Of the various authorized civil works projects that you have on the shelf, so to speak, it is a fact, and I ought to know because I am deeply involved in this situation and have been for 5 years, that some of those items on the shelf are kept there because of opposition to the construction of such a project usually in upstream areas with respect to whatever the Corps of Engineers might want to do. The opposition finds its way to the Appropriations Committee, and the members thereof, being loyal unto themselves, say, “okay, if you are against this, the committee also is against it." Now, I am sure that you, sir, would not take off the shelf one of those projects, but it is possible, is it not, under the language of the bill that an end-run could be made around the Appropriations Committee in that fashion? General CASSIDY. No, sir. I do not believe it could, sir, because in most of our projects we require local cooperation in the way of providing land easements, rights-of-way, and relocation of utilities. So unless the local people are ready to go ahead with their portion of the project we still could not get it off the ground, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROBISON. Yes. Mr. BALDWIN. But this waives all the local fund-raising efforts and says we can loan to them any amounts up to the total amount required? General CASSIDY. Well, under our authorizations we are not authorized to acquire land, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. This waives all authorizations and all restrictions according to the way I read it. Mr. CRAMER. If the local community requested it, it could ask the Government for the money to pay for those, could it not? There is no restriction on how that money is to be used except that it shall help the employment situation, and that it can be used for public works projects under the tests set out of 1 year and so forth. General CASSIDY. It is possible that the section with respect to grants could be utilized in this case, but this would imply that the local people were willing to request the grant. Mr. CRAMER. Oh, yes. In addition to that, you have a few hundred thousand dollar project limit authorization now that you can expend money up to the amount appropriated by Congress without further congressional authorization, can you not? General CASSIDY. This is correct. I assume you are referring to our authority to construct small flood control projects at a Federal cost not to exceed $400,000. Mr. CRAMER. How many of those projects are there on the shelf or not constructed yet? General CASSIDY. A relatively small number, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Can you get a list of those, including the amount of money that would be involved. General CASSIDY. Yes, sir. I will also include information on other general authorities available to the Chief of Engineers. (The information requested follows:) SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 685, 84TH CONGRESS Public Law 685, 84th Congress, which amended previous legislation of 1948 and 1950, provides authority for the Chief of Engineers to develop and construct 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 Zintel Canyon, Kennewick, Wash.. Core Creek, Craven County, N.C.. Kitzmiller, Md_____ Bull Creek, Tarentum, Pa--- Robinson Run, Oakdale, Pa.. Green Valley Creek, Calif 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 Connell, Wash Duck Creek, San Joaquin County, Calif. Van Meter, Iowa---. Indian Creek, Corydon, Ind__ Mission-Lapwai Creeks, Idaho.. 400, 000 273,000 345,000 94, 000 364,000 50,000 Big Choctaw Bayou, La__ Stranger Creek, Kans- Total--- 207, 000 347,000 6, 500, 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. 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--- 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 Available for allocation fiscal year 1962__. 750, 000 Allocations to specific projects, as of Feb. 28, 1962, amounted to---- 700, 500 75,000 Status of funds for snagging and clearing for flood control under section 208 of the 1954 Flood Control Act Appropriation 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--- Obligations, as of Feb. 28, 1962, amounted to- 83015-62-17 $100,000 625, 700 725, 700 255, 600 190, 100 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 |