May 26, 1965
Page 11793
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I know that many questions have been asked on the floor about the purpose and the provisions of the bill. I believe that I can explain briefly what is in the bill.
The bill came before the Committee on Public Works some weeks ago. There were long and comprehensive hearings. At the end of the hearings, the bill was modified, and, I believe I am correct in saying, the bill received the unanimous vote of the committee, including Democrats and Republicans.
What is contained in the bill? I believe that the bill embodies two programs with which we are familiar. The first section, which would authorize $400 million annually for a period of 5 years, is actually an extension of the accelerated Public works bill.
At the end of the 2-year period which was authorized and funded for the administrative public works program, it is correct that some $2 billion of applications from areas which have been classified as depressed areas were on file and had not been funded or approved.
This $400 million a year, or whatever amount the Appropriations Committee approved, would be to fund the accelerated public works projects. That is my judgment of the bill.
The second section of the bill, which the Senator from Illinois has explained, is, I believe, an extension of the Area Redevelopment Act. It is the program under which loans are made to businesses and in some cases to communities, to construct what are called facilities which indirectly assist in the location of industry.
So I would have Senators remember that the second section is fundamentally an extension of Area Redevelopment Act with emphasis on loans for encouragement, and not relocation, of industry in these depressed areas.
The third section is a new concept which is based somewhat on the Appalachia concept. Senators will remember at the time the Appalachian bill was passed a good number of Senators, including the Senators from Arkansas [Mr. McCLELLAN and Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senators from Oklahoma, the Senators from New York, the Senators from New England, the Senators from Minnesota, all said some sort of economic development program should be established for groups of States that had similar problems and needs.
So the last two provisions of the bill would provide funds for study by the States which might consider their needs and problems similar to an attempt to develop, if they desire to do so, a program which might be similar to the Appalachia program.
So when we subtract the $400 million authorization for the public works program, there is left, as the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA] have said, some $265 million authorized for the two programs, extension of Area Redevelopment Act and a study program as to the propriety of various States moving together to establish a State-federal program for the solution of common economic problems.
Mr. MUSKIE and Mr. HRUSKA addressed the Chair.
Mr. COOPER. I promised to yield first to the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE).
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has given an excellent thumbnail sketch of the bill and purposes, covering the so-called extension of the accelerated public works program. In this bill the projects are provided for in a reasonable and rational way to encourage the economic development process. Criteria are much tighter under this bill than under the accelerated public works program.
Mr. COOPER. That is right; the accelerated public works program is considered to be an emergency program. The emergency program provided for grants regularly up to 50 percent. In some cases the grants went to 75 percent in the accelerated public works program.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I recall the accelerated public works program bills, the authorization was for $950 million.
Mr. COOPER. $900 million.
Mr. ELLENDER. This program is for $2 billion to cover a period of 5 years.
Mr. COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. Could the Senator tell us how much of this amount to be appropriated every year would go for grants instead of loans?
Mr. COOPER. Under the first section, the entire $400 million would go for grants, but they must be matched by the local municipalities or subdivisions.
Mr. ELLENDER. None would be loans?
Mr. COOPER. Under the first section they would be grants, but they would have to be matched.
Mr. ELLENDER. What is the maximum amount to be provided by way of grants out of the total cost of the program?
Mr. COOPER. If the $400 million is authorized and if appropriations of $400 million were approved, it would mean each year $400 million would be available for grants. The actual amount, however, to be available would be determined by the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. ELLENDER. What would be the contribution made by the local communities?
Mr. COOPER. 50 percent.
Mr. ELLENDER. Is it fixed at that amount, or is it graduated? Under the old programs, as I recall, grants were based on the capability of the locality to furnish its own funds. If the community was able to put up 20 or 25 percent, up to 50 percent, the Government matched it.
Mr. COOPER. That is correct. Under the old program the Administrator of the accelerated public works program made decisions as to the amount of the grants, which ranged from 50 percent to 75 percent. Under this bill the Administration would have that discretion, except that he could give grants up to 80 percent.
Mr. ELLENDER. Up to 80 percent?
Mr. COOPER. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that question?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. There are two types of grants. One would cover grants not now covered under existing Federal programs. As to those, the Federal Government will put up anywhere up to 50 percent. As to grants which supplement existing programs, for example, Hill-Burton hospital aid program, this bill would provide for grants to supplement grants for which projects might be eligible under existing programs.
Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator mean under the total bill, or the accelerated public works program?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; the total Federal contribution, including the grants under this program and the grants under the current program, cannot exceed 80 percent.
Mr. COOPER. The same determination would be required of the Administrator. He would have to find that the municipality or the recipient could not provide the 50 percent. In that event, the Administrator would have discretion to increase the grant up to 80 percent.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand the Hill-Burton Act, the Government can pay up to 80 percent. Has that been changed?
Mr. McNAMARA. It has not been changed.
Mr. ELLENDER. What is the maximum the Government can contribute toward construction under the Hill-Burton Act?
Mr. MUSKIE. It can go up to 80 percent.
Mr. ELLENDER. I thought so.
Mr. MUSKIE. But whenever the Federal grant in some other program is as high as 80 percent, it would not be eligible for any assistance under this program. If a Federal grant under some other program were less than 80 percent, this program could be used, with supplementary grants up to 80 percent.
Mr. ELLENDER. What would prompt the Federal Government under the Hill-Burton Act to make a contribution of as much as 80 percent? Would it not be based also on the capability of the location where construction will take place to contribute its share, as well as the need?
Mr. MUSKIE. Actually, as I understand it, the Federal contribution under the Hill-Burton program would vary, depending upon the kind of facility being built. If it is a general hospital, under the Hill-Burton program, I believe the maximum grant then applies, but under special kinds of facilities, the Federal contribution would vary. In addition, States depend upon the number of projects available in their States for the Hill-Burton program will vary in percentages depending upon how many projects and priority the State assigns to them. So that I do not believe we can use a flat across-the-board percentage as descriptive of the Hill-Burton program.
Mr. ELLENDER. What prompted the committee to make it possible to supplement moneys under the Hill-Burton Act to assist in the construction of hospitals?
Mr. MUSKIE. We did not concentrate on hospitals
Mr. ELLENDER. No, I know that, but it is possible, is it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is possible.
Mr. ELLENDER. It is possible for a municipality, let us say, or a community, to obtain money from both the Hill-Burton as well as the accelerated public works?
Mr. MUSKIE. I can explain the theory to the Senator, in this way
Mr. ELLENDER. I am wondering why it was done. Why do we not relegate this to public works other than hospitals? We have a special program already in operation. It is working well, I understand.
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, the provision is the same as in the Appalachia bill which the Senate approved a short while ago, so that the principle, we thought, that since it was applicable to the undeveloped counties in Appalachia, which was approved by the Senate, it could also be applicable to other areas of the country in like circumstances.
The theory behind it is that once an area or community begins to go down hill economically, the resources available to it for taking advantage of its existing Federal programs are less than if it is a normal community not deteriorating economically. It is the theory that those communities then should get this extra boost permitted under the formula approved under the Appalachia bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. Yet the Hill-Burton Act as now written already provides contributions by the Government of up to 80 percent of the construction cost.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know what the percentage is.
Mr. ELLENDER. That is my recollection of it, but--
Mr. MUSKIE. But, in the event there is an 80 percent grant under Hill-Burton, not 1 nickel will be available under this program.
Mr. McNAMARA. The total Federal grant cannot exceed 80 percent no matter what the program is.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?
Mr. COOPER. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Texas.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I should like to ask the Senator from Kentucky what is the maximum amount of percentage of money the Federal Government grants now for the construction of an interstate highway?
Mr. COOPER. Ninety percent.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Ninety percent, then the maximum that could be granted under this bill for any public project is 10 percent less than being granted by the billions of dollars to build highways; is that not correct?
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. I believe that the questions the Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA] and the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] have brought out clearly the provisions of this first section. As the Senator from Maine has pointed out, those grants which are made to a municipality or an area which the Administrator determines will have a definite effect upon increasing the industrial and employment opportunities of that particular municipality or area, whether it be grants for facilities or land. But if in making that determination it is found that the community needs certain facilities such as sewage and water facilities, and other facilities, and the project is worthwhile, then we would be unable, if the community could not meet its 50 percent share, to make supplementary grants up to 80 percent. I believe that is correct.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that in the foreign aid bill we provide grants and loans for what the people in the State Department call "the infrastructure"; namely, public facilities which are necessary in order to help production in that particular locality or area and this is to provide the same opportunities for depressed areas in this country that we now provide under foreign aid for other nations; is that not correct?
Mr. COOPER. I believe that the word "infrastructure" is appropriate.
Mr. DOUGLAS. It is a complicated word.
Mr. COOPER. It is the same phrase used in the military programs. The infrastructure in France is to build roads and airports.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, these commissions would not be substitutes for interstate compacts, would they?
Mr. MUSKIE. No, they would not be a substitute.
Mr. AIKEN. It would be the Federal chairman who would have the final say?
Mr. MUSKIE. That would be the Federal cochairman, and also the State cochairman.
Mr. AIKEN. The Federal cochairman would have to approve it. In other words, three separate States could not go on a tangent, without approval of the Federal chairman?
Mr. MUSKIE. On voting, approval is required of the Federal cochairman and also a majority of the States, or if there are only two State cochairmen, then one of them.
Mr. AIKEN. Yes. What would they be authorized to do? Make recommendations only?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; that is all the regional commissions can do; namely, develop programs and make recommendations for legislative authorization.
Mr. AIKEN. No authority whatsoever for making assessments on the States?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. AIKEN. It is these States that qualify under the criteria listed on page 33 -- that is, the rate of unemployment substantially above the national rate, the median family income below the national income, housing, etcetera.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. Eight criteria.
Mr. AIKEN. Those eight criteria -- I am sorry I have not read this before. I read it only hurriedly now.
Mr. MUSKIE. These criteria are similar to that applied to the Appalachia group.
Mr. AIKEN. The expenses of these commissions are to be paid, how?
Mr. MUSKIE. By the Federal--
Mr. AIKEN. The Federal Government?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Federal Government, for the first 2 years and then the cost is divided equally between the Federal Government and the States with the States deciding the division among themselves.
Mr. AIKEN. They are not intended in any way, these commissions, to take the place of interstate compacts?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. Absolutely not.
Mr. AIKEN. Then there is nothing in here which exempts any number of States who desire to form an agreement, association, or compact on their own, which does not meet the criteria here? They would be required to get Federal approval?
Mr. MUSKIE. This does not prohibit it. In addition, the States are not eligible under the criteria, there is authorization for a study.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator will proceed.
Mr. AIKEN. I was just wondering, we apparently have a shortage of labor in this area and I hope that it continues for awhile.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, there has been some discussion apparently as to what type of programs would be eligible for grants under section 101 as well as under section 201. There is a rather full set of illustrations on page 9 and the top of page 10 of the report. If the Senator from Maine will permit me I should like to read those passages.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
Mr. AIKEN. I wanted to ask, in order to be sure, if a group of States entered into an agreement which does not fully comply with the conditions here -- and this is not an agreement anyway – this is a commission -- if they entered into an agreement, there is nothing in this bill which would exempt them from the requirement that they obtain approval of Congress?
Mr. MUSKIE. Absolutely not.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Vermont has the floor, and the Senator from Illinois is seeking recognition.
Mr. HRUSKA. I should like to ask a question of the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine yield to the Senator from Nebraska?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HRUSKA. Title I is the one which is comparable to the Accelerated Public Works Act. Is that the way it is interpreted?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; that is an extension and modification of the Public Works Act.
Mr. HRUSKA. In concept and in theory.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. HRUSKA. Title II is interpreted as the Appalachia Act?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. It is more accurate to say that it is an extension of the Area Redevelopment Act.
Mr. HRUSKA. In the Area Redevelopment Act there is a limitation on the annual appropriation, as I understand.
Mr. MUSKIE. There was an authorization under that act of $455 million for 4 years.
Mr. HRUSKA. It is stated in subsection (c) that the authorization for the appropriation is indefinite in term. Is that a departure from the previous concept of the Area Redevelopment Act? I believe it to be.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Area Redevelopment Act was limited to 4 years so that we could have some experience under it, to test it and to review it again in 4 years, to determine whether it was worth continuing. I believe it was a 4-year authorization.
Mr. HRUSKA. Inasmuch as this is indefinite, it will not come back to Congress for review.
Mr. MUSKIE. It will be reviewed for appropriations each year.
Mr. HRUSKA. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the authorization.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. I point out that it is subject to the annual appropriation process. That is not the question the Senator has asked, of course.
Mr. HRUSKA. The whole program would not come before the Senate automatically for review and reassessment in the light of the experience that gathered in the meantime. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. There is no provision for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.
Mr. DOUGLAS obtained the floor.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield, with the understanding that I do not lose my right to the floor.