June 1, 1965
Page 12155
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, on Wednesday last I proposed five amendments to S. 1648, all amendments having the objective of insuring the maximum involvement and participation of local government in the program provided by this legislation. It seemed to me that these amendments were in keeping with the basic principles of the program, as outlined by President Johnson in his message on area and regional economic development. In that message he stated that no economic development district would be designated unless the State and local people want it to be designated, no plan would be approved unless it has the approval of State and local authorities.
I realized that even without my amendments many of the economic development programs would be developed by "economic planning and development groups" composed of, or responsible to, the elected officials of units of general local government. I also realized that in some areas constitutional and statutory limitations would preclude local officials from undertaking these proposed activities. Furthermore, in other areas the officials may demonstrate a complete refusal or a reluctance to provide the necessary leadership. These limitations of our local governments have been adequately recognized in the committee reported bill. But I felt that we have failed to provide sufficient congressional emphasis on the positive role of local government, specifically in the development and implementation of the economic development programs themselves.
This should be done by:
First. Encouraging and giving preference to economic planning and development groups, composed of elected officials of units of general local government within whose jurisdiction such groups are authorized to plan an economic development program.
Second. Where the appropriate units of general local government are not represented on the economic planning and development group the proposed economic development program should be submitted to them for their review and comment and consideration of such comment by the economic development and planning group prior to the formal submission of the program.
This is not a requirement for the formal approval or rejection of the local governments, rather a procedure to assure their awareness and participation in a program which is designed to utilize
the combined resources of an area or district. To prevent unwarranted delays, such comments must be made within 60 days, otherwise the requirement would be waived.
This additional effort appears to me not excessive. It would provide a onetime requirement for a program with long-range objectives and commitments. Any initial delays created by these amendments would be more than compensated for in the program's actual implementation.
In addition, these requirements would assist in the coordination and correlation of the economic development program with the existing programs and plans of the constituent local governments.
It would be these local governments who will continue to have the responsibility of zoning, transportation planning and a host of other governmental functions which are the ingredients of a successful economic development program. Included within the resources of local government are the matching funds called for in title I of the bill.
There is another potential of this legislation which should not be overlooked and my amendments were designed greatly to aid in its realization. That is with respect to the economic development district. It is not only in the area of economic development that we can gain by having our local governments working together to solve common problems, but it is also true in such areas as health, water and air pollution, roads and highways, education, planning, and so forth. By encouraging our local governments to plan and work together in the field of economic development we can assist in providing the framework for other forms of increased cooperation.
This cooperation will be slow to come, if at all, if the elected officials of the local governments are not an integral part of the leadership of any such effort.
It could be argued that the important role of local government is inherent in the program and need not be spelled out in legislative language. To me, their role is too vital for it to be assumed.
Mr. President, my concern of this situation is shared by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, all of whom support these amendments.
In the intervening time since Wednesday of last week I have spent some time consulting with the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], and with others. The Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] is one of the principal sponsors of S. 1648 and has been a leader in its development and consideration. Based on our discussions, I have modified my amendments. Therefore, I shall not call up the printed amendments at the desk but in their stead I offer four revised amendments. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc, that a full reading of each be dispensed with, and that I be permitted to explain each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina in the chair).
Without objection, the amendments will be received and considered en bloc; and, without objection, reading of the amendments will be waived.
The amendments offered by Mr. Moss are as follows:
On page 31, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
"(3) to encourage participation by appropriate local governmental authorities in such economic development districts."
On page 7, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
"(f) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations which will assure that appropriate local governmental authorities have been given a reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon proposed projects under this section."
On page 10, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
"(e) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations which will assure that appropriate local governmental authorities have been given a reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon proposed projects under this section."
On page 32, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
"(f) For the purpose of this Act the term 'local government' means any city, county, town, parish, village, or other general-purpose political subdivision of a State."
On page 32, line 11, strike " (f and insert "(g)" before the word "There".
On page 32, line 15, strike " (g) and insert "(h)" before the word "in".
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, one of the amendments I offer I shall try to relate to the bill. The amendment would come under title I of the bill, which refers to grants for public works and development facilities. At the end of section 101 of title I the amendment would add an additional paragraph to be styled as paragraph (f), and would read as follows:
The Secretary shall prescribe regulations which will assure that appropriate local government authorities have been given a reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon proposed projects under this section.
I would welcome at any point any comment the Senator from Maine or any other member of the committee might care to make on any of the amendments.
The second amendment would be inserted on page 10 of the bill. This is under title 11, which is entitled "Other Financial Assistance. Public Works and Development Facility Loans."
On page 10, between lines 18 and 19, which is at the close of section 201, would be added a new paragraph styled paragraph (e), which would read:
The Secretary shall prescribe regulations which will assure that appropriate local governmental authorities have been given a reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon proposed projects under this section.
It will be recognized at once that the language is similar in both amendments, one applying to title II and the other applying to title I, both having the same purpose.
Since the term "local governmental authorities" has been used in both amendments, and this term appears elsewhere in the bill, it is proposed, in the third amendment which I now offer, that on page 32, between lines 10 and 11, subsection (f) be inserted, which would read:
For the purpose of this Act the term "local government" means any city, county, town, parish, village, or other general-purpose political subdivision of a State.
By reason of inserting paragraph (f), the remaining subparagraphs in this particular section would have to be redesignated -- (f) to (g), and (g) to (h).
The fourth amendment would be inserted on page 31, between lines 17 and 18. It would be a paragraph (3) subdivision of paragraph (b), coming under the Economic Development District provision. This subparagraph (3) would read as follows:
To encourage participation by appropriate local governmental authorities in such economic development districts.
This whole section is designed to define and designate the economic development districts which would approve the overall economic development programs.
The Secretary would be required to invite the States to draw up proposed district boundaries, to cooperate with the States in several ways, and to encourage participation by appropriate local governments in such economic development districts.
It is felt that these amendments would, by writing into the legislation these requirements for contact with and comment by local governmental units, bring the local governmental entities into the program. It is highly important that the local people be consulted and be concerned. As I have already said, many of the requirements of Government that surround the development of a program of this sort already lie with the local districts, such as zoning, roads, highways, water supply, and other items that are of great importance in planning a development district.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield?
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. The purpose of the Senator from Utah is one in which I think most, if not all, members of the committee would concur. I should like to point out that these amendments to S . 1648 constitute a further implementation of a purpose which was stated in the committee report, page 16, as follows:
Local approval of development districts
Before the Secretary approves the establishment of any economic development district as provided under section 403, which in most cases will consist of several counties, municipalities, or other political jurisdictions, steps should be taken to obtain concurrence of the appropriate local governmental authorities in the counties, municipalities, or other political jurisdictions when such jurisdictions are wholly within the proposed economic development district.
The first two amendments of the Senator from Utah are to the public works section of the bill. As I understand them, they would require that an application made by a private or a public nonprofit organization or association representing any redevelopment area or part thereof, and covering a public works project under the bill, should pass through the appropriate governmental authority for review and Comment.
Mr. MOSS. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. This is highly proper, desirable, and indeed necessary if we are to get a development program underway which truly reflects local desires, local hopes, and local sentiment. So far as I am concerned, these two amendments, dealing with the public works section of the bill, are wholly acceptable.
The third amendment, which deals with the economic development district provision of the bill, is also one that I find acceptable. The Senator's purpose is that when an economic development district is defined, it is likely to include several units of local government, ranging from counties on down. It is the Senator's desire that representatives of the governments involved be brought into the process by which designation would be achieved, and also into the process which would develop an overall economic development program for the area.
The difficulty in dealing with this amendment is that situations vary in different parts of the country. For example, Aroostook County, Maine, which is an eligible area under the existing Redevelopment Act, is 1 county involving 93 towns, each of which is a unit of local government. This is a peculiarity, perhaps, of New England, where the town has been the foundation of local government from the beginning.
An area similar in size, involving a similar number of people, in the part of the country from which the Senator from Utah comes, may involve only two or three governmental units. So there would be the problem of fewer governmental units than exist in New England. Therefore, what the Senator from Utah and I have tried to devise is compromise language which would make it possible to work in both situations and still insure that local units of government would be encouraged to participate in the implementation of this provision of the act. Do I correctly understand the Senator’s purpose?
Mr. MOSS. Yes. I thank the Senator from Maine for his comments. He has analyzed the amendments and has stated the purpose of offering them at this time. It was found, when we began to discuss the amendments I submitted last week, that there was such a wide variation of local governmental organization in different parts of the United States that perhaps my previous amendments were too broad. I should say that diversity is one of our strengths in this country, and we must recognize it and deal with it. We must make certain at the Federal level, when we begin to deal with local areas, that we take into account the variances that exist in our local governmental organization. But the Senator from Maine is entirely correct in saying that the objective of the amendments is to involve, in planning stages. the local authorities -- the towns, the counties and the cities -- where the various activities are to be conducted, not only to be in close communication, but also to bring forth the strength of local government.
In some instances, where there are to be matching funds, it is of paramount importance that we begin, at the start, with the local authorities, who have the control of local taxing power and local funds.
As I indicated, many governmental activities are controlled by local authorities -- zoning, the providing of facilities, roads, water, and so on. These governmental activities ought to be involved and recognized so that we do not create a development district or finance any kind of project that would be at cross purposes or in competition with the appropriate local governmental authority, or not recognized by it.
In my discussions with various county officials -- and I was a county official before I became a U.S. Senator -- I found that there was a great desire to cooperate with these types of programs -- at least, those with whom I have talked welcomed the program. The predecessor of this bill has been used very widely and effectively in my State. Our towns and counties desire that the program continue. They want to contribute to the program and be a part of it
That was another reason for writing the requirement into the legislation that the appropriate local authorities not only be advised of proposed projects, but also be consulted and asked for their comments so that they may participate in the projects from the beginning.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I believe that the Senator from Utah has stated what we each have in mind.
With reference to the arguments offered, I believe that it would be useful to have printed at this point in the RECORD -- and I ask unanimous consent that this may be done -- two tabulations which indicate the number of local governments that could be involved in some potential groupings of counties under the bill. This indicates the problem that would be created by a multiplicity of governmental units.
There being no objection, the tabulations were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[TABLES OMITTED]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, notwithstanding that problem, we feel that the Administrator and the Secretary should use their discretion to do everything possible under the regulations to encourage the participation of appropriate local governments.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I am sure that we are in agreement on that. The amendments are offered so that there would be a large involvement of appropriate local authorities from the beginning of any planning or action. In this way, there would not be misunderstandings at a later point.
At this time, I send the amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, what effect would the amendments offered by the distinguished Senator from Utah have on bringing the establishment of these regions in line with the Appalachian region? As I understand, under the Appalachian program, we must have full cooperation with the local governmental authorities.
Is it the purpose of the amendments to place the regions that would be created under this bill in the same category as Appalachia?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do not believe that the concept of the economic development district, which is a part of this bill, was the basic concept of the Appalachian bill.
The Appalachian program is a multi-state regional project, for which Congress approved an overall program. The economic development district proposed in S. 1648, in most instances, would involve probably a few counties, or a large number of smaller local units of government, such as towns and cities. However, it is not the regional concept, as in the Appalachia bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that. However, under the Appalachian program, an entire State, or two States, may cooperate, particularly in roadbuilding or other development projects of common interest. Certain procedures are set out to accomplish these purposes under the Appalachian program.
Are those procedures of the Appalachian program the same as those provided to carry on programs in the regional areas of the country that would be covered by this bill? As I recall, when the debate was held on the Appalachian program, many Senators desired to provide assistance for their own area. The proponents of the Appalachian bill said: "Do not offer your amendments now. Later we will provide assistance for your States under another program."
I believe that this bill is an answer to Senators who desired to participate in the Appalachian program.
How does the procedure under the Appalachia program differ from what the Senator from Utah now proposes?
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, the Appalachian program is a multi-State program. This development district program concept is not primarily a multi-State proposal. All that S. 1648 would do with respect to the formation of regional commissions similar to those established under the Appalachian program would be to authorize the establishment of regional commissions to study the possibility of establishing programs in the multi-State regions.
In my own State of Maine, we could, if we were to meet the established criteria, form economic development districts wholly within the State of Maine. That would be true in the State of Louisiana or in the State of Utah. Those districts would involve combinations of counties and towns, rather than combinations of States.
I believe that this same approach is possible under the Appalachian program in individual States -- an economic development district.
This would be wholly within one State, or a few adjacent counties in two States.
Mr. ELLENDER. Could it be on a larger basis?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, this bill would permit the establishment of a number of development districts.
Mr. ELLENDER. Would the procedure in handling the money, if we were to create the development districts that we are now discussing, be the same as under the Appalachian program?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I hesitate to offer an answer that would constitute an interpretation of the Appalachian program. However, I should say that it is the intent of both programs to encourage the participation of appropriate local units of government.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, would States in the Appalachian region be able to obtain funds under the program that would be established by the bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. The Appalachian areas would not be excluded from participation under the bill. They would be covered by the bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. Therefore, States which are participating in the Appalachian program would gain extra benefits to the extent of more than a billion dollars and be eligible for this program also?
Mr. MUSKIE. Those areas of Appalachia which could establish eligibility under the criteria of this bill would be eligible for the type of assistance authorized by S. 1648.
Mr. ELLENDER. I was trying to find out what the difference was between the Appalachia program and the program we are now considering, particularly in the establishments of regions that have been the subject of discussion on the Senate floor today.
Mr. MUSKIE. I notice the Senator from West Virginia is present. I would like to have him correct me if I am wrong with reference to the eligibility for inclusion in the Appalachian program. It was Congress which determined the geographic boundaries of the Appalachian region, so that no finding of eligibility for assistance can be made administratively. In contrast, under this bill, Congress would establish the criteria for eligibility. The actual designation of eligibility would be made by the Secretary under the guidelines in the bill. So not all areas included in the Appalachia program would necessarily be eligible under this program.
Mr. ELLENDER. Then the statement that the bill authorizes an Appalachia program for other regions of the country really is not correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. I refer the Senator to title V of the bill. Title V, beginning on page 32 of the bill, authorizes the Secretary to designate appropriate economic development regions within the United States with the concurrence of the States. This title undertakes to create authority for the establishment in other parts of the country of development regions similar to Appalachia.
This measure would authorize regional planning programs. So to that extent the bill does carry out the Appalachia concept if other regions are qualified.
Mr. ELLENDER. And notwithstanding the fact that we are creating this authority to establish regions similar to the Appalachia region, areas within Appalachia will still be able to obtain funds under this program?
Mr. MUSKIE. This will be true also of the other regions which might be established similar to Appalachia. Those regions can, under this bill, take advantage of these benefits and at the same time begin the process of creating special regional programs for those parts of the country.
Mr. ELLENDER. But those regions will not be able to obtain funds from the Appalachia program.
Mr. MUSKIE. No; and they will not get any funds unless and until they have established an Appalachia type program for their region which has been specially authorized.
Mr. ELLENDER. Suppose, for example, there had been established an Appalachia type regional commission in the States of Indiana and Illinois. Would those two States be able to obtain money authorized for the Appalachia region?
Mr. MUSKIE. No; they would have to come to Congress for the approval of a similar type of program for that region.
Mr. ELLENDER. Could it be done under this act, without having to come back to Congress?
Mr. MUSKIE. The process set up in title V of S. 1648 would authorize the designation of economic development regions which would have the power under the terms of the bill to research and study their programs and submit plans for their development. When such plans are developed, they must come to Congress, or the administration must submit to Congress Appalachia-type programs for the various regions.
Mr. ELLENDER. Would it be necessary for us to provide additional appropriations or authorizations?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. We would be premature in providing them now, because as yet there are no plans.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 9
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MOSS. We were talking about the kind of economic development which is usually within one State. Then we come to the title V, which includes regions in more than one State. Title V is a total planning process. It has nothing to do with putting the program into action, but planning. Therefore, a State or region under title V would have to go back to Congress for appropriations before anything could be done under title V of the bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. So if these regions are created, they will again come back to Congress and allempt to obtain an authorization. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not a question to which we can answer precisely "Yes" or "No." Direct loans for public works and supplementary grants for public works are contained in S. 1648. If a county or region should qualify for such money under this program, it would not be barred from this assistance simply because it was also included within a special regional program.
Northern New England, which conceivably could be made an Appalachian type region, could obtain exactly the same kind of benefit as the Appalachian region would get.
Mr. ELLENDER. But there may not be any need to develop the region.
Mr. MUSKIE. The fundamental purpose of the Appalachia region bill is to develop a particular region. The public works projects covered by S. 1648 are more local in nature.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. We cannot create a program of development highways, as envisioned under the Appalachia program, on a county-by-county basis. The Appalachia bill is focused upon the problem of regional transportation, recognizing that some areas are, to a degree, isolated, and it was designed to break down those barriers. In Appalachia it was thought that businesses and economic progress could not be generated adequately without a sound transportation system.
With reference to the Senator's argument, I think one program complements the other, because in this instance we shall be providing public works to a degree and providing business loans for those who need to develop their areas. In the case of Appalachia, the program was primarily a development of the transport system.
I believe that is a fair analysis.
Mr. MUSKIE. Nevertheless, it may be possible, under this bill, to build a limited developmental road within the confines of a State or economic development district. The Secretary of Commerce agreed that this was a part of the concept. But when we speak of a multi-State development highway program, that would be developed as a regional program under a special authorization for that region.
There may be other projects in other regions of the country that could be more important at this time than developmental highways. We do not foreclose the development of any kind of regional project in this bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. The region would have to document its case. They have to prove it; is that not true?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. What concerns me, and the reason I am asking these questions, is that under the Appalachia program we are bound to spend -- as I remember -- a figure of $1 billion and $60 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the total authorization.
Mr. ELLENDER. Over 5 years?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Is the Senator from Louisiana directing his question to me?
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. Is it $1.06 billion over a 5-year period?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The sum of $840 million is provided for the regional developmental highway system. That has to be taken out of the $1.06 billion total authorization.
Mr. ELLENDER. Notwithstanding the spending of $840 million for roads, do I correctly understand that the States in the Appalachian region could come in and get more money for roads within their own boundaries under title I?
Mr. MUSKIE. My impression is that the States within the Appalachian region and the communities within those States are eligible, under the Appalachia program, for benefits which are similar to these. If they establish eligibility under the Appalachia program, they cannot at the same time, for the same project -- let me repeat that -- the same project -- and for the same purposes, establish eligibility and obtain the benefits which would be provided under the pending bill. In other words, they cannot have assistance from both for the same project.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that, but--
Mr. MUSKIE. If the community is depressed, it cannot first go to the Appalachia Administrator and have its program underwritten by that Administrator, and then take the exact same project to the Secretary of Commerce and, under the pending bill, obtain additional grants.
Mr. ELLENDER. I can well understand that.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President , will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. I should like to respond to the Senator from Louisiana, speaking with respect to the points he has raised. I believe that there is a distinct difference between the purposes of the Appalachia program and the pending bill, at least in regard to titles I and II. I believe that the distinction, which has been alluded to by the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator in charge of the bill, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], is this: The Appalachia bill looks toward the basic development of regions including developmental highways, multi county hospitals, timber management, and construction of facilities to encourage investment.
Mr. ELLENDER. Schools?
Mr. COOPER. No schools, other than vocational training, the basic kind of development of a whole region is the Appalachian approach.
The emphasis of titles I and II of the proposed legislation is to direct funds toward community development and industrial facilities which will provide long-term employment. In the Appalachia bill no funds are made available to a State or subdivision of a State or to any nonprofit organization for commercial or industrial plants.
To me, that is the distinction between the Appalachia bill and the pending bill. The money will be spent in an attempt to encourage either the location or expansion of plants -- not relocation -- along with the generation of local investment in commercial and industrial plants within a county or subdivision of a State or an area. That is the distinction.
I believe that the other question the Senator from Louisiana raised, concerning the building of roads under Appalachia, was whether a State could come to the Commerce Department and secure funds to build roads under the pending bill.
If a county, or three counties, in an Appalachian area should make application under the pending bill for funds to locate or build an industrial or commercial plant in that area, and if it were shown that it would be necessary to build a quarter-mile or half-mile length of road, or a road 100 yards long, as an access road to that plant, then it could secure funds under the legislation enacted, provided for in the Appalachia bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that.
Mr. COOPER. I hope I have made it clear.
Mr. ELLENDER. When the Senator stated the items that could be eligible under Appalachia, and I said schools, I had in mind, at that point, vocational schools.
Mr. COOPER. Yes.
Mr. ELLENDER. We can spend quite a bit of money under Appalachia on vocational schools.
Mr. COOPER. For vocational schools; the Senator is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. To go back to the question of creating regions -- if, as, and when the regions are created throughout the country on a basis similar to Appalachian they then come back to Congress for further authorization; is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. They would have to obtain a special authorization from Congress for anything more than planning funds and technical assistance.
Mr. ELLENDER. In other words, they would have to make a case, as was done for Appalachia?
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. ELLENDER. So the amount of money which may be authorized in the future for the many regional areas which may be created is somewhat indefinite; it could amount to a large sum, could it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. I cannot imagine that Congress would let it go into a large figure -- at least not without full discussion and debate on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Appalachian region includes certain areas in West Virginia and seven or eight other States. The amount authorized is $1,060 million. Under title I of the pending bill for public works facilities and grants, $400 million a year would be authorized for 5 years, or $2 billion over that period. Then, as I understand, under title II, title III, title IV, and title V, the moneys provided are for no specific time, but would remain available indefinitely.
Mr. MUSKIE. Titles II and III have been limited, under an amendment adopted last week, to 5 years.
Mr. ELLENDER. I was not aware of that.
Mr. MUSKIE. The major sections of the bill are now under a 5-year limitation.
Mr. ELLENDER. So under the pending bill, the major authorizations are limited to 5 years. I shall not ask any more questions on that point, because I am glad that that was done. The expenditure of as much as $665 million, as I remember it, with an indefinite time limitation in the authorization, was, I thought, very unwise.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know. The Senator expressed that concern the other day.
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. His concern had something to do with adoption of the amendment to the pending bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. The reason I am asking these questions is that I believe the bill as a whole to be a good bill, if properly administered. The only point I wish to go into again concerns that portion of the bill which permits a community to obtain money from several sources, for example, to build hospitals.
I do not know what the committee had in mind in permitting a community to obtain money under this legislation, while under the Hill-Burton Act as much as 80 percent of the construction cost can already be made available.
I am not clear about the necessity for a community to be able to obtain funds for up to 50 percent of the cost of a project under one law, and then, under the pending bill, be entitled to obtain 30 percent more. Why make it possible for that community to obtain 80 percent from two sources, when it could obtain 80 percent from one source ?
I should like to know the reason for the committee's action. I do not yet see the necessity for tying in any Hill-Burton Act funds. The Hill-Burton Act has been operating very well, so far as I know, and I am very proud of the part that I played as a coauthor of it. This bill is making it possible for funds to be derived from two sources for one project. That question is something that I believe needs a little study. I believe that the possibility of obtaining money from any other source than the Hill-Burton Act should be reconsidered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me explain what I apparently failed to explain previously, and the reasons behind our action. In the first place, a public works program under the pending bill must be related to the long-range economic development prospects of a community. This is not a general supplement to any existing grant-in-aid program. Furthermore, it is limited to areas of high employment or low income.
To the extent that existing grant-in-aid programs may be useful in aiding the community to develop those long-run economic development prospects, it can be eligible under the bill.
I am trying to find the language in the bill which is applicable.
Mr. ELLENDER. While the Senator is looking for the section of the bill he is discussing, I should like to say that in the past, Congress has been very liberal in providing funds for use by certain localities in connection with the construction of hospitals. That program has worked very well. I fear that if we permit communities to obtain funds from sources other than the Hill-Burton Act, we shall make it possible to have them get 30 or 40 percent of the money from the Hill-Burton Act, and entice them to get the rest of it from funds to be obtained under the pending bill.
I believe that whatever money is provided in the pending bill, particularly under title 1, should be used to the fullest extent to provide sewage facilities, good water, and things of that kind, instead of mixing it all in with hospital construction.
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. McNAMARA. I do not believe the testimony that was presented to us in committee indicated any great intent to supplement hospital programs. The bill does not prohibit doing what the Senator would visualize so far as hospital construction is concerned. However, there is no indication that this would be a great part of the program. It may be that in an isolated area, where it is not possible to raise the necessary funds locally under the Hill-Burton Act, the area or community would be able to get money under the pending bill. It would be able to get some of that money, at least. However, I do not visualize any great program being developed in that connection under the pending bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. They could get 80 percent under the Hill-Burton Act, could they not?
Mr. McNAMARA. They could get up to 80 percent only with a supplementary grant under this program. However, we do not visualize the building of a great many hospitals under the projected prograin. Very few would be assisted under this program.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I may pick up the thought which I started to develop a while ago, this is the criterion which the public works project must meet under the act: It must "tend to improve the opportunity in the area where such project is or will be located for the successful establishment or expansion of industrial or commercial plants or facilities."
Unless a hospital under the Hill-Burton program would tend to improve the opportunity for the successful establishment or expansion of industrial commercial plants or facilities, it would not be eligible under the pending bill.
This is true of any other public works facility with respect to which application is made. This is a more restricted criterion than that established under the Hill-Burton program, or under any other grant-in-aid program intended to support projects useful to such an area.
In the second place, the concept of supplementary grants is already a part of the Appalachia program, which has been approved by Congress in principle.
With respect to the impact of the supplementary grant, last Thursday I inserted in the RECORD various other programs and the matching formulas. The insertion is found at page 11915 of Thursday's RECORD. Some typical public works and development facilities are as follows:
[TABLE OMITTED]
These are some of the existing grant-in-aid programs under which local public works projects can be built with Federal assistance, and some of them without Federal assistance.
The Senator has asked what the theory is. If a community or region or economic development district is deteriorating badly, either because of the loss of its essential element of economic strength, or because of technological change, the community is less able to put up matching funds under existing Federal programs than a healthy, viable community is able to do. If there is a public facility available under an existing program which would help that area get back on its feet and increase its prospects for economic growth, the committee felt that in such a situation it would be useful and justifiable for the Federal Government to supplement the existing program and bring the Federal contribution up to 80 percent That is the theory.
I raised this question about assistance for hospitals during the testimony of the secretary of Commerce before the Public Works Committee.
I asked whether or not hospitals would be eligible.
Secretary Connor answered:
Secretary CONNOR. We were thinking of those only if there is a total lack of adequate hospital facilities which seriously hampers the economic needs of the community. In that case a hospital project might be eligible
A case we have financed under the ARA program, as you know, were the hospitals, the miners' hospitals in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. They were terribly important to economic development.
Mr. ELLENDER. When the Senator says to bring it up to 80 percent, he means cases in which a community could not raise the necessary funds to match the Government in programs other than this. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. I assume that would be one of the considerations of the Secretary in reviewing and evaluating the project.
Mr. ELLENDER. I can understand that in many areas the Government would be putting up everything except the 20 percent of the money that could be obtained locally. That is one thing we must be careful about.
Mr. MUSKIE. Under the accelerated public works program there was a gradation in the Federal contribution which depended upon the ability of the community to participate. Similar tests would be applied by the Secretary. The 80 percent is not mandatory.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand. That is why I thought that if the bill were directed to programs to improve a sewage disposal system or improve water, we would be going far toward assisting communities to get back on their feet. Because of a low tax base, I can see that it is impossible for many small communities to provide sufficient funds to construct adequate water and sewage facilities. It was my hope that most of this money could be used in that connection, and that we could let the roadbuilding and hospital construction be done under existing laws.
At first that is what I thought the bill would do. I express the hope that the administrators of the program will see to it that as much money as possible is used to assist cities, towns, and villages to obtain good water supplies and sewerage systems.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator should be assured by the record of the public works program under which a majority of the projects were for either water or sewers. I would expect that comparable experience would develop under the proposed legislation.
Mr. ELLENDER. I had hoped that the Senator could so provide by limiting the program.
Mr. MUSKIE. We did not do so because we could not imagine all of the diversities of program that might be involved in communities. If a community needs a vocational school, for example, and it could not obtain assistance under any other program, or if it could get aid under an existing program, but could not provide the necessary matching funds, and if that were the critical additional public facility that that community needed, we did not wish to make it impossible for the Secretary of Commerce to be of assistance.
On page 46 of the hearings of the Public Works Committee, the Senator from Louisiana will find typical examples of public facility projects which the Secretary believes would be covered and supported under the proposed program. The Senator might be interested in examining that material.
Mr. ELLENDER. I should like to ask a few questions in relation to title II. To what extent would the Small Business Administration have under its control the distribution of funds for loans and for the purpose of making industrial and commercial guarantees for working capital?
Mr. MUSKIE. As the Senator knows, there is now a division of responsibility between the ARA and SBA in respect to that function. ARA makes the evaluation on the basis of the economic feasibility of the project and its need in the area. SBA makes the credit evaluation. That procedure could continue.
Mr. ELLENDER. Under SBA the loans must be repayable. That is, there must be reason to believe that if money is put into a certain business, the borrower will be able to repay it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. Suppose an application is made to the Small Business Administration for a quarter-million dollars, and SBA does not believe that the industry which would be created would return enough profits to repay the loan. If a case like that were presented, would it be possible for moneys to be loaned under the proposed legislation in order to bolster a project which the SBA might think to be too risky?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is possible, because the Economic Development Administration, proposed successor agency to ARA, would be the administrative unit. EDA would be the ultimate administrator of the program. There has been some debate outside of Congress and within the committees as to whether EDA should not have total jurisdiction over all the authority in the bill.
The committee felt that with the new arrangements which have been established between SBA and ARA, the present relationship could continue. In some instances, the agencies have disagreed; but I do not think that they have disagreed to a degree that should raise any alarm.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand the present act, there must be a reasonable belief that the loans would be repaid.
Mr. MUSKIE. The language is "a reasonable assurance of repayment."
Mr. ELLENDER. That is correct. The Small Business Administration could lend a certain amount of the loan applied for and be almost entirely secured for its part; but there might be serious doubt as to whether or not, under the present proposal, any further loans could be repaid. What does the Senator have to say about that point?
Mr. MUSKIE . All I can say is that the language of the bill is clear. The language of the bill contains a mandate not only to the SBA, but also to ARA. Their credit standards are different, but I cannot conceive of either agency deliberately disregarding that mandate. I suppose that there could be an honest disagreement between two individuals of equal competence as to whether or not a particular loan is a viable loan. But the policy is clear. ARA delegated the credit evaluating functions which it has under the law to SBA primarily because SBA has the manpower and the organization to do the work. But both the ARA and the proposed EDA programs are intended to be developmental programs.
Mr. ELLENDER. Suppose the SBA would loan a business up to 50 percent of the money necessary to construct a new facility. And suppose that the business could only raise from its own sources an additional 30 percent of the total amount needed, under the pending bill, would it be possible for moneys to be used to supplement the SBA loan to that business?
In other words, it is now possible for SBA to loan a certain amount of money which might not be satisfactory to the borrower. Could the borrower then come in under the proposed legislation
and borrow 20 percent more or 30 percent more, or whatever would be necessary in order that he might proceed to construct the facility for which he had applied, but for which the SBA had refused to loan all that he asked?
Mr. MUSKIE. We are talking about industrial loans?
Mr. ELLENDER. We are talking about industrial loans.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is asking whether or not SBA could supplement the ARA loans
Mr. ELLENDER. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. Whether ARA could supplement the SBA to support a given project.
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I cannot give the Senator from Louisiana an interpretation of the law on that point; but, administratively, I cannot conceive that happening, because the EDA and the SBA together would administer this provision of the law as the agencies have administered the ARA law. In the ARA experience, I do not know of any instances of splitting individual loans.
Mr. ELLENDER. The SBA would then administer the project with its own funds?
Mr. MUSKIE. The ARA -- or the EDA, as it may be called -- would have direct authority over the industrial loan provisions of the bill, could continue to delegate to SBA the evaluation of the credit risk of each of the loans. The two evaluations would finally determine whether or not the loans should be made, so that when the decision was finally made by EDA under the proposed program, the decision would encompass the total financing for the project.
Mr. ELLENDER. The financing would be obtained from two sources or only one? That is the point I am trying to develop. In other words, the borrower under the SBA program may not be satisfied with the amount of money that he can obtain from SBA.
Would one agency play against the other?
Mr. MUSKIE. They could not do that.
Mr. ELLENDER. I want to be certain about that, because if an application were made, under the bill, for a small business loan, the Small Business Administration would handle it for the Commerce Department.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator means that there are some purposes for which the SBA can make loans and the ARA cannot?
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. And I wish to be certain that the SBA is not placed in the position of making unsecured loans, or loans secured by another Government agency.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator understands that both SBA and ARA may be in the financial picture of the particular business, but they cannot play each other off on any particular loan authorized under the bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. In other words, if the Small Business Administration were to say to a concern that was about to start a new business, "All we can lend is 60 percent of your needs, because that is all we believe you can pay back; you will have to put up the balance of 40 percent," it would not be possible, under the bill, for the SBA loan to be supplemented from funds derived from this source.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would say "No" to the Senator, based on my understanding.
Mr. ELLENDER. I do not want it to appear to be the intent of Congress for the SBA to begin approving dangerous loans and thereby losing money.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendments, en bloc, offered by the Senator from Utah.
The amendments, en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the amendments, en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. MOSS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to,
SMALL TOWNS IN AMERICA ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR FAIR SHARE OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield time to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, It has been the historic function of the American Government to rise to meet the challenges of each age. When we were in the period of our great national westward expansion, the Government gave away free land to settlers to see to it that all sections of our vast domain were settled, and gave away vast areas of land to railroads to see that transportation was available to all sections of our country. Today the American Government is taking action to insure that these areas remain settled and productive and not be abandoned to wastage, but that they retain the prosperity which has been created there down through the years by the hard work of pioneer families and their descendants.
The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 will provide assistance to communities that are distressed by low income and high unemployment. This is a do-it-yourself project. Local communities will work up overall economic development plans which will detail the steps they will take to restore their economies to their former healthy conditions. Then they can receive assistance in the form of loam to attract industry and grants for badly needed public works.
The bill makes it possible for small towns to obtain the funds for water works and sewage treatment facilities. With our vast population, pure water and adequate sewage are necessary if our small towns are to be saved. Without these health safeguards hepatitis and other outbreaks or threatened outbreaks of disease doom towns and small cities to a gradual withering away. With
the health and comfort safeguards of pure water and adequate sewage disposal, such towns are more nearly able to hold their own.
Towns may also receive aid for fire and police stations, tourism facilities, airports, watersheds and flood protection, and area vocational schools. In other words, this bill spells survival for hundreds of smaller cities and towns of America, which lack the capital to build these facilities alone.
Mr. President, as a coauthor of the Senate bill I strongly support the proposed legislation. It should be passed without further delay so that we can get on with the task of revitalizing our small towns and rural areas.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD, tables 1 to 8, on pages 176, 178, 179, 182, 184, 185, 190, and 192, chapter V. of "Essays in Southern Economic Development," edited by Melvin L. Greenhut and W. Tate Whitman, and printed by the University of North Carolina Press. Chapter V is by George Macesich.
Table 4 is especially relevant. Projecting population migration in the South for the period 1970-2020, it shows that migration from rural areas will continue, although at a decreasing rate, unless action is taken to save our rural areas.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[TABLES OMITTED]
[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. COOPER. I joined the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in supporting and sponsoring these related programs, the area redevelopment program, the accelerated public works program, the Economic Opportunity Act, and the Appalachia development bill; but I have submitted this amendment for two reasons. One is that it would cut back the authorization -- to one-half of the increase which was made over the President's recommendation of $250 million. Second, I am aware of what Congress, and the Senate in particular, has done in passing the great bills which have helped my State; namely, the accelerated public works program, the Area Redevelopment Act, and the Appalachia Development Act.
I believe that we cannot overdo it. We just cannot expect that the country will continue to provide ever larger amounts before full needs and uses are shown and proved. I believe that we must keep these programs within some kind of reasonable limit -- and the most reasonable limit wherever possible. I have proposed a very reasonable limit; namely, one-half the increase made by the committee beyond the request submitted by the President.
Mr. CLARK. The Senator from Kentucky is one of the ablest members of this body. I respect him in every way. I honor his integrity and ability. In this particular case, however, I believe that he is dead wrong.
This is not an extravagant and unnecessary increase in a vitally needed program. The provision as it now appears in the bill falls far short of the requirements for assistance in a number of States, which come under the provisions of the bill.
Mr. President, how much time have I left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. CLARK. I yield 10 seconds to the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH].
Mr. RANDOLPH. In the State of Pennsylvania, there are 416 projects at a cost of $88 million which are now eligible and ready to move. The able Senator from Pennsylvania knows that this is the situation in all States in the Union. I congratulate him on his vigorous espousal of this moderate increase in the pending bill.
Mr. CLARK. I thank my friend for his helpful interest.
Mr. President, I hope that the amendment will be defeated.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT TO VOTE ON COOPER AMENDMENT AT 4:45 P.M.
Mr. MANSFIELD . Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield me one-half minute?
Mr. MCNAMARA. I yield to the Senator from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Cooper amendment take place at 4:45 o'clock p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How is the time to be allotted for further debate on the amendment?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Whichever ways Senators wish to use it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from Kentucky has stated that he has supported all these programs. He has been so preeminent in that support that I did not wish to add my own voice at the point when he was speaking, although it is a fact that I have, on this side of the aisle, also supported these programs, both in committee, when I was a member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, and on the floor of the Senate.
I am known, and proud to be known, as a liberal, anxious to have my State, which pays the most taxes of all the States, support the well-being of the country, notwithstanding the fact that it is often said, in answer to my votes, that New York pays $3 for every dollar that it gets back. As long as I am a Member of the Senate that will never be a factor in determining my vote.
However, I appreciate and am ready to support conservation where conservation is appropriate in terms of these projects. When the President of the United States requests $250 million, and the amount is raised by the committee to $400 million, I expect eventually to hear facts stated that will support the increase.
The Senator from Kentucky, a strong supporter of the bill, proposes to cut the increase by 50 percent, on the theory that it is necessary to have a good reason to raise the figure by $150 million, and that in the absence of such a good reason the least that can be done is to cut the increase by one-half. If one is to be a liberal, he must be a hardheaded liberal. Therefore, I am glad to support the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, when the Senator from New York speaks of facts as an essential element in deciding the issue which has been raised by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, I would say that both the Senator from Kentucky and the other members of the committee felt that they had a sound factual basis for their conclusions.
Secretary Connor, when he testified before the committee, advised us that more than $700 million worth of APW applications were pending when that program ran out. The Secretary has screened the applications, and has reduced the amount to a possible $450 million, or a little more than that which might be eligible for assistance under the pending bill, if it is enacted.
The $250 million figure obviously falls short of that figure. We recognize that the $250 million called for in S. 1648 would be an annual figure, running for the life of the authorization, and that the $450 million figure is also an annual figure running for the life of the authorization.
I believe that in addition to the points which have been made, it should be pointed out that the $450 million in APW applications will have a running start on whatever figure Congress approves for this bill. If it is the $250 million figure, the projects which can be justified on the basis of needs developed since the APW program terminated will have to fall behind and run behind the projects that are pending in the APW file. It has seemed to us that this would militate against the many areas of the country which have developed needs since that program terminated, and would militate against smaller communities and smaller towns which are not in a position to develop projects as rapidly as more sophisticated planning departments are able to do in the larger communities.
For that reason, in addition to the others that have been advanced by the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from West Virginia, we felt we were justified in increasing the figure to $400 million.
Mr. COOPER. To respond to that argument, I should like to ask that the analysis of the APW backlog, submitted to the Committee on Public Works by Secretary Connor, shown at page 45 of the hearings, be included in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ANALYSIS OF THE APW BACKLOG
From areas eligible under the Area Redevelopment Act on April 15, 1965 -- excluding the "labor surplus areas" eligible only under the Public Works Acceleration Act -- the Community Facilities Administration of HHFA and the Public Health Service of DHEW had on hand 2,518 applications requesting $468 million in APW grants.
However, these figures have only very limited significance as a measure of the potential demand for grants under section 101 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act for the following reasons:
(1) The principal purpose of the APW program was to create jobs, and projects had only to fulfill an essential public need, not necessarily related to economic development. Under the new act, each project must tend to improve either directly or indirectly the opportunity for the successful establishment or expansion of industrial or commercial plants or facilities, or assist otherwise in the creation of additional long-term employment opportunities, or primarily benefit the long-term unemployed and members of low-income families or otherwise substantially further the objectives of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1965.
(2) While apparently eligible under the provisions of the Public Works Acceleration Act, many of the pending APW applications clearly do not meet the requirements of the new act. For instance, the total includes 368 grant requests for courthouses, townhalls, and the like, amounting to $1 million, and 51 grant requests for hospitals and other health facilities amounting to $29 million, most of which do not meet the new requirements.
(3) Many of the pending APW applications date back to 1962 and 1963, and we do not know how many of these projects have been built in the meantime.
(4) Among the 624 grant requests for water and sewer facilities and other utilities amounting to $129 million, there appears to be a preponderance of projects which may not meet the test of contributing to economic development, and the same appears to be true of the 573 grant requests for streets and roads, amounting to $92 million.
Conservatively estimated, no more than one-third of the APW "backlog," or about $150 million in grant requests, will be eligible under the new act.
On the other hand, the flow of new applications under the Public Works Acceleration Act was drastically reduced in the spring of 1963, when both CFA and DHEW announced that APW funds were already oversubscribed. A large influx of new applications which would be eligible under the new act may, therefore, be anticipated as soon as the new law is passed.
Mr. COOPER. This analysis was prepared by the Secretary of Commerce. It states:
Conservatively estimated, no more than one-third of the APW "backlog," or about $150 million in grant requests, will be eligible under the new act.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the words are "conservatively estimated." Whatever figure is used to settle down that $450 million figure will be an estimate. His guess may be better than mine, and his guess may be more conservative than mine. Whatever the size of the backlog, it gives a running start for communities which have applications on file, and militates against communities which do not have applications on file, even though their need might be greater.
I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
MINNESOTA AND THE PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of S. 1648, the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. I welcome the opportunity because this legislation represents a sound approach to the problems of labor surplus and economic decline in many areas of the Nation. It extends and improves the important features of the area redevelopment program, the accelerated public works program, and the Appalachian redevelopment experience. It proposes to deal with underdevelopment by a concerted regional and areawide attack, grouping distressed areas together to form economically viable development districts.
Those of us who have worked closely with the ARA and the accelerated public works in the past will recognize in the new bill many substantive and technical improvements which will make these programs more effective and more suited to the task of mobilizing our economic resources.
The greatest promise of America has always been the unqualified assurance of equal opportunity for all people regardless of their background or circumstances. We have made it a fundamental principle that every American be afforded the chance to build a full life for himself and his family. Today in America there are a wide range of programs and projects to guarantee that no one is denied this chance because of race, because of a lack of education, or because of the poverty of his birth.
But today opportunity is closed to many of our fellow Americans because of the economic decline of the area in which they live. In such distressed areas, which spread throughout the country, young people leave school early to help their families and thus rob themselves of the skills and knowledge needed for a full and rich life. The same young people leave the area entirely, stripping it of the youth and vigor necessary to fight its economic problems. These circumstances lead to blocked progress and further decline.
We simply cannot afford to waste our human and natural resources. Loss of economic power stunts national growth and inhibits our position as the leading nation in the world community.
Most of all, we cannot sit contentedly by and allow millions of Americans to be foreclosed from the fulfillment of hope that the rest of us share. This would deny the American promise I spoke of earlier -- the unqualified assurance of equal opportunity for all.
I am most happy that the bill specifically provides for relief and assistance to those living in substandard and poverty conditions on Indian reservations in the United States. This bill recognizes that the great majority of these areas are among the most critical in the United States in terms of labor surplus, economic distress, and poverty.
As former attorney general of Minnesota and one who has long been interested in Indian affairs as well as the problem of economic development in economically distressed areas, I myself was shocked by a recent review of the economic conditions of our own Indians.
In the State of Minnesota there are entire communities, not just isolated families, living on Indian reservations in poverty and in destitution. The median family income of the Indians on Leech Lake, White Earth, and Nett Lake Reservations is under $1,000 a year, which, as I understand it, Mr. President, is less than one-third of the minimum which our Government has ascribed as the poverty line and poverty level.
The unemployment rate on Leech Lake ranges from 40 to 80 percent depending upon the time of the year. At Nett Lake the average rate is 69 percent, at White Earth 60 percent, at Red Lake 47 percent.
Ninety percent of the Indians at Leech Lake live in substandard housing, and 70 to 100 percent of the children drop out of the public schools in the area before graduating from the 12th grade.
I do not believe there is any other area in the country or any other people in the country that could mark a higher rate of dropout than that.
This is, I think, a pathetic circumstance of incalculable proportions in the midst of the richest nation in the world. I would like to see an attempt in Minnesota to harness experienced, retired managerial talent, making them available for an extended period of time to work with those on Indian reservations and train them in management and development skills.
I think our businessmen would find such a project exciting, if we could say to them, "You are now retired at the age of 65. You are in good health. Why do you not help us put together an industry that will provide employment, diversification, and give these people a chance to get started?"
The bill does make it abundantly clear that technical and management assistance will be made available to local development areas. Many of these areas lack the technical skills and know-how to attack their problems in an efficient and practical fashion. The technical assistance the Secretary is authorized to provide to redevelopment areas includes project planning and feasibility studies, management and operational assistance, and studies evaluating the needs of and developing potentialities ties for economic growth of such areas. This section will provide local areas with assistance in developing their staff, their action programs, and liaison with Federal and other agencies that will be needed to further their progress under this act. It will assist them in understanding what the economic potential of their area is. It will help them pinpoint methods by which they might harness the economic resources they possess.
In this connection, the bill will allow the Secretary to provide such technical and managerial assistance through experienced retired managerial talent. It seems to me a terrible waste to have hundreds of top executive personnel, who have spent their whole lives in the unique and rewarding experience of entrepreneurial ventures, who have behind them skills and talents to assemble capital, to develop management systems, to train and assemble what is necessary to make an enterprise work not being fully used by our society.
I might add at that point that many leading executives in Minnesota who have reached retirement age have come to me and said, "Now, what do I do? I am in good health. I should like to help in some fashion. Is there some area in which I can contribute my talents and time?"
I believe that one of the most exciting features of the Economic Development Act of 1965 is the provision to use those talents where they are most needed.
In addition, I was most happy to see included in the bill language to insure that eligible areas will not lose designation or have their eligibility removed in cases where economic growth may be short term or where the growth is primarily the result of increased temporary employment. In many areas, an influx of construction labor, with a corresponding rise of employment, will cause a rise in employment statistics which is purely temporary and passing. Once the construction workers leave, affected areas would have to wait 3 years for renewed eligibility, and many of the good effects of the Federal programs would be lost in the intervening period. This amendment would allow a sufficient period of time during which it could be demonstrated with some assurance that the expansive effects in certain areas were not merely temporary.
I see this amendment as one of the keys to the success of the program in the State of Minnesota and in many other regions across the Nation.
I had specifically in mind the problem with which we are confronted in northeastern Minnesota, in the heart of Minnesota's traditional Iron Range. There we are experiencing the beginning of a taconite development which stretches across that range. Approximately five persons will be engaged in construction labor for every one person who is finally employed in the taconite mines once the industry is in full operation. There will be several thousand construction laborers and workers in related construction work on the range during the next few years, and that fact would probably make St. Louis County and Itasca County technically ineligible under the ARA. But once the plants were in full operation, I believe the statistics would reflect that those counties would once again be eligible.
What the amendment, incorporated in the bill, would provide is that those counties might continue to be eligible during that period, recognizing the temporary nature of the employment.
Many Senators must share in the praise for the drafting and work on this good bill. As a member of the Banking and Currency Subcommittee which considered titles II and IV of this legislation, I think that my chairman, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] and the other members of the subcommittee, the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] and the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] are to be commended and congratulated on the fine result of their work. I also thank the Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA] for his excellent work in preparing this bill in the Public Works Committee. I was most happy to have had the opportunity to play a role in drafting this legislation.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 2 minutes remaining on the amendment. Does he yield 3 minutes on the bill. also?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I yield the necessary time on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I wish to urge my colleagues to support the bill before the Senate, S. 1648, the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.
The citizens of Portsmouth, N.H., and the Maine-New Hampshire seacoast area, as well as the citizens of other communities which are about to be hit by the loss of major sources of employment, will all share my appreciation for the action of the Senate Committee on Public Works in retaining, and indeed, strengthening, the language of my bill, S. 400, which would have amended the Area Redevelopment Act.
I would like to express my own sincere thanks to the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA], the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], and my neighbor from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], for their assistance and contributions toward the best possible legislation for the problems facing Portsmouth.
What section 401 (a) (4) does is to provide the full assistance of the Federal Government earmarked for redevelopment areas for communities such as Portsmouth which are threatened with severe unemployment because of the planned future loss of a major source of employment.
In the case of Portsmouth and the seacoast area, such a threat has been posed by the statements of the Department of Defense that the workload at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard will undergo a severe drop by 1968.
The testimony before the Subcommittee on Production and Stabilization of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency clearly brought out the seacoast region's need for this type of assistance.
Mr. President, again I urge my colleagues to support the pending bill.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 5 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] to my statement, which will be brief. At the end of it I expect to ask a question.
First, I shall support the bill. I believe that we should have good, strong, permanent legislation in the field of public works. We might call it make-work, or whatever we will. The program is necessary particularly in view of the fact that a great many areas are so depleted financially and their resources are so thin that they cannot modernize, if we might use that term, fast enough to get into the running and thereby support a viable economy at the present time. With a little lift they could get over that barrier.
As the Senator from Michigan knows, title IV establishes the basic standards for designation of redevelopment areas under the pending bill. The two primary criteria are that an area first, must have an unemployment rate in excess of the national average; or second, have a family median income not in excess of 40 percent of the national family median income. I am aware that these criteria were drawn purposefully to be more restrictive than the standards which were established by the Area Redevelopment Act and the Accelerated Public Works Act. In addition they are concerned with economic factors rather than labor surplus standards.
Although I agree that the standards under this bill should be more restrictive than those of previous acts, I question the particular standards set up in title IV.
Under the operation of the bill, 20 counties in my State would not be able to qualify. Some of those counties have a relatively thin economic status and standing.
As will be recalled, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 adopted the standard that a family whose annual income was less than $3,000 should be classified as a poverty stricken family.
Nationwide, 21.4 percent of all families had an income of less than $3,000. The average for the State of Mississippi, however, was 51.1 percent of all families, and every county in the State exceeded the national average of 21.4 percent. Therefore, all of the 20 counties excluded under this bill exceed the national average for families with less than $3,000. For example, in Prentiss County 62.1 percent of all families have less than $3,000 income; in all of the 20 counties except one, the percent of families having less than $3 000 exceeds 30 percent. So it is clear that 19 of these 20 counties far exceed the national average for poverty standards as adopted last year when Congress passed the antipoverty bill. In view of these f acts I believe it would be well to consider modifying the standards.
I shall not offer an amendment, because this is a complicated subject to deal with, and needs the benefit of the consideration of Senators who are members of the committee and of their experts. I hope that as the bill progresses through Congress, those handling it on the part of the Senate will consider the additional facts that the debate has brought out, to see if some standard could be adopted which would protect the bill and its sound provisions, and at the same time make it possible for some of the counties which are situated as I have described to be included.
If we amend title IV, for example, to make counties eligible if their family income did not exceed 50 percent of the national family median or 53 percent, which equals the $3,000 standard of the poverty bill, 7 of these 20 counties in Mississippi which are now excluded would be eligible.
These counties are Union, Prentiss, Tishomingo, Scott, Itawamba, Wayne, and Alcorn. I believe these are counties of great need and should not be excluded from participation in the benefits of this program. With only a small variation in the formula, I believe those counties could qualify for participation in the program.
I should like to ask the Senator from Maine what his interest would be in a certain situation. I do not ask him to give a binding promise at this stage of the debate.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is conceivable that a policy could develop in the direction which the Senator from Mississippi has suggested. The 40-percent of national median-income test was written into the bill because the criteria in the Area Redevelopment Act were unsatisfactory with respect to rural areas -- that is, areas as to which no labor statistics and unemployment figures were available. The Area Redevelopment Administration developed some ad hoc standards, which were regularized by its regulations. They were useful and helpful in spreading the benefits of programs into areas such as the Senator from Mississippi describes. Out of this experience was developed the criterion of 40 percent of national median income.
As experience develops under the proposed act, I would not be at all surprised if the agency and the committees of Congress found that, in all justice, this standard should be broadened so as to cover the areas with which the Senator from Mississippi is concerned.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator from Maine for his fine sentiment along that line. The situation I have described could exist because of the lack of more accurate statistics as to the percentage of persons who are actually employed.
I hope that as the bill progresses through Congress, the Senator from Maine will be friendly to the idea that the criterion should be changed and the formula modified to the extent of perhaps being more accurate, so as to include countries that are near the borderline of the formula.
Mr. MUSKIE. We shall certainly take a good look at the situation to see if the formula should be modified. I thank the Senator for his support and for his eloquent expression of the philosophy of the bill.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator from Maine. I appreciate the excellent work that he and other Senators are doing in this field.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a table of the counties of Mississippi that are excluded, their population, and the percentage of families having less than $3,000 annual income.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[TABLE OMITTED]
[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the capable Senator from Massachusetts yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the State of Massachusetts is incorporated certainly within an area that could well provide a proving ground for these programs, including the program of public works and development facilities.
At present, 116 projects in West Virginia amounting to $22 million, are eligible for moving forward and employing people in the construction of needed facilities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I am most appreciative, as I am sure other Senators are, of the support given the pending proposal by the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia. The Senator is one without peer in understanding the concept of regional development. He has devoted his great energy and conviction to this bill and to the regional approach. The people of my State -- and the people of New England -- very much appreciate his understanding and support.
We recognize that New England must come up with a program and the kind of study that will demonstrate the need for this special and far-reaching assistance.
I am convinced that we have the facts to justify our program and receive the support of Congress. All we ask is that there be thorough consideration of the needs of our less developed areas.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for the contribution which he has made over the course of the past several months to the development of the regional concept upon which the important title V of the bill is based.
The Senator and I have worked closely. I know that he has worked closely with Senators from other areas of the country which could conceivably take advantage of that title, the development of the regional concept, the administration support for it, and the effort needed to bring the legislation to the floor.
it has been a privilege and a stimulating experience for me to work with the Senator. I congratulate him and take this opportunity to make his contribution clear on the record.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Kentucky has offered an amendment that would reduce the authorization of $400 million, provided for in title 1, to $325 million.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct. That is the pending amendment.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, do I correctly understand that if the amount were cut to $325 million, it would still be $75 million more than the administration requested?
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct. The administration asked for an authorization of $250 million.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The bill, instead of providing $250 million, would make $400 million available in the form of grants.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Do I correctly understand that there are other acts now on the books that have a relationship to the objective of this bill, which is, supposedly, to help areas in which unemployment exists. Those acts are the Appalachian Act, the Economic Opportunity Act, and the Manpower Retraining Act. The pending bill, if enacted into law, would be the fourth program to cover the same field of activity.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct. The acts which the Senator has enumerated are related. However, they have different specific purposes.
We discussed on the floor today the Appalachian program. That program goes more to the basic structure of the area -- such as roads, multicounty hospitals, timber and land management, vocational training, and local public facilities.