CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

matter. I think the administration

would readily accept a 3-year extension

of the law, if it provides for sound programing and better administration.

HOUSING ACT OF 1959-VETO MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 52)

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President will the Senator from Minnesota

yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Will it suit

the convenience of the Senator from

Minnesota if we have the housing veto

message read and then have an hour

of debate on it, and then vote to override the veto?

Mr. HUMPHREY. If I hear correctly, a veto message on the housing

bill has been received. I may say to the

majority leader it would not only suit

my convenience, but I wish to join in

the denunciation of such a veto.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the

housing veto message be read, and that

following its reading the time for debate be equally divided to be controlled

by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] and the Senator from Alabama

[Mr. SPARKMAN] to the extent of 1

hour.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

PROXMIRE in the chair). Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it

is so ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll,

and the following Senators answered to

their names:

Aiken Fulbright Monroney Allott Gore Morse

Anderson Green Morton

Bartlett Gruening Moss

BeaU Hart Mundt

Bennett Hartke Murray

Bible Hayden Muskie

Bridges Hickenlooper Neuberger -Bush Hill Pastore

Butler Holland Prouty

Byrd, Va. Hruska Proxmire

Byrd, W. Va. Humphrey Randolph

Cannon Jackson Robertson

Capehart Javits Russell

Carlson Johnson, Tex. Saltonstall

'Carroll Johnston, S.C. Schoeppel

Case, N.J. Jordan Scott Chavez Keating Smathers

Clark Kefauver Smith

Cooper Kerr Sparkman Cotton Kuchel Stennis

Curtis Langer Symington Dlrksen Lausche Talmadge Dodd Long, Hawaii Thurmond

Douglas Long, La. Wiley

Dworshak McCarthy Williams, N.J.

Eastland McClellan Williams, Del.

Ellender McGee Yarborough

Engle McNamara Young, N. Dak.

Ervin Magnuson Young, Ohio

Fong Mansfield

Frear Martin

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

PROXMIRE in the chair). A quorum is

present. The clerk will read the veto

message from the President of the

United States.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

To the Senate o1 the United States:

I return herewith, without my approval, S. 2539, "an act to extend and

amend laws relating to the provision and

improvement of housing and the renewal

of urban communities, and for other

purposes."

On July 7, I returned an earlier housing bill, S. 57, to the Senate and set forth

in an accompanying message of disapproval many of that bill's objectionable

features. Although some of these features have been removed in S. 2539, and

some partially corrected, in its most important provisions S. 2539 represents little overall improvement over S. 57. In

one respect-the setting of an expiration

date next fall on the new loan insurance

authorization of the Federal Housing

Administration, with potentially serious

disruptive effects on the building industry-S. 2539 is worse than the earlier

housing bill.

Clearly this bill, like its predecessor,

goes too far. It calls for the spending

of more than 1% billion of taxpayers'

dollars for housing and related programs

over and above the vast expenditures to

which the Federal Government is already committed for these purposes.

The history of the bill indicates that the

Congress intends it to be a 1-year bill.

So regarded, S. 2539 calls for Federal

spending at virtually the same rate as

that provided for by S. 57-a rate far in

excess of my recommendations to the

Congress.

At a time when critical national needs

heavily burden Federal finances, this bill

would start two new programs, certain

to cost huge sums in the future, under

which taxpayers' money would be

loaned, at subsidized interest rates, for

purposes that could be better met by

other methods.

One of the new programs would have

the Federal Government make direct

loans to colleges for classrooms and related facilities and equipment by methods that would tend to displace the investment of private funds in these projects. This is Federal aid to education

in a highly objectionable form.

The other new program would have

the Federal Government make direct

loans for housing for elderly persons despite the fact that a program is already

in operation and working well, at no

cost to the taxpayer, and under which

private loans for this same purpose are

guaranteed by the Federal Government.

Among its other objectionable features, this bill would authorize 37,000

new units of public housing while many

thousands of previously authorized units

have not been completed or occupied.

These, too, would be subsidized, on a

basis that would cost the taxpayer many

hundreds of millions of dollars over the

next 40 years. The bill would also authorize $650 million of Federal grants to

cities for urban renewal projects. This

sum considerably exceeds the first-year

amount recommended by the administration for these purposes.

This is not the kind of housing legislation that is needed at this time. It

does not help the housing industry for

the Federal Government to adopt methods that in these times would increase

inflationary pressures in our economy

and thereby discourage the thrift on

which home financing is heavily dependent. Nor does it make sense to purpart

to assist any group of citizens, least of

all elderly persons living on fixed retirement incomes, by legislation that tends

further to increase the cost of living.

There is still time for the Congress

to enact a sound housing bill, and I once

again urge that it do so. These things

can be and ought to be done: (1) remove

the ceiling on FHA mortgage insurance

authority; (2) extend the FHA program

for insurance of property improvement

loans; (3) enact reasonable authorizations for urban renewal grants and college housing loans and adjust the interest rate on the latter; (4) extend the

voluntary home mortgage credit program; and (5) adjust the statutory interest rate ceilings governing mortgages

insured under FHA's regular rental and

cooperative housing programs.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 3, 1959.

The Senate proceeded to reconsider the

bill (S. 2539), to extend and amend laws

relating to the provision and improvement of housing and the renewal of

urban communities, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is, Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President of the United

States to the contrary notwithstanding?

Under the unanimous-consent agreement 1 hour is allotted on the veto message, to be equally divided.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator

from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN].

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I

suppose it is needless for me to say that I

regret exceedingly to see this action taken

by the President of the United States.

I do not question his right to exercise

the veto power, but I do believe that it

was wrongfully done in this case, and I

wish very briefly to point out some of the

statements in the veto message which do

not give a clear picture of the situation.

In the first place, the President says

that the bill calls for the spending of

more than $1% billion. That statement

needs considerable explanation, much

more than I can give in the time I have

at my disposal. However, that figure

includes all the public housing over the

next 40 years. It includes urban re- newal, for which the money will be spent

over a period of 15 or 20 years. It includes all the loans that will be advanced

under various programs and paid back

with a profitmaking rate of interest to

the Government of the United States.

The President refers to the college

classroom provision as being particularly

objectionable, and says that it is Federal

aid to education in a highly objectionable

form.

We might have an explanation as to

why it is objectionable-certainly not so far as the amount is concerned, because

his own program calls for $500 million

in grants to private colleges, whereas the

bill calls for loans to both tax-supported

and private colleges, in the amount of

$50 million, to be paid back at a rate of

interest which actually would make

money for the Government of the United

States.

1959 18057