Слике страница
PDF
ePub

1950, with Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Page 5, after line 7, insert: "(c) Notwithstanding section 133 (d) of title 10, United States Code, any authority vested in the Secretary of Defense by subsection (a) may be delegated only to the Deputy Secretary of Defense or the Director of the National Security Agency, or both."

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from

Louisiana?

[blocks in formation]

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

Mr. GROSS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a brief explanation of the bill.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to continue until the close of June 30, 1965, the existing additional $100 tariff exemption presently afforded returning residents of the United States arriving from the Virgin Islands, which would otherwise expire on April 1, 1964.

Under the tariff schedules of the United States, a resident of the United States returning to this country before July 1, 1965, if he has remained outside the territorial limits of the United States for at least 48 hours, generally may claim an exemption from duty for $100 worth of articles acquired abroad. In the case of persons arriving directly or indirectly from the Virgin Islands before April 1, 1964, however, a duty exemption of $200 is allowed, not more than $100 of which shall apply to articles acquired elsewhere than in the Virgin Islands. No absence from the United States for any specific time is required before the duty exemption may be claimed with respect to articles acquired in the Virgin Islands. With respect to articles acquired elsewhere in the Virgin

Islands an absence from the United States of 48 hours is required before any exemption may be claimed. These exemptions from duty may be claimed once every 30 days.

The existing temporary reductions in the exemptions from duty for returning residents of the United States stem from the action of the 87th Congress in Public Law 87-132, approved August 10, 1961. Prior to the effective date of that law, returning residents could generally bring back $500 worth of purchases made abroad duty free. Public Law 87-132, which generally reduced the exemptions to $100 with respect to U.S. residents returning to this country before July 1, 1963, was enacted as a result of one of the recommendations in the President's February 6, 1961, message to the Congress on the balance of payments; this legislation also initiated the special provisions with respect to residents returning from the Virgin Islands waiving the 48-hour absence requirement and granting an additional $100 exemption with respect to articles acquired in the Virgin Islands.

Public Law 88-53, approved June 29, 1963, continued the effect of Public Law 1963, continued the effect of Public Law 87-132 to July 1, 1965, except that the additional $100 for residents returning from the Virgin Islands was extended only to April 1, 1964. This was done in order to afford the interested executive agencies an appropriate period of time within which to make a study and report back to the Congress as to the direct and indirect effect of the provisions on the economy of the Virgin Islands. This report, which was prepared by the Department of the Interior in cooperation with the Departments of Treasury and Labor and other agencies of the Federal Government and the Government of the Virgin Islands, represents an obviously thorough and exhaustive study, and in the opinion of the Committee on Ways and Means its findings support the judgment of the Congress in 1961 in initially granting the special provisions for the Virgin Islands. At that time it was felt that the islands' close relationship to the United States, the importance of an expanding tourist industry to their economy, and the minimal effect on our balance-of-payments position of expenditures of U.S. residents in the islands justified the special provisions.

Favorable reports on this bill, which provides for the special Virgin Islands provisions an expiration date simulprovisions an expiration date simultaneous with that for the temporary reductions in tariff exemptions generally provided by Public Law 87-132 as extended by Public Law 88-53, have been received from the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, and Interior, and the Committee on Ways and Means unanimously recommends its enactment.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That item 915.30 of title I of the Tariff Act of 1930

[blocks in formation]

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BYRNES] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

There was no objection.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 10170 is very important to the economy of the Virgin Islands.

When Public Law 88-53 was enacted

by the 88th Congress and approved June

20, 1963, continuing the reduction from

$500 to $100 in the amount of purchases abroad that a returning resident of the United States might bring back duty free, the provision whereby U.S. resi

dents returning from the Virgin Islands might bring in $200 of goods duty free was extended to March 31, 1964.

As passed by the House, Public Law 88-53 extended the temporary $200 provision then applicable to the Virgin Islands to July 1, 1965, and included the other American possessions. The Senate struck out the $200 provision with respect to the Virgin Islands and all In conference, the other possessions. special provision for the Virgin Islands was extended to March 31, 1964.

In presenting the conference report,

the chairman stated that a study could be made of the overall effect of the $200 exemption as applied to the Virgin Islands, on the basis of which an evaluation could be made of the desirability of continuing the additional exemption beyond March 31, 1964. In the interim This study such a study was made. clearly demonstrates the importance of this additional exemption to the Virgin Islands.

All interested groups, including the Governor, the the Legislature, and the Chamber of Commerce of the Virgin Islands have submitted statements urging that the $200 exemption be continued. H.R. 10170 provides for a continuation of the special $200 exemption to June 30, 1965-the same date at which the regular $100 exemption for U.S. residents returning from places other than the Virgin Islands will expire. It deserves our support.

COMMITTEE ON RULES

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules may have until midnight tonight to file certain privileged reports. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

There was no objection.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF

STANDARDS

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up

House Resolution 556 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

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. 5838) to amend the Act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1449), as amended, to incorporate in the Organic Act of the National Bureau of Standards the authority to make certain improvements of fiscal and administrative practices for more effective conduct of its research and development activities, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be

confined to the bill and continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN], and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may desire, and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, as you

have heard from the reading of this resolution, it makes in order the consideration of the bill H.R. 5838, from the Committee on Science and Astronautics. I know of no opposition to the rule, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

and facilitate the work of the Bureau. That may be subject to a point of order.

Mr. BOW. I think the gentleman is correct in most instances. What I am trying to find out is why we have a rule brought in which waives points of order. I recognize the authority provided under the rules for the Committee on Rules to do this. But it is a rather unusual procedure. I am just wondering why we are setting aside the rules of the House in this particular instance with this particular rule.

Mr. TRIMBLE. May I say to the gentleman from Ohio, it is not an infrequent thing for the great Committee on Rules to report a rule waiving points of order.

Mr. BOW. I know it happens occasionally, but generally they have a pretty good explanation of why it is in the good explanation of why it is in the national interest to do it. I am just wondering whether there is any explanation as to why it is in the national interest and just why we should set aside the rules of the House in order to bring this sort of bill before the House today. this sort of bill before the House today. I recognize the rules provide for a Committee on Rules to do this sort of thing, but I would like to have some explanation of why this is necessary.

Mr. TRIMBLE. I have been informed that there is a gray area in the area concerning the National Bureau of Standards and the bill authorized by the rule now before us is to allow the House to work its will in clearing the fog.

Mr. BOW. I am delighted that we have someone here who can enlighten us.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TRIMBLE. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. Could not the gentleman who has just informed the gentleman from Arkansas that the waiver was necessary because of all this fog also tell him what caused the fog?

Mr. TRIMBLE. It is not clearly defined under the present law whether the authorization committee can go into certain areas and if they cannot go into certain areas they are not sure whether the Committee on Appropriations can do it. This legislation seeks to clarify the situation.

Mr. GROSS. Can the gentleman who informed the gentleman from Arkansas of the foggy situation, also tell him who is actually responsible for the waiverwhere it originated-or did it come from the committee?

Mr. TRIMBLE. Does the gentleman mean the Committee on Rules?

Mr. GROSS. No. I refer to the committee which brought the bill to the House.

Mr. TRIMBLE. These remedies came

from the committee of authorization.

Mr. GROSS. I should like to know where the waivers originated.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TRIMBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. problem here involves what to do with funds already authorized and appropriated to other agencies, which funds be

come necessary to the Bureau of Stand

Mr. TRIMBLE. This is a piece of legislation that is within the twilight zone. Under the present situation, the Com-ards, since the work is in that field. mittee on Appropriations could not make of the funds and there has been a preappropriations because it was not authorized.

Mr. BOW. If the gentleman will wait just a moment, Mr. Speaker, does the Mr. TRIMBLE. I yield to the gentle- gentleman mean that the Committee on man from Ohio.

Mr. BOW. Will the gentleman explain to the House why there is a waiver of points of order in this rule?

Mr. TRIMBLE. There are items in the bill which would be subject to a point

of order.

Mr. BOW. I would think so, but certainly the gentleman must have some reason why the Committee on Rules has come in here with a rule waiving all points of order. There ought to be some explanation of it before we adopt the rule. The gentleman says there is no objection to the rule, but until that has been cleared up, there is opposition to the rule.

Mr. TRIMBLE. I regret to hear the gentleman objects to the rule.

The first thing that the bill proposes is to provide statutory authorizations for appropriations for the Bureau to remain available beyond 1 fiscal year. Now that may be subject to a point of order.

The second provision would permit the transfer of appropriations from other agencies and merger with appropriations of the National Bureau of Standards. That may be subject to a point of order. The third proposed amendment would allow the discretionary expenditure from undesignated gifts and bequests to aid

Appropriations could not make appropriations?

Mr. TRIMBLE. That is what is in That is what is in doubt. That is where the fog is. We are trying to get out of the fog. The authorization committee does not know just what authority it has and neither does the Appropriations Committee know what authority it has, and the purpose of this kind of rule is to make it possible for the House to work its will.

Mr. BOW. If the gentleman will yield further to me on that point, I might say I have the privilege of serving as ranking minority member of the subcommittee that handles appropriations of the National Bureau of Standards. The gentleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY] is chairman of that subcommittee. In that room, when we come to appropriate for the Bureau of Standards, I have never seen any fog. I think the committee pretty well understands what it is doing.

Mr. TRIMBLE. I know the gentleman is a very able Member and this legislation is proposed to strengthen his arm.

Mr. BOW. The fog is being created by this kind of rule coming to the floor of the House which is going to start bypassing the Appropriations Committee procedures and this is going to create this fog, I am afraid.

There has been a previous authorization

vious appropriation of the funds to other agencies for overall, larger national programs. Then, in the course of research and development, it is found that certain research leads in a direction of national interest in research much beyond the program in question. In those particular instances there is an agreement with the agencies; that is, the Department of Commerce or the Bureau of Standards. There is an agreement with the agency which transfers the funds, and, under the authorization and approval of the Bureau of the Budget, the funds then can be transferred for the research and development purposes.

As the gentleman well knows, research and development funds are appropriated according to the discretion of the Appropriations Committee either on an annual basis or for a longer period, in any particular instance when the Appropriations Committee feels it best to do so. So the gentleman should not take the position that these funds have not been originally authorized and appropriated for a general purpose. The funds are transferred to the Bureau of Standards for a specific purpose of research and development because the Bureau has laboratories and physical equipment to do the job.

The gain by this procedure is easy to see. If we in the Congress do not authorize this, then each one of the agencies will have to set up its own physical equipment to do a quick, hurry-up job.

As Members will see from reading the hearings, if the process runs longer than a fiscal year, if it goes beyond the end of a fiscal year, then the Bureau of Standards itself goes to the Appropriations Committee and justifies further appropriations.

I believe there is a misunderstanding. I hope the gentleman from Iowa will listen to this. I believe in the case of entertainment there is a small amount of money involved, received either as fees for people at the Bureau of Standards who go out to speak or give papers, or as gifts. In that case, unless there is a waiving of a point of order that money-up to around $1,000-could not be put into a fund for entertainment for these international conferences and scientific agencies. So, for about $1,000 there might be a lack of authorization in the field of expenses which usually go along with such international conferences. That is a doubtful case.

I believe by this method we can eliminate the need for an authorization of a small part of this, but a very small part.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me briefly?

Mr. TRIMBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. From what source originated the request for the waiver of points of order? Did that come from the committee, when the committee appeared before the Rules Committee?

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would like to know where the language originated for this particular type of transfer-it is under section 16 of the bill and amends section 11 of the act that particular language came from the Bureau of the Budget. On the request for the rule, our committee felt that it should have a waiver on these small provisions so that there would not be this gray ground or uncertain ground.

Mr. GROSS. Did the gentleman from Pennsylvania ask for a waiver of points of order before the Rules Committee? I cannot find anyone on the legislative committee who will admit to having requested a waiver from the Rules Committee.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. I personally was not asked to authorize it. I am on the minority side, as the gentleman well knows.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed this discussion very much, and I intend, if you want me to, to yield to my very able friend and colleague the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bowl, who, of course, started the discussion today on this rule, all of which discussion, of course, refreshed my memory, because as I look at this resolution I realize that it was reported out of the Committee on Rules last October, and since that time there has been considerable water not only over the legislative dam, but a great deal of legislative wisdom has spilled on the floor of the House or, I should say, lack of wisdom has spilled on the floor of the House.

This rule does call for a waiver of points of order. Someone came to me

here on the floor-and I will not say just here on the floor-and I will not say just who at the moment, because I do not recall, but someone called and said, "Why, you are violating the rules of the House when you waive the rules of the House." Of course, the Committee on Rules is Of course, the Committee on Rules is obeying the rules of the House when it waives the rules of the House, because it waives the rules of the House, because it is a rule of the House that the Commitis a rule of the House that the Committee on Rules does have the right to waive tee on Rules does have the right to waive a point of order at certain times; that is, a point of order at certain times; that is, a rule on a point of order at certain times when they believe that it will expedite the public business and be in the best the public business and be in the best interests of the House.

Let me say further-and this is a good opportunity and a good place to say it— that I as one member of the committee, and I believe all of us, will agree that the and I believe all of us, will agree that the Committee on Rules does believe in permitting the House of Representatives to mitting the House of Representatives to work its will. All we are doing by the waiver of points of order here is to perwaiver of points of order here is to permit the House itself to work its will on this particular bill and to decide for itself as to whether or not these tag end appropriation funds that can be transferred under the provisions of this bill should be transferred without going through all of the processes that have been required in the past.

Let me say that if you will do just a little studying and a little investigating, I think you will find almost every day, without too many days passing to day, without too many days passing to the contrary, that some fund is being transferred downtown from one agency to another to some particular use in some small amount.

So the Committee on Rules in its wisdom, or in its lack thereof and I spoke a moment ago about the lack of wisdom at times around here- did see fit to at times around here-did see fit to waive points of order on this particular waive points of order on this particular section.

So what could happen? Not only could the House itself work its will on this bill but so that one individual Member of the House, whoever he might be, could not House, whoever he might be, could not get up and say, "I make a point of order against this provision of the bill" and by his arbitrary action, perhaps being the only individual in the House who would desire to defeat this particular provision desire to defeat this particular provision of the law or this particular section that is written in here, he being the only person who opposed it, will say to the House, "Well, you cannot work your will, and I "Well, you cannot work your will, and I object."

Therefore, by waiving all points of order, you make it impossible for that individual to stop the processes of the House of Representatives by a single objection and instead give the full House an opportunity to pass on the subject. an opportunity to pass on the subject. All the objector has to do is to have behind his position, if he offers an amendment to strike it out or change it, a majority of the votes in the House of Representatives to do just that.

Therefore, I do not believe that the great Committee on Rules committed any serious crime or any violation of the rules. I know they did not, and I know that they did not do anything wrong in adopting this or reporting out this sort of rule. It does not stop anybody from doing anything except one individual from preventing the House from working its will on this particular section of the bill in connection with the

transfer of small tag ends of appropriations.

For that reason I am hoping the rule will be adopted and we will proceed and let the House decide. I do not care what happens to the bill, particularly; I am not personally interested. You can chew it up, you can spit it out, you can do anything you want to do with it, I say to my good and genial friend from Iowa [Mr. GROSS]. But let us do it the regular way for once.

Mr. Speaker, I have promised to yield time to my very good friend and colleague from Ohio [Mr. Bowl, who will probably espouse a different view from my own.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow].

Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding to me. I was afraid he was going to say that he was going to yield to his arbitrary friend who might, by his single voice, enter an objection to this, and if he had he would have been telling the truth, because that is what I would have done. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio who has laid the groundwork here for this action, and who sometimes makes it a little difficult to answer. I have great respect for him because probably as much as anybody, he is responsible for my being a Member of Congress. I know that he will say that he has had to apologize for that for a good many years. Be that as it may, I think the gentleman's argument does not hold water when we know him, because if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] had some piece of legislation brought to this floor, that he did not like, that he thought was wrong, and by his own single objection he could stop it, he would do so. At that particular moment this idea of the majority working its will would be wrong. And he would feel that he was doing a great favor to the majority by stopping it before it got to that point.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOW. I am delighted to yield to my colleague from Iowa [Mr. GROSS].

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I have often supported the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] in his opposition to closed rules and to waiving points of order on bills. I have heard him make some splendid speeches in opposition to waiving points of order. He is a very capable and veteran Member of the House. He has convinced me of his position in opposition to exactly the same resolutions on other occasions. So it is more than a little difficult for me to understand him in his position today. I do not understand the language in which he is speaking today with reference to this bill.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOW. I yield to my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, let me say that if I have ever been proud of my service in public life, I am today. Today I have reached the peak of that pride because I have reached the place where I have been able to convince the gentleman from Iowa, who is

my good friend [Mr. GROss], of anything, and if I have done that I have accomplished something that no one else in this Congress has ever been able to do. I accept the accolade with great pride.

Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, if I may now discuss the question before us, I would have objected, too. I am opposed to this rule. I am opposed to rules on an ordinary bill of this kind, which is brought in here and waives points of order, because although we recognize that under the rules of the House the committee has the right to do this, it seems to me this is a rather unusual action to be taken by the Committee on Rules. Here is a regular bill that comes to us and that waives the rule which takes away from one committee its right that has been established by a majority. The

gentleman from Ohio speaks about the right of the majority to do its will. The majority has adopted a rule that gives an individual Member the right to object. Since these rules were adopted by a majority, it would seem to me that the great Committee on Rules, except in a matter of great emergency, would recognize that the majority of the House in establishing these rules said that since a majority has adopted these rules we should follow the rules, except in most exceptional circumstances.

Now, it has not been pointed out to us here where there is any exceptional cir

cumstance.

Mr. Speaker, what do we have? They make it look as though it does not amount to very much. However, in their hearings, and I shall read from the testimony of those hearings, section 17 would permit the transfer to NBS the appropriation of research and development funds appropriated for other agencies.

When? When the Secretary of Commerce determines it is right.

Mr. Speaker, are we again going to delegate the powers of the Congress to the executive branch? We appropriate funds. We designate how they should be spent in research and development. But here we say to the Secretary of Commerce that he may make a decision or judgment different from that of the House of Representatives as to whether we were right when we made that appropriation.

Mr. Speaker, I am not one who is ready to turn over to the Secretary of Commerce the right to upset and change a decision which has been made by a majority of the House of Representatives when we appropriate the funds for research and development. That is exactly what is proposed to be done here. If we are going to talk about the protection of the majority, the majority of the House does these things and makes these appropriations. Yet under this type operation we would turn over to one man, the Secretary of Commerce, the right to change these appropriations and to transfer them over to the Bureau of Standards for research and development. Gentlemen, I believe that is wrong.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. BOW. I thank the gentleman. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection the previous question is ordered. The question is on the resolu

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman tion. from Ohio.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, may I remind my dear friend that the majority of the House when it adopted the rule that I mentioned a moment ago, also adopted a rule giving the right to also adopted a rule giving the right to waive points of order whenever the Committee on Rules believed it necessary and wise to do so. wise to do so. That is exactly what has been done in this instance.

I would like to remind the gentleman that he knows as well as the rest of us that the Bureau of the Budget has transferred funds and other agencies have transferred funds in the past.

Mr. BOW. The gentleman has made

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. BOW. 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 pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio objects to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present. ent. 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 264, nays 99, not voting 70,

as follows:

reference to the rules and I agree with the right of the Committee on Rules to do this. However, the gentleman has further said that it was wise to do so. What was the thinking of the Committee Abernethy on Rules that made it wise in this instance?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Exactly the same thing that has caused the Committee on Rules to waive points of order upon the request of the Committee on Appropriations for various branches of

Government. No committee in the Con

gress has appeared more often before the Committee on Rules asking for such authority than the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. BOW. On that point I must differ from my friend.

[blocks in formation]

Abbitt

Adair Addabbo Albert

[Roll No. 76]
YEAS-264

Fulton, Pa.
Fuqua
Gallagher
Garmatz
Gary

Anderson

Gathings

Andrews, Ala.
Arends
Aspinall
Avery
Baring
Barry
Beckworth

Giaimo

Gibbons

Gilbert

Bell

Bennett, Fla. Bennett, Mich. Betts

Blatnik

Boggs

[blocks in formation]

Bolling

Bolton,

Frances P.

Halpern

Hanna

Hansen

Harding

Hardy

Harris

Harsha

[blocks in formation]

Harvey, Ind.

[blocks in formation]

Hawkins Hays Healey Hechler Hemphill

Pepper

Perkins

Philbin

Pickle

Pike

[blocks in formation]

Diggs Dingell

Kilgore

Rogers, Fla.

King, Calif.

Rogers, Tex.

Donohue

Kirwan

Teague

Rooney, N.Y.

Downing

Thompson, N.J.

Kornegay

Dulski

Ullman

Duncan

Van Pelt

Leggett

Dwyer

Lennon

Weaver

Edmondson

[blocks in formation]

Lesinski

[blocks in formation]

Wydler

Lindsay

Long, La.

McMillan
MacGregor

Mailliard

Martin, Calif.

Miller, N.Y.

Minshall
Montoya

[blocks in formation]

Ellsworth

Everett

Evins
Fallon

Farbstein
Fascell
Feighan
Fino
Fisher

Flood

Fountain Fraser

Long, Md. McClory McCulloch

McDade McDowell

McFall

Macdonald MacGregor Madden Mahon

[blocks in formation]

Rosenthal

Rostenkowski

Roudebush

Roush

Rumsfeld
Ryan, Mich.
Ryan, N.Y.
St Germain
St. Onge
Schwengel
Scott
Secrest

Shipley

Short

Sibal

Sickles

Sisk

Smith, Iowa

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr. Del Clawson.

Mr. Karsten with Mr. Van Pelt.

Mr. Ullman with Mr. Ayres.

Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr. Martin of California.

Mr. Bolling with Mr. Norblad.

Mr. Roberts of Texas with Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Willis with Mr. Miller of New York. Mr. Charles H. Wilson with Mr. McMillan. Mr. Landrum with Mrs. Kee.

Mr. Ashley with Mr. Dawson.

Mr. Finnegan with Mr. O'Brien of Illinois.
Mr. Lankford with Mr. Powell.
Mr. Rains with Mr. Dowdy.
Mr. Montoya with Mr. Bass.
Mr. Senner with Mr. Selden.
Mr. Jarman with Mr. Forrester.

Mr. SMITH of Iowa changed his vote from "nay" to "yea."

Mr. ARENDS changed his vote from "nay" to "yea."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The doors were opened.

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I 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. 5838) to amend the act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1449), as amended, to incorporate in the Organic Act of the National Bureau of Standards the authority to make certain improvements of fiscal and administrative practices for more effective conduct of its research and development activities.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5838, with Mr. DIGGS in the Chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER] will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULTON] will be recognized for 1 hour.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Chairman, the bill H.R. 5838 proposes four amendments to the Organic Act of the National Bureau of Standards to permit the following:

First. To provide that appropriations made for the Bureau may remain available beyond a fiscal year.

Second. To permit the transfer of funds from other agencies for research and development to be merged with appropriations of the Bureau of Standards.

Third. To allow discretionary expenditure from undesignated gifts, dona

Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Rhodes of Ari- tions, and bequests to aid and facilitate

zona.

Mr. Jones of Alabama with Mr. Mailliard.

Mr. Buckley with Mr. McIntire.

Mr. Carey with Mr. Clancy.

Mr. Celler with Mr. Morton.

Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with Mr. Battin. Mr. Roberts of Alabama with Mr. Harvey of Michigan.

Mr. Roybal with Mr. Minshall.

Mr. Davis of Tennessee with Mr. Schadeberg.

the work of the Bureau.

Fourth. To permit the Bureau to perform its services for international organizations of which it is a member and for governments of friendly countries.

This is not legislation calling for drastic changes. This bill is an administrative proposal that would clarify certain aspects of the Organic Act of the National Bureau of Standards that would

aid and facilitate its operation and enable it to provide more effective service in the areas of its responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, let me discuss in some detail these four proposed amendments.

The first amendment adds a section 16 which would provide that authorizations for the Bureau of Standards be made on a multiyear basis; that is, without fiscal-year limitation. Now, as I said earlier, this is not drastic legislation, and virtually every Government agency doing research and development has this so-called no-year money. This amendment merely brings the research and development appropriations of the National Bureau of Standards into line with other Government agencies that are engaged in doing research and development work.

The jusification for such no-year funds is found in the uncertainties that are ever present in science research programs and the high incidence of unpredictable factors that of necessity compel readjustment of that program activity and the ever-present need for flexibility which would enable the Agency to respond promptly to a change in the circumstances to which a particular research and development program is oriented.

This fiscal-year deadline on availability of funds often induces premature decisions concerning the initiation of a research program or even the purchase of equipment required because a postponement of the decision would mean the loss of funds and thus the elimination of that program or of such a purchase.

This is in the interest of economy. This amendment would not remove the Bureau from congressional control, for the no-year appropriation would be only in those instances approved in the appropriation bill itself.

The proposed legislation is, therefore, merely the first step that must be taken before the question of no-year appropriations can be raised with the Appropriation Committees.

The requested authority here in this amendment will substantially increase the flexibility of the conduct of research and development operations in the National Bureau of Standards.

In

The second amendment proposed by this bill, H.R. 5838, will add another new section 17 which would permit the transfer or merger of R. & D. funds of other agencies with those of the Bureau. the first place, this transfer would require not only the approval of the Director of the other agency but the approval of the Bureau of the Budget as well.

This amendment is a proposal worked out with the Bureau of the Budget as a means to provide the mechanism to enable the Bureau to respond more readily to the urgently needed services arising out of major national programs.

As you know, about 40 percent of the work done by the Bureau is done at the request of other agencies and is therefore supported with funds transferred to the Bureau by these other agencies. In some cases it is appropriate for the other agencies to reimburse the Bureau for its services in the same way they would pay a contractor and the Bureau

« ПретходнаНастави »