Изображения страниц

it will serve the dual purpose of improving local facilities and will also help solve the increasing unemployment problem throughout the country.



Mr. FORD. It is my privilege to present testimony to this committee on behalf of the Randolph-McFall bill, which I have cosponsored with my colleague, John McFall, Democrat of California.

This is a commonsense approach to the problem of substantial and persistent unemployment. It is an approach that has been proven in the past, during the Kennedy administration, when the Public Works Acceleration Act provided jobs for the unemployed and assisted local governments in initiating and completing public works programs that could not have been undertaken without the aid of Federal funds. The proposed amendments to that original act are designed to update it and make it applicable to the specific needs of our time.

We cannot afford to delay the construction of public buildings, water works, sewer facilities, and similar projects, while workers remain unemployed and machinery stands idle. It is time to put our resources to work to meet the pressing needs of local communities that have suffered the effects of economic stagnation and unemployment in excess of the national average of 6 percent. There are projects that could begin almost immediately, on passage of this legislation.

It is my hope that this committee will act quickly to bring the Randolph-McFall bill to the floor of the House, and that this Congress will meet its obligations to the people by passing this bill to provide meaningful employment to thousands who now walk the streets looking for jobs.



Mr. HICKS. Mr. Chairman, the most pressing need in the Sixth Congressional District of Washington, which I represent, is jobs. At the present time more than 10 percent of the work force in Pierce and Kitsap Counties is unemployed, and in my view, it is essential that we do everything possible to help get these men and women back to work.

As we all are painfully aware, during the past 2 years unemployment in our country has nearly doubled. In January of 1969, the national unemployment rate stood at 3.3 percent. Since that time, however, it has climbed steadily to where it has now reached 6 percent, and despite continuing optimistic predictions by the administration, many economists believe that the situation may get worse before it gets better.

Unfortunately, these figures tell only half the story. The tragedy of over 5 million American workers without jobs is compounded by the fact that some areas have been especially hardhit with loss of jobs. They have virtually become pockets of economic depression while other localities experience little or no increase in unemployment.

In Tacoma, Wash., for example, 10.3 percent of the labor force is without work—170 percent of the national average-while unemployment in Madison, Wis., is listed at 2.2 percent. Seattle reports an unemployment rate of 11.4 percent; in Allentown, Pa., the rate stands at 3.3 percent.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today is designed to stimulate employment opportunities in these areas where the current recession is taking its greatest toll. As you know, the Public Works Acceleration Act of 1962 proved to be a highly successful economic tool for the Kennedy administration, and if reactivated by the 92d Congress, would authorize an appropriation of $950 million to begin construction on Federal projects, which already have been approved, in areas designated by the Secretary of Commerce as "Redevelopment Areas" in accordance with the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.

There are several Federal projects in my district that have been delayed by the administration's semifreeze on public works spending. These include a badly needed postal facility for Tacoma and the new marine science laboratory in Manchester, as well as several environmental projects, such as water and sewage programs. All are essential to the district, not only because they will provide immediate employment, but because they are projects of high priority in the growth and development of these communities.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would join the other 149 cosponsors of this legislation in urging its swiftest possible passage.



Mr. Meeds. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 4404, a bill to amend the Public Works Acceleration Act of 1962 to make its benefits available to certain areas of extra high unemployment, and to authorize additional funds for that purpose.

I am cosponsoring this legislation, along with several other Members of Congress.

I am here today, Mr. Chairman, not only to support the legislation, but to urge its passage as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. The unemployment situation in our Nation is so critical that every day we delay means more people out of work, more people on unemployment compensation, and more people on welfare rolls.

The economic situation in this Nation has been called a recession. But where I come from it is no recession. It is a full-fledged depression. And all indicators point to a worsening situation. I see nothing on the horizon that is going to significantly improve the job climate, either in the Puget Sound area or the State of Washington, or the Nation as a whole in the immediate future.

It is my view that we need a vehicle by which we can quickly create employment opportunities, even on a short-term basis, to put people to work while the Government hammers out and implements longrange solutions to our economic problems.

H.R. 4404 is such a vehicle. It is simple and straightforward in concept, the governmental machinery exists to implement it, and its goals are clear, measurable, and possible of attainment. Furthermore, this device for helping put people back on the job in a hurry has an unchallenged history of success in past situations.

A moment ago I said that we face a depression where I come from. That is true. Allow me to recite a few facts of economic life, Puget Sound style.

Insured unemployment in the Seattle-Everett area of Washington State reached the level of 12.7 percent in January of this year. Translating that figure into human terms means that" 79,000 breadwinners are off the job. Most are heads of families. So we have that many families without regular salaried income.

That is the highest unemployment level in the history of the State of Washington. A sad record indeed. Even the depression of the 1930's and early 1940's does not compare with it. It more than doubles the previous record of 30,000 unemployed in 1940.

These statistics apply to just one small part of our State, Mr. Chairman. Other counties have unemployment rates even higher than. the 12.7 figure I just recited.

Nor does that number tell the whole story. It does not include all the people who are out of work. Many have used up their unemployment compensation eligibility. They are on welfare now, and for statistical purposes are no longer counted among the unemployed who are willing and able to work. They may be “nonpersons” to the statisticians, but they are people nevertheless. They still need jobs and income to support themselves and their families.

Incidentally, the Seattle-Everett unemployment rate is double the national average, Mr. Chairman.

It certainly is not the kind of record anyone can boast about. And to compound the problem, inflation continues to soar.

I might point out that much of the unemployment I am discussing can be traced to governmental policies. I therefore believe that the Congress has a responsibility for alleviating the most severe impact of our economic downturn.

Mr. Chairman, when I cosponsored this bill, I checked out its provisions against the situation in my State and my district. I wanted to know if it was practical and if it would have any beneficial aspects : beyond the short-term effect of putting people to work.

The bill states that not all counties would qualify for help under its terms. Only those counties that: (1) have a firm plan for badly needed permanent public facilities; (2) are able to finance the local share of construction; (3) are ready to begin almost immediate construction; and (4) can guarantee that a high percentage of the construction cost will be labor.

By enlisting the aid of local units of government in my district, and coordinating their efforts through the Economic Development Administration, this is what I found:

In my district alone there are more than 200 projects that qualify. The total cost of constructing those projects comes to a staggering $193 million.

That is for public works projects that have been contemplated by counties, cities, port districts, Indian tribes, and others. Included among the projects are sewer systems, water systems, docks, bridges, public buildings, storm drain systems, roads, and many other types of construction. Many of them are completely designed. The blueprints are on the shelf awaiting funding. They could go out to bid tomorrow if the local government had the money to proceed.

All of them are projects that conform to local, State, and National planning criteria. They have long since been held to be necessary. Much of the need for them has been generated by rapid population growth during the past 10 years. In my area alone, the population has leaped by more than 100,000 in the past decade.

These projects have been designed with long-range community goals in mind. And they have been coordinated with long-range planning at all levels of government.

It is not too optimistic to say that in this legislation we can realize $2 worth of social or public value for each $1 spent. We create jobs, and we move toward public goals.

Among those goals is the reduction or elimination of water pollution. A significant percentage of the projects outlined in my survey are for sewage treatment facilities, both residential and industrial. Our national problems in water pollution are too well known and too well documented for me to elaborate on now. But you can see that money spent on those projects is a double-value investment.

Also, money invested in industrial park facilities has the multiplier effect of creating still more job opportunities. The same can be said for many port facilities.

By no means are these plans merely leaf-raking projects to help people earn their dole. They are the very contrary of that concept.

These projects are precisely the kind of work we in Congress envision when we talk about national goals, the reordering of national priorities.

Mr. Chairman, the results of this survey of my area come in after I had copsonsored this bill, and after it had been introduced in the House of Representatives. I realize now that what is true for my own district is true of hundreds of areas throughout the Nation.

That is why I not only vigorously support this legislation, but would heartily agree to an amendment that would set the authorization for accelerated public works funds well above the modest $950 million called for in the present version of the bill. Naturally, I will also support full funding through appropriations to implement this accelerated public works program.

Thank you.


IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Mr. MOLLOHAN. I will attempt to keep my remarks as brief as possible for the committee undoubtedly has a great bulk of material to consider before making its recommendations on the Public Works Acceleration bill.

The need for this program has been demonstrated by the everincreasing rate of unemployment in this Nation. This is serious unemployment, the kind of problem that cries out for an immediate congressional solution.

This program is an effective solution. Look at the record on how much was accomplished by the public works acceleration program and the Economic Development Administration in recent years in helping poverty areas construct needed public facilities.

I wholeheartedly support the proposed program for it provides the kind of massive Federal commitment needed to spur redevelopment in our areas of high unemployment. Furthermore, I am confident this

[ocr errors]

legislation will inject new life into our sluggish economy with each Federal dollar spent. To create jobs and to create a healthier economy, money must be invested, and what better purpose for invesment of Federal funds could there be than reconstruction of our poverty areas.

My case, rather is to point out very clearly that the public investment we are seeking to stimulate is investment that should be made whether or not there is high unemployment. It is investment that is vital to the people of this Nation. It is not make-work. The fact of the matter is that we have given too little attention to a long-range implementation of public works. We have too few public parks, not only national parks and national forests, but city and State parks. And this is just one area of public investment that has been too long neglected. We have similar need in the area of education, health care, and community facilities.

My point, Mr. Chairman, is that we have allowed vitally needed public investment to be classified as “make-work," or as the kind of investment to be made only when we have to find jobs during a temporary slump. We do not view it as a continuing investment for the people of the Nation. We should. We do not make plans for this to be a dayto-day investment. We should.

We need health care and recreation as well as new goods and services from the private sector of the economy. We need education and community life and access to the arts and literature as well as the fruits that private investment can bring. We need roads and streets as well as new cars. And we will not have these necessities—and they are necessities-so long as we fail to have a continuing emphasis on Government investment in improving the quality of community life.

But I would like to raise an issue about this legislation that should be resolved by this committee. I believe the qualifying formula for Federal assistance should be changed.

The bill sets a criteria of 150 percent above the national unemployment rate for 1 of 2 previous years or a rate--lasting for 3 consecutive months of 150 percent above the national average for the preceding year. Last year unemployment was 4.9 percent. In order to qualify on the basis of the 1970 rate, a city or county must have had unemployment amounting to 12.2 percent.

This is extraordinarily high, for these are times of extraordinary unemployment. But I feel that such a formula, although it would work well in times of relatively stable employment, is valueless in times such as these. The formula is designed in such a way that an arithmetical increase in unemployment rates would lead only to a geometric increase in the qualifying formula. Thus if unemployment reached 7 percent nationally, an area would have to show 17.5-percent unemployment to even qualify for needed Federal assistance. If such a hypothetical rate of national unemployment were reached, then it would be certain that most areas in the Nation would need the benefit of this program. In a time of extraordinary unemployment, why single out only the most extraordinary cases for assistance? If the answer is money, then lower the formula and pump more money into the program so it can do an effective job of reaching those areas which need assistance.

I have another major objection to the formula. Much of the present unemployment we are currently experiencing was triggered by a re

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »