Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 = , - 18528 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -——- SENATE August 12 Loan authorization—Continued : [Out of the general revenues of the Federal Treasury] Item Appropriations,) Budget esti- House bill, Senate bill, Conference 1964 1 mates, 19652 1965 1965 action RECAPITULATION BY FUNDS : : Clener al NN «ccc cw aida nwa oe wake suecne~ cae eke eevendeswiensseueatddwnlulawaewons $264, 264, 607 $301, 336, 800 $283, 182, 100 $286, 912,375 $286, 166, 600 Highway fund__.----------------..-- , 641, 28, 972, 7 27, 642, 000 27, 741, 500 27, 578, 500 Highway fund (parking account). : 3, 169, 500 867, 300 836, 300 867, 300 836, 300 Water fund_._.__.-------------- 11, 364, 188 10, 954, 100 10, 936, 900 10, 944, 900 10, 944, 900 Sanitary sewage works fund._.. 12, 997, 079 15, oa 800 15, 627, 300 15, 638, 300 15, 635, 300 Metropolitan area sanitary sewage works fun: 32, 760 80, 6 80, 600 80, 600 Peeve wal ad eves osetuvecateeenes 313, 469, 518 357, 862, 300 |. 388, 205, 200 842,181, 975 . Total ;-all: funds. 2tion ase sts peewsetele noted eet 1 Includes $353,856 in Public Law 88-317. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The report was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SaLINGER in the chair) laid before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives announcing its action on certain amendments of the Senate to House bill 10199, which was read as follows: In THE House oF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S., August 12, 1964. Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Sen- ate numbered 10 to the bill (H.R. 10199) entitled “An Act making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for other purposes”, and concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert “$74,670,000”, Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I move that the Senate con- cur in the amendment of the House to . the amendment of the Senate numbered 10. The motion was agreed to. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRI- ATIONS—CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of con- ferencé on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 10723) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SaL- INGER in the chair). The report will be read for the information of the Senate. The legislative clerk read the report. (For conference report, see House pro- ceedings of August 6, 1964, p. 17749, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.) The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report? There being no objection, the Seyfate proceeded to consider the report. t} AMENDMENT: OF FOREIGN A o ANCE ACT OF 1961 = The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes. Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 7 341, 242, 200. 2 Includes $1,850,300 submitted in H. Doc. No. 227 and $160,000 submitted in 8. Doc. No. 80 Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will ‘the Senator from Oklahoma yield? Mr. MONRONEY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska. ° WHY NOT DOMESTIC AID AS WELL? WHY THE INACTION ON ACCELERATED PUBLIC WORKS? .Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, my amendment No. 1138 would add to H.R. 11380 the provisions of S. 1856, which is now on the Senate Calendar, Order No. 995, and was reported by the able and distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RanpDoLPH] from the Com- mittee on Public Works on June 1, 1964. It has reposed on the calendar ever since, gathering cobwebs. ‘This is an unusual amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. I shall offer it because I want to call attention again, as I have repeatedly, in the past, during my 5 years in the Senate, to the double standard which guides our policies at home and abroad. Two years ago Congress enacted the Accelerated Public Works Act. It -pro- vided for local matching, whether by State, County or other political district of Federal funds for the construction of worthwhile public projects, sewer and waterworks, street paving, public build- ings, local roads, and so forth. The amount authorized was far too small— only $900 millon, of which only $880 mil- lion was appropriated, and it was quickly used up. But with it, worthwhile projects were constructed all over the United States, giving employment to people on the site of the project, at the factory where the materials for the project were manufactured and in the transportation industry—by which these products were carried from factory site to the project. The funds ran out a year and a half ago, leaving hundreds of millions of dol- lars of worthwhile projects, approved, ready to go with no chance for them to be initiated. They total, by now, over $700 million. The Accelerated Public Works bill-is supported by the AFL-CIO, by the Com- munications Workers of America, the Associated General Contractors of Amer- ica, the National Farmer’s Union, the. Citizens’ Committee on Natural Re- sources, the .Associated General Con- tractors of West Virginia, the Area Rede- velopment Administration of the De- ‘ partment of Commerce, the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the. American Hospital Association, the National Asso- ciation of Counties, the Conference of Economic Progress, the County Officials Association of West Virginia, the Penn- sylvania League of Cities, and the As- sociation of County Commissioners, and the County Services Association of 'Ten- nessee. Among the Governors supporting the accelerated public works bill are Gov. Richard J. Hughes, of New Jersey: Gov. W. W. Barron, of West Virginia; Gov. Bert Combs, of Kentucky: and Gov. Wil- liam A. Egan, of Alaska. : Mayors, city administrators, and city managers testifying in favor of the ac- celerated public works bill include city . Officials from Athens, Tenn.; Lawrence, Mass.; Newark, N.J.; Detroit, Mich.; Sa- vannah, Tenn.; Sweetwater, Tenn.; Jel- lico, Tenn.; Dyersburg, Tenn.; Miami, Fla.; Charleston, W. Va.; Greenville, Tenn.; Clairton, Pa.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Vienna, W. Va.; Johnstown, Pa.; Jersey City, N.J.; San Diego, Calif.; Fresno, Calif.; Chattanooga, Tenn.; Kinloch, Mo.; and Muskogee, Okla. U. 's. Senators testifying or submitting statements in favor of the accelerated public works bill include: the senior Sen- ator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CuarK], the senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douc- LAS], the junior Senator from Arkansas _ [Mr. Fu.sricut], the senior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Gore], the junior Sen- - ator from Michigan (Mr. Hart], the jun- ior Senator from Montana [{Mr, MEeEt- CALF], the junior Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Ranpoipx], the senior Sen- ator from Missouri [Mr. Symrneton], the junior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Watters], and the junior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS]. Money to fund worthwhile accelerated public works projects is urgently needed. The legislation to facilitate this work has been languishing for 1% years. Even now S. 1856 has been on the Senate Cal-_ endar since June 1 when it was reported by the diligent Senator from West Vir- ‘ginia [Mr. Ranpo.py] for the Committee on Public Works. Unless this amend- ment is adopted and enacted as a part of the Foreign Assistance Act, accel- erated public works will die in this Con- gress. We shall have to start all over again next year. As @ member of the Senate Public ‘Works Committee, I voted to report the - original accelerated public works bill to the floor of the Senate for action. How- ever, I.said then, in separate views, that the amount ‘was far too little. That was on April 25, 1962. In committee I had stated that we-should increase the amount to be authorized to at least $2.6 billion—an amount equal to the amount authorized by sections 202, 212, 401, and Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 - me é 1964 451 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for fiscal year 1962. I was prepared to offer an amendment in committee to car- ry out this proposal but deferred because I did not want to delay enactment of the modest sum that was authorized. History during the past 2 years has, © unfortunately, proved that I was correct in my prediction that the amount au- ‘ thorized and the lesser amount appro- priated were way insufficient. The cost of the pending unfunded ac- celerated public works projects in the 50 States now exceeds $700 million. In Alaska the value of the 21 pending proj- ects is $5,417,000. I ask unanimous con- sent that the projects pending in the 49th State appear as exhibit 1 at the close of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) 3 Mr. GRUENING. These projects, if funded, could bolster substantially the economy of Anchorage, Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Cordova, Valdez, Palmer, Wasilla, Talkeetna, Seward, Kodiak, Fairbanks, Fort Yukon, and other areas. Bs I believe it will be of interest to men- tion the total of projects pending in sev- eral other States. In Pennsylvania the value of the pending projects, now un- funded, is $43 million. The able Sena- tors from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cuark and Mr. Scotr] realize the contribution which $43 million could make to the economy of their State. Accelerated - public works projects pending but unfunded in Massachusetts are valued at $5 million. The able Sena- tors from Massachusetts [Mr. SaLTon- STALL and Mr. KEennepy!] appreciate the contribution $5 million can make to the economy of a State. ; : Far to the West in California the sum of $23 million is needed to fund projects pending there. The able Senators from California [Mr. Kucuet and Mr. SaLin- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE cER] know the impact $23 million could make on the economy of their Golden State. : To the South, in Louisiana, the sum of $22 million is required to fund pending accelerated ‘public works projects. The able Senators from Louisiana [Mr. Et- LENDER and Mr. Lone] appreciate the worth of $22 million added to the econ- omy of their State. ; In the great Midwest, in Michigan, pending accelerated public works proj- ects which could be started were funding available total $34. million. The able Senators from Michigan [Mr. McNamara and Mr. Hart] know the assistance which would be forthcoming were $34 million injected into the economy of their State. ‘And in Kentucky, in Appalachia, ac- celerated public works projects totaling $30 million need to be funded. The able Senators from Kentucky [Mr. CoopEeRr and Mr. Morton] know what $30 million would do to improve the economy of Kentucky. : The projects, Mr. President, are pend- ing, and they represent but a sample of the work projects we need to start here in our own United States. I want to comment on the desirability of certain specific accelerated public works projects which could be initiated were funds available. : The Clearfield County, Pa., Hospital could be constructed were $1,063,000 in APW funds available. I suggest that my good friends from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLarkK and Mr. Scort] would agree that the hospital in their State is desirable. Under our foreign. aid program, with funds loaned at three-fourths of 1 per- cent interest, the Nepal Industrial De- velopment Corporation, Government of India, received $1 million—an amount which could have been used to construct the hospital in Clearfield County, Pa. In Walker County, Ga., a water-sewer project could be constructed under the accelerated public works program if “cost $91,000. 18529 $337,000 were available. The project is approved, as were the others I have named. Obviously the construction of the Walker County, Ga., project, would help the economy of that State far more than the feasibility studies of Keban and Ciceroz in Turkey which cost $350,000, a comparable amount. The able Sen- ators from Georgia [Mr. Russet. and Mr. ‘TauMapGEe] appreciate the effect an injection of $337,000 would have in the Georgian economy. In Graham County, N.C., funds are needed for a pending accelerated public works water and sewer project which will That project and others could have been started with the $250,000 our Federal Government loaned to the Government of Tanganyika for a com- modity development training center. The able Senators from North Carolina [Mr. Ervin and Mr. Jorpan] know that a modest project totaling $91,000 can help a State’s economy. In Laurel County, Ky., three water- sewer projects, costing $1,012,000, are pending accelerated public works proj- ects which cannot be funded. Again, I suggest to my friends from Kentucky (Mr. Cooper and Mr. Morton] that $1 million would help substantially the economy of their State. We loaned slightly more than that amount, $1,100,- 000, to the Government of Mali for a central veterinary laboratory at Bamako. There are other comparisons of interest. : I ask unanimous consent that a table comparing pending accelerated public works projects with previously com- mitted low-interest-rate, long-term loans abroad and a second chart com- paring approved, funded APW projects and foreign grants we have made to many nations be printed in the REcorp at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Comparison of pending APW projects and foreign loans already committed at % of 1 percent Accelerated public works APW PENDING AS OF JUNE 1964 Foreign loans “County, State, and purpose Amount Borrower and purpose Amount Clearfield County, Pa.: Hospital... ..-------------------+---------7---- $1, 063, 000 | Government of Nepal: Nepal Industrial Development Corporation...| - $1,000, 000 Graham County, N.C.: Water and sewer__.....~.-----....-------~+.-- 91, 000 Sexe ment of Tanganyika: Commodity Development Training 250, 000 : enter. Laurel County, Ky.: 3 water-sewer projects..-..--------...------.------ 1, 012, 000 | Government of Mali: Central Veterinary Laboratory at Bamako...... 1, 100, 000 Allegany County, Md.: Water and sewer_-_____._.-2..---------.-------- 617,000 | Government of Pakistan: CPS and Maini-Rechna DCAB project__-.- 750, 000 Jefferson County, Ala.: Hospital:._.......-------------~.--------------- “92, 000 | Government of Niger: Development bank.._....--------------------- 500, 000 Palmer, Alaska: Sewer system__.--.----------------------------+------- 278, 000 | Government of Tanganyika: Electrical equipment.._.-..--.---------- 300, 000 San Diego, Calif.: Dock terminal_--...-..-------------------------+---- 1, 500, 000 | Government of Ivory Coast: Highway equipment... ..--..----------- 1, 706, 000 Miami, Fla.: San Marco storm and sanitary sewer project....--.-----.-. 683,000 | Government of Tanganyika: University College.-..------------------ 800, 000 Walker County, Ga.: Water and sewer...._._...-...----------+-------+3 337,000 | Government of Turkey: Keban and Ciceroz feasibility studies. ._...-- 350, 000 APW PENDING AS OF MAR, 19, 1963 Lincoln County, Nev.: Highway-__.....---_--_----------ce eee een eee $1, 600, 000 | Government of Ecuador: Administrative and fiscal reform. ....-.----- _ $1, 600, 008 Alamosa County, Colo.: Sanitary sewer-------------.------------------- 330,000 | Government of Tanganyika: Teacher Training College--..------------ 800, 000 Adams County, Ohio: Ohio Brush Creek Reservoir._...-...------------ 3, 530, 700 | Government of Sudan: Khartoum sewerage....---------------------+- 3, 800, 000 Bristol County, Conn.: Sewage treatment-__...------------------+++--- 2, 585,000 | Government of Afghanistan: Ariana Afghan Airlines.-....--.--------- 2, 625, 000 Plead: igh iS, a cave cers oacunedwodcken elev ewewndncseeeeeee 14, 427, 500 | Government of Tunisia: Commodity assistance.....-..-------+------- 15, 000, 060 Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 18530 ‘CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE ' How was our money better spent? COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC APPROVED AND FUNDED APW PROJECTS AND U.S. FOREIGN GRANTS ABROAD ~ August 12 Approved accelerated public works | Foreign grants » Location and purpose | Amount - 2 Borrower and purpose ~ Amount ‘Van Buren, Ark.: Sewer facilities. $455, 000 | India: Fertilizer demonstration.__-. 2.2 -.-.--eenceneneenencennnne $499, 590 Camden, Del.: Sewer facilities__.... 299,000 | Sudan: Audiovisual training alds.....-..--------.-.2.-0---------. “278, 000 ‘West Frankfort, Ill; United Mine Workers Hospital....__...___ 693, 000 Vietnam: Expansion of Government information facilities.........|........|_. 524, 00 South Bend, Ind.: Sewage facilities__....-..-...__.---.... 628,000 | Turkey: Reconstruction of earthquake damage in Fethiye..____._ 500, 000 Lafayette, La.: Lafayette Memorial Hospital__...---.-_.-----...- 1, 325,000 | India: Fertilizer demonstration. .....-..------2-e20--ceuce---- 1, 177, 000 Lowell, Mass.: St. Joseph’s Hospital addition. _........-.----...- 1,816, 000 | Pakistan: Acquisition and distribution of fertilizer...--..2.- 2. 2, 000, 000 De Kalb, Miss.: Water and sewer facilities____-...-...--._._.____ 876,000 | Yugoslavia: Land use—Soil and water resources__....__._.....___- 341, 000 iNeptune City, N.J.: Sewage treatment plant_..........-.. fee ie 1,429, 000 | Libya: Soil conservation...’ ....--...-.--- ee ST 40, 000 ‘Heavener, Okla.: Water facilities.......... 487,000 | Indonesia: Land development and conservation. 421, 599 Buffalo, N.Y: OOOO : Burma: Land restoration... __-.......-.2 2.22. ----e Ss 400, 000 Hospital addition... -_.2---- eee eee eee _ 1,987, 000 : 779, 000 1,251,000 | 2 MPOtal sos Scents sate toh eee eh 6, 752, 000 : 344, 000 | Yugoslavia: Soil improvement and water resources, Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, on March 19, 1963, I introduced S. 1121 on behalf of myself and eight of my collea- gues—Mr. Bartlett; Mr. Cannon; the late Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Ke- fauver; Mr. Metcalf; Mr. Morse; Mrs. Neuberger; Mr. Randolph: and Mr, Yar- orough. !'The bill was designed to carry out the provisions of the amendment I had originally discussed in the Senate Public Works Committee which was rais- ing the amount authorized to $2,645 mil- lion—the equivalent to the amount authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for carrying out the eco- nomic aid provisions of sections 202, 212, 401, and 451 for fiscal year 1962. The extensive hearings on the pro- posed extension of the Accelerated Piib- lic Works Act have demonstrated conclusively that the extension is desirable and needed. Senator Ran- dolph has been acting as chairman of the ad hoc committee on the desirability of reactivating the accelerated public works program, a committee appointed by the chairman of the Public Works Committee, Senator McNamara, The $880 million appropriated under the initial legislation has helped to fi- nance approximately one-half the cost of nearly 8,000 projects in more than 3,000 communities in every State of the Union, the Virgin Islands; and Puerto Rico. Today at least three-fourths of a bil- lion dollars could be used immediately ‘were we to act on the authorizing legis- lation I suggest we add to the foreign aid bill. Yesterday, the Senate concurred in the amendments added by the House to S. 2642, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, generally known as the poverty bill. I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I highly approve of its purpose and warmly commend President Johnson for proposing this imaginative and construc- tive move to seek economic equality among those of our citizens who are economically disadvantaged. But that program is long range. We must pro- vide a program which can be put to use immediately. The Economie Oppor- tunity Act provides no immediate jobs. Unemployment which is still with us and boverty are inseparably related. If the. antipoverty bill is to show beneficial acts in the near future, something needs to be added. The amendment I am of- fering would supply the missing in- gredient, : : During the past decade and:a half, we have spent more than $100 billion to aid other countries. Surely we can afford to spend less than 3 percent of that amount to provide the same opportunity for American unemployed as we have offered’ the unemployed in 107 foreign countries. My amendment No. 1138 in no way in- creases the amount to be authorized for our foreign aid program. It has been pointed out that the pro- posed foreign aid program for the 1965 fiscal year is about $6 billion. A large Proportion of this sum will be used for public works in other countries. There- fore, it is appropriate and in a moral sense highly germane for us to add to the bill we are debating my amendment which would add $1.5 billion for a public works program here at home. Moreover, the foreign assistance funds are voted an- nually, The accelerated public works funds represent a one-time shot. Where is our money better spent? In Sukarno’s Indonesia or in one of our own States? : Sukarno’s “Dkakarta Bypass,” which we financed, cost $8 million. That amount would pay for all of the 21 ac- celerated public works projects pending in the State of Alaska and leave enough to construct sewer, water, and hospital projects in all of the Appalachian States. Was our money wisely appropriated $43,000 for for a $1,489,000 “Improvement of nation- al government administration” in Indo- nesia? Might we not better have con- structed a necessary $1,500,000 dock terminal in San Diego, Calif.? Should we have appropriated $6,330,~ 000 for “Mobrig re-equipment” in Indo- nhesia when we could have financed two thirds of the amount required for the 18 hospital projects pending in Appalachia? Should we have given $1,481,000 for “Civil aviation development” in Syria when we could have built a sewer in Laurel County, Ky., for the same amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars? Should we have allotted $912,000 for the “East Jordan map plan” when we could have constructed a storm and sani- tary sewer in Miami, Fla.? - - Should we have given $756,000 for a “Mapping and Geographical Institute” in Ethiopia when we could have com- pleted a sewer project in Alleghany County, Md.? Should we have financed a “Maritime Academy”. in Indonesia when we could have completed a hospital in Clearfield County, Pa.? Should we have appropriated $140,000 for “Fertilizer and insecticide demon- stration” in Brazil when we could have constructed a sewer in Graham.County, 8.C.? : Should we have given $30,000 for “Training within industry” in Indonesia, $30,000 for “Improved cooperative mar- “keting” in Nasser’s United Arab Republic: $160,000 for “Advanced office procedures training” in Uganda; $265,000 for “Book publishing” in Nigeria; $135,000 for “Rural - slaughter sheds” in Chad: $800,000 for “Colonization” in Bolivia; $47,000 for “Broadcasting” in the Somali Republic; $18,000 for “Police training” in Syria; $100,000 for a “Soil salinity study” in Senegal; $61,000 for “Public administration” in British Guiana: “Academy training” in - 1964 Cambodia; $1,641,000 for “Highway maintenance” in Jordan; $2,191,000 for “Harm machinery training and demon- stration” in Sudan; $20,000 for “Im- provement of crop and livestock produc- tion” in the United Arab Republic; $13,- 000 for “Audiovisual units” in the Central African Republic; $463,000 for “Civil police and public safety” in Libya; $300,000 for “Town plans’—requested for 1965 in Panama—should any of these have come first when projects are des- perately needed in every section of our own country? These are domestic proj- ects which could now be producing jobs and supporting the economy had we only CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE appropriated more accelerated public works funds initially. Let us realize that the original appro- priation for the accelerated public works’ program—an amount equal to that given the one, single, so-called neutral country of Indonesia in foreign aid— has not been enough. My accelerated public works amendment to H.R, 11380 provides the tools which will be neces- sary if we are to build the “Great Society.” I am not asking for a yea-and-nay vote, but I ask that the leadership accept .this amendment and take it to con- ference. Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 18531 Exurerr No. 1 Status of the accelerated public works pro- gram as of June 1, 1964 , : ALASKA Number of projects.__-.------ 66 Accelerated public works cost.. $7, 684, 000 Accelerated public works value : Ant plae@ sans cee sncsecewence ~ $4, 601, 000 Total cost------.--.---~------.~ $12,542, 000 Total value in place----------- $7, 215, 000 Estimated man-months--....--. 4, 503 Cost of completed projects, ac- % celerated public works..-... $2, 158, 000 Dold ss oweieeyaccion cee $2, 468, 000 . Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Area Redevelopment Administration, acceler- ated public works program. U.S. DeparTMENT oF Commerce, AREA REDEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION Accelerated public works program—Pending HEW and CFA projects in Alaska as of June 1,-1964 Cost (thousands) ” Agency Agency Election Project description Place No. district ; Accelerated public Other Total works —_—_._—__ 5A, Anchorage: $ : OW Ae aii oe on ee eee koh ee 44 8 | Harbor facilities. Anchorage...--------- $200 $200 $400 ORAL oetau suse oct eae 48 8 | Office building. ...--------.-]-__- 1: (ana epenece ee 150 150 300 5B. Ketchikan-Prince of Wales: CFA. 33 1 | Water supply. ---.---- Ketchikan 820 868 1, 688 6B, Wrangeli-Petersburg: GRA. nn ocdect eases ssscens 36 2) Water system_.......- Wrangell 119 61 180 OCP Asio0 ecko aceon catch teseteteeiewees 46 2 |e. do.....-----------------.] Kake City. 99 111 210 4B. Lyn Canal-Icy Straits: OWA so) oS eee ane a te ee 19 Yakutat-_. 93 32 125 OCFA..... 45 Hoonah-..- 242 97 339 5B. Cordova-Vald CFA..._. 3 245 82 327 OR As .ccustescs amc cues 21 363 187 550. 6B, Palmer-Wasilla-Talkeotna: CFA. 43 274: 621 895. 6B. Seward: CFA 38 Railway system_. 157 207 364 _ 85 11 ) Harbor facilities__ 74 %4 148° 7 16 | Waste treatment._. 92 370 462 7 16 | Heating system. 395 395 790 9 sel oaks 390 429 819 200 Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield? Mr. GRUENING. I am happy to yield. Mr. RANDOLPH. As has been stated, S. 1856 was reported by the Committee, on Public Works on June 1. This meas- ure would increase the authorization to- carry on the program of the Accelerated Public Works Act. The original au- thorization was for $900 million. S. 1856, as reported, would authorize ex- penditures of $1.5 billion. The amend- ment of the Senator from Alaska would also amount to $1.5 billion. It is important at this point to recall that former President Kennedy asked, in essence, that Congress provide stand- by authority of up to $2 billion for ac- celerated public works. It is also im- portant to indicate the widespread approval of such public works programs, This is detailed in the remarks of the able Senator from Alaska (Mr. Gruren- inc], and will appear in the ReEcorp. I remind Senators that as of May 28, 1964, a backlog of $718 million worth of projects was on the shelf, ready to move forward. These were not projects that had been proposed; they were projects that had approval, but no Federal funds No. 157-——8 are available. Financial arrangements for matching had been-made at the local level. These projects are ready to move forward when the authorization is voted and necessary funds are appropriated. I am in accord with the view of the Senator from Alaska that this program could move forward at once. Man- power could be used. Projects could - come into being. The result would be a strengthening of the economic well- being of hundreds of communities throughout the country. Gainful em- ployment could be provided for thou- sands of workers on useful and needed projects. ; These projects, up to the first of this year, were moving into the pipeline at, a rate of $100 million a month. The Senate Public Works Committee held several hearings on the proposed legislation, which has been referred to by the Senator from Alaska. These hearings were held in December of 1963, and again in March of 1964. I have repeatedly urged the President of the United States to support enact- ment of this proposed legislation. I have urged the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate to realize the impor- tance of moving this proposed legisla- tion. : I am delighted that this afternoon the Senator from Alaska—who has served so well on the Committee on Public Works, and who was in‘attendance at the hear- ings and realizes the value of the pro- gram for his own State, and the value of the program nationally—has used this method to point out the importance of expansion and further acceleration of necessary public works. I remind Senators that when we spend these dollars we do not merely add money, as it were, to the mounting costs of the.Federal establishment. When we spend a dollar on public works, we have invested a dollar. There is not only a return of 100 cents upon the original in- vestment, but there is also a dividend to this country: We are building a better America. We are strengthening its eco- nomic base. We are adding to the well- being of its citizenry. I compliment the Senator from Alaska for bringing the matter to the attention ‘of the Senate. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President,‘ will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a few questions? ; Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 ro 18532: Mr. RANDOLPH. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Oregon. Mr. MORSE. Let me say to the Sen- ator from Alaska and the Senator from West Virginia that I am very much dis- turbed if I am correctly interpreting their speeches. I yield to no other Sen- ator in my support of the area redevel- — opment program. I Know what it has done. I shall say something about it be- - fore I finish, but I wish to be sure that I understand the procedural situation in which we find ourselves. ; I should like to inquire of the Senator from West Virginia who, along with the Senator from Alaska, has been one of the leaders in this body from the begin- ning in support of the program, whether I correctly understand that if S. 1856 is not acted upon by Congress or if a cor- responding bill in the House—if there . is one—is not acted on and sent to the Senate for action, the accelerated public works program will come to an end be- fore the next session of Congress. Mr. RANDOLPH. That, in essence, is true. The Senator is correct. Actually, the APW program has been at a stand- still for several months. ' Mr. MORSE. Is this program—— _ Mr. RANDOLPH. It is a program of progress. Mr. MORSE. Is it about to be liqui- dated by inaction? Mr. RANDOLPH. To all intents and purposes, that is correct. Mr. MORSE. The program. will be liquidated by inaction on the part of Congress, or phased out in connection with whatever contracts or commitments exist. The program will cease to exist so far as the program applicable to next year or the years thereafter is con- cerned; is that not correct? Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator from Oregon is correct. The commitment of dollars is actually beyond what we have, but there is always a degree of flexibility, or a cushion; but, for all practical pur- Poses, the APW funds are exhausted. Mr. MORSE... The program itself will expire. Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct. Mr. MORSE. I respectfully inquire of the majority leader—and I am only seeking help and information in regard to the business of the Senate—whether it is contemplated that S. 1856 will be brought up and ‘made the pending busi- ness of the Senate prior to adjournment, and at such time as there may be some hope of action by the House. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator will indulge me, it is antici- pated that this matter will be taken’ up at the next meeting of the Democratic policy committee. Mr. MORSE. Would this program de- pend upon action taken there? If the action is favorable, the measure will be scheduled for action; but if it. is un- favorable, those opposed to the decision will have to seek to reverse the action of the Democratic policy committee. Is that true? Mr. MANSFIELD. I am not at all sure that the action of the Democratic policy committee will be unfavorable. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE. I would hope that the Senator from Oregon, with his usual courtesy, would give us that consideration, even though the bill has been in the committee for a - Jong time, to see what we can do in the remaining days of this session. Mr. MORSE. I have been in the Sen- ate long enough to know that when I am told that a decision will be brought up in connection with the foreign aid bill and it is not contemplated that a yea, and nay vote will be asked for, we are prob- ably engaging in an educational process. Mr. MANSFIELD. I did not quite understand what the Senator from Alas- ka had in mind, if this is the amendment which he discussed with me which he intends to offer to the foreign aid bill. Mr. MORSE. I do not quite under- stand the Senator from Montana. I understood from the Senator from Alas- ka that he was not contemplating a yea and nay vote. That telegraphed to me, at least intuitively, that this is probably an educational process that we are now engaging in. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, it is an educational process but it is also a proceeding which might eventuate in having the leadership accept the amend- ment and take it to conference. ‘I point to the fact that while we can expend $5 to $6 billion in foreign aid, each year and we have just enacted the antipoverty bill, which will not for some time bring any substantial re- employment, here is an opportunity to do for domestic aid what we have been doing with foreign aid to-the extent of over $100 billion for the last 17 years. We should do something comparable at home. I see no reason why since it is now con- templated that the totally extraneous matter having to do with apportionment will be added to the foreign assistance bill, which is unrelated to the subject at hand, this amendment which aims to do what the Foreign Assistance Act does in nearly a hundred foreign countries, can- not be pertinently added to do the same thing in one more country which hap- pens to be our own. We are spending $6 billion to employ people in over 90 foreign countries. Why not spend $900 million to employ people -at, home? So, while offering this amend- ment is, as has been suggested an edu- cational matter, it is also a practical effort aimed to focus- attention on an overdue and neglected domestic need. I ask the majority leader to accept the amendment and take it to conference. I doubt whether it will survive there; but at least it is worth trying. Mr. MANSFIELD. What the Senate now has pending before it is the legisla~ tive conference report, not the bill to which the Senator wishes to attach his amendment. Mr. MORSE. The foreign aid bill is not the pending business of the Senate at the moment? * Mr. MANSFIELD, The Senator is cor- rect. Mr. MORSE. If I may be allowed to speak for a moment—I know it might be violating a rule, but unless someone ob- jects I shall go ahead and violate it by making some relevant comments. “August 12 First, I am greatly indebted. to both Senators; but, of course, if the pending business is another conference report and not the foreign aid bill, this is, as I sus- pected, through my intuition, a much- needed educational process on the floor of the Senate. I should like to have the attention of | the majority leader, because I am plead- ing with him. I quite agree with him that we should wait until the Democratic policy committee acts, but Iam making a plea that the Democratic policy com- mittee give heed to it when it does meet. Last week, the ARA organization put on an exhibition in the Department of Commerce. It is possible that I may have been the only Senator who attended it, but if I was not, the only Senators there could be counted on the fingers of one hand. I said to William Batt, the Director of ARA, that I wished that every Sena-- tor would visit the exhibit, because it shows what ARA has done for private industry in this country, and what an inducement it has been to the expan- sion of private industry. If Senators would do so, there would be no trouble about continuing and expanding ARA. In my judgment, it is one of the most vital domestic aid programs in the coun- try. It is particularly apropos that the Sen- ator from Alaska suggested adding it as a rider to the foreign aid bill. Although he may not agree with me, it is not going to be added to the foreign aid bill as a rider. I cannot commit myself on that. But I think it is particularly apropos that we are talking about it as a poten- tial rider to the foreign aid bill when I think ofthe billions of dollars of the American taxpayers that we have wasted. and thrown away in many aspects of the foreign aid bill. But finally the tax- payers are catching up with the politi- clans. I hope they will catch up with them at an accelerated speed. -But be that as it may, I thought of the areas of our country that need this kind of aid as I went through the exhibit down at the Department of Commerce the other night and saw the projects in which ARA money has been invested—a furniture plant here, a paper products plant here, a shoe factory there, a small tool plant in another location, a wood products plant in another. We can run the gamut of American industry and find that time after time ARA has cited in cooperation with local banks. This is not an ARA program in which the Federal Govern- ment puts up all the money. It assists. But in effect in underwrites the project with the amount of Federal assistance thatis given. All we have to do is to look at the scale of success and failure. The American people are the beneficiaries of great economic gain as the result of ARA programs, I stand on the floor of the Senate this afternoon and thank from the bottom of my heart Mr. William Batt, the director of that program, I also thank Mrs. Pa- tricia Galey, the right arm of Mr. Batt. I thank every one of the administrators _ and assistant administrators of this pro- gram for a program that has been a tre- mendous success. _ Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 1964 West Virginia has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country. If one were to go through this exhibit, as I did the other night, and see the models of the various projects, the prod- ucts that are now being produced, and producing, are on exhibit, the number of employees, the number of people that have been put to work as a result of this project—people who otherwise would be out of work—he would be proud of what has been accomplished by ARA. In order that no one may have any question about my self-interest—and I express it with pride—in behalf of my State, there are a couple of these projects in Oregon. A certain unemployment rate must be shown to exist to make the area an emer- gency area. In my State, ARA went in with a couple of projects and put people to work in projects that are now a huge success. . I have heard the program criticized as an aid to socialism. ‘That is tommyrot. This is a program in which the money of the taxpayers is loaned for the time being to help private enterprise, to help small business, to help put people back ‘to work. I do not know why there should be any question about passing this pro- gram, and quickly. But this dedicated leader down in the Commerce Building by the name of William Batt is deserv- ing of our appreciation by quick passage of the bill. I have read the individual views of Senator Jennincs Ranpo.pH, of West Virginia. Some of them are in the form of charts. They cannot be duplicated. ‘But the material can be duplicated. Senator RanpoLPH’s report proves that there is no question about what we ought to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the entire report of Senator Ranvdo.py be printed at this point in the RECORD. : f There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1856) to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of the Public Works Acceleration Act, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amend- ment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. : The amendment is indicated in the bill as reported and is shown by italic. SUMMARY OF THE BILL AND AMENDMENT _ 8. 1856 would amend section 3(d) of the Public Works Acceleration Act to provide authorization of $2,400 million inclusive of the original authorization of $900 million, the increase of $1,500 million to be available until expended. The new authorization con- tains the same formula of distribution as the original, providing one-third of the funds for areas designated under subsection 5(b) of Public Law 87-658. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAW 87-658 The present accelerated public works pro- gram was generated from President Ken- nedy’s desire to have standby authority to combat a recession before it might become fully developed. Among the arsenal of economic weapons devised for such @ pur- pose, he requested authority from the Con- gress to commit $2 billion in Federal funds for public works projects whenever unem- ployment reached a critical level as defined Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE in the draft bill the President submitted to _ the Congress. On February 19, 1962, President Kennedy in a letter to the Congress requested standby authority to commit $2 billion in Federal funds to stimulate the economy whenever seasonally-adjusted unemployment rates had risen 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 6 consecutive months by a total of at least 1 percentage point during that period, and whenever the President determined that use of the stand- by authority was necessary to realize the goals of the Full Employment Act of 1946. Under the proposal, the President could, after determining that the requisite condi- tions existed, declare a 12-month “capital improvement acceleration period” during which he could commit, without further congressional approval, $750 millicn in direct Federal expenditures previously authorized, $750 million for grants-in-aid to State and local governments, $250 million in loans to the States and localities, and $250 million additional among the three categories. The proposal called for automatic termi~- nation of the President’s authority at the end of 12 months unless extended by Con- gress or previously terminated by the Presi- dent. After a waiting period of 6 months, ‘he could declare another 12-month capital improvement acceleration period, commit another $2 billion, and repeat the cycle with- out further limitation. The $750 million for grants-in-aid was to be used either to accelerate work on existing Federal-State grant projects, or initiate Fed- eral grants for projects not otherwise eligible under existing statute. . Transmitted with the President’s message was a Graft bill—the Standby Capital Im-. provements Act of 1962—which was intro- duced in the House (H.R. 10318) on Febru- ary 21, 1962, and in the Senate (S. 2695) on March 8, 1962. On March 26, in letters to the House and Senate Public Works Committees the Presi- dent stated that the economy had not re- covered as well as had been expected during the first months of 1962, and requested the Congress to amend H.R. 10318 to permit im- mediate commitment of $600 million for capital improvement programs in areas des- ignated for redevelopment under the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961, and areas which had an unemployment rate of over 6 percent for a year or longer. The Senate Public Works Committee con- ducted hearings on April 12-13, 1962, and on April 25, 1962, reported, with amendments, the administration bill (S. 2965, S. Rept. 1358) containing a $2 billion standby au- thority and a $600 million immediate acceler- ation program. . On May 28, 1962, the Senate passed an amended version of S. 2965, authorizing the President to spend $750 million for immedi- ate acceleration of public works projects in areas of heavy unemployment, and also authorizing appropriation after June 30, 1963, of $750 million for a standby public works program. ; The Senate measure provided that the standby authority could be triggered only when the adjusted unemployment rate had risen 1 percentage point over a 3- to 9- month period. The House Public Works Committee con- ducted hearings from March 26 to April 6, 1962, on the administration bill (H.R. 10318) to authorize a $2 billion standby program and a $600 million immediate acceleration pro~ gram, and a bill (H.R. 10118) to authorize a@ $2 billion standby program and an Office of Public Works Coordination and Accelera- tion. On June 2, 1962, the House Public Works Committee reported, with amend- ments, H.R. 10113, authorizing appropria- tions of $900 million for immediate accelera~ tion of public works through both direct Federal projects and grants-in-aid to State "18583 and local-governments. It also provided for an Office of Public Works Coordination and Acceleration, but no authority for a.stand- by program. . The House passed H.R. 10113 on August 29, 1962, by a voice vote, authorizing. ap- propriation of $900 million for immediate acceleration of public works and deleting the provision for a special Office of Coordination and Acceleration. The House then vacated passage of H.R. 10113, ‘amended S. 2965 to conform to the House-passed version, and substituted S. 2965 for H.R, 10113. On September 10, 1962, the Senate agreed to the House amendments by a 45 to 22 roll- call vote and the bill was signed into law by President Kennedy on September 14, 1962. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC LAW 87-658 AND IMPLE- MENTING REGULATIONS The Public Works Acceleration Act in- cludes specific provisions for designation of the areas eligible for accelerated public works projects, the requirements for State and local governments to participate, and the rules of equity to be followed by the Federal Gov- ernment in approving the projects: Eligible areas, as defined in the statute, éxist in each of the 50 States, in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. The principal features of Public Law 87— 658 are: : First, all designated redevelopment areas under sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Area Redevelopment Act are eligible for accele- rated public works assistance. (Sec. 5(a) areas are urban areas of high unemploy- ment; sec, 5(b) areas are rural and semi- rural areas of high unemployment, under- employment and low income designated by the Secretary of Commerce, and all Indian reservations.) Also eligible are those areas designated by the Secretary of Labor as hav- ing had substantial unemployment for at least 9 of the preceding 12 months, sub- stantial unemployment being defined as above 6 percent. , Second, Federal public works projects in eligible areas which have been authorized by the Congress can be initiated or acceler- ated. : Third, public works projects of State and local governments for which Federal finan- cial assistance is authorized in other legisla~ tion can be initiated and accelerated. For such projects, grants up to 50 percent of the total cost are authorized, and up to 75 per- cent if the State or local government lacks the financial capacity to assume the full additional financial obligation. é Department of Commerce regulations have established firm and objective criteria for relating grants of above 50 percent to local financial capacity. Areas eligible for 58-per-~ ._ cent grants are those with median family incomes between $1,700 and $1,800 per year or twice the national unemployment rate for 3 of the last 4 years. Areas with median family annual incomes of $1,600 to $1,700 or twice the national un- employment rate for all of the last 4 years qualify for 66-percent grants. Areas with median family incomes under $1,600 per year or three times the national unemployment rate for all of the last 4 years are eligible for 75-percent grants. All of the 54 Indian reservations fall within this cate- gory. The fourth main provision of the act de- clares that no State may receive more than 10 percent of the funds allocated,‘and no less than $800 million of the $900 million originally authorized must be allocated for the nonurban small labor market areas, low- income areas, and Indian reservations de- signated under section 5(b) of the Area Re- development Act. The new authorization of $1,500 million recommended by the com- mittee retains this formula of distribution, Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 ae allocating an additional $500 million to areas designated under section 5(b). Fifth, adequate consideration must be- given to relative needs of eligible areas, and | criteria are established which the selected projects must meet. These criteria assure that projects— (a) Can be initiated or accelerated within a reasonably short period of time, this period having been interpreted as within 120 days after the obligation of funds; (b) Will meet an essential public need; (c) Will have a substantial portion (51 percent) completed within 12 months after initiation; (d) Will contribute significantly to the reduction of local unemployment; (e): Are not inconsistent with locally ap- proved comprehensive plans for the areas af- fected, where such plans exist. It may be noted at this point that during the committee hearings testimony was sub- mitted in criticism of the presumed failure of Federal administrative officials to fulfill two of the above five conditions. Evidence was received which would indicate that in certain instances, despite Department of Commerce requirements designed to assure the maximum employment of local labor, contractors have imported labor from out- side the local labor market.- Indications are that this may be due to the lack of requisite skills within the local labor market. How- ever, the committee would urge administer- ing officials to exert every effort to assure the employment of local labor, and to give par- ticular priority to those qualified persons who have undergone the longest periods of unemployment, The second criticism of administering of accelerated public works which was brought to the attention of the committee during its hearings was raised by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in its attack upon recreation proj- ects on the presumption that such projects fail to satisfy the condition of “essential public need.” Representatives of the cham- ber declined to offer a systematic evaluation on any specific propject on this ground, and their testimony was not supported by any of the local chamber of commerce or Gov- ernment officials queried by the committee. The Special Subcomimttee for Accelerated Public Works conducted hearings on S. 1121 and S. 1856 on December 10, 11, 12 and 13, 1963, and March 11, 12, and 18, 1964. During the 7 days of hearings the special subcom- mittee received testimony from more than 60 witnesses, including Members of the Sen- ate and House of Representatives, elected Officials from the great metropolitan areas, as well as from smaller cities and rural and * semirural communities, throughout the Na- tion, from-labor, farm, and management or- ganizations, and from scholars and econo- - mists. The evidence adduced was overwhelmingly in support of the accelerated public works program as it has been administered and was in favor of an extension of the program under a new authorization. The following tables and charts set forth the distribution of the $880 million’ thus far appropriated and demonstrate the cate- gories of projects for which the funds have been obligated. Table I presents the allocation of funds among the departments and agencies, which material is also presented on a percentage basis. (as of December 1, 1963) in chart I. ” Chart II presents the distribution of funds among categories of projects (as of Decem- ber 1, 1963); and table II present the alloca- tion of-funds to the individual States (as of April 1, 1964). : Chart IZ offers a comparative representa- tion of total allocations, the value of proj- ects approved, and the value of funds put in place. Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080046-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE: It should be noted with reference to thé following charts that an amount in excess of $12,800,000 has been allocated but will not be used on specific projects. Due to the appropriation period deadline and the failure of certain communities to fulfill their com- mitments, some funds were allocated which were not used and which were “returned” too late to be reallocated. These funds amounted to a lapse of $8,900,000 from the first appro- priation of $450 million and as of March 31, 1964, $3,900,000 from the second appropria- tion. And it is expected that there will be additional funds lapsing from the second appropriation. It is for this reason that the committee has recommended amending the bill to provide that the funds be available until expended. TABLE I,—Accelerated public works pro- gram—Allocation of funds [In thousands] Direct Federal projects: Agriculture-_..-.--..--.----.--_- $59, 690 Interior_-.___ - 50,979 Commerce_-_._...--.-- - 15,570 Defense (Engineers) ___...-.____. 10, 450 General Services Administration. -3, 000 Post Office 2,950 VUSUICE Soo cea n eee Ele 1, 800 Tennessee Valley Authority____.. 800 © Treasury (Coast Guard) .._. 800 Veterans’ Administration__..___. 350 Total, direct Federal projects. 146,389 Grant-in-aid projects: , Housing and Home Finance BRCDOY wane ect ea danusneke 475, 635 Health, Education, and Welfare... 229, 845 i 13,021 3,110 2, 845 Total, grant-in-aid projects... 724, 456 Administrative costs: Housing and Home _ Finance Agency. sosoc2 neon esse v acca ous 5, 600 Commerce..__...--.-.---------..-- 1,325 1,195 485 400 150 Total, administrative costs... 9, 155 Grand total: Direct Federal projects (16.6 percent) 2 ccc espe ee ee 146, 389 Grant-in-aid projects (82.4 per- CONt) oe ese Seat os Hesse 7124, 456 880, 000 estimated accelerated Total (100 percent) -—-_--.._. Taste JI.—Numober, public works cost, and man-months of on- site employment, by States, accelerated public works projects approved through a Apr. 1, 1964 Estimated cost (thousands) Esti- Num- mated State ber of on-site Projects|Acceler- man- ated Total | months! public works Alabama--_..---- 193 |$27,135 | $59, 910 33, 556 Alaska._.. 2 66 | 7, 12, 691 , 194 Arizona.__ = 83 | 9,417 10, 559 12, 295 Arkansas. = 291 | 17,491 35, 286 22, 820 2 264 | 31,939 59, 066 32, 820 Z 57 | 3,575 5, 242 3, 413 4 55 | 7,392 16, 229 7,978 . 18 | 1,131 3, 083 2, 047 2 108 | 15, 313 31, 848 17, 088 Ee 203 | 17,005 34, 665 19, 849 e 9 | 2,733 6, 097 3, 366 Loces ose cunn! 106! 6,404 8, 293 6, 466 -nomic measure. TaBLE II.—Number, estimated accelerated public works cost, and man-months of on- site employment, by States, accelerated public works projects approved through Apr. 1, 1964—Continued Estimated cost (thousands) Esti- Num- 2 mated + State ber of on-site ‘projects| Acceler- man- ated | Total | months! public works Ilnois 226 1$21,675 | $40,339 23, 515 Indiana_.. 121 | 12,499, 26, 576 14, 605 Towa. 3 551 855 628 Kansas. - 12 953 1,928 835 Kentucky~ 339 | 45,060 | 102, 720 60, 169 Louisiana... 177 | 32,096 73, 739 39, 297 Maine__- 55 | 4,614 12, 719 7, 582 Marylan: 39 | 3,531 8, 355 4, 834 Massachusett # 103 | 21,240 49, 403 23, 746 Michigan_. 714 | 67, 538 6, 254 85, 613 Minnesota. 290 | 14,998 | 25,306 | 22, g49 Mississippi. 168 | 13,873 29, 317 18, 760 Missouri. 214 | 11, 881 23, 907 16, 447 Montana. 101 7, 369 9, 023 9, 097 Nebraska. 28) 1,729 2, 739 1,817 Nevada..-_-__--- 13 | 1,020 1,140 1,070 New Hampshire_ 23] 2,116 5, 668 2, 794 New Jersey, ies St 121 | 42,410 102, 579 46, 320 229 | 14,363 19, 516 17, 306 209 | 36,295 77, 763 40, 316 North Carolina._| 228 | 20,749 | 43° 098 27,155 North Dakota. __ 22) 1,335 1, 608 1, 868 Ohio__.----.----- 173 | 27,510 66, 718 35, 389 Oklahoma_._...-. 222 | 18,515 | 33, 597 21, 720 Oregon __....---- 114 ) 12,917 19, 744 12, 372 Pennsylvania____ 512 | 81,759 | 169, 563 87, 409 Rhode Island___. 43 | 12, 438 38, 222 18, 625 South Carolina. 162 | 11,108 28, 125 18, 678 South Dakota_-- 25 | 2,111 , 432 2, 691 Tennessee_._-.-. 161 | 21,451 48, 080 28, 730 Texas..... 184 | 24,437 49, 958 28, 774 Utah... 108 | 7,218 10, 847 8, 598 Vermont. 13! 1,399 3, 578 1, 765 Virginia_.. 61 | 5,491 10, 258 7, 181 Washington ...-- 190 | 15,425 26, 067 16, 130 West Virginia._.. 301 | 43,020 78, 053 43, 051 ‘Wisconsin..-...- 207 | 9,171 20, 779 4, 643 Wyoming_....._- 43 | 2,415 3, 553 8, 121 American Samoa |--._..~-).----.--/..-..-----|---5-- eee Uam_..---.-..- 13. 160 1 Puerto Rico... 345 | 29,525 43, 335 25, 793 Virgin Islands_.. 8 724 1, 008 87 Total._..-- 7, 762 1851, 882 |1, 741, 598 } 1, 011, 123 1 Estimated months of employment for the HHFA- CFA projects were computed by ARA on the basis of the latest data available from BLS studies of construc- tion costs for various types of public works projects. - GENERAL STATEMENT The committee has addressed the two main arguments advanced against the authoriza- tion of new funds for accelerated public works, the first of these being predicated on the assumption that the stimulus of the income tax reduction will reduce unemploy- ment sufficiently without an additional in- vestment in public works projects.