Mr. CRAMER. Meaning inflation.

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. No. What we hope is there will be consistent national growth without severe dips and without inflation. The national growth part will, of course, take care of increased tax revenues, so that concomitant with this antideflationary policy is a policy that in times when there is full employment that there be expenditures less than revenues so that there will be a surplus; and this I think is a part of the policy. We happen now to be in a recession period, so the tool you need now, whether tax reduction or public works increase, is to get more money into the economy.

Mr. CRAMER. That is the objective.

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. But it just has not proven out that way, has it? In 1960 there was over $3 billion pumped in and we had a $4 billion deficit. In fiscal 1962, that is. It looks like this year we will have a $10 billion deficit, and we are still pump priming with public works. In fiscal 1961 there is evidence here there was $4 billion put in and there was still some deficit. It just does not prove out, does it? And that obviously has an inflationary effect.

Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. I do not know what the deficit, if any, is going to be this year, at the moment.

Mr. CRAMER. The administration announced it is going to be $7 billion.

Mr. SCHERER. Closer to 10.

Mr. CRAMER. And I suspect it will be closer to 10, but the administration admits to $7 billion.

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. This must be recent.

Mr. CRAMER. It is not recent. It was announced 2 months ago.

Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes.

Mr. WRIGHT. The figures you are quoting, Bill, are they acceleration figures?

Mr. CRAMER. Just expenditures and acceleration.

Mr. WRIGHT. The figure you gave is a total expenditure?

Mr. CRAMER. Acceleration and new public works expenditures. Table 3-Budget or Trust Fund Totals for Selected Programs Affected by Antirecession Actions, including accelerated expenditures and new programs. This is the President's own Bureau of the Budget report. Mr. WRIGHT. Some of the new programs were part and parcel of our regular continuing programs, weren't they, Bill?

Mr. CRAMER. The administration says they were requested partially as antirecession measures, and were enacted on that basis. Mr. BLATNIK. Are there any other questions?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I would like to comment and then ask some questions. First I would like to say I am sorry I was not able to be here at the beginning of your testimony, but I have been here through part of it where it was discussed and talked about. I am glad to see that we are having people here from our schools and colleges. It might be well for the record to have you reveal a little bit about this school that you are a part of, which you represent and teach in at Harvard University. First I would like to ask how large is the department for which you speak?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. You mean the graduate school of public administration?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. How many people do you have on the staff? Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. Oh, there are about 70 or 80 students on the average in a year. The staff itself is actually made up primarily of the faculty of other departments-the department of economics and department of political science and department of government, law school and business school. Except perhaps for a few such people as myself and the dean, who is also a professor of government, the faculty actually is composed of the faculty of other schools.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. How many different members of the faculty are identified with this Littauer School?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. I can't give you a precise answer, but I should say that there are 20 or 30 different professors of economics and government and business and law, and engineering also.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Let me ask you this: Have you within this group any conferences in which you studied this particular problem which is before us in this bill and the legislation on which you have given testimony here?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. I have not participated in any conferences as such. However, Professor Otto Eckstein has a public finance course and seminar in which he deals with these problems in great detail; and also Professor Warfield of the government department has a seminar and course in this field of public policy. So these problems are being considered pretty much continually, as is also Prof. Arthur Smithies, who has had a longtime interest in budgetary and finance problems. He wrote a text on the budgetary process. So there are a number of professors who deal with this.

My association with this has been more in connection with our water resources research program.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Water resources research?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. Water resources research. Yes. Although I have an interest in this problem because of past experience in the Government in this field.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I am glad to hear you say that you have an interest in water resources because that leads into an area in which I have a great interest too-the need to step up our water resources program all over the United States. I have an interest in developing and completing the watershed programs of America, and I imagine that you agree that it is very necessary, don't you?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. Well, I think, of course, that we have and will continue to have a major problem of planning and investment in water resources. Yes. From the headwaters to the mouth of streams. I think the problem now is, in view of the many interests and many purposes that are involved, to try to devise better ways of planning and developing these programs so that we can get the most out of it for the various objectives that the Government and others have for

water.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. The special study and consideration you have given to this matter must indicate to you that it is more than money we need a change of law, and a change of policy in many of these areas, and probably a lot more research. Do you agree?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. Yes. I think that the studies that have been made, for instance, in the Senate Select Committee on Water Resources, which did a comprehensive study in the last Congress, indicated certain improvements we need, and there is no question about it that to do the job required for the 1960's and 1970's we will need different kinds of legislation and policies than we have had in the past. Mr. SCHWENGEL. And this could result in saving money as well as result in stepping up the program and attaining our goals in these various areas. Is that right?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. Yes, that is correct, and this is one example of it. We have been perhaps too much involved in construction per se of water projects. This is perhaps this forum is not appropriate for this perhaps, but in water projects sometimes we need to include many management and nonstructural measures. For instance, in flood control we need flood plain zoning and flood management fully as much as we need reservoirs. This aspect has not been given the attention that it deserves. I am glad to see, though, that the Congress now recognized this in legislation, and the Army Corps of Engineers is pursuing this side of the problem.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. The bill we have before us would not substantially help in those areas you refer to.

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. No.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. So if we want to benefit most from this bill we had better get on with exploring the needs for amendments and revisions and corrections of our program first. Is that right?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. Yes. I want to join with Professor Gray in saying that there is a sort of continuing long-term public investment program that we need, which ought to be fully justified, project by project and program by program, on its merits. But this is going to be with us, and we should not confuse that with attempts such as this to try to use public works as a contracyclical device. The two are separate, and our public works program, certainly in the water and land fields, must continue to go forward on a sound basis.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. This proposal deals with recreation, and the development of watersheds and our water resource programs could very well fit into a step-up of the recreation programs that this legislation envisions; and we would do it better if we had some better planning. Is that right?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. I think recreation is one of the coming things. There is a problem of sorting out the Federal, State, local and private interests in this, and this recent report of the Federal Recreational Resources Review Commission certainly highlights some of the needs and trends in this area.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. And one of the greatest needs in the recreation area is to have a better balanced program to serve all of the people everywhere, and a program that will envision the cooperation of the local interests with the State and National interests more than it now does. Isn't that true?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. I think that is correct, when you consider the pressure of recreation of these expanding urban areas. Take the area of Boston to Washington. The problem really involves the cities and States and metropolitan areas and the Federal Government getting together so that whether they are dealing with highways, or

water resources projects, or other types of land use programs, that a recreational development will be planned so that open spaces will be preserved and these people are taken care of. This I think is now envisioned.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. But nothing has been done about it.

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. Well, I think a start is now being made on it in the administration, and in the consideration of the Congress.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. This is something that needs a lot more effort and stress and emphasis right now. Is that not right?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. That is right. I would say in the water resources field the two emergent needs are recreation and water quality, improvement of water quality. Most of these stem from the increasing organization of the country. These have not been recognized. If you look at the water resources laws you will see they relate largely more to navigation and flood control and irrigation, and perhaps very soon a reply to these problems will have to be faced, I think especially in the East and California.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. And in the Midwest where we have the best soil, instead of letting it flow down all of the rivers we should try to conserve our soil. Isn't that right?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. Yes. I think in the soil conservation program that the Federal Government has done much in the way of legislation, and I am hopeful even more can be done along those lines.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. As I understand your testimony you endorse this bill before us, but you are not nearly as enthusiastic as you would be if it were further amended?

Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. Well, I have not said anything about amendments as such. The problem is simply this: I see a limited role for this in our present state of planning. If we increase our planning perhaps we can speed things up somewhat; but to the extent that this is useful I think it should be used. I am not a judge of when we are going to be going into a recession, nor can I speak about the effectiveness of triggering in these bills, but on the assumption that the policymakers know that we are going into a recession, this would be an appropriate device in terms of the economics and statistics; and then I think it should be used. The limiting factor is what we can do, and giving them standby authority I would say cuts out 6 weeks to 2 months of timelag in recognition of getting congressional approval of it, because Congress may not be in session at the time.

So this is a useful gap shortener, so to speak, but it only carries us part of the way.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Based on the record I am sure Congress will be in session, because we have been in session most of the time here. Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. I guess that is true. Yes.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. That leaves between Thursdays and Tuesdays. Mr. HUFSCHMIDT. I was thinking of the autumn recess. I am sure there will be an autumn recess this year.

Mr. BLATNIK. The Chairman does not want to interrupt but I would like to speed things up. We may be able to complete without coming back in the afternoon so we can avoid holding up our witnesses and let them get back to their jobs.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to cooperate, but we have some important testimony from witnesses here. We have had a lot

83015-62--30

of important witnesses here, and we should be able to take full advantage of the experience and talents that they have. We should have a chance to question them properly and bring out the facts that we need to consider this.

Mr. BLATNIK. I think you have brought out the facts very well. We just want to avoid repetition or keep it to a minimum. You ask the same questions of the witnesses over and over again.

Mr. SCHERER. Are you going to try to finish with all of the witnesses this morning?

Mr. BLATNIK. I would like to finish. We have three witnesses left.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. That is all the questions I have then.

Mr. BLATNIK. Are there any other questions? If not, thank you for your presence and appearance this morning. You have been of assistance to the committee. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

STATEMENT OF BERNARD KALAHAR, CHAIRMAN, SUPERVISORS INTER-COUNTY COMMITTEE; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD D. CONNOR, VICE CHAIRMAN, SUPERVISORS INTERCOUNTY COMMITTEE, AND PRESIDENT PRO TEM, CITY OF DETROIT COMMON COUNCIL; AND GERARD COLEMAN, SECRETARY OF THE INTER-COUNTY COMMITTEE, DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. BLATNIK. For the record, will you give your full name and title or official capacity?

Mr. KALAHAR. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce also Mr. Edward Connor, who is vice chairman of our supervisors intercounty committee and president pro tem of the Detroit City Council, who may wish to make a short statement after I finish, and Mr. Gerard Coleman, executive director of our supervisors intercounty committee, who is also here with me?

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Bernard A. Kalahar. I am chairman of the Macomb County, Mich., board of supervisors and have served in that capacity for the past 7 years. I am president of the Michigan State Association of Supervisors and also chairman of the supervisors intercounty committee, an official governmental organization composed of the six southeastern Michigan counties of Macomb, Monroe, Oakland. St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne, which comprise the Detroit metropolitan area. This fifth largest metropolitan area in the Nation encompasses nearly 4,000 square miles, and has a present population of over 4,300,000.

It is a privilege to be invited to appear before this Committee on Public Works to express the viewpoints of both the National Association of County Officials and the supervisors intercounty committee on the proposed legislation concerning public works programs.

In the instance of H.R. 10113, the proposed Public Works Coordination and Acceleration Act, I am presenting this statement for both the supervisors intercounty committee and the National Association of County Officials. As a member of NACO, which represents more than 9,000 county officials in more than 3,000 counties in the United States, I am proud that the policy statement contained within the NACO county platform favors the creation of an independent office