Page images

When this bill was passed the public Mr. PHILLIPS. That is what I said: Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, will the housing program had been killed by the Why not try to get some of these for gentleman yield? action of this House, but at least we per- . Chicago and not try to force these houses Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman mitted it to have a decent burial. The on cities that do not want them?

from New Hampshire. gentleman from California and the con Mr. YATES. Let me say to the gen-Mr. COTTON.

Mr. COTTON. The amendment that ferees have not only jumped all over the tleman that at least we are in agreement the gentleman intends to offer provides remains of the program but have even on principle. There are firm and bind- for 20,000 units? wiped their feet on it. When it left the ing loan and contribution contracts with Mr. YATES. That is correct. House there were some 62,000 units un municipal corporations, under the terms Mr. COTTON. It provides for 20,000 der a firm contract between the Federal of which the units covered by those con units to be built out of the backlog and Government and the local housing au- tracts shall be constructed.

then permits the agency to authorize or thorities. All of these were to be built. I talked with Mr. Fitzpatrick who is contract for 20,000 new ones; so it ac

On April 22, in response to a question General Counsel for the Public Housing tually is 40,000? asked by the gentleman from New York Administration. There is no escape Mr. YATES. The gentleman has [Mr. JAVITS] concerning the obligation clause in those contracts. The Federal stated his conclusion. My amendment of the Government to construct the ap Government is liable to construct the does propose to construct 20,000 units proximately 62,000 units which are un units that are covered by them. What during the next fiscal year and the inserder loan and contributions contracts, the did he

did he say? Those contracts were tion into the pipeline of an authorization gentleman from California [Mr. PHIL amended and language was put into the for the construction in the future of an LIPS] stated as follows, and I quote: contracts last year limiting the amount additional 20,000 units. I do that for this This committee intends that those

to be constructed to 35,000 units in ac reason: In order that the program may

cordance with the law we passed—those be kept on an even basis so that the inReferring to the contributions con

contracts were amended to provide that tention of the gentleman and the contracts

the Federal Government should be under ferees that the program be maintained that those shall be carried out. There might

no obligation to construct more units in status quo pending a further study be a certain group of these contracts that

than 35,000 during any fiscal year. But may be carried out. the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Illinois would not want carried

the obligation remains and is firm that Mr. COTTON. But the House should out either. I know the gentleman is not

the Government must construct at least clearly understand that the gentleman's talking about that kind of contract at this 35,000 units during the fiscal year. amendment, instead of being for 20,000 time. Therefore, I say that this committee Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, will the units, is actually for 40,000 units? of Congress would say that these contracts gentleman yield?

Mr. YATES. The gentleman is a masshould be carried out.

Mr. YATES. I yield.

ter of ambiguities. I say to the gentleThe same position was taken by the

Mr. PHILLIPS. I would like to ask

man I propose that the program as it gentleman in response to questions which the gentleman what the final sentence presently exists be carried out. I propose I asked and which were asked by the of the attorney's statement was? Does that the program not be liquidated comgentleman from Connecticut [Mr. the gentleman care to tell us what it pletely as the conferees propose that it SEELY-BROWN] the previous day. And was?

should be. so I say there was no doubt but that all

Mr. YATES. I did not know the gen Mr. Speaker, I refused to sign the reunits which were the subject of bona

tleman was listening to my conversation. port because I favored the slum-clearfide annual loan and contributions conHow does he know what was said between

ance programs, and I believe that the tracts were to be built. This was the Mr. Fitzpatrick and myself?

conferees in taking the action that they intent of the House when the bill went

Mr. PHILLIPS. I was not, but Mr. did in limiting public housing to 20,000 over to the other body. But what did Fitzpatrick, at my request, gave me a

units, placed an almost insurmountable the conferees do? They said that only résumé of this opinion. He said that the

obstacle in the path of the slum-clear20,000 of the 60,000 units under contract question arose only on a technicality and ance project. The action of the conshould be built. The other 40,000 units that these escape clauses were state

ferees in this respect is completely inare condemned to an indefinite status. ments that these cities are to stand in

congruous, because, while more than adeApparently they are to be stretched out line and if and when we get to them, they

line and if and when we get to them, they quate funds are provided for the develunder the contention that there will be will get their units. I want this to be opment of the slum-clearance programs, better housing for less money. There clear to the House. Someone of these

nothing is provided for the relocation of are 147 communities in 33 States which

cases may go to court and the attorney those who lived in the slums. Apparhave such contracts. Which commustates he has no fear but what the Fed

ently the conferees have forgotten that nities will be the ones selected for com

eral position would be upheld and we one of the cardinal provisions of the pletion of their contracts, and which would not have to build them.

slum-clearance legislation requires the will have to wait?

Mr. YATES. That is not what Mr. relocation to decent, safe, and sanitary Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, will the Fitzpatrick told me. He told me that

dwellings of those who are to be disposgentleman yield?

the Federal Government is bound under sessed before the slum-clearance proMr. YATES. I yield. the terms of the loan and contributions

gram can go forward. And this is only Mr. PHILLIPS. There is no question contracts to construct up to 35,000 units. elemental fairness that those who are to about it. At the time I was asked that There is no obligation to construct more be ousted from their homes should be question, and made that statement on

than 35,000 units because of the clause given the opportunity to live in decent the floor, the figure had been given us

which went into all contributions con surroundings, too. by the Housing Administration, tracts, other than those for 8,000 units.

On this point, let me read to you the Mr. YATES. That is correct.

It seems to me that the gentleman has telegram I have received from Mr. Ferd Mr. PHILLIPS. I presume the Housconfused the issue by speaking of an es

Kramer, the head of the large real ing Authority has gone over it as care

cape clause where in fact none exists. estate firm of Draper & Kramer in Chifully as they could and now they come

No one on the committee nor among the cago, who is in charge of the private up with the reduced figure. I stand on

conferees was ever shown a copy of the enterprise project which is replacing the principle. The number follows the so-called escape clause and certainly be one of the slums in the city of Chicago. principle that we are absolutely obli- fore the House accepts the gentleman's This is what Mr. Kramer says: gated to build only a certain number. interpretation of the legal status of the

As president of a nonpartisan citizens' orThere is a question about an additional Government, we should have more direct

ganization whose board of governors includes number somewhere between 33,000 and and pertinent facts upon which to base

industrialists, merchants, realtors, mortthe number we are under no circum our action. The gentleman's assertion gage bankers, economists, attorneys, and stances obligated for. We agree to in that the Government has no liability leaders in many other fields, we hope that clude 11,000 of the 33,000. Now the under some 52,000 of these contracts is you will use your influence to see that there

are funds made available for a continuance question arises only as to how many of only his opinion,

of the public-housing program. As we sponthe other 22,000—and Los Angeles has

The SPEAKER. The time of the gen

sored and are vitally interested in private given back with great pleasure 5,700. tleman from Illinois has expired.

enterprise's participation in the slum-clearMr. YATES. Illinois will be glad to Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield ance and redevelopment program in Chicago, accept that, I will say to the gentleman. the gentleman 2 additional minutes. it is particularly vital that we have some

public housing for relocation purposes. Re- continued on a minimum basis, if you wind up the program, because you have location is really the key to slum clearance will, not on a liquidation basis, that 400,000 units that you are going to have these days.

there be a reasonable balance in the sub to operate for the next 30 to 35 years, My Republican colleagues from Chi- sidies that are accorded in this bill, that

sidies that are accorded in this bill, that All it does is to prevent the construccago know that the Chicago Daily News it should not be limited only to a re tion of the remaining 600,000 units has never been a stanch advocate of habilitation of property but that it must authorized in 1949. public housing and yet here is what the contain the opportunity for rehabilita Now, getting back to the point. The Chicago Daily News stated in an edi tion of people, too.

other body struck out the restrictive torial on June 22, 1953:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this con- language of the House bill and they inWHAT YOU CAN DO

ference report should not be accepted. serted more liberal language. The conWhat can we do?

I urge that this amendment offered by ferees got the Senate to throw out its This is a question asked of the Daily News

the gentleman from California [Mr. more liberal language, and we took the by many people who have been shocked by PHILLIPS] to recede and concur with the language and tightened it up, and the conditions this newspaper has revealed in Senate amendment, be voted down. tight part of it merely says “1954 or any Chicago's slums.

When it is voted down, I shall offer an future year.” Now, you can interpret There are many things to do. We call at amendment which will provide for the “any future year” to mean whatever you tention here to just one of them. We give continuation of the housing program on think it does. Of course, this Congress it priority today because the time for action

a minimum level, pending the reexam cannot bind the next Congress, and the is urgent. This is our recommendation:

ination of the program which the Presi- Congress next year may throw out that Do everything you can to persuade the

dent wants and which the Congress language, but until the next Congress Illinois House of Representatives not to pass wants.

begins, for all practical purposes this .the Larson bill, which aims to stop all public The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- program is wound up with the exception housing in Chicago.

tleman from Illinois has again expired. of the 20,000 units included in the bill. The mechanism proposed for this purpose Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield Gentlemen, those are the facts and I is a neighborhood referendum on every pub- 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas do not think anyone will dispute them. lic housing project. [Mr. THOMAS).

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield This newspaper has never seen a cure-all in public housing. We appreciate its limita

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I should myself 1 minute for the purpose of maktions, and we understand the objections to

like to attempt to clarify, if I may, the ing an explanation. it in principle and in practice. But under

intention and what the thinking was of Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some present conditions there is a minimum role the committee that wrote this legisla- question on the floor as to why the wordfor public housing that is indispensable. tion and I hope I may surmise, the ing of the House amendment is not The objections all fail to recognize the intention of the House.

printed in the report or in the bill. It fact that Government affects the housing

There has been a limitation carried comes as a motion. It comes when the supply in two ways. The Government is a great destroyer of shelter, as well as, some

in this bill for 2 consecutive years and report of the managers is adopted and times, a builder.

we thought it was as tight as language we take up the 6 items in controversy The State, county and city governments could make it. That limitation clearly one by one. That motion contains the have destroyed the dwellings of thousands of stated its intention that during any given words which we are talking about, and families on the route of the Congress Street fiscal year the Public Housing Adminis, which I read to the House. So, you need expressway alone. It will destroy thousands

tration could not build more than 50,000 not look for it in the conference report. of other dwelling units along the route on

units in the fiscal year 1952, or 35,000 It is in the motion which will follow latthe Northwest Highway. units in fiscal year 1953.

er. No other motion is necessary. In a smaller degree, other public improvements have the same result. In buying land

Well, lo and behold, the committee Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the for some privately financed housing develop- decided this year they would tighten up gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ments like Lake Meadows a public body- the language and virtually attempt to McCORMACK). the land clearance commission-dispossessed wind up the program. The information Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I more people than will be housed in the same had never been given to the committee, think the Members of the House clearly area.

but in scratching around it developed have in mind the basic and important None of these great improvements would be possible if they were submitted to a neigh

that in the face of that clear-cut lan- questions involved in the matter that is borhood referendum of the people who will guage that had been carried in this bill

now before us. The gentleman from be inconvenienced. But they go on, and for 2 years some type of obligation had Texas, my good friend [Mr. THOMAS), will continue to go on.

been made in violation of the spirit of has frankly stated the situation when he Opponents of all public housing speak as that law by the Public Housing Authority states in his losing remarks that “we if the Government role in relation to hous to the tune of 62,000 units. Can you took the loose language and tightened it ing is and ought to be entirely neutral. As imagine that? This action on the part up”-and it was a very tightening joba destroyer of housing, the Government will

of the Public Housing Administration is "and the program will be wound up exnever be idle or passive. The more we insist

a most flagrant bureaucratic use of cept 20,000 units.” He also referred to on public improvements, the more habitations will be destroyed.

power that I have seen since I have been the 400,000 units already constructed We can see no objection, theoretical or here during the past 17 years. It is which, of course, will continue, but so practical, to the replacement by public auterrible.

far as any new construction is conthority of at least as much as the public, The lawyers ought to be fired this cerned my friend, the gentleman from through its agencies, tears down.

minute, if not long ago. The former Texas [Mr. THOMAS), frankly advised My colleagues from the South may be Commissioner, Mr. Egan, is a fine man. the House in his usual eloquent but plain interested in an article that appeared in I thought he was a great administrator and direct language. My good friend the Christian Science Monitor for Fri- and I admired him. But a lawyer got from Texas has always been frank in day, June 5, which has the following him in trouble in circumventing the will his position on this matter. I am glad, opening paragraphs: of Congress.

and I want to say publicly, that despite

They were not satisfied to go out and his opposition to this legislation in past Interracial tensions growing from a lack of adequate housing for Negroes in the

contract for the 35,000 units that you years when he was chairman of the subSouth are put in stark relief by recent de

authorized and said no more, but they committee on appropriations, he always mands that Congress continue public hous

bypassed you by interpreting that law was a good soldier. He made his fights, ing construction.

to mean just exactly what they wanted but when the Senate restored the auSome 74 Negro leaders from 12 southern it to mean. That turned out to be thority to construct units he went into States have urgently requested Congress to 62,000 units. That is terrible. The the conference not for the purpose of continue the low-rent public housing pro Congress ought to abdicate and turn destroying but for the purpose of congram, which is of double value to southern

them loose, because that is what they tinuing and of harmonizing and adNegroes: A source of revenue for workers and

have done; they have gone ahead in justing the differences that existed beof adequate housing facilities.

violation of that intent. Now, what does tween the two bodies. My friend, the I say to you that this is not a problem this language do? The other body gentleman from Texas [Mr. THOMAS] exclusively of the South, for we in the struck out the House language that was when he was chairman of the subcomNorth are faced with the same housing written this year—and it was tight, mittee, and that meant the Democrats tensions. That's why I believe it is so attempting to wind it up, to be perfectly were in control, never did anything that necessary that the housing program be frank about the program. You cannot killed this program.

Whether or not one agreed with him tion bills in this House-and it has been condition of states and municipalities in the past, the Democratic Party put done in a numbex of years—have always makes the Federal public-housing prothis program into operation. The Re come from the Democratic side. I do gram vital to stimulate slum clearance publican Party today will destroy it un not think partisanship will carry public and urban-rehabilitation activities. This less the motion to be made by the gen- housing now.

does not mean that the Federal program tleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS] The House of Representatives is the does it all or even a major part, but its is defeated and thereafter the motion of conscience of the country. We have to stimulus value is indispensable. To cut the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES] exercise our conscience in two respects: off the program will be a real-perhaps adopted. That cannot be laughed off. First, are we going to be pettifogging a mortal-blow to the hopes for urban Those are the cold facts. No one can about these annual contributions con improvement under title I of the Houscontradict them, because public and low- tracts that have been made or are we ing Act of 1949. cost housing is being destroyed today so going to be the great conscience of Amer At a time when we are asking the far as any new construction is concerned. ica and honor the moral commitments

ica and honor the moral commitments greatest sacrifices of the American peoI am very happy that it was never de- of the United States? Under the law ple, and at a time when it is statutory stroyed under the Democratic Party. I as contained in the appropriation bills, law that there shall be a minimal Fedam sorry to note that its destruction is the public-housing authorities had a eral public-housing program—the going to take place under the Republi- right to assume that the Federal public- Housing Act of 1949—I think this House, can Party. So let us not be deceived, housing program was stabilized at 35,000 as the conscience of the country, will let us not misunderstand in any way. units per year until advised to the con make a very great mistake to end the The very life of low-cost housing is in- trary. The great amount of planning,

trary. The great amount of planning, program here and now. I hope very volved in the motions that will be made labor, and expense which goes into the much it will not be done. before the House in a short while and development of public-housing projects Members should not be misled by any that the House will vote upon. The rec in municipalities, including land acqui- idea that the House may reconsider its ord clearly shows that if it is destroyed sition, condemnation, clearing, and re action next year or that as the result of and killed the responsibility will lie upon settlement of occupants of existing struc a study the Federal public housing prothe shoulders of the Republican Party- tures, is a dynamic process.

gram will be revived. The stoppage of not all the Republican Members, but rangements for the necessary public

rangements for the necessary public- activity in respect of Federal public upon the Republican Party. I hope housing financing. It must be remem housing projects and the complexities enough Republican Members will join bered that under the Federal housing of putting them together again will with us on this side to stop the killing program the municipal housing authori- mean a delay of several years even if and the destruction of this program. ties arrange all their financing and take

Congress should decide to restore the The House of Representatives in the all other necessary actions based only program next year. It took several bill provided there would be no new on the Federal annual contributions con

years after 1949 after the act was passed construction during the present fiscal tracts. It is impossible to ask munici to really get any Federal public housing year, but they did not destroy the pro- palities to undertake this process without

palities to undertake this process without going—and it would again, . gram. The Senate put into the bill Federal Government commitment. I do not feel that we can call upon the 35,000 new units. That was the differ- The commitments in the annual con

The commitments in the annual con people of the country for the great sacence between the two bodies. If this tributions contracts were made only after rifices which we are calling for from were an agreement to authorize the con

enormous amount of preliminary them without making a contribution to struction of 20,000 new units in addition work and by approval of high executive

work and by approval of high executive housing for the lowest income level in to the backlog, that would be one thing, authority. There could be no Federal

There could be no Federal the whole community. I think the issue but this is not that. The way this is public-housing program unless they were is clearly before us now: Are we or we worded in the authorization to construct undertaken. Rather than implying crit not the conscience of our own country? 20,000 new units, it means that there icism, I believe the number involved of Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield after low-cost and public housing on the some 60,000 shows great care and de- 2 minutes to the gentleman from MisFederal level is completely destroyed. tailed planning by the FPHA in the ar

sissippi (Mr. COLMER). So that is the issue and that is what the rangements which were made. These

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I think rollcall will be on, and I hope enough are commitments in which the munici it is fair to say that my friend the genMembers will stand to have a rollcall. palities have made a material change in

tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORThe issue will be whether or not low-cost position. They are commitments looked MACK] stated the issue very clearly, as I and public housing will be destroyed. to by thousands of families in the low have tried to state it, and I am glad that

No matter what the outcome might be, income levels and by whole communi- the issue is made clear. This is a matter I want to publicly compliment and thank ţies for housing relief. They should be of philosophy. You either believe in the my friend from Texas (Mr. THOMAS] for honored.

American free enterprise system of indihis statemanship during the years he was I thought the Appropriations Com- vidual home ownership or you believe in chairman of the subcommittee, when, mittee was going to see that they were Government-subsidized houses with all though he was in opposition to the pro- honored. I think it would be a grave

of the implications thereof. That is the gram, once it was adopted by Congress, error if we did not. Surely avenues can issue. A great deal has been said here he went ahead and performed his duty be found in these contracts to avoid about killing this thing today. I want to affirmatively and in a statesmanlike them, but I think any lawyer knows what remind you that while 20,000 units will manner.

he would think of another lawyer who be provided for if the motion prevails, Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield found that kind of avenue to avoid a con that on 2 occasions in the past 2 years 2 minutes to the gentleman from New tract which is a good moral commitment. the House by an overwhelming vote cut York [Mr. JAVITS).

The United States can hardly be put in the allotment from 50,000 down to 5,000 Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, it is not that position.

units, and they were record votes, too. necessary to agree with my distinguished Secondly, the United States is already The question here has been raised that friend from Massachusetts in order to doing the barest minimum for the lowest this is low-cost housing. Why, this is sustain the position of my friend from income families in this country through housing of the highest cost. Yes; it costs Illinois and to state that I will support all public-housing programs.

all public-housing programs. Far less the taxpayers, not those who live in these his motion for the restoration of Fed than 10 percent of total construction is houses. It is high-cost housing. The eral public-housing units, and I hope a public housing, even adding State and cost of construction is now $19,000 a unit. majority of the House will do so.

municipal public housing to that of the But in this half minute that I have left May I remind my friend from Massa- United States. The United States pub- let me impress upon you again that there chusetts that pleading partisanship on lic-housing program has been the lever- is a political philosophy involved: Are we this issue will not carry it. I was spon age for State and municipal public-hous- going to have a people, a regimented sor in the House of the T-E-W bill and ing programs in recent years. The whole people all living in row houses, looking it took Republican votes to pass it as slum clearance and urban-rehabilitation alike and being subsidized by the taxthe Housing Act of 1949. It has taken program which is being actively sup- payers? A people who will lose their inRepublican votes every time the subject ported by the Congress is based heavily

ported by the Congress is based heavily dependence under this system and evenhas been up to carry the public-housing upon the need for publicly assisted low- tually become but vassals of the state? program. I regret to state that the mo rent housing to take care of the displaced This thing if permitted to continue tions to kill public housing on appropria- lower-income families. The financial will not only bankrupt the country but

worse still it will sap the vitality and staff and close its field offices and cease construction of public housing to 35,000 destroy our people.

all of its truck and bus safety activities; units, and to say, “Stop and wait while Let us once and for all time here today second, did the conferees realize that by we reappraise the situation.” That was kill this socialistic program, which I per- taking this action, which has never been interpreted to mean not 35,000 but 70,000 sonally have opposed from its inception passed upon by the legislative committees by some of these skillful gentleman

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield assigned such work, they are in effect downtown who went ahead and obli2 minutes to the gentleman from Mich- ending for all practical purposes the gated in advance for thousands of units. igan [Mr. OAKMAN].

interstate regulation of trucks and The recommendation of this committee, Mr. OAKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to buses; and, third, did the conferees real- which will be embodied in the motion speak briefly on the statement of the ize that the field which has been occu of the gentleman from California [Mr. managers on the part of the House con- pied by the Interstate Commerce Com- PHILLIPS], says “20,000 to be constructed cerning the conference report on the mission and interstate truck and bus this year and no new commitments; First Independent Offices Appropriation operation cannot, by the very nature of wait while we find out where we are Act, 1954, re amendment 48, it is stated the operation, be filled by the State and going and do not tie us up any more." that the conferees have agreed to the local officials?

The motion which will be offered by proposal of the House requiring that Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield my good friend the gentleman from Illithe sum of $1,793,157 requested for work 2 minutes to the gentleman from North nois, although he keeps talking about relating to safety in the field of the Carolina [Mr. JONAS], a member of the 20,000 units, actually will provide for Bureau of Motor Carriers be distributed committee.

20,000 units to be built this year and auto other work of the Commission which Mr. JONAS of North Carolina. Mr. thorize 20,000 units to be constructed is regarded as of greater importance Speaker, a great deal has been said today next year, and I am not so sure that if than such safety and fieldwork,

about killing this program. Those who you adopt his language someone down This will have the effect of requiring want to do so may consider an afirma- town will not say they can leap-frog for the Commission to discontinue its motor tive vote on this motion a vote to kill several years ahead and tie us hand and carrier field staff, including safety in

the program, but with all due respect foot. Certainly it authorizes 40,000 spectors, and abolish the section of to those who take that position and to

units. So let us know what we are votsafety in its Washington headquarters. my friend from Texas (Mr. THOMAS] I ing on. We are voting to see if ConThe result will be that there will be no

do not think a vote to adopt the motion gress can and will regain control of this further enforcement of the highway which will be made by the chairman of situation, and take a look as to where we safety work of the Commission.

our subcommittee, the gentleman from are going in the future. Last year 38,000 persons were killed California [Mr. PHILLIPS] is necessarily

Mr. SIEMINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask and 1,350,000 persons were injured in a yote to kill the program. Why do I

unanimous consent to extend my rehighway accidents. Property damage of say that? I say it for the simple reason marks at this point in the RECORD. $334 billion resulted from such acci- that the language under consideration

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to dents. The discontinuance of highway does not undertake to kill the Housing the request of the gentleman from New safety activities of the Interstate Com- Act. It simply says that the Housing Jersey? merce Commission as applying to buses Authority shall not make any commit

There was no objection. and trucks operating in interstate com ments which will bind this Government Mr. SIEMINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am merce would prevent enforcement of its for the construction of units in excess grateful to the gentleman from Indiana, safety regulations and result in the un of 20,000 unless the Congress hereafter the distinguished majority leader [Mr. necessary slaughter of additional per- authorizes it.

HALLECK], for yielding to me at this point sons. A recent study of the operations

How may the Congress hereafter au for a unanimous-consent request so that of 461 interstate motor carriers oper- thorize the construction of additional I might reaffirm the position of the peoating 1,590,363,000 miles annually units? It can do so at the next session ple of Hudson County on this measure. showed that, after they had adopted or in sessions of future Congresses I intend to vote for the Yates amendsafety programs at the instance of the whenever there is a request for funds ment. I am for all of the housing the Interstate Commerce Commission's safe- to construct additional units. In other people of my district need. The Yates ty staff, there was a reduction of 43.1

words, the Congress, every time it meets, amendment, modest and a bit timid percent in deaths and 44.1 percent in will have an opportunity to authorize the though it is, moves in the direction of personal injuries annually. This would construction of additional units.

satisfying the housing requirements of indicate that the prohibition of highway

Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the

the good people of my district, the 13th safety activities on the part of the Com- gentleman yield?

of New Jersey, which includes the magmission will have the effect of causing

Mr. JONAS of North Carolina. I nificent town of Bayonne and a fair the death or injury of many people in yield to my friend from Illinois.

share of Jersey City, off which shores connection with bus and truck operations Mr. YATES. Does the gentleman take stands the Statue of Liberty, and off than would result if the Commission's into consideration the fact that an which shores the Half Moon dropped highway safety activities are continued.

agency cannot overnight lay the ground anchor in 1609. History is with us here, The discontinuance of those activities work for the construction of public hous Mr. Speaker. So is tradition and a love is apparently based on an assumption ing units? There is such a thing as the for everything that gives the little fellow that the Commission is duplicating the necessity for a pipeline in which prepa a break. To hear the progress of this safety work of the various states and is ration is made for the construction, debate, one would think a little shelter, unnecessary. The following letters ad

Mr. JONAS of North Carolina. We within the means of a man's pocketbook, dressed to the Chairman of the Inter- have a pipeline with 62,000 units already softens character, invites the unscrupustate Commerce Commission by State in it. I contend that during the next lous, and puts the little fellow in clutches. officials engaged in highway safety work, several years, while this survey is being As if, for long, anyone could successfully and by insurance companies engaged in made, we have all the units in the pipe- work against the will of God and harm writing casualty policies on interstate line that we can possibly build.

a hair on the head of his fellow man, bus and truck companies, should be suffi Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield and not be brought to account for it, cient to show that such assumption is 2 minutes to the gentleman from New

2 minutes to the gentleman from New in this world or the next. incorrect and that highway safety work Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], a member of

Birds have trees in which to nest; aniby the Interstate Commerce Commission the committee.

mals the earth, on and in which to sleep. should be continued and expanded.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, there is Because of the elements, man has chosen Mr. Speaker, I should like to put sey no need to rehash or rehearse all the to go indoors. Stones no longer need to .eral questions to the gentleman from arguments on this oft-debated question. serve as pillows. California [Mr. PHILLIPS], chairman of I wanted 1 minute to make sure we un If a man can earn the money with the House conferees on the first inde- derstand what we are going to vote upon. which to buy a house, or to rent suitable pendent offices bill, so that I may be There has been a great deal of talk quarters without Government assistance, clear as to what he meant by the action about having the issue clean cut; about why, of course, his self-respect tells him which was taken: First, did the confer- meeting the issues squarely.

to do so. But if society, if the comees mean to require that the Interstate Last year a majority of this Congress munity in which he lives, makes this Commerce Commission abolish its field believed they were voting to limit the impossible, he can do two things—leave

his job, thumbing his way with his family Massachusetts would try to draw certain

Massachusetts would try to draw certain question have agreed to recommend 20,000 to greener pastures, or, in grievance, distinctions in philosophy between the

distinctions in philosophy between the units for fiscal 1954, at the same time preyearn for relief, as in Europe and Asia, Democratic Party and the Republican Democratic Party and the Republican venting the making of any contracts that

would commit the United States for any and say, "Comes the revolution.” That Party, although I am quite sure that

future fiscal year. is not the American way. And no one many gentlemen sitting on that side of

The new Commission on Federal-State Rewill say that it is. We pride ourselves the aisle will not go along with the dis lations will undoubtedly go thoroughly into in keeping the gap closed between men. tinction he tries to make. If you look at the question of the respective responsibiliOurs is a philosophy for the underdog- it as a fundamental proposition, there ties of the States and the Federal Governgiving every man the unfettered chance

are many people, some on that side of ment in this field. Pending that Commisto rise, in self-respect. I do not think the aisle, who think that all medical

sion's recommendations, it seems to me that

the conference agreement is a completely Government housing diminishes self-re attention for the people of the United

acceptable compromise between the position spect among civilians any more than States should be provided by the Federal

of the two Houses. Wherry housing does for the armed sery Government and paid for by the taxices or the White House does for the payers. I think unfortunately there are

It certainly seems to me that that President of the United States. It is a some who believe that all housing for

characterization of this compromise is matter of perspective.

the people of our land should be provided a proper one. The question is, Does the housing pro- by the Federal Government at the tax Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the vided enable industry and commerce and payers' expense so that no one owns his

gentleman yield? the community to get its work done in own home.

home. Sometimes rather hard Mr. HALLECK. I yield to the gentlegood order, with satisfied people?

words are attached to that sort of opera man from Illinois. During this debate, some have chided tion. For myself, I think it is a charac Mr. YATES. Does not the gentleman the administrators of this measure with terization that is well deserved.

think the President of the United States interpreting the law a bit loosely. If so, The gentleman from Georgia, of ought to stop retreating? He certainly the interpretation has been on the side course, is a little disturbed about the told the other body, as stated by Mr. Cole of the needy, like the recent vote of this refugee immigration bill. Let us not get

Let us not get in answer to a question by Senator MAYCongress in favor of the people and the that mixed up in this particular proposi

that mixed up in this particular proposi- BANK, that he favored the starting of livestock and the parched land of the tion, and I do not want to yield further

tion, and I do not want to yield further 35,000 units. I read from the Senate great Southwest. Did we hear any of at this time, if the gentleman will permit. . hearings: the distinguished gentlemen from this Assuming that you want to build pub Senator MAYBANK. President Eisenhower grief-stricken area rise to complain of lic housing, is it necessarily a Federal recommended 35,000 units? looseness in the use of taxpayers' money? responsibility? Is the Federal Govern Mr. COLE. He recommended 35,000 units. Of course not, because the need was ment to undertake it or, if there is such

Certainly General Eisenhower ought to clear and present, as is the need for a responsibility, where do the States and

stabilize his lines and not retreat any housing in my district. the local communities fit in? There

more. Looseness? Would one be unfair, in again I just happen to believe that if

Mr.. HALLECK. defending the good will of Mr. Egan and you find such a responsibility you might wants to take issue with the President

If the gentleman of Mr. Foley, men whose hearts beat for well discover that you would have a more

of the United States on the position he the needy men whose works and motives equitable, more efficient, and more eco

has taken, he may go ahead and do so. have here, directly and indirectly been nomical result if you had more of that

I am not going to. impugned? How many Members of the operation back in the States and in the

As far as I am concerned, may I say Congress, who voted against public hous confines of the local communities. ing, on rollcall after rollcall, are there But, be that as it may,

I want
primarily again as I said before, if you will check

around a little you will find out that the who volunteered to release these gentle to address myself to the matter of the men from any housing commitments in compromise which has been worked out people out in the country think Mr.

Eisenhower is doing an excellent job. their district? How many Members of by the subcommittee; and may I say I Congress are there, who voted against applaud their efforts and support their

To get back to this particular problem,

the gentleman's motion will be to add public housing, who refused to accept the actions all the way down the line. Some quotas allotted their districts?

20,000. He talks about a pipeline. It people thought they had found someI trust that the Yates amendment will thing inconsistent in my position when

has already been pointed out that you pass. It does not compete with free we had this matter first up for consid

have plenty of pipeline already because enterprise. Rather, does it call for more eration because I talked about the main

apparently in spite of the restrictions cement, steel, payrolls for construction tenance of the status quo; and I think that the Congress undertook to write workers, and others and it will increase that is the better phrase to use. I said

into the law we have a great big pipeproperty values and the general wealth then that if you wanted to maintain the line already filled and ready to go. of each community and area involved. status quo, you might begin with the

I do not know what the commission Is this un-American? Must man sow 35,000 figure that was set in the last Con

will recommend, I do not know what the only to grow wheat? Can he not sow gress, or you might say we are just not next session of this Congress of the to build homes so that people may in going to have any new starts. Person

United States will determine ought to be comfort eat the wheat sown?

ally I took the position that the latter done about this problem, but it is comMr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield arrangement represented the status quo

pletely ridiculous to argue that you could the remainder of the time to the major- and ought to be satisfactory. I called kill or annihilate or destroy for all time ity leader, the gentleman from Indiana attention to the fact that we were under

to come any program that can con[Mr. HALLECK).

taking to set up a commission to study stantly be revived, put into effect ab Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker

the whole matter of Federal, State, and initio by the Congress of the United Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Speaker, will the local relationship so far as the Govern States and the Government of the United gentleman yield for a question? ment is concerned.

States if that is what the Government Mr. HALLECK. I yield.

I suggested that very definitely this

and the Congress wants to do. Mr. WHEELER. Would it not be nec- matter of public housing would be one

For that reason, and particularly in essary to build many times 20,000 units of the fields into which inquiry would view of the very difficult fiscal situation if we are going to house all these 240,000 be directed. So I said, “Let us permit which confronts us, I say that we can people that are going to need houses, the this matter to go along with the House well afford to take it easy and to go so-called refugees? position until that report is made."

slow. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, this Subsequently there were various things

We talk about low-cost public housing. sort of debate has raged here through said about the position of the President.

As has been pointed out, it gets to be the years. Everyone knows what my in- But let me just read to you what he had

very expensive and I suppose per unit dividual position has been with respect to say in respect to this particular com

it is probably costing much more than to Federal public housing; I have con- promise having to do with Federal the homes or the units in which the peosistently opposed it. public housing.

ple live who not only paid for their own Some reference was made to philos

I have been informed that the conference homes but who helped pay for the subophy, and I suppose in a measure that is committee appointed to adjust the differ- sidy that is involved in the so-called pubinvolved. My very good friend from ences between the House and Senate on this lic housing program. In any event, for

XCIX -592

« PreviousContinue »