Page images
PDF
EPUB

It was then agreed that the money appropriated for the Commission should be used first for other things; and it was the idea of the conferees on the part of the House, as I understood, that the safety work would not be given up, but that the Wolf report would be put into effect, that the employees would be absorbed, and that the safety work would be given a lower priority.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to say, most respectfully, to the Senator from Massachusetts, that I think his very account of the discussion in the conference committee fully justifies the language used by the House conferees in their statement to the House, when they said it was agreed by the conferees that this money should be redistributed and used for purposes which were considered more important.

So the parliamentary inquiry includes an assumption of fact which is not borne out by the very statement which has been made by the chairman of the Senate conferees, namely, that this matter was discussed, that there was objection by the House conferees, that there was insistence by the House conferees that there be an understanding that the money be redistributed so as to be used for work other than safety work; that they so reported to the House; and, that on the basis of that understanding, the House adopted the conference report.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I should like to read a part of the colloquy in the House between Mr. COOLEY and Mr. PHILLIPS:

well as for the other Members of the Senate, let me inquire whether Report No. 881 is the only report on this subject that 881 is the only report on this subject that exists. It is, is it not?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. That is correct. Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield to me? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield.

Mr. HILL. If the Senator will turn to page 7 of the document he holds in his hand, Report No. 881, he will find at the top of the page a heading "Statement of top of the page a heading "Statement of the Managers on the Part of the House." The statement follows. The language in question is to be found in the text following that heading. The Senator will also find that that statement is also signed; the names of the signers, who are the managers on the part of the House, appear on page 12.

In other words, the Senate conferees did not take part in that statement, which is a statement by the managers on the part of the House.

Mr. KERR. I am aware of that, and I express my appreciation to the Senator from Alabama for the suggestion, and also to the Senator from Massachusetts for answering my question.

But in view of the fact that it is the only printed statement by any of the conferees, and in view of the fact that it ferees, and in view of the fact that it was the one which was before the House when the House adopted the conference report, therefore, not only in order to avoid any question as to what seems to be the intent of our distinguished conferees, for whom I have the greatest ferees, for whom I have the greatest respect, and in whom I have the highest

Mr. COOLEY. In the conference report the confidence, but also in order to make our

conferees make certain recommendations which, of course, will not be binding but will be only advisory to the Commission?

Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield to me?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield.

Mr. KERR. I hold in my hand report No. 881, which bears the heading "First Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1954" and contains the subheading "Conference Report (to accompany H. R. 4663)."

I wish to ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether there is any other report of the conference committee.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. It is my understanding that the Senate conferees never submit a printed statement to accompany a conference report, but that the managers on the part of the House always submit a printed statement to the House of Representatives. So far as I know, the Senate conferees on these bills never see the printed statement on the part of the managers for the House, which is submitted to the House until it is printed and until the conference report itself comes upon the floor of the Senate.

In this instance, until this question arose, and until I knew it was to be an issue, I had never seen this printed statement, which is signed only by the managers on the part of the House, and was not in any sense subjected to scrutiny by the conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. KERR. I understand that. But as a point of information for myself, as

own record clear and to do justice to them, we should take steps to have a further conference held.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, to the best of my knowiedge, both the Senator from Alabama and the Senator Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Louisiana were present in the conference when this subject was discussed. If I have not stated the matter accurately, I shall be very glad to yield, so that we may hear from them.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield to me? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield.

Mr. HILL. To the best of my recollection, the Senator from Massachusetts has stated the matter accurately. I think he has stated it in just the way it developed. The agreement was that the appropriation was to be put back into the bill, and certainly my understanding the bill, and certainly my understanding is along the line of that stated by the Senator from Massachusetts to the Senate, namely, that to implement the Wolf report would not involve, so far as I understood, any desertion of the safety understood, any desertion of the safety work done by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield the Senator from Massachusetts yield to me?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I have been discussing the matter with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, as well as with the distinguished minority leader. I was going to make a suggestion which I understood would be agreeable, namely, that the conference report be rejected as a part of the procedure-and that then, assuming that the Senate rejected

the conference report, a motion be made that the Senate further insist upon the remaining amendments in disagreement, as set forth in the report, request a further conference with the House of Representatives on all amendments in disagreement, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

In regard to the amendments in disagreement, as they are set forth on page 6 of the conference report, at the bottom of the page, just preceding the signatures, we find the statement:

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

My understanding is that amendment numbered 33, which was an amendment on the part of the Senate, had already been accepted by the House, and therefore it is not in isssue.

So far as I know-and the distinguished Senator from Alabama and the other Senators who were present at the conference will, of course, be able to state their understanding of the matter-there is no controversy or major difference of opinion regarding amendments numbered 9, 46, and 53. I may be mistaken, but that is my understanding.

Amendments numbered 42 and 43, the housing amendments were subject to controversy.

I understand there were 3 different housing amendments, namely, amendments numbered 33, 42, and 43. But amendment numbered 33 having been accepted by the House, it is no longer at issue.

That leaves only amendments numbered 42 and 43.

So they would be sent to the further conference, along with the conference report, if the Senate so votes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. We are agreeable to that course.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Yes. I have also discussed this matter with the Senator from Massachusetts. Although he feels that this procedure would clarify the situation, yet there seems to be some doubt. In view of the precedents of the Senate and the problems which might be raised, I am inclined to believe that probably the more orderly procedure and the more expeditious procedure would be for us to reject the conference report and request a further conference with the House on the amendments in disagreement. I am of that opinion because it is obvious that we shall have considerable discussion not only tonight, but tomorrow, and of course the House is not in session; and if we were to adopt a concurrent resolution, the result would be that action on the appropriation bill would have to be held up, in order to wait to see what action the House would take on the concurrent resolution. So, I am inclined to believe we would save more time-rather than be required to wait that long-by rejecting the conference report and by having a further conference on the amendments in disagreement.

The acting majority leader would not have made the suggestion, except after consultation with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the minority leader. If that is agreeable to the Senate, I think we could proceed, and

it would then be my purpose to recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

The reason is that I think all Members of the Senate, in the general comity that exists between the two Houses, find that there is a very definite feeling on the part of the distinguished Senator and other members of the conference committee that they thoroughly understood what was done. In the future, we do not want any question to be raised, regardless of how remote, as to the good faith of the Senate in living up to its part of an agreement. Therefore, rather than have even a remote possibility of that, I think probably it would be much better to follow the procedure I have suggested, if it is agreeable to the Senate.

in this situation was the Public Housing which the Government gladly assists all of
those groups.
Program of 1949.

Now, the Republicans are apparently attempting to destroy even this last vestige of a fair break for the Negro. This can be seen by their actions in stopping the public housing program in our first session of the 83d Congress. As a part of an appropriation bill, they legislate to stop the Public Housing Administration from contracting for new house construction. If this policy continues, the whole public housing program will dry up and the only Federal program favorable to Negroes will fall by the wayside.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, a vote to destroy public housing is a vote against the Negro. Proof of this can be seen from the figures I have assembled on what public housing means to Negroes. We cannot permit this Nation to slide backwards in working for

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield. Mr. DIRKSEN. I withdraw the par- the elimination of unfair treatment of liamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois withdraws his parliamentary inquiry. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think the suggestion of the distinguished acting majority leader, that not only the issue concerning the safety work of the Interstate Commerce Commission, but also the two amendments in regard to housing, be included in the matters of disagreement and sent back to conference is extremely sound and wise.

In order that the RECORD may be clear on this point, I think it well to know exactly what the House did. The House not only put a limit of 20,000 units on construction for this fiscal year, but it also forbade any future units being contracted for, and in the debate virtually forbade any future construction, although there are some 62,000 units that are now under definite contract.

On the recommendation of the Representative from California, Mr. PHILLIPS, such an amendment was adopted by the House, which means, if not objected to by the Senate, the absolute death of public housing in the great cities of this country and a continuation of the slums and the discontinuance of public housing for low-income groups in smaller cities and towns as well.

Mr. President, those of us in Congress who have sought civil rights legislation have been stopped by a combination of Republicans and Southern Democrats who are really Dixiecrats. In 1954 we shall renew our fight for F. E. P. C. and other anti-discriminatory legislation and keep hammering on these issues until we win.

But meanwhile, we have been able to make some advances for low-income Negroes, especially in the field of housing. Before 1949 all colored persons found themselves confronted with a desperate housing shortage. Faced with excessively high rents, discrimination in financing and location and a variety of other factors, there were just no decent places for low-income Negroes to live. The one positive accomplishment to help

minority groups.

Mr. President, I think we should be very definite in our statement that we should reject the House interpretation, not only on the matter of the ICC safety work but also on the matter of housing, as well. I thank the acting majority leader for including that in the frame of reference for the conference committee, but I think the RECORD should show very clearly that we are in disagreement on both points and not merely on one.

I serve notice, Mr. President, that even though we temporarily lose the battle for decent housing for low-income groups, we shall never give up the fight. Public housing is a program necessary for low-income persons in city and rural slums and we must keep it alive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement I have prepared on the subject of public housing, and a summary of the telegrams which I have received on the ICC feature of the conference report, be printed at this point in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

There being no objection, the statement and summary of telegrams were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT BY SENATOR DOUGLAS AND OUTLINE OF OBJECTIONS TO HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HOUSING PROVISIONS IN H. R. 4663

SUMMARY

The House amendments accompanying the conference report on H. R. 4663 are a knockout blow to the low-rent public housing program. As the debate in the House made clear last Tuesday, the House leadership has sought to fasten into this bill a restriction against any future public housing contracts with the express intention of liquidating the program. The limitation to 20,000 units is bad enough. The restriction against new contracts, with the interpretation given by the House leaders, is fatal.

That part of the total housing program which is of greatest benefit to low-income groups, and to racial minorities, and which is essential to the slum clearance and urban redevelopment plans, is thus about to be thrown out the window. It is far different from the royal reception recently accorded the real estate, home construction, mortgage financing and other private building incarpet and extended and expanded the varterests by Congress as we rolled out the red ious loans, loan guaranties, secondary markets for mortgages and other programs by

If the Senate is to maintain this essential, but very small, part-it is hardly 3 percent of our national housing program, I believe it must send the bill back to conference with a clear understanding that we' want them to take the knife out of the back of public housing. The able and energetic majority leader in the Senate, whose absence we all deeply regret, did much in 1949 to father and develop this well-balanced housing program and win congressional approval for it. The senior Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. ELLENDER], was a vigorous advocate and cosponsor. It deserves the same bipartisan support today.

OUTLINE OF OBJECTIONS TO PUBLIC HOUSING PROVISO (HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT 43)

LEGISLATION IS A DEFINITE STEP TOWARD LIQUIDATION OF THE LOW-RENT PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAM

That the provision adopted by the House to prohibit the Public Housing Administration from making any new loan and contributions contracts unless later authorized, is a deathblow to the program, is clearly shown by the House debate July 21, 1953, when this provision was approved.

On that occasion the following statements were made:

"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." (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, July 21, 1953, p. 9417.)

"Mr. THOMAS. The committee decided this year they would tighten up the language and virtually attempt to wind up the program. ***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." (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, July 21, 1953, p. 9420.)

In the House debate Congressman PHILLIPS also put special emphasis on what he called "escape clause" in existing loan and contribution contracts, suggests that by virtue of those clauses the Federal Government can get out of many of the existing loan and contributions contracts. The legal interpretation put on these clauses by the agency is merely that they prevent the Government from being obligated to start more than 35,000 units (the 1953 act limit) in any one year.

With Congressman PHILLIPS' interpretation of those contracts, and his expressed intention on the House floor, it is clear that the effort is being made to stop all further public housing projects except for the 20,000 units authorized in this bill.

This means that nearly two-thirds of the units presently under executed contributions contracts, which most of us had considered binding, may not go forward. This following list of those projects by States and city areas (excluding the approximately 6,000 units in controversy in Los Angeles) shows the wide range of the housing thus endangered.

Executed annual contributions contracts but not under construction, June 30, 1953

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

Kentucky:

Owensboro_.

Somerset___.

74 50

Louisiana: New Orleans_.

1,352

Maryland: Baltimore..

2,588

Massachusetts:

Boston___.

Clinton___

Gloucester.

Lowell____

Lynn---

Michigan:

The statements by the leading House conferees thus mean that the pipeline of projects working up to the ready stage for construction is cut off. No new projects can be put into it to be ready when Congress appropriates further sums. And the agency is 108 being asked to dump all possible existing 659 contracts out of the pipeline on the theory of an escape clause.

150 100

100

372 175

[blocks in formation]

The importance of having an inflow of executed annual contributions contracts and the necessity of preparing well in advance for the time when construction is authorized is explained in the following extract from a statement of May 5, 1953, by the Public Housing Commissioner which was furnished to the Comptroller General of the United States, Lindsay C. Warren:

"It has been the experience of the Agency under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, that in order to create a sufficient workload to result in a certain number of units ready for construction in a particular fiscal year, it was necessary to place many more than that number under annual contributions contracts (up to the

annual contributions contract a local housing authority cannot even start acquiring sites), a still larger number under preliminary contracts (where preliminary loans for surveys and planning were necessary) and still more under program reservations. This practice is necessary for two obvious reasons: (1) a certain number of projects under program reservations never reach the point of either preliminary loan contracts or annual contributions contracts, and a lesser number drop out between the preliminary loan contract stage and the annual contributions contract stage, (2) some projects progress from the stage of program reservation, preliminary loan contract, or annual contributions contract, to the construction stage in a relatively short time; others, for various reasons such as the size of the project, problems of design, cost, site selection and acquisition, reconciliation of local differences of opinion, relocation of slum-site dwellers, etc., may take years to reach the point of construction."

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MAYBANK] and Commissioner Egan also made it clear in the Senate hearings (p. 446) that in many cases it takes from 3 to 4 years after the execution of the contributions contracts to start construction. Cutting off the flow of new contracts and pressure to nullify existing contracts, which the House provision and debate attempt, are thus likely to be fatal to public housing.

Although I am confident that our Senate conferees did not intend any such liquidation of the program, it would appear that the House conferees did.

HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE IN GREATEST
NEED IS TO BE CUT OFF

While virtually all other programs for 206 housing assistance have been continued and extended, public housing for low-income families is to be reduced and soon cut off.

54

79

THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEGRO FAMILIES WILL BE ESPECIALLY HARD HIT The housing program that has done the most to give Negro families a fair shake and to meet the serious shortage that exists for these families in present housing opportunities (because of discrimination in financing, exorbitant rents, site location, etc.), has been the low-income public housing program. Under the legislation prior to 1949, 70,200, or 42.7 percent of the 183,000 occupied units were occupied by Negro families. Of the 170,200 units completed, or under construction, under the 1949 act as of June 30, 1953, 49,200, or 28.9 percent are designated for occupancy by Negro families. Of the 175,200 units not under construction, under the act of 1949, 51,200, or 29.2 percent are planned for occupancy by Negro families. Of the 56,100 units (included in the last figure mentioned above-175,200) under annual contributions contracts, 27,200, or 48.5 percent are planned for occupancy by Negro families.

Southern communities have a good record in this regard. A computation made nearly a year ago of units under all programs showed that in the Southern States 51 percent of the total number of units completed, under construction or planned, were for occupancy by Negro families. We in the North must acknowledge that the local action of southern communities has been more extensive than our own.

The needs of these citizens are further emphasized by certain facts in connection with the urban redevelopment programs. Of 48,900 families which will be displaced in 92 urban redevelopment projects a recent report reveals that 31,500 or 64.6 percent were nonwhite. I understand that over 80 percent of these Negro families are reported to be living in substandard housing and that nearly 60 percent of such displaced families must be rehoused in public housing,

The importance of this public-housing program not only for the families now housed in substandard houses, but also for the communities where group tensions often develop out of inadequate housing situations hardly needs to be underlined. It is hard to see how anyone who recognizes the great needs of Negro citizens for housing and the substantial assistance given by the public-housing program, could fail to support the continuation of it.

THE PUBLIC HOUSING LIMITATIONS OF THE HOUSE WILL SERIOUSLY HANDICAP THE SLUMCLEARANCE AND URBAN-REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ALSO

Since under the law slum clearance requires the relocation to decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings of those who are to be displaced, and housing shortages exist in many of these cities, public housing for relocated families becomes a most essential part of the total program.

It is ironical, as pointed out in the House debate by Congressman YATES, that the slumclearance and urban-redevelopment figure in this bill is 150 percent higher than last year's figure ($20 million instead of $8 million), while, at the same time, the heart is being cut out of the public housing program so necessary to its success.

THE PROVISIONS FOR A REPORT TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES COMPLETELY SIDETRACKS THE BANKING AND CURRENCY COMMITTEES, WHICH HAVE PRIMARY JURISDICTION FOR HOUSING LEGISLATION

If the bill can be sent back to conference, attention should also be given to the importance under orderly congressional procedure for any review and report on public housing to be sent to the appropriate legislative committees, the House and Senate Banking and Currency Committees. This will assure full hearings and discussion of this vital part of the well-rounded housing program adopted in 1949, with strong bipartisan support.

SUMMARY OF TELEGRAMS RECEIVED BY SENATOR

PAUL H. DOUGLAS ON SAFETY FEATURES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WORK AS AFFECTED BY CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ACTION ON H. R. 4663

I have received numerous telegrams from citizens of Illinois protesting against those features of the conference report, which have been interpreted by the House conferees and the House, as discontinuing the safety inspection work of the ICC on trucks and other heavy motor vehicles. I hope that the Senate will also disagree with the House on this point and send the report back to conference.

Among those who have protested have been the following:

P. V. Pappas, Stephan Cuisinier and Gilespie, Adilon Peetit, Jr., Roy E. Olin, Franklin R. Overmyer, Safeway Truck Lines, Spector Motor Service, M. A. Riddle, Howard Willet, Jr.,. Midstate Freight Lines, Hinchcliffe Motor Service, Samuel L. Kane, Krerna Trucking Co., William Noorlag, Jr., all of Chicago; Dumont Cartage Co., of Aurora; C. John

Viking, of Waukegan.

R. B. Oppenheimer and Lee Brothers Inc., of Chicago; Dohrn Transfer Co., of Rock Island; Eugene Cohn, Thomas E. Carey, Walter Mullady, Richard O. Stoaks, Max R. Harris, Fred Olson & Son, M. E. Holt, H. M. Sell, all of Chicago; Fox Valley Express and Martin Transfer and Storage, of Aurora; Bunsen Transfer, of Elgin; Midwest Transfer Co., Nighthawk Freight Service, W. W. Flint, and Dennis Collier, all of Chicago; Elgin Storage and Transfer Co., of Elgin.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I desire to reply to the Senator from Illinois, very briefly, in regard to this bill going back to conference, by saying I do not agree with him in his interpretation that housing is to be given up. As one of the conferees, I am in favor of housing, and in my opinion the language continues it. the Congress at the next session to decide how far to proceed with it. But I may say that if we get into that discussion, it will be a very long one.

It is for

In regard to the suggestion of the acting majority leader, I may say amendment No. 9 relates to the purchase of automobiles by the Federal Communications Commission. On amendment No. 9, the House receded and concurred with an amendment. On amendment No. 33, the Housing and Home Finance Agency amendment, the House receded and concurred in the Senate amendment, so there was nothing for us to do on that.

Amendment 42 relates to public housing, which has been discussed. Amendment 43 also relates to public housing, which has also been discussed. Amendment No. 46 relates to the Interstate Commerce Commission's purchase of automobiles. On it the House receded and concurred, with an amendment. I do not think there is any argument in regard to that amendment, or any particular interest in it, so I hope we can accept it.

Amendment 53 has to do with the National Capital Planning Commission, and land acquisition. On it the House receded and concurred, with an amendment. I do not think there is any interest in that. So the understanding I get is that if the Senate rejects the conference report, it will mean that all the other items, as to which there was not an amendment proposed by the House in which we had to concur, will be in conference.

The Interstate Commerce Commission amendment is in conference as well as the housing amendment, or they will be, if the motion of the acting majority leader prevails.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I do not wish to delay the Senate, but I believe we ought to be rather positive with reference to the continuation of the housing program. I certainly know that the Senator from Massachusetts means exactly what he says, when he states he is in favor of continuing it. It was my understanding, from discussions I had with various conferees on the part of the Senate, that the intent was not to discontinue the housing program. But again we must go back to the discussion which took place on the floor of the House when this amendment was considered. I wish to read a question which was propounded to Representative PHILLIPS, who was chairman of the managers on the part chairman of the managers on the part of the House. of the House. This statement was made by Representative COLMER:

I understood the gentleman from California to say in substance that this would liquidate the public-housing program?

Mr. PHILLIPS replied:

That is the intent of the conference committee.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the Senator tell us the page from which he is reading?

Mr. SPARKMAN. That is found on

page 9417 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for July 21. The first statement I read, middle of the third column. In the first and the reply thereto, appear in the column on page 9418, after a brief discussion, Representative PHILLIPS stated:

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.

Still later, as shown on page 9420, in the third column, Representative THOMAS, who is the ranking Democrat on the committee, said:

For all practical purposes this program is wound up with the exception of the 20,000 units included in the bill.

Mr. President, I think we ought to have those statements in mind. We ought to make certain that when there is a final decision between the two Houses, the intent of the Senate will be well understood, namely, that it is not intended that there shall be a liquidation of the housing program, but that what it housing program, but that what it amounts to is a cutting down to the figure agreed upon, of 20,000 units per year.

Mr. President, I realize, of course, that there was another provision, and that it should be studied. These provisions should go to the appropriate committees of the two Houses. Of course, we all have great respect for the powerful Appropriations Committees; yet, after all, the determination of basic legislation ought to be made by legislative committees, and legislation ought to be proposed to the Senate by legislative com

mittees. If an existing program is to be abolished, it ought to be abolished upon the recommendation of a legislative committee. If a study is to be made to determine what the future of that program is to be, and if it involves basic legislation, I say the study ought to be made by the appropriate legislative committees, and that there should be substantive legislation.

Mr. President, I shall not take any more time, but, in order that there may be before the Senate a showing with reference to the housing situation, let me say that these are units which have been in process, applications prepared and preliminary contracts made, over a period of 2 or 3 years. Not a single one has come in since July 5, 1952. That is when the curtailment to 35,000 units was made, and this does not involve a single unit based upon an application or contract since that time. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] has stated what will happen, and I would add to what he said that public housing in the smaller towns and cities would be wiped out completely.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD a list of States, with the localities and the number of units affected, and I invite the attention of the Members of the Senate, from every State in the Union, to look over the list and note the small towns and small cities which would be adversely affected by a stoppage of the program.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »