Frankly, I can't think of a more appropriate solution to our dual problem than the bill which we are discussing:

(1) It will put many of our people to work immediately.

(2) It will immediately pump new dollars into our economy.

(3) It will help with the immediate construction of much-needed municipal facilities which would otherwise have to be deferred indefinitely.

(4) By the construction of these facilities, we will immeasurably improve property values thereby expanding our tax base to bring in more municipal revenues to solve other problems.

I'd like to sketch briefly the specific advantages which the bill will bring to my own city of New Orleans.

Some of you may know that one of our primary municipal problems is drainage a function carried out by our sewerage and water board.

On the drawing boards-but presently dfeerred because of lack of funds-is some $6.5 million in drainage improvements to the Algiers section of our city. I am citing this particular area because it is the fastest-growing section of New Orleans and the continuation of this growth is directly dependent on expanded drainage facilities.

The Clark bill would put this project immediately in the works with fantastic benefits to our city.

In the same way the eastern end of our city is also seriously in need of $7.8 million of new drainage facilities.

I would liek to show you, gentlemen, a map of the fabulous deve`opment on the drawing board of the eastern end of our city. It is called New Orleans East.

Drainage is, of course, only one of many needed projects which are presently deferred because of lack of funds. For instance, our same sewerage and water board also has plans drawn for over $3.5 million in additional improvements. These include such projects as sewerage pumping stations and the extension of sewerage force mains, construction of three new drainage canals and the installation of vitally needed underground power cable.

Other departments of the city government are likewise in the same position. There are at least $4 million in priority projects which are now stalled because of lack of funds. These include $1.2 million in street improvements alone and range all the way from street lighting to increased firefighting facilities.

I urge you strongly, gentlemen, to give favorable consideration to this bill. I think it will do a great service to our American communities and bring untold benefits to our people.

Thank you very much.

Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will stand in recess, until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 23, 1961.)

EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACCELERATION ACT

TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1961

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND MANPOWER

OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph S. Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Clark (presiding) and Pell.

Committee staff members present: Samuel V. Merrick, professional staff member.

Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will be in session.

Our first witness today is Mr. C. D. Ward, general counsel of the National Association of County Officials in Washington, D.C. Mr. Ward, we are happy to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF C. D. WARD, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is C. D. Ward. I am general counsel for the National Association of County Officials, a nonprofit organization representing more than 9,000 county officials in some 3,000 counties.

In addition, we have affiliated associations in 44 States.

Counties are responsible for the construction and maintenance of a large percentage of the public works and facilities presently in existence in the United States, and participate in such federally aided programs as urban renewal, community facilities, National Airport Act, highways, water pollution, to mention but a few.

The legislation encompassed in S. 986 has never been officially considered by our association; consequently, we are unable to take an official position.

Nevertheless, we are vitally concerned with the problem which this measure is designed to alleviate.

Several months ago, we conducted a sample poll of approximately 65 counties to see how much construction could be placed under contract within 1 year with only the present type State and Federal assistance available.

A total of $36,415,000 was reported by these counties, whose population varies from 5,000 to 1 million.

The second question was how much could be placed under contract within a year if the Federal Government immediately instituted a public works program at low interest rates, or a program to place

Federal guarantees on money borrowed from private sources. amount reported was $136,075,000.

The

I might interject here that these figures do not include the survey conducted by the Supervisors Intercounty Committee to be mentioned by the next witness, also the Contra Costa County survey by the following witnesses.

Although the program that would be created by S. 986 would provide grants for public works, we feel our survey on loans is relevant. If the reporting counties could increase their expenditure for public works under the circumstances described, it would appear that an increase would also follow if Federal grants are made available.

We have invited representatives from various counties to express their interest in S. 986 and to relate how this measure would benefit their own locality and to present their local views. These gentlemen

are:

Messrs. M. S. Neilsen and E. A. Linscheid of Contra Costa County, Calif.; Mr. Delos Hamlin, Oakland County, Mich.; and Mr. Bernard Kalahar, of Macomb County, Mich.

Mr. Hamlin will be testifying in behalf of the six-county Supervisors Intercounty Committee.

We are desirous of obtaining the viewpoints of less populated counties than the ones you will be hearing from this morning. As a result, we contacted Mr. Richard Shelton, secretary-treasurer of the West Virginia Association of County Officials. Mr. Shelton advised us that due to the bonding limitation placed upon West Virginia counties, as well as their present financial condition, it is unlikely that any county in West Virginia could take advantage of S. 986.

We are of the opinion this fact would hold true in a great many of the smaller counties that are suffering from unemployment. Perhaps some thought might be given to providing different criteria for such areas.

I think Mr. Hamlin may have some suggestions on that particular facet of the situation.

I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you this morning. Senator CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Ward.

Senator Pell?

Senator PELL. No questions.

Senator CLARK. The next list of witnesses are M. F. Nielsen and E. A. Linscheid, heard together, county supervisors, Contra Costa County, Martinez, Calif.

Will you gentlemen be seated.

Let me express our appreciation to you for having come so far to testify concerning this bill.

Will you just please proceed in your own way.

STATEMENTS OF M. F. NEILSEN AND E. A. LINSCHEID, COUNTY SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, MARTINEZ, CALIF.

Mr. NEILSEN. My name is Mel F. Neilsen. I am one of the five elected supervisors who are responsible for the direction of the government of Contra Costa County, Calif.

Accompanying me is Mr. E. A. Linscheid, who is also one of the supervisors from Contra Costa County, Calif. Our county is one

of the nine San Francisco Bay area counties. It has a land area of 730 square miles and a population of 410,000.

I am appearing here today in response to the invitation of your chairman to present testimony in connection with S. 986.

During the worst part of the recession period more than 8 percent of the employable working force in Contra Costa County, Calif., was without jobs.

At the present time slightly more than 6 percent of our employable working force does not have employment, and it appears that we have reached a point where there will be little or perhaps no further reduction in unemployment unless action is taken to stimulate placement of workers.

This fact may be verified in our county from data available through our welfare agency and through the California State Department of Employment.

We have scheduled our capital improvement needs over a 5-year period, and we find that it is necessary and vital that a minimum expenditure of $35 million be made.

Actually, this is not only a minimum, but a parsimonious figure because it has been determined that our county road construction needs alone, in terms of money, will amount to over $100 million between the present time and 1970.

This startling total was determined through careful analyses based on current construction costs and estimated traffic on our county roads by 1970.

I might add we spent $160,000 2 years ago to have this study made by the Ralph Tudor Corp.

A large proportion of our county revenues is obtained through property taxes which are becoming an increasingly greater financial burden upon our citizens.

The enactment of S. 986 would be extremely helpful to us in connection with the reduction in the number of people who are employable and who are without jobs.

In addition, of course, we would be able to implement our planned capital improvement program.

We believe that we could match Federal grants under the provisions of S. 986 in the amount of $1 million for office and institutional buildings; $1 million for road construction, and from $500,000 to $1 million for park development, and we believe we could perform the work involved in a relatively short period.

None of this construction work can be performed in a reasonable length of time unless we can obtain grants or subventions in the proportions somewhat comparable to those which I have cited.

We hope that your subcommittee will give favorable consideration to the enactment of S. 986, and we can guarantee that such funds as are made available to us under this legislation will be used effectively, both in terms of a reduction in unemployment and in the provision of much needed facilities.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your testimony.

Senator Pell?

Senator PELL. I have no questions.

Mr. NEILSEN. Thank you.