Page images
PDF
EPUB

or Colonel Textor, of the Facility Clearance Board, will tell you that the information and advice our staff has provided has been of immense value to them.

Other examples of service to war agencies are the work of Assistant Director Watkins in connection with our transportation report on the establishment of the Office of Defense Transportation, to which one of our consultants later transferred as executive officer; and the advice and help we have been able to give on housing and community facilities programs to N. H. A. and F. W. A. through our field offices and the division charged with public works programming.

We

As you know, Assistant Director Blaisdell serves as a member of Mr. Donald Nelson's Planning Committee of W. P. B., and thus ties in our Board's work and responsibilities for economic trend reporting with the progress of the war production program. have brought here this morning these copies of our last confidential quarterly report to the President on trends of national income and employment. Under the provisions of the Federal Employment Stabilization Act, we are required to prepare these reports for the President on employment in the United States or "any substantial portion thereof," as it says in the Stabilization Act. This work is done both here in Washington, with the help o several other Federal agencies, and also in all regions of the cour try through our field offices.

Our second major responsibility under the Employment Stabilization Act concerns public works programming. Here is a map which illustrates the cities, counties, and States which are engaged in the preparation of long-range public works programs or capital budgets as we call it. This map [showing] illustrates another kind of service we are rendering, this time to the State and local governments.

Under the Employment Stabilization Act we are required to collect such programs, but 2 or 3 years ago there were only two or three capital budgets in the whole country. We developed a technique for that procedure, as reported in the report long-range programming of "Municipal Public Works" which we got out in 1941. That procedure has been used now in most of these communities where we have assisted them in making up their capital budgets, in an orderly manner. Last week, in response to a request from Congressman Dirksen, I wrote him briefly about another kind of service we have been providing for over 6 or 7 years on coordination of projects for water use and control.

Over the country there have been set up some 45 drainage basin committees consisting of the field representatives of the interested Federal agencies dealing with water problems, representatives from the State departments and from localities. As you realize the usefulness of any committee of that sort depends directly upon the leadership of the chairman and the skill and resourcefulness of its clerk. We provide the chairmen and technical consultants to these committees which meet to iron out differences among agencies or to attend to special problems.

The case I described to Mr. Dirksen involved the water supply for the war activities around Peoria and Pekin. Some outsider's assistance was needed to bring all those concerned together and get some action. We did not tell them what to do; we were simply a means of

bringing them together to discuss the problems with the view to agreeing on some action.

Mr. WOODRUM. And did they agree?

Mr. ELIOT. Yes; and they are doing something about it.

The two-volume report on the Pecos River which was sent here. Saturday is another much more elaborate example of the same kind of service. Here, as in all of our work, our part is advisory, a clearinghouse service, research or fact finding preparation for others to make the decisions.

This next map illustrates the confidential table presented in the justification previously sent to the committee. It shows the war communities which have been aided with consulting service by the Board to meet the sudden and sometime overwhelming changes brought by the location of camps or new war industries in their neighborhood. It is confidential, of course, because it is pretty close to being a target map of the key defense areas of the United States. We have tried to help these communities through the State planning agencies, with advice on planning methods and procedure, and I think I can fairly say it has been a very real contribution and that as a result the localities themselves have been better equipped to meet these national problems with which they have been so suddenly faced.

When our appropriation was reduced for this current year the Board decided to "bunch its hits" in this kind of service, both as a matter of economy and to give more intensive help to selected areas. These smaller maps [indicating] show the areas on which we decided to concentrate. Perhaps the best example is this area around Salt Lake City which we call the Wasatch Front.

If I am not taking too much time I might make a very brief comment upon how we are working there.

Mr. WOODRUM. Yes.

Mr. ELIOT. Last August I attended a meeting in Governor Maw's office, where officials from Federal, State, county, and municipal governments, along the Wasatch front, were assembled with representative citizen groups from industry, labor, and the church. They were worried over the tremendous problems which they faced, both to play their parts in the war effort and to adjust their communities to the great changes which they feared might come with the outbreak of peace.

As perhaps you know, Ogden, Salt Lake, and Provo have new war industries which overshadow their whole economy-the supply bases, small-arms plants, training stations, and the colossal new furnaces and rolling mills of the steel plant at Provo.

To make a long story short, it was decided to set up a planning project, not for new research but to bring together what was already available into a proposal for action. The State development commission sponsors the project, and we are helping with personnel from our regional office and with consultants. The participation of the whole community has been sought and major contributions are being made by the University of Utah and by the industries in the area. We have helped to channel into the project the knowledge and specialists from other Federal agencies.

In a period of 8 months from the time the undertaking was launched it is now expected that there will be a clearer statement of just what

the community does face and suggestions for action by appropriate governmental and private groups.

I have here statements on several of these area projects which illustrate the procedures used and the progress to date. We are being asked to help in many other communities in the same manner. These services which I have sampled for you in this summary fashion are requested of us more and more. They are a kind of service which only a staff agency can render. Over and over again it has been shown that, because we are an advisory and not an operating agency, we can secure the cooperation of rival groups in joint. undertakings. The auspices of the Board as a completely impartial agency and the consulting services it makes available have been useful in sorting out many tangled problems and in securing agreements on a common proposal or plan.

We shall provide that kind of service next year to the limit of our abilities and to the limit of whatever funds you see fit to appropriate. Mr. WOODRUM. That is a very interesting statement.

QUESTION OF DUPLICATION OF ACTIVITIES

Are there any other Government agencies, other than the National Planning Board, that is engaged in this particular field of long-range planning?

Mr. ELIOT. There are some kinds of planning activities in almost every agency of the Government.

I am glad you asked that question because I was warned ahead of time that probably something about duplication would be asked.

Mr. WOODRUM. We are interested in knowing about whether there is duplication.

Mr. ELIOT. Each year, both in the House and in the Senate, there has been discussion about duplication of work in the executive departments and last year at our hearing in this room, the question was raised whether or not we were duplicating the work of other agencies. I hope that what I have just said about "staff" as contrasted to "line" activities may have clarified that picture.

For instance, the Bureau of the Budget is also a staff agency. It brings together the Budget proposals prepared by the Budget officers of every Federal agency, reviews and analyzes them, and prepares the Budget of the United States. If you consider that in doing that job the Budget Bureau duplicates the work of all those Budget officers in other agencies, then, in the same sense, we in the Planning Board duplicate the work of the planning and research officers of other agencies. But that is not duplication at all-any more than the work of the Appropriation Committees duplicates the work of the Bureau of the Budget.

I would like to cite two examples: Our report on Transportation and National Policy was over 2 years in preparation. It was developed with the help and participation of all the Federal agencies concerned with transportation and almost one-half the 500-page report is made up of signed contributions from such agencies. They were brought together; there is no duplication, but they are brought together and set out in some orderly fashion for action by the Congress.

Or take another planning project on which we have been at work even longer-the report on Security, Work and Relief Policies. It is

a joint enterprise under the Board's auspices, with some 10 agencies and persons from outside the Government serving on the Tecnhical Committee in charge. If our purpose had been just to have a report, the job might have been done quicker by leaving it to a single individual-but what was wanted was a review of 10 years' experience and agreement which we got by all members of the Technical Committee on Findings and Recommendations and on what should be done about them. There was no duplication, but rather it was correlation or coordination or planning.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES OF APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR ENDING

JUNE 30, 1944

For the work of the National Resources Planning Board during the fiscal year 1944 three appropriation items are submitted in the President's Budget to a total of $1,400,000. This figure compares with $1,017,422 available for 1943 and with $1,409,550 recommended in the President's Budget Message last year.

(a) Regular funds to carry on the activities required of the Board under the Employment Stabilization Act of 1931, Reorganization Plan No. 1, and Executive orders of September 9, 1939, and June 27, 1940, and for special assignments by the President. The general scope of studies properly included in the regular work of the Board during the fiscal year 1944 requires an appropriation of $650,000. This figure compares with $534,422 appropriated for these purposes for the current fiscal year 1943.

(b) Printing and binding: An estimate of $25,000 is submitted herewith, which compares with $40,000 appropriated last year.

(c) Defense funds to continue work now under way from monies appropriated in the last Independent Offices Appropriations Act and allotted to the Board from the President's emergency defense funds. An estimate of $725,000 is submitted as the amount needed to continue this work during the fiscal year beginning next July. This figure compares with $443,000 available this year, made up of $200,000 appropriation and the balance on a Presidential allotment.

1. APPROPRIATION OF "REGULAR FUNDS"

For the continuance of the required studies of "Trends of business and unemployment," for the preparation of the "Six-year program of public works," and for basic planning projects on the conservation and development of the Nation's resources, the current appropriation would be inadequate without the supplementary defense funds appropriated and allocated to the Board. The estimate for 1944 is supported by the accompanying tables and statements. The details of positions and salaries are our best practical estimate. It is the policy of the Board to keep the full-time, continuing staff at a minimum or skeleton basis and to provide the greatest possible flexibility in use of technicians and specialists as they may be needed.

Experience with various planning projects over the last 9 years indicates that the program of work outlined in the accompanying table and the following sections can be undertaken in greater or less detail, and we are relying on past experience to indicate an appropriate balance. The appropriation requested includes an allowance by redistribution for some funds to meet emergency or unforeseen requests which the President will undoubtedly make.

A few changes in the wording of the appropriation item are suggested. The first would substitute "all expenses necessary" for the longer statement in conformity with general practice recommended by the Budget Bureau. The second would permit the utilization of services of State, county, and municipal officerssince the Board is working with such officials constantly, it is our belief that official arrangements should be authorized for employment of services with or without compensation. A third change omits reference to section 3709, in conformity with a proposal which we understand the Bureau of the Budget is making to include this proviso and provision for transfer of household goods in a general section elsewhere in the bill applying to all independent offices. Finally, the proposed wording would omit the proviso at the end of the item and substitute the use of code references customary in most appropriations and in the same manner as approved by the House Appropriations Committee last year.

2. APPROPRIATION FOR PRINTING AND BINDING

The $25,000 requested is a reduction from the amount appropriated last year for this purpose.

3. APPROPRIATION OF "DEFENSE FUNDS"

In view of the defense emergency, the Board has been called upon to perform various special tasks within its broader authority and with defense funds allotted for these purposes. Some of these defense activities come clearly within the authority of the Stabilization Act but could not be undertaken for lack of funds. Others, under the general authority of the Board, were appropriately administered by the Board because of the experience, organization, and facilities which the Board had in those fields. In the opinion of the Board, similar unforeseeable problems are bound to arise in the future and the Board should be in a position to assist the President and the Congress through the techniques, staff, and field contacts which are already established. For orderly administration and budget controls, the Board would prefer to rely on the regular appropriation procedures rather than to be dependent upon special allotments for special tasks which may be outside the formula laid down in the Federal Employment Stabilization Act.

4. PROGRAM OF WORK

The following table shows in summary form a preliminary allocation of the funds requested to the major activities and projects of the Board. The comparable figures for the current fiscal year are also shown indicating the fields in which greater activity is needed.

Increased funds are needed primarily for (a) The post-war agenda and reserve; (b)_programming of public works, and (c) urban and area planning projects.

For each of these items a supporting statement is submitted following the table. The smaller increases for other items we shall be glad to explain at the hearing or in response to requests for information in advance of the hearing. In general, they represent the increased overhead which goes along with a larger program of the better and more adequate coverage of activities now under way. current activities are explained in the materials-II Drafts from National Resources Development-Report for 1943, which was submitted with this justification.

These

National Resources Planning Board proposed allocations of funds in revised Budget estimates for fiscal year 1944

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »