Mr. WHITTON. May I call for that answer?

It is 135,000,342 man-hours.

Mr. CRAMER. How many?

Mr. WHITTON. 135,000,342 man-hours-I mean 135,342,000 manhours.

Mr. CRAMER. How many people? How many new employees? How many unemployed

Mr. WHITTON. Well, this 135 million could be divided by 1,600 manhours per year and it will give you the number of employees.

Mr. CRAMER. 1,600 manpower-hours per year-1,600 man-hours per year, by 8 hours a day, would be 2,000 people. Is that right? Mr. WHITTON. Well, I have not figured it that way.

Mr. BLATNIK. 1,600 man-hours a day would be 200 days a man per year.

Mr. WHITTON. Let me get the answer accurately and put it in the record, if you would like.

Mr. CRAMER. I would like to have it.

Mr. KUNKEL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUNKEL. There is one thing here that I do not understand in your testimony, Mr. Batt, and that is on page 7, in the middle of the page, the fourth paragraph:

And right now, while the rest of the economy is one the rise, is the ideal time to accelerate such projects in unison with the Area Redevelopment Administration's long-term investment in permanent job-generating projects.

As a matter of fact, under this bill, if I understand it, you cannot do it under present conditions.

You have to wait until you have a further drop in unemployment before it can be triggered.

Is that not right?

Mr. BATT. No, sir. The proposal of the President is that in areas both of long-term unemployment and in areas of substantial labor surplus you could accelerate with $600 million right away, without waiting for the trigger necessary in the standby.

Mr. KUNKEL. You could not accelerate the $2 billion, could you?
Mr. BATT. That is correct.

Mr. KUNKEL. That would have to wait, but the $600 million-
Mr. BATT. That is correct.

Mr. KUNKEL (continuing). Would not have to wait?

And so that, actually, the $2 billion has no application to the conditions unless they get worse, and it would not be an ideal time? Mr. BATT. An ideal time for what, sir?

Mr. KUNKEL. To accelerate such projects because you could not do it at the present time as long as conditions keep as good as they are, even assuming that they do not improve.

Mr. BATT. This is an ideal time to accelerate our program because in a period of

Mr. KUNKEL. Then is this directed only to the $600 million, this statement?

Mr. BATT. Yes, sir. In the rising period of employment, as you well know, with the economy on the rise, then new capital investments and new plant equipment, which is the most sensitive index that we are concerned with, is on the rise, and plants are expanding and we

can get some of those plants into areas like the upper end of your district which is one of our long-term unemployment areas.

It is only when business is expanding that such plants are interested

in our program.

Mr. HARVEY. Will the gentleman yield there?

Mr. GUDEMAN. May I refer you, Mr. Congressman, to the last portion of that paragraph where Mr. Batt says that it is the ideal time to accelerate such projects in unison with the Area Redevelopment Administration's long-term investment in permanent job-generating projects.

Now, what he is dealing with here is the immediate

Mr. KUNKEL. Well, now, what is the connection between-as in this bill, between long-term jobs and permanent employment? Is there any connection?

Mr. BATT. This is primarily a public works bill, and our act is primarily a permanent employment act.

Mr. KUNKEL. So this does not do anything to create permanent employment?

Mr. BATT. Except insofar as it requires that the public works be consistent with long-term plans; that is, they would be things which make sense in terms of the long-term plan of the area.

For example, I have here copies of some long-term plans for some counties in Pennsylvania, and they say that their long-term plans include the expansion of existing industry, development of the tourist industry, establishment of technical schools, retraining of present workers, construction of local community facilities, sewage plants, water reservoirs, and flood control.

Now, you see, this is something which we have not been able to finance under our act, which could be financed with additional funds under this proposed act which you have before you.

Mr. CRAMER. May I just

Mr. BATT. And it would help, obviously-it would help economic reconstruction.

Mr. KUNKEL. It would help but it is not designed to secure permanent jobs?

Mr. BATT. Permanent jobs, no, not primarily, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. A further question I intended to ask the Secretary with regard to this broad delegation of power to the President is this: Particularly in light of the obvious fact that if it were implemented completely, the $600 million would provide employment for possibly only one-fiftieth of those presently unemployed, do you think that justifies Congress delegating to the President such broad powers, including the power to expend in new areas direct 100-percent grants under programs not now in any way authorized by Congress? Mr. GUDEMAN. Mr. Congressman

Mr. CRAMER. Such as the witness admitted the other day, that the money could be spent for local improvements, public purposes, such as golf courses, swimming pools, and even ski jumps, if the local communities decided that that was a public function and requested the

money.

Now, how can you possibly justify that?

Mr. GUDEMAN. Mr. Congressman, I believe it is very essential for our industrial system to work in this country at high productivity.

I think this is necessary for our own domestic growth. I think it is necessary to reduce our unemployment, to take care of thoseMr. CRAMER. It is not going to do it except to the extent of 2 percent. Mr. GUDEMAN. Well, I think each one of these things is a spoke in the wheel.

Not any single thing will do the whole job, but put altogether, all of the spokes, I think, will give us high industrial activity. And I think this is terribly essential.

Mr. CRAMER. Could not the same thing be accomplished maybe even to a greater extent and with proper safeguards and without the delegation of the power requested by the President from Congress to the executive branch if the President issued an order similar to that issued by President Eisenhower in 1958, instructing all agencies to accelerate their programs, to go ahead and obligate the billions of unobligated funds that existed?

We had an agency here-FHA, was it not-that indicated they had over $2 billion of unobligated funds in different programs.

The President could issue an order accelerating or authorizing the obligation of unobligated funds, appropriated funds, and there would be, in effect, far in excess of $600 million of additional expenditures. Mr. GUDEMAN. I do not believe that I am in a position right now to sit here and try to answer that question. Maybe that would work and it would help also.

I am directing my remarks to the particular subject that we are discussing, namely, this proposed act.

And I say to you that again, as a businessman, I feel this is one spoke of the wheel that can give us economic growth, make us more competitive with our foreign competitors, and help our GNP grow, which, of course, helps the United States.

Mr. CRAMER. Now, if you want to get into competition with foreign competitors we could spend a lot of time on that.

Mr. GUDEMAN. I think that is one thing.

Mr. BLATNIK. (presiding). The gentleman has consumed 25 minutes on his interrogation.

Mr. CRAMER. That is 72 minutes per witness.

Mr. BLATNIK. Just a moment. And the Chair wants to hear these other members who have been most patient in putting up with all of this.

We do have one witness, Dr. Gerhard Colm, whom we promised to hear this morning.

He does have a 2 o'clock appointment, and it would be difficult for him to come back.

So, with that in mind, could we complete the questioning of the present witnesses and I would hope that we may complete Dr. Gerhard Colm, of the National Planning Association, this morning.

Mr. Dooley?

Mr. DOOLEY. Is it not a fact, Mr. Whitton, that the accelerated program has had very little effect on those States who find themselves in financial difficulty?

It has not accelerated their road-building program?

Mr. WHITTON. Oh, I think every State has accelerated their roadbuilding program.

Mr. DOOLEY. Are there not some that have not, though? Mr. WHITTON. No, I do not think there is any State that has not. There are some States that have not accelerated as much as others. Mr. DOOLEY. Do you think that, collaborating with the ARA, you could do it?

Mr. WHITTON. Well, we could do a different type of highway work under this program than we are doing under our present program, and, while I am talking, may I answer Mr. Cramer?

I think the number of individuals involved in that program was about 85,000 on my rough figures.

Mr. CRAMER. That is about-may I?

Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman from New York has the floor.
Mr. DOOLEY. I yield, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer?

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I have no comment.
Mr. MCVEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McVey?

Mr. McVEY. Mr. Whitton, I am seriously concerned that public works and patronage are related. They are "kissing kin," I am afraid.

And you mentioned a minute ago that you did not believe that this would occur in the Federal aid highway program.

In light of that, I would like to ask you why was 185 miles of extension of the Interstate System granted in the State of West Virginia when, in the Midwest, there are many areas where there appears to be a greater need, and expansion would do more for economic growth. Mr. WHITTON. The 185-mile section in West Virginia and Pennsylvania was added on a request by people from the States, including the Governors, and, incidentally, that request for an addition had been in the record and was under consideration in 1957 when some 2,100 miles were added. And the request was approved by me because I thought it was justified, and I thought it was justified because of a number of things.

First, Pittsburgh is the eighth largest city in the United States, and it did not have an interstate route to the south.

And by adding that connection it provided a north and south route through Pittsburgh from the lakes south, with sections to the southern part of the United States, even to Florida.

Secondly, the road did pass through some rather large cities in West Virginia which were industrial cities, where the employment was bad. In my judgment the route made a very fine interstate connection.

We thought that we were safe in making that addition out of the 300 miles remaining in the unobligated or uncommitted interstate mileage because our surveys are now completed on 70 percent of the mileage, which is a pretty good percentage.

So that was the reason that I recommended that it be added.
Mr. McVEY. Thank you.

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Robison?

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Gudeman, let me direct my question to you. In an attempt to clarify, in my own mind, the objectives of the legislation we have before us, it would seem to me that there are two

objectives. One has to do, first, with the standby $2 billion authority which is, if I understand the way it has been described-it is looked at by the administration as a needed weapon in our arsenal of antirecession tools.

Everyone so far has told us that we are not in a recession now. You do not think we are going to do too badly for the balance of 1962, but there is little doubt, at least to my knowledge, that they are going to use the standby authority this calendar year. Would you agree with that so far?

Mr. GUDEMAN. Under the triggering mechanism in the proposal I do not expect that the $2 billion program would be put into effect this calendar year.

Mr. ROBISON. Now, the second objective comes in with the additional proposed amendment suggested by the President for a separate program of $600 million immediately effective public works acceleration program which, evidently, is designed to assist the redevelopment areas in those areas which persist in unemployment.

It is not really an antirecessional weapon, as I understand it. It is not designed to do that.

It is designed to help the areas which the current recovery is passing by.

Would you agree to that?

Mr. GUDEMAN. I would agree to that. I would go a little further, but you go ahead, sir.

Mr. ROBISON. So, in a sense, we have two things before us:

One is a suggested antirecession weapon, and the other might be described as a little, or, a one-shot or a short-term Area Redevelopment Assistance Act by itself.

Would that be correct?

Mr. GUDEMAN. Yes, I think that is putting it rather well, as a matter of fact.

As I tried to answer Mr. Cramer, even though our economy is going at a good rate we do have an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent which runs considerably higher in these areas that I have mentioned and that you have mentioned. And we do need immediate methods of coping with that.

Now, anything that is done along that line, and I continue to describe it as another spoke in the wheel, to help economic growth, gives you that extra push, and that stimulates the economy and keeps it growing.

Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBISON. Yes.

Mr. GUDEMAN. And, therefore, I think that its utilization at the present time is a good idea.

Mr. ROBISON. I will in just one moment.

Now, this problem of the long-term effect of the Area Redevelopment Act, the one we passed last year, this was known, of course, to the administration.

It should have been known to Congress apparently last year but evidently we failed to take effective action that would be of immediate effect in these areas.