Mr. KNOTT. However, before discussing these prospectuses with you I wish to take this opportunity of giving your subcommittee a brief summary report covering the status of Federal building projects authorized for construction and alteration under the Public Buildings Act of 1959.

Since the enactment of the Public Buildings Act in September 1959, the Committee on Public Works of the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, have approved 128 projects for the construction of new buildings and 29 projects for extension and conversion of existing buildings under a total maximum limit of cost of $1.35 billion for the 157 projects.

Of the total of 157 projects for new buildings and extensions and conversions, 92 projects have been funded for construction. Of the 92 projects, 43 have been completed or are being constructed, and 44 of the remaining 49 projects are under design and will be placed under contract by fiscal year 1964.

There remain 64 approved construction projects, unfunded for improvements, 33 of which are included in the 1964 budget for construction appropriations.

The committees have also approved prospectuses for 110 repair and improvement projects totaling $221.1 million which contemplate funding and performance of the work over a 5-year period. Of this total, $45.4 million has been funded through fiscal year 1963, $15.3 million is included in the pending 1964 budget, and the balance of $160.4 million is to be funded in subsequent years.

As authorized and directed by the 1959 act, the General Services Administration is continuing its investigation of public building needs throughout the United States. Some 2,000 communities have been studied to determine the short- and long-range solutions to the space problems in these cities and the need, if any, for public building construction and its comparative urgency. Approximately 250 additional studies will be made this year and about 250 restudies are scheduled to keep abreast of changing space requirements resulting from expansion or modification in agency programs and housing requirements.

I should like to discuss briefly the new prospectuses submitted for consideration by your subcommittee.

1. The prospectus for the program of small public building projects, which for convenience was put together in a single omnibus prospectus, contemplates the acquisition of sites, design and construction of 87 small buildings estimated to cost $20.8 million for use of the Post Office Department and/or other Federal agencies.

The committee may be interested to note that attached to the prospectus is a portrayal of some five or six basic designs of prototype structures which would be used to implement this program. The proposed construction which we expect to fund from appropriations to be made available under the Public Works Acceleration Act, or otherwise will be prototype in character, as I have described, for which standard types of designs, working drawings, and specifications will be available and will require a minimum of time and expense to adapt to local conditions and site characteristics.

2. The 82 individual prospectuses in our regular program provide for the construction of 74 new public buildings estimated to cost $238.8

million, 1 project for the purchase of land as sites for future public buildings in Washington estimated to cost $7.5 million, and the extension and/or conversion of 8 existing buildings at a cost of $15.3 million. Included are recommended revisions in previously approved prospectuses; namely, an increase for the Pembina, N. Dak., Border Station, and changes in the character and scope of the projects previously approved for Springfield, Mass., and Canton, Ohio.

These are developments that occurred during the design stages of the project, at which point we ceased our work and came before the committee again, as we are now, for new authorization to expand the projects.

Some of the major tenants of the new buildings and extensions and conversions include 910,000 square feet of space for the Post Office Department, 307,000 square feet for U.S. courts, 531,000 square feet for Defense, and 767,000 square feet for the Internal Revenue Service. The rest of the space assignments run the whole gamut of Federal activities that touch the communities in which these projects will be located, 24 of the projects with an estimated cost of $60.6 million are in areas of substantial unemployment and redevelopment areas.

3. The 41 prospectuses for the repair, improvement, and alterations in existing buildings at a total estimated cost of $44.1 million include the identified work needed on roofs, structures, grounds, elevators, and the lighting, plumbing, air-conditioning, and heating systems, including the installation of new air-conditioning systems in the buildings to be accomplished over the next 5 years so as to extend the life of the buildings and provide adequate housing for Federal agencies. The estimated replacement cost of the buildings is $338 million. Except for three buildings, the repair and improvements proposed will extend the useful life of the buildings at least an additional 20 years. In the case of the three buildings, the repairs and improvements proposed are to extend the useful life an additional 10 years, at the end of which period it is expected the buildings will be replaced.

These are temporary structures now in use. Six of the projects with an estimated cost of $6 million are in areas of substantial unemployment and redevelopment areas.

This, Mr. Chairman, concludes my prepared statement with respect to the program of the General Services Administration under the Public Buildings Act of 1959 since its enactment, and the previously discussed authorizations which we are now requesting under this act. We will be pleased to answer any questions which you or members of your subcommittee may wish to ask concerning these prospectuses. Senator YOUNG. Thank you very much, Mr. Knott, for a very effective statement. May I ask, were these buildings in the small building prospectus selected primarily because of the Post Office and General Service Administration needs for additional space, or were they selected primarily because of the need to employ people in areas where the buildings would have been constructed?

Mr. KNOTT. Mr. Chairman, by early last year we had reached the point in meeting our needs, under the Public Buildings Act, in the major cities. To assure that equitable distribution throughout the country of public building projects, more attention should be given to the needs in smaller communities.

Early in 1962, GSA and the Post Office Department conferred on ways and means of meeting some of the public building needs in

the small communities through the construction of small projects under the Public Buildings Act.

The Post Office Department, of course, has for years been proceeding on a program of lease construction and have done a wonderful job of providing for their needs in more than 9,000 small communities.

Our objective was to pick up that program principally in communities where there were activities other than the Post Office Department; where, for example, in a county seat town there are Department of Agriculture agencies, Selective Service, Internal Revenue contact office, and Old Age Survivors Assistance offices. These activities require a small amount of space but cannot be accommodated in the lease-constructed post office buildings.

We were proceeding with that program and had identified some 150 projects at the time the accelerated Public Works bill was introduced, which both Committees on Public Works considered and approved last year.

We were asked to testify as to what GSA might contribute in this program. Having identified some of the small building needs, we thought that we were in an excellent position with the developed basic designs of small structures in hand, to undertake a program to complete construction substantially within a period of 12 months. A number of the projects we had started would fit admirably in the program in the selected areas.

After the bill passed, we proceeded working with Post Office to develop or to identify the projects which would qualify within the areas that were delineated by the Commerce Department in its administration of these selected areas. By early December we had identified some 145 that would qualify under the act, and we submitted a prospectus for those projects to the committees. In the meantime, the Department of Commerce had proceeded with other programs, grants-in-aid and others, that they were ready to move with, where additional authorizations were not required. Consequently, much of the money that was then available had been obligated by the time the Congress convened in January.

Also within that time it appeared that the most we could expect would be some two-thirds of the amount we had originally proposed. So again, with the Post Office Department we reexamined the proj ects and cut the list back to 87 projects. I am told now that all of the appropriated funds have been used up, the $400 million, and that the Commerce Department is now appearing before the Appropriations Committees in conjunction with the pending supplemental bill asking for additional funds.

It is our hope that some of those funds will be available to us. The Department has made available $3 million for various alteration and repair projects around the country. We hope that some of these funds will be made available. In any event, we think that these are worthwhile, worthy projects, the study of which preceded the accelerated Public Works Act. We think they should be authorized regard less of the funding question, whether it be under the accelerated Publice Works Act or other appropriations, and that we ought to proceed in due time with their construction.

Senator YOUNG. I found that design interesting.

Mr. Sneed, will you secure that booklet from Mr. Knott so that the Senators who are present here may take a look at that?

Senator Jordan, have you some questions?

Senator JORDAN. Yes.

Senator YOUNG. Would you proceed, sir?

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Knott, now, I just have one question. The money, under this accelerated program, that the Commerce Department has been allocating a portion to your agency

Mr. KNOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. Particularly in building post offices, have they refused to allocate any money to buy real estate to build the building on?

Mr. KNOTT. It has been their opinion that the act did not contemplate the use of any of these funds for site acquisitions.

The Bureau of the Budget, in authorizing us to come forward with this revised prospectus, was well aware of that and stated that, in any event, if the question should be resolved in favor of the position of the Department of Commerce, the Bureau would support a budget request for other funds with which to do it, where there would be no question. Senator JORDAN. You mean funds to be appropriated?

Mr. KNOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. Well, I think that is very wise, Mr. Chairman, because I know of a number of places where you have post offices ready to be built, where the unemployment was high, and yet you had no money to buy the site with.

So you could not build a post office.

Mr. KNOTT. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, buildings have been built with appropriations made for the purpose of constructing a building, it being, I think, a fairly sound legal premise that as long as there is substantive authority to acquire property, an appropriation of funds for the construction of the building carries with it the necessary implication that those funds are available to carry out all phases of it, which would include acquisition of the site.

Now, relatively speaking, this is not a major part of the cost of these projects in any case. Many communities actually donate the site. Senator JORDAN. What I was speaking of was the money that the Commerce Department has been allocating in this crash program, you know

Mr. KNOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. And as you said, they would not use that money to buy land with. They wanted to put people to work building buildings. Mr. KNOTT. Right.

Senator JORDAN. But, under your authority, could you buy the land and use their money to put up the building?

Mr. KNOTT. We have authority to buy land, to carry out projects that are authorized, but the Department of Commerce has the responsibility for allocating the funds and they have not been willing to allocate funds because, in their judgment, the funds should not be available for the acquisition of the site.

Senator JORDAN. But could you make it available for acquisition of the site if they put up the money for the building?

Mr. KNOTT. You mean do we have other funds to use for this purpose?

Senator JORDAN. For the acquisition of the site.

Mr. KNOTT. We do not now, but if they were to remain firm in their position, that these funds could be used only for construction and they would allocate only those funds for the improvements on the land, certainly it would be up to us then, and we certainly would seek an appropriation for this purpose.

Senator JORDAN. That is right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are all of the questions I have. Senator YOUNG. We are pleased to have Senator Cooper here. Have you any questions, Senator, to ask the witness?

Senator COOPER. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Senator YOUNG. Senator Nelson, have you any questions?

Senator NELSON. No, Mr. Chairman.

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Knott, what do you normally use as a valid land-cost ratio to the total cost? Will you tell us something of your ideas on that?

Mr. KNOTT. We normally seek appropriations for these projects in two separate requests. One for the site and design in the year in which the project is authorized.

This is the normal procedure for larger projects which require a year or more to design, and then a separate appropriation for construction. The site and design account normally runs about 25 percent of the project cost.

This is for the design of the building, supervision of construction, and the acquisition of the site. To the extent that in some of these projects the cost appears to be high, I think it should be pointed out that these postal facilities will serve communities with a postal population far larger than the numerical population in the town or city, because under the post office's automated operations, they do serve a larger area through the highway post offices and other techniques. These post offices require a substantial area for trucking and maneuvering; therefore, the land area requirement is high in relation to office building site needs for example.

Senator YOUNG. Do I understand that you applied this measurement to all the buildings you have submitted here today, or are there some exceptions?

Mr. KNOTT. Well, they vary because our figures are based on a judgment for each community, but I think, in the order of magnitude, the 25 percent is a safe figure to calculate.

Senator YOUNG. The chairman is in receipt of a letter from Congressman Paul Jones of Missouri. He is a highly respected member of the House of Representatives and a personal friend of the chairman.

The chairman some years ago served four terms as Congressman at Large from Ohio and came to know Paul Jones very well.

Now, I am referring to a letter from him and also speeches that he made in the House of Representatives, and there is a reference which I will quote from his statement:

Less than a week after I questioned the justification of many of the buildings on this list

That is the list that you have referred to

I was advised that I was correct in my conclusion to the extent that the one building which was supposed to be built in a small town of less than 750 population in the 10th Missouri District, at an estimated cost of $187,200, could not be justified and therefore was being removed from the list of proposed projects.