Слике страница
PDF
ePub

In section 3, the Senate created an additional responsibility for the Secretary of the new Department to consult and cooperate with State governments with respect to State programs for assisting communities in developing solutions to community and metropolitan problems and for encouraging effective regional cooperation in the planning and conduct of community and metropolitan development programs and projects. It also required the Secretary, upon the request of the Governor of any State, within 60 days of such request, to hold an informal public hearing in any community of such State with respect to the manner in which any program of assistance to a State or local public body or agency administered by the Department is proposed to be, or is being, carried out in such community. The conferees substituted for the above a provision requiring the Secretary to "consult and cooperate with State Governors and State agencies including, when appropriate, holding informal public hearings with respect to Federal and State programs for assisting communities in developing solutions to community and metropolitan development problems and for encouraging effective regional cooperation in the planning and conduct of community and metropolitan development programs and projects." The holding of such public hearings would be entirely discretionary with the Secretary. The Senate managers receded and agreed to this provision.

In section 3, a further responsibility was placed upon the Secretary by the Senate to "encourage private enterprise to serve as large a part of the Nation's total housing and urban development needs as it can and develop the fullest cooperation with private enterprise in achieving the objectives of the Department." The managers on the part of the House agreed to this amendment.

The House bill included a provision in section 4 that one of the Assistant Secretaries of the new Department shall be designated to administer, under the supervision and direction of the Secretary, departmental programs relating to the private mortgage market. The Senate added a provision that "There shall be in the Department a Federal Housing Administration headed by a Fed

eral Housing Commissioner who shall be ap

pointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Federal Housing Commissioner shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary." The conferees agreed to eliminate both provisions and substitute the

following:

"There shall be in the Department a Federal Housing Commissioner, who shall be one of the Assistant Secretaries who shall head

a Federal Housing Administration within the Department, who shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary, and who shall administer, under the supervision and direction of the Secretary, departmental programs relating to the private mortgage market."

The Senate added an additional subsection to section 4 creating within the new

Department an Office of Urban Program Coordination headed by a Director, to be appointed by the Secretary, who will assist the Secretary in achieving maximum coordination of the programs of the various departments and agencies of the Government which have a major impact on community development. The conferees agreed that such an Office would not be created, but that a position in the Department would be

established called the Director of Urban Pro

gram Coordination, to be designated by the Secretary, to assist the Secretary in carrying out his responsibilities to the President with respect to achieving maximum coordination of the programs of the various departments and agencies of the Government which have a major impact on community development. In providing such assistance, the Director

shall make such studies of urban and community problems as the Secretary shall request, and shall develop recommendations relating to the administration of Federal programs affecting such problems, particularly with respect to achieving effective cooperation among the Federal, State, and local agencies concerned. Subject to the direction of the Secretary, the Director shall, in carrying out his responsibilities, (1) establish and maintain close liaison with the Federal departments and agencies concerned, and (2) consult with State, local, and regional officials, and consider their recommendations with respect to such programs.

In section 5, the Senate included an amendment providing as follows:

"(c) The President shall undertake studies of the organization of housing and urban development functions and programs within the Federal Government, and he shall provide the Congress with the findings and

conclusions of such studies, together with his recommendations regarding the transfer of such functions and programs to or from the Department. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, none of the functions of the Secretary of the Interior authorized under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897) or other functions carried out by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation shall be transferred from the Department of the Interior or in any way be limited geographically unless specifically provided for by reorganization plan pursuant to provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended (79 Stat. 135) or by statute."

The managers on the part of the House receded from their disagreement with this amendment and adopted the Senate provision.

WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

CHET HOLIFIELD,

DANTE B. FASCELL,

HENRY S. REUSS,

BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL,

JOHN N. ERLENBORN,

JOHN W. WYDLER,

Managers on the Part of the House.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House will recall, this bill in essence creates a new executive Department of Housing and Urban Development. It transfers to the Department the presently existing functions of the Housing and Home Finance Agency and gives the Secretary additional duties in the area of urban development. We are making a start at doing for the cities what the Department of Agriculture has done so long and so well for our farmers.

First of all I want to commend my fellow conferees of both Houses on the positive spirit in which the discussions were conducted. We sought diligently to uphold and make prevail the positions of our respective bodies but we also endeavored to reach reasonable compromises always keeping in mind the objectives of the bill.

I especially wish to commend my colleagues: Chairman DAWSON, Mr. FASCELL, the author of the bill; Mr. REUSS, Mr. ROSENTHAL, Mr. ERLENBORN, and Mr. WYDLER.

The Senate made a number of additions to the House bill, many of which had no substantial effect on the purposes of the legislation. There were three major changes by the Senate with Senate with which we disagreed.

The first involved the Federal Housing Administration. During debate in the House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ERLENBORN] offered an amendment

that the House rejected which would have transferred the FHA as an entity to the new Department with statutory powers of its own. This was not in accord with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission or with modern concepts of governmental administration which favor full authority and responsibility in the head of the Department. To reassure those who were concerned about the future of FHA, a committee amendment was adopted, assigning to one of the Assistant Secretaries supervision of departmental programs relating to the private mortgage market. This included FHA and FNMA. The Senate, however, added on to the bill a provision that would have had an effect somewhat like that of the Erlenborn amendment. The FHA was set up in the new Department with a Commissioner to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. His duties, however, would be prescribed by the Secretary. The compromise was as follows:

There shall be in the Department a Federal Housing Commissioner, who shall be one of the Assistant Secretaries, who shall head a Federal Housing Administration within the Department, who shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary, and who shall administer, under the supervision and direction of the Secretary, departmental programs relating to the private mortgage market.

The principal differences between the conference language and that adopted by the House and Senate are that the FHA will be retained within the new Department; its functions, however, will be vested in the Secretary; it will be headed by a Commissioner who will also be an Assistant Secretary; the Assistant Secretary-Commissioner will have such powers and duties as the Secretary may prescribe; and will administer, under the supervision and direction of the Secretary, departmental programs relating to the private mortgage market.

We believe that in this compromise the essential principles of good administration have been preserved. The powers and functions are in the Secretary who may delegate them as his responsible judgment may dictate. The possibility of conflict or obstruction has been reduced to a minimum.

The second major difference involved a responsibility the Senate imposed upon the new Secretary to hold an informal public hearing, within 60 days of a request by a Governor for such a hearing, in any community of a State with respect to the manner in which any program of assistance to a State or local public body or agency administered by the Department is proposed to be or is being carried out in such community. Our major concern was the mandatory requirement for the public hearing whenever a Governor requested it. We saw all sorts of possibilities for delay in carrying out programs already planned and approved by the Federal, State, and local agencies involved. Our compromise directed the Secretary to consult

and cooperate with State Governors but public hearings would be held only when he deemed them appropriate.

The third major difference involved a Senate provision creating an Office of Program Coordination within the new Department to assist the Secretary in carrying out his responsibilities to assist the President in achieving maximum coordination of the programs of the various departments and agencies which have a major impact on community development. We felt the creation of such a statutory office within the Department would not accord with sound administration. We achieved a compromise which set up a position called Director of Urban Program Coordination who would be designated by the Secretary.

We urge the House to accept the report of the conferees so that the great promise of this legislation can be realized. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This morning, prior to a meeting of the Committee on Government Operations, I was discussing with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CALLAWAY] the conference committee action on this bill. I explained to the gentleman how the substance of the Senate amendments, which I believed made a better bill out of this bad bill, had been retained by action of the conference committee.

Subsequently, during the meeting of the Committee on Government Operations, the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] announced to the members of the committee that this conference committee report would be brought up on the floor today and explained that the position of the House had been sustained and that we had won a victory in the conference committee.

After the meeting the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CALLAWAY] took me aside and asked me if I had attended a different meeting from the meeting the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] had attended. I assured the gentleman from Georgia that we had attended the same conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, there were many amendments adopted in the Senate. As the gentleman from California pointed out, some of these were noncontroversial and were accepted without debate on the part of the House conferees.

One of those amendments was the insertion of the word "community" in lieu of the word "urban" throughout the body of the bill. I believe this is in line with one of the amendments which was offered and rejected in the House, to broaden the scope or function of this Department outside of strictly urban areas, or large concentrations of population, and to give consideration to the suburban and rural areas, to the smaller communities throughout the country.

Second, an amendment was adopted in the other body to provide that the new Department should encourage vigorous private home building and mortgagelending industries. This amendment was also agreed to by the conferees.

Many who opposed the bill were fearful-and still are that the new Depart

ment of Housing and Urban or Community Development would bypass the State and county agencies and go directly to local communities, ignoring the real function of the States in the solution of the problems in the urban areas. Some lipservice has been given-as a result of one of the amendments adopted in the other body and agreed to by the conferees-to this problem, in that one of the functions and duties of the Secretary is to consult and cooperate with State governments with respect to State programs for assisting communities. As I say, this was agreed to by the conferees.

Along the same line was a provision that the Director of the new Department that the Director of the new Department consult and cooperate with State Governors and State agencies, including, ernors and State agencies, including, when appropriate, the holding of inwhen appropriate, the holding of informal public hearings. This, I believe, other body would have liked to have had was not as strong as the provision the other body would have liked to have had in the bill, but at least it gives consideration to the fact that the Governors of the various States and State agencies do have a role to play in the solution of the problems of our urban communities.

amendment which was offered in the For my own part, the most important House and in substance adopted in the other body-and I believe also in substance approved by the conference committee report-is the one which recognizes the somewhat autonomous nature of the Federal Housing Administration, the independence of the Federal Housing Administration.

I am pleased with the provision in the conference report that the Federal Housing Administration shall be considered to some extent a separate agency within the new Department, and that there the new Department, and that there shall be a Federal Housing Commissioner to head the Federal Housing Administration within the Department.

On the whole, the action of the conferees, I believe, admitted the shortcomings of the bill as it passed the House. I believe that the action of the conferees makes a better bill of this bill to create makes a better bill of this bill to create the new Department.

For my own part I still think the approach of creating an office within the Executive Office of the President to deal with these problems is a better approach. However, being a realist, I know that this bill was thoroughly debated on the floor of the House before and was adopted on a rollcall vote. I know that this new Department will be created in this new Department will be created in this session by the adoption of this bill. Being a realist and knowing that this will happen, I am happy that these improvements have been made in the legislation and therefore I am happy to support the action of the conference committee.

[blocks in formation]

that this is more acceptable to me than if it were not in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to yield to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. FASCELL], such time as he may consume. However, before I do yield to him I want to say that I just want to congratulate him for taking the initiative in carrying the burden for this bill through the hearings and granting every witness who wanted to come before him the right to testify. I believe that he has achieved a very important legislative result in the creation of a new Cabinet department. I do not share the fear that this Cabinet-level department may be something we do not need. The shift of population from the agricultural areas of our country to urban centers has been tremendous in the last few years, and it will undoubtedly continue. We are soon to have between 75 and 80 percent of our people in these great urban areas, community areas, and densely populated areas. They will have all of the problems that we are so familiar with. Certainly the recognition of the importance of 75 to 80 percent of our population, by giving them a Cabinet-status department and a representation close to the ear of the President and a prestige before the Congress, is something that I think none of us will regret.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. FASCELL], the author of this legislation.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for the remarks he has made concerning this legislation. I must say that in the 10 years I have been here the gentleman from California has been one of the most outspoken advocates of dealing with the problem of our urban communities and has given great leadership to legislation in this area. I want to express my appreciation also to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REUSS] who is a sponsor of this legislation. He has long been in the forefront of dealing with the problems of our urban communities. I thank him for his cooperation and commend him for his outstanding leadership in this body on this very important matter.

I want to make some remarks with respect to the very fine compromise the House conferees achieved on the rather difficult question that appeared at first with respect to the problem of the FHA. Yet in conference this problem was resolved in a manner which was extremely satisfactory to both bodies. The compromise retains the good will, as the gentleman from California has said, of the FHA and we have provided for the designation of a FHA Commissioner. Yet, the conference agreement does not do violence to, and is in complete consonance with, the principles laid down in the Hoover Commission report with regard to what is good administration, good management, and good organization. These principles are simply that all of the powers, the duties, the functions, and the responsibilities should rest in the head of the Department. That cardinal principle is preserved in this report, because while we preserve the name of the FHA and provide for the

designation of a Federal Housing Commissioner, the bill specifically provides that all of the responsibilities, duties, functions, and powers should rest in the Secretary of the Department. Therefore, it is in complete consonance with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission recommendations. So, on all points, Mr. Speaker, I think the conference committee has done an admirable job and I certainly thank my colleagues who participated on the majority and minority sides for bringing back this very fine conference report.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REUSs].

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the conference report will be adopted, and the bill to establish a Department of Housing and Urban Development thus sent to the President.

The effort to give our cities recognition at the Cabinet level has had its strong sponsors in this House. In the headquarters of the Federal Reserve on Constitution Avenue in Washington, the name of Carter Glass, of Virginia, is memorialized as one whose congressional backing had made that structure possible. When, at some future time, the new Department of Housing and Urban Development occupies its own headquarters, nothing could be more fitting than that the names of WILLIAM L. DAWSON, of Illinois, CHET HOLIFIELD, of California, and DANTE B. FASCELL, of Florida, likewise receive recognition for their devoted services in behalf of our cities.

As a result of the conference, I believe that the bill before us is a better one than it was when it first passed the House. Particularly, I am happy that the House accepted Senate language declaring it as one of the purposes of the bill "to encourage the solution of problems of mass transportation."

Today our Federal Government is committed to substantial research efforts to develop new methods of transportation to the moon by rocket, to other continents by supersonic planes, and to other cities by revolutionary rail systems. But in the area where new transportation systems are needed most-how to get from one part of a metropolitan area to another rapidly, safely, economically, and without polluting the atmospherewe are undertaking no noticeable rerearch effort whatever.

Last June 17 I introduced H.R. 9200, to set up a 2-year $20 million, federally supported research program to achieve a breakthrough in new methods of urban transport. Twenty-one other Members have joined me in introducing identical legislation—the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. ASHLEY], the gentleman from gentleman from Texas [Mr. CABELL], the gentleman from New York [Mr. FARBSTEIN], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRASER], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GILLIGAN], the gentlewoman from Michigan [Mrs. GRIFFITHS), the gentleman from New York [Mr. HALPERN], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. JOELSON], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. LONG], the gentleman from New York [Mr. MCCARTHY], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. MINISH), the gentleman from Penn

sylvania [Mr. MOORHEAD], the gentleman from New York [Mr. MULTER], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RONAN], the gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT], the gentleman from New York [Mr. ROSENTHAL], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. STALBAUM], the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VANIK], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. WELTNER], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES).

I hope that the new Department of Housing and Urban Development will endorse this legislation, so that man on earth is not lost sight of in our attempt earth is not lost sight of in our attempt to put a man on the moon.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference report.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.

The conference report was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1966

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 10323) making appropriations for military construction for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. ALBERT). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

The Chair hears none, and, without objection, appoints the following conferees: Messrs. SIKES, MCFALL, PATTEN, LONG of Maryland, MAHON, CEDERBERG, JONAS, and Bow.

There was no objection.

AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS TRADE ACT OF 1965

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules and on behalf of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. YOUNG], a member of that committee, I call up House Resolution 551 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. RES. 551

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9042) to provide for the implementation of the Agreement Concerning Automotive Products Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on

Ways and Means. Amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means may be offered to the bill at the conclusion of the general debate, but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. SMITH] and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DELANEY

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DELANEY: On page 1, line 8, strike out the period, insert a comma, and add the following: "and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 551 provides a closed rule, waiving points of order, with 3 hours of general debate for consideration of H.R. 9042, a bill to provide for the implementation of the Agreement Concerning Automotive Products between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada, and for other purposes.

The occasion for H.R. 9042 arises from the signing on January 16, 1965, by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada of an Agreement Concerning Automotive Products between the United States and Canada.

The principal purposes of the bill are to authorize the President to implement the Agreement Concerning Automotive Products between the United States and Canada; to authorize the implementation of similar agreements that the President may enter into with countries other than Canada; to authorize the implementation of agreements supplementary to the foregoing agreements; and to provide interim special procedures for adjustment assistance to firms and workers suffering dislocation resulting from the operation of the agreement signed on January 16 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means will explain the provisions of the bill more fully, and I urge that House Resolution 551 be adopted in order that the bill may be considered.

Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 551 will provide 3 hours of general debate in the consideration of the bill H.R. 9042, the Automotive Products Trade Act of 1965. It is a closed rule. It is an amendment to the Tariff Act, and unless the rule is a closed one it would open up the entire Tariff Act.

Points of order have been waived. Because of the Ramseyer rule it would be necessary to print the entire Tariff Act to set forth a few changes. That was the agreement in the Rules Committee. House Resolution 551 did not provide for

waiving of points of order, so an amendment has been offered to that effect.

Mr. Speaker, there are some additional views in connection with this particular bill. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the President to implement the Automotive Production Agreement and others supplemental to it, signed on January 16, 1965, between the United States and Canada; to authorize similar future agreements with other nations, and to provide adjustment assistance to firms and workers suffering dislocation from such agreements.

Under the agreement duty-free treatment is afforded automotive parts and autos across the United States-Canadian border. Parts must be original equipment. The agreement is inconsistent with our obligations under GATT, but the committee majority sees this as more form than substance. They point to the common ownership of plants in both countries, and the fact that it will not affect prices and so harm no other importing countries.

Section 201 authorizes the President to

proclaim the modifications of the tariff schedules and such further changes as are necessary-new types of original equipment parts.

Section 202 authorizes similar agreements with other nations. Prior to beginning negotiations the President must first, seek the advice of the Tariff Commission as to probable economic effects; second, give reasonable public notice; and third, seek information from the Departments of Commerce, Labor, State, and the Treasury. If within 60 days following delivery to Congress both Houses by concurrent resolution have not indicated disapproval, the President may carry out the agreement.

In the minority or separate additional views, Mr. Speaker, signed by eight Members, they oppose the special treatment afforded one industry. They also object to a special adjustment program for one industry when the Trade Expansion Act is now operating. They feel such special assistance should be carried out not by the taxpayers but by the industry which is the beneficiary of the agreement.

This morning I received a letter signed by five Members expressing opposition. They will be heard later on. This arrangement can extend to other NATO countries.

I know of no objection to the rule; in fact, those who oppose are opposed to certain portions of the bill, and are not objecting to the rule itself because a situation, Mr. Speaker, has arisen where something has to be done. In other words, duties have not been paid since January 16, 1965. They are accumulating, and unless we vote the bill up or down we cannot dispose of the problem which affects manufacturers at this time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MCCLORY].

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, in discussing H.R. 9042 which purports to facilitate trade between the United States and Canada, let me emphasize, first of all, my personal and individual

interest in promoting the closest possible relationship between our two countries. I married a Canadian, and many members of our family are Canadians today. Indeed, I am hopeful that all actions taken by the United States Congress and the Canadian Parliament will improve the unity and solidarity between our two nations socially, economically, culturally, and I hope politically and governmental unity as well. However, it is my position that the treaty which H.R. 9042 proposes to authenticate will not have these effects.

First of all, we should recall that in 1963, through adoption of the remission of the duty order, the Canadian Government undertook, in effect, to provide a subsidy for exports of automotive parts. The manner in which the subparts. The manner in which the subsidy operated was this: Automotive parts imported into Canada from the United imported into Canada from the United States were paid at the regular rates, which included rates up to 25 percent. which included rates up to 25 percent.

Canadian manufactured automotive parts continued to be subject to U.S. tariffs. However, to the extent that exports of Canadian automotive parts by ports of Canadian automotive parts by a Canadian manufacturer exceeded exports of prior years, the Canadian Govports of prior years, the Canadian Government granted remission of duty or a credit on the parts imported from the United States. While this may sound like a great deal of bookkeeping and did not, in fact, involve payment of a cash subsidy, it represented, nevertheless, an identifiable and actual item to the extent of 25 percent of the price of the additional Canadian made automotive parts.

This subject was brought to the attention of our State Department as well as the Treasury Department without any corrective action. Subsequently, a petition was filed with the Tariff Commission in behalf of the Automotive Service Industry Association of Chicago seeking under section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose countervailing duties on those Canadian made parts which benefited from the remission of duty order.

I believe other petitions were also filed on behalf of American concerns seeking the same relief. Indeed, the provisions of section 303 appeared to be clearly applicable by requiring that there "shall be levied and paid" an additional duty equal to the net amount of "any bounty or grant" upon the "manufacture or production for export" of any article manufactured or produced in another country

when such article is imported into the

United States.

The petition before the Tariff Commission was never decided and, except for the damage incurred by various American parts manufacturers, the treaty which H.R. 9042 proposes to validate, will render the controversy moot.

I question that anyone would contend that the Canadian remission of duty order could possibly promote the cordial relations between the United States and Canada. Obviously if the United States provided a subsidy equal to the amount of a Canadian tariff on articles exported to Canada, the Canadian Government would be completely justified in criticizing any such action and would uncizing any such action and would un

doubtedly take steps to impose an additional duty equal to the amount of any such American subsidy.

Now that is the story of the remission of duty episode which has now been abandoned and is being replaced by the so-called treaty which was signed so dramatically on January 16 at the L.B.J. Ranch in Texas.

Let us recognize first of all that Canada is anxious to develop its industrial capabilities. I am all for that, particularly to the extent that this industrial capability can be developed economically and competitively to the advantage of Canada, both internally and in relation to its trade with other countries.

The treaty or agreement regarding automotive parts was developed on condition that certain large automobile and parts manufacturers-principally the Chrysler Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors, and American Motors—would agree to maintain the existing ratio of production. These private agreements contain a commitment to increase the value of production of automobiles and automobile parts in Canada by a total of $241 million over the next 3 years.

In reliance upon these commitments, the agreement was developed which provides for the elimination of duties on both sides of the border in such a manner that these large manufacturers will be protected and will probably gain some substantial advantages to the detriment of smaller, independent parts manufacturers. Let me point out that the manufacture of automotive parts is carried on by a large number of small, independent that operate both within the United concerns in addition to larger companies

States and

in Canada. Obviously an American company with a Canadian able to export parts to the Canadian subsubsidiary will, under the agreement, be sidiary for attachment to new vehicles the new automobile which is assembled in without payment of duty. In addition,

ican-made parts may be imported into the United States without payment of duty.

Canada with Canadian-made and Amer

But heretofore there has never been any distinction made between automotive parts going into a new vehicle and Canada has always been a fertile market those going into used vehicles. Indeed, for used automobiles and for replacement parts. American concerns have developed a reliance upon this market and, notwithstanding the Canadian Canadian parts manufacturers. Under duties, were able to compete with the this legislation, those trade opportunities will disappear. Certain parts manufacturers are to be favored over other parts manufacturers, dependent upon whether the parts will find their way into a new vehicle or a used vehicle. This distinction has never been made before and yet it serves to reveal the intent and purpose of the agreement which is to continue in effect the same discriminatory practice against certain American parts manufacturers.

Let me say this: If the Canadian Government wished to remove all tariffs on automobiles and on automotive parts,

there would be no controversy here today whatever. The controversy results because first, there is a guarantee provided of an increase in Canadian automotive and automotive parts production, and second, the new automobile and automotive parts production in Canada is bound to increase at the expense of the automotive parts manufacturer in the United States.

I say this is bound to happen and yet, of course, I should qualify my statement by declaring that the American automotive parts manufacturers will suffer only to the extent that they depend upon export sales to Canada. If the domestic parts business continues to improve, American parts manufacturers will continue to prosper despite this agreement, but not because of it.

In speaking as I do on this subject today, I want also to emphasize that some American industries will undoubtedly undoubtedly benefit from this legislation. They will benefit because Canada has a growing market for new and used automobiles and for new and replacement automotive parts. Through the utilization of subsidiary companies, the parent company can transfer operations more easily and perhaps, in many instances, more economically.

But, Mr. Speaker, in the light of our system of private enterprise, it seems to me that this legislation is wrong. It does not treat all alike and it does not protect the individual American manufacturing concern against the unfair competition which is implicit in the agreement which this bill would validate.

It has been suggested to me that the step taken by this legislation must be taken in order to solidify close and harmonious relations with our Canadian neighbors. On the contrary, I am suspicious that the measure is designed to placate and satisfy the current political administration in Canada. I wonder if the policy of that administration is not one of greater Canadian nationalism, of Canadian self-interest, self-sufficiency, and isolation as contrasted to the policy of cooperation and harmony which we would like to see developed. I am fearful that seeds of disagreement and misunderstanding are contained in the bill before us.

Would that it were possible for the Congress today to express the desire for free and unrestricted trade in automobiles and automobile parts of all types. If this were possible under the rule, I would undertake to offer an amendment to the bill to permit the President to negotiate such an agreement. Regrettably, under the rule as presented, such an amendment would not be possible. Accordingly, I am suggesting that the rule should be defeated or recommitted with a view to permitting such an amendment to be offered and thereafter adopted as the expression of the Congress toward an era of greater unity and cooperation between the United States and Canada, and toward a more flourishing economy in this great North American Continent.

Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS].

(By unanimous consent, Mr. GROSS was granted permission to speak out of order.)

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I received an envelope with some enclosures from Vice President HuBERT H. HUMPHREY. I assume other Members of Congress received the same material. These enclosures include a letter from the Vice President, a mimeographed letter, in which he says that "hundreds of thousands of youngsters were provided with summer jobs they would not otherwise have held." Of course, that includes the Vice President's course, that includes the Vice President's nephew, who got a job at $2.29 in a post office in South Dakota, although the nephew's family was not known to be poverty stricken. The letter goes on to say:

The President and I urgently seek your help in encouraging young boys and girls in your district, particularly those age 16 to 21, to return to school.

The second enclosure is a speech or a statement by President Johnson as of August 21, 1965.

Incidentally, in his letter Mr. HUMPHREY lauds the President, and in the President's communication he lauds Mr. HUMPHREY and himself.

Then there is included a suggested editorial for weekly newspapers. Why the youth opportunity editorial writers do not write editorials for the daily newspapers I do not know, but here is an editorial for the weekly newspapers editorial for dwelling on the subject of the great accomplishment of hiring youths during the past summer and urging the newspapers to urge young men and women to go back to school. Incidentally, the editorial lauds Lyndon Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, those who are spending so much time and money urging Congress to encourage the dropouts to go back to school would do well to examine the kind of example they are setting for our young people. It would be better for our youth and the encouragement of hard work and education if some of our officials would try to give more of an indication that they are interested in running a decent and responsible government.

All of us should, and will, encourage young people to stay in school and obtain the best education that is practical. We will encourage them to return to school if they are dropouts who are unqualified for jobs.

However, it should be understood that all of the education and poverty programs are undermined when our highest officials set bad examples and give the impression that it is political influence and arm twisting that really counts.

It is a poor example for our youth when an administration boasts of a summer job program based on merit, and then secretly turns it into a political patronage program.

It is a poor example for our youth when the administration continues to hide the names of the job holders behind a wall of secrecy, even after it has become apparent that it is filled with political influence.

It does little to encourage hard work and decency when an administration is

irresponsible in its fiscal affairs, and in its youth job program makes it policy that "it is not what you know, but who you know that counts."

It is time for actions to match the stated intentions of the administration in this and many areas.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.

The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayes had it.

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 364, nays 23, not voting 46, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Bolton
Brock

Brooks

Broomfield
Brown, Calif.
Broyhill, Va.
Buchanan
Burke
Burleson
Burton, Calif.
Burton, Utah
Byrne, Pa.
Byrnes, Wis.
Cabell
Cahill
Callan
Carey
Carter
Casey
Cederberg

Chamberlain
Chelf
Clancy
Clark
Clausen,
Don H.

Clevenger

Cohelan
Colmer
Conable
Conte
Conyers
Cooley
Corbett
Craley
Cramer
Culver

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

McFall

« ПретходнаНастави »