small flood control projects that have not been specifically authorized by Congress. Each project, selected must be complete within itself and be economically justified. Public Law 685 limits each project to a Federal cost of not more than $400,000 and total appropriations per fiscal year to not exceed $10 million. Local interests must furnish local cooperation normally required for regularly authorized projects plus bear any project cost in excess of the $400,000 Federal limitations. Funds appropriated for Public Law 685 are used for two purposes-first, to finance investigation of problem areas to develop the project, and secondthe approved projects are financed for construction. Investigations are underway at over 65 locations throughout the Nation. At present, 23 approved projects with total Federal cost of $6.5 million are on the backlog awaiting funding for construction. These projects are in various stages of preconstruction. It is anticipated that over half of these projects will be funded for fiscal year 1963, provided funds requested in the fiscal year 1963 budget are actually appropriated. As new projects are developed and adopted for construction under Public Law 685, they will be added to the backlog list of approved projects. Subject to the availability of funds, backlog projects are funded for construction as soon as possible after the required local cooperation is furnished and necessary advance planning is completed. The backlog list, as of April 1, 1962, is itemized below in order of approval. Location Public Law 685 backlog Federal cost $390,000 330,000 360, 000 137,000 355,000 174, 000 180,000 367,000 400, 000 400,000 377,000 150,000 340,000 160,000 300,000 SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE 1960 RIVER AND HARBOR Аст Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act provides authority for the Chief of Engineers to develop and construct small navigation projects that have not been specifically authorized by Congress. Each project selected must be complete within itself and be economically justified. Section 107 limits each project to a Federal cost of not more than $200,000 and total appropriations per fiscal year to not exceed $2 million. Funds appropriated for the section 107 program are used for two purposesfirst to finance investigation of problem areas to develop a project, and second, the approved projects are financed for construction. Investigations are underway at over 75 locations throughout the Nation. At present, three approved projects with total Federal cost of $250,000 are on the backlog awaiting funds for construction. These projects will be funded for construction in fiscal year 1963 provided funds requested in the fiscal year 1963 budget are actually appropriated. SNAGGING AND CLEARING FOR FLOOD CONTROL UNDER SECTION 208 OF THE 1954 FLOOD CONTROL ACT Section 208 of the 1954 Flood Control Act provides authority for the Chief of Engineers to clear and straighten stream channels and remove snags and other debris in the interest of flood control. Section 208 limits expenditures to not more than $100,000 on any single tributary and total allocations per year to not exceed $2 million. There is no backlog of snagging and clearing projects at this time. PROTECTION OF HIGHWAYS, HIGHWAY BRIDGE APPROACHES, AND PUBLIC WORKS, UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE 1946 FLOOD CONTROL ACT Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act provides authority for the Chief of Engineers to accomplish emergency bank protection works, to prevent flood damage to highways, highway bridge approaches, and other essential public works, such as municipal water supply systems and sewage disposal plants. Work under section 14 is limited to a Federal cost of not more than $50,000 at any single locality and total appropriations per year are limited to not more than $1 million. There is no backlog of section 14 projects at this time. Mr. CRAMER. How much money do you have unobligated-unexpended in that fund? General CASSIDY. At the present time I would not know, but we use that fund up pretty well each year, by putting projects against it as the project is approved and ready to go. We get a lump sum appropriation for that. Mr. CRAMER. I know. How much was it last year? General CASSIDY. $1 million for small flood control projects. General CASSIDY. $3 million. Mr. CRAMER. How much of last year's has been obligated? General CASSIDY. At the present I do not have the figures, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Excuse me. General CASSIDY. Yes, sir. Could you provide those figures? (The information requested is as follows:) Status of funds for small flood control project program under Public Law 685, Appropriations fiscal year 1962_ 84th Congress Carryover from fiscal year 1961--- Available for allocation fiscal year 1962_. Allocations to specific projects, as of Feb. 28, 1962, amounted to.. $1, 000, 000 2,600,000 3,600,000 2,930,000 2, 005, 100 Status of funds for small navigation project program under section 107 of the 1960 River & Harbor Act Appropriation fiscal year 1962. Carryover from fiscal year 1961 $750,000 Allocations to specific projects, as of Feb. 28, 1962, amounted to--- 750, 000 700, 500 75,000 Available for allocation fiscal year 1962-. Status of funds for snagging and clearing for flood control under section 208 of the 1954 Flood Control Act Allocations to specific projects, as of Feb. 28, 1962, amounted to---- 255, 600 190, 100 83015-62-17 Status of funds for protection of highways and public works under section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act Appropriation for fiscal year 1962. Carryover from fiscal year 1961--- Available for allocation fiscal year 1962. Allocations to specific projects, as of Feb. 28, 1962, amounted to‒‒‒‒‒‒ $150,000 414, 000 564, 000 146, 500 105, 000 Mr. ROBISON. Of the $600 million program what is the planning procedures for that, if you know? Would the Executive be asking the Appropriations Committees of the Congress for a blanket $600 million appropriation? Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would know what would be the procedure. The breakdown is $25 million for the balance of this fiscal year and $350 million in fiscal 1963. What are the appropriations process in that? Do you know? Mr. BLATNIK. The standard procedure of the administration is to request an authorization, which would come before this committee, and then it would have to come again, a second time, before the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. ROBISON. But we would not be authorized-not be authorizing a funding item by item project, would we? Mr. BLATNIK. Not that I know of. Mr. ROBISON. Not that you know of. Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROBISON. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. So far as authorizations are concerned, Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the only authorization we will have anything to do with after the bill is passed-and I am talking about the $600 million amendment-would be if the corps decided to go into new projects that have not been already authorized? We have nothing to say about it after we vote out the $600 million authorization. Then it goes to Appropriations. That is compared to the $2 billion where even the Appropriations committee does not get a look at it until after the money has been spent, if the President wants to use unobligated funds. Mr. ROBISON. Yes, but there will not be an item by item justification for the authorized projects as such, will there? Mr. CRAMER. No. Mr. ROBISON. I should ask that of you, General, and I do ask you: Do you know if you have to justify an item by item list, the projects that you might include in this $85 million estimate as to what your department will do in the way of accelerating authorized projects? General CASSIDY. I am not prepared to answer any questions on the $600 million portion of this bill, sir. We have not yet received it. Mr. ROBISON. Your $85 million figure refers to the $2 billion standby authority. Is that right? General CASSIDY. As I understand, in the bill, as far as the work which the corps would undertake in its civil works projects, those projects would have to be under our existing authorizations. So they would have to be authorized either specifically by Congress or be under the small projects authorization, with a limit of $400,000 for flood control and $200,000 for small harbors. Mr. CRAMER. Except for local participation. It has to be authorized but local participation could be made available on those authorizations those authorized projects? General CASSIDY. Possibly, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Will you yield for one question. Mr. ROBISON. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Did you get from the President in January, pursuant to his statement to the effect that he was asking all departments to determine where they could cut back expenditures in an effort to try to balance the budget, did you get such instructions in your department and, if so, what has been done? General CASSIDY. I received no such request, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, General. Mr. BLATNIK. The last witnesses are from the General Services Administration. We have the Administrator, our very good friend, Bernard L. Boutin. We welcome you, Mr. Boutin. For the record, Mr. Boutin, would you give your full name and title, in the usual manner, and identify each one of your staff aides who accompany you here today? STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. BOUTIN, ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY LAWSON KNOTT, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR; WILLIAM SCHMIDT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE; AND ROBERT T. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Mr. BOUTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bernard L. Boutin, Administrator, General Services Administration. I have with me the Deputy Administrator, no stranger to this committee, Lawson Knott. I also have with me, to my left, Bill Schmidt, who is the Deputy Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service, and I also have Bob Davis, from Oklahoma. Bob is legislative assistant. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Boutin, do you have a prepared statement? Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Knowing the constant interest which your commitee has in the public works programs of the General Services Administration and being aware of the good and close working relationship which exists between this committee and GSA in connection with such programs under the provisions of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, I am always delighted to appear before your committee on any matter with which we are mutually concerned. Especially am I happy to have this opportunity of testifying before your committee today in support of the Administration's legislative proposals which would provide the President with standby authority to initiate up to $2 billion of expenditures for capital improvements in the event of a future economic recession, and for an immediate $600 million capital improvements program in certain redevelopment areas and areas of substantial unemployment in our country. The General Services Administration is in complete accord with the objectives of H.R. 10318 and the other identical bills pending before this committee which embody essentially the proposed "Standby Capital Improvements Act of 1962, which was transmitted to the Congress by the President on February 19, 1962. Furthermore, we are in complete accord with the amendment to H.R. 10318 proposed by the President in letter to the chairman of this committee dated March 26, 1962. Such amendment, as you know, would in essence authorize immediate initiation by the President of a $600 million capital improvements program limited to (a) redevelopment areas and (b) other communities which have been designated as areas of substantial unemployment for 12 months or more. On Monday, March 26, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Walter Heller, testified before your committee in support of the President's legislative proposals and discussed this with the principal policy issues thereof. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget, Mr. David E. Bell, also testified before your committee on that day in support of the President's proposals and discussed with you the financing provisions thereof, the administration of the capital improvements programs involved, and the availability of eligible Federal Government projects which would be subject to the proposed legislation. Since these basic and important matters have already been thoroughly discussed and dispensed with by the appropriate officials of the administration, it shall be the purpose of my testimony today to provide you and the members of your committee with more detailed information concerning the amount and types of capital improvements projects authorized by the Congress and programed by the General Services Administration, with particular emphasis on those projects which would be susceptible to acceleration under the provisions of H.R. 10318 and the President's proposed amendment thereto. As you know, the public works programs of the General Services Administration are authorized under the Public Buildings Act of 1959 which provides for the construction, alteration, and acquisition of public buildings of the Federal Government throughout the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States. The programs of construction and alteration of public buildings under the 1959 act afford public works involving needed capital improvements, the programing of which is susceptible to acceleration to stimulate the economy. The nature of the capital improvements involved are such that about 40 percent of the project cost would be for local construction labor in the trades and about 60 percent for equipment and materials usually procured from other than local sources. GSA's construction program for fiscal year 1963, for which construction funds have been requested, includes 45 projects involving a total estimated improvement cost of $170.5 million. These projects |