May 8, 1973
Page 14637
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, I strongly support its extension and shall vote for H.R. 2246 as reported by the Senate Committee on Public Works.
We are considering this measure today because of the President's veto of similar legislation after the 92d Congress adjourned last year. Subsequent to that veto, the President requested in his 1974 budget message that the programs under this act be phased out.
Under the heading "Economic Development Assistance", the President's budget message classifies these as "low priority programs" to be "curtailed in 1973 and terminated in 1974 as part of the government-wide effort to reduce nonessential expenditures."
These so-called "nonessential expenditures" have in many cases in the past made the critical difference in keeping small rural communities alive in my State, and in revitalizing and aiding in the development of many others.
Extending the Public Works and Economic Development Act by enacting this legislation today will enable the Economic Development Administration and the regional commissions to continue their important work which, as I say, has greatly benefitted the people of Arkansas.
Since its inception EDA has spent over $55 million on some 228 projects in Arkansas accounting for 29,000 new jobs. The Ozarks Regional Commission project funds add $11.1 million to this total and have provided over 4,500 jobs and placed over 2,000 students in continuing programs which provide them with needed technical and vocational skills.
Such statistics attest to the significant role that the Public Works and Economic Development Act has played in stemming outmigration in Arkansas and reversing this trend in the State. I have frequently emphasized this factor over the years in supporting funds for EDA and its programs for I believe that in helping to make our small rural communities attractive places to live and in providing them the grants and loans for public facilities to attract industry and business we help alleviate the pressures on our already over crowded and troubled urban areas.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I rise to give my full support to H.R. 2246, the 1-year extension of the Public Works and Economic Development Act. While I can appreciate the President's concern for cutting out wasteful and unproductive Federal programs, I cannot agree that EDA is such a program. Time and time again, this program has demonstrated its usefulness as a tool for expanding the economic base and increasing employment in those communities that have suffered severe economic hardship. Through technical assistance, public facilities grants and loans, business loans, and other assistance, EDA has enabled economically distressed communities to "help themselves" back to the road of economic recovery. I am advised that the EDA and the regional commissions have created more than half a million jobs in this country since 1965 and these are important jobs located in those areas suffering from staggering unemployment.
In Minnesota alone, some 55 economically depressed areas qualified for EDA assistance. As a result of some 220 EDA approved projects, Minnesota communities have built recreation projects, industrial parks, vocational training facilities, and sanitation and sewer facilities. These projects have created new jobs and have expanded existing industry and attracted new industry.
The 40 public works projects alone completed in Minnesota have created some 5,600 direct new jobs at a cost of $9.7 million – about $1,700 per job. This is indeed a bargain investment when one considers the taxes generated by this employment. If each worker pays $1,000 per year in taxes, some $5.6 million is recovered in one year. This does not include the additional indirect jobs and economic benefits provided by these projects.
In Alexandria, Minn., 389 new jobs were created directly from a $699,000 EDA sewer and water treatment project.
Thief River Falls with a population under 10,000, received a $370,000 EDA grant for a water and sewer line extension to a junior college, nursing home, and industrial park. Eight hundred and twenty new jobs were directly created and new industry attracted.
Through an EDA grant, Detroit Lakes has started developing an industrial park that has already created 200 jobs, with an additional 260 new jobs anticipated.
In 1969, South St. Paul suffered a severe economic setback when a meat packing company closed down and left 2,700 workers unemployed – representing an annual payroll of $10 million. The EDA joined in partnership with South St. Paul in 1970 to launch a program of economic recovery. The city has since received a grant to construct water and sewer line extension, a new well and pumphouse to serve a large industrial area and allow for the location of new industry and creating an estimated 525 new jobs. In addition, EDA has provided a technical assistance grant to help provide the professional capability for the economic development program of South St. Paul and a grant to help construct a vocational training facility to provide training for the unemployed and underemployed in the meat packing industry.
While South St. Paul has had a slow economic recovery, it is fair to say that without the assistance of EDA, the progress would have been much slower.
These few examples demonstrate that EDA is indeed a useful and productive program and should continue without interruption. The vital job that this program is performing is needed today as much as ever and I urge its extension.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today's consideration of the Economic Development Act extension gives us the opportunity to respond meaningfully to some of the most critical problems facing our economy. In the last few weeks the economic crisis facing this country has been temporarily pushed off the front pages. But the economic problems of depressed communities throughout America continue unabated. The legislation we are considering today represents an extension of the Federal Government's commitment to solve these special economic problems.
The programs funded by the Economic Development Act have not been perfect. They have been but the first small step in our attempt to bring imagination and emphasis to solving the special economic problems of depressed areas. And these programs have made valuable progress. They deserve to be continued during the next year. And while this commitment continues, Congress will have an opportunity to thoroughly evaluate proposals to restructure the Federal economic development effort.
The administration's alternative to continuing EDA represents irresponsible neglect of the need for economic development.
The administration has proposed that EDA be terminated and that its functions be assumed by other agencies in the Federal Government. These proposals are unproven. They are unexplained and they deny our commitment to solve the special problems of economically depressed areas.
The value of continuing EDA programs is shown by the progress they have made in my own State of Maine. For instance, through EDA loans of over $8 million Eastern Fine Paper in Brewer, Maine, and Lincoln Pulp and Paper Co. in Lincoln, Maine, restarted their plants and are now thriving industries, providing hundreds of jobs. Clearly without EDA loans – loans which the Small Business Administration could not grant – these industries would not have survived.
Another example is the Saco Valley Independent Development Corp. in York, Maine. In 1970 the corporation received several million dollars in business loans from EDA to successfully diversify their product line, insuring jobs for years ahead.
EDA public works grants and business loans to the Bangor area helped the construction of the Bangor International Airport, and the development of an industrial park in Brewer. These projects have provided an incredible economic impetus to this area of the State. The airport provides access to Bangor, the industrial park, and jobs. Without public works grants aimed specifically at economic development, there would be no Bangor "growth center" now and much less future economic potential in that area of the State.
Not every area or community in my home State will be a potential "growth center," like Bangor. However, several towns and cities in the State have begun projects which could be critical to their economic prosperity. For example, an airport in Lincoln is depending on EDA funds; a company in Howland needs technical assistance to decide the best possible use for an empty plant which once employed 300 people; and pollution abatement programs in Machias, Searsport, and Guilford require funding.
A planned Lewiston industrial park has been seeking EDA funds for nearly 2 years. The park, which has a total of 117 acres and is projected to generate a total of over 600 jobs, clearly has the potential for a major employment impact in the Lewiston area. The city of Lewiston is ready to commit resources – ready to expand its economy. Yet the administration is saying, "No, you must wait for new, untried programs – programs whose futures are not certain." This makes no sense to me.
And, so, in Maine as in other States and areas across the country EDA is desperately needed.
Economic development is not easy, nor are its results quickly realized. However, the key to its success lies in a greater degree of coordination and increased effective targeting of areas with growth potential – not, as the administration tells us, with a decentralization of programs, not with the termination of a program whose results have, for the most part, proven its effectiveness.