Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

For goodness sakes, save that portion out of the bill. I do not care if you put any money in the bill, none at all; it will still serve a great purpose and great need.

You will have exercised the leadership as you should, and the local jurisdictions would have been the designer of the whole thing and any moneys under a plan like that—and I hope they are never needed we will not have to look back on something like the WPA days and see the ditches filled up where we spent so much cleaning them out just shortly before, because any money spent would have been spent at the local level to promote those things which are most needed, and which would inure to the benefit and to the completion and development of the area in which it was spent.

Thank you very much. .

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Moss, would you want to have your prepared statement inserted in the record as read?

Mr. Moss. I would prefer what I said, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that will be in addition.
Mr. Moss. Yes, if you would.

Mr. JOHNSON. Without objection, we will place the statement in the record as if read.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, sir.
(The statement of Mr. Moss follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS, IN SUPPORT OF

H.R. 10113 SECTIONS WHICH CREATE A PUBLIC WORKS COORDINATOR, PRESENTED BY WILLIAM Moss, SUPERVISOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA.; CHAIRMAN, NACO's PLANNING COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, my name is William Moss and I am supervisor of Fairfax County, Va. On behalf of the National Association of County Officials who I am representing today, I wish to thank the committee for the invitation to appear and express our views on this important legislation.

In summary, the National Association of County Officials strongly supports that portion of H.R. 10113 which would create an independent office of public works coordination. We have endorsed this principal for many years in our policy statement—the American county platform. We are not testifying either for or against the acceleration portions of this bill, because we have never formally considered this matter in the association and have not had a chance to act upon it in our platform. Messrs. Connor and Kalahar will address themselves to the acceleration sections of the present bill.

COUNTY PLANNING
Our American county platform statements on planning are as follows:

7-1. Federal assistance.-Counties should be made eligible for Federal assistance to prepare general, countywide plans for industrial development, community facilities construction, long-range capital improvement, and other general planning on the same basis as cities are now eligible for such aid. Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 should be amended to specifically include, for eligibility, individual counties or groups of counties acting together.

7–2. Public Works planning.-The program of advances for public works planning outlined in the Housing Act of 1954 (Sec. 702) has been of very great value to communities in making available interest-free Federal loans for planning the construction of vitally needed public works facilities. These funds are repayable when the facility is constructed and are therefore made available to other communities on a revolving basis. We heartily endorse this program and commend the Congres and the administrative agencies for making this assistance available to counties and other local government units.

- 7–3. Public Works Coordinator:—The President, by Executive order, has temporarily set up an office for Public Works Coordinator. This unit has been extremely helpful to counties and other local units in developing advance planning for public works which both reduces the cost of public facilities and provides a

backlog of projects available for increased public spending in time of economic disruption. We endorse the aims of this program and recommend that the Congress establish this office permanently by appropriate legislation.

As you know, our 3,047 counties have an enormous job of providing public facilities. Most of the growth of the Nation has been in the suburban areas where generally speaking the county is responsible for providing schools, water supply, sewage disposal and a host of other facilities.

The Nation as a whole has a large stake in our ability to provide these public works. Congress has wisely provided us with direct Federal aid for such facilities as airports, sewage facilities, housing, urban renewal, highways and others. Congress, in the Housing Act, has also provided the section 701 grants which allow us to make long-range planning studies of our needs for land use, economic development and community facilities. Under section 702 of the same act, our counties can obtain interest-free loans to make test borings, engineering plans, architectural drawings and to do all the preliminaries in preparation for the letting of bids for a specific project such as a courthouse.

The one element that has been lacking is a national office to work with the localities, the States and other Federal agencies to insure that this entire process is coordinated and fits together. The Office of Public Works Coordination would fill this void.

ADVANTAGES TO THE CONGRESS We anticipate the following national advantages to the creation of this office:

(1) Keeping the President and the Congress advised on the status of public works construction, planning, and those public works needed to meet our national, regional, and community growth and economic development.

(2) Encouraging and suggesting methods by which the public works planning policies of the various instrumentalities of the Federal Government, and the instrumentalities of State and local governments can be coordinated to insure maximum effectiveness and efficiency in public works construction.

(3) Keeping in readiness a public works acceleration plan should a public works acceleration program be undertaken nationally.

ADVANTAGES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Long-range public works planning is vital to the orderly and businesslike development of our counties and is needed regardless of passage of a national public works acceleration program. An Office of Public Works Coordination would bring the following advantages to local government.

(1) The office could provide advice and technical assistance to preparing a long-range local program of public works needs.

(2) This type of local plan could allow us to (a) acquire land on a longrange orderly basis; (b) to make more realistic long-range financing plans ; (c) plan our bond referendums and allow entering the finance market at the most advantageous times and (d) keep our public works needs more in line with our growth and replacement needs. Mr. JOHNSON. Are there any questions on my right? Mr. GRAY. No. Mr. JOHNSON. Are there any questions on my left? Mr. CRAMER. I have one or two. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. I want to congratulate Mr. Moss for what I think is a very forthright statement, but, as I understand it, the administration has testified against the creation of an Office of Coordinator.

They do not want long-range planning within a specific agency. They want all of the segmented agencies to do their own planning separately, and then the President to implement them by triggering this expenditure across the board, without any suggestion from Congress as to where it should be spent, and going into new areas that are not authorized now under a direct' Presidential supervision.

Mr. Moss. You may know that I do not agree with the administration's organization of this. You may have sensed that from what was I think that this can be handled in a far more effective way to let the local areas plan for themselves, and then if, and only if, an emergency exists, by some barometer of economics with which 'I am not familiar and probably you are, sir, the money can be spent wisely and not in spite of the local jurisdiction, but to benefit them. Mr. CRAMER. So your thought is that some agency, be

it a separate coordinating office or it could be within the existing Housing and Home Finance Agency, they could

have the function, and I think the President could instruct them, by Executive order, to work with communities in setting up, as you say, ordinary 5-year programs to be accelerated at such time as tħe President decided, and Congress agreed, and then take a look at it to decide how much money should be spent and in what areas.

Mr. Moss. You have said it better than I did.

Mr. CRAMER. There you have a well-planned, long-range program. It is not a leaf-raking program. It is not the WPA.

It is not a political decision as to where the projects should go, but you have got a backlog inventory already existing on sound projects, considered on the merits and areas of need, and one that could be accelerated or implemented not only by action of the President, but by his triggering on the requests to Congress

Mr. Moss. Right.

Mr. CRAMER. To determine what areas of construction should be implemented and how much money is needed to do it.

Mr. Moss. You have said it extremely well.

I would hesitate to put any money into a project on a standby basis, because it does not stand by very long, as you know. There is too much political pressure to use it in other areas.

Mr. CRAMER. Well, your thought then is one that goes beyond what I was thinking of, as a matter of fact.

Because of the pressure in given areas on given projects it may be that the gun would be loaded and triggered before it was really needed because of political pressure for projects.

Mr. Moss. Particularly if the money is already there, Congresman.

Mr. CRAMER. That is what I am talking about. Well, it is there because all the President has to do is transfer it immediately from any funds that are unobligated and then Congress has got to replenish those funds.

I mean, constitutionally, can you, as a citizen, stomach that approach of Congress giving to the

President such budgetary authority without review by Congres initially?

Mr. Moss. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have my local problems.

Mr. Cramer, I was the first Republican ever elected to the local governing body in Fairfax, Va., in 87 years, but this I am addressing myself to today is not only to the local problem at all, but to the general concept of how this can best be administered with the least amount of interference from the national level.

Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BLATNIK. There being no further questions, thank you, Mr. Moss. We appreciate your statement.

The hearings for today are recessed or are adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned until 10

, a.m. Tuesday, April 3, 1962.)

STANDBY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1962

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m. in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. George H. Fallon presiding.

Mr. Fallon. Ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Public Works is meeting this morning in the continuation of hearings on H.R. 10113 and H.R. 10318, known as the Stand-By Capital Improvements Act of 1962.

Our first witness this morning will be the Honorable Henry W. Maier, mayor of Milwaukee, Wis.

Mr. Mayor, on behalf of the committee I would like to welcome you here this morning and thank you for coming down.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY W. MAIER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF

MILWAUKEE, WIS. Mayor MAIER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very happy to be here and to appear before you today as a representative of the United States Conference of Mayors and the city of Milwaukee to make this statement concerning bills H.R. 10113 and H.R. 10318. I can heartily endorse these measures to speed up public works expenditures and to reduce unemployment during recession periods.

On behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors, Mr. Chairman, I have here the resolution of the conference which I would like

, to read on behalf of the conference.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE 1961 ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, MAY 14, 1961

PUBLIC WORKS

Whereas modern and efficient public works are essential to a prosperous economy with continued economic growth and desirable urban development and redevelopment;

Whereas the current backlog of State and local public works needs is in excess of $50 billion;

Whereas State and local governments have been unable to raise the revenues necessary to meet public works needs; and

Whereas the problem here presented is one of great national importance: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the United States Conference of Mayors, That the administration and the Congress be, and are hereby, urged to (1) initiate an immediate analysis of the Nation's State and local public works needs and determine the actual size of the backlog, the rate at which existing facilities are becoming obsolete, and the rate at which new construction must be undertaken to meet the

demands of new population growth, (2) formulate ways and means of attracting a larger share of available capital funds into the public works, (3) provide assistance to State and local governments so as to encourage long-range programs of capital improvements and to further provide such State and local governments with technical assistance so as to improve fiscal planning and financing techniques, (4) strengthen and expand those existing programs which are now effectively encouraging the advance planning of public works and which are encouraging needed public works construction, and (5) enact a program of public works aid which will serve to spur capital improvements construction activity over and above normal levels at times of economic slump so as to accelerate employment. Mr. Chairman, the intent of each of the bills is a sound one. Each

a would set up governmental machinery which would, under certain conditions, permit the President to employ the powerful economic forces involved in accelerated Federal, State, and local public works programs. Either bill would fill an important gap in the fiscal policy machinery of the Federal Government designed to offset the dips of the economic cycle. I refer to the gap created by the essential need for a combined approach on all levels of government-Federal, State, and local—if public works programs are to help curtail recessions rather than intensify them.

For individual cities and States are somewhat in the same position as individual citizens during recession periods. Often they are pressured to cut spending and employment at the very time the economy requires the stimulation of increased public works expenditures.

The Federal responsibility in this matter, it would seem to me, is rather apparent. Only the Federal Government has the necessary taxation and borrowing powers to bring about an effective antirecession program. Without Federal assistance and initiative State and local governments have neither the budgetary flexibility nor the financial basis to combat the effects of recession on their own.

Local governments, depending as they do on property taxes to finance the major part of their activity, have difficulty in maintaining a constant level of public works and certainly could not finance additional public works in times of economic stress. The property tax is inflexible, unjust, and highly regressive. Unless localities have Federal assistance to finance public works during such periods, they simply cannot provide necessary public facilities, property taxes cannot be raised, and municipal borrowing becomes next to impossible.

While I recognize that public works programs represent only one facet of the Federal Government's efforts to ward off recessions, they can play a major role in dealing with the threat of the more serious setbacks involving widespread unemployment. They can buoy up the economy by putting more money into circulation, directly increasing employment and creating a market for raw materials and equipment.

They have the byproduct effect of increasing the usable public facilities and services of the Nation at every level, providing long-term as well as short-term benefits. And, finally, the sort of program which is projected in these two bills will improve the financial stability of State and local governments at a time when they are most in need of relief.

I cannot stress too much the importance of State and local public works programs as key antirecession measures. The very size of local public works programs means that a slowdown in this area would

« AnteriorContinuar »