TABLE 24.-Average non-labor expenditures per worker per month on construction and nonconstruction projects operated by the Work Projects Administration by sources of funds, fiscal year 1939 and fiscal year 1940 through February 1940

Does not include data for projects of other Federal agencies financed by transfer of W. P. A. funds under section 3 of the E. R. A. Act of 1938 and section 11 of the E. R. A. Act of 1939.

EXPENDITURES OF SPONSORS' FUNDS ON W. P. A. OPERATED PROJECTS

Mr. WOODRUM. Can you furnish us with a statement for W. P. A. since the beginning, by States, showing total expenditures by fiscal years through, say, February divided between Federal costs and sponsors' contributions?

Colonel HARRINGTON. Certainly, we can give you that through December.

Mr. WOODRUM. Showing a break-down as between Federal costs and sponsors' contributions and total cost, and the percentage of sponsors' contributions to total cost, so as to give us some idea as to how this is working?

Colonel HARRINGTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOODRUM. Could that also be broken down as between construction and nonconstruction projects?

Colonel HARRINGTON. We could give you a break-down of that. Mr. WOODRUM. I am trying to get a picture of what the practical operation of the sponsors' contribution requirements amounted to. Colonel HARRINGTON. Yes, sir; we can give you that.

(The material above referred to covers three periods, i. e., from the initiation of the W. P. A. program through June 1938, the year ending June 1939, and the six months ending December 1939, and is as follows:)

TABLE 25.-Expenditures of sponsors' funds on Work Projects Administration operated projects, by States and by types of work, United States and Territories, cumulative through June 30, 1938

TABLE 26.-Expenditures of sponsors' funds on Work Projects Administrationoperated projects, by States, and by types of work, United States and Territoriesfiscal year ending June 30, 1939

TABLE 27.-Expenditures of sponsors' funds on Work Projects Administration operated projects, by States and by types of work, United States and Territories, July 1 through Dec. 31, 1939

DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF SPONSORS' CONTRIBUTION

Mr. WOODRUM. Section 11 (c) requires that the Commissioner determine the sponsor's contribution as an adequate contribution, considering the financial responsibility of the sponsor. Just how does this requirement operate in actual practice, and how is this determination made? What are the rules and regulations in the determination as to whether a particular contribution is a reasonable one? Colonel HARRINGTON. In the first place, of course, the contribution. must be sufficient so that the project can operate with an outlay of Federal funds not to exceed $6 per month over and above wages.

Each project application is analyzed in the State office and then in our own office after it comes here.

The State administrator, of course, conducts the negotiations concerning the projects with the sponsoring body, and when he has arrived at a determination that the project should be approved he sends it along with his recommendation, being bound in that respect by the amount of money the sponsor has, and he knows in most cases pretty well what the financial condition is.

We maintain in our Washington office a municipal finance section which studies the finances of municipalities, counties, and States, and their position as to indebtedness and limitations placed on them by the constitutional limitations of State constitutions and by their charters, and so on. We here in Washington are in a position to determine whether the statement is true, as made by a certain sponsoring agency, and whether the statement that such an agency cannot make a larger contribution is correct or not.

EFFECT OF RESTRICTION ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS PROJECTS

Mr. WOODRUM. Under the present provision of the law which limits the amount that can be expended from Federal funds to $50,000 on any Federal project or $52,000 on any non-Federal building project, how many such projects were there that could not be carried out, so far as the cost in connection with these figures are concerned, because they did not come within the provision of this law?

The committee has understood there have been quite a number of construction projects which have been in excess of that amount, which, because of some construction of the law did not come within the provision, or had been approved prior to that?

Colonel HARRINGTON. I believe you are referring to a ruling of the Comptroller General. The language of the act was that the projects: could be operated if there had been an issue of bonds approved at an election, and the General Accounting Office ruling was to the effect that there must have been an election, and that if funds had been set aside by a State agency for such a project that did not make it possible to operate the project.

There were several instances of cases where an agency, such as a State armory board, for example, which had legal authority within the State to use moneys, had set those moneys aside for use in the construction of a building, but, under the General Accounting Office ruling, we were not permitted to go ahead.

Mr. WOODRUM. How many projects, in number or in dollars, have come in, because of this provision of July 1, approved prior to July 1? Colonel HARRINGTON. I would have to try to get that from our records.

Mr. WOODRUM. Would that be easily gotten, or would it be difficult to get?

Colonel HARRINGTON. I would have to go to the field to get it. As I understand the question, you would like to know how many projects over these limitations, approved prior to July 1, have been operated since; is that the question?

Mr. WOODRUM. Yes.

Colonel HARRINGTON. I will get the best information I can on that.. Mr. WOODRUM. And such break-down as is convenient to get, by States?