Изображения страниц

Mr. POQUETTE. It says occupants. I am sorry.

Representative HOSMER. May I ask at this point whether that includes a man, his wife, and six children for a total of eight, or is one family an occupant?

Let's get it on the record.
Representative MORRIS. We are going to get it.

Mr. PARKS. "Occupant” is defined in the act now, in effect as the person who is responsible for paying the rent.

Representative Morris. Are you in agreement, counselor?
Mr. TROSTEN. Yes, sir; I am.

Representative MORRIS. Mr. Parks, are you in agreement with Mr. Trosten's statement?

Mr. Parks. That is correct. However, as Mr. Rogers pointed out on line 12, it is 70 percent of the units. This is on second priority. (See app. 11, p. 149.)

Mr. POQUETTE. I heard nothing said about the downpayments. Will they be comparable to the downpayment for people buying single units? I heard one statement they were going to be 10 percent down if you bought other than a cooperative. If you bought a co-op you could get it for 3 percent down, but if you went any other way it would be 10 percent. I heard no statements here to that effect.

Mr. TROSTEN. Mr. Paquette, I interpret your statement as a question about the financing that would be available. We have addressed ourselves to the question. It is one of the written questions the chairman addressed to Mr. Smith. (See app. 5, p. 181.)

Representative MORRIS. Mr. Smith, could you cover that briefly right now?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. The downpayment will depend upon the section of the National Housing Act which is applicable to the specific transaction. In the case of single-family houses, the downpayment is 3 percent. The cooperative downpayment also is 3 percent. If the purchasing organization is purchasing enough units to qualify for insurance under section 207, the multi-family section of the National Housing Act, the downpayment would be 10 percent.

However, there is a compensating factor in that the current interest under 207 is 514 percent. The interest rate on single-family homes is 6 percent at the present time. Representative MORRIS. Thank you.

Mr. POQUETTE. On the quads, New Mexico, law states you have to have five people to form a co-op. How is it going to work with a co-op that is started by four people?

Mr. TROSTEN. Again, Mr. Paquette, we have requested information from the Federal Housing Administration on that. (See app. 5,

Apart from New Mexico law we are advised by the Federal Housing Administration that the National Housing Act requires that there be a minimum of five members in a cooperative to qualify for insurance. Therefore, it would require five people to qualify a cooperative for the insurance provisions that FHA could make available.

Senator BENNETT. Let me ask Mr. Smith a question.

Could the occupants of two quadruplexes get together and form a cooperative to own two quads?

Mr. Smith. They would meet the requirement of a minimum of

p. 181.)

Representative MORRIS. But a smaller number than five people can form a corporation or partnership to purchase.

Senator BENNETT. That is right.

Mr. Smith. They could still call themselves a cooperative if they chose to do so, and we could extend financing to that purchasing group under section 203 on a building of four units.

Senator BENNETT. What is the privilege that they do not obtain ?

Mr. Smith. I think it is the other way around, Senator. They do not have to furnish budgets,

Senator BENNETT. It is an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
Mr. SMITH. All they have to do is to make the monthly payment.
Mr. POQUETTE. That is about all I had.
Representative MORRIS. Are there any more questions?
Thank you, Mr. Poquette.
Mr. POQUETTE. Thank you.

Representative MORRIS. I want to thank all the witnesses for their contribution to the subcommittee's deliberations. The members of the subcommittee will consider this testimony very carefully in arriving at our conclusions as to the most appropriate action to be taken on the proposed legislation pending before us.

I may say, personally, that I hope this legislation, with appropriate amendments, will receive the prompt and favorable consideration of Congress, and with the cooperation of my two distinguished colleagues I believe that consideration can be obtained.

Representative HOSMER. You mean you want your bill passed this year, Mr. Chairman. Representative MORRIS. This is the great hope that I have.

Representative HOMER. Let me say before you close, if I may, that the chairman at the beginning of this session said some kind words about the Members of Congress serving on the panel with him today, and we did not respond at that moment.

I think it is appropriate that we do now by stating that although Senator Bennett and I come from the opposition political party to Mr. Morris, we work hand in hand and we have great admiration for his integrity, capability, and for the fine things he has been able to accomplish for his own State.

Also, I think it is appropriate to say that his companionship is one of the nonmonetary rewards that service on the Joint Committee provides

Representative MORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Hosmer. I want to get you out here a little closer to a certain date some time.

Senator Bennett, do you have any comments ? Senator BENNETT. I would like to pick up the theme of my friend from California. I think it would have been unfortunate had the chairman of this panel not come from New Mexico because he would not have this background for understanding—I won't say peculiar—the problems of New Mexico. It has been a privilege for us to come down.

And just one final footnote--I have served on a good many committees in the Congress-still am serving on some-where political motivation is very obvious, but I have never seen it on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

Representative MORRIS. Thank you.


I have not been a member of the Joint Committee as long as you and Congressman Hosmer, but I, too, have never seen the deliberations of this committee divided along strictly partisan lines. I don't ever expect to see it.

I take this opportunity once again to express my personal thanks to you, and I am sure the people of this community appreciate very much your taking the time to come and help us.

The record of the hearing of the subcommittee will remain open for 3 weeks for additional written comments if anyone desires to make them. Such comments will be considered carefully by the subcommittee.

Pending that, the subcommittee adjourns.

(Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., Friday, August 11, 1967, the meeting was adjourned.)




Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room AE-1, the Capitol, Representative Melvin Price presiding.

Present: Representatives Price, Hosmer, and Anderson.

Also present: John T. Conway, executive director; Leonard M. Trosten, staff counsel; and George F. Murphy, Jr., national security affairs.

AEC-PROPOSED OMNIBUS BILLS, S. 1901 AND H.R. 10627 Representative PRICE. The committee will be in order.

Today's hearing before the Subcommittee on Legislation was called to consider testimony by the Atomic Energy Commission concerning the Commission's proposed omnibus legislation for 1967. This proposed legislation was introduced on June 5, 1967, as S. 1901 by Senator Pastore, by request, and on June 7, 1967, by Mr. Holifield, by request, as H.R. 10627. (See app. 6, p. 188.)

These identical bills would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Euratom Cooperation Act of 1958. In essence, these bills would, first, eliminate the requirement for a Presidential determination of the amounts of fissionable material to be produced and distributed; second, correct certain erroneous references in the Atomic Energy Act; and, third, authorize the AEC to perform toll enriching for Euratom.

On August 14, 1967, the AEC submitted to Congress another proposed bill which would authorize the Commission to provide appropriate orientation and language training to members of families of officers and employees of the Commission assigned abroad. The subcommittee also intends to consider this proposed legislation today. (See app. 9, p. 199.)

Finally, the AEC is considering submitting to the Congress third bill which would make certain changes with respect to the position of the Director of the AEC's Division of Military Application, in the interest of efficiency. The subcommittee will also review this proposed legislation with the AEC at today's hearings. (See app. 10, p. 201.)

The AEC's first witness today will be Mr. E. J. Bloch, Deputy General Manager. Will you proceed, Mr. Bloch?



Mr. Bloch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you today the AEC's proposed omnibus legislation for 1967, as well as other recently submitted requirements for legislation now pending.

The omnibus bill, embodied in S. 1901 and H. R. 10627, consists of a number of proposed amendments of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.



Section 1 of the bill would delete the last sentence of subsection 41 b. of the Atomic Energy Act which presently provides :

The President shall determine in writing at least once each year the quantities of special nuclear material to be produced under this section and shall specify in such determination the quantities of special nuclear material to be available for distribution by the Commission pursuant to section 53 or 54.

Subsection 4(c)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 prescribed that the President was to direct at least once each year the quantities of fissionable material to be produced under that section. This provision, which was carried over into subsection 41 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, appears to have stemmed in part from a desire to assure that, under civilian control of the atomic energy program, military needs for special nuclear materials would receive adequate attention.

The second requirement of the last sentence of subsection 41 b., providing for determination by the President of the quantities of special nuclear material to be available for distribution by the Commission pursuant to section 53 or 54, appears to have been devised to permit greater private participation in atomic energy matters, particularly in the development of atomic power, while at the same time affording assurance that sufficient special nuclear material, which was still in short supply in 1954, would be available to meet military needs. Both of these requirements for direct Presidential action, therefore, resulted from the actual scarcity of special nuclear material at the time of enactment of the 1954 legislation. In view of this scarcity, it was important to assure an adequate supply of material for weapons purposes while at the same time permitting such of these materials as could be spared from the weapons program to be available for the development of sig. nificant peaceful uses.


This situation, however, has changed significantly in the ensuing 13 years. Fissionable materials are no longer scarce. This change was specifically noted by the Congress upon passage in the summer of 1964 of the Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act (Public

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »