Page images
PDF
EPUB

reach if he was to argue the question of whether Pearson was a truthful man? When a man comes in and swears that a statement he made was false and admits he was a liar when he said it, which statement are you to believe? But the point I seek to establish is that in the Government Operations Committee small special subcommittees set up to aid in solving a present minor issue have a useful function to perform. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of the hour.

FIRST INDEPENDENT OFFICES

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1954 Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H. R. 4663) making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, 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 Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. REES of Kansas). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection.

The Clerk read the statement. The conference report and statement are as follows:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 881) The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 4663) making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, 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 amendments numbered 5, 14, 21, 25, 26, 37, 38, 39, 63, 76, 78 and 81.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 15, 18, 20, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 40, 44, 48, 50, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 67 and 77, and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 4: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 4, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$8,500,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 6: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 6, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert "$476,670"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 10: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 10, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$88,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 12: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 12, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amending the first sum named there

in as follows: "$1,018,496"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 13: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 13, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$210,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 16: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 16, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$184,750"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 17: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 17, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$24,300"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 19: That the House

recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 19, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$146,700"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 22: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 22, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$80,430"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 23: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 23, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$157,450"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 24: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$30,750"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 27: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 27, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$93,400"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 29: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 29, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$176,275"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 31: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 31, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$193,550"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 32: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 32, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$3,215,550"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 41: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 41, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$6,950,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 45: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 45, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend

ment insert: "$3,560"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 47: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 47, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "251,650"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 49: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 49, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$310,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 51: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 51, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$5,630"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 52: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 52, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$125,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 54: That the House

recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 54, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$89,500; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 55: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 55, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$8,000,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 56: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 56, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$272,150"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 57: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 57, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$127,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 62: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 62, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$12,500"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 64: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 64, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$13,500"; and the Senate agree Ito the same.

Amendment numbered 66: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 66, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$5,260"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 68: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 68, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$3,250,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 69: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 69, and agree

to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$108,175"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 70: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 70, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$525,625"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 71: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 71, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$27,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 72: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 72, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amending the sum named therein as follows: "$25,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 73: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 73, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$5,450"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 74: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$5,322,800"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 75: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 75, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$157,750"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 79: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 79, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$10,975,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 80: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 80, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert: "$800,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

The committee of conference report in disagreement amendments numbered 9, 33, 42, 43, 46 and 53.

JOHN PHILLIPS,
NORRIS COTTON,

CHARLES R. JONAS,

OTTO KRUEGER,

JOHN TABER,

ALBERT THOMAS,

GEORGE ANDREWS, CLARENCE CANNON, Managers on the Part of the House.

LEVERETT SALTONSTALL,

HOMER FERGUSON,

STYLES BRIDGES,

GUY CORDON,

BURNET R. MAYBANK,

LISTER HILL,

ALLEN J. ELLENDER, 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. 4663) making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and offices,

for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying conference report as to each of such amendments, namely:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Emergency fund for the President Amendment No. 1-National Defense: Appropriates $300,000, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $500,000, as proposed by the House.

INDEPENDENT OFFICES

American Battle Monuments Commission Amendment No. 2-Salaries and expenses: Authorizes the use of $12,000 for expenses of travel, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $8,000, as proposed by the House.

Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5-Construction of memorials and cemeteries: Authorize the use of $41,276 for expenses of travel, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $27,520, as proposed by the House; and appropriate $8,500,000 for such construction, instead of $9,500,000, as proposed by the House, and $4,500,000 plus $4,000,000 in the form of foreign currencies or credits, as proposed by the Senate.

Civil Service Commission Amendments Nos. 6 and 7-Salaries and expenses: Appropriate $17,000,000, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $16,064,323, as proposed by the House; and authorize the use of $476,670 for expenses of travel, instead of $383,335 as proposed by the House and $570,000 as proposed by the Senate.

Federal Communications Commission Amendment No. 8-Land and structures: Authorizes the use of $13,000 for such purpose, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $3,000, as proposed by the House.

Amendment No. 9-Purchase of automobiles: Reported in disagreement.

Amendments Nos. 10, 11, and 12-Salaries and expenses: Authorize the use of $88,000 for expenses of travel, instead of $73,335 as proposed by the House and $90,000 as proposed by the Senate; appropriate $7,400,000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of $7,100,000 as proposed by the House; and restore the provision of the House making specific amounts available for application processing in connection with television licenses and licenses for safety and special services amended to provide that not less than $1,018,496 shall be available for TV application processing.

Federal Power Commission Amendment No. 13-Salaries and expenses: Authorizes the use of $210,000 for expenses of travel, instead of $173,335 as proposed by the House and $240,000 as proposed by the Senate.

Federal Trade Commission Amendments Nos. 14 and 15-Salaries and expenses: Appropriate $4,053,800 as proposed by the Senate, instead of $4,178,800 as proposed by the House; and authorize the use of $163,035 for expenses of travel as proposed by the House, instead of $196,435 as proposed by the Senate. The conference committee was urged to authorize the use of funds appropriated to the Commission for employment of a firm of management consultants to make a survey of the Commission. Under the rules of conference the conferees were unable to comply with this request. However, it is believed the project is desirable, and it is suggested that the Commission call upon the Bureau of the Budget for assistance in this connection, a substantial sum having been recently provided this agency for improvement of management in the executive branch.

General Services Administration Amendment No. 16-Operating expenses: Authorizes the use of $184,750 for expenses of

travel, Public Buildings Service, instead of $161,200 as proposed by the House and $208,300 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18-Emergency operating expenses: Appropriate $20,000,000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of $22,668,250 as proposed by the House; and authorize the use of $24,300 for expenses of travel, instead of $22,865 as proposed by the House and $30,000 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20-Repair, improvement and equipment, outside the District of Columbia: Appropriate $14,000,000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of $18,000,000 as proposed by the House, and authorize the use of $146,700 for expenses of travel, instead of $133,400 as proposed by the House and $160,000 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 21-Remodeling of Congress Street Post Office, Chicago, Ill.: Authorizes the use of $800 for expenses of travel as proposed by the House, instead of $1,200 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendments Nos. 22 and 23-Federal Supply Service: Authorize the use of $80,430 for expenses of travel, operating expenses, instead of $79,865 as proposed by the House and $81,000 as proposed by the Senate; and $157,450 for expenses of travel under the heading "Expenses, general supply fund,” instead of $140,700 as proposed by the House and $174,200 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26-National Archives and Records Service: Appropriate $5,625,000 as proposed by the House, instead of $5,525,000 as proposed by the Senate; provide $200,000 for nitrate film conversion as proposed by the House instead of $100,000 as proposed by the Senate; and authorize the use of $30,750 for expenses of travel, instead of $24,600 as proposed by the House and $36,900 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 28-Administrative operations: Appropriate $4,200,000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of $4,140,750 as proposed by the House; and authorize $93,400 for expenses of travel, instead of $88,600 as proposed by the House and $98,200 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 29-Strategic and critical materials: Authorizes the use of $176,275 for expenses of travel, instead of $143,000 as proposed by the House and $209,550 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 30-Purchase of typewriters: Strikes out the proposal of the House to include State governments as an exception within the provisions of the limitation.

HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY

Office of the Administrator Amendments Nos. 31 and 32-Salaries and expenses: Appropriate $3,215,550, instead of $2,587,100 as proposed by the House and $3,455,000 as proposed by the Senate, the reduction below the Senate proposal consisting of $103,450 for agencywide program coordination and supervision and $136,000 for programing of defense housing and community facilities; and authorize the use of $193,550 for expenses of travel, instead of $175,800 as proposed by the House and $211,300 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 33: Reported in disagree

[blocks in formation]

Amendments Nos. 38, 39, and 40-Capital grants for slum clearance and urban redevelopment: Restore the provision of the House bill requiring the administrator to give consideration to the efforts of the locality to enforce local codes and regulations; restore the provision of the House requiring that the authority under title I of the National Housing Act shall be used to the utmost in connection with slum rehabilitation needs; and strike out the proposal of the House excluding expenditures by the community for parks, playgrounds, public buildings, or similar facilities as being counted as a part of the one-third contribution required of such community.

ex

Public Housing Administration Amendment No. 41-Administrative penses: Appropriates $6,950,000, instead of $4,948,000 as proposed by the House and $8,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 42-Rejection of project by community: Reported in disagreement.

Amendment No. 43-Authorization of additional dwelling units: Reported in disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will recommend the commencement of construction of not more than twenty thousand dwelling units during the fiscal year 1954, such units being provided initially to meet requirements under contracts executed prior to July 5, 1952, in which there is no escape clause, the remaining units being applied to other projects which have contracts for dwelling units but in which the escape clause is included. The conferees further recommend that in addition to the study of the low-rent housing program specifically required in the amendment to be offered, that such survey include all housing programs under the jurisdiction of the Agency.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION

Amendments Nos. 44 and 45-Salaries and expenses: Appropriate $117,020, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $111,020, as proposed by the House; and authorize the use of $3,560 for expenses of travel, instead of $2,845 as proposed by the House and $4,270 as proposed by the Senate. The increase in funds provided this agency is allowed with a view to expediting the work of the commission and bringing its duties to a conclusion at an early date.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Amendment No. 46-Purchase of automobiles: Reported in disagreement.

Amendments Nos. 47 and 48-General ex

penses: Appropriate $9,665,000, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $9,466,176, as proposed by the House, including funds to implement the report of the Wolf Management Engineering Company submitted last December. In lieu of the proposal of the Senate, the conferees have agreed to the proposal of the House requiring that the sum of $1,793,157 requested for work relating to safety and field in the Bureau of Motor Carriers be distributed to other work of the Commission which is regarded as of greater importance than such safety and field work. The conferees have authorized the use of $251,650 for expenses of travel, instead of $212,645 as proposed by the House and $290,650 as proposed by the Senate.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR

AERONAUTICS

Amendments Nos. 49 and 50—Salaries and expenses: Appropriate $51,000,000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of $52,988,050 as proposed by the House; and authorize the use of $310,000 for expenses of travel, instead of $216,700 as proposed by the House and $325,000 as proposed by the Senate.

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION Amendments Nos. 51 and 52-Salaries and expenses: Appropriate $125,000, instead of $97,915 as proposed by the House and $155,000 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 53-Land acquisition: Reported in disagreement.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Amendments Nos. 54 and 55-Salaries and expenses: Appropriate $8,000,000, instead of $5,724,400 as proposed by the House and $10,000,000 as proposed by the Senate; and authorize the use of $89,500 for expenses of travel, instead of $78,000 as proposed by the House and $101,000 as proposed by the Senate.

RENEGOTIATION BOARD

Amendment No. 56-Expenses of travel: Authorizes the use of $272,150 for expenses of travel, instead of $238,700 as proposed by the House and $305,600 as proposed by the Senate.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Amendments Nos. 57 and 58-Salaries and expenses: Appropriate $5,000,000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of $5,245,080 as proposed by the House; and authorize the use of $127,000 for expenses of travel, instead of $104,170 as proposed by the House and $150,000 as proposed by the Senate.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Amendments Nos. 59 and 60-Salaries and expenses: Appropriate $3,000,000 as proposed by the Senate, instead of $2,897,500, as proposed by the House; and authorize the use of $10,225 for expenses of travel, as proposed by the Senate instead of $6,825 as proposed by the House.

Amendment No. 61-Salaries and expenses, National Gallery of Art: Authorizes the use of $1,800 for expenses of travel, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $1,600 as proposed by the House.

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD Amendments Nos. 62 and 63-Salaries and expenses: Authorize the use of $12,500 for expenses of travel, instead of $10,000 as proposed by the House and $15,000 as proposed by the Senate; and the use of $100 for purchase of newspapers and periodicals, as proposed by the House, instead of $500, as proposed by the Senate.

TARIFF COMMISSION

Amendment No. 64-Salaries and expenses: Authorizes the use of $13,500 for expenses of travel, instead of $11,335, as proposed by the House and $14,500 as proposed by the Senate.

THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Amendment No. 65-Salaries and expenses: Authorizes the use of $45,000 for expenses of $40,000 as proposed by the House. travel as proposed by the Senate, instead of

WAR CLAIMS COMMISSION Amendments Nos. 66 and 67-Administrative expenses: Appropriate $850,000, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $750,000, as proposed by the House; and authorize the use of $6,260 for expenses of travel, instead of $5,000 as proposed by the House and $7,520 as proposed by the Senate. In providing the increased amount proposed by the Senate the conferees recommend that the additional sum be used to assist in the early completion of the work of the Commission.

TITLE II-CORPORATIONS HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY Amendments Nos. 68 and 69-Federal National Mortgage Association: Authorize the use of $3,250,000 of available funds for administrative expenses, instead of $2,300,000 as proposed by the House and $4,200,000 as proposed by the Senate; and authorize the use of $108,175 for expenses of travel, instead of $95,750 as proposed by the House and $120,600 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendments Nos. 70 and 71-Housing loan programs: Authorize the use of $525,625 from available funds for administrative expenses, instead of $411,250 as proposed by the House and $640,000 as proposed by the Senate; and authorize the use of $27,000 for expenses of

travel, instead of $26,330 as proposed by the House and $27,600 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 72-Home Loan Bank Board: Authorizes the use of $25,000 for expenses of travel, instead of $20,000 as proposed by the House and the elimination of such limitation as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 73-Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation: Authorizes the use of $5,450 for expenses of travel, instead of $4,370 as proposed by the House and $6,500 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendments Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78— Federal Housing Administration: Authorize the use of $5,322,800 for administrative expenses, instead of $5,045,590 as proposed by the House and $5,600,000 as proposed by the Senate; authorize the use of $157,750 for expenses of travel, instead of $131,000 as proposed by the House and $184,500 as proposed by the Senate; authorize the use of $500 for the purchase of periodicals and newspapers as proposed by the House instead of $1,500 as proposed by the Senate; provide $26,500,000 for nonadministrative expenses, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $27,500,000 as proposed by the House; and restore the provision of the House repealing the authorization for the position of Assistant Commissioner established pursuant to section 213 (f) of the National Housing Act, as amended. Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81-Public Housing Administration: Authorize the use of $10,975,000 of available funds for administrative expenses, instead of $8,973,000 as proposed by the House and $13,025,000 as proposed by the Senate; authorize the use of $800,000 for expenses of travel, instead of $685,300 as proposed by the House and $916,000 as proposed by the Senate; and restore the proposal of the House requiring the Commissioner to make every effort to refund local bonds held by PHA.

JOHN PHILLIPS,
NORRIS COTTON,
CHARLES R. JONAS,

OTTO KRUEGER,

JOHN TABER,

ALBERT THOMAS,

GEORGE ANDREWS,
CLARENCE CANNON,

Managers on the Part of the House.

Mr. PHILLIPS (interrupting reading of the statement). Mr. Speaker, most of the changes in the conference report are minor. There are 1 or 2 items in it which are liable to have either questions asked about them or are controversial. I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the statement be dispensed with.

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

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, may I ask the gentleman from California if he will yield liberal time?

Mr. PHILLIPS. We are entitled to an hour, and it is my intention to use as little of that myself as possible and to allow as much as possible to others who want to speak.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in order as I said to conserve time, which is limited on any conference report, and to make it possible for me to yield as much time to others who want to speak or who want to make statements, I will not refer to any item in the bill except amendments Nos.

47 and 48 and the amendment which has to do with public housing. The first have to do with the Interstate Commerce Commission, the other with public housing. I know that if there are questions upon any of the other 20-some agencies in the bill they can be raised by way of questions from other Members of the House.

May I refer first to the letters and telegrams which many Members have been receiving, regarding the appropriation for the Interstate Commerce Commission. This would be amusing if it were not that it has raised concern in the minds of Members of Congress which I shall now endeavor to clarify.

The House supported us, I may say, on this point in the last two sessions, and I feel confident the House will again support the committee when the Members learn in simple language that there is nothing in the bill to which any of the letters or telegrams refer; that the statement which has caused what I think is unnecessary trouble and furor, is a recommendation, and a firm recommendation, let me say, in the conference report. It is up to the agency whether or not it follows out the recommendations in the conference report. For one, I hope the Commissioners will. If they do not follow it, at least in major part, they will have an explanation to make to the Congress, through the Committee on Appropriations, next year.

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

Mr. PHILLIPS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. WICKERSHAM. The gentleman is referring to the letters that many of us have received from various trucking associations expressing great concern over the committee's conference report. Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct. Mr. WICKERSHAM. I, too, share their fear that there might be serious damage to our safety regulations, unless your majority report is amended in line with the recommendations of the trucking associations.

Mr. PHILLIPS. This same thing happened a year ago, as you may remember. In the original report of the committee, which came to the floor on April 17, I quote in part; I do not omit anything of importance, but I quote only certain sentences of the recommendations of the subcommittee:

The committee * has approved an increase of $159,326, as proposed in the budget, for use in the section of complaints of the Bureau of Motor Carriers.

Now that is where the Commission is very far behind, and we increased that amount of money.

We then said further on:

The committee has specifically denied all requests for funds for work relating to safety and field in the Bureau of Motor Carriers amounting to $1,793,157 and requires that this sum be distributed to other work of the Commission which the committee regards as of greater importance than the use to which such funds are presently being applied.

Then, as we have repeatedly said on the floor, for the first time in black and white in the report, we say:

Until a complete reorganization of the Commission has been effected, and until effi

ciency has been substituted for inefficiency, the committee can see no value in providing additional funds for this agency.

That went to the Senate. The Senate, not understanding quite what the House was driving at, raised a question regarding this provision that we had written into the report. The Senate then added $200,000 to the work of the Commission and recommended that the Commission adopt the Wolf report, which is an efficiency report, which the Commission should put into effect. We approved the additional money. That is the only change in the bill regarding the Interstate Commerce Commission. We still let the recommendation stand in the conference report, with the approval of both the House and the Senate conferees.

Now, why do we do that? For 4 years or more we have had this up before us. Every year we have found that this is a duplicating service, duplicating in large. duplicating service, duplicating in large part work performed by the motor patrols of the various States. The statement in one of the opposing letters, that instantly traffic accidents would increase, is cut out of the whole cloth. crease, is cut out of the whole cloth. There are 336 employees and the expendThere are 336 employees and the expenditure is $1,700,000 for something that duplicates work largely done by the States.

The feeling of the committee was that, if the Interstate Commerce Commission if the Interstate Commerce Commission went into this field, it should go in as sort of a clearing house to coordinate and unite the work of the various States which is now being adequately carried out, better than by the ICC. That appears in our recommendations; that appears in our hearings.

You heard the other day, Mr. Speaker, that the public debt has reached the figure of $272,000,000,000. If there is any place where we should begin to make economies, it is in those areas where there is duplication of the work done by other agencies or by the States.

That is all I intend to say about it, except to repeat that there is nothing in the bill about it. It is only a recommendation on our part which I hope the ICC will recognize as a firm recommendation, but which the ICC under the law could disregard, because our primary recommendation is that this $1,700,000,

which last year we took out altogether, is to be applied to those functions of the ICC's activities which the commissioners think are the most urgent.

I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House will overlook the letters and telegrams, most of them sent by people who had no idea what the discussion was about, and will again, for the third time, support the House in an effort to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of one agency of the Government.

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

Mr. PHILLIPS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COOLEY. I think the gentleman has pretty well cleared up the point I had in mind but I do want to ask the question specifically: The funds these telegrams have reference to are still in the bill, as I understand it?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes; the gentleman is correct.

Mr. COOLEY. In the conference report the conferees make certain recom

mendations which, of course, will not be binding but will be only advisory to the Commission?

Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct. Mr. COOLEY. It is up to the Commission to determine whether or not the services are actually duplicating?

Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct, but I want to make it clear it is a very firm recommendation in the report. I think the Commissioners would have to come to us and explain next year how they spent the money.

Mr. COOLEY. I think that clears up the situation I have in mind.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Now I come to housing, which I think is the only controversial point in the conference report. As you know, the House struck out all housing starts for fiscal year 1954. The Senate put back 35,000 housing starts for 1954. The conferees decided that we would recommend the allowance of 20,000 units to be built in fiscal 1954, but would say in clear language what we had tried to say before, that no more contracts are to be let for housing units because we have already obligated ourselves to more units in past contracts, legal or moral, than could be built in any year.

The situation regarding housing units is this: The Government is firmly committed, in the opinion of the subcommittee and the conferees, to contract for 8,189 units. Those are legal and binding contracts and we have no desire to attempt to stop them.

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

Mr. PHILLIPS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. COLMER. I understood the gentleman from California to say in substance that this would liquidate the public housing program.

Mr. PHILLIPS. That is the intent of the conference committee, but let me make this clear to the gentleman, because this is very important: Some Members of the House have raised the question that we obligated ourselves to 35,000 for this year and 35,000 for next year, and so on, forgetting two things, that that was not the intent of the Congress,

first, and second, that one Congress cannot bind another Congress. This conference committee intends to make clear that no more contracts may be written for public housing without further action some time in the future by another Congress.

Mr. COLMER. I do not find that in the conference report. I cannot read that into it. This is on page 10, amendment 43.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I will read the motion I shall make at the proper moment:

Provided further, that notwithstanding the provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, the Public Housing Administration shall not, with respect to projects initiated after March 1, 1949, (1) authorize during the fiscal year 1954 the commencement of construction of in excess of 20,000 dwelling units or (2) after the date of approval of this act, enter into any new agreements, contracts, or other arrangements, preliminary or otherwise, which will ultimately bind the Public Housing Administration during fiscal year 1954 or for any future years with respect to loans or annual

contributions for any additional dwelling units or projects unless hereafter authorized by the Congress to do so, and during the fiscal year 1954 the Housing and Home Finance Administrator shall make a complete analysis and study of the low-rent public housing program and, on or before February 1, 1954, shall transmit to the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate his recommendations with respect to such lowrent public housing program.

Mr. COLMER. What is the gentleman reading from?

Mr. PHILLIPS. I am reading from the motion which I will make when the time comes.

Mr. COLMER. The gentleman will make that motion?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes.

The conference committee discussed that, but we did not have the jurisdiction, it was decided, to put it into a bill. It would be questionable to put in an item referring to one specific city. The conferees believe that the answer to the gentleman's question is a decisive no.

Mr. RILEY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES].

Mr. COLMER. I thank the gentle- ference report and I refused to sign it, man.

Mr. PHILLIPS. In addition to the 8,189, there are 834 prior units which make a total of 9,023 units. In addition to that, there are 33,003 units contracted for which are subject to audit. These have had the contract reopened and have had what we call an escape clause or provision written in which says that they have no legal right, but that they are standing in line, and if and when the Congress at some future date allows more houses, they have a priority.

We are allowing for one-third of those to be built in the coming year, or more units if others drop out. The Congress

will have the recommendations of the

Housing Administrator before we come up next year, on what to do with the

22,000.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there are 20,579 units, for which contracts were signed, that definitely have written in at the start that those were not binding contracts, but only made if Congress voted the money and established an additional number of houses to be built. In other words, there were 53,582 units under some sort of contract, in addition to the 9,000, which are against the expressed intent of the Congress. Some of these might have to go to court to decide what the obligatiton of the United States should be. Legal opinion holds that the decision would support the stand of the Congress. The committee does not admit a single item or a single

iota of legal obligation on the 20,579. It is willing to have the others audited and the legal and moral obligations discussed and brought up next year. I believe that these 20,000 houses for this year should end this public housing program, and that in the future we should depend upon private industry with the help of the FHA and similar supporting programs to carry on local construction. Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PHILLIPS. I yield.

Mr. RILEY. Under public law 94 of the 83d Congress, provision is made for any town, which has been forced to relocate for the benefit of an atomic energy installation, to have the same rights to be considered for Government assistance for community facilities, schools, and housing as any other town adjacent to such an area. Is there anything in this report which would in any way restrict this provision?

Mr. PHILLIPS. No; there is nothing in the report which would restrict it.

Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from California [Mr. that the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS] made the issue clear when he PHILLIPS] made the issue clear when he stated that the report of the conferees proposes to do one thing, very clearly, and that is to liquidate the public-housing program. I voted against this conference report and I refused to sign it, because that was the way I understood the action of the conferees. I refused to sign the conference report for many reasons, but I think that the principal reason for my refusing to sign it was because I considered it to be one of the rankest types of discriminatory legislation that I have ever seen. It hits hardest against the little fellow, the lowincome family, which cannot afford to buy their homes under present conditions.

Under this law the low-income family get practically no help at all from its Government. But, on the other hand, those who can afford to buy houses get all the subsidies and all the assistance which the Public Housing Act of 1949 provided. The subsidies of the Federal

Housing Agency are continued and Fannie May is given a big, substantial increase. The contractors are protected. The mortgage bankers are taken care of. But the door is slammed in the face of the lowest income families who need decent housing the most.

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

Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. In other words, the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS] used very properly the word "liquidated." Is not that correct?

Mr. YATES. That is correct. Mr. McCORMACK. They are going They are going to liquidate, which means that they are killing, without even a fair hearing. Mr. YATES. That is correct.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. YATES. No; on the contrary, the Housing Act of 1949 established a perfectly proper program for the construction of 810,000 units of public housing at the rate of 135,000 per year. The Congress last year stated that until changed by a future Congress there should be constructed 35,000 units per year. That is the status of the program now in the absence of its being changed by this conference report.

That is why I propose that there shall be a rollcall on the conference report when the time comes, and I shall at that time suggest that the conference report recommendation be voted down and that the House accept an amendment which I shall offer, which will continue the housing legislation and the public-housing program on a minimum basis.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PHILLIPS. The gentleman suggests the theory that once something is voted in the Congress it may never be changed. Mr. Truman himself was the first one to reduce the number of houses, and the House last year voted a lower number of houses. This year, by a 2-to-1 vote, it voted for no houses. I do not think the gentleman can say properly that those were not actions in line with the proper authority of the Congress, to put in whatever they Congress, to put choose; and that is the situation today. Illinois last year and this year, and at all times, has advanced the contention that housing legislation is the province of the Committee on Banking and Currency of the House and not of the Committee on Appropriations. Therefore, I say that if this program is to be changed the Committee on Appropriations should

Mr. YATES. The gentleman from

not be the instrument for changing it,

and that it should go back to the Com

mittee on Banking and Currency for that purpose.

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

Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman said he was going to offer an amendment. Would the gentleman be good enough to

tell us how many housing units he intends to propose in his amendment?

Mr. YATES. I propose to offer an amendment to provide for the construc

Mr. YATES. Surely, I yield to the tion of 20,000 units of public housing gentleman from California.

Mr. PHILLIPS. The word "liquidate" was used by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. COLMER] and in the colloquy I did not catch that he used the word "liquidate." I would not have agreed to the use of the word "liquidate." It is a holding of the program in status quo.

Mr. McCORMACK. it is a killing of it.

with language such as was adopted by the House last year which would permit continuation of this program on a minimum basis in accordance with the recommendations of former Congressman Cole and presumably with the recommendations of the President of the United States.

[blocks in formation]

In other words, gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES.
Mr. SCOTT. That is why I asked the
gentleman to yield, because if he keeps
his amendment within that format I
personally would be glad to support it.

Mr. YATES. That is correct. The gentleman certainly made that point clear when he had the floor, that it is proposed by this conference report that the public-housing program be killed, unless a future Congress authorizes it to be reestablished.

Mr. YATES. I refused to sign the conference report, Mr. Speaker, because to my mind it does violence to what I Mr. PHILLIPS. Is not that true of conceive to be the intention of the House anything we do?

when the bill was last before the House.

« PreviousContinue »