, That such acquisitions by the Administrator pursuant to this sentence shall be limited to not exceeding 426 acres of land in the general area in which approximately 1,500 units of temporary ·housing held by the United States of America were uno.ccupied on said date: And provided, further, That funds for such acquisition by the Administrator, which are authorized, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section and title II of the Independent Offices Ap• propriation Act, 1955, to be expended from the revolving fund established by that title under the heading "Housing and Home Finance Agency Office of the Administrator, revolving fund," shall be taken into consideration, to the extent that they are needed in making any determination pursuant to the second proviso under that heading. All or any part of any land so acquired by the Administrator may, during the 5-year period following the date of its acquisition. be sold by the Administrator, through negotiated sale, to such city or any local public agency where (1) the city or local public agency has represented to the Administrator that it is duly authorized under State law to purchase and resell such land, that such land will be made available to private enterprise for development in accordance with local zoning and other laws, and that the aggregate of such land and any other land in the same city previously sold under the authority of this paragraph to the city or a local public agency will be developed for predominantly residential use, and (2)

· the city or local public agency has agreed to · pay the fair market value of the land as de

termined by the Administrator, after giving consideration, among other relevant information, to the cost to the Federal Government of acquiring the fee simple title and of holding the land pending sale (including estimated amounts to cover legal and overhead expenses of such acquisition and to cover interest costs to the Federal Government of moneys invested in the land pending sale). Any such negotiated sale of land to the city or a local public agency shall be made upon terms which require (1) that the city or public agency shall pay in cash at least one-third of the price of the land upon its conveyance and the entire price within 1 year after its conveyance, and (2) that any portion of the entire price not paid upon such conveyance shall be represented by indebtedness which shall bear interest on outstanding balances at a rate of 4 percent per annum and which shall be secured by a first-mortgage lien upon the land or such portion of the land as the Administrator deems adequate to protect the financial interest of the Federal Government. The Administrator may, at any time that he deems it to be in :the public interest to do so, dispose, under authority of other provisions of this act, of any land acquired by him pursuant to this paragraph. Any land acquired by the Administrator pursuant to this paragraph which has not been disposed of within 5 years after its acquisition shall be disposed of by him as expedi• tiously as possible in the public interest in accordance with other authority contained in this act. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 306 of this act or any other provisions of law, no payments in lieu of taxes shall be made for any tax year beginning subsequent to the date of the acquisition of title to the property by the Administrator.'

"SEC. 108. (a) Section 2 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as · amended, is


a.mended by adding the following at the end of subsection ( 2) thereof: 'The term "elderly families'' means families consisting of a single person 65 years of age or over, or families the bead of which or his spouse is 65 years of age or over.' ·

"(b) The United Sates Housing Act of 1937, as amended, is amended by adding the following new subsection at the end of section 10:

"'(m) For the purpose of increasing the supply of decent, safe, and sanitary housing for elderly families available at rents they can afford to pay, the Authority may, with the approval of the President, after July 1, 1955, without regard to the provisions of any other law, enter into contracts for annual contributions which include not to exceed 10,000 dwelling units (either as separate projects or as parts of projects) designed for elderly families, which amount shall be increased by 10,000 dwelllng units on July 1, 1956. Such dwelling units shall be in addition to the dwelling units for which annual contributions contracts are authorized by any other provision of law. The total authorization for annual contributions shall be increased by $3 million per annum on July 1, 1955, and by the same amount on July l, 1956. The provisions of the first sentence of subsection 15 ( 5) shall not be applicable to such dwelling units. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 10 (g), annual contributions contracts covering such dwelling units shall require that in the selection of tenants for such units the public housing agency shall extend a prior preference to elderly families and that as among such families the "first" preferences in subsection 10 (g) shall apply. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 10 (g), the Authority may permit any public housing agency, in respect to any other dwelling units to extend a prior preference to elderly families: Provided, That such preference shall not be extended during any portion of a year when the number of elderly families already admitted in such year to all dwelllngs owned or operated by the public housing agency as low-rent housing within the meaning of this act equals 10 percent of the estimated number of all admissions in such year to all such dwellings: And provided further, That as among such families, the "first" preferences in subsection 10 (g) shall apply. The Authority may authorize public housing agencies to reconstruct or remodel any low-rent housing to provide accommodations designed for elderly families.'

"Home Loan Bank Board "SEC. 109. The Federal Home Loan Bank

Act, as amended, is hereby amended-" ( 1) by striking the first sentence of sec

tion 6 (1) and inserting: 'Any member other than a Federal savings and loan association may withdraw from membership in a Federal Home Loan Bank 6 months after filing with the Board written notice of intention so to do, and the Board may, after hearing, remove any member from membership, or deprive any nonmember borrower of the privilege of obtaining further advances, if, in the opinion of the Board,such member or nonmember borrower (i) has failed to comply with any provision of this act or regulation of the Board made pursuant thereto; (ii) is insolvent: Provided, That any member of a bank which is a building and loan association, savings and loan association, cooperative bank, or homestead association shall be

.deemed insolvent if the assets of such member are less than its obligations to its creditors and others, including the holders of its withdrawable accounts; or . (iii) has a management or home-financing policy of a character inconsistent with sound and economical home financing or with the purposes of this act:•;

"(2) by striking the period at the end of section 7 (a) and inserting a colon and

the following: 'Provided, That the Board may by regulation increase the number of elective directors of any Federal Home Loan Bank having a district which includes five or more States to a number not exceeding twice the number of States comprising such district, but such additional elective directors shall be apportioned as nearly as may be practicable in the same manner and order as is provided for the apportionment of elective directors under subsections (c) and (d) hereof: Provided further, That there shall be not less than 1 elective director from any of the States nor more than 3 elective directors from any of the States in any district referred to in the preceding proviso and in no event shall the total number of elective directors in any 1 district exceed 11. The term "States" as used in the preceding proviso shall mean the States of the Union and the District of Columbia.';

" ( 3) by inserting ' (a) ' after the section number in section 17 and adding at the end thereof a new subsection (b) as follows:

" ' ( b) The Home Loan Bank Board which was, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. S of 1947, established and made a constituent agency of the Housing and Home Finance Agency shall, from the effective date of the housing amendments of 1935, cease to be such a constituent agency and shall be an independent agency (including the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation) in the executive branch of the Government: Provided, That the functions vested in the chairman of said Board under clause (2) of the last sentence of subsection (b) of section 2 of said reorganization plan are hereby transferred to said Board. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, said Board, the Chairman thereof except as herein otherwise provided, and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, respectively, shall have and may exercise all functions which _they respectively had or could exercise, Immediately prior to the effective date of the housing amendments of 1955 or immediately prior to the effective date of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1955. Said Board shall annually make a report of its operations (including those of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation) to the Congress as soon as practicable after the first day of January in each year. The name of the Home Loan Bank Board is hereby changed to "Federal Home Loan Bank Board".'

"SEC. 110. The Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, as amended, is hereby amended by striking the proviso at the end of the second paragraph of section 5 (c) and inserting: 'Provided, That no such loan, unless so insured or guaranteed, shall be made in excess of $3,000.'

"SEC. 111. Subsection (e) of section 406 of the National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S. C. 1729 (e)), is hereby amended by striking the words 'Housing and Home Finance Administrator' and inserting in lieu thereof the word 'Congress'.

"SEC. 112. The National Housing Act, as amended, 1s hereby am~nded by striking section 403 (d) and inserting:

"'(d) Any institution which applies after the effective date of the Housing Amendments of 1955 for insurance under this title shall pay, in the event its application ls approved, an admission fee in such amount as the Corporation shall determine, taking into consideration the total cost of processing all insurance applications.'

••community facilities administration .. SEC. 113. Section 702 of the Housing Act

or 1954 1s hereby amended to read as follows:

•• 'SEc. 702. (a) In order ( 1) to encourage municipalities and other p"Qblic agencies to maintain at all times a current and adequate reserve of planned public works the construction of which can rapidly be commenced, par-

ticularly when the national or local economic situation makes such action desirable, and (2) to help attain maximum economy and efficiency in the planning and construction of public works, the Administrator is hereby authorized to make advances to public agencies (notwithstanding the provisions of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended) to aid in financing the cost of engineering and architectural surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications, or other action preliminary to and in preparation for the construction of public works: Provided, That the making of advances hereunder shall not in any way commit the Congress to appropriate funds to assist in financing the construction of any public works so planned: And provided further, That advances outstanding to public agencies in any one State shall at no time exceed 10 percent of the aggregate then authorized to be appropriated to the revolving fund established pursuant to subsection (e) of this section.

"'(b) No advance shall be made hereunder with respect to any individual project unless it is planned to be constructed within areasonable period of time, unless it conforms to an overall State, local, or regional plan approved by a competent State, local, or regional authority, and unless the public agency formally con tracts with the Federal Government to complete the plan preparation promptly and to repay such advance or part thereof when due. Subsequent to approval and prior to disbursement of any Federal funds for the purpose of advance planning, the applicant shall establish a separate planning account into which all Federal and applicant funds estimated to be required for plan preparation shall be placed.

"'(c) Advances under this section to any public agency shall be repaid without interest by such agency when the construction .of the public works is undertaken or started: Provided, That if the public agency undertakes to construct only a portion of a planned public work it shall repay such proportionate amount of the advances relating to the public work as the Administrator determines to be equitable: And provided further, That in the event repayment is not made promptly such unpaid sum shall bear interest at the rate of 4 percent per annum from the date of the Government's demand for repaymen~ to the date of payment thereof by the public agency. . .

" ' ( d) The Administrator ls authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the purpose of this section.

" ' ( e) In order to provide moneys for advances in accordance with this section, the Administrator is hereby authorized to establish a revolving fund which shall comprise all moneys heretofore or hereafter appropriated pursuant to this section, together with all repayments and other · receipts in connection with advances made under this section. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to such revolving fund, in addition to the amount authorized by this section as originally enacted, the further amounts of $12,000,000 which may be made available to the revolving fund on or after July l, 1956; $12,000,000 which may be made available to such fund ·on or after July 1, 1957; $14,000,000 which may be made available to such fund on or after July 1, 1958; and such additional sums which may be made available from. year to year thereafter as may be estimated to be necessary to maintain not to exceed a total of $48,000,000 in undisbursed balances in the revolving fund and in advances outstanding for plans in preparation or for completed plans with respect to projects which, in the determination of the Administrator, can be expected to be undertaken within a reasonable period of time.•

"SEC. 114. Effective upon the date of enactment of this act the basic rate of compensation of the Community Facilities Commissioner of the Housing and Home Finance

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12143 Agency shall be the same as the basic rate of compensation established for the heads of the constituent agencies of the Housing and Home Finance Agency.

"TITLE II-PUBLIC FACn.ITY LOANS

-"Declaration of policy "SEC. 201. It has been the policy of the

Congress to assist wherever possible the States and their political subdivisions to provide the services and facilities essential to the health and welfare of the people of the United States.

"The Congress finds that in many instances municipalities, or other political subdivisions of States, which seek to provide essential· public works or facilities, are unable to raise the necessary funds at reasonable interest rates.

"It is the purpose of this title to authorize the extension of credit to assist in the provision of certain essential public works or facilities by States, municipalities, or other political subdivisions of States, where such credit is not otherwise available on reasonable terms and conditions.

"Federal loans "SEC. 202. (a) The Housing and Home Fi

nance Administrator, acting through the Community Facilities Administration is authorized to purchase the securities and obligations of, or make loans to, States, municipalities and other political subdivisions of States, public agencies, and instrumentalities of one or more States, municipalities and political subdivisions of States, and public corporations, boards, and commissions established under the laws of any State, to finance specific public projects under State or municipal law. No such purchase or loan shall be made for payment of ordinary governmental or nonproject operating expenses.

"(b) The powers granted in subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to the following restrictions and limitations:

"(l) No financial assistance shall be extended under this section unless the financial assistance applied for is not otherwise available on reasonable terms, and all securities and obligations purchased and all loans made under this section shall be of such sound value or so secured as reasonably to assure retirement or repayment, and such loans may be made either directly or in cooperation with banks or other lending institutions through agreements to participate or by the purchase of participations or otherwise.

"(2) No securities or obligations shall be purchased, and no loans shall be made, including renewals or extensions thereof, which have maturity dates in excess of 40 years.

" ( c) In the processing of applications for financial assistance under this section the Administrator shall give priority to applications of smaller municipalities for assistance in the construction of basic public works (including works for the storage, treatment, purification, or distribution of water; sewage, sewage treatment, and sewer facilities; and gas distribution systems) for which there is an urgent and vital public need. As used in this section, a 'smaller municipality' means an incorporated or unincorporated town, or other political subdivision of a State, which had a population of less than 10,000 inhabitants at the time of the last Federal census.

"Financing ''SEC. 203. (a) In order to finance activities

under this title, the Administrator is authorized and empowered to issue to the Secretary of the Treasury, from time to time and to have outstanding at any one time, in an amount not exceeding $100 million, notes and other obligations. Such obligations shall be in such forms and denominations, have such maturities and be subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the

· Administrator, with the approval of the Sec-

retary of the Treasury. Such notes or other obligations shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average rate on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities as of the last day of the month preceding the issuance of such notes or other obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to purchase any notes and other obligations of the Administrator to be issued hereunder and for such purpose the Ser::retary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under such act, as amended, are extended to include any purchases of such notes and obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any of the notes or other obligations acquired by him under this section. All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such notes or other obligations shall be treated as public debt transactions of the United States.

"(b) Funds borrowed under this section and any proceeds shall constitute a revolving fund which may be used by the Administrator in the exercise of his functions under this title.

"General provisions "SEC. 204. In the performance of, and with

respect to, the functions, powers, and duties vested in him by this title the Administrator shall (in addition to any authority otherwise vested in him) have the functions, powers, and duties set forth in section 402, except subsection (c) (2), of the Housing Act of 1950. Funds obtained or held by the Administrator in connection with the performance of his functions under this title shall be available for the administrative expenses of the Administrator in connection with the performance of such functions.

"The term 'States' as used in this title shall mean the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Territories and possessions of the United States.

"SEC. 205. No loans shall be made under section 108 of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Liquidation Act (67 Stat. 230), as amended, after the date of enactment of this act, except pursuant to an application for such loan filed prior to such date.

"Title III-College housing "SEC. 301. Section 401 of title IV of the

Housing Act of 1950, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"'SEC. 401. (a) To assist educational institutions in providing housing and other educational facilities for students and faculties, the Administrator may make loans of funds to such institutions for the construction of such facilities: Provided, That ( 1) no such loan shall be made unless the educational institution shows that it is unable to secure the necessary funds for such construction from other sources upon terms and conditions equally as favorable as the terms and conditions applicable to loans under this title, and (2) no such loan shall be made unless the Administrator finds that the construction will be undertaken in an economical manner, and that it will not be of elaborate or extravagant design or materials.

"'(b) Any educational institution which, prior to the date of enactment of this act, has contracted for housing or other educational facilities may, in connection therewith, receive loans authorized under this title, as the Administrator may determine: Provided, That no such loan shall be made for any housing or other educational facilities, the construction of which was begun prior to the effective date of this act, or completed prior to the filing of an application under this title.

., ' ( c) A loan to an educational institution may be in an amount not exceeding the total development cost of the facility, as determined by the Administrator; shall be secured in such manner and be repaid within such period, not exceeding 50 years, as may be determined by him; and with respect to loan contracts under which loan funds have not been fully disbursed prior to the date of enactment of the College Housing Amendments of 1955 shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Administrator which shall be not more than the higher of ( 1) 2 ¾ percent per annum, or (2) the total of onequarter of 1 percent per annum added to the rate of interest paid by the Administrator on funds obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury as provided in subsection ( e) of this section.

"'(d) To obtain funds for loans under this title, the Administrator may issue and have outstanding at any one time notes and obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury in an amount not to exceed $500,• 000,000: Provided, That the amount outstanding for other educational facilities, as defined herein, shall not exceed $100,000,000.

"'(e) Notes or other obligations issued by the Administrator under this title shall be in such forms and denominations, have such maturities, and be subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Administrator, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. Such notes or other obligations issued to obtain funds for loan contracts entered into after the effective date of the College Housing Amendments of 1955 shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury which shall be not more than the higher of (1) 2½ percent per annum, or (2) the average annual interest rate on all interest-bearing obligations of the United States forming a part of the public debt as computed at the end of the fiscal year next preceding the issuance by the Administrator and adjusted to the nearest oneeighth of 1 percent. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pur~ chase any notes and other obligations of the Administrator issued under this title and for such purpose is authorized to use as a publicdebt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for which securities may be issued un .. der such act, as amended, are extended to include any purchases of such notes and other obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any of the notes or other obligations acquired by him under this section. All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such notes or other obligations shall be treated as public-debt transactions of the United States.

.. '(f) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator such sums as may be necessary, together with loan principal and interest payments made by educational institutions asssisted hereunder, for payments on notes or other obligations issued by the Administrator under this section.

.. '(g) No loan shall be made under this section unless the educational institution receiving the loan has agreed (1) to certify, upon completion of the physical improvements with respect to which the loan is made, either (A) that the total of all actual costs of the facility approved by the Administrator for disbursement under the loan agreement equaled or exceeded the proceeds of all obligations authorized and issued pursuant to the loan agreement or (B) the amount by which the proceeds of such obligations exceeded such total actual costs, as the case may be, and (2) to pay forthwith for the redemption of such obligations, in such man• ner aa shall be provided in the loan agreement, the amount, if any, certified to be in excess of such total actual costs: Provided, That any portion of such excess amount less


than $1,000 shall, in lieu of being _paid for the redemption of such obligations, be deposited in a sinking fund account established for the payment of interest on, and principal of, such obligations.'

"SEC. 302. Subsection (c) of section 404 of title IV of the Housing Act of 1950, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"'(c) "Davelopment cost" means costs of the construction of the housing or other educational facilities and the land on which it is located, including necessary site improvements to permit its use for housing or other educational facilities.'

"SEC. 303. Section 404 of title IV of the Housing Act of 1950, as amended, is amended by-

"(1) striking out subsection (b) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"'(b) "Educational institution" means any educational institution offering at least a 2-year program acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate degree, including any public educational institution, or any private educational institution no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual'; and

"(2) adding at the end thereof the follow~ 1ng new subsection:

"'(h) "Other educational facilities" means (1) new structures suitable for use as cafeterias or dining halls, student centers or student unions, infirmaries or other inpatient or outpatient health facilities, and for other essential service facilities, and (2) structures suitable for the above uses provided by rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, or im• provement of existing structures which are otherwise inadequate for such uses.'.

"SEC. 304. This title may be cited as the 'College Housing Amendments of 1955'.

"TITLE IV-MILITARY HOUSING

"Privately financed military housing "SEC. 401. Section 803 of the National

Housing Act, as amended, is hereby amended-

" ( 1) by striking out of the second proviso of subsection (a) 'June 30, 1955' and inserting in lieu thereof 'June 30, 1958';

"(2) by striking out the last sentence of paragraph (2) of subsection (b) and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 'No mortgage shall be insured under this title unless the Secretary of Defense or his designee shall have certified to the Commissioner that the housing with respect to which the mortgage is made is necessary to assure that adequate housing, within reasonable commuting distance of the installation, will be available for such personnel and that there is no intention, so far as can reasonably be foreseen, to substantially curtail activities at such installation or the personnel assigned or to be assigned to such installation.';

"(3) by striking clause (C) of paragraph (3) of subsection (b) and inserting:

"'(C) not to exceed an average of $9,900 per family unit for such part of such property or project as may be attributable to dwelling use, except that where the Secretary of Defense or his designee, in .exceptional cases, certifies and the Commissioner concurs in such certification that the needs would be better served by single-family detached dwellings or dwelling structures designed for two-family residence the mortgage may involve a. principal obligation not to exceed $10,800 per dwelling in the case of single-family detached dwellings, or not to exceed $20,500 per structure in the case of two-family structures, for such part of such property as may be attributable to such dwellings or structures: Provided, That the Commissioner may by regulation increase the $9,900 limitation by not exceeding $900 in any geographical area where he finds that cost levels so required.'; and

"(4) by inserting after the word "amended" at the end of the second sentence of

paragraph (3) of subsection (b): ', except that the amount to be included in "actual cost" (as defined in subsection (c) of said section 227) as the allowance for builder's profit where the mortgagor is also the builder as defined by the Commissioner shall be an amount equal to 10 percent of said "actual cost'''.

"SEC. 402. Whenever the Secretary of Defense or his designee shall deem it necessary, he may enter into an agreement with the owner or owners thereof to purchase unimproved land or any housing financed with mortgages insured under title VIII of the National Housing Act, as amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law except as may hereafter be enacted in express amendment hereof, the price paid for any such unimproved land or housing purchased by the Secretary of Defense or his designee under this or any other law shall be the fair market value of such unimproved land or housing as determined by the Secretary of Defense or his designee on the basis of an independent appraisal. In connection with any agreements to purchase any such housing, the Secretary of Defense or his designee may assume, or may purchase subject to, any such mortgage and pay in cash any difference between the outstanding principal obligation of such mortgage and the fair market value of such housing which in the case of new housing built in conformance with specifications furnished by the armed services and where there has been no deterioration chargeable to the negligence or fault of the builder the fair market value shall not be less than the actual cost of construction making due allowance for normal depreciation. Whenever the Secretary of Defense or his designee shall deem it necessary, he may cause proceedings to be instituted in any court having Jurisdiction of such proceedings to acquire by condemnation any unimproved land or any housing financed with mortgages insured under title VIII of the National Housing Act, as amended, either subject to said mortgages or acquiring all interest in said property. Any condemnation proceedings herein provided shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the act of August 1, 1888 (25 Stat. 357), as amended, or any other applicable Federal statute. Before condemnation proceedings are instituted pursuant to this section, an effort shall be made to acquire the property involved by negotiation unless, because of reasonable doubt as to the identity of the owner or owners, because of the large number of persons with whom it would be necessary to negotiate, or for other reasons, the effort to acquire by negotiation ·would involve, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense or his designee, such de·1ay in acquiring the property as to be contrary to the interest of national defense. In any condemnation proceeding instituted pursuant to this section, the court shall not order the party in possession to surrender possession in adva.nce of final judgment unless a declaration of taking has been flied, and ·a deposit of the amount estimated to be just compensation has been made, under the first section of the act of February 26, 1931 (46 Stat. 1421), providing for such declarations. Unless title is in dispute, the courts, -upon application, shall promptly pay to the owner at least 75 percent of the amount so deposited, but such payment shall be made without prejudice to any party to the proceeding. Property acquired under this sec-tion may be occupied, used, and improved '"for the purposes of this section prior to the approved title by the Attorney General as required by section 355 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.

"SEC. 403. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of section 402 of this title.

"TITLE V-FARM HOUSING

"SEC. 501. Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, is hereby further amended, as follows: ·

"(1) In the first sentence of section 511 immediately following the phrase 'July 1, 1953' strike out the word 'and' and insert at the end of the sentence immediately before the period a. comma and the following: 'and an additional $100,000,000 on and after July 1, 1955.'

"(2) In section 512 (A) strike out 'and 1954' and insert '1954, and 1955', and (B) strike out 'and $2,000,000' and insert '$2,000,.000 and $2,000,000.'

"(3) In section 513, strike out 'and $10,· 000,000 on July 1 of each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954' and insert '$10,-000,000, and $10,000,000 on July 1 of each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1955.'

"SEC. 502. The United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, is hereby amended by adding the following sentences to subsection 12 (f): 'Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, upon the filing of a request therefor within 6 months after the effective date of this sentence, the Authority may relinquish, transfer, and convey without monetary consideration, all its rights, title and interest in and with respect to any such project or any part thereof (including such land as is determined by the Authority to be reasonably necessary to the operation of such project and contractual rights to revenues, reserves, and other proceeds therefrom) to any public housing agency whose area of operation includes such project. Any such relinquishment shall be conditioned upon preference for occupancy in such projects being given first to low-income agricultural workers and their families and, second, to other low-income persons and families: Provided, That any vacant accommodations for which there are no eligible applicants in these preference groups may be occupied by other persons or families but shall be vacated promptly when needed to house any such eligible applicants: Provided further, That the project shall be so utilized, or utilized for other public purpose, for a period of 10 years from the date of relinquishment. , In any conveyance hereunder, the Authority shall reserve to the United States of America all mineral rights of whatsoever nature upon, in, or under the property including the right of access to and use of such parts of the surface of the property as may be necessary for mining and saving the minerals. The Authority may dispose of any project or part thereof not relinquished or conveyed under this subsection, or any reversionary or other rights in any such project, pursuant to subsection ( e) of section 13 of this act, notwithstanding the parenthetical clause in said subsection.' "

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I make a point of order against the motion to recommit. No motion to recommit would be in order except a straight motion to recommit, because the entire bill is the amendment just voted upon in committee and in the House.

The SPEAKER. The rule provides "except one motion to recommit with or without instructions."

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of expedition, since the instructions are to report back the bill reported by the Committee on Banking and currency, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the remainder of the motion be dispensed with.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? Mr. HALLECK. Reserving the right

to object, do we understand that the mo-

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - ~HOUSE 12145 tion to recom:nit is the committee bill exactly as reported?

Mr. MULTER. Yes. . Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I make

a point of-order against the motion to recommit because it involves matter upon which the House has just voted.

The SPEAKER. The House has never had an opportunity to vote on the Senate bill as amended by the Committee on Banking and Currency.

Mr. HALLECK. I submit that the vote on the substitute was a vote against the bill.

The SPEAKER. The House voted on the substitute, but this is on a different matter.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I made the point of order that the gentleman from New York is in favor of this bill that is going to be sent back with instructions, and therefore has no right to make the motion.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman qualifies as being opposed to the bill, and the Chair must take his word for it, and always does.

Mr. MULTER. I assure the Speaker that I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. NICHOLSON. The gentleman is on record as voting for the bill.

The SPEAKER. He is not on record as voting on the substitute.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit was rejected. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the passage of the bill. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that

I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and there

were-yeas 396, nays 3, answering "present" 4, not voting 31, as follows:

Abbitt Abernethy Adair Addonizio Albert Alexander Alger Allen, Calif. Allen,m. Andersen,

H. Carl Andresen,

AugustH. Andrews Arends Ashley Ashmore Aspinall Auchincloss Avery Bailey Baker Baldwin Barden Barrett Bass, N. H. Bass, Tenn. Bates Baumhart Beamer :aecker Bell Bennett, Fla. Bentley 1t,rry

[Roll No. 141] YEAS-396

Betts Blatnik Blitch Boggs Boland Bolton,

Frances P. Bolton,

OliverP. Bonner Bosch Bow Bowler Boyle Bray Brooks, La. Brooks, Tex. Brown, Ga. Brown, Ohio Brownson Broyhill Buckley Budge Burdick Burleson Bush Byrd Byrne, Pa. Byrnes, Wis. Canfield Cannon Carlyle Carnahan Carrigg Cederberg

Celler Chase Chatham Chelf Chenoweth Christopher Church Clark Cole Colmer Cooley Coon Cooper Corbett Coudert Cramer Creteila Crumpacker Cunningham Curtis, Mass. Curtis, Mo. Dague Davidson Davis, Ga. Davis, Tenn. Davis, Wis. Dawson, Ill. Dawson, Utah Deane Delaney Dempsey Denton Derounian Devereux Dies

Diggs Judd Dixon Karsten Dodd Kean Dollinger Kearns Dolliver · Kea ting Dondero Kee Donohue KeUey, Pa. Donovan Kelly, N. Y. Dorn, N. Y. Keogh Dorn, S. C. Kilday Dowdy Kilgore Doyle King, Calif. Durham King, Pa. Edmondson Kirwan Elliott Knox Ellsworth Knutson Engle Laird Fallon Landrum Fascell Lane Feighan Lanham Fenton Lankford Fine Latham Fino Lecompte Fisher Lesinski Fjare Lipscomb Flood Long Flynt Lovre Fogarty McCarthy Forand McConnell Ford McCormack Forrester McCulloch Fountain McDonough Frelinghuysen McDowell Friedel McIntire Fulton McMillan Gamble Mc Vey Garmatz Macdonald Gary Mack, Ill. Gathings Mack, Wash. Gavin Madden Gentry Magnuson George Mahon Gordon Mailliard Granahan Marshall Grant Martin Gray Mason Green, Oreg. Matthews Green, Pa. Meader Gregory Merrow Griffiths Metcalf Gross Miller, Calif. Gubser Miller, :Md. Gwinn Miller, Nebr. Hagen Miller, N. Y. Hale Mills Haley Minshall Halleck Mollohan Harden Morano Hardy Morgan Harris Morrison Harrison, Nebr. Moss Harrison, Va. Moulder Harvey Murray, Ill. Hays, Ark. Murray, Tenn. Hays, Ohio Natcher Hayworth Nelson Hebert Nicholson Henderson Norblad Herlong Norrell Heselton O'Brien, Ill. Hess O'Brien, N. Y. Hiestand O'Hara, Ill. Hill O'Hara, Minn. Hinshaw O'Konski Hoeven O'Neill Hoffman, Mich. Osmers Holifield Ostertag Holmes Passman Holt Patman Hal tzman Patterson Hope Pelly Horan Pfost Hosmer Philbin Huddleston Pilcher Hull Pillion Hyde Poage Ikard Poff James Polk Jarman Preston Jenkins Price Jennings Priest Jensen Prouty Johansen Quigley Johnson, Calif . .Rabaut Johnson, Wis. Rains Jonas Ray Jones, Ala. Reed, Ill. Jones, Mo. Rees, Kans. Jones, N. C. Reuss

NAYs-3

Rhodes, Ariz. Rhodes, Pa. Richards Riehlman Riley Roberts Robeson, Va. Robsion, Ky. Rodino Rogers, Colo. Rogers, Fla. Rogers, Mass. Rogers, Tex. Rooney Roosevelt Rutherford Sadlak St. George Saylor Schenck Scherer Schwengel Scott Scrivner Scudder Seely-Brown Selden Sheehan Sheppard Short Sieminski Sikes Siler Simpson, Ill. Simpson, Pa. Sisk Smith, Kans. Smith, Miss. Smith, Va. Smith, Wis. Spence Springer Staggers Steed Sullivan Taber Talle Taylor Teague, Calif. Teague, Tex. Thomas Thompson, La. Thompson,

Mich. Thompson, N. J. Thompson, Tex. Thomson, Wyo. Thornberry Tollefson Trimble Tuck Tumulty Udall Utt Vanik Van Pelt Van Zandt Velde Vinson Vorys Vursell Wainwright Walter Watts Weaver Westland Wharton Whitten Wickersham Widnall Wier Wigglesworth Williams, Miss. Williams, N. J. Williams, N. Y. Willis Wilson, Calif. Wilson, Ind. Winstead Withrow Wolcott Wolverton Wright Yates Young Younger Zablocki Zelenko

Bolling Burnside Multer ANSWERING "PRESENT"-4

Chudoff Kluczynskt

Machrowicz Powell

NOT VOTING-31 Anfuso Ayres Belcher Bennett, Mich. Boykin Buchanan Chiperfield Clevenger Dingell Eberharter Evins

Fernandez Frazier Hand Hillings Hoffman, Ill. Jackson Kearney Kilburn Klein Krueger

So the bill was passed.

McGregor Mumma Perkins Phillips Radwan Reece, Tenn. Reed, N. Y. Rivers Shelley Shuford

The Clerk announced the following pairs: · Mr. Anfuso with Mr. Ayres.

Mr. Shelley with Mr. McGregor, Mr. Klein with Mr. Phillips. Mr. Dingell with Mr. Radwan. Mr. Perkins with Mr. Chiperfield. Mr. Frazier with Mr. Hand. Mr. Evins with Mr. Billings. Mr. Fernandez with Mr. Hoffman of Illi-

nois. Mr. Rivers with Mr. Krueger. Mr. Boykin with Mr. Kearney. Mrs. Buchanan with Mr. Reece of Tennes

see. Mr. Eberharter with Mr. Bennett of Michi

gan. Mr. Shuford with Mr. Kilburn.

Messrs. JONES of Missouri, NORRELL, ENGLE, and ASHLEY changed their votes from "nay" to "yea."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON HOUSING BILL

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (S. 2126) to extend and clarify laws relating to the provision and improvement of housing. the elimination and prevention of slums, the conservation and development of urban communities, the financing of vitally needed public works, and for other purposes, with an amendment of the House thereto, insist on the House amendment and ask for a conference with the Senate. : The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. SPENCE, PATMAN, RAINS, WOLCOTT, GAMBLE, TALLE, and BROWN of Georgia.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND REMARKS

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members who desire to do so may extend their remarks in the RECORD during general debate on the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.




Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time in order to ask about the program for the rest of the day and tomorrow.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, the program for the rest of the day is the consideration and adoption of the rule on the extension of the Defense Production Act and also the rule on the Sugar Act. Then the House Committee of the Whole will take up the Defense Production Act under general debate.

Mr. MARTIN. I understand the conference report on the supplemental appropriation bill will be here within an hour. Does that make any difference in the gentleman's announcement of the program for the rest of this evening?

Mr. McCORMACK. I have not been advised of that but, of course, under the unanimous consent that has been granted the Speaker can recognize the gentleman from Missouri for that purpose, but I am unable to state exactly what the situation is.

The SPEAKER. The Chair advised the gentleman from Missouri that he will be recognized the first thing in the morning,

Mr. McCORMACK. Then that will be the first business tomorrow. Then tomorrow the defense production bill will be taken up under the 5-minute rule to be finished up sometime tomorrow.

The Private Calendar will be called first tomorrow and then the Consent Calendar. Following that, the following bills will be called up under suspension of the rules:

H. R. 4006, in relation to veterans in connection with farm training.

S. 1210, leases on Federal agencies, District of Columbia.

H. R. 3255, to amend the classification act of 1949.

s. 1849, a Federal employees' career appointments bill.

S. 1792, to amend the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act.

S. 2237, providing for an additional Under Secretary which will strengthen the State Department in some respects.

s. 890, to strengthen the water pollution act.

H. R. 7245, assistance for impacted schools.

H. R. 4045, the Texas City disaster claim bill.

S. 1189, relating to national banks with reference to certain real estate construction loans.

H. R. 7092, the Mississippi Valley improvement project.

H. R. 2552, the Great Lakes connecting channels project.

H. R. 5649, a bill relating to the restraint of the abuse of habeas corpus proceedings.

There may be one other bill under suspension that I have not announced.

It is being looked into now by the leadership on both sides.

While that is a long list, I expect many of these bills will be taken up and passed by unanimous consent. Probably most of them will not take very long. Then we will proceed with a continuation of the Defense Production Act; and also, if possible, the sugar bill. I understand certain amendments will be offered to the sugar bill, which will be accepted by the committee, that will probably remove

considerable honest opposition to certain features of that bill.

Mr. MARTIN. The Members on this side want me to inquire if there is any chance for consideration of the Small Business Extension Act.

Mr. McCORMACK. The Small Business Extension Act is for Monday. There will be other suspensions on Monday, because that is regular suspension day.

Mr. MARTIN. The ones you have announced are the only ones that will be taken up tomorrow?

Mr. McCORMACK. Yes. There will be a number of others on Monday, and I am confident the extension of the Small Business Administration Act will be considered then. Also the International Finance Corporation bill will be considered Monday, and the Commodity Credit Corporatiop bill will be considered Monday. Of course, chairmen of committees are asking me now. The leadership has considered all of these things. Certainly I would enjoy very much if the chairmen of the committees would consult me between now and Monday on the bills they would like to have the Speaker recognize them for motions to suspend the rules, so that we can take them up. Also to advise the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. MARTIN. If we keep adding to the list, we will not get out until the following Saturday.

Mr. McCORMACK. No. Everything is pretty well under control, I can assure the gentleman.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN. I yield. Mr. COOLEY. The rule on the sugar

bill provides for 1 hour general debate. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen

tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MARTIN_] has expired.

HOUR OF MEETING TOMORROW Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Reserving

the right to object, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has just stated that there is no intention of finishing tomorrow night?

Mr. McCORMACK. That is correct. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Speak

er, then I object.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Public Works may have until midnight tonight to file reports on the following bills:

H. R. 5556, authorizing a preliminary examination and survey of McGirts Creek, Fla.

H. R. 6686, providing for a preliminary examination and survey by the Secretary of the Army for the purpose of controlling water chestnut infestation in the upper Chesapeake Bay tributaries.

s. 1899, to authorize the improvement of the Amite River and its tributaries,

H. R. 6256, granting the consent of Congress to the States of Kansas and Oklahoma to negotiate and enter into a compact relating to their interests in, and the apportionment of, the waters of the Arkansas River and its tributaries as they affect such States.

H. R. 7596, to provide for the disposal of federally owned property at obsolescent canalized waterways.

LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1956

Mr. NORRELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 7117). making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments, disagree to the amendments of the Senate and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.


the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints the fallowing conferees: Messrs. NORRELL, KIRWAN, RooNEY, CANNON, HORAN, Bow, and TABER.

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Mr. NORRELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until m;idnight tonight to file conference reports.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?


TO FACILITATE EXERCISE OF VOTING FRANCHISE BY MEMBERS OF ARMED SERVICES

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 4048) making recommendations to the States for the enactment of legislation to permit and assist Federal personnel, including members of the Armed Forces, and their families, to exercise their voting franchise, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments, disagree to the amendments of the Senate and ask for a conference.


the · request of the gentleman from Texas? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. BURLESON, ASHMORE, and MORANO.

MINING, DEVELOPMENT, AND UTILIZATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES

OF PUBLIC LANDS WITHDRAWN OR RESERVED FOR POWER DEVELOPMENT

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 100) to permit the mining, development, and utilization of the mineral resources of all public lands withdrawn or reserved for

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12147 power development, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments, disagree to the amendments of the Senate and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. - The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from California? [After a pause. J The Chair hears none and appoints the fallowing conferees: Messrs. ENGLE, ASPINALL, ROGERS of Texas, SAYLOR, and y OUNG.

STEPHAN SWAN OGLETREE Mr. FORRESTER. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 6232) to include as Spanish-American· War service under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration certain service rendered by Stephen Swan Ogletree dur ing the Spanish-American War, with Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amendment,

as follows: Strik~ out all after the enacting clause and

insert "That, for the purpose of laws administered by the Veterans' Administration, it shall be considered that Stephan Swan Ogletree was honorably discharged from Com pany G, Second Regiment Alabama Volunteer Infantry, after having rendered at least 70 days act ive military service therein during the Spanish-American War. No benefit shall be afforded hereunder for any period prior to the date of receipt of an application t_herefor filed subsequent to the date of enactment of this act."

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? ·

There was no objection. The Senate amendment was concurred

ih; a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

COMMISSIONER OF ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill (H. R. 7684) to authorize the Atomic Energy Commission to pay the salary of a Commissioner during the recess of the Senate. and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, reserving

the right to object, will the gentleman from North Carolina give a brief explanation of the bill?

Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, this bill simply permits the President to pay the salary of a Commissioner to fill a vacancy at the present time, provided appointment is made as an interim appointment. It also contains a provision dealing with certain information regarding the Commissioners.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the' present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc.

AUTHoa1zATioN

SECTION 1. -Notwithstanding the provisions of the act of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 699; 5 U. S. C. 56), the :United States Atomic

Energy Commission is authorized to pay the salary of any person appointed by the President during the recess of the Senate to :fill the presently existing vacancy on the Atomic Energy Commission: Provided, That a nomination to fill such vacancy shall be submitted to the Senate not later than 40 days after the commencement of the next succeeding session of the Senate.

LIMITATION

SEC. 2. The authority granted in section 1 hereof shall not extend beyond the recess of the Senate next following the session of Congress during which this act is enacted.

SEC. 8. The first sentence ·of section 21 of of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended to read as follows: "Each member of the Commission, · including the Chairman, shall h ave equal responsibilit y and authority in all decisions and actions of the Commission, shall have full access to all information rela ting to the performance of his duties or responsibilities, and shall have one vote."


COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Committee on Public Works may have until midn ig·ht tonight to file a report on the bill H. R. 7596.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?


HOUR OF MEETING JULY 30 Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet tomorrow at 10: 30 o'clock a. m.

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection.



AMENDlliG THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950, AS AMENDED Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, by

direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 320, and ask for its immediate consideration.


Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7470) to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to .recol)Unit.

· Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker adoption of House Resolution 320 wni make in order the consideration of the bill <H. R. 7470) to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended.

House Resolution 320 provides for an open rule with 1 hour of general debate on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would extend the provisions of the Defense Production Act to the close of June 30,. 1956. As the report indicates the necessity for the extension of this act lies in the fact that the country is still engaged in mobilization and defense programs and it is imperative that the program be continued.

The bill has been reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency without amendment and the committee report complies with the Ramseyer Rule.

Since the rule is an open one and therefore the bill would be open for amendment I hope that the House will adopt House Resolution 320 which will make consideration of H. R. 7470 possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ALLEN].

Mr. ALLEN _of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to.

Arv'.IENDING AND EXTENDING THE SUGAR ACT OF 1948, AS AMENDED Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, by di

rection of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 328 and ask for its immediate consideration.


Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill ( H. R. 7030) to amend and extend the Sugar Act of 1948, as amended, and for other purposes, and all points of order against such bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee on Agriculture now in the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute :i:ule as an original bill. At the conclusion of such consideration the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any member may d~mand a separate vote in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee substitute. The .previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ALLEN], and at this time I yield myself such time as I may consume.

12148 CONGRESSIONArRECORD- HOUSE July 29.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the reading of the resolution, it makes in order consideration of the bill H. R. 7030, to amend and extend the Sugar Act of 1948.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I know of no opposition to this rule. It makes in order consideration of the bill H. R. 7030. Certain comments were made in regard to three amendments that might be offered, 'but I shall not go into that now.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the resolution. The resolution was agreed to.

AMENDING THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950, AS AMENDED Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill <H. R. 7470) to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. ·

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself

into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 7470, with Mr. SHEPPARD in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read

ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this bill would extend

the Defense Production Act for another year. The Defense Production Act is an emergency act. It was enacted during the Korean war, and the only justification for its continuance is that there still is an emergency. I think we can all agree to that. The world is in such an unsettled state that we have to be constantly prepared for any emergency; that we must keep the administrative machinery in operation so it will not be hard to continue it in its full vigor if we need it.

The Defense Production Act now contains only three titles relating to allocations and priorities, defense production assistance, and administrative provisions. The bill makes few changes in the act. The administration has asked for the services of men who have special skills, who work without compensation. Many of these are men who have vast holdings in various enterprises that might conflict with their duties to their Government. These men have not been under very close supervision. They have largely exercised their judgment without the strict control that it seems to me should be exerted over them. A man certainly cannot serve two masters, and we are told that where a man's treasure is there his heart is also. So, we have placed restrictions upon these gentlemen. We have provided that they should divulge their holdings to the heads of their agencies and they should not make any policy decisions. Some people have said that a good man would resent

these requirements; that he would not come here to serve. But, I am quite sure that a man who was imbued with a patriotic spirit and a desire to serve would be glad to have such restrictions imposed on all w. o. c.'s, because if there is any breach of duty or any unfaithfulness on the part of anyone, the taint falls on all. So, we have proposed some strong provisions that will protect the interests of the Government if men should seek to enrich themselves by pretending to serve their Government.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. I have read carefully the bill the committee reported out, and it does make a sincere effort to curb the operations of those who have dual loyalties or w. o. c.'s, without compensation, those whom we called in the Second World War "dollar-a-year men.'' But, in the inquiry that the House Committee on the Judiciary has made, evidence has been adduced to show, for example, that the Director of the Business Defense Services Administration-which is a successor to the old NP A-in the Department of Commerce, has ruled that w. o. c.'s may be heads of divisions. There are 25 divisions in the Department of Commerce, and 15 of those division heads are w. o. c.'s. These division heads pass upon or recommend on matters of tax amortization, matters of quotas, matters of preferred treatment, Government specifications in contracts, and, in addition, they control scores and scores of civilian employees. Now, the head of the Business and Defense Services Administration, Mr. Honeywell, said that a head of a division should be a w. o. c. He at least prefers w. o. c.'s to head divisions. He has made .that decision and could make that decision even with the passage of the bill that the gentleman reported out. I am of the opinion-and I am sure the gentleman is-that the head of such a division is in a policymaking position in view of what his duties are. If he is in a policymaking position the w. o. c. should not be employed. Secretary of Commerce is not to place in a policymaking position w. o. c.'s, but Mr. Honeywell and Mr. Weeks have already decided w. o. c.'s may be the heads of divisions. In other words, the gentleman's bill will not prevent them from doing just that. The Department of Commerce heads determine what is or what is not a policyµiaking position. They determine in advance that a head of a division is nonpolicymaking. An amendment might well be offered to the effect that a division head is a policymaking position and cannot be filled by any w. o. c.

Mr. SPENCE. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PATMAN].

EMPLOYEES WITHOUT COMPENSATION

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill permits the continuance of w. o. c.'s without compensation. During World War I the Government permitted the use of dollar-a-year men. During World War II the use of dollar-a-year men was again permitted. When the Korean war commenced in 1950, I be-

lieve in either October or November of that year, President Truman asked for the passage of this act, the Defense Pro:. duction Act. It permitted the use of w. o. c.'s without compensation. He restricted their activities to a certain extent and it was intended that it apply only during the war or a great national emergenc:v. That was the purpose of the use of w. o. c.'s.

You cannot justify their use any other way. Let us remember that in 1953 when the extension of this act was again requested by President Eisenhower, Mr. Truman's order continued as it was before for the last 2 years, it extended the act until 1955. It expired June 30, 1955 but a continuing resolution extends it to July 30, 1955. It is a simple question now, and the question is, Shall we in time of peace permit the use of people in Government service who have a conflict of interests and who have a personal ax to grind, a selfish ax to grind. In other words, whom will they serve? Will they serve their Government or will they serve the corporation that pays them a salary. That is the question involved here.

I have a simple amendment to this bill, that is really just one word, just the word "not," so it in effect will read that they shall not be permitted.

Mr. BROWN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield ?

Mr. PATMAN. I yield. Mr. BROWN of Georgia. The gentle

man mentions the word "not." If this word "not" .is inserted in the bill it will practically kill the effect of the bill. You have to have some of these $1-a-year men. We have corrected the situation mentioned by the gentleman by placing many amendments in the bill, and I do not see how anybody could take advantage of the Government under the amendments we have put in this bill. Of course, you have to give the Administrator, Dr. Flemming, who is one of the fi1:1est men I know anywhere, the tools with which to carry out his duties. Inserting the word "not" means that he cannot carry out these duties.

Mr. PATMAN. We will not have any w. o. c.'s, that is what I mean by this.

This amendment is to strike out all the language beginning ori page 4, line 7, and all of pages 5, 6, 7, and on page 8 down to line 4. That strikes out th~ permission to use w. o. c.'s.

It is my contention that there is really no intelligent and effective way to regulate one in Government service who is serving without compensation. You can put all the restrictions and limitations around that that you want to, but the fact remains that they are in your Government. They are learning secrets. They know what is going to happen, what is going on. To expect them not to take advantage of it, to give their employers, who are paying them their salaries and taking care of them, well, to expect them not to disclose these secrets to their employees I think is expecting too much. You would just be expecting to have people who are not human in a case like that. If they are human beings, they are loyal. To whom will they be loyal? Will they be loyal to the Government, to whom they feel they

1955 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-·· HOUSE 12149 owe little responsibility, or will they be loyal to their employer, for whom they. have worked over a long period of years under circumstances that were very favorable to them and very profitable, and they are expected to have a much longer period of time with that particular employer. · Aw. o. c. looks forward to that. So it does not take any particular sense to realize to whom this w. o. c. will feel he owes his greatest loyalty. I think you can use any kind of sense, booksense, . commonsense, or horsesense, and you can come to only one conclusion, that is, they will feel that their greatest allegiance will be to their employer.

In time of war you can justify it. We can all justify it because patriotism comes first. I am perfectly willing to trust them in time of actual warfare. That is all right. We have done it in the past.

If we were to extend this in time of peace, it would be the first time in the history of the United States Government that we have ever recognized the use of dollar-a-year men or w. o. c.'s in time of peace. In 1953, when we extended this act for 2 years, it was in time of war. That was during the Korean war.

Mr. BROWN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PATMAN. I yield. Mr. BROWN of Georgia. · The gentle

man remembers that in 1916, the year before World War I, Congress gave the President extraordinary powers. In 1940, before the Second· World War, the Congress did the same thing again.

Mr. PATMAN. That is right. That is exactly right, but if I were on the other side with my good friends, the Republicans, and I wanted this thing extended, I would want the Democrats to take the responsibility for extending it because it would be a great burden for the Democrats to carry. This is the first time in the history of the United States Government that it has ever seriously been proposed to use people without compensa""'. tion in the Government in time of peace. It is a long step that we are taking here. We have never done that before. That has never been done since 1789.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?.

Mr. PATMAN. I yield. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. As I

understand your argument, you are trying to help defense production?

Mr. PATMAN. I am for defense production; yes.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Now tell me this, if you will. In Wisconsin, in Sheboygan, there is this Kohler strike. Some of the CIO boys went over there and committed some crimes and fled back to Michigan. Our Governor, Mennen Williams, will not honor the request of the Governor of Wisconsin or the Wisconsin authorities to get those goons back.

Mr. PATMAN. May I state to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan that that is not related to this program that we are talking about.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. But this has to do with production.

Mr. PATMAN. I know, but it is not material to this particular question that we are discussing..

Mr. · HOFFM:AN --of Michigan. ·· It is. not?

Mr. PATMAN. No, sir. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Then, I

apologize. I just wanted to call your attention to this situation.

Mr. PATMAN. The gentleman does not need to apologize. I am glad to listen to him.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I just wanted to call your attention to their stopping a movement of freight cars down there to Muskegon.

Mr. PATMAN. We are talking about dollar-a-year men.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I apologize to the gentleman for interrupting him.

Mr. PATMAN. The gentleman does not have to apologize. I am glad to listen to him anyway. Go ahead and talk.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Do you want to listen to me some more now?

Mr. PATMAN. Yes; if the gentleman can get me some more time.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I want to say this: You know these ships-

Mr. PATMAN. The chairman indicates that he will not give me any more time, so I cannot yield further.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I will get you 10 more minutes.

Mr. PATMAN. If I cannot get any more time, we had better stop this colloquy.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman asking that the gentleman's time be extended?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The gentleman from Texas yielded to me as far as I am concerned.

Mr. PATMAN. I am advised that I cannot get any more time so I cannot yield further. · ·

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Does the gentleman yield or does he not yield?

Mr. PATMAN. I cannot yield now because I have no assurance of getting additional time.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Again, Mr. Chairman, I apologize but I under:. stood that the gentleman yielded.

Mr. PATMAN. I had yielded, but then I found out that the chairman could not give me any more time so I cannot yield further.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas may proceed.

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a serious step that we are considering taking. Remember that the Democratic Party, through itsleadership and through its membership in the 84th Congress, is asked to take the responsibility for adopting a policy for the first time in the history of this Nation to allow people from private industry to come into Government service without compensation and to be paid by their own employers. That has never happened before in time of peace. I do not believe that it can be justified. It is time for the Government to be training its own career men to fulfill the responsibilities of any particular position in which it wants people to serve the Government and not have to depend upon private industry to send their people into the Government in time of peace and, thus, get the benefits of the secrets of the Government and then go -out and use those secrets in the

interest of the particular company they are working for.

We should not put our stamp of approval on this proposal in time of peace, although we can justify it and endorse it in time of war, when for patriotic reasons we are willing to give up our conflicts of interests and our private inter-· ests, and do everything we can to win the war in which we happen to be engaged.


Mr. PATMAN. I yield. Mr. BROWN of Georgia. Are we not

in a national emergency? Mr. PATMAN. No. Mr. BROWN of Georgia. If not, why

should we take this Defense Production bill up at all?

Mr. PATMAN. The gentleman asked me a question as to whether we were in a real national emergency. If we were in a real national emergency we would have in this bill standby authority for the President to put on price controls, housing controls, allocations, allotments, and a lot of different things that you need in the event of war, but they have not been included; so it is a contradiction of the theory that it is an emergency, Mr. Chairman. If it were an emergency you would have some teeth in this bill, and you do not have them in it.

Mr. BROWN of Georgia. Dr. Flemming is a very outstanding man.

Mr. PATMAN . . I ~mow he is. Mr. BROWN of Georgia. He says we

are in a national emergency now and that he cannot operate without some of these men in private industry who are specialists because he cannot find them in the Government.

Mr. PATMAN. I heard what Dr. Flemming said and I think he is a very fine man, but really I do not know of much justification for this except the extension of w. o. c. I am opposed to it and I am going to off er an amendment to strike it out. ·

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. HALEJ.

Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, the papers publish statements that next Monday we are to start negotiations with representatives of the illegitimate Red government of China and that such negotiations will relate not only to the return of our prisoners of war but to a so-called cease-fire in the Formosa Straits.

Prior to the Geneva Conference described as "at the summit" those of us who were concerned were solemnly assured by the highest authority that no Asiatic questions would be on the agenda. This I believe was true and, so far as I know, no discussions were held at Geneva with respect to Asia. But if we were to start negotiations with the illegitimate government of Red China without the participation of the legitimate Government of China, we should be following the precise pattern of Yalta. What right has this Government to give away what is not ours to give? The. President and Secretary of State have given solemn assurances that negotiations will not cover such matters.


· I know of no firing iri the Straits of Formosa. We have virtually forbidden the Nationalist Government of China to go to the Chinese mainland. We have served notice on the world that we shall not allow the illegitimate Red government of China to capture Formosa. What could there be to negotiate about unless we were to negotiate our own surrender?

The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the other body took a very leading and most useful part in procuring the passage of the Formosa resolution, so-called, last January. His. recent utterances are frightening to me.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 ½ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VANIKJ.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, in committee we made a very careful study of this bill, and I am in support of the legislation.

I just want to call the attention of the committee to a circular which I received at my home a few days ago put out by one of the leading rubber companies in the country. In this circular the company claims great credit for research in butane rubber. No credit is given to the accomplishments and expenditures of . the Federal Government in its development of synthetic-rubber production. The great rubber companies of America did not see the advisability of going into this field on their own during a time of national emergency when we were at war. They waited for Government initiative and Government funds.

Under the Defense Production Act, we spend almost $2 billion annually for research for national defense. It is good, it ls necessary, it is important; but incidental to the research for national defense we have developed products of great civilian value. What happens to the benefits of this research which results in discoveries of great civilian value? Does the Government try in any way to make the defense program self .. liquidating by getting back some of the royalty rights on the achievements and apvances in civilian products which are made possible py research at public expense? We have no subsidies available for public housing by the action of this Congress today; we have no subsidies for schools; we can do nothing about roads; yet we can afford to carry on a research program for the benefit of a great many corporations of this country who sell to the American people for profit the results of this research paid for with public funds.

I think the Federal Government should make some effort to make the defense-production program self-liquidating, at least, in some measure.

The Office of Defense Mobilization and other Federal offices will soon make available the results of this research in pamphlet form in which the purchasers will get the benefit of all this research at the cost of printing. I do not think that is enough recoupment for the tremendous public investment in research on civilian products.

With respect to thew. o. c.'s, I believe that they are necessary in our Government, but I want to announce now that

when the opportunity ls afforded I shall off er an amendment which will provide in effect that any of these people who come into the Government and retain their connections with private employers· shall sign an affidavit in which they will state that they will not knowingly and to the detriment of Government commit any act of commission or omission which will inure to the financial benefit of either themselves or their employers, present, past or future.

It seems to me that if we make Government employees sign an affidavit that they will be loyal to the United States and in which they promise not to strike, they should be willing to sign an affidavit in which they will promise not to swindle the Government.

Any person who enters the Government service with or without compensation should be willing to sign this kind of an affidavit. It should be particularly required of the persons who enter without compensation and retain their positions and connections with and derive their compensation from private empl.Jyers.

The program for bringing w. o. c.'s into the Government should never be taken to substitute for a program of in-service training. Until an adequate training program can be developed, there is need for thew. o. c.'s but they should certainly be willing to sign an affidavit in which they promise loyalty to Government over loyalty to their employer.

In order to accomplish this purpose, I will introduce the following amendment to H. R. 7470:

On page 5, line 15, add the following language to subsection 3: "Such affidavit shall include the statement that the person appointed under the authority of this subsection wlll not knowingly commit any act of omission or commission which will to the detriment of Government inure to his personal profit or to the profit of his employer or future employer."

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER].

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, there was considerable eyebrow raising recently when it turned out that a Reserve general handling military needs hap .. pened to be drawing pay from an oil company which employs him when he is not in uniform. That was an extreme case of double loyalty. Then it developed a man who is in the Interior Department's Oil and Gas Division was drawing a pension from another oil company. Then came the revelation that Harold I. Young, president of the American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co., from 1951 to 1953 was a w.o. c. as Deputy Administrator of the Defense Material Procurement Administration. His salary from the American Zinc Co. was $79,000. His salary from the United States was $1. He permitted the WM. & W. Mining Co., Inc., to continue production of zinc concentrates. The American Zinc Co., his company, was greatly interested in the WM. & M. Mining Co. The American Zinc Co. had advanced $36,000 to that company for future supplies. Mr. Young, as Deputy Administrator of the Defense Material Production Administration, promptly arranged a contract

made retroactive to 1952 calling for sub-· sidy payments that permitted the company to fulfill its obligations to the American Zinc Co., the employer of the head of the Defense Material Procurement Administration. Thus, this w. o. c. feathered the nest of his own employer, a company of which he was an officer.

We have been conducting hearings inquiring into some of these w. o. c.'s, we members of a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, and here are some of the activities we found.


Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BROWN of Georgia. The Joint Committee on Defense Production had a hearing on charges made by the General Accounting Qffice against Mr. Young. We first called the witnesses of the GAO. Then we decided to call Mr. Young to answer these charges. The contracts claimed to have been signed upon recommendation by Mr. Young were actually signed by his superior in charge, Mr. Larson, who claimed that he was responsible for these contracts and not Mr. Young.

Mr. Young's character has been proven to be good by all who know him, and I think had the GAO gone further and talked with Mr. Young probably there would not have been any hearing. Speaking for myself, I think the General Accounting Office did not go far enough and I believe they made a mistake in not talking to Mr. Young before they made their report. Mr. Young explained many charges against him to the satisfaction of some of the members of the commit-. tee. I am not criticising the GAO for bringing the charges as there were circumstances which probably justified them in doing this, but I do think they made a mistake in not talking to Mr. Young after they had certain facts.

Mr, Young made it plain that he did not benefit by the contracts he was alleged to have made and did not receive a dime directly or indirectly, and that Mr. Larson signed the contracts knowing all the facts. One charge was that he sold for his company $60,000 worth of machinery to Mid-Continent. It developed that the GAO did not go far enough and they found out when they did after the hearing that Mid-Continent bought this machinery from an::>ther concern, which was admitted by GAO.

I just wanted to tell the gentleman that, and I · think it is a mighty good thing we went into it because it developed that Mr. Young was a man of good character. I am not criticizing the GAO for making the report to our committee but I do say they should have gone further and confronted Mr. Young with the charges and have given him an opporttJ'.':' nity to explain them. Mr. Young re.;. ceived no benefit from the contracts with the three companies involved ' and he made a good impression on our -commit~ tee. I do ·not want ·to reveal anything ihat took· place in our committee but I do not think I should stand by and let this charge go unanswered when I ani. chairman of the committee that made the investigation. ·1 · am not criticizing the GAO for br1nging to our attention the

1955 CONGRESSIQNAL RECORD - HOUSE 12151 dealings of Mr. Young when employed by the Government at this time but I do think they should have gone further into the charges before they brought them to our attention. It is the duty of the GAO when they believe there was any misconduct to report it to our committee, which they did and I believe they were sincere about it, but I repeat I think they should have gone a little further in the investigation of the contracts of Mr. Young, There were enough circumstances to justify GAO for bringing this matter to our attention and the only criticism I have is they should have gone a little further and especially they should have confronted Mr. Young with the facts they had in their possession.

Mr. CELLER. Some men are good, but sometimes they get very careless. The w.o.c.'s have done some very strange things. For example, here is what a w.o.c. did when he was head of the Forest Products Division. He interviewed personnel for employment and made recom;. mendations thereon to his company; worked on specifications with other Government agencies; assisted industry advisory committee considering Government specifications; carried on routine activities as Washington representative for his company; worked with other company employees to promote interests of his · company with other Government agencies; contacted Members of Congress on matters the company was interested in. This w. o. c. performed services for his company, in that he supplied his company with confidential material from Government agencies; encouraged his company to put pressure on full-time Government employees who were his superiors with whom he dis-

•

agreed; cleared recommendations he was making as aw. o. c. to the Government with his company; passed on recommendations concerning tax-amortization applications of competitors of his company; prepared for congressional committees adverse reports on new competitive processes for making products manufactured by his company; participated in reductions in force in Government agencies; prepared materials to be used by representatives of the Department of Commerce with respect to testimony before Congress.

While w. o. c. 's were in charge of the Pulp and Paper Division of the BDSA expansion costs for numerous pulp and paper products were vastly overcertified because some of the activities of this w. o. c. head of the Pulp and Paper Division. That is only one of the many illustrations I can give you, which indicates that we should use the utmost caution when we write any kind of legislation whereby we employ w. o. c.'s.

Mr. BROWN .of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. CELLER. I yield. Mr. BROWN of Georgia. We under

took to put safeguards around the very thing the gentleman is talking about, and I think if he will read it thoroughly you will be convinced that we have all proper safeguards around it. I am like the gentleman; I do not think we ought to get these dollar-a-year men if we can find them in Government, but sometimes we cannot.

Mr. CELLER. I agree that we must at this juncture employ w. o. c.'s. We must avail ourselves of the best possible talents, and it may be that we cannot obtain those talents from career employees.

We should only use w. o. c.'s when a genuine search is made to obtain similar talent and ability from the vast array of Government-paid employees and same cannot be found. My only contention is that we must be most circumspect and careful in drafting legislation, and I congratulate the chairman and the mem·bers of the Committee on Banking and Currency in bringing out a good bill, and I will vote for it. I think in one respect it might be tightened up, in the interest of caution, and under the 5-minute rule I shall dwell upon that point. Again let me say to the gentleman from Georgia I think the members of his committee have done an excellent job in protecting the Government in the employment of these w. o. c.'s.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from New York [Mr. MuLTER].

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I will not take but a few minutes, because the hour is growing late. There is no doubt that the evidence adduced before our committee, as well as that adduced before the Judiciary Committee under the chairmanship of our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER], shows that there have been very serious abuses, and such abuses are continuing today in our Government in the use of these w. o. c.'s. As part of my remarks, pursuant to permission granted to me in the House, I include a list of some of the w. o. c.'s who have been employed by this administration, showing what their affiliations are in industry, and how they are being used in government today, in a manner entirely inconsistent with the principles of good government. The list is as follows:

Name Position in NP A-BDSA Period of service Company affiliation and position at time of duty

Pendleton, Ethon M ______ Director, Copper Division _______ ___ _______________ _

Perkins, George ___________ {g<fr1:cfot~n_l_luminum and Magnesium Division _____ _

Oct. 13, 1954, to Apr. 13, 1955 __ American Brass Co., Waterbury, Conn., vice president, Apr. l 4, 1955-----------------·- }Reynolds Metals Co., Louisville, Ky., general director,

Consultant ____ ______ _______________________________ _ July 22, 1954, to Jan. 27, 1955__ products and application, Jan. 28, 1955 __________________ _ Peterson, George E_______ Director, Copper Division _________________________ _ Apr. 14, 1955__________________ Simplex Wire & Cable Co., Cambridge, Mass., assiFtant

to president. Retired as rear admiral after 30 years, 1954. Rowlands, Willis L _______ Deputy Director, Containers and Pgy ______________ Feb. 25, 1954, to Jan. 14, 1955 __ Continental Can Co., Inc., Wash., D. C., special repre•

sentative. Sebastian, Robert L _______ Consultant (aluminum and magnesium) __________ __ Sept. 20, 1954 ____________ _____ _ Setter, Clifford P _________ Consultant (forest products)_----------------------- May 31, 1955 _________________ _

Retired. U. S. Plywood Corp., New York, vice president. Government Sales Air Products, Inc., manager. Thomas, William H ______ Director, General Industrial Equipment Division ________ do _______________________ _

Winston, Arthur W _______ Assistant Administrator---------------------------- Jan. 4, 1955 ___________________ _ Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich., assistant manager, magnesium department.

Wisner, Benjamin G ______ Chief, Carbon and Alloy Flat Rolled and Tubular Products Branch.

Mar. 29, 1955__________________ Kaiser Steel Corp., Oakland, Calif., assistant manager tin plate sales.

Woodbury, Richard G ____ Adviser (scientific and technical equipment)________ Apr. 6, 1954 __________________ _ American Optical Co., Southbridge, Mass., manager Government service bureau.

w 'ght Clark M {Director, Electrical Equipment Division____________ May 17 to Nov. 30, 1954 _______ }General Electric Co., Schenectady, N. Y., manager mar• n • --------- Consultant, Electrical Equipment Division _________ Dec. 1, 1954___________________ keting, gas turbine department.

That information was supplied to our committee by the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Weeks.

Look it over carefully, I will have more to say about it

tomorrow. There is a direct conflict of interest

between their work for our Government and their work on the outside for their employers in private industry.

I shall also insert in remarks at this point three amendments which I shall offer tomorrow under the 5-minute rule in an effort .to strengthen the bill as reported out of the committee, in order to make it more workable and in order to compel these w. o. c. 's either to get out of the Government or to do the job for the Government that they undertake

to do when they do come here. They must be prohibited from pretending to act for the Government in connection with this very important work, while merely promoting their own interests and that of their employers. The amendments are as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MuLTER to H. R. 7470: Page 5, line 19, strike out the period in line 19, and insert the following: "and appointments under this subsection (b) shall not be made to the position of the director or assistant director, head or assistant head of a bureau, division, section, or other comparable policymaking or administrative posi• tion, and a person appointed under this subsection shall not perform the functions of such a director, assistant director, head or assistant head."

Amendment offered by Mr. MuLTER to H. R. 7470: Page 8, after line 4, insert the following:

"(9} Appointees under this subsection (b} shall be assigned only to dutles with regard to functions specifically authorized by titles I, III, and VII of this act."

Amendment offered by Mr. MULTER to H. R, 7470: Page 8, after line 4, insert the following:

"(10) Before any appointment ls made under this subsection (b) the appointing official shall first certify to the Civil Service Commission the duties to be performed by such appointee and the efforts he has made to obtain a person competent to perform them and that he has been unable to employ any competent full-time salaried Government employee to perform such duties and the Civil Service Commission shall certify that there is no existing list of persons qualified

12152 CONGRESSIONAL RECO~n-· HOUSE July 29

to perform such ·duties aild" tne President shall certify that the appointment is necessary to carry out the purposes of this act a~ amended and extended. The duties of the appointee shall be limited to those set forth in the certification of the·appointing official."

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, but would like to propound .an inquiry of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. SPENCE].

Is it the gentleman's thought that we should rise after the Clerk reads the first section of the bill? .

Mr. SPENCE. That is my thought;

r ·The SPEAKER. Without · objection; of the United ·States; Paris Peace Con .. it is so ordered. · · ference, 1919,'' with comment on the u~,.

There was no objection. willingness of ·this party that Croatia

THE PERSECUTION OF ANDRIJA ARTUKOVIC

accept union with Serbia after finally achieving freedom from Hungary. ~ Having completed his required period of military training, Artukovic began the active practice of law in 1925 in the town

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of Gospic in Croatia. He continued to ·of the House, the gentleman from Cali- be active in the political party which ·fornia [Mr. UTT] is recognized for 60 sought Croat independence. In 1932, minutes. after King Alexander had abolished the · Mr. UTT. Mr. Speaker, on January Yugoslav constitution and parliament ·20 1955 I introduced H. R. 2789, a pri- and set up a dictatorship in 1929, there yate bili for the relief of Andrija Artu- ·was a brief uprising or rebellion of Croats kovic. This bill would grant to M:1 in the province of Lika, and Artukovic, Artukovic the status of permanent resi- ·because of his open espousal of Croat

yes. ·ctence. independence, was suspected of partici':" The CHAffiMAN. The Clerk will read. , Since that time, the Immigration and pation and forced to flee Yugoslavia. The Clerk read as follows: Naturalization Service of the Depart- For the next 2 years he traveled in Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be ·ment of Justice has issued a memo- Austria, . Italy, France, and England,

cited as the "Defense Production Act Amend- randum in opposition to the bill, and gathering material for a history of ments of 1955

·" ·also opposing my bill, H. R. 2790, for Croatia whieh he hoped would further 'the relief of Mrs. Ana Maria Artukovic, .the cause of recognition of an inde·wife of Andrija Artukovic, and their pendent Croatia. · ·

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. SHEPPARD, Ch~irman of the Com:. mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Com:. mittee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 7470) to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, had come to no resolution thereon.

VICTOR HE:LFENBEIN Mr. LANE submitted a conference re ...

port and statement on the bill (H. R. 5078) for the relief of the estate of Victor Helfenbein.

· MRS. LORENZA O'MALLEY <DE AMUSATEGUI) ET AL.

Mr. LANE submitted a conference re- . · port and statement on the bill <H. R. 1003) for the relief . of Mrs. Lorenza. O'Malley (de AmusateguD, Jose Maria de Amusategui O'Malley, and the legal guardian of Ramon de Amusategui , O'Malley. ·

minor children. . . In 1934, while Artukovic was in Lon. While the chronological facts of Ar.. ·don, King Alexander of Yugoslavia was tukovic's birth in 1899, and his Ameri- ·assassinated in Marseille, France. The can entry in 1948, are set forth correctly -language in the service memorandum ·in the Service memorandum, the recita- infers that Artukov-ic was lying in wait tion initially skips a period of nearly -in London for King Alexander if he ·50 years in the life of Andrija Artukovic. ·should perchance escape assassination at I believe that a brief recitation of his .Marseille. This is inferred without the ·interim life history in some chronolog,. .barest shred of evidence that Alexander ical order should be clearly on record 'intended to journey to London, and de--before the Judiciary Committee and the .spite Artukovic's testimony that he was Congress, as it was before the Service. in London gathering historical data for ' Artukovic was the eldest son of a large his book. · Croatian farming family and at his When Artukovic's permit to remain birth and until his 19th year Croatia . temporarily in England was not renewed, was part of the Austro-Hungarian Em- he entered France in 1935. There, the pire. As were most of their neighbors Serb rulers of Yugoslavia caused his ar)oo · and countrymen, the Artukovic famill rest .in extradition upon charges .that, ·was Roman Catholic, and Andrija s among other things, he had engaged :tn father was devout in the practice of his · the conspiracy to ass!ssinate Alexander. religion, strictly supervising the religious The French though then political allies upbringing of his children. At all times · ·of Yugoslavia, refused to permit ·his ex:. of his life, Andrija Artukovic has been .. tradition on such charges, but did pera member in good standing of one or mit his extradition on _ charges that he another _Catholic parish. Though it had participated in acts of violence dur ... was the custom that the eldest son take- ing the brief Lika rebellion of 1932. over farm duties upon r_eaching major- Artukovic was taken-to Yugoslavia and ity, Artukovic had att~acted_ the not~~e imprisoned in Belgrn,de ·in chains for of his teachers and parish priest by dill- more than a year awaiting trial. Upon gence in and application to his youth.. trial he was acquitted of all charges

EXTENSION OF REMARKS ful studies, and through their·interven- · -by the Yugoslav authorities and released. M PATMAN Mr Speaker I ask : tion, and financial assi_sta~ce, his father ·He returned to his native Croatia and

~:mous cons~nt t~ extend • my re- was persuaded to permit his f1;1rther edu- was received in every Croatian town as una i . t r- · cation· at a well known Franciscan mon- a patriotic hero, a martyr to the cause marks a~d~h£/~~~l~~!h~~~~f~D c~~~in astery school in Croatia and later at the of croatia:r;i freedom. . Shortly after this row, tt · University of Zagreb, where he gradu- return in 1936, Artukovic was attacke_d exi!':n;;:~~;r. Is there objection to - ated with a degree ~n la:w. After com- by politic~! assassins and a deputy to the th e est of . the gentleman frotp. . pleting an appren~iceship he was ad- . Yugoslav parliament standing near him

e r!qu mitted to the practice of law. · was, killed. Again he went into exile, Texas· . . In his youth and early manhood, residing first in Berlin for medical treat-

There was no obJection. · Artukovic formed social attachments to ment. Here he was imprisoned by the

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr. HAND. Mr. Speaker, on Roll.

call No. 141, on final passage of the housing bill, I was in the chamber at the conclusion of the rollcall, but not in time to qualify to vote. Had I been allowed to do so, I would have voted f<>r the bill. '

several religious organizations and po- ~Nazis at the request of Yugoslavia; whose litical attachment· to the Rightist Party rulers were being succ~ssfully courted of Croatia, ·a nationalist political party .. by Nazi' Germany. · This friendly relaexisting since 1861 which sought the in- . tionship between Yugoslavia and the

· dependence of Croatia froJn, Hungary -Nazis is evidenced by the conclusion of · and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. the Tripartite Treaty of Vienna, March · These associations which have persisted · 27, 1941, among Germany, Italy, and · throughout Artukovic's life were formed . Yugoslavia. · · before the Fascists under Mussolini and Artukovic escaped Nazi house arrest, ~ the Nazis under Hitler were even heard · went into hiding in Germany, and finally

' _of. Artukovic neither ·approved nor was ·-reached Hungary in 1937 where he re-. a member of either the Fascist or Nazi · mained until 1941. Testimony to his

Mr. HAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- · Parties. Mention of the existence of the persecution by-the Nazis is ,recorded by imous consent that the special order · Croat Rightist or Independence Party is · independent ·witnesses in an American granted me for today.be vacated. found in the volumes, "Fo'reign Relations : court proceeding in 1939, U. S. ex rel.

SPECIAL ORDER VACATED

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12153 Jelic v. Dist. Dir. Imm. & Nat. Svc. N. Y. (106 F. 2d 14).

Artukovic will be 1the first to admit that all through his adult life he has espoused the cause of independence for Croatia and the overthrow of any foreign government exercising domination over the Croat people. Thus, in April 1941, when Croatian independence was declared, and Artukovic was called to serve in the government of the new independent State of Croatia, he responded willingly. As he was a lawyer, a nationally known Croat patriot, and thought of as a martyr to the ideal of Croatian independence because of his imprisonment in 1935-36, his selection for an important government post in the new State was natural.

It is undisputed that the Croat nationalists took advantage of the military defeat of the Yugoslav Government of Serbia and Croatia to declare an independent Croat state, and thereafter obtained recognition from the powerful military states of Germany and Italy with which the new state had common borders. History is replete with the births of states under the aegis of a powerful existing state or states, or with the assistance of such states which usually extended aid or recognition only for their own political betterment. The United States, for instance, neither felt nor feels any discredit when in successfully rebelling against England it sought and accepted the aid of the most despotic ruler of the world of that day, King Louis of France, whose form of government was precisely what we rebelled against.

Thus as Croatia struggled for its independence, its undefined territories were under the feet of soldiers of four allegiances, German, Italian, · defeated Yugoslav, and borning Croat. Italy was not pleased at the creation of a new state clamoring for independence because Italy claimed a large portion of the new state's territory as a part of the ancient Roman Empire. In order to obtain a degree ·of independence, the new state had to cede to Italy most of Dalmatia whose residents considered themselves Croatian, and the new state had to accept an Italian prince as absentee king or prince of Croatia.

Upon the def eat and dissolution of the Yugoslav Army in 1941, certain elements of it organized as Chetnik units under the leadership of Mihailovic and com- · menced military actions against the new Croat state, the German troops dominating Serbia, and the Italians in Dalmatia. Likewise, other elements organized under the Communist leadership of Tito and were know as Partisans, and their operations paralleled those of Mihailovic. These two irregular armies even battled each other.

Who pillaged and ravaged the first village on the indefinite border between Croatia and the Serb state under German domination is disputed. · Whether it was a Chetnik or Partisan attack upon a Croat village, or a Croat attack upon a Serb village, probably will never be clearly established. But this first attack in the early summer of 1941 was the signal for immediate and continuous retaliation, and during all of World War II a bloody civil war raged in Serbia and

CI--764

Croatia in which massacres of both sides were frequent.

Befause of this raging civil war and the surrounding world war, the 'Government of the new Croat state was never able to complete its civil organization and establish internal peace and tranquillity. This task was placed under Artukovic as Minister of the Interior, a post from which he was transferred because of German dissatisfaction with his policies, according to his testimony, and the independent testimony of others in Croatia at the time. The record in proceedings before the Service reveals no other reason for his transfer to the post of Minister of Justice in 1942. In neither post was Artukovic in charge of the secret security or police units which had the name "Ustasha" or "Ustashi." There is of record in the extradition proceedings involving Artukovic an executive order of the Croat Government making the chief of the Secret or Security Police of Croatia responsible only to the Croatian Chief of State. The signature of Artukovic upon this order indicates his acceptance of this situation. In his ministerial capacities Artukovic had no control over the Croat Army or home guard.

In the Service records there are the affidavits and personal testimony of many, including Catholic priests, doctors, and other persons of integrity who were in Croatia during the period 1941-45, that Artukovic was a moderate in the Croatian cabinet, that he sought to curb and prevent unnecessary bloodshed where it lay in his power, that he was the spokesman for Archbishop Stepinac, and that he represented the archbishop's views in cabinet meetings. In the same records, there is no testimony of any person who was in Croatia during the years 1941-45 which is disparaging t.J Artukovic. Of course, the records ref erred to are those publicly made in displaced person and deportation proceedings before the Service, and not to any secret information attached to the record but not available for Artukovic's inspection and rebuttal.

The independent and even partial ·his.;torians who have attempted to chronicle the events leading to the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1941, the formation of smaller states influenced or dominated by Axis powers, and the rebirth of Yugoslavia under Communist control, have mentioned numerous Croat leaders and have charged some specifically with atrocities and misconduct. I refer to such works as The War We Lost by Fotitch, ·former Royal Yugoslav Ambassador to the United States; Alexander . of Yugoslavia by Graham; and Balkan Caesar by White. The first and last books were written after World War II, and the second covers the period leading up to World War II. Yet not one of these chroniclers even so much as mentions Artukovic, much less charges him with responsibility for, conspiracy or complicity in the perpetration of alleged atrocities, massacres, or inhuman treatment of the civilian population. I might add that Fotitch is admittedly a pro-Serb, and Graham is a strong admirer of King Alexander. So far as is known, no journalist or chronicler on the

subject of Yugoslavia has written an historical analysis condemning Artukovic's conduct or actions.

In all of the Service' proceedings involving Artukovic, only three Government witnesses appeared. Their testimony was so useless that nowhere in the Service memorandum or the Board of Immigration Appeals opinion are they quoted. The first witness, John Knezevic, admittedly not in Croatia during the period 1941-44 about which he testified, gave opinion testimony of a general nature concerning Artukovic over strenuous objections of counsel, and refused to reveal the sources of his opinions, claiming some fancied immunity from answering questions other than those he wished to answer. The second, Miroslav Ostojic, testified in 1952 to an alleged radio broadcast by Artukovic on April 9, 1941, attempting to quote it, and was able to testify to no other alleged act of Artukovic because the witness was in a . German prison camp for the remainder of the period 1941-45.. The third witness, Branko Milenovic, was unable to testify from his personal knowledge as to the acts or conduct of Artukovic, and was therefore excused by the Government.

The Service, through interrogations of its examining officers in displaced person and deportation proceedings, using material provided by an unknown source, attempted to gain admissions from Artukovic as to wrongful acts or conduct and in more than 100 pages of testimony by ArtukoVic there is nothing which the Service could rely upon to sustain its position. This is reflected by the almost complete lack of quotations from the public record in the opinion of the Board.

On pages 6-7 of the Service memorandum the Board charges that the new Croat State promulgated a "complete set of Nazi-type laws providing for the establishment of concentration camps, imprisonment of Jews and Communists, summary execution, expropriation of property, and expatriation of any inhabitant who fell into disfavor with the regime," and further charges that Artukovic, as Minister of Interior, decided "who should be punished." But the record in deportation proceedings and that in displaced-person proceedings is entirely barren of any evidence or exhibits setting forth the laws of Croatia or translations thereof. This is without considering how many of such laws as charged to the Croatians were in use in most of the countries at war. For example, in the United States during the: war we had concentration camps for the: Japanese, our martial law may well cover the summary execution of spies, the property of our enemies was seized and blocked, and it is b3lieved .that our laws even now provide for the punishment of Communists.

Thus, ignoring a record containing much testimony from persons then in Croatia approving Artukovic's actions and conduct, ignoring the omission of his name from historical and critical accounts of Yugoslav affairs in the pe.: riod 1929-45, and despite the lack of testimony derogatory to his character and conduct, the Board of Immigration


Appeals has the effrontery to state in its opinion:

However, it is difficult for us to think of any man, other than Pavelic, who could have been more responsible for the events occurring in Croatia during this period than was respondent (Artukovic).

That the Service and the Board of Immigration Appeals have condemned Artukovic upon a theory of "guilt by association" appears from the following excerpts from the Board's opinion as quoted in the Service memorandum:

We have perused this rather complete record as carefully as possible and have concluded that this man was a not unimportant official of the independent state of Croatia. That administration was solely responsible for the conditions that existed in the concentration camps of Croatia, for massacres of Serbs, Jews and Moslems, and for the promulgation of laws setting up a government following the pattern of a dictator state.

• • • Respondent, Artukovic, was a prime mover and adherent of the new state, in spite of his earlier claims of persecution in Germany by the Nazis. He held positions of importance in that government from the beginning until it fell in 1945. • • •

• • • Any discussion of a dictator state is apt to center about the dictator. Even his closest associates are union figures · by comparison. • • •

There appears to be little doubt (1) that the new Croatian state, at least on paper, pursued a genocidal policy in Croatia with regard to Jews and Serbs; (2) that Artukovic helped execute this policy in that, as Minister of Justice, he had authority and control over the entire system of public security and internal administration; and (3) that during this time there were .massacres of Serbs, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, of other minority groups within Croatia.

• • • It is our conclusion that respondent has had a long history, first as an agent, then as an official and prime movant of a regime of the type against which we went to war in 1941.

• • • It is our .opinion that the respondent's complicity in the unfortunate events occurring in his native country between 1941 and 1945, not even considering the mysterious nature of his international activities during other periods of his life, precludes us from granting any form of discretionary relief whatever.

Here, repeatedly stated, is the Government's theory in a nutshell. The Croatian administration in the period 1941-45 was bad and wicked; Artukovic was an official of such administration; therefore, Artukovic was bad and wicked. It makes no difference whether he acted properly individually, whether he advocated a course in opposition to the alleged bad and wicked course of the administration; he was in a barrel with rotten apples, so he too must be a rotten apple.

Particularly with the "conclusion" of the Board quoted above does Artukovic take issue. It is "concluded" that he was first "an agent" and then "an official and prime movant of a regime of the type against which we went to war in 1941." If it be intended to conclude that Artukovic's activities between 1931 and 1941 were those of an "agent" of a ''regime,'' the first question is, What "regime"? A regime is a rule, and the Croat Rightist or Nationalist Party of which Artukovic was a member then had nothing nor anyone over which to rule.

Prior to establishing a new Croat state in 1941, the Croat rightists had one purpose: To establish an independent Croat state. There is no testimony or evidence that they intended or wished to establish a dictatorship-if that be the type of "regime" against which we went to war in 1941. In fact, upon viewing our allies in World War II, it is not at all clear that we went to war to destroy dictatorships. It is • clear that the Croat state had its birth in the midst of waring powers and throughout its entire existence it was surrounded and split by warring factions. Far mightier nations than tiny Croatia have resorted to dictatorships to preserve their independence under such circumstances without reproach.

The ridiculousness of such conclusion becomes more apparent when it is remembered that the regime which succeeded that of 1941-45 in Croatia, that is, the Communist regime of Comrade Tito, has been even more ruthless and dictatorial than any of its predecessors. Yet, not only have we not gone to war with such a regime, but we have actually coddled and nurtured it financially and otherwise.

Particularly, also, does Artukovic take issue with the statement quoted above that he "helped execute this-'genocidal'-policy in that, as Minister of Interior he had authority and control over the e~tire system of public security and internal administration." I have already pointed out that Artukovic himself signed the order which made the head of the secret police responsible only to the chief of state. He had no control over it. It is noted that the Board can refer to no specific testimony or evidence of record that Artukovic helped execute any genocidal policy, but relies upon a general allegation that Artukovic had authority and control over "the entire system of public security and I internal administration." Upon what evidence or testimony of public record the Board bases such allegation, Artukovic is ignorant. The Board itself does not quote any record pages or exhibits supporting such statement.

Further, Artukovic resents the gratuitous allusion to the mysterious nature of his international activities during other periods of his life. At displaced person and deportation hearings before the Service, he testified at great length, both in response to Government's examining officers and to his own counsel, concerning the details of his life. He never once refused to answer any question which was propounded ~o him. Once again, there is no foundation in the record for the statement of the Board, and such language cannot help but indicate the patent prejudice of the Service and Board against Artukovic, or their reliance upon some allegations not within the record.

On page 10 of the Service memorandum can be found the following i.nteresting statement:

He-Artukovic-

· claims that his duties as Minister of the Interior in the independent state of Croatia were principally to create a new state

administration after the collapse of the Yugoslav state; - that a state of civil war existed; that he worked with Archbishop Stepinac; that he never· ordered executions of civilians; and that he intervelned' whenever possible to prevent executions or arrests for political purposes. However, as indicated above, there is conflicting evidence in the record on the point of his responsibility for executions and arrests.

Just exactly what this evidence is we are not able to determine, as the only concrete act to which a Government witness would testify was one radio broadcast in 1941. And is it not the American custom to accept the innocence of a man until there exists proof of his guilt? No such proof exists in the case of Andrij a Artukovic, and the acceptance of the most questionable hearsay evidence by the Service in the face of a large body of evidence confirming the good conduct of Artukovic seems to me to reflect no credit on the Service, or the fairness and judgment of its officials.

Upon the defeat of Croatian armies by the military forces of Soviet Russia and partisan Tito, the Croat Government collapsed aJ;ld the independent state of Croatia disappeared. Artukovic and his colleagues, together with thousands and thousands of Croat soldiers and civilians, fled to Austria, Italy and other places of refuge. From May 1945 to October 1946, Artukovic resided in the English, American, and French zones of Austria, identified by documents in his family name. Because of fear of Communist assassination-which had befallen more than one of his Croatian colleagues in Austria-Artukovic entered Switzerland in November 1946 under the name Alois Anich. He adopted this name because he feared for his life. In Switzerland, Artukovic took up residence in Fribourg. While in Switzerland he applied for certificate of identity for travel purposes in the name Alois Anich, disclosing his identity as Artukovic, and after hearing he was granted such certificate. The affidavit of the Rev. Dr. Louis Ivandic, · then residing in Switzerland, now in Canada, to such effect was place"d on record with the Service.

Artukovic traveled in July 1947 to Ireland, and there he resided for approximately a year. Being invited to visit relatives in California, he applied for and obtained visitor visa in the name Alois Anich, exhibiting an Irish certificate of identity issued him upon expiration of his Swiss certificate.

Attention is here drawn to page 1 of the Service memorandum which states that Artukovic "falsely stated under oath before an American vice consul in Dublin, Ireland, that his name was Alois Anich." But Artukovic believed, and still believes, that he was lawfully using the name Alois Anich in the light of issuance of identity certificates to him in such name by the Swiss and Irish authorities, and in view of the protective purposes for which he used the name. In fact, when a child was born to him and his wife in Ireland, the boy's name was officially recorded as Radoslav Anich. It would have been false if Artukovic had sworn under oath that he had not been known by any other name than Anich,. but testimony or evidence to such

1955. CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD--. HOUSE 12155 extent coµld not . be produced by the. Government _because he had not dpne so;

Thereafter. Artukovic ' entered the United States in July 1948 witli Irish identity certificate and visitor visa in the name of Anich, · and no inquiry at entry was made of him whether he had been known by another name. Without the benefit of legal advice and after approxi-mately 3 months' residence in the United States, Artukovic apJ?lied for extension of his visitor stay under the name Anich. - Then, on January 25, 1949, some 6 months after entry, and acting under advice of counsel, Artukovic applied for further extension of temporary stay, and in the form of application prescribed by the Service, clearly and plainly set forth his names as Andrija Artukovic and Alois Anich. Fully informed, and despite his entry under the name Anich, the Service extended his temporary stay, continued to regard him offlciaily as Alois Anich: and requested departure bond in that name. Although fully informed as early as January 1949, aµd upon at \e~t three occasions thereafter, as to the facts of his use of, and entry under, the name Anich, the Service apparently did not re·gard his entry as unlawful, for rather than initiating a deportation charge o~ .unlawful entry, the ~ervicE, seemingly waived this technical infraction and granted Artukovic an-additional period of stay.

At almost the same time, and before requiting departure bond, the Service accepted from him an application tor adjustment of residence status under section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. Such application showed his names as Alois Anich and Andrija Artukovic, and recited correctly his origin and birth date. Still the Government found nothing iri its files concerning Andrija Artukovic to cause -alarm, and allowed his application to pend indefinitely al.;. though the date of his American entry~ July 16, 1948, did not meet the deadline requirement of entry on or before April 1, 1948, for qualification under the 1948 Displaced Persons Act. The service's lenience in this regard is perhaps charge"'.' able to the fact that the Congress wa~ then considering legislation to change the .deadline for entry-to April 30, 1949, which later became the law. Under such amendment in 1950, Artukovic filed another application for displaced persons status 'Under section 4 of the 1948 act as amended. - :

Time moved along, and in April 195f, Artukovic's counsel, preparing to travel to Los Angeles on other· business, asked informally whether hearing on the Artukovic application could be scheduled during his stay in Los Angeles. He was told informally that hearing could not · be scheduled because investigation· had not been completed. Upon completing his business in Los ~geles in e~rly Mai, such counsel learned upon the eve of his departure that hearing under the Artukovic application had been suddenly scheduled for May 7. -

The reascin for such sudden. action was that columnist · Drew Pearson, rec·ently returned 'from e. goodwill tour .of Yugoslavia, had -blasted, by radio an~ column, the Service and Justice Department for lenient treatment of Artukovic, described by Pearson in several eye-catching appel-

lations uPon information supplied him by Cominuni.Sts· in ·yugoslavia .. · · · It ·was· also later revealed that Yugo-· slavia had addressed, in March 1951, a demand to our State Department for extradition of Artukovfo as a "war criminal" under the ·Moscow Declaration of October 1943. At the same time certain sections of the Los Angeles press, notably the HoUywood Daily Worker and the Los Angeles Daily News, took up the hue and cry against Artukovic. - The Service, its tender skin spurred by lurid press accounts, leaped into the breach, held hearings on May 7 and 8 under the displaced person application and, without drawing breath, or notifying counsel, and before announcing its preconceived decision on such applicatio;n, immediately arrested Artukovic in deportation proceedings on May 9, and scheduled deportation hearings for May 16. Such hearings were postponed, upon counsel's protest, when the then Commissioner realized that prejudice would be too apparent if Artukovic's deportation was ordered before his application for permanent residence as a displaced person could be acted upon. ,

It is interesting to note the cbarges under which Artukovic was arrest'ed in deportation proceedings and so rapidly -pressed for hearing. Translated into plain language, they were -twofold: First, that he remained longer than permitt-ed :as a visitor; and, second; that his entry as a visitor was unlawful because he had not presented a valid passport or other document in lieu thereof showing his identity and origin at time of entry.

The facts supporting such charges had been known to the Service since January and April 1949, more than 2 years before the arrest in deportation. Despite the lurid allegations against Artu-kovic asserted in certain quarters, the ·service has charged him with no other •violation of law because it has no evi~ ·dence in support of any bther charge. Thus the Government had to use disputed technicat infractions of our immi.gration laws to deport a man whose -crime was and is that he was, and is, as a Croat patriot, ready to lead his countrymen in rebellion against a foreign au·thority. _ Briefly, in relation to the deportation . charges; the following should be noted. For the period that Artukovic remained :longer than permitted as ·a visitor, he ,was -conducting himself in accord with •the policy of the Immigration and Natu:.. ·ratization Service that applicants under · section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act should not be granted further extensions of temporary stay nor should they be .required to depart while their applica·. tions were pending. Thus the final ap·plication of Artukovic for extension of :visitor stay, made in March 1949, more ·than a month· after filing section 4 ap'plication, · was not acted upon by the Service until after deportation proceed:.. Jngs were commenced in May 1951. It ·is not believed that the Service can show lanothet case where deportation proceed .. 'ings·were begun against a section 4 ap'... _plicant· before decision upon his applica·.tion had been taken and · opportunity . given for. voluntary departure, if such decision was adverse.

: The charge that Artukovic's entry as a visitor .was unlawful because he had not presented a valid passport or other docu"'! ment showing his -identit~ and origin is predicated upon the disputed fact that his use of the name Alois Anich was unlawful. This very charge was the sole basis for the denial of Artukovic's section 4 application, although it is believed that the House Judiciary Committee rec .. ords will · reflect the -approval, of many displaced-person applications wherein the alien entered the country under one name and had been known by another name prior to entry which had not been revealed.

It is the theory of the Government as revealed in the Service memorandum that had the Service and consular offl~ cers known that Alois Anich was also Andrija Artukovic an investigation would have followed and he would have ·been denied visa or excluded at entry. But this is not borne out by the actions of the Government when in asking for further visitor stay in January 1949 Artukovic revealed his full birth name to the Service. To the contrary, his application was granted, and the Service continued to treat him as Anich.

I believe that the foregoing presents substantially the position of Artukovic in relation to administrative displaced person and deportation proceedings. I would add, however, that in deportation proceedings based upon noncriminal charges, Artukovic asked for discretionary relief of suspension of deportation or voluntary departure. In a punitive gesture, because of its disapproval of his political conduct in the period 1941-45, well beyond the statutory period re.:. quired for good conduct, the Board of Immigration Appeals as well as the Serv.:. ice denied him relief. It is to the eter~ nal discredit of the Immigration and. Naturalization Service that in a pan!. icky action it ordered deported, and de.;. rued discretionary relief to, Ana Maria Artukovic, the mother of 5 children, none older than 10, and 2 American citizens by birth, against whom not a breath had ·been raised, solely because she was the wife of a three-time official of the Croa.:. tian Cabinet in 1941-45. I have introduced H. R. 2790 for the relief of Ana Maria Artukovic, and the alien Artu~ kovic children .

I might.further offer a brief resume of the extradition proceedings in the Federal courts involving Andrija Artukovic. On August 29, 1951, Artukovic was taken into custody and brought before the United States Commissioner at Los ,Angeles upon the formal complaint · of the Yugoslav consul general at San .Francisco. The consul alleged, among other things, under oath, that an indict.:. ment existed against Artukovic for mur_µer in . .Yugoslavia. The falseness of this .statement became apparent when the Yugoslav indictment itself -was filed in -October 1951 in support of the com.:. plaint, for it showed that no indictment had been obtained against Artukovic in Yugo.slavia ·until September 5, 1951, a week after the false complaint had been

.filed. Thus, as he was unlawfully seized and held in jail without bail, his political .enemies in Yugoslavia were_ busily seek., ing depositions and statements in 1951


as to acts alleged to have occurred in 1941-42. That such evidence was manufactured is too apparent for comment.

When the Yugoslav evidence was offered in support of the extradition complaint, Artukovic's attorneys deemed it so flimsy and irrelevant that ·he was counseled to waive all questions of treaty validity, jurisdiction and political nature of the charges, and meet the complaint directly. However, because there are other refugees in the United states who might have been similarly returned to Yugoslavia if treaty validity was admitted, and because of his hatred of Tito and what he stands for and a resulting wish to discredit him, Artukovic elected to challenge the validity of an alleged Yugoslav-American extradition treaty, which in fact was entered into between Serbia and the United States in 1902. The Federal district court sustained the challenge to the treaty, and ruled that it had been terminated upon the submergence of Serbia into the new Yugoslav state in 1919. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court ref used certiorari.

Thus the issue of the political nature of the charges has been remanded to the District Court with instructions to rule thereon. Briefing on this issue has been completed this spring and the matter is ready for hearing.

As the basis of past administrative refusal to grant Artukovic discretionary relief under the immigration laws is found in the as yet unsustained charges in the extradition proceeding, and if Artukovic should be freed by the Federal courts of such charges by dismissal of the extradition complaint, it would seem that such action by the court would form a proper basis for legislative relief of his residence status. On the other hand, if the court shall find the extradition charges sustained by the evidence, then Artukovic would be held for extradition to Yugoslavia and no action of the Congress on his residence status would be necessary. Artukovic's counsel repeatedly suggested to the Immigration and Naturalization Service that hearings in deportation proceedings should be postponed until the courts finally acted, representing that the Service, if it acted unfavorably upon Artukovic's requests for discretionary relief, would be acting upon basis of accusations which had not been sustained by conviction; in effect, would be judging a man guilty before conviction-a complete reversal of the American principles of justice which had consistently theretofore held that an accused person is innocent until proved guilty. In view of the prejudice reflected by premature administrative actions ordering him deported upon basis of accusations not yet weighed by the court, Artukovic feels justifiably that he can expect no just treatment administratively. He has asked Congress to hold in abeyance an action upon the bill in his favor until the courts render final judgment upon his extradition case.

At this point in niy remarks, I wish to :Include some of the many fine statements I have received endorsing the character and conduct of Andrija Artu .. kovic. They include a letter from Father Robert Ross of the Blessed Sacrament

Church, Westminster, Calif.; an affidavit from Rev .. Prof. Dr. Louis Ivandic, who traveled with Artukovic from Austria to Fribourg, Switzerland; an affidavit from Rev. Stephen Lackovic, D. D., former secretary of Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac, of Zagreb, Croatia; affidavits from Dragutin Sostarko; Dr. Vlado Milas, M. D.; Rev. Berto Dragicevic, all of whom knew Artukovic in Croatia from the period 1941-45; a statement by the French consul at Zagreb recommending aid and assistance for Andrija Artukovic; and a statement by certain Croatian priests now residing in Spain, addressed to the American Ambassador at Madrid, testifying to the good character and conduct of Andrija Artukovic.

The statements follow: BLESSED SACRAMENT CHURCH, Westminster, Calif., June 23, 1955.

JAMES B. UTT, Member of Congress,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I would like to add my thanks to others for your kindness in introducing bills H. R. 2789 and H. R. 2790 in behalf of Andrija Artukovic and his family,

As you know, I am not a Croatian by birth or by ancestry. Ross is a good solid Scot name. However, being both an American and a Catholic priest, I am vitally interested irt justice and in the defense of those who are maligned by those who are Communists in fact or in ideals.

After careful study of the memorandum of information from the Immigration and Naturalization Service files concerning the Artukovic family I was amazed to see the misinformation that it contained. Having known the Artukovic family for the past 6 years I have had an opportunity to learn about his character, ideas, and past life. During this time I have met some 25 to 30 Catholic priests who knew Artukovic when he was in the Croatian Government. · All of them speak very highly of his moral character, and brand as a lie the accusations of the Communist Yugoslav Government. Many of these testified by affidavit in his behalf. Among those who testified was Father Stephen Lackovic, secretary to Cardinal Stepinac from 1941-45. Why was his testimony and the testimony of so many others completely ignored in the memorandum?

On page 1, paragraph 3, of the memoran• dum, "he stated falsely under oath * * * that his name was Alois Anich." Why does the memorandum not state that the Immigration and Naturalization Service files contain a sworn affidavit from Father Louis Ivandic which upholds Artukovic's contention that he had the right to use legally the name Anich?

Paragraph 4, page 1, is misleading. I think that a close check of the immigration files will show that when on February 4, 1949, Artukovic and his family were granted a further stay, he had already applied for an extension under the name of Artukovic as well as under the name of Anich.

Paragraph 6 beginning on page 1 mentions that Artukovic sought to adjust his immigration status to that of permanent resident aliens. The applications were not acceptable because the Artukovics had entered the United States after April 1, 1948. The Immigration and Naturalization Department knew then that Artukovic and Anich were one and the same person but did not then challenge him or accuse him of "falsely stating under oath." It was not until Drew Pearson broadcast his infamous lies by radio early in 1951 that Artukovic became a persona non grata to this Government.

On page 2, paragraph 4, of the memoran. dum it states, "On August 29, 1951, the con• sul general of Yugoslavia at San· Francisco,

Calif., acting in behalf of the Government of Yugoslavia, filed a complaint in the United States district court at Los Angeles, seeking the extradition of Andrija Artukovic." Also the complaint charged Artukovic with three counts of mass murder. Why is not the full story given? The consul general of Yugoslavia in his sworn complaint was guilty of several· counts of perjury. First he swore that he had been informed by regular consular channels that Andrija Artukovic had been indicted for murder in the People's Court of Yugoslavia, when in fact the indictment was not handed down until a full week after Artukovic's arrest. He, the Yugoslav consul general, in his complaint, accused Artukovic of the murder of the Orthodox Archbishop of Sarajevo, naming th~ place, date of month and year. The indictment did not accuse Artukovic of murder by his own hand as the consul general did by saying that "he caused to be murdered." And the indictment mentions a different day, a different month, a different year and a different place where the alleged murder took place. Thirdly, the Yugoslav consul general was guilty of the crime of perjury when he says that Artukovic murdered with his own hand some 10 or 11 other persons. The indictment does not in any place accuse Artukovic of murder by his own hand. It would appear that the Communists of Yugo. slavia c:iven cannot lie straight.

A careful examination of the findings of the Immigration and Naturalization Service will show that the testimony of Catholic priests and others of high moral character is completely disregarded and the testimony of known Yugoslav Communists plays an important part in the findings of the Department. Personally I, as a Catholic priest, resent the implied slur upon my fellow priests when the Immigration and Naturalization Service completely disregards the testimony of priests who lived in Croatia from 1941 to 1945 and personally knew Andrija Artukovic.

I have in my possession a letter from :Archbishop Ivan Saric, Catholic archbishop of Sarajevo, now in exile in Madrid, Spain, in which he thanks me for my help to the Croatian people and "to my good friend, Andrija Artukovic." An archbishop does not have as a good friend a man such as that memorandum would have us believe Artu• kovic ts.

Communist Yugoslavia would have us believe that Andrija Artukovic is a war crim• inal. Artukovic is in splendid company for the "war criminals" of Communist Yugo. slavia include Cardinal Stepinac, Arch• bishop Saric, Bishop Cule, scores of Catholic priests and every prominent Catholic layman of Croatia.

Living in the United States today a.re dozens of Croatian priests and laymen who will willingly testify in defense of Artukovic. I am enclosing another memorandum written and signed by 150 Croatian Catholic clergymen. The majority of these are refugees from Tito's Communist Utopia and they are alive only because they were able to escape from Yugoslavia. Here are men who knew Artukovic and who know the truth. They are willing to testify for Artukovic, I hope that the Congress of the United States will give them a chance.

Josip Raspudic, now an American citizen living in Milwaukee, Wis., was Artukovic's personal secretary from 1941 to 1945. He certainly is a witness 'not to be overlooked. His wife, an American, spent the years 1941 to 1945 in Croatia and also knew Artukovic. Father Mandie, who was provincial of the Franciscan Fathers in Croatia during those years, would also be . a very interesting witness. So would Father Lackovic, Archbishop (now Cardinal) Stepinac's secretary during those years, be a most willing witness for Artukovic. •

One of the chief witnesses for the Govern• ment was a John J. Knezevich (see- Immigration and Naturalization file A-7095961)

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 12157 who declined to state whether or not he was in Yugoslavia during the war. Was he afraid to admit that he was with Tito's Partisans during the time he spent in Yugoslavia? If he was not in Yugoslavia then his testimony was merely hearsay and certainly should not have been admitted as eyewitness testimony.

It is a tragic thing that today in this country anyone who is anti-Communist is marked for character assassination. Witness the attempts of the Communists and fellow travelers to blacken the name of our own beloved Senator KNOWLAND. How many, even of our Congressmen, are aware that the derisive appellation, "Senator from Formosa," was first sneeringly used in the Communist newspaper, The Dally Worker?

Can the sworn testimony of Communists be believed? I think not, since they profess no belie! in God, have no moral code and time after time in their writings have stated that the end justifies the means. Their end is the destruction of our country and the other free countries of the world. Any American is certainly naive if he thinks that the brand of communism that Tito professes is different from Moscow's communism. It is time that we began to protect those, such as Artukovic, who have from the beginning fought communism. ·

Thanking you again for your efforts in behalf of Andrija Artukovic.

I remain, Sincerely yours,

Rev. ROBERT Ross.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Rev. Prof. Dr. Louis Ivandic, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and say:

I was born in Croatia and that I am now residing at 1449 Rossini Boulevard, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

I have known Andrija Artukovic since his childhood. He and his family were in Austria in 1946. I was also living in Austria then. · In November 1946, I traveled with Andrija Artukovic from Austria to Fribourg, Switzerland.

I know by my personal knowledge that Andrija Artukovic, known as Aloia Anlch, made an application in Fribourg, Switzerland, to change officially the name Andrija Artukovic to Alois Anich, because his life was in danger. I know that his application for permission of the use of Anich was forwarded from Fribourg to Bern, Switzerland. I can testify to the fact that Inspector Frederick Schoenenberger was sent by the federal authorities in Bern to Fribourg, to conduct an examination for the application of Andrija Artukovic. I know and can testify that Andrija Artukovic had a hearing before the Inspector Schoenenberger, and that federal and state authorities, both in Bern and Fribourg, Switzerland, had full knowledge about the identity of Alois .Anich as of Andrija Artukovic.

I further testify that after the hearing of Andrija Artukovic I saw Inspector Schoenenberger personally, talked with him and had a discussion about the case. The inspector showed me the Croatian diplomatic passport, which Mr. Artukovic presented him during the hearing. I know by my personal knowledge that Inspector Schoenenberger carried with him the same passport and went to Bern to present it to the authorities in Bern. I know that later Inspector Schoenenberger returned again to Fribourg and returned the diplomatic passport to Artukovic's wife. I know that the Swiss authorities issued a certitlcate of identity under the name of Alois Anich after the hearing of Andr1Ja Artukovic.

I traveled with Andrija Artukovic, his wife, and his children from Fribourg, Switzerland, to Ireland, and from there to Canada, where now I am residing.

Rev. Prof. Dr. Lours IVANDIC. · Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of August 1951.

OWEN R. CHAPMAN, Notary Public.

A.FF'mAVIT UNITED STATES OJ' AMERICA,

CITY OF LACKAWANNA, · STATE OJ' NEW YORK,

In re Dr. Andrija Artukovic. Rev. Stephen Lackovic, D. D., being first

duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: That affiant is a Catholic priest by profes

sion and that he is the administrator of the parish of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of· Jesus, Roman Catholic Church, located at 108 Ridge Road, Lackawanna, N. Y.

That affiant is the former secretary of Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac of Zagreb, Croatia. That this innocent man of religion is now serving in Yugoslavia a prison sentence of 16 years, only because he is a church leader.

That affiant was in Croatia during the Second World War. That he is personally acquainted with Dr. Andrija Artukovic, now residing at Surfside Colony. Calif.

That affiant from his personal knowledge can testify to the following true facts: That affiant knows personally Dr. Artukovic since 1941.

That affiant, while he was residing in Croatia during the last war, was constantly in touch with Dr. Artukovic, who was at that time Minister of the Interior in Croatia. That affiant personally was calling on Artukovic requesting of him his assistance to all types of people, who were in great need of help. That Mr. Artukovic always granted affiant's request, and, therefore, affiant came to know of Dr. Artukovic's helping hand to persecuted people, and the aid he rendered to Jewish people, Slovenes, Serbs, Austrians, etc., who were fleeing from the Nazi tyranny.

That during Hitler's regime and especially during the war, people were influenced _to ,be against God and the churches. That Dr. Andrija Artukovic· in his official capacity issued orders prohibiting blasphemy and swearing against God and the churches. That he tried to help his people to continue their religion and -their worship to God, and an that Christianity implies.

That Dr. Andrija Artukovic desired to have a high moral standard among the youth of Croatia, and to protect them from the viclous influence of the Nazis. To this end he had a law enacted forbidding youth under 18 years of age on the streets or in bars.

That under the advice and direction of Dr. Artukovic, the Minister of Education in Croatia ordered the establishment of "retreats" for school pupils. That the purpose of these "retreats" was the establishment of high principles of life, good character, ethics; and as a weapon against the evil influences of the Nazis and Communists.

That all of the laws of Croatia made as a bulwark against nazlsm and communism. were prepared and signed by Dr. Andrija Artukovic.

That the German Ambassador to Croatia. received an order from Berlin to press the dismissal of Dr. Artukovic as Minister of Interior. This victory was gained by the Nazis, but due to Dr. Artukovic's popularity among people, he was given another post by the Croatian Government, that of Minister of Justice.

Afflant further wishes to state that the Croatian Republic was not established by the Nazis, but on the contrary the Republic was established against the will of the Nazis and Fascists.

That affiant knows by his own knowledge that Dr. Andrija Artukovic is a man of high Christian character, of deep democratic convictions, and a great friend and admirer of the American way of ltfe. In desiring to serve his native country of Croatia, his ideal was to see it as an independent, free state; and to carry out the will and desire of the people to Join the free, democratic nations.

Dr. Andrija Artukovic was not a Nazi collaborator and he is not a Communist. In his official capacity in Croatia, he indirectly

tried to help the cause of America and her allies.

It Dr. Artukovic and his family are made to return to Yugoslavia, they will be subject to persecution and massacre.

Rev. STEPHEN LACKOVIC, D. D. Subscribed and sworn to before me this·

8th day of May 1950. ---.---.

Notary Public in and for the County ana State of New York.

AFFnlAVIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERtCA, CITY OF CHICAGO,

STATE OF ILLINOIS, In re Dr. Andrija Artukovic.

Dragutin Sostarko, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:

That affiant's address is 640 West Garfield Boulevard, Chicago 9, Ill.

That afflant is a singer and performed with the Metropolitan Opera Co. in Croatia and now he is singing in concerts in the United States. That afflant was residing in Croatia during the Second World War.

That afflant has known Dr. Andrija Artukovic for many years. That Dr. Artukovic was also residing in Croatia during the last war, and hence the afflant by his own personal knowledge can testify to the following facts:

That Dr. Artukovlc helped all of the persecuted people--Jews, Slovenes, Austrians, fleeing from Nazi tyranny.

That to hundreds of French soldiers, who were escaping from the_ Nazi prison camps, Dr. Artukovic gave admittance into Croatia, providing them with money, food, clothing, passports, and transportation.

When American and British flyers sent to bomb Germany were forced to parachute on the fields of Croatia, they were hidden and sheltered by Dr. Artukovic. He supplied these parachutists with food, clothing, medical supplies; and placed them in the best hospitals for medical care.

That Dr. Andrija Artukovlc was not a Nazi collaborator nor a Communist. During the war. he was against the Nazis and .secretly tried to help the a111es. Dr. Artukovlc has always been a firm bellever in the democratic form of government of the United States.

Dr. Andrija Artukovic ls a highly educated person, possesses good moral character. He is a Christian man and he is a person who would be an asset to the -United States of America. ,

Afflant further states that Dr. Artukovic's life is in great danger and if he is forced to return to Yugoslavia, afflant feels certain that he would be killed.

DaAGUTIN SOSTARKO. Subscribed and sworn to before me this

8th day of May 1950.

Notary Public in and for the co'unty of Cook, State of Illinois.

.AFFIDAVIT

UNITED STATES 01" AMERICA,

COUNTY OF Los ANGELES,

STATS 01' CALIFORNIA, In re Dr. Andrlja Artukovic. . Dr. Vlado Milas, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:

That affiant's present address is 820 Yale Street, Los Angeles, Calif.

That.afflant was residing in Croatia during World War II. . That afflant is acquainted with Dr. Andrija Artukovic, who was also residing in Croatia during that' war. That affiant by his own personal knowledge can testify to the. following true facts:

1. That Andrija Artukovlc helped all of the unfortunate persecuted people. That he issued orders secretly admitting thousands of Jewish people who were escaping from Hitler's terror and massacre and fllrnished them with food, clothing, and shelter,

12158 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 29 2. That to hundreds of French soldiers,

who were running away from Nazi camps,; Dr. Artukovic gave admittance to Croatia, providing them with money, clothing, food. passports, and transportation.

3. When American and, British airmen were sent to bomb Germany and were forced to parachute on the fields of Croatia, they were hidden and sheltered by Dr. Artukovic. That afflant was counsel for the Minister of Health and can testify that Dr. Artukovic gave orders to him and to General Bertie to supply the American and British parachuters with medical supplies-this despite the fact that medical supplies were to be found only in the most minute quantities. That Dr. Artukovic had these American and British airmen placed, secretly in hospitals in Croatia and given the best possible care. That afflant was then and is now a medical doctor by profession.

That affiant knows by his own knowledge that Dr. Andrija Artukovic was not a Nazi collaborator nor a Communist. That Dr. Artukovic believes in the democratic form of government of the United States.

That affiant further states that if Dr. Artukovic and his family are forced to return to Yugoslavia, he feels certain that they· will be massacred. That afflant knows Dr. Artukovic for over 35 years.

Dr. VLAno MILAS, M. D. Subscribed and sworn to before me this

8th day of May 1950. ------,

Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

.AFFIDAVIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CITY OF CHICAGO,

STATE OF ILLINOIS. In re Dr. Andrija Artukovic.

Rev. Berto Dragicevic, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:

That affiant is a Catholic priest by profession and that affiant ls now residing at 2823 South Princeton Avenue, Chicago 16, DI . .

That afflant was in Croatia during Second World War. That Dr. Artukovlc was also residing in Croatia during that war, that affl.ant has known Dr. Artukovic for many years and hence the affiant by his own personal knowledge can testify to the following facts:

That Dr. Andrija Artukovic was not a Nazi collaborator nor a Communist. During the war he worked against the Nazis and secretly tried to help the Allies.

That many French civilians and soldiers, who were escaping from the Nazi prison camps, were with the help of Dr. Artukovic admitted to Croatia, provided with money, food, clothing, passports, and transportation.

When American and British flyers sent to bomb Germany were forced to parachute on the fields of Croatia, Dr. Artukovic gave orders to hide and shelter them, and provide ~edical supplies for them.

That Dr. Artukovic helped all of the persecuted people, . Jews, Slovenes, etc., :fleeing from the Nazi tyranny.

That during Hitler's regime and especially during the war people were influenced against God and against the churches. That Dr. Artukovic in his official capacity issued orders prohibiting blasphemy and swearing against God and the church. That he tried to help his people to continue their religion and their worship to God and all that. Christianity implies.

That all of the laws of Croatia made as a bulwark against nazism and communism were prepared and signed by Dr. Artukovic.

Afflant further wishes to state that the Croatian Republic was not established by the Nazis, but on the contrary, against the will of Nazis and Fascists. · That the Croatian pe.ople did not collaborate· with the Nazis.

That afflant knows from his own knowledge that Dr. Andrij9t Artukovic ls a man of high Christian character, he has deep · democratic convictions, he opposes all totalitarian ideas, and he is a great friend , and admirer of the American way of life.

The affl.ant is sure that if Dr. Artukovic and his family are forced to return to Yugoslavia they will be subject to persecution and will be massacred.

Rev. BERTO DRAGICEVIC. Subscribed and sworn to before me this

12th day of May, 1950, ------,

Notary Public in and for the County, of Cook, State of Illinois,

[Translation] French Consulate at Zagreb. Photo. Mr. Andrija Artukovic.

The consul for France at Zagreb recommends to the civil and military authorities of the Republic of France and her allied countries and those friendly to her, Mr. Andrija Artukovic, born at Klobuk (Herzegovin) on the 29th of November 1899, ·and begs to give him all possible aid and assistance in case of need.

Dr. Andrija Artukovic has rendered big services to the French cause during the war and has saved many French lives under the most critical of conditions.

ZAGREB, the 5th of May 1945, ------,

French Consul. I hereby certify that I am familiar with

the French and English languages and that· the foregoing is a true and correct translation.

NICHOLAS BOLOTINE. Subscribed and sworn to before me this

8th day of February 1949. ------,

Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

His Excellency, STANTON GRIFFIS, American Ambassador, Madrid.

YOUR EXCELLENCY: The Yugoslavian Government has asked the Government of the United States of America to hand over to them Dr. Andrija Artukovic, as you will have heard. He is, like many others, charged to be a war criminal.

A small group of Croatian priests, whose signatures you will find at the end of this letter and who are actually living in Spain have been expelled from their country, this by the injustice of the Yugoslavian Government. They all know Dr. AndriJa Artukovic as a perfect gentleman; furthermore they know him as a straightforward and honorable character. Therefore they want to explain to Your Excellency, the following facts:

The Yugoslavian . Government is communistic-atheistic. Its program demands 'tih~ liquidation of all its enemies and to carry through its plans it accuses them to be war criminals or enemies of the people. It is well known, that for the Communists a war criminal is any person that tomorrow may oppose them and become an adversary.

The Communist Yugoslavian Government, according to its program, began to carry it out soon after having come to power. The Croats in the southeast of Europe are considered to be the· strongest opponents to communism in the cold war. Therefore the Yugoslavian Government has concentrated all its destructive power against the Croats. And to achieve this, more than 100,000 Croatian soldiers were murdered in those tragic days of May 1945; their unique crime was to fight boldly against communii;m during war years, but only to defend their homes and the independence of their be• loved country. The late President of the United States of America, Franklin D. Roosevelt once has declared that those rights have

been given as irrevocable by God. For the same purpose, thousands of prominent Croats, hundreds of Croatian priests and bishops were kllled, to extinguish all the foes and to submit the Croats to communism.

The Croatian bishops because of the justice of communism, die nowadays far away from their episcopal sees and languish in their prisons. Please remember the case of the Primate of Croatia, His Eminence Louis Stepinac, Archbishop of Zagreb.

For the same reasons that we have just outlined, the Yugoslavian Government accuses the elite of the Croatian intellectuals who could escape them to be war criminals. The Yugoslav·ian Government is decided to extinguish all CJroats that go on to trust in God and human dignity.

Neither the Communist tribunals, nor the Communist justice, impose penalties according to the delicts; defendants are sentenced according to the program of the Communist Party, which persecutes its enemies, claiming its heads. Archbishop Stepinac, during his famous Zagreb trial, stated that even the Communists confessed that their party has always sufficient proofs to liquidate its enemies.

That means that Dr. Andrija Artukovic would neither be handed over to the Yugoslavian Government nor to justice, but ouly to be murdered.

Herewith we Croatian priests protest solemnly against the delivery of Dr. Artukovic to commu;nism. Consequently, we consider it our human and sacerdotal duty to ask you to protect Dr. Andrija Artukovic and not to allow that he is handed over to communism, like other war criminals, as a victim of the Communist Yugoslav Government.

We deeply hope that our prayer will be heard by your Excellency and that your kind heart will feel with hiµi and us. Please help the American Government that you represent so worthily.

Rev. Father BRUNO RASPUDIC. Rev. Father Dr. GRACIANO RASPUDIC,

Professor. Rev. Father Dr. BRANKo MARIC,

Professor. Rev. Father EuGENIO BELUHAN, Dr. IVAN Eu. SARIC,

Archbishop of Saratevo. San Francisco el Grande Madrid, 18th June

1951. .

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the very fine statements I have received in behalf of Andrija Artukovic. Other statements containing the basic information recorded above have been received from Catholic priests who knew Dr. Artukovic in Croatia from 1941 to 1945. Some of these priests are Rev.

· George Vrdoljak, now residing in Sudbury, Province of Ontario, Canada; Rev. Dr. Ivo Sivric, now of St. Louis, Mo.; Rev. Mario Matic, now of Artesia, Calif.; and Very Rev. Dr. Vasilj Vendelin, Rev. Dr. Ignatius Jurkovic, Rev. Prof. Dr. Kruno Pandzic, and Rev. Celestin Raguz, all of Chicago, Ill.

The above statement of facts with supporting affidavits leads me to the conclusion that our Government is unjustly persecuting Dr. Artukovic, and in so doing we are violating our cardinal principles of . freedom. To µie it is just as unthinkable not only to permit but to support the extradition of Dr. Artukovic as it would be to insist on the extradition of the Polish flier who flew to freedom last year and was granted immediate status here, or to permit the North Korean Reds to extradite the pilot who flew a ;Russian ·MIG to , f,reedom and received a $100,000 reward for stealing the MIG.

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12159 Dr. Artukovic should receive immedi

ate status here, either under our refugee acts, or by act of Congress.

The American pub~ic should be aroused over the high-handed treatment given him by the Immigration Service, and insist that human justice and true equity be given this Croatian patriot.

HOOVER COMMISSION AND PAPERWORK MANAGEMENT

The SPEAKER. Under previous order . of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the Los Angeles Times of July 18, 1955, and other newspapers throughout the country carried accounts of the Hoover Commission report and its task-force report on paperwork management. This was the second of two sets of reports on this subject, the first one having been issued in January 1955.

Each report of the Hoover Commission except the one on paperwork management was prepared as a single project. · In this case, it happened that the first and last reports to be released by the Hoover Commission this year dealt with the same subject of paperwork management. Although the Commission went out of existence on July 1, the second part of the report on paperwork manage:. ment was not actually released until 18 days later.

The transmittal letter to the Congress from Mr. Hoover is dated June 15 in the case of the task-force report and June 29 in the case of the Commission's own report. Both reports were released to the press July 18.

The manner in which this report was publicized, together with the lack of substance to some of the findings and recommendations contained therein, suggest to me that the task force which prepared the study was serving a very selfish and personal interest.

I was dissatisfied with the approach of the task force from the very beginning. When it was first proposed to issue the report in two parts, I questioned the advisability of such a procedure. In a . memorandum to the Commission of December 11, 1954, I stated:

Two separate reports dealing with the same or closely related subject matters are ·apt to cause confusion in later reference to this area of study and are not warranted by the state of the information.

The Commission, nevertheless, issued the report in two parts. Thus we have 2 task force reports and 2 Commission reports on paperwork management.

The task force report in each case was prepared by a group headed by Emmett J. Leahy, who operates a managementconsultant firm in this field. ·Mr. Leahy also directed a task force study of the first Hoover Cominission on the subject of records management.

Mr. Leahy has not been bashful about identifying his business position in the task force reports. Publications of his firm are cited as footnote references in part I of the task force report and the name of his firm figures prominently in

section II of part rr· of the task force report. This section reminds the reader:

The report was written by the Chairman, · Emmett J. Leahy, of Leahy & Co., who 1a also responsible for its shortcomings.

I am sure that the report has shortcomings, Mr. Speaker, although I have not had time to analyze all of them. In a separate statement in connection with the second part of the Hoover Commission report on paperwork management I said:

A continuing objective should be the elimination of reports which are costly and irritating to business but which serve no important Government purpose.

Evaluation of the need for Government reports, however, is not always a simple matter. Vital policy decisions may be involved, affecting the administration of law and the compliance of business firms with Federal statutes and regulations.

The task force on paperwork management undertook upon its own ·initiative to act as an intermediary between Government agencies and business groups in an effort to reduce or eliminate reporting requirements in selected target areas.

In effect, the task force used the authority of the Commission to conduct experiments leading . to agency actions and administrative changes which were not passed upon by the Commission itself.

The task force was set up as a study group to assist the Commission. I do not believe it was wise or proper for the task force to seek to influence agency action on its own responsibil1ty and before reporting to the Coi:pmission.

One of the iI_lcidents I had particularly in mind when r wrote that statement is· described in the following letter to John B. Hollister, then Executive Director of the Commission: Mr. JOHN B. HOLLISTER,

Executive Director, Commission on Organization, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. HOLLISTER: It has come to my attention that a staff member of the task force on paperwork manE!,gement has directed a letter to members of the Interstate Commerce Commission recommending that the ICC take action to revoke an official order which authorized certain railroad traffic studies. The letter to the ICC, signed by Edward T. Freel, assistant staff director, contains the following paragraph:

"As this task force has concluded that the use of the wayb111 studies by industry does not justify their .cost, and as the operating elements within the Interstate Commerce Commission have agr~ed that these studies are not a necessity for cost finding in their regulatory operations, it 1s recommended that the carload waybill studies be discontinued. It is further recommended that the Commissioners take the necessary steps to rescind the order of September 6, 1946, which established these studies. If such action were taken prior to the submission of our report to the Commission on Reorganization of the Executive Branch, and through them to the Congress, these recommendations would not then be a part of our report. The solution to this paperwork problem would become instead a compliment to both industry and its regulatory body."

In my opinion, this kind of action by a task force or any of its staff Is completely unauthorized and unwarranted. Whatever the merits of the case for discontinuing the studies in question, the task force has no business making such representations to effect changes in agency actions.

I would suggest that the members of the . Interstate Commerce . Commission be officially notified at once that the Commission

on Organization has taken no position on this matter, that no task forqe or other persons are authorized to speak for the Commission in this capacity, and that the Commission's recommendations are made to the Congress. Also, I believe that the person or persons responsible for sending the abovequoted letter to the ICC should be properly reprimanded.

I would appreciate being advised on this matter.

Sincerely yours, CHET HOLIFIELD, · Member of Congress.

Although Mr. Hoover assured me at a Commission meeting that . the person committing this improper action had been called to account, the fact still remains that the second part of the Commission report on paperwork management did little more than endorse the task-force experiments and repeat its estimates of savings.

As a member of the House Cominittee on Government Operations, I am acquainted with the reports which the General Services Administration has been making to the Congress concerning progress in the management of costly paperwork. . It was my privilege to be chairman of the subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations which handled the legislation known as the Federal Records Act of 1950. This was the first major amendment to Public Law 152 <;>f the 81st Congress, which established the General Services Administration. · My subcommittee was also responsible for reporting out the basic legislation in 1949. ·

Since the Federal Records Act of 1950 was enacted, the General Services Ad~ ministration has been hard at work battling against the waste known to exist in Government paperwork. Some of its results are notable, and for these the Hoover Commission seems to take full credit unto himself. That is understandable, Mr. Speaker, but in fairness to the General Services Administration the impression should not be left that the closing of this records center and the resultant savings are due to the appearance of the Hoover Commission and task force reports.

For example, part II of the Commission report on paperwork management states at page 12:

More uneconomical agency record centers are being clos·ed as the Commission recommended. The Veterans' Administration records center will be liquidated by July 1, with savings to the Government of space, equipment, and personnel estimated at $1,077,000.

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the recommendation for the closing of the VA records center, lo.;. cated at Columbus, Ohio, was made by a private records management firm, known as Records Engineering, Inc. The contractor estimated savings of $417,000 in personnel and $670,000 in space and equipment-Senate Committee on Appropriations, hearings on independent offices appropriations, 1956, page 153.

The Hoover Cominission report does not cite the accomplishment of this or any other private firm in records management work, but it does say at page 12:

A private management consultant ls studying the proper relationships between the

12160 CONGRESSIONAL· ~CORD - HOUSE July 29

:Qepartment of Defense and the Gen-eral Services Administration record centers.

· I find in the record of tlie Senate appropriatlons liearings the following item of information by the Acting AdmJnis"trator of General Services:

On March 14, ·1955-, a · contract was let to the firm of Leahy & Co. to study the records · retlr~ment and records center systems of . t~.e Department of Defense . and the General · Services Administration. The objective of this survey is to determine whether economies or other 1mprovements would result from a consolidation of ·existing systems. 'rhe survey is to be completed in 5 months at a cost of $24,000.

- In other words, Mr. Speaker, the "private management consultant" referred to by the Hoover Commission report happens to be the firm of the chairman of the task force himself, employed by General Services Administration to do the defense study while he and a member of his staff were employed by the Hoover Commission.

I hope that the House Committee on Government Operations, through its subcommittee on reorganization, will find time to make a thorough study of the background of all the task force members who served on the Hoover Commission. There is good reason to believe that public and private interests were not always clearly distinguished in the recommendations of these task forces.

In the case of the paperwork management task force, it appears that the Hoover Commission became a good advertising med_ium for Leahy & Co.

I do not object to private firms being hired for specific surveys in records management. The General Services Administration stated to the Senate Appropriations Committee that such firms can be helpful in highly specialized areas Qf records management, such as microfilming, Frequently they bring to the job a fresh approach and a new point of view based on studies of industry operations-Senate Committee on Appropriations, hearings on the supplemental appropriation bill, 1955, page 936.

I notice in the Appropriations Committee hearings that the same firm, Records Engineering, Inc., which recommended the closing of the Veterans' Administration records center, was retained to make a survey of Post Office records. Savings from this project are estimated at more than $7 million, most of which are annual savings-Senate Committee on Appropriations, hearings on independent offices appropriations, 1956, pages 157-158.

The General Services Administration stated clearly that surveys by such private firms in records management of Government agencies should supplement and not supersede the central program direction and continuing staff work by the General Services AdministrationSenate Committee on Appropriations, hearings on the supplemental appropriation bill, 1955, page 936. By judicious and firm central direction by the General Services Administration, the savings in records management can .be very large.

. BATLE FOR THE· MINDS OF MEN · The SPEAKER. Under previous or

der of the House the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA] is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr.- O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise aiid extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illi- · nois?

There was no objection. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, ·

I am taking this time to inform the House on the proposal that will be presented early in the 2d session of the 84th Congress for a new and simple approach to the problem of winning the battle for the minds of men.

In the 1st session of the 84th congress we have given major attention to the strengthening of our defense and the solidifying of the protective forces of the nations of the free world. But we realize that the conflict between two ideologies will be determined, not on battlefields, but in the minds of men.

This is a report of progress as well as a statement of future plans.

It will be recalled that when the appropriation bill for the Department of State was under consideration, I offered an amendment to include an item to make available to men and women everywhere, in inexpensive editions and translated into native languages, the classics of American democracy.

What I had in mind as comprising the classics of American democracy were those writings that had fired the early Americans in the periods of the conception and development of our own democracy. In a sense they may be compared to the books of the Bible, which were written by different men and. at different periods and later were selected, with some but relatively small differences in versions, as constituting the foundation sources of a faith. It is proposed to select those classic books that constitute the foundation sources of American faith in democracy.

WHAT ARE THESE CLASSIC BOOKS?

What were the writings that inspired the minds of Americans in the beginning of our democracy and in the succeeding stages of its development? To what sources now shall turn the peoples in other lands who are searching for the eternal truths of self-government?

I am not referring to present-day writings. They are interpretations and evaluations, many of them of excellent quality. They may be regarded, however, in some quarters of the world, where the battle for the minds of men is keen and close, as propaganda for an American nationalism. Moreover, they are copyrighted works and not available except by arrangement.

The classics of democracy that hold the eternal truths of government for, by, and of the people now belong to all the world. All that is necessary is, first, to make the proper selection; second, to translate them into native languages; third, to print them in lnexpensive pa_perbound edition~; and, fourth, to give _them grassroots sales distribution . .

· INTEREST IS WIDESPREAD

Many Members ,of the Congress on both sides of the aisle have shown heartening interest in the program to make available in this manner to all peoples ~.verywhere the classics of democracy that inspired our forefathers. Several of our most distinguished colleagues, whose reputation for constructive statesmanship is of the highest, have been most active in the preliminary spadework.

My own interest was whetted by reports· from the foreign correspondents of the Chicago Daily News to which I shall refer later. Following the publication of these reports, I moved an Stmendment to an appropriation bill · to permit the immediate start on a classics-of-democr.acy program. It was ruled out of order, because there was no previous authorization. Judging from its reception by my colleagues, and the many pledges of support volunteered, I think the amendment would have been adopted.

Since that time much work has been done in preparation for presenting to the session convening in January the proposal for authorization and the request for adequate appropriation to launch the program. I wish at this point to express my deep appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. RooNEY], the able chairman of the Sub .. committee of the Appropriations Committee, for his friendly interest and cooperation. Also to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. FEIGHAN], a pioneer in. this field and extremely wellinformed in all phases of the problem. Congressman FEIGHAN participated with me in many conferences with Dr. Theodore C. Streibert, the Director of USIA, and members of his staff, all of whom were most gr.acious and helpful.

Expression of appreciation likewise goes to the editors and foreign correspondents of the Chicago Daily News, including Paul Leach, for many years the very able head of the Washington Bureau, and Van Allen Bradley, the literary editor, to Dr. Harold Fey, executive editor of the Christian Century, to Jerome G. Kerwin, chairman of the Charles R. Walgreen Foundation at the University of Chicago; to Richard P. McKeon, professor of philosophy at the university and a State Department visitor to uni• versities in India; to Emery T. Filbey, vice president emeritus of the University of Chicago; to Thomas B. Stauffer, instructor in humanities at Wilson Junior College, and to Lelan<;t G. Stauber.

HOW CLASSICS WILL BE CHOSEN

I think it will be of interest to my colleagues to learn that the first phase of the program is now under way and will be completed by the time we reconvene in January. That is the selection of the classics of American democracy that enlightened American opinion would present in translated and inexpensive editions for the reading of the world.

The list we think should not be the compilation of' one person or of one group. Hence Congressman FEIGHAN and I have undertaken to correspand with a large and representative list of educators, editors, and leaders of re-

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12161 ligion, labor, industry, patriotic women's, and other organizations. They are being asked each to submit a list of 20 classics of American democracy. The works receiving the greatest number of votes can be accepted as bearing the stamp of American public approval. As to the writings that are included in all lists there can be no question. Congressman FEIGHAN and I are being counseled and aided in this survey by Dr. Fey, Mr. Kerwin, and Mr. Stauffer.

. Some of the classics of American de-mocracy that have been suggested are:

Emerson, Moral and Political Essays. Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography. Jefferson, Writings. Abraham Lincoln, Writings. Madison, Hamilton, Jay, the Federal

ist Papers. John Locke, Of Civil Gvernment. Judge Learned Hand, the Spirit of

Liberty-USIA has world rights in this publication.

John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government-On Liberty.

David Thoreau, Walden, Writings on Liberty.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense. Rousseau, Social Contract. The Constitution. The Declaration of Independence. These merely are suggestions. It is

possible some should be omitted, certain that others should be included. The poll of the editors, educators, leaders in all activities, will decide the official list.

WHY PROGRAM IS NECESSARY

Theodore s. Repplier, president of the Advertising Council, Inc., recently returned from 6 months' study of inf ormation and propaganda methods in the Orient, Near East, and Europe under the auspices of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship, makes these comments:

Millions of people in free Europe and Asia look upon the Soviets as idealists, and Americans as dollar-mad materialists.

To many, the Communist.s are the champions of the common man. America appears to champion nothing but its own safety. • • •

Our propaganda program needs to use more of the skills and talents of America.

Along the same line, Evangelist Billy Graham was quoted-Christian Science Monitor, May 24, 1955:

America ought to do something about the bad and false impression many foreigners

. have of her. The general picture of America abroad as fostered by the press, tourists, and moving pictures is that of a land of murder, crime, and violence, sexual excesses, and general immorality.

These reports coming from two widely separated sources, in juxtaposition with the fact that the 84th Congress has just appropriated $2,703,341,750 for mutual security, an appropriation including technical assistance designed to raise living standards in Asia, Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe, indicates the need for an objective review of our propaganda methods.

COMMUNIST DOMINATION GROWS

While events at Geneva may mean that the sun of a better day isUJ'.i6ing

on the international horizon, we must never lose sight of the fact that the Soviets are masters ·of the technique of conquest by infiltration and subversion. Moreover, that world conquest is their long-range goal even though it may temporarily seem to be eclipsed by a jovial diplomacy and an international sweetness and light.

While the free world is endeavoring to hold its own, Communist domination has been growing. Today one-third of the world's population is und~r Communist control. Of 800 million Communists, 600 million have been aqded since World War II, 89 million are numbered among the European satellites; the others are Asia tics.

Most of the Asiatics living in the free world are enjoying a new but tenuous freedom. For example, there is India. At one time its people, living on the edge of want, blamed their distress upon the British. Today the British are gone, but not poverty and all attending ills.

The bright ray of hope in this picture, we find at Manila and Bandung. The leadership of the Filipinos at Manila gave living proof that the United States is not to be classified as an exponent of colonialism and exploitation, despite some diplomatic misadventures. At Bandung, representatives of the nations of Asia and Africa quoted the language of the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, and the Gettysburg Address.

HERE IS THJ;: WORLD PICTURE

Why have the Communists succeeded in presenting themselves as idealists, champions of the common man, despite the fact that Africans and Asiatics have quoted the philosophy of domcracy? There are several answers to that question, but one is obvious: communism has made its literature easily available all over the world. It has spent millions spreading the literature of its ideology wherever anyone can read.

The Chicago Daily News has requested its foreign correspondents abroad to report upon the sale and availability of standard works presenting the philosophy of democracy on the one hand and communism on the other. Here are some of the results.

ENGLAl'iD

From the letter of Ernie Hill, Chicago Daily News correspondent, London, England:

1. There are numerous bookstores that sell Marx and company at low cost. The Communist Party itself operates 36 regional bookstores and sells at belcw cost. Then there are several privately run stores that sell Communist literature at a profit • • • but still the costs are extremely low because they get them for almost nothing. Chief among these is Collett's. The manager recently wrote a letter to the Manchester Guardian stating that neither he nor his help were Communists, that they were selling Communist books because there was a demand for them. He pointed out that they also sold American books, although their trade is largely in communist literature.

They sell Howard Fast's most venomous books at less than they sell American books, The Communists publish Howard Fast in London and send his books everywhere in the world to be sold at prices below normal.

Central Books · at Red Lion Square also is in this· business. It currently is advertising a new Russian book, A Book for Parent.s, at 7 cents a copy. It also is pushing a booklet, Public Education in the U.S. S. R., for 10 oent.s.

Nowhere can you buy Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, for anything like these prices. .

2. Communist pamphlets are very cheap and are given away in some of the 36 Communist bookstores. Prices range from 7 to 10 cents. A similar American paperback runs at least 30 cents. . 3. There is considerable discussion of basic political philosophy at the London School of Economics, Oxford, and Cambridge. In London, the Socialist Party discusses little philosophy. It is a straight question of the working man against the investors, management, and inherited wealth.

Generally the -people of England· under• stand the basic philosophy of Marxism.

They also understand the basic philosophy of democracy in the United States. Since their own form of government is just about as democratic as ours, they are inclined to take these things for granted.

Collett's bookstore I have discovered is usually crowded with Indian student.s from the London School of Economics. They are generally very left wing and form a bloc of malcontents in Britain. There are something like 50,000 Indians in London and environs.

4. Practically everything from the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is available in London. In English of course.

5. American information libraries are rather · inadequate to meet the Union of Soviet Socialist. Republics challenge. There are only three-London, Manchester, and Edinburgh. The London library has 40,000 volumes but the other two only 4,000 each.

Manchester and Edinburgh are outposts of the London Library and handle mail requests for books to be loaned.

It is probably unfortunate that the London USIS library is in Grosvenor Square, one of the most expensive and exclusive districts of London. Very few people from East and South London ever come to Grosvenor Square, even to borrow books from the USIS. I have noticed that in some of the other world capitals the USIS library is located in a downtown area where all classes of people pass daily.

Grosvenor Square now houses the American Embassy's five buildings, the United States Navy's large establishment, and the American school for children up to 11, three residences of Indian millionaires, and a few assorted British millionaires and peers.

The library is a good one with adequate reference books but it perhaps is badly located to give the maximum benefit.s.

The USIS people say the trend is toward reducing library facilities rather than expanding them. • • •

The fact remains that we have nothing to compare with their (U. S. S. R.) cheap books distribution plan and are not likely to have anything. • • •

The world's opinions of the United States largely are formed from the motion pictures they see. Some of the pictures we export do l.J.S more harm than 100,000 anti-American Russian pamphlets.

ITALY

From the Chica.go Daily News Bureau, Via Oreste Tommasini 13, Rome, Italy, comes this report:

1. There are many Communist bookshops in Rome, usually near neighborhood Com-

. munist headquarters, which have club rooms and reading rooms. All the Communist classics as well as later writings on Communist education for children, Communist education for° workers, labor unions, etc., are available in Italian, at approximately hal!

12162 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE Jul.y 29

the price of the paperbacks 1n · Italian on American political and economic thought. · 2. There are no American bookstores, though there is a commercial English bookstore which stocks American writings and orders them. Italian bookstores handle. American books in English and in translation. -The State Department has a program. whereby Italian publishers translate and print American books. Instead of giving a subsidy, the Americans promise the Italian publisher they will buy a few thousand copies. These copies are then distributed free to libraries and universities in Italy, and among the people the Embassy calls public opinion molders.

3. There is a tremendous difference between the distribution methods of "the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The ·Soviet Union subsidizes books in Italian ·with broad mass appeal, at a. very low price, through the large Communist Party and the books are available in neighborhoods. The Americans, on the other hand, concentrate on getting their books into the hands of the intelligentia, students, and professional classes. For example, three recent books on American political thought, translated into Italian by Italian publishers, for sale in Italian bookshops and also distributed free to Italian libraries by the USIA are: The U. S. and the Permanent Revolution (cost paperback about $2.50); Peter Drucker, the New York Society (cost paperback about $3); David Hutton, the Promise of Productivity (cost paperback $3.50). That is a lot of money for an Italian earning about $100 a month. The printing is good, the paper is nice.

4. The Soviet Union's information library is run for them in the Communist Party headquarters. We, on the other hand, have a beautiful, quiet, restful library on the Via Veneta, the smartest street in downtown Rome. It is full of lawyers, doctors, economists, students, etc., but no ordinary Italian would have the nerve to walk in, even though it ls on street level and a sign says "free entrance." I accompanied a young Italian architect who wanted to see some of our architectural magazines because he couldn't believe he wouldn't be thrown out of such a. smart place. Now he goes there all the time and the building and House and Garden type of magazine is his joy in life. I fear there are many Italians like him who would not have gone in unless introduced or accompanied by an American. The American fashion magazines are slit to pieces by Italian women who go in with razor blades to cut out pictures of clothes, furniture, interior-decorating ideas. Also little ads concerning gadgets get cut out, indicating that Italian manufacturers take them, because they often appear on the Italian market within a few months after such a product is advertised in one of our home magazines. I think this is fine and shows our magazines are read. However, our librarians deplore the fact that the magazines get messed up and clipped. I think we ought to supply more of . these magazines and let them clip away. It's cheap enough propaganda.

Here are the facts on the books Italians drew out of our American library during 1954. .

A. Fiction: 21,229 withdrawals. This included Hemingway, Faulkner, Dreiser, and 19th century classics such as ·Melv1lle, etc. There are no mystery books or purely popular fiction.

B. Literary criticism, poetry: 3,846. C. Books on art: 3,781. D. Political philosophy and psychology:

1,105. . Under political philosophy and psychology

I found, in Italian: George Kenna.n's American Diplomacy; John Dewey, Democracy and ~dtication; James By"rnes, Speaking Frankly;

Walter Lippmann, The Good Society; Tom Paine by Dos Passos; a translation of the American Constitution; biographies of Jefferson, Franklin, but not their works; John Foster Dulles' War or Peace (looked like it had never been read, but it was there in Italian).

"Question. Why are not the Italian intelligentsia interested in our books on political philosophy?

"Answer. We -judge America on what she does, not on what she says. We know all about that a.nticolonialism theory, but it does not work out that way in the U. N. ( He was referring t:l our backing of France in Indochina and North Africa.)" · On the other hand, there is interest in American economic theory. Here Italians believe we practice what we preach. Almost all the books on the American wa.y now being distributed in universities and asked for concern our economic theory of productivity, etc.

NoTE.-During 1954 the American Library drew 87,198 readers during the 227 days of the year it was open. The American Library closes on all Italian as well as American holidays a.nd during the siesta hours between 1 and 4. This is a mistake; it could draw five times as many readers if it were open on holidays and during the siesta hour. Working Italians, apart from students, cannot possibly visit a library and browse during the hours when it is open: 9:30 to 1 and 4 to 7 excepting on Saturday afternoons when it is closed. All around the world I have found American libraries closed during the time when most people have leisure. This makes no sense to me.

The Communist bookshops and reading rooms, I notice, are always open on workers' holidays, when ordinary people have time to read. · The United States has two libraries in

Italy, in Rome and Milan. The Soviet" Union has its publications available through the Communist Party in every v1llage and hamlet. Mass distribution of Communist literature is successful, because it goes into the towns and hamlets. We concentrate on the biggest cities. We think public opinion molders of Italy are in Rome and Milan. I am not so sure.

FRANCE

From Bill Stoneman, Chicago Daily News Bureau, 23 Rue de la Paix, Paris, France:

1. There are at least six bookshops in Paris which are devoted almost exclusively to the sale of Communist literature and which offer the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin in either Russian or French.

Two volumes of Marx-Engels which cost 24 rubles ($6) in Moscow cost 360 francs ($1) in Paris. Das Kapital, which costs 20 rubles ($5) in Moscow, costs 360 francs ($1) in Paris.

Works of the basic American political philosophies are difficult to buy in France because of the high cost of American books and the current shortage of American foreign exchange available for the purchase of books.

It 1s possible, however, to obtain practically anything one wants at Galignani's on the Rue du Rivoli where English books have been sold since 1800. Prices are excessive from the French point of view. A book costing $5 in New York is priced at 2,250 francs, the equivalent of $6.40.

However, a vast volume of good American llterature is available in English through British publishing houses. They sell English and American classics in paperback pocketsize books at extremely low rates. The Nelson classics sell for 265 to 465 francs (80 cents to $1.40 approximately). The stand!:l,rd average price for a French paperback . book ls about 600 francs ($1.85). -A very high percentage of American _books are published in England and sold at less than half

the price · which ls charged for American books.·

Jefferson, Adams, and Lincoln are regarded here as peculiarly American figures many of. whose .ideas were acquired from British or French political philosophers. There is no natural market in France for their works or books concerning them. The principai British men of letters and formers of political thought are available in pocket classics at low cost.

There are reputed to be 38 French publishing firms, more or less controlled by the French Communist Party.

On the other hand most of the independent publishers in this country would normally turn out a large volume of anticommunist literature because there is a heavy demand for it and, partly too, because of the influence of Catholicism.

2. The Communists churn out a lot of pamphlets and small-sized propaganda books, papers, and periodicals. They can be had in the half dozen openly Communist bookshops. . The United States alone turns out a number of giveaway publications which, on the whole, seem to be very well done and in ~ny case are a lot more attractive than the Russian or Communist stuff. . American publications available here in

France include Information and Documents, a twice-monthly periodical dealing with interesting developments in the United States and Franco-American relations; a series of brochur~s containing particularly significant statements by American leaders issued as part of the Plan of Peace series; and Problems of Communism, a very well-done booklet issued monthly and containing intelligent and telling attacks on the Soviet system by well-known writers of various nationalities . . . The peace and liberty organization which 1.J a militantly vigorous anti-Communist propagan<;Ia organization (financed· by the United States) puts out a giveaway booklet called Defense of Truth also very well done.

3. France is a country of intellectuals and congenital philosophers and there is a greater interest in the study of political philosophy than in most countries.

The Unite.d States is not recognized as having any particular philosophy in the same sense that Russia lives on and by Marxist philosophy but the traditions of AngloSaxon liberalism and democracy are respected and understood. It is only when someone or something appears to challenge the fundamentals of the American system that the United States fails to enjoy the full respect of decent-minded Frenchmen.

4. Koestler's extremely damning books and ,!oseph Scholmer's violently anti-Communist book Vorkuta have been best sellers in France.

6. There is a large, well-organized, and heavily patronized American lending library with 15,000 volumes on the Champs Elysees. (This is presently being transferred to the left bank.) There are smaller libraries 1n Lyons, L111e, Strasbourg, and Marseilles.

GERMANY

From Chicago Daily News co1Tespond .. ent in Bonn, Germany;

The position in Germany is complicated. The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) 1s legal. It publishes several newspapers and maintains its own bookstores in several large cities.

By and large you won't find any of these publications in ordinary bookstores or newspaper kiosks.

There is a. trial before the West German constitutional court to have KPD declared 1llegal (March 31, 1955).

Marx and Engels rank as German philosophers to whom a large number of nonColllfflnlst Social Democrats st111 pay lip service, although the Social Democrats no

1955 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. HOUSE 12163 longer · call . themselves a Marxist Party. Their works can be obtained, but there isn't much demand for them, or so it seems. Postwar editions have been few and limited for the most part to scholarly as opposed to political purposes. One combined catalog, with which I checked, listed only a new edition of the Early Writings of Marx.

The Stars and Stripes Army bookstands often have a good selection of Modern Library Giants, sometimes including Das Kapital in English translation.

Everything published in the Soviet Zone of Germany has a pronounced Soviet slant.

There is no KPD as such; only the Socialistiche Einheits Partei, or Socialist Unity Party, the BED, a forced amalgamation of the Social Democrats and the Communists which is unrecognized in Western Germany although it continues to be legal in West Berlin and presented candidates in the December election.

The principal newspapers of the Soviet Zone can still be obtained by anyone with a reasonable excuse for having them. They are not on sale publicly in the West, but I get them every day, 2 days late, from my regular newspaper dealer.

Pravda and Izvestia are ava_ilable through a similar arrangement.

The Soviet Zone maintains extremely close and strict control over western publications. • • • Simple possession of a Western newsaper has been enough in some cases to produce a charge of warmongering.

From time to time it is proposed that there be a freer exchange of cultural and scientiftc publications between West and East Germany, but not very much has been achieved.

Works of Lenin and Stalin in German translation can be obtained only in the Soviet Zone. They are available in Russian in several large bookstores that specialize in foreign publications. One of these, in Nuremberg, had a sizable display at a meeting of Soviet refugees near Munich last summer. There were not only the Soviet originals but also a number of anti-Soviet publications in German from the Nazi period. They are described as antiquarian.

At the end of the political spectrum there is no limit to what may be published under the guise of memoirs or experiences from the Nazi and wartime periods. • • •

Basic political books .in English are available at United States and British reading rooms which are scattered throughout Western Germany and Berlin and are well patronized.

I am aetonlshed also at the number of translations that can be obtained in bookstores. Bullock's biography of Hitler, Wheeler-Bennett's study of the Wehrmacht, Churchill, Chester Wilmot's Struggle for Europe come immediately to mind.

All of these are of British origin, for which :there are two reasons. Dollar royalties still are difficult to manage for German publishers; comparable books do not seem to have been written about Germany or Europe in the United States of America.

CANADA

Frank Flaherty reports from Canada: Regular bookstores stock Communist clas

sics put out by Modern Library and they sell for about $1.25. Modern Library editions of United States political classics are also stocked. There is no Communist bookstore in Ottawa but there is one in Toronto and perhaps one other in western Canada..

Outside of certain academic circles I don't notice much interest in questions of fundamental political philosophy. Communist principles are rarely discussed, Communist tactics often. There is no feeling that the basic philosophy of the United States lacks expression. There is too little understand-ing of what it ls. ·

FU EAST

Somewhat in contrast with the expe .. tience of Mr. Flaherty stand the observations of our Study Mission to Southeast Asia and the Pacific after visiting the USIA libraries of the Far East: ' The fact that they [the libraries] are heavily used is an indication of their worth. Moreover, they are not only visited by the student and the casual reader but in a number of countries they service government officials, civil servants, and academicians. Most. of the works are in English. In contrast the study mission noted the large number of Communist works printed in local language on sale in local bookstores for small sums because-of heavy subsidy. These books were attractively bound and printed on expensive paper. The study mission recommends increased efforts by our agencies toward the development of a vigorous program of translation, publication, and distribution. The market is there, as evidenced by the eagerness on the part of the population to absorb foreign id~as.

The Christian Science Monitor, May 23, 1955, noted that the Communists have built a new broadcasting station at Pyongyang, North Korea's capital. They announced that personal letters from North Koreans would be read to relatives and friends in South Korea. During the :first quarter of this year 2 million books, many of them editions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, were published or imported into North Korea.

Our own Congressional Library has given me a survey of Communist literature available in the Near and Middle East as well as an idea of its distribution. This survey I will ref er to later in my remarks.

MEXICO

To Miss Joy A. Dickens, assistant .to the cultural attache of the United States Embassy in Mexico, I am indebted for a pamphlet, Lista General de Obras del Fondo de Cultura Popular, A. C. In this pamphlet are listed more than 100 Communist publications, including several pages devoted to the works of Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Engels. Miss Dickens writes:

The books are representative of the publications being distributed by the Communists through commercial channels. Their outlet is a local bookstore called Fonda de CUltura Popular. Most of the books are published in Moscow and generally sell for between 5 pesos (approximately 40 cents) and 12 pesos (96 cents). If these books were published as a commercial venture, they would be very cheap at double the price.

. It might be interesting at this point to mention that about ·12 percent of our books are published in Spanish; the Communist book list was 100 percent in Spanish.

NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The following report on Communist literature in the Near and Middle East is furnished me by Robert F. Ogden, Chief, Near East Section, Library of Congress:

The amount of Communist literature in the languages of the area, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, etc., actually in circulation has varied greatly with the political fortunes of the Communist parties and institutions actlve in the area. When such organizations have been banned, the amount of literature available for purchase and actually in circulation naturally decreased.

· Since World War II; Communist ·Parties hav.e been active in the majority of the countries of the area, with. the exception of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and some of the smaller units. Such parties have been particularly active in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and prepartition Palestine.

The literature used was at first locally printed but the trend is now toward Moscow imprints. The literature is of three general types: (1) Literature directed toward the idea of the peace movement and the propaganda through the orthodox churches; (2) literature dealing with the theory and accomplishments of communism, particularly the Soviet Union; (3) literature directly at~ tacking the United States or the foreign policy of the United States.

This Section has not made a special attempt to collect such literature but some samples that have come to the Library of Congress usually by transfer are listed below. There are no examples in Turkish for the reason that Turkish control of printing and distribution of such literature has been particularly rigid and successful.

ARABIC

1. Translation: Conference of all the churches and religious sects in the soviet Union for aiscussion of matters of the defense of peace.

No date or place of printing or r..uthor except the note "originated in the patriarchate of Moscow." The conference took place in May 1952.

2. Translation: America, the United States of America (in latin type), the country of the yellow satan. ,

3. Translation: The Way (magazine) , Organ of the Israel Communist Party on problems and theory and practice. Published also in Hebrew.

4. Translation: That the Soviet people may go forward under the banner of LeninStalin toward victory.

PERSIAN

5. Translation: The Great Civil War in the United States. (Moscow 1944.)

6. Translation: Orders of the High Comm.and of the Grand Army. (Moscow 1945.)

7. Translation: Teymur and His Group (a boy's novel) •

COMMUNIST PUBLICATIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

. Horace I. Poleman, Chief of South Asia Section of the Library of Congress. furnishes the following report:

Communist pu_blications fall into the three classes:

1. Russian classics (Tolstoy, Gorky, etc.) published in English in de luxe editions and sold for a few cents each.

These appear in aJl bookstores. 2. Pamphlets of 25-100 pages in English

with attractive covers published in Russia and China and in the area of south Asia, interpreting life in Russia and China in most glowing terms. They are sold for a few cents each and appear in book bazaars everywhere.

3. Books and pamphlets in the principal vernacular (Wndi, Urdu, Bengali, PanJabl, Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kanhada) interpreting in simple language the principles of communism and benefits communism would bring to the peoples of these countries. They are mostly by nature authors, published in the area and sold everywhere for a few cents each.

Th~ Peoples Publishing House in Bombay, with branches in other large cities is the principal publisher and distributor of Communist publications in the area. It has bookstores and counters by the hundreds throughout the area. It 1s believed to be subsidized by the Russian Government. It publishes attractive pamphlet and book material in English a!ld the vernaculars.

Since the educated people of the area are highly 11terate in English, Russian ·classics

'12164, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE- July 29

a.ppear there only in that language. , The material in the vernaculars is intended large .. ly for people with little education,

and economic philosophies they are ury Decision 4430, XII-1 C. B. 36~prosending Marx, Engel, Lenin; and Stalin vide as follows:

Photographs of title pages of two books in English are provided, and a photograph of a title page of the constitution of the Communist Party of India in Hindi, all published by the Peoples Publishing House · (Jana-Prakasana Grha). COMMUNIST PUBLICATION~ IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

The following report is by Cecil Hobbs, Reference Librarian for Southeast Asia, Library of Congress:

into every village and hamlet where one person can read. Their books are within easy reach of the purchasing power of every worker.

Our own program is commendable but obviously inadequate. The reports which I have quoted indicate that we are not reaching the grassroots. Bandung has indicated an awakening in Asia and Africa which we must not underestimate. The democratic philosophy which was

1. Thailand : The sale or distribution of the inspiration of our own national be-Communist publications in any manner has been banned by the Thai Government. Prior ginnings cannot fail to fire those whose to this ban the Ta Chung Wen Fa Co., later aspirations are like our own. Unless we known as the Hua Chiao Bookstore, sold act now we shall awake from our comCommunist publications issued by the For- placency to find that our effort has been eign Languages Publishing House in Moscow. too little and too late. The books and pamphlets were printed in Mr. Speaker, I have now completed my English, Thai, or Chinese. · d

2. Burma: communist books and pam- report of progress. I have outline What phlets are sold freely in the bookstores and is intended when we reconvene. The bazaar stalls throughout Rangoon. The sub- program is as simple as simplicity itself. ject presented in the publications deal with It is to win the battle for the hearts and Communist doctrine in general and the story minds of men in foreign climes with the about the development of communism in same classics of democracy that won the China in particular. All Commttnist publi- hearts and minds of the men and women cations which appear in both English and who built these United States. I look Burmese may be purchased for a very few pyas or kyats (e.g., from 5 cents to 35 cents). forward hopefully to the 2d session of

3. Indonesia: Communist publications- the 84th Congress.

Section 39.22 (a)-15: Acquisition or disposition _by _ a corporation of its own capital stock. (a) Whether the acquisition or disposition by a corporation of shares of its own capital stock gives rise to taxable gain or deductible loss depends upon the real nature of the transaction, which is to be ascertained from an · its facts and circumstances. The receipt by a corporation of the subscription price of shares of its capital stock upon their original issuance gives rise to neither taxable gain no:r deductible loss, whether the subscription or issue price be in excess of, or less than, the par or stated value of such stock. · . ·

(b) However, if a corporation deals in its own shares as it might in the shares of another corporation, the resulting gain or loss is to be computed in the same manner as though the corporation were dealing in the shares of another. So also if the corporation receives its own stock as consideration upon the sale of property by it, or in satisfaction of indebtedness to it, the gain or loss resulting is to be computed in the same manner as though the payment had been made in any other property. Any gain derived from such transactions is subject to tax, and any loss sustained is allowable as a deduction where permitted by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

books and pamphlets issued in English, In- ________ The Tax Court has applied these regu-donesian, or Chinese-are easily purchased in lations uniformly, holding that a cor• ~he principal cities. Scores of baza.ar stalls SECTION 1032 OF THE INTERNAL poration was not dealing in its shares carry the Communist publications along REVENUE CODE OF 1954 as it might the shares of another Cor-with non-Communist publications, but in poration where -motivated by a nonprofit larger cities-like Medan, Djakarta, Soera- Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- business purpose requiring the use of its baja, and Bandung-there are a couple of imous consent to address the House for large bookstqres which stocked and sold stock. The Circuit Courts of Appeal, Communist publications almost exclusively. 10 minutes. with equal uniformity, have refused to . Four kin~s of publications were stocked in The SPEAKER. Is there objection to follow the motive test laid down by the

these Communist bookstores: (1) Those the request of the gentleman from Tax Court, holding, instead, that any which present the general Communist doc- Arkansas. disposition of treasury stock gives rise trines; (2) those which pertain specifically to There was no objection. to taxable gain or deductible loss except communism in Ind0nesia; ·(3

) th0se which Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, early this in the case of a capital readjustment tell about communism in China; and (4)

communist comic books of a propaganda na- spring it came to my attention that the actually involving retirement and reisture. These publications are issued in Eng- tax services and commercial publications suance of shares. lish, Indonesian, or Chinese. In most in- were advertising as a loophole a section The rule of the tax court applied the stances the books and pamphlets are not in of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 regulation literally to determine whether expensive binding, usually paperbacks, and about which I had long had misgivings, or not the corporation was trading in its are sold at a very low price. That section is section 1032 which pro- own shares as it might in the shares of

The Communist publications in the Eng- Vides as follows: another for profit. As so applied the lish language carry the imprint of the For- regulation turned on substance rather eign Languages Publishing House in Peking (a) Nonrecognition of Gain or Loss_: No and Moscow. gain or loss shall be recognized to a corpo- than form, and application was premised

4. Malaya, Singapore, Indochina, and ration on the receipt of money or other prop- upon a search inquiring into the facts Philippines: Communist publications are erty 1n exchange for stock (including treas.: and circumstances surrounding · the rarely seen in the bookstores of these coun- ury stock) of such corporation. transaction in treasury stock for purtries. Apparently firm controls are exer- (b) Basis: For basis of property acquired pose of determining whether or not the cised, although I know of no ban on Com- by a corporation in certain exchanges for transaction was motivated by no more munist publications like that in Thailand. its stock, see section 362. than a desire for profit. The rule of the

While the picture I have presented is The terms of this provision operate to circuit courts, on the other hand, turned hot complete it is derived from varied permit corporations who trade in their only ~pon whether or not the corporasources and covers a reasonably wide own stock for a profit to escape taxation tion went through the mechanics of acarea.' It is not reassuring, much less on the gains derived from such activity. tually retiring its treasury stock and isflattering; but it should jolt us out of our The only offsetting liability imposed for suing new stock. Finally, in Burrus . complacency. The world is changing. this generosity is the denial of any losses Mills, Incorporated (22 T. C. 881 (1954)), People who once stolidly accepted the incurred from such activity. the tax court, after remarking upon the status quo today are hungering for the The issuance of stock by a corporation futility of its position, in the face of rephilosophy which we enunciated in the has never been treated for tax purposes peated reversals in circuit courts of apbeclaration of Independence and built as an event giving rise to the recognition peal reversed its position and adopted into our Constitution. It is not enough of taxable gain or deductible loss for the that of the courts of appeal. The resultthat we are a world power. World lead- sound reason that the proceeds of such ing uniformity was shortlived for on the ership is within our grasp. We must transactions produce capital and do not following day the Court of Claims decidreach out and seize the opportunity. ed the case of Anderson, Clayton & Com-

The struggle to win the hearts and give rise to income. However, until the pany v. U. s. (122 F. Supp. 837 (1954)). minds of people all over the world is in enactment of section 1032 of the Internal holding that a sale of treasury stock to progress. With confidence in the teach- Revenue · Code of 1954 treasury stock executives at a profit for the purpose of ings of their own political philosophers had always been dealt with by Treasury keeping control in the active managethe Communists are putting a book into regulations interpreting the general pro- ment group did not result in taxable the hands of anyone who can read, comic visions of the law defining gross income. gain. The Supreme Court of the United books into the hands of children. With These regulations which, with minor States granted certiorari on February 7,

. confidence in the power of ~heir politica~ - changes, date fr?m· May _2, i93~-Treas~_ l955. I am told that t~is and 11 othe~.

1955 CONGRESSlONAt ·-RECORD :..::..·i:lotJSEJ 12165. cases, Involving a total of $830,000, are awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court.

The differences between authorized but unissued stock and treasury stock, while usually unappreciated by those outside the legal profession, are fundamental to an understanding of why treasury stock is so much in demand for corporate business purposes.

A corporation desiring to issue new stock must comply with many laws and regulations which exist for the protection of stockholders which are not applicable in the case of treasury stock. For example, the disposition of treasury stock lies completely within the discretion of the board of directors who may dispose of it without considering the wishes of stockholders or considering stockholders' preemptive rights. In addition, the directors may sell treasury stock for less than its par or stated value. Treasury stock is usually nonassessable and free of many of the State and Federal security regulations applicable to unissued stock and last, but not least, the Federal stamp tax imposed on the transfer of such stock is less than that imposed upon the issuance of stock. To these traditional incentives for a corporation acquiring and dealing in its own stock section 1032 has made another and far ~ore profitable addition. The corporation can now by law deal in its own shares and enjoy its. profits free of taxation.

These, and other considerations, are not taken into account by those who argue that there is no practical difference between a purchase and resale of a corporation's stock and the purchase and retirement of stock followed by the issuance of new shares. The logic of bookkeeping may, indeed, take no cognizance of the differences, but this cannot obscure the practical differences inherent in the very nature of the two types of ~oc~ ·

The differences in tax treatment accorded transactions involving newly issued stock and treasury stock by the statutes and courts led corporations holding both authorized but unissued stock and treasury stock to use the treasury stock only if the price they had paid for it was less than its cost thus producing a tax loss. However if the price paid for the treasury st~ck was less than its current market price, the authorized but unissued stock would be used to accomplish their purpose, thus avoiding the capital gain tax. In this manner, corporate taxpayers were enabled to eat their cake and have it, too. This coupled with the uncertainty produced by the conflict between the Tax Court and the courts of appeal described above, gave rise to section 1032.

t-· When I drew the tax avoidance possibilities ·of section 1032 to the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury, he replied, under date of June 6, 1955, denying the existence of the loophole in the followi7:1g language:

The Treasury staff has revelwed again section 1032 of the Internal Revenue Code which you asked me to look at because it was alleged to be a loophole that would result in large revenue losses. We believe this is not the case and that the new rules· adopted in 1954 are better than the old law.

Under the old law, companies could take a tax loss on sales of treasury stock if they had a loss on it, but if there was a gain involved, instead of selling treasury stock and. having a tax to pay on the gain, they could simply issue new stock which did not result in any taxable gain. Thus the old law really provided a loophole because companies could take losses but avoid taxes on gains. The opportunity to handle transactions to the taxpayer's advantage was noted in the report of the joint Treasury and Congressional Staff Committee in 1953 which studied this point of the tax law. ·

Corporations typically buy and use their own stock only for limited purposes, in connection with mergers, or stock option and bonus plans. These transactions can be and often are handled by newly issued stock and are then clearly capital transactions. The fact that they may buy their own stock and use it instead of new stock does not change the real character of the transactions.

The Securities and Exchange Commission holds that any gain or loss arising from dealings in treasury stock affects the capital account and should not be reported in income or in earned surplus. Thus the old tax rule was directly co:ntrary to what was required for reports to stockholders and the public.

There are relatively few tn·stances where corporations deal in their own stock for profit and loss. If officers arrange for a corporation to buy up its own stock because of inside information, both the corporation and its officers are liable to the same sort of penalties under the Securities and Exchange Act as the officers would be if they tFaded in the stock for their own account.

We shall continue to watch the operation of this and all other provisions of the tax law. If any abuses arise we shall promptly report them to the Congress. .

Although I have a high regard for the Secretary, as a member of the taxwriting Ways and Means Committee, I feel qualified through actual experience to recognize the inaccuracies of the Secretary's opinions with respect to the existence of a loophole and I was under the impression that his statements regarding the operation of the laws administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission were incorrect. To verify my impression I wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 1955, asking if there was any law or regulation impcsing a penalty on a corporation buying and selling its own stock similar to the penalty imposed upon the officers or directors of corporations who indulge in inside dealings. On this paint the Securities and Exchange Commission replied as follows:

There is no law or regulation which imposes upon a corporation that buys and sells its own stock the penalty that is imposed upon officers and directors who trade in such stock, such as provided by section 16 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this connection rule X-16A-4 (b) exempts from the provisions of section 16 (b) securities reacquired by an issuer for its account during the time they are held by the issuer. Clearly, the issuer could not recover trading profits· from itself.

The Securities and Exchange Commis• sion also supplied me with the information that of hundreds of thousands of corporations required to register, only 376 companies subject to the Public· Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 and 354 companies subject to the Invest-

ment Company Act of 1940 are subject ' to restrictions imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the acquisition · and sale of the companies' own stock. The Securities and Exchange Commission has similar authority with respect to securities issued by closed-end investment companies. It appears that the SEC's statement is directly contrary to that of the Secretary of the Treasury. I The rest of the Secretary's statements are similar1y subject to criticism because they are not directed to the subject at hand. For example, it is true that the Securities and Exchange Commission holds that gain or loss arising from dealings in treasury stock affects the capital account of a corporation and should not be treated as income or earned surplus. However, this ruling is premised upon the requirements not of taxation but business reporting. The logic of bookkeeping may require such profits to be excluded from the operating income of a corporation, but the· logic of taxation was, until section 1032, and should now be, equally adamant in requiring such profits to be included in income for the purpose of determining the corporation's income tax. These profits should al.so be included in earnings and profits of the corporation for purposes of determining the amount of dividends to be taxed to tl:_le corporation's shareholders. Surely, the Secretary of the Treasury could not believe that earned surplus for purposes of bookkeeping is equivalent to earnings and profits, or that the considerations governing taxation are always identical to those adopted by accountants in their theoretical analyses. Yet, to read his letter, one would think he does.

The Secretary of the Treasury assures me in his letter that there are relatively few instances where corporations deal in their own stock for a profit. ' However, he does not attempt to prove his point with statistics: and his statement would seem to be contradicted by the fact that 11 cases, involving $830 .. 000, are currently pending before the courts. Untold others involving presection 1032 law are yet to be processed before assessments can be made. If only those companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange are taken into account the amount of Treasury stock held i~ tremendous and the volume of trading in such sha~es is more than substantial.

It is my belief that the enactment of section 1032 has served to increase the volume of trade in treasury stock, and such trade will continue to increase in volume now that such transactions are no longer subject to the capital gains tax. Section 1032 is more than a loophole. It is an open sesame to speculation by a corporation in its own stockan invitation to reap untaxed profits.

The law existing prior to the enact- · ment of section 1032 had its imperf ections and uncertainties. This, I do not deny. But section 1032 is worse as a cure than the disease. Under the old law, corporations were not freed from the reporting requirement with respect · to dealings in treasury stock generally imposed by the tax laws. This prov1ded a source of information as to the number' of corporations dealing in their

12166 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 29·

own · stock and as to the number and value of the shares involved. This requirement, together with the fact that corporations were required to pay taxes on any gain derived from dealing in their own shares, acted as a brake on the number of companies indulging in such activity.

Putting the best face possible upon section 1032, it is a poor substitute for the Treasury regulations which its authors intended it to replace. The provision is not as broad as the regulations. It mentions neither the tax consequences to a corporation on acquisition of its own capital stock nor the consequences to the corporation when such stock is exchange for services rather than money or property. If the objectives of the section had any justification at all, that justification lies only in the fact that a corporation should be entitled to reward the services of its employees through incentive plans involving the corporation's stock.

The tax laws have long been designed to encourage such incentive programs. However, section 1032 fails to include services as one of the considerations for which a corporation can gain its benefits. Yet a loophole is wide . open in it for transactions involving money or property.

I believe that it is possible to deal with the problems proposed by the old Treasury regulations without granting the carte blanche of untaxed profits awarded by section 1032. For that reason, ,I renew my request to the Secretary of the Treasury for a review of section 1032, for a review of the workings of section 1032 in conjunction with subchapter C of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and urge him to make recommendations for bringing that section into line with the sound administrative and fiscal principles which should gov-ern our tax laws. ·

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1956 Mr. CANNON submitted a conference

report and statement on the bill (H. R. 7278) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to

extend remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks, was granted to:

Mr. COOPER in two instances and to -include a report from the Treasury Department with respect to the tax treatment of cooperatives.

Mr. VINSON, and to include an address made by Hon. DEWEY SHORT before the Post-Graduate Medical Society at Houston, Tex.

Mr. MULTER and to include extraneous · matter.

Mr. MULTER, the remarks he expects to make in Committee of the Whole today and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. SIKES and to include other mate-1ial.

Mr. WALTER and to include an article. Mr. FALLON, Mr. REECE of Tennessee (at the re

quest of Mr. BROWN of Ohio) and include certain material.

Mr. RADWAN (at the request of Mr. ARENDS).

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. POWELL (at the request of Mr.

MADDEN) in two instances and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. PATMAN, his remarks made in Committee of the Whole and to include extraneous matter. · Mr. HEBERT <at the request of Mr.

MuLTER) and to include extraneous matter.

Mrs. KELLY of New York (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI) and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. MACK of Washington and to in

clude extraneous matter. Mr. THOMSON of Wyoming, Mr. Donn and to include extraneous

matter. Mr. MCDONOUGH,

SENATE BILLS REFERRED

Bills of the Senate of the following titles were taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, ref erred as follows:

S. 366. An act for the relief of Bart Krijger; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 421. An act for the relief of Jose Alvarez; to the Committee on the Judiciary,

S. 433. An act for the relief of Markos Demetrius Spanos; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

s. 912. An act to amend the Act of April 23, 1930, relating to a uniform retirement date for authorized retirements of Federal personnel, and the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

S. 1105. An act for the relief of Mrs. Lieselotte Emilie Dailey; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1118. An act for the relief of Katherine Lajimodiere (nee Schneeberger); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1125. An act for the relief of Stephen Fodo; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1226. An act for the relief of Soterios Christopoulos; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1299. An act for the relief of Mrs. Esteni Rodriguez Estopinan de Witlicki; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1348. An act for the relief of Anna. Jerman Bonito; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1357. An act for the relief of Ingeburg Edith Stallings (nee Nitzki); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1594. An act for the relief of Dosinda Gonzalez Mendez; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1676. An act for tpe relief of Antonio Domenico Narciso Bianchi; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1682. An act for the relief of Maria Del Carmen Intriago Martinez; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1706. An act for the relief of Spyridon Saintoufls and his wife Efrossini Saintoufis; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1732. An act for the relief of Panagiotls Nicolas Lalos and his wife, Antyro Panagiotis Laios; to the Committee on the Ju-· dietary.

S. 1787. An act for the relief of Edith· Kalwies; to the Committee on the Judici-· ary.

S.1818. An act to limit the amount of land on Federal irrigation projects which may

be exchanged under the act of August 13, 1953; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

S.1882. An act for the relief of Constantine Salmon; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

s. 1888. An act for the relief of Cesare Picco; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1905.· An act for the relief of Winston Bros. Co. and the Utah Construction Co. and the J. A. Terteling & Sons, Inc.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S.1917. An act to authorize the construction within Grand Teton National Park of an alternate route to United States Highway 89, also numbered U. S. 187 and U. S. 26 and the conveyance thereof to the State of Wyoming, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

S. 1933. An act for the relief of Dr. Elpidio Dosado, Aurelia, Deanna, Elpidio, Jr., and Ambrosio Dosado; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1972. An act for the relief of William .Theodore and Emily Sansur Saad; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1973. An act for the relief of Touflc N. Jildeh; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 1983. An act for the relief of Myra Louise Dew; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2036. An act for the relief of Rosa Roppo; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2053. An act for the relief of Ivan Gerasko; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2060. An act to amend the act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1449), as amended, to incorporate in ·the Organic Act of the National Bureau of Standards the authority to use the working capital fund, and to permit certain improvements in fiscal practices; to the· Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

S. 2197. An act to authorize the Secretary · of the Interior to distribute equally to members of the Kaw 'l"'ribe of Indians certain moneys to the credit of the tribe in the United States Treasury; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

S. 2556. An act to provide assistance for certain landless Indians in the State of Montana; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

S. 2569. An act to provide certain basic authority for the Department of State; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

S. 2575. An act for the relief of Mrs. Gertrud Hildegard Nichols; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED Mr. BURLESON, from the Committee

on House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon si'gned by the Speaker:

H: R. 291. An act to extend the retirement income tax credit to members of the Armed Forces;

H. R. 542. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code;

H. R. 727. An act to authorize the conveyance of certain land to the Pecwan Union School District for use as the site of a school;

H. R. 898. An act to provide for the approval of d~eds executed by the heirs ot Anna Hollywood Fickz;

H. R. 910. An act to authorize and direct the sale of certain land in Alaska to John Ekonomos, of the Fairbanks precinct, Alaska;

H. R. 939. An act for the relief of Laura. Saflr;

H. R. 999. An act for the relief ot Nurith Spier;

RR. 1159. An act · for the relief of Anna. Histed ( nee Wiesneth) ;

H. R. 1160. An act for the relief of Vittorio Capano;

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. HOUSE 12167.-H. R. 1408. An act for the relief of Cate

rina Ruello; H. R. 1976. An act for the relief of . Luigl

Tomasella; H. R. 2788. An act for the relief of Miguel ·

Sandoval-Michel (also known as Arturo Rodriguez-Gomez);

H. R. 2851. An act to make cornmeal and wheat flour available to needy persons;

H. R. 3437. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a maximum manufacturers' excise tax on the leases

· of certain automobile utility trailers; H. R. 3587. An act granting the consent of

the Congress to the negotiation of a compact relating to the waters of the Klamath River by the States of Oregon and Californta;

H. R. 3626. An act for the relief of Ilse Werner;

H. R. 3712. An act to extend the period during which claims for floor stocks refunds may · be flied with ·respect to certain manufacturers' excise taxes which were reduced by the Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954;

H. R. 3822. An act to amend title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended;

H. R. 3856. An act for the relief of Leopoldine Simonetti;

H. R. 3956. An act for the relief of Elizabeth Rotics Whitney;

H. R. 3990. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to investigate and report to the Congress on projects for the conservation, development, and utilization of the water resources of Alaska; ,

H. R. 4718. An act to authorize and direct the issuance of patent to Robert W. Retherford, of Anchorage, Alaska, to certain land in Alaska;

H. R. 4970. An act for the relief of Edeltraudt Margot Gallagher, nee Hackelberg;

H. R. 5080. An act for the relief of Florence E. McConnell;

H. R. 5767. An act for the relief of Sally S. Shulman or Zell Sholman;

H. R. 5936. An act to provide wage credits under title n of the Social Security Act for military service before April 1956, and to permit application for lump-sum benefits under such title to be made within 2 years after interment or reinterment in the case of servicemen dying overseas before April 1956;

H. R. 6002. An act for the relief of Helene Rapp;

H. R. 6036. An act for the relief of Mrs. Florentine Kintzel;

H. R. 6886. An act to amend the act of October 19, 1949, entitled "An act to assist States in collecting sales and use taxes on cigarettes";

H. R. 6896. An act for the relief of Luisa Guidi Miller;

H. R. 7148. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Codes so as to provide a personal exemptio~ with respect to certain dependents in the Republic of the Philippines; and

H. R. 7224. An act making appropriations for Mutual Security for the ~cal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes.

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT Mr. BURLESON, from the Committee

on House Administration, reported that that committee did, on July 28, 1955, present to the President, for his approval, bills and a. joint resolution of . the House of the fallowing titles:

H. R. 3338. An act to amend section 1 of the act of March 12, 1914;

H. R. 4808. An act to authorize the transmission through the mails of ·certain keys, 1dentitlcation devices, and small articles, and for other purposes;

H. R. 6454. An act to amend the joint resolution approved August 30, 1954, relating to the establishment of the Woodrow. Wilson

Centennial Celebration Commission, and for other purposes; and

H.J. Res. 157. Joint resolution to establlsh a Commission on Govermnent Security.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab

sence was granted to: Mr. BENNETT of Michigan <at the re

quest of Mr. MEADER), on account of serious illness of his father.

Mr. McGREGOR (at the request of Mr. McCULLOCH) , on account of sickness and death in the ~amily.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accordingly

(at 6 o'clock and 17 minutes p. m.) , under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Saturday, July 30, 1955, at 10:30 o'clock a. m.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.'

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

1048. A letter from the Archivist of the United States, transmitting a report on records proposed for disposal and list· or schedules covering records proposed for disposal by certain Government agencies; to the Committee on House Administration.

1049. A letter from the Postmaster General, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled "A bill to revise, codify, and enact into law, title 39 of the United States Code, entitled 'The Postal Service'"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1050. A letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting a report on the audit of the government of the Virgin Islands of the United States for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1954, pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S. C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act, 1950 (31 U. S. C. 67); to the Committee on Government Operations.

1051. A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a report on the Ventura project, California, pursuant to section 9 (a) of tp.e Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187) (H. Doc. No. 222); to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and ordered to be printed with illustrations.

1052. A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a copy of an order canceling $2,178 of delinquent irrigation operation and maintenance assessments against the land of Ambrose Smartlowat, allotment No. 2701, Wapato Indian 1rrlgatlon project, Yakima County, Wash., pursuant to the act of Congress approved July 1, 1932 ( 47 Stat. 664; 25 U.S. C. 386a); to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

1053. A letter from the Chairman, United States Atomic Energy Commission, trans• mitting the 18th Semiannual Report of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

1054. A letter from the Assistant Chief of Engineers for Civil Works, Department of the Army, relative to a report on the Arkansas, White, and Red River Basins-a report on the conservation and development of the water and land resources, pursuant to Public Law 516, 81st Congress; to the Committee on Public Works.

REPORTS· OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. LANE: Committee of conference: H. R. 4249. A bill for the relief of Orrin J. Bishop (Rept. No. 1569). Ordered to be printed. .

Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judiciary. Report pursuant to House Resolution 22 pertaining to an Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration and Immigration to the United States; without amendment (Rept. No. 1570). Referred to the Commit- , tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. ENGLE: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. House Joint Resolution 194. Joint resolution to designate the General Grant tree (known as the Nation's Christmas Tree) in Kings Canyon National Park, Calif., as a national shrine, and for other purposes; with amendment (Rept. No. 1571). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. ENGLE: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H. R. 6804. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interim:: to dis- · tribute equally to members of the Kaw Tribe of Indians certain moneys to the credit of the tribe in the United States Treasury; with amendment (Rept. No. 1572). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. O'NEILL: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 330. Resolution for consideration of H. R. 7126, a bill to provide grants to as- _ sist States to meet the cost of poliomyelitis vaccination programs, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1574). Referred to the House Calendar.

Mr. ENGLE. Committee on Interim: and Insular Affairs. S . . 1906. An act to authorize the Pueblos of San Lorenzo and Pojoaque in New Mexico to sell certain lands to the Navaho Tribe, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1575). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. BONNER: Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. S. 756. An act to authorize the appropriation of accumulated receipts in the Federal aid to wildlife-restoration fund established by the Pittman-Robertson Act and to authorize the expenditure of funds apportioned to a State under such act for the management of wildlife areas and resources; without amendment (Rept. No. 1576). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. ENGLE: Committee on ·Interior and Insular Affairs. S. 2049. An· act to provide recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Devils Tower National Monument, Wyo., the first national monument, established by the President of the United States pursuant to the Antiquities Act of 1906; to authorize the addition of certain land to the monument, to permit land exchanges, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1577). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. LONG: Joint Committee on Disposl-· tion of Executive Papers. Report pursuant to act approved July 6, 1945 ( 59 Stat. 434; 57 Stat. 380); without amendment (Rept. No. 1578). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. LONG: Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers. Report pursuant to act approved July 6, 1945 (59 Stat. 434; 57 Stat. 380}; without amendment (Rept. No. 1579). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. LONG: Joint Committee on Disposition of 'Executive Papers. Report pursuant to act approved July 6, 1945 ( 59 Stat. 434; 57 Stat. 380); without amendment (Rept. No. 1580). Ordered to be printed.

12168 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. HOUSE Jul.y 29 .

-Mr. BLATNIK: Committee on PubUc -· Works. H. R. 6686. A bill providing for a 1 preliminary examlnation and survey by the I Secretary of the Army for the purpose of controlling water chestnut infestation · 1n the upp~r Chesapeake Bay tributaries; with-

1 out amendment (Rept. No. 1581). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. ENGLE: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. S. 180. An · act to a~thor-1ze the Secretary of the Interior to construct, · operate, and maintain the Washita River Basin reclamation project, Oklahoma; without amendment (Rept. No. 1582). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Unlon.

Mr. ENGLE: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H. R. 5806. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to execute a repayment contract with the Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District, Gila project, Arizona, and for other purposes; with amendment (Rept. No. 1583). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Unlon.

Mr. LANE: Committee of conference. H. R. 5078. A blll for the relief of the estate of Victor Helfenbein (Rept. No. 1584), -Ordered to be printed.

Mr. LANE; Committee ot conference. H. R. 1003. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Lorenza O'Malley (de. Amusategui), Jose Marla de Amusategui O'Malley, and the legal guardian of Ramon de Amusategul O'Malley (Rept. No. 1585), Ordered to be printed.

Mr. CANNON; Committee of conference. H. R. 7278. A b111 making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 1586) . Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BARDEN: Committee on Education and Labor. H. R. 2840. A bill to promote the further development of publlc library service in rural areas; without amendment (Rept. No. 1587). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. PATMAN: Select Committee on Small Business. Report pursuant to House Resolution 114, pertaining to Washington Square Southeast .slum-clearance project; without amendment (Rept. No. 1588). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. ENGLE~ Committee on Inter.ior and Insular Affairs. H. R. 7433. A bill to provide assistance for certain landless Indians in the State of Montana; without amendment (Rept. N-0. 1589). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. DA VIS of Tennessee: Committee on · Public Works. H. R. 6556. A bill authorizing a preliminary examination and survey of McGirts Creek, Fla., for flood control; without amendment (Rept. No. 1590), Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. DA VIS of Tennessee: Committee on Public Works. S. 1899. An act to authorize the improvement of the Amite River and its tributaries; without amendment (Rept. No. 1591). Referred to the Committee of the :wiio1e House on the State of the Union.

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee: Committee on Public Works. H. R. 6256. A bill granting the consent of Congress to the States of Kansas and Oklahoma. to negotiate and enter into a compact relating to their interests in, and the apportionment of, the waters of the Arkansas River and its tributaries as they affect such States; with amendments (Rept. No. 1692). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. · Mr. BLATNIK: Committee on Public Works. H. R. 7596. A bill to provide for the disposal of federally owned property at ob-o golescent canalized waterways and for other

. purposes; without amendment (Rept. No.

1593) • Referred to tlie Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

-"Mr .. SIMPSON of Pennsylvanla.: Committee on Ways. and Means. H. , R, 4582. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to deductions from gross income of amounts contributed to employees trusts; with amendments (Rept. No. 1594). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

· Mr. MASON: Committee on Ways and Means. H. R. 70.36. A bill to amend section 37 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 so as to conform its provisions respecting retirement income tax credit to the corresponding llberalized provisions of the Social Security Amendments of 1964, and to extend its provisions to members of the Armed Forces; with amendment (Rept. No. 1596). Referred to the Committee of the Whole Houi,ie on the State of the Union.

Mr. COOPER: Committee on Ways and Means. H. R. 7094. A bill to amend section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (relating to unlimited deduction for charitable contributions); with amendments (Rept. No. 1596). Referred to the Committee of the .Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. COOPER: Committee on Ways and Means. H. R. 7466. A bill to amend paragraph 367 of the Tariff Act of 1930 which defines substitutes for jewels in imported watch movements; without amendment (Rept. No. 1597). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. COOPER: Committee on Ways and Means. H. R. 5265. A bill to exempt certain aclditlonal foreign travel from the tax on the transportation of persons; with amendments (Rept. No. 1598). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. · Mr. CURTIS of Missouri: Committee on

Ways and Means. H. R. '1247. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of Hl54 with respect to the treatment of gain in certain railroad reorganizations; with amendments (Rept. No. 1599). Referred to the Committee on the Whole House on the State of the Union.

REPORTS PRIVATE TIONS

OF COMMITrEES ON BILLS AND RESOLU-

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. ENGLE: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. S. 1745. An act authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to .issue a patent in fee to Nellie Ohlerking Archambeau Moran; without amendment (Rept. No. 1573). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally ref erred as follows:

By Mr. BLATNIK: H. R. 7717. A bill to promote the welfare

of the American 'Indian citizens of Minnesota e.nd to facmtate the orderly termination of Federal supervision and control over Indians and Indian property in that State, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

By Mr. McMILLAN: H. R. 7718. A bill to authorize the Capital

Transit Co., under certain'conditions, to surrender its franchise, and for other purposes: to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mr. PA'ITERSON: H. R. 7719. A bill to amend section 1321

ot the Internal Revenue Code ot 1954 relating to involuntary liquidation of ~O in- : ventodes; to the Committee on . Ways a.nd Means. -

By Mr. DEMPSEY: H. R. ~720. A bill to a.mend and supple

ment the Federal Aid. Road Act approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented, to authorize appropriations for continuing the construction of highways, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. ABBITT: .H. R. 7721. A bill to repeal the manufac

turers' excise tax on pencils and pens; to the Committee on. Ways and.Means.

By Mr. BROYHILL: H. R. 7722. A blll to authorize the Capital

Transit Co.. under certain conditions, to surrender its franchise, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mr. CARNAHAN: H. R. 7723. A bill to authorize the Secre- .

tary of AgricUlture to convey certain lands in Phelps County, Mo., to the Chamber of Commerce of Rolla, Mo.; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. CELI.ER: H. R. 7724. A bill to provide that the Con

gregation Shearith Israel Cemetery, on St. James Place below Chatham Square in New York City, shall be a national shrine; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. COOPER: H. R. 7725. A bill to provide a lower rate

of tax on certain business income from foreign sources, and to postpone tax on income from foreign branches until withdrawn from the country where earned; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. COON: H. R. 7726. A biU to authorize construc

tion by the Secretary of the Interior of the Crooked River Federal reclamation project, Oregon; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. ·

By Mr. CURTIS of Massachusetts: H. R. 7727. A bill to authorize the exten

sion of patents covering inventions whose practice was prevented or curtailed during certain emergency periods by service of the . patent. owner in the Armed Forces or by production controls; to the Committee on tlle Judiciary.

By Mr. DAWSON of Illinois (by re-quest): ·

H. R. 7728. A bill to provide that the Department of the Navy shall not be required to reimburse the Reconstruction Finance Corporation for the transfer of certain real property at Columbus, Ohio; to the Committee on Government Operations.

By .Mr. EVINS: _ H. R. 7729. A blll to authorize the coinage

of 10-cent pieces in commemoration of the late Cordell Hull; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: H. R. 7730. A bill to establish a Joint

Committee on Foreign Intelligence; to the Committee on Rules.

By Mrs. GRIFFITHS: H. R. 7731. A bill to create a Department of

Urban Affairs and for other purposes; to the Committee on Government Operations.

By Mr. HALEY: H. R. 7732. A bill to amend section 406 of

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Public Law 717, 75th Cong.) as amended; to the Committee on 1:nterstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. HUDDLESTON: H. R. 7738. A bill to amend eection 17 of

the War Cle.lms Act of 1948 so as to increase the classes of persons entitled to receive pay. ment of certain claims · under such section, and for other purposes; to · the Committee on Interstate .and F1oreign Commerce •

1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12169 By Mr. KEARNS:

H. R. 7734. A: bill to amend the act en• titled "An act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in com• merce, to carry out the provisions of inter• national conventions, and for other purposes," approved July 5, 1946; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. O'NEILL: H. R. 7735. A bill to amend section 5051 (a)

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to aid small business and discourage continued concentration in the brewing industry; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. VAN ZANDT (by request): H. R. 7736. A bill to amend the Career

Compensation Act of 1949, as amended, to correct certain deficiencies; to the Committee on Armed Services,

By Mr. YATES: H. R. 7737. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 to provide an exclusion from gross income in the case of damages recovered pursuant to suits under the antitrust laws; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ASPINALL: H.J. Res. 415. Joint resolution to provide

· for the observance and commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the founding and launching of the conservation movement for the preservation of the natural resources of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HOLIFIELD: H.J. Res. 416. Joint resolution to provide

for the observance and commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the founding and launching of the conservation movement for the preservation of the natural resources of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ROOSEVELT: H. J. Res. 417. Joint resolution to provide

for the observance and commemoration of -the 50th anniversary of the founding and launching of th.e conservation movement for the preservation of the natural resources of the United States; to the Committee on the _Judiciary.

By Mr. BLATNIK: H.J. Res. 418. Joint resolution to provide


By Mr. CELI.ER: H.J. Res. 419. Joint resolution to provide

for the observance · and commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the founding and launching of the conservation movement for the preservation of the natural resources of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CLARK: H.J. Res. 420. Joint resolution to provide


By Mr. EDMONDSON: H.J. Res. 421. Joint resolution to provide

for the observance and commemoration of the 50th anniversary of _the founding and launching of the conservation movement for the preservation of the natural resources of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin: H.J. Res. 422. Joint resolution to provide


By Mr. SAYLOR: H.J. Res. 423. Joint resolution to provide


By Mr. SCOTT: H.J. Res. 424. Joint resolution to provide

·for the observance and commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the founding and launching of the conservation movement for the preservation of the natural resources ·of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WIER: H.J. Res. 425. Joint resolution to provide

for the observance and commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the founding and launching of the conservation movement for the preservation of the natural resources

· of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MOSS: H.J. Res. 426. Joint resolution to authorize

the President to proclaim as Civil Service

.Week the week beginning January 17, 1956, in commemoration of the 73d anniversary of the American civil-service system; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

MEMORIALS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memo

rials were presented and ref erred as follows:

By Mrs. CHURCH: Memorial of the State of Illinois, 69th General Assembly, House Resolution . 99, endorsing ~he concept embodied in House Joint Resolution 228, which provides that . each State keep 1 percent of all Federal taxpayments collected therein for the sole puipos_e of usirig such 'funds for school and educational purposes; to the Conµnittee on, Ways and Means.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally ref erred as follows:

By Mr. BURNSIDE: H. R. 7738. A bill for the relief of Scott

Berry; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. DONOVAN:

H. R. 7739. A bill for the relief of Eileen Mary McCarthy; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HIESTAND: H. R. 7740. A bill for the relief of the

United States Flare Corp., C. D. Wailes Corp. & Associates; to the Committee on the Judi• ciary. · ·

By Mrs. KELLY of New York: H. R. 7741. A bill for the relief of Kenneth

Phillips ( also known as Euncie Francesco Martin); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MACDONALD: H. R. 7742. A bill for the relief of Rosaria

Di Maio; to the Committee on the Judiciary, By Mr. MOSS:

H. R. 7743. A bill for the relief of Jose Medina-Galvan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mrs. ST. GEORGE: H. R. 7744. A bill for the relief of Fausto

Palumbo; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. ZELENKO: .

H. R. 7745. A bill for the relief of Joseph (Josip) Torbar; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

Address of Hon. Dewey Short, Member of Congress, Seventh Missouri District, Before the Postgraduate Medical Assembly of South Texas, at the Shamrock Hotel in Houston, Tex., on Tues• day, July 19, 1955

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. CARL VINSON OF GEORGIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRFSENTATIVES

Friday, July 29, 1955 Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, under

leave to extend my remarks in the CON• . GRESSIONAL RECORD, I include therewith an address by the Honorable DEwEY SHORT, ranking minority member of the

CI--765

Committee on Armed Services, before the Postgraduate Medical Assembly of South Texas at the Shamrock Hotel in Houston, Tex. I believe that every Member of the Congress will be as impressed as I was with the reasoning of the dis• tinguished gentleman from Missouri concerning many of the medical problems that confront our Nation and the Armed Forces today.

The address follows: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it is

with some trepidation that I appear before this distinguished gathering today. I have tremendous respect for doctors, not only doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathy, doctors of philosophy, doctors of dentistry, but also for doctors of divinity. But rarely in my life have I appeared before a group who quite recently would probably have very cheerfully cut my throat-and who possess the skill .to do the Job neatly,

_ I am referring, of course, to the recent extension of the doctors' draft law which passed the House and was signed into law on June 30.

In my own small way, I undoubtedly have contributed to the potential displacement o:f some of you for a 2-year period.

It is an unfortunate, discriminatory piece of legislation, this doctors• draft law, but I want to assure you that it is absolutely essential.

Perhaps it is the penalty you share for belonging to a very select organization. As physicians and surgeons you hold an extremely responsible position in our economy. You have studied long and hard; you have met the best competition and only the finest survive.

And because your services are so much in demand, it was necessary for us in the Con-· gress to enact legislation to compel you to serve in the Armed Forces even though you are beyond the regular draft age.

Now I want to discuss this subject with you today because it is important not only to

. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Documents

Transcript of . HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES