Senator YOUNG. Now, what is your opinion, from the standpoint of efficiency in the operation of the Post Office Department. Do you really need all of these buildings that you left remaining in this small buildings prospectus?

Mr. BISHOP. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me respond in this fashion to that, that inadequate buildings as to size, and dilapidated buildings as to the quality of space provided, is a detriment to the postal service, and in every one of these cases a minimum of at least approximately 35 percent additional space is needed, and in most cases more than 50 percent additional interior space, and in many, many of the cases, more than 100 percent additional postal working space was necessary. The cases are all based on space surveys made by qualified postal personnel.

And it is desirable, from the postal standpoint, that proper, adequate in size, well lighted, well ventilated, interior space, with adequate platforms for the loading and unloading, and adequate exterior space for the parking and maneuvering of the trucks and vehicles, is the desirable thing for the postal service.

Senator YOUNG. Well, among these buildings selected, under the projects selected for prosecution under the accelerated public works program, were some selected in your judgment which you might never otherwise justify constructing in the first instance?

Mr. BISHOP. I would say "might" never. Considering your question with the term

Senator YOUNG. Well, I will put it this way:

Would probably never have been justified for construction in the first instance?

Mr. BISHOP. My answer would be "No." Basically, many of these projects are of the kind that we would be proceeding with were it not for this program to acquire new lease facilities for postal space only, not involving other Government agency space.

There are some that perhaps would have to wait 2 or 3 or 4 years before they would be included in the lease construction program. But in every case I am confident that improved quarters would have to be provided either presently or in the fairly near future.

Senator YOUNG. Do you have any questions, Senator Jordan?
Senator JORDAN. No.

Senator YOUNG. Senator Cooper, have you any questions?

Senator CoOPER. No.

Senator YOUNG. Have you any questions?

Senator JORDAN. I might ask one question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Senator YOUNG. Yes, go ahead.

Senator JORDAN. Where is your cutoff period place now in dollars as to where you build on a lease basis as against construction by appropriated money?

Mr. BISHOP. There is no cut off dollar place that delineates whether a lease construction approach would be used to a particular postal need, as compared to Government construction of the building.

Basically, our policy is that where GSA has needs for space for other Government agencies in the community, and can also provide the needed postal space, all factors considered, we are quite willing to cooperate with GSA in having them provide a Government-owned building.

If the Post Office Department is proceeding to provide its own space requirements only, it will proceed on a lease construction basis. Senator YOUNG. Have you any further questions?

Senator JORDAN. Thank you."

Senator YOUNG. Thank you very much.

Senator COOPER. May I ask just one question?

Senator YOUNG. Yes, certainly.

Senator COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the subcommittee

Senator YOUNG. No, but we are happy to have you here.

Senator COOPER. I think I noted in the statement of Mr. Knott that it is expected that some of these projects will be funded by appropriations made under the Emergency Public Works Acceleration Act. Is that correct?

Mr. BISHOP. That was my understanding, yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Has that proposition been approved by the administration that these projects, which are normally projects of the Post Office Department and other agencies, shall be funded by the appropriations under the Emergency Public Works Act?

Mr. BISHOP. I should expand my answer, Senator.

All of the projects, as I recall, that were prepared for inclusion in the omnibus prospectus, that involved postal space, were located in areas that were eligible for participation under the Public Works Acceleration Act.

Now, as I understand it from Mr. Knott's testimony, and that is the source of my knowledge, with regard to any approval as to funding, the Department of Commerce has not yet made a determination finally as to whether or not any of these projects will be funded by any money which might be available under the Accelerated Public Works Act.

As I understood Mr. Knott, he indicated that the Department of Commerce's position has been that land acquisition was not acceptable to the Department of Commerce with funding under the Accelerated Public Works Act at the present time, but I believe Mr. Knott testified that the Bureau of the Budget had informed him that if the funds were not to be made available under the Accelerated Public Works Act, that they would support an effort to obtain other funds for funding the project from other appropriations.

Senator COOPER. The determination has not been made by the Bureau of the Budget yet?

Mr. BISHOP. Not to my knowledge.

Senator COOPER. I must say that I am pleased that those buildings which are actually necessary for construction are located in some of these areas, but I would point out that when this matter was considered by the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the accelerated public works program, that many members of the committee expressed doubts about financing regular programs of the agency through emergency funds provided under the emergency public works program. They did not make a decision on it, but I know they expressed opposition to that idea.

Senator YoUNG. Thank you.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Southwick, Mr. Paul Southwick.

STATEMENT OF PAUL SOUTHWICK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR ACCELERATED PUBLIC WORKS, AREA REDEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY BERNARD V. PARRETTE, ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF COUNSEL, AREA REDEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Southwick, you are Deputy Administrator for the Accelerated Public Works, Area Redevelopment Administration, Department of Commerce?

Mr. SOUTHWICK. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Are you accompanied by anyone here?

Mr. SOUTHWICK. I have Mr. Bernard Parrette, of the Office of the Chief Counsel of ARA.

Senator YOUNG. He may be seated with you, if you like.

You may proceed.

Mr. SOUTHWICK. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds and welcome any questions which the subcommittee may have in connection with the accelerated public works program. As you know, the President, by Executive order, has delegated to the Secretary of Commerce the responsibility for recommending to the President how the funds for this program are to be allocated among the various participating agencies throughout the Federal Government, and the responsibility for coordinating those programs after the allocations are made. Public Law 87-658, which the President signed on September 14, 1962, authorized $900 million in appropriations, both for direct Federal projects and grants-in-aid to States and municipalities in eligible areas defined by the act.

There are about 1,200 areas throughout the United States and its

territories.

The Congress appropriated $400 million last October to initiate the accelerated public works program. The House Appropriations Committee is now considering the President's request for the remaining $500 million.

At this point, we find that the initial $400 million is virtually exhausted, with three-quarters of that amount having gone into matching grants for local projects through the Community Facilities Administration and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The remainder has gone to direct Federal projects such as those of the Forest Service, Park Service, and Corps of Engineers. We find at this time that applications from needy communities in eligible areas for grants through the CFA and HEW programs total more than $1 billion, more than could be financed under the current appropriation.

Actually, it is more than could be financed under the entire Supplemental Appropriation Act.

Other direct Federal projects, which would qualify, total several hundred million dollars in addition. We therefore have a vast number of apparently approvable projects, in eligible areas, meeting the requirements of the act, ready and waiting for funding with whatever additional appropriations the Congress sees fit to approve in response

to the President's request for the $500 million supplemental' appropriation.

The projects in the GSA prospectus pending before this subcommittee, would, if approved by the subcommittee and the full committee, be considered for financing under Accelerated Public Works. But it must be borne in mind that these projects would, in effect, be competing with the many other projects already under consideration. These include more than $700 million in grant applications from communities willing to put up 50 percent of their own money for sewer and water projects, hospitals, waste treatment plants, courthouses and libraries, among other urgently needed local public works projects— in a relatively few cases, in those areas suffering most from unemployment, underemployment or low average income, the local share may be 25 percent as permitted under the Accelerated Public Works Act. In every case, as required by the act, the local share must be a net increase in planned local expenditures for public works.

The GSA projects would also be considered along with the many other direct Federal projects already submitted to us by other Federal agencies and under consideration for recommendation to the President. They include, among others, Forest Service and Park Service work, which we have found puts locally unemployed quickly to work on useful needed projects; Corps of Engineers projects and Bureau of Prisons construction-all of which can be started quickly and most of which involve a large ratio of labor per dollar invested.

We would, of course, respect the desire of the House and Senate Public Works Committees if the committees authorized the GSA projects and expressed the opinion that they should be financed by APW funds. We in the Commerce Department have felt, however, that the use of APW funds for land-acquisition cost involved in the GSA projects would not be fully in keeping with the provision of the act which states that funds are to be used only for projects which will "contribute significantly to the reduction of local unemployment” particularly when there are other, in fact more than enough, qualified projects which do not involve expenditures of APW funds for land acquisition. Land acquisition costs are not involved in matching grants, either in the local share or the Federal share, under the CFA program or under the hospital and waste treatment programs of HEW-with the sole exception of health centers, because of a specific exception in the Hill-Burton Act which permits land acquisition in that particular instance. So far only $45,000 in APW funds has been involved because of that exception in the Hill-Burton Act. Direct projects-Public Roads, Park Service projects, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Prisons, and so forth, have not involved the financing of land acquisition with APW funds.

The Bureau of the Budget has forwarded the GSA prospectus to Congress with no commitment as to the method or time of actual financing. As far as APW funds are concerned, the President's request for the $500 million supplemental is before the House Appropriations Committee. It still must proceed through the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate itself. The appropriations are made directly to the President. He makes the actual allocations, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Commerce, to the departments and agencies which carry out the actual

projects. If the committee, on behalf of the Congress, authorizes the GSA prospectus, the actual method of financing, whether in part or in whole by APW funds or through regular GSA appropriations, or some combination of both, would be determined after the APW supplemental appropriation was available and in light of other competing demands and requirements in eligible areas.

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator YOUNG. Thank you very much.

Senator Jordan, do you have any questions?

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I do have a question I would like to ask.

In the case of your funds in this case of the accelerated public works funds, where a local community is participating on this grant of any percentage, 25, 50, or whatever it might be, you say that you cannot participate in that if they have funds to acquire a site?

Mr. SOUTHWICK. No, sir. Land acquisition cannot be figured in either the local share or the Federal share in the grant-in-aid programs of CFA and of HEW, except that one case involving health

centers.

Senator JORDAN. That is what I thought you meant.

In other words, if local people, with their money, want to buy a site for a post office, for instance, and under your grant you can allocate money to build a post office, but neither one of the funds can be used to acquire the site.

Is that correct?

Mr. SOUTHWICK. I am not sure I understand the question, Senator. Through the Community Facilities Administration, of course, post offices are not involved.

I am just using this as an example of how we are using our money and how we feel that this is more productive in terms of the act, contributing to the reduction of local unemployment.

In other words, land acquisition, we feel, does not put men to work. Senator JORDAN. None of the local funds, used for matching your grant, can be used for acquisition purposes?

Mr. SOUTHWICK. Not under the Community Facilities program, no, sir.

Senator JORDAN. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. SOUTHWICK. In other words, all of the matching money involved in the Community Facilities Administration program, whether it is local or Federal, is figured in the project cost and does not include land acquisition.

Senator JORDAN. That is all.

Senator YOUNG. Senator Cooper, have you any question?
Senator COOPER. Yes.

Mr. Southwick, I think the statement you made goes to the point which I addressed to the witness who testified just before you.

I think it is correct that the emergency public assistance program contemplates that funds made available by the Congress, which last year amounted to $400 million, will be supplemented by funds made available by the communities' assistance wherever possible.

Mr. SOUTHWICK. Yes, sir. The conference report of the appropriations committees stated that local matching projects should be emphasized in the allocation of our funds, and about three-quarters of our program now, which is going to that.