When this bill was passed the publichousing program had been killed by the action of this House, but at least we permitted it to have a decent burial. The gentleman from California and the conferees have not only jumped all over the remains of the program but have even wiped their feet on it. When it left the House there were some 62,000 units under a firm contract between the Federal Government and the local housing authorities. All of these were to be built.

On April 22, in response to a question asked by the gentleman from New York [Mr. JAVITS] concerning the obligation of the Government to construct the approximately 62,000 units which are under loan and contributions contracts, the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS] stated as follows, and I quote: This committee intends that thoseReferring to the contributions contracts

that those shall be carried out. There might be a certain group of these contracts that the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Illinois would not want carried out either. I know the gentleman is not talking about that kind of contract at this time. Therefore, I say that this committee of Congress would say that these contracts should be carried out.

The same position was taken by the gentleman in response to questions which I asked and which were asked by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SEELY-BROWN] the previous day. And So I say there was no doubt but that all units which were the subject of bona fide annual loan and contributions contracts were to be built. This was the intent of the House when the bill went over to the other body. But what did the conferees do? They said that only 20,000 of the 60,000 units under contract should be built. The other 40,000 units are condemned to an indefinite status. Apparently they are to be stretched out under the contention that there will be better housing for less money. There are 147 communities in 33 States which have such contracts. Which communities will be the ones selected for completion of their contracts, and which will have to wait?

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

Mr. YATES. I yield.

Mr. PHILLIPS. There is no question about it. At the time I was asked that question, and made that statement on the floor, the figure had been given us by the Housing Administration.

Mr. YATES. That is correct.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I presume the Housing Authority has gone over it as carefully as they could and now they come up with the reduced figure. I stand on the principle. The number follows the principle that we are absolutely obligated to build only a certain number. There is a question about an additional number somewhere between 33,000 and the number we are under no circumstances obligated for. We agree to include 11,000 of the 33,000. Now the question arises only as to how many of the other 22,000-and Los Angeles has given back with great pleasure 5,700.

Mr. YATES. Illinois will be glad to accept that, I will say to the gentleman.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Why not try to get some of these for Chicago and not try to force these houses on cities that do not want them?

That is what I said:

Mr. YATES. Let me say to the gentleman that at least we are in agreement on principle. There are firm and binding loan and contribution contracts with municipal corporations, under the terms of which the units covered by those contracts shall be constructed.

I talked with Mr. Fitzpatrick who is General Counsel for the Public Housing Administration. There is no escape

clause in those contracts. The Federal Government is liable to construct the units that are covered by them. What did he say? Those contracts were amended and language was put into the contracts last year limiting the amount to be constructed to 35,000 units in accordance with the law we passed-those contracts were amended to provide that the Federal Government should be under no obligation to construct more units than 35,000 during any fiscal year. But the obligation remains and is firm that the Government must construct at least 35,000 units during the fiscal year.

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

Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. COTTON. The amendment that the gentleman intends to offer provides for 20,000 units?

Mr. YATES. That is correct.

Mr. COTTON. It provides for 20,000 units to be built out of the backlog and then permits the agency to authorize or contract for 20,000 new ones; so it actually is 40,000?

Mr. YATES. The gentleman has stated his conclusion. My amendment does propose to construct 20,000 units during the next fiscal year and the insertion into the pipeline of an authorization for the construction in the future of an additional 20,000 units. I do that for this reason: In order that the program may be kept on an even basis so that the intention of the gentleman and the conferees that the program be maintained in status quo pending a further study may be carried out.

Mr. COTTON. But the House should clearly understand that the gentleman's amendment, instead of being for 20,000

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, will the units, is actually for 40,000 units? gentleman yield?

Mr. YATES. I yield.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I would like to ask the gentleman what the final sentence of the attorney's statement was? Does the gentleman care to tell us what it was?

Mr. YATES. I did not know the gentleman was listening to my conversation. How does he know what was said between Mr. Fitzpatrick and myself?

Mr. PHILLIPS. I was not, but Mr. Fitzpatrick, at my request, gave me a résumé of this opinion. He said that the question arose only on a technicality and that these escape clauses were statements that these cities are to stand in line and if and when we get to them, they will get their units. I want this to be clear to the House. Someone of these cases may go to court and the attorney states he has no fear but what the Federal position would be upheld and we would not have to build them.

Mr. YATES. That is not what Mr. Fitzpatrick told me. He told me that the Federal Government is bound under the terms of the loan and contributions contracts to construct up to 35,000 units. There is no obligation to construct more than 35,000 units because of the clause which went into all contributions contracts, other than those for 8,000 units.

It seems to me that the gentleman has confused the issue by speaking of an escape clause where in fact none exists. No one on the committee nor among the conferees was ever shown a copy of the so-called escape clause and certainly before the House accepts the gentleman's interpretation of the legal status of the Government, we should have more direct and pertinent facts upon which to base our action. The gentleman's assertion that the Government has no liability under some 52,000 of these contracts is only his opinion.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. YATES. The gentleman is a master of ambiguities. I say to the gentleman I propose that the program as it presently exists be carried out. I propose that the program not be liquidated completely as the conferees propose that it

should be.

Mr. Speaker, I refused to sign the report because I favored the slum-clearance programs, and I believe that the conferees in taking the action that they did in limiting public housing to 20,000 units, placed an almost insurmountable obstacle in the path of the slum-clearance project. The action of the conferees in this respect is completely incongruous, because, while more than adequate funds are provided for the development of the slum-clearance programs, nothing is provided for the relocation of those who lived in the slums. Apparently the conferees have forgotten that one of the cardinal provisions of the slum-clearance legislation requires the relocation to decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings of those who are to be dispossessed before the slum-clearance program can go forward. And this is only elemental fairness that those who are to be ousted from their homes should be given the opportunity to live in decent surroundings, too.

On this point, let me read to you the telegram I have received from Mr. Ferd Kramer, the head of the large real estate firm of Draper & Kramer in Chicago, who is in charge of the private enterprise project which is replacing one of the slums in the city of Chicago. This is what Mr. Kramer says:

As president of a nonpartisan citizens' organization whose board of governors includes industrialists, merchants, realtors, mortgage bankers, economists, attorneys, and leaders in many other fields, we hope that you will use your influence to see that there are funds made available for a continuance of the public-housing program. As we sponsored and are vitally interested in private enterprise's participation in the slum-clearance and redevelopment program in Chicago, it is particularly vital that we have some

public housing for relocation purposes. Relocation is really the key to slum clearance these days.

My Republican colleagues from Chicago know that the Chicago Daily News has never been a stanch advocate of public housing and yet here is what the Chicago Daily News stated in an editorial on June 22, 1953:

WHAT YOU CAN DO

What can we do?

This is a question asked of the Daily News by many people who have been shocked by conditions this newspaper has revealed in Chicago's slums.

There are many things to do. We call attention here to just one of them. We give it priority today because the time for action is urgent.

This is our recommendation:

Do everything you can to persuade the Illinois House of Representatives not to pass the Larson bill, which aims to stop all public housing in Chicago.

The mechanism proposed for this purpose is a neighborhood referendum on every public housing project.

This newspaper has never seen a cure-all in public housing. We appreciate its limitations, and we understand the objections to it in principle and in practice. But under present conditions there is a minimum role for public housing that is indispensable.

The objections all fail to recognize the fact that Government affects the housing supply in two ways. The Government is a great destroyer of shelter, as well as, sometimes, a builder.

The State, county and city governments have destroyed the dwellings of thousands of families on the route of the Congress Street expressway alone. It will destroy thousands of other dwelling units along the route on the Northwest Highway.

In a smaller degree, other public improvements have the same result. In buying land for some privately financed housing developments like Lake Meadows a public bodythe land clearance commission-dispossessed more people than will be housed in the same area.

None of these great improvements would be possible if they were submitted to a neighborhood referendum of the people who will be inconvenienced. But they go on, and will continue to go on.

Opponents of all public housing speak as if the Government role in relation to hous

ing is and ought to be entirely neutral. As a destroyer of housing, the Government will never be idle or passive. The more we insist on public improvements, the more habitations will be destroyed.

We can see no objection, theoretical or practical, to the replacement by public authority of at least as much as the public, through its agencies, tears down.

My colleagues from the South may be interested in an article that appeared in

the Christian Science Monitor for Fri

day, June 5, which has the following opening paragraphs:

Interracial tensions growing from a lack of adequate housing for Negroes in the South are put in stark relief by recent demands that Congress continue public housing construction.

Some 74 Negro leaders from 12 southern States have urgently requested Congress to continue the low-rent public housing program, which is of double value to southern Negroes: A source of revenue for workers and of adequate housing facilities.

I say to you that this is not a problem exclusively of the South, for we in the North are faced with the same housing tensions. That's why I believe it is so necessary that the housing program be

continued on a minimum basis, if you will, not on a liquidation basis, that there be a reasonable balance in the subsidies that are accorded in this bill, that it should not be limited only to a rehabilitation of property but that it must contain the opportunity for rehabilitation of people, too.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this conference report should not be accepted. I urge that this amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS] to recede and concur with the Senate amendment, be voted down. When it is voted down, I shall offer an amendment which will provide for the continuation of the housing program on a minimum level, pending the reexamination of the program which the President wants and which the Congress wants.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has again expired. Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THOMAS].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I should like to attempt to clarify, if I may, the intention and what the thinking was of the committee that wrote this legislation and I hope I may surmise, the intention of the House.

There has been a limitation carried in this bill for 2 consecutive years and we thought it was as tight as language could make it. That limitation clearly stated its intention that during any given fiscal year the Public Housing Administration could not build more than 50,000 units in the fiscal year 1952, or 35,000 units in fiscal year 1953.

Well, lo and behold, the committee decided this year they would tighten up the language and virtually attempt to wind up the program. The information had never been given to the committee, but in scratching around it developed that in the face of that clear-cut language that had been carried in this bill for 2 years some type of obligation had been made in violation of the spirit of that law by the Public Housing Authority to the tune of 62,000 units. Can you imagine that? This action on the part of the Public Housing Administration is a most flagrant bureaucratic use of power that I have seen since I have been here during the past 17 years. It is terrible.

The lawyers ought to be fired this minute, if not long ago. The former Commissioner, Mr. Egan, is a fine man. I thought he was a great administrator and I admired him. But a lawyer got him in trouble in circumventing the will of Congress.

They were not satisfied to go out and contract for the 35,000 units that you authorized and said no more, but they bypassed you by interpreting that law to mean just exactly what they wanted That turned out to be 62,000 units. That is terrible. The Congress ought to abdicate and turn them loose, because that is what they have done; they have gone ahead in violation of that intent. Now, what does this language do? The other body struck out the House language that was written this year-and it was tight attempting to wind it up, to be perfectly frank about the program. You cannot

wind up the program, because you have 400,000 units that you are going to have to operate for the next 30 to 35 years. All it does is to prevent the construction of the remaining 600,000 units authorized in 1949.

Now, getting back to the point. The other body struck out the restrictive language of the House bill and they inserted more liberal language. The conferees got the Senate to throw out its more liberal language, and we took the language and tightened it up, and the tight part of it merely says "1954 or any future year." Now, you can interpret "any future year" to mean whatever you think it does. Of course, this Congress cannot bind the next Congress, and the Congress next year may throw out that language, but until the next Congress begins, for all practical purposes this program is wound up with the exception of the 20,000 units included in the bill.

Gentlemen, those are the facts and I do not think anyone will dispute them.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of making an explanation.

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some question on the floor as to why the wording of the House amendment is not printed in the report or in the bill. It comes as a motion. It comes when the report of the managers is adopted and we take up the 6 items in controversy one by one. That motion contains the words which we are talking about, and which I read to the House. So, you need not look for it in the conference report. It is in the motion which will follow later. No other motion is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MCCORMACK].

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I think the Members of the House clearly have in mind the basic and important questions involved in the matter that is now before us. The gentleman from Texas, my good friend [Mr. THOMAS], has frankly stated the situation when he states in his losing remarks that "we took the loose language and tightened it up"-and it was a very tightening job— "and the program will be wound up except 20,000 units." He also referred to the 400,000 units already constructed which, of course, will continue, but so far as any new construction is concerned my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THOMAS], frankly advised the House in his usual eloquent but plain and direct language. My good friend from Texas has always been frank in his position on this matter. I am glad, and I want to say publicly, that despite his opposition to this legislation in past years when he was chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, he always was a good soldier. He made his fights, but when the Senate restored the authority to construct units he went into the conference not for the purpose of destroying but for the purpose of continuing and of harmonizing and adjusting the differences that existed between the two bodies. My friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THOMAS] when he was chairman of the subcommittee, and that meant the Democrats were in control, never did anything that killed this program.

Whether or not one agreed with him in the past, the Democratic Party put this program into operation. The Republican Party today will destroy it unless the motion to be made by the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS] is defeated and thereafter the motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES] adopted. That cannot be laughed off. Those are the cold facts. No one can contradict them, because public and lowcost housing is being destroyed today so far as any new construction is concerned. I am very happy that it was never destroyed under the Democratic Party. I am sorry to note that its destruction is going to take place under the Republican Party. So let us not be deceived, let us not misunderstand in any way. The very life of low-cost housing is involved in the motions that will be made before the House in a short while and that the House will vote upon. The record clearly shows that if it is destroyed and killed the responsibility will lie upon the shoulders of the Republican Partynot all the Republican Members, but upon the Republican Party. I hope enough Republican Members will join with us on this side to stop the killing and the destruction of this program.

The House of Representatives in the bill provided there would be no new construction during the present fiscal year, but they did not destroy the program. The Senate put into the bill 35,000 new units. That was the difference between the two bodies. If this were an agreement to authorize the construction of 20,000 new units in addition to the backlog, that would be one thing, but this is not that. The way this is worded in the authorization to construct 20,000 new units, it means that thereafter low-cost and public housing on the Federal level is completely destroyed. So that is the issue and that is what the rollcall will be on, and I hope enough Members will stand to have a rollcall. The issue will be whether or not low-cost and public housing will be destroyed.

No matter what the outcome might be, I want to publicly compliment and thank my friend from Texas [Mr. THOMAS] for his statemanship during the years he was chairman of the subcommittee, when, though he was in opposition to the program, once it was adopted by Congress, he went ahead and performed his duty affirmatively and in a statesmanlike

manner.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. JAVITS].

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to agree with my distinguished friend from Massachusetts in order to

sustain the position of my friend from Illinois and to state that I will support his motion for the restoration of Federal public-housing units, and I hope a majority of the House will do so.

May I remind my friend from Massachusetts that pleading partisanship on this issue will not carry it. I was sponsor in the House of the T-E-W bill and it took Republican votes to pass it as the Housing Act of 1949. It has taken Republican votes every time the subject has been up to carry the public-housing program. I regret to state that the motions to kill public housing on appropria

tion bills in this House-and it has been tion bills in this House-and it has been done in a number of years-have always come from the Democratic side. I do not think partisanship will carry public housing now.

The House of Representatives is the conscience of the country. We have to exercise our conscience in two respects: First, are we going to be pettifogging about these annual contributions contracts that have been made or are we going to be the great conscience of America and honor the moral commitments of the United States? Under the law as contained in the appropriation bills, the public-housing authorities had a right to assume that the Federal publichousing program was stabilized at 35,000 units per year until advised to the contrary. The great amount of planning, labor, and expense which goes into the development of public-housing projects in municipalities, including land acquisition, condemnation, clearing, and resettlement of occupants of existing structures, is a dynamic process. So are arrangements for the necessary publichousing financing. It must be remembered that under the Federal housing program the municipal housing authorities arrange all their financing and take all other necessary actions based only on the Federal annual contributions contracts. It is impossible to ask municipalities to undertake this process without a Federal Government commitment. The commitments in the annual contributions contracts were made only after an enormous amount of preliminary work and by approval of high executive authority. There could be no Federal authority. There could be no Federal public-housing program unless they were undertaken. Rather than implying criticism, I believe the number involved of some 60,000 shows great care and detailed planning by the FPHA in the artailed planning by the FPHA in the arrangements which were made. These are commitments in which the municipalities have made a material change in palities have made a material change in position. They are commitments looked position. They are commitments looked to by thousands of families in the low income levels and by whole communiincome levels and by whole communities for housing relief. They should be honored.

condition of States and municipalities makes the Federal public-housing program vital to stimulate slum clearance and urban-rehabilitation activities. This does not mean that the Federal program does it all or even a major part, but its stimulus value is indispensable. To cut off the program will be a real-perhaps a mortal-blow to the hopes for urban improvement under title I of the Housing Act of 1949.

At a time when we are asking the greatest sacrifices of the American people, and at a time when it is statutory law that there shall be a minimal Federal public-housing program-the Housing Act of 1949-I think this House, as the conscience of the country, will make a very great mistake to end the program here and now. I hope very much it will not be done.

Members should not be misled by any idea that the House may reconsider its action next year or that as the result of a study the Federal public housing program will be revived. The stoppage of activity in respect of Federal public housing projects and the complexities of putting them together again will mean a delay of several years even if Congress should decide to restore the program program next year. It took several years after 1949 after the act was passed to really get any Federal public housing going-and it would again.

I do not feel that we can call upon the people of the country for the great sacrifices which we are calling for from them without making a contribution to housing for the lowest income level in the whole community. I think the issue is clearly before us now: Are we or we not the conscience of our own country?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. COLMER].

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORMACK] stated the issue very clearly, as I have tried to state it, and I am glad that the issue is made clear. This is a matter of philosophy. You either believe in the American free enterprise system of indi

Secondly, the United States is already doing the barest minimum for the lowestincome families in this country through all public-housing programs. Far less than 10 percent of total construction is public housing, even adding State and municipal public housing to that of the United States. The United States public-housing program has been the lever age for State and municipal public-housing programs in recent years. The whole slum clearance and urban-rehabilitation program which is being actively supported by the Congress is based heavily upon the need for publicly assisted lowrent housing to take care of the displaced lower-income families. The financial

Government-subsidized houses with all of the implications thereof. That is the issue. A great deal has been said here about killing this thing today. I want to remind you that while 20,000 units will be provided for if the motion prevails, that on 2 occasions in the past 2 years the House by an overwhelming vote cut the allotment from 50,000 down to 5,000 units, and they were record votes, too. The question here has been raised that this is low-cost housing. Why, this is housing of the highest cost. Yes; it costs the taxpayers, not those who live in these houses. It is high-cost housing. The cost of construction is now $19,000 a unit. But in this half minute that I have left let me impress upon you again that there is a political philosophy involved: Are we going to have a people, a regimented people all living in row houses, looking alike and being subsidized by the taxpayers? A people who will lose their independence under this system and eventually become but vassals of the state?

This thing if permitted to continue will not only bankrupt the country but

Let us once and for all time here today kill this socialistic program, which I personally have opposed from its inception. Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. OAKMAN].

Mr. OAKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on the statement of the managers on the part of the House concerning the conference report on the First Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1954, re amendment 48, it is stated that the conferees have agreed to the proposal of the House requiring that the sum of $1,793,157 requested for work relating to safety in the field of the Bureau of Motor Carriers be distributed to other work of the Commission which is regarded as of greater importance than such safety and fieldwork.

This will have the effect of requiring the Commission to discontinue its motor carrier field staff, including safety inspectors, and abolish the section of safety in its Washington headquarters. The result will be that there will be no further enforcement of the highway safety work of the Commission.

Last year 38,000 persons were killed and 1,350,000 persons were injured in highway accidents. Property damage of $334 billion resulted from such accidents.

The discontinuance of highway safety activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission as applying to buses and trucks operating in interstate commerce would prevent enforcement of its safety regulations and result in the unnecessary slaughter of additional per

A recent study of the operations of 461 interstate motor carriers operating 1,590,363,000 miles annually showed that, after they had adopted safety programs at the instance of the Interstate Commerce Commission's safety staff, there was a reduction of 43.1 percent in deaths and 44.1 percent in personal injuries annually. This would indicate that the prohibition of highway safety activities on the part of the Commission will have the effect of causing the death or injury of many people in connection with bus and truck operations than would result if the Commission's highway safety activities are continued.

The discontinuance of those activities is apparently based on an assumption that the Commission is duplicating the safety work of the various States and is unnecessary. The following letters addressed to the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission by State officials engaged in highway safety work, and by insurance companies engaged in writing casualty policies on interstate bus and truck companies, should be sufficient to show that such assumption is incorrect and that highway safety work by the Interstate Commerce Commission should be continued and expanded.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put several questions to the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS], chairman of the House conferees on the first independent offices bill, so that I may be clear as to what he meant by the action which was taken: First, did the conferees mean to require that the Interstate Commerce Commission abolish its field

all of its truck and bus safety activities; second, did the conferees realize that by taking this action, which has never been passed upon by the legislative committees assigned such work, they are in effect ending for all practical purposes the ending for all practical purposes the interstate regulation of trucks and buses; and, third, did the conferees realize that the field which has been occupied by the Interstate Commerce Commission and interstate truck and bus operation cannot, by the very nature of the operation, be filled by the State and local officials?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. JONAS], a member of the committee.

Mr. JONAS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said today about killing this program. Those who want to do so may consider an affirmative vote on this motion a vote to kill the program, but with all due respect to those who take that position and to my friend from Texas [Mr. THOMAS] I do not think a vote to adopt the motion which will be made by the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS] is necessarily a vote to kill the program. Why do I say that? I say it for the simple reason that the language under consideration does not undertake to kill the Housing Act. It simply says that the Housing Authority shall not make any commitments which will bind this Government for the construction of units in excess of 20,000 unless the Congress hereafter authorizes it.

How may the Congress hereafter authorize the construction of additional units? It can do so at the next session or in sessions of future Congresses whenever there is a request for funds to construct additional units. In other words, the Congress, every time it meets, will have an opportunity to authorize the construction of additional units.

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

Mr. JONAS of North Carolina. I yield to my friend from Illinois.

Mr. YATES. Does the gentleman take into consideration the fact that an agency cannot overnight lay the groundwork for the construction of public housing units? There is such a thing as the necessity for a pipeline in which preparation is made for the construction.

Mr. JONAS of North Carolina. We have a pipeline with 62,000 units already in it. I contend that during the next several years, while this survey is being made, we have all the units in the pipeline that we can possibly build.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], a member of the committee.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, there is no need to rehash or rehearse all the arguments on this oft-debated question. I wanted 1 minute to make sure we understand what we are going to vote upon. There has been a great deal of talk about having the issue clean cut; about meeting the issues squarely.

Last year a majority of this Congress believed they were voting to limit the

construction of public housing to 35,000 units, and to say, "Stop and wait while we reappraise the situation." That was interpreted to mean not 35,000 but 70,000 by some of these skillful gentleman downtown who went ahead and obligated in advance for thousands of units. The recommendation of this committee, which will be embodied in the motion of the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS], says "20,000 to be constructed this year and no new commitments; wait while we find out where we are going and do not tie us up any more."

The motion which will be offered by my good friend the gentleman from Illinois, although he keeps talking about 20,000 units, actually will provide for 20,000 units to be built this year and authorize 20,000 units to be constructed next year, and I am not so sure that if you adopt his language someone down town will not say they can leap-frog for several years ahead and tie us hand and foot. Certainly it authorizes 40,000 units. So let us know what we are voting on. We are voting to see if Congress can and will regain control of this situation, and take a look as to where we are going in the future.

Mr. SIEMINSKI. 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 New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Mr. SIEMINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the gentleman from Indiana, the distinguished majority leader [Mr. HALLECK], for yielding to me at this point for a unanimous-consent request so that I might reaffirm the position of the people of Hudson County on this measure. I intend to vote for the Yates amendment. I am for all of the housing the people of my district need. The Yates amendment, modest and a bit timid though it is, moves in the direction of satisfying the housing requirements of the good people of my district, the 13th of New Jersey, which includes the magnificent town of Bayonne and a fair share of Jersey City, off which shores stands the Statue of Liberty, and off which shores the Half Moon dropped anchor in 1609. History is with us here, Mr. Speaker. So is tradition and a love for everything that gives the little fellow a break. To hear the progress of this debate, one would think a little shelter, within the means of a man's pocketbook, softens character, invites the unscrupulous, and puts the little fellow in clutches. As if, for long, anyone could successfully work against the will of God and harm a hair on the head of his fellow man, and not be brought to account for it, in this world or the next.

Birds have trees in which to nest; animals the earth, on and in which to sleep. Because of the elements, man has chosen to go indoors. Stones no longer need to serve as pillows.

If a man can earn the money with which to buy a house, or to rent suitable quarters without Government assistance, why, of course, his self-respect tells him to do so. But if society, if the community in which he lives, makes this impossible, he can do two things-leave