CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

should implement the recommendations

of the Cabinet Committee. This interim

report, in my judgment, is an important

measure toward providing a better understanding of the economic facts of life

by all of our citizens.

CIVIL DEFENSE

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, is the

Senate still in the morning hour?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is still in the morning hour.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the Governor of my State has been responsible

for the issuance of a report this morning

on the civil defense posture of the United

States. He has given real and needed

leadership at a point where our national

defenses are the weakest-civil survival

in case of a nuclear war.

An effective civil defense program, as

proposed by the Governor, is indispensable to our security, and provides a vital

element in the national determination in

the cold war. The New York civil survival program will give leadership to the

Nation in an area where plans, revised

plans, and reorganized plans have too

long been the hallmark. Should legislation on the national level be required to

enable States to pursue this initiative, I

shall be prepared to propose such legislation.

At a time when negotiations with the

Soviet Union, between the Foreign Ministers-and perhaps at the summit-on

the most urgent questions of peace and

war, are pending, and while the issue

of the inspection, testing, and control of

nuclear weapons hangs in the balance at

Geneva, it is important to make clear

that the American people will not be

intimidated by threats, but are determined to pursue a path which seeks peace

through justice and honest agreement

between nations and in aid of the United

Nations.

Mr. President, I have long contended,

both on the floor of the Senate and, when

I was in the other body, on the floor of

the House of Representatives, for adequate civil defense preparations. I think

it is just as essential an ingredient of

our posture in terms of a deterrent to hot war as the Army, Navy, and Air Force

themselves, and I welcome and applaud

the initiative of the Governor of my State

in courageously and comprehensively

facing this issue in a way in which it has

not been faced before, and urging in

practical terms the people of my State to

be prepared for any eventuality. This is

a way in which to back up the determination which we show in respect to the

principles for which we contend in international affairs.

I hope that other States will pay serious heed to what is proposed in the State

of New York, and I hope very much that

the Nation, too, will lend it an ear, for the

matter very urgently needs attention.

I wish to call particular attention to

the three major recommendations of the

report, as follows:

1. As to knowledge: We recommend that

the State, in full cooperation with the Federal and local governments, mobilize its re- sources to communicate awareness and

knowledge about the dangers of fallout and

the defenses against it.

2. As to shielding: We recommend in the

interest of the public health and safety, that

you urge the State legislature, at its next

session, to enact a law requiring all new con- struction within the State to provide shielding from fallout up to a minimum specified

standard.

3. As to survival supplies: We recommend

that you initiate a State program to develop a "survival kit" which would enable persons protected from fallout to survive in their

protected area for at least 2 weeks without any outside assistance.

Mr. President, I think it is fair to say

of Governor Rockefeller's views on this

report as I understand them, first, that

he does not expect us to become involved

in a nuclear war tomorrow, next week, or next year. However, the possibility

of such an attack cannot be ignored,

and the proposed plan could save the

4 million lives, plus an additional 4

million injured, which were estimated to

have been lost in New York State

through radioactive fallout during the

last Operation Alert attack; second, he

feels that the message contained in the

report is one not of fear but of hope.

It makes clear that it is possible for most

of us to live through a nuclear attack,

if adequate protection measures are

taken for us all; and, third, he feels that

if our civilian population is properly prepared, this in itself will serve as an important deterrent to war, since any

prospective enemy would know he could

not knock us out or break our will to

resist by a single, massive blow. Fourth,

he is of the opinion that the proposed

plan could help to protect us from any

aggressor.

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 proceeded to call

the roll.

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

order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

HOUSING ACT OF 1959-VETO MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 34)

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I am informed that the President

of the United States has sent to the

Senate a message. I ask that the message be laid before the Senate and read.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from California will state it.

Mr. KUCHEL. Is the Senate still

operating in the morning hour?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

morning hour is still in progress.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message

from the President of the United States,

which was read, and, with the accompanying bill, ordered to lie on the table

and to be printed:

To the Senate of the United States:

I am returning herewith, without my

approval, S. 57, "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."

For many months I have been looking

forward to approving a sound and constructive housing bill. New homes are

now being built at near record rates. I

have hoped to receive from the Congress

legislation that would further advance

the cause of better housing for Americans

within the limits of fiscal responsibility.

To my disappointment, the Congress

has instead presented me with a bill so

excessive in the spending it proposes, and so defective in other respects, that it

would do far more damage than good.

First, the bill is extravagant and much

of the spending it authorizes is unnecessary. Its spending authorizations total a minimum of $2.2 billion-all of which

would be available for commitment without further congressional or Presidential

action. The comparable budget recom- mendations of the administration totaled

$810 million.

Its authorizations of $900 million for

urban renewal-telescoped into 2 years--

are excessive.

Even though we have over 100,000 previously authorized public housing units as

yet unbuilt, the bill would authorize 190,-

000 more.

A new program of direct Federal lending is authorized for housing for elderly

persons when needs in this area can be

adequately met by private funds invested

under the protection of Federal insurance. The college housing loan program

would be continued with increased authorizations at interest rates below the

cost of money to the Treasury and a new

program for college classrooms and related academic facilities at the same subsidy interest rates would be started.

Although the amounts initially authorized for the latter program would be

relatively small, the eventual demand for

these loans would reach staggering proportions. To the extent that these and

other programs merely displace private

financing they lead to Federal spending

that is entirely unnecessary.

Second, the bill is inflationary. The

spending authorizations of S. 57, taken

together with other seriously objectionable provisions would be inflationary and

therefore an obstacle to constructive

progress toward better housing for

Americans. One of the most damaging

effects of inflation is that it dries up the sources of long-term credit. There is

perhaps no industry in the Nation more heavily dependent for its operations on

long-term funds borrowed at reasonable

rates of interest than the housing industry. We have made good progress in

the fight against inflation but we cannot

win that fight if we add one spending

program to another, without thought of

how they are going to be paid for, and

invite deficits in times of general prosperity. No one can gain from a fiscal

policy of this inflationary type-least of

all, the housing industry.

Third, the bill would tend to substitute Federal spending for private investment. Many provisions of the bill, instead of stimulating private investment,

12788 July 7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

would drive private credit from areas where it is urgently needed.

The requirement that the Federal National Mortgage Association buy mortgages at par under its special assistance

program, regardless of the price that

these mortgages command in the open

market, would have this effect.

So also would the provision of the bill

limiting the fees that FNMA may charge

when purchasing mortgages.

The provisions authorizing college housing and college classroom loans at

subsidized interest rates, additional Federal purchases of cooperative housing

mortgages and a new program of shortterm loans by the Federal Government on the security of mortgages would similarly substitute public for private financing.

Fourth, the bill places needless limitations on the FHA program and con- tains provisions that would impair FHA's soundness. Instead of removing

the wholly unnecessary limit on the

amount of the mortgage insurance au- thority of the Federal Housing Administration, the bill would continue these

important programs on an uncertain,

hand-to-mouth basis.

Through lower downpayments and

longer maturities the bill would introduce underwriting provisions of questionable soundness into a number of

FHA's loan insurance programs.

Fifth, the bill contains provisions

which are discriminatory and unfair.

The way the bill is written a few large

cities, by making early application, could

tie up all the funds available under the

urban renewal program. The Administration would be specifically prohibited

from preventing this discrimination

against our smaller cities which have

not yet entered the program or which do

not have large planning staffs.

Under present law cities can count

streets and other local improvements,

which they had already intended to con- struct, as a part of their share of the

costs of an urban renewal project. S.

57 would extend these credits retroactively to include such improvements

made by cities up to 5 years before com- mencement of the project. As it is, the

local cash contribution has averaged

only about 14 percent of the cost of ac- quiring and preparing a project site for

development. S. 57 would reduce such

contributions even further.

In view of these defects, I have withheld my approval from this bill.

There remains, however, a need for

the enactment in this session of the

Congress of legislation, such as I recom- mended last January, which will carry

forward our important housing programs on a sound basis:

1. The insurance authority of the Federal Housing Administration, which does

not involve the lending of Federal funds

and does not cost the taxpayer a cent, is

nearly exhausted. Additional mortgage insurance authority should be granted

by eliminating the ceiling on this au- thority.

2. The Federal Housing Administration program for insurance of property improvement loans, which expires

September 30, 1959, should be extended

at least through this fiscal year.

3. The Federal Housing Administration program for insurance of Capehart military housing loans expired on

June 30, 1959, and should be extended

for 1 year.

4. The voluntary home mortgage

credit program, which expires July 31,

1959, should also be continued.

5. Authorizations for urban renewal

grants should be replenished, the local

share of the costs should be increased,

and the college housing program proposed in the budget message should be

enacted.

6. The statutory interest rate ceilings

governing mortgages insured under the

Federal Housing Administration's regular rental housing and cooperative

housing programs should be raised.

Legislation along these lines will help

make private housing funds available for

investment in housing and related construction, will promote the effective use

of the resources and energies of State

and local governments in housing and

urban renewal activities, and will allow

the Federal Government to play its part

in a truly constructive and noninflationary manner. This is the way to provide

more and better housing for the American people.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 7, 1959.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have

just heard read the President's veto

message on the housing bill. I regret

very much that the President vetoed the

bill. I was one of the members of my

party who urged the President to sign

the bill. I hoped he would sign it, because I consider the bill reasonable in

its proportions, although it did not exactly meet the administration's point of

view. However, that is the essence of

legislation, namely, that ultimately there

must be a compromise as between the

views of the Congress and the views of

the Executive.

But I believe the bill went a long way

toward trying to meet the administration's point of view, consistent with

meeting a good many housing problems

which occur in the country.

The veto message recognizes that

housing is a practically indispensable

basis for the prosperity of the country;

and that, indeed, our recovery, which

has been so marked from the recession

which we experienced in 1958, has been

heavily featured by the development of

more housing starts and by a rather

bright picture in regard to housing.

However, Mr. President, I believe we

would be suffering from an illusion if

we were to assume that because housing

construction was stimulated without a

housing bill in 1958, that would continue

to be the case if we had no housing bill

in 1959.

I point out, for example, as the

President recognizes in his veto message-that the FHA is for all practical

purposes about $2 billion in the red at

this time, through the issuance of what

are not technically legal commitments,

but are so-called early commitments

which are designed to encourage the

continuation of housing construction,

even though the till may be dry, in

terms of the authority of the FHA to

insure mortgages.

Mr. President, as to the feeling that

this particular housing bill was excessive or that it was inflationary, I must

respectfully disagree with those who advised along that line. I believe that

housing builds into the country fundamental and permanent values. In my

judgment, inflation is the expenditure of

money which does not add to the aggregate productive asset value of the

country. For instance, in a business,

when one makes a capital improvement,

he has added to his assets, although he

has also added to his liabilities. I believe inflationary expenditures are

money down the drain; for example,

money spent in dealing with farm surpluses, but not in solving the farm problem. But I do not believe that expenditures to add to the stock of housing,

thereby adding to the country's assets,

can be put into that category.

This bill was based upon the guaranty

concept with which we are familiar in

dealing thus far with housing.

The bill also was premised upon the

indispensable need for the renewal of our

cities. I consider one of the saddest

things about being required now to go

forward with a new approach to housing,

because the housing bill has been vetoed,

is the fact that the veto will stop in its

tracks the progress which I believe must

be made in the urban renewal program.

A very distinguished citizen of my State

who is in charge of urban renewal there

has called urban renewal a dead duck.

I do not agree at all. On the contrary,

I agree with the chairman of the New

York City Planning Commission, James

Felt, who believes that urban renewal is

very important for the benefit of the

city and has a great future, provided the

Federal Government will continue to

hold up its end.

I do not believe the urban renewal

provisions of the vetoed bill were excessive, certainly not as compared to the

need or as compared to what the administration had requested, although the

administration had requested less.

I also note in the veto message that

no recommendation for new legislation

on public housing is included. I believe

such provisions must be included in the

bill that is enacted. I believe that a

balanced housing program which includes provisions for urban renewal and

other types of housing must also show

some concern for the lowest income

groups. Some fundamental basis of

public housing is necessary in order to

make all of these various projects viable.

That particularly is a very elementary

basis of displacement from urban renewal sites of the lowest income groups.

There is at least some assurance that

some of them will have decent and sanitary housing in the public housing projects. For example, in my home State

of New York and in my home city of

1959 12789