Mr. FRANTZ. We require more space in connection with the increase in people. That doesn't involve opening any additional offices. REDUCTION OF PERSONAL SERVICES Mr. THOMAS. How many people were you obliged to reduce under the 1952 Independent Offices Appropriation Act? Mr. BAUGHMAN. I don't believe I have that figure. We are getting the number down gradually, I know that. From what figure do you mean, Mr. Chairman? We started out with 1,000 people a year ago, and we are down to 649. We haven't gotten down low enough to meet the requirement. I would say we would have to cut somewhere around 68 or 70 people more. Mr. FITZPATRICK. That question came down primarily to our closing one more office, with the possibility that in order to meet the figure we might also have to close the Seattle office, which we had not figured on closing this year. We may still have to close it to meet the figure personnel wise that we have been obligated to stay within. You will remember, Mr. Thomas, that we had hoped eventually to cut down the Seattle office but did not want to cut it down while Alaska was so active. We may still have to close it anyway. Mr. THOMAS. Well, that figure would require you to reduce your present staff, did you say by 68? Mr. BAUGHMAN. That is right, between 68 and 70 people. Mr. THOMAS. Then with this request of 169 you will be able to retain those plus some additional 90 employees; is that it? Mr. BAUGHMAN. That is correct. I might add that in the interest of getting housing started we should really have these men working at the present time in the field on this commitment procedure, and on getting that going so that the housing can be started. The mortgage market, as everyone who is very familiar with it knows, is at this time very poor and we have to do something to get a little life into it and get some housing started. If they get a commitment of course they can get local interim financing to go ahead if they can and get the project started. Mr. THOMAS. Then you are going to waive the 60-day period? DEFENSE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Mr. THOMAS. I note that you have here $140,000 for administrative costs on community facilities. The total authorization, I believe, was $60 million, but the request is for a total of $40 million, of which $15 million will go to the Housing and Home Finance Agency while $25 million will go to the Public Health Service. Is that correct? Mr. SEWARD. To the Federal Security Agency, Mr. Thomas. Not all of it will go to the Public Health Service. Mr. THOMAS. What condition is your organization in now? Mr. SEWARD. Not a particularly healthy condition, Mr. Thomas. In connection with the authorizations of Public Law 139, I do not have any prepared statement to submit, sir, but I would like very briefly to comment generally on the situation. As you and the other gentlemen of the committee are aware, there has been a very rapid reactivation of both military and industrial facilities. The situation which exists at the reactivated facilities is generally quite different from the situation when the facility was deactivated some 4 or 5 years ago or 6 years ago. As you know, sir, under the old Lanham Act we provided the necessary community facility for the areas as they were affected. The community facilities in general were reasonably adequate to meet the demands when the facility was deactivated. In many, many of the areas, the population has continued to increase materially and we have a situation today where at some of the reactivated operations the facilities do not begin to meet with the same degree of effectiveness the requirements as they existed when the facility was deactivated. Mr. THOMAS. How many projects do you have on hand now? Mr. SEWARD. We have on hand for disposition, I think, 43 projects now, Mr. Thomas, if I remember correctly. PERSONAL SERVICES Mr. THOMAS. How many employees do you have now? Mr. SEWARD. Altogether we have in our Community Facilities Service at the Washington level 47 people. Mr. THOMAS. How many do you have in the field? Mr. SEWARD. Mr. Thomas, the Community Facilities offices in the field have been reoriented into regional offices of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. The total staff in the field offices handle most all of certain operations with respect to the programs of the Office of the Administrator. I do not have the exact figures here as to what the total personnel is in the regional offices. I am sure Mr. Frantz has that figure. Mr. FRANTZ. Yes, I do, sir. Mr. THOMAS. You want $140,000 to be drawn from your $15 million for administrative expenses. Is there any limitation in the act on your administrative expenses? Mr. SEWARD. No, sir. Mr. THOMAS. And you want 24 man-years in the District of Columbia and 20 in the field, which makes about what, about 32 or 33 jobs? Mr. SEWARD. That will make a total, Mr. Thomas, of 42 jobs. Mr. SEWARD. Yes, sir. BREAKDOWN OF TYPES OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROJECTS Mr. THOMAS. At this point in the record, Mr. Reporter, will you insert the paragraph in the middle of page 33 entitled "Recapitulation." (The paragraph referred to is as follows:) RECAPITULATION On the basis of the foregoing considerations and estimates, that portion of the defense community facilities program assigned to the Housing and Home Finance Agency could be expected to produce the following projects: Mr. THOMAS. I note from the paragraph entitled "Recapitulation" that the number of projects you have for water is 35, while the number of projects you have for sewers is 28. The cost of the water projects would be $8,750,000, while the cost for the 28 sewer projects would be $4,900,000. You have all other projects listed at $1,000,000 without describing the types, and you have another item here of $350,000 without describing the types. That makes a total figure of $15 million. How did you arrive at these figures? Mr. SEWARD. Mr. Thomas, we went back to our old Lanham Act experience under which we built some 4,000 projects of a like nature during the last war. Then we took the average cost of those projects and increased that by our estimate of how much construction costs have risen since that time. That is the basis, sir, upon which we were able to come up with those figures. Mr. THOMAS. Well, at best, under the circumstances all you could do is make a reasonably good guess? Mr. SEWARD. That is correct, sir. Mr. THOMAS. And in truth and in fact, none of these projects have been designated as of today? Mr. SEWARD. That is right, Mr. Thomas, not one of them. Mr. THOMAS. And none of the critical defense areas that have been designated by the Kaul committee have any community facilities projects connected with them as yet? Mr. SEWARD. We have quite a number of projects, Mr. Thomas, that have been planned or are in the process of being planned under the advance planning program, but there is no commitment whatever in those cases for any construction aid. Mr. THOMAS. Of course that is a planning proposition. been purely a peacetime proposition, has it not? That has Mr. SEWARD. Yes, sir. But at your direction, sir, when that program was reoriented we confined the advance planning only to those projects that were of a defense nature or had a defense connection or were absolutely essential civilian requirements. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Thomas, we could not exercise any of our powers with respect to the community facilities section of this bill in the areas declared by the Kau committee unless they were redeclared under Public Law 139. The powers may be exercised only with respect to an area found under this bill and that would not relate to these previous areas unless redeclared. Mr. THOMAS. Of course, as a practical everyday proposition, they will be. Mr. FITZPATRICK. I think so, Mr. Thomas. What is done is done, and it was done on essentially the same standards. If the needs are there, I think we are obligated to meet them. PERSONAL SERVICES Mr. THOMAS. You think you need these 42 new jobs. How many people do you say you have on the payroll now? Mr. PHILLIPS. Not 42 new ones? Mr. THOMAS. Yes. Mr. SEWARD. Forty-two. Mr. THOMAS. It is a total of 42. How many do you have altogether on the payroll now in the District of Columbia and in the field? Mr. SEWARD. In the District of Columbia we have 47, Mr. Thomas. Mr. THOMAS. How many do you have in the field? Mr. SEWARD. Mr. Frantz, sir, was going to give you that figure on the regional offices, which includes all operations. That is not confined to Community Facilities, sir. Mr. FRANTZ. That is correct. in the regional offices. There are 241 employees presently Mr. THOMAS. You usually break them down in your regular justifications by fractions, and so forth, and you come up with an answer. How many do you figure you are charging to Brother Seward in the District of Columbia and in the field? Mr. SEWARD. Those 42 are all chargeable to me in the District of Columbia. Mr. FRANTZ. In the District of Columbia that is right. There are an estimated 35 of that 241 in the field who are employed primarily in connection with credit control and in the locality survey activities under the Defense Production Act. Mr. THOMAS. In other words, you have about 75 on the honor roll now and you want to increase that by 42 or 44 more; is that it? Mr. SEWARD. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMAS. You are liable to have some folks sitting around there for 2 or 3 months are you not?—with nothing to do. Mr. SEWARD. That situation has never existed, Mr. Thomas. I don't think there is any reason to assume that it would now. Mr. THOMAS. You mean that they work on old projects now? Mr. FRANTZ. Excuse me. That figure of field employment, including community facilities, also includes the people who are employed in connection with the school-aid construction program under Public Law 815, where we handle the construction job for the Office of Education. Mr. THOMAS. That is on a remibursable basis. They pay you for that? Mr. SEWARD. That is right. Mr. THOMAS. So, you don't charge that to this appropriation? Mr. FRANTZ. No, sir; but it is included in that employment figure. Mr. THOMAS. Anyway, that other crowd knows a good man when they see one and they are glad to have you do the work for them; are they not? Mr. SEWARD. It has been a pleasure to do it for them. Mr. Thomas. DEVELOPMENT OF ISOLATED DEFENSE SITES Mr. THOMAS. What about the development of isolated sites? Do you have any administrative costs? It is a brand-new item. You have set aside $10 million for it. Do you have any program? 89877-51-8 I notice this language here for the revolving fund: Authorized by title IV of the Defense Housing and Community Facilities Services Act, including necessary administrative expenses in connection with said title $10 million to remain available until expended. This is a Treasury authorization; is it not? It has to be appropriated for the first time; does it not? Mr. FITZPATRICK. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMAS. Or do you borrow it straight from the Treasury? Mr. FITZPATRICK. No, sir; it must be appropriated to the revolving fund in the Treasury. Mr. THOMAS. How much do you figure for administrative expenses? Mr. FITZPATRICK. The indication is about $30,000 to $35,000. Mr. FRANTZ. As an annual figure until some active program gets started. Mr. THOMAS. I note this language: And for necessary administrative expenses in connection with these development activities are incident to the temporary management of communities. No advances will be obtained or any funds expended until such time as a project is identified, except for the very modest sum which would be necessary to defray the cost of the program planning work which must precede the initiation of the first project. I also note this language: In general, the new title is designed to make it possible to avoid many of the difficulties which have been encountered in areas such as Savannah River, S. C., and others where the defense effort has required the development of large-scale installations in isolated or relatively isolated spots. Among the purposes intended to be accomplished are the following: (1) To relieve the defense agency primarily responsible for the installation of the task of planning and developing facilities adequate to house the necessary construction personnel and of providing permanent communities for maintenance and operating staffs. (2) To prevent or minimize land speculations in such areas. (3) To avoid the necessity of establishing and maintaining Government-owned communities such as those at Oak Ridge and Hanford. The $10 million authorization would provide a revolving fund in the Treasury from which the Administrator could borrow funds to defray the costs of making general plans for the development of necessary houses and community facilities in connection with such a defense installation; for the purchase and clearance of the land; for the installation, construction, or reconstruction of essential streets, utilities, and other site improvements. It seems that the punch line here is that no advances will be obtained or any funds expended; is that correct? Mr. FITZPATRICK. Until a project comes up of that type and findings prerequisite to the exercise of this power are made. Mr. THOMAS. What do you have in mind now? You evidently have something in mind or you wouldn't be asking for $10 million. Mr. FITZPATRICK. I think that this program is primarily conceived to meet the type of situation reflected originally by the operations of the Atomic Energy Commission in the Savannah River, S. C., area. I would question whether at this time it would be feasible to use these powers in that area, because of the time that has elapsed since then. At this point, I could not say to you that we have knowledge of any other types of operations like that which are about to go into effect. |