Изображения страниц

know as the depressed areas, designated under the ARA, plus the areas which are experiencing substantial unemployment.

These two groups combined would constitute the area's eligible under the program. We would then just commence with the program within the framework of the areas immediately eligible.

So we could go to work right away. Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. Mr. Davis. Mr. Baldwin? Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Conway, if there were two school districts right alongside one another, and one happened to be at a point where they needed to build a new school during the year in which this bill might be in effect, because of an increase in enrollment, and the other school, if its student population was not growing at such a rate that is needed a school that year, but needed a school the following year, as I understand it, the first school, which just happened to need the new school because school enrollment had reached the point where they needed to build a new school during the year when the bill might be in effect, would qualify for an outright grant of 50 percent, but the school district adjoining it, because their school enrollment, being at a different rate, did not require a new school until the following year, when this program was no longer in effect, they would not qualify for the specific grant.

That would be true, would it not, under this bill?

Mr. Conway. Well, sir, let me say this: while it is true that the language of the bill could be construed to cover primary and secondary schools, our agency has always concluded they are outside our existing programs, so that we have not been involved in the primary and secondary schools except with the impacted school areas programs where we provided supervision and technical services.

Mr. BALDWIN. I am not asking what you have done in the past. I am asking what you would be authorized to do under this bill.

Mr. CONWAY. Well, I would be prepared to say here, and I may be sticking my neck out, that we would not get into the construction of primary and secondary schools unless we were specifically directed to do so by the Congress.

Mr. HARVEY. But you could, under this legislation ?

Mr. Conway. Yes. As I said earlier, if you want to read the legislation as permitting this, it is obviously permissible.

We have administered our existing programs with the same legal authorization and we have not gotten involved in this construction of primary and secondary schools, and I doubt very much if we would, under the same authorization, get involved in this kind of construction work unless specifically directed to do so, sir.

Mr. BALDWIN. But you could be directed to do so by the President, could you not, if this bill is enacted?

Mr. Conway. I would doubt very much that the administration would, under the authority of this proposal, move into the area which is covered by other proposed legislation and under other programs.

Mr. BALDWIN. Well, all of these programs are covered by other legislation.

Mr. SCHERER. What you are trying to say is that the law permits this to be done.

Mr. BALDWIN. That is correct.

Mr. Conway. The public school issue is before the Congress in another area, and it should be settled in that area.

Mr. SCHERER. Will the gentleman yield!
Mr. Baldwin. I will yield to Mr. Robison.

Mr. ROBISON. I do not see why there should be this doubt in your mind because, if I read the bill correctly, section 13(c) on page 14, where we define terms, clearly says that capital improvements includes public educational facilities.

That is line 3 on page 14 of H.R. 10317. I do not understand your doubtMr. Conway. In drafting the bill, Congressman, because a number of existing programs do cover public educational facilities, specifically our college housing program, the impacted school area program, and some of the others, it was included in the series of potentially eligible items.

Certainly, it is not our intention to stretch this, and if there is a problem in connection with that definition or that inclusion in the series, certainly, the Congress, in its wisdom, could put it more precisely.

Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman has raised a good point. Perhaps that could be done. Perhaps it does need clarification.

In my opinion it does, but that would be our responsibility.
Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BALDWIN, I will yield to Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. On that same line of questioning, on page 13 it refers to public recreational facilities.

À number of municipalities, for instance, have gone into golf courses, bathing beaches, and swimming pools.

There is not any question-
Mr. BLATNIK. And ski slides. Do not forget the North.

Mr. CRAMER. And later on they will go into fish hatchery developments.

The bill, as drafted, not only the $2 billion bill but the $600 million bill, would permit the Federal Government to put up 50 percent of the cost of those programs where the Federal Government at the present does not go into them at all, and there is no authorized program, is that correct, under either the $600 million bill or the $2 billion bill?

Mr. CONWAY. Well, there are really two categories of public recreational facilities, those that the Federal Government is directly involved in itself

Mr. CRAMER. At the present time-
Mr. BLATNIK. Will you give us an example of that?

Mr. Conway. The Federal parks system. Then we have other recreational areas that might be covered, but this is a choice that the local community would make.

Mr. CRAMER. Those are federally owned and operated recreational facilities.

We are now talking about city, county, and State owned recreational facilities, including swimming pools, bathing beaches, ski slides, and golf courses.

There is not any question but that the authority under this broad legislation would include 50 percent of Federal participation for construction or improvement of those facilities, is there?

Mr. CONWAY. Certain kinds of recreational facilities, that is correct.

Mr. CRAMER. Those specific facilities I mentioned would be included?

Mr. Conway. Swimming pools would be included and some of the other things that you mentioned, certainly, but this would be a purely local decision on the part of the local community.

Mr. CRAMER. Any development on the local level, that the local authority decides is a proper public function under their charter or the county government, under State legislation, would be subject to 50 percent Federal participation under either the $2 billion bill or the $600 million bill.

Is that correct? Mr. Conway. You have to assume good sense in the administration of the program and sound judgment. There would be certain kinds of recreational facilities that

Mr. CRAMER. That is not the point.

When we are attempting to legislate I think legislators are dutybound to determine what the full thrust of the legislation is; how much authority is Congress delegating to the President and to his associates, and to his delegates and, according to this bill, he can delegate authority to a delegatee and then to a subedelegatee, and then to a subdelegatee of the subdelegatee.

So you can go way down to the fellow at the bottom of the rung or the bottom of the ladder, and he has as much authority practically as the President under the legislation.

Now, Congress is being asked to delegate that much power to the President, and I think Congress has a duty to determine what is being delegated and whether it should properly be delegated.

Do you not agree with that?

Mr. Conway. I cannot disagree with you, sir. I think that Congress does have this responsibility.

It is true, that under certain of existing programs the definitions are as broad as this, and I would think that if, in this particular case, you did not want a definition that broad, certainly, in the judgment of the committee and the Congress you could restrict it.

Mr. BALDWIN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. Yes.

Mr. Baldwin. Now, this same section 13(c) provides that Federal funds can be used to provide parking lots and land for garbage disposal.

What additional work would be provided if we authorized all of the local communities to go out and buy vacant lots for parking lots or buy vacant land for garbage disposal facilities?

Mr. CRAMER. Or establish a new fish hatchery?

Mr. WOOLNER. Well, building a parking lot or building a parking garage, or building an incinerator

Mr. BALDWIN. This says "parking lot,” not a garage.

Mr. WOOLNER. Well, in the development of facilities, Congressman, I think we have an obligation to consider whether it does contribute to the reduction of unemployment.

In other words, if there is only minimal employment involved, then I would think the agency, administering this section, would' turn down the request. If they are simply talking about a piece of vacant


land that can be put into shape to be called a parking lot, with the services of a couple of men, this certainly is the type of project that ought not to be considered under this program, because there is a specification under the bill that there be a significant contribution of unemployment.

Mr. Baldwin. Let me ask you a question about buying a piece of land for a garbage dump:

You do not dispute the fact that under section 13(c) this would authorize Federal funds to be used to buy a piece of land to be used as a garbage dump, do you?

Mr. WOOLNER. I think the language says “garbage disposal” facilities, and while I agree that a dump might come within that technical frame of reference, I think what this had reference to was incinerators and other types of construction.

Mr. CRAMER. Now, as far as the activities of FHA and the program that you have outlined are concerned, you could put into effect under the $600 million, is it not a fact, the same type of program that has been proposed for some time on community facilities which would permít direct grants or loans for communities to build local public works projects

that have not previously been contributed to or participated in by the Federal Government?

Mr. WOOLNER. Well, there are no grants involved in the present public facility loan program, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. CRAMER. I am talking about the legislation.
Mr. WOOLNER. The legislation would permit grants.

Mr. CRAMER. Right. So this would broaden the scope of Federal activity into the building of local communities public works projects of any nature to the extent of 50 percent Federal participation on a grant basis, and if the situation were bad enough they could even loan the other 50 percent of the cost of an entirely new program in public works areas under this broad legislative authority, which is a back-door approach of getting the community facilities bill enacted. Is that not exactly what it amounts to?

Mr. Conway. Well, sir, there is a certain similarity in the operation of the programs, but this particular bill under consideration has specific restrictions and limitations, and I will point out two of them. The project must meet an essential public need, and it must contribute significantly Mr. CRAMER. If the local communities decide it is a need, it is a need.

Mr. CONWAY. The other point I want to make is that it will contribute significantly to the reduction of unemployment.

Mr. CRAMER. Any public works will contribute, to some extent, to helping unemployment, and if it employs a few more people, it helps that much, but if the local community says “This is what we want to do; we consider this golf course à public course, and we have authority under our charter to build it, and we say it is going to employ 500 people for 6 months to build it; we request that you put 50 percent Federal money into it and, on the other side of the coin, we do not have the money to put up ourselves and we want a loan for the balance," you can approve it under this legislation. Is that not correct?

Mr. Conway. If it would qualify and meet these conditions it could.

Mr. CRAMER. Yes; there is not any question about that.

Well, now, have you found recently that there has been, as the Seccretary of Labor suggested, about 14 percent unemployment in the building industry?

Mr. Conway. The unemployment, of course, in the building industry varies from section of the country to section of the country, but, by and large, there is substantial unemployment in the building industry.

Mr. CRAMER. What is FHA doing to try to put these people to work, and what is the administration doing to try to loosen ир.

the money policies that have been so highly criticized in the past as "tight money"? What is being done to loosen up money, make it available for home construction, where millions of people can be employed without pump priming ?

Mr. CONWAY. We agree that the homebuilding industry is a very substantial source of employment in this country. We have taken steps to reduce interest rates. Last year we reduced interest rates on FHA mortgages twice

Mr. CRAMER. And there is still substantial unemployment.

Mr. Conway. There was an increase, a steady increase, in home construction until the recent months where we experienced severe weather difficulties throughout the country that has affected materially the starts.

Mr. CRAMER. But this legislation is not supposed to consider seasonal problems, is it?

Mr. Conway. I agree, sir, but our agency, on its regular on-going housing program, does try to operate within the framework of the basic housing policy of this country, which includes keeping a healthy construction homebuilding industry, and we are working in this direction.

Mr. CRAMER. What direction do you think you are going in in the State of Florida, for instance, where six of the principal counties involved have been advised that FHA will not provide construction commitments to any builders, even the good ones, even when there is not an inventory built up by a good builder in a good community; if he does not have one surplus house they cut off his money.

Is that improving employee possibilities in six of the major counties or in six areas where there are severe unemployment problems?

Mr. Conway. Sir, there are a few places in the country where there has been a sharp increase in the number of foreclosures and delinquencies on mortgages, and this is a matter of gerat concern to the FHA because it has to operate on a sound insurance program. There has been a temporary cessation put on the issuance of commitments in certain places, and two of the areas are in Florida.

This situation will continue only until a market analysis can be made, and a determination made, as to whether or not the commitments that have been issued are in the right categories. It may very well be that a particular price range of home is not selling, or is selling and then going into default, whereas another range--in other ranges of the housing market

Mr. CRAMER. In how many other areas of the country is this action being taken?

Mr. CONWAY. There are two in Florida and

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »