of which they are a part. But the municipalities themselves may not have shared in the economic upsurge.

Thus, in New Jersey, cities like Newark, Elizabeth, Perth Amboy, and New Brunswick, are presently barred from further participation in the program. Yet they have very serious unemployment problems and a genuine need for capital improvements in the city.

My amendment would assure their continued eligibility as long as their economic situation warrants it. It would zero in on the persistent problem spots within a generally prosperous region.

But I think it should be remembered that it is the industrial and commercial activity of the central city that generates the better part of the very area wide prosperity that has rendered these municipalities ineligible for aid. It hardly makes sense to me to penalize our hardpressed municipalities because of a general prosperity whose benefits they do not fully reap.

My amendment would make municipalities eligible for aid if (1) they are in a larger labor market area having more than 5 percentinstead of 6 percent-unemployment, and (2) the Secretary of Labor determines that they have as serious an unemployment problem as other areas presently eligible under the law. At present, it is fair to say that the eligibility of an area hinges on having an unemployment rate of 6 percent.

I would like to note that my amendment would not make the entire metropolitan area eligible for aid. It would make eligible only those portions of the labor market area with severe hard-core problems at least as great as the rate of unemployment in other areas now presently eligible under the act.

This amendment is designed as a rifle shot to hit those critical areas of high unemployment that exist in many of our older cities.

I might add that many of these cities have very serious civil rights problems, especially in the area of employment, and if we are to have any genuine hope of finding a satisfactory solution to the problem of job discrimination, we simply have to expand the opportunities for employment for all, so that men need not take out their job frustrations on others because of the color of their skin.

According to statistics as of July of this year, my amendment would extend eligibility to the hard-core unemployment areas of 18 major labor market areas throughout the Nation, two of them in New Jersey-the Newark area which embraces Essex, Union, and Morris Counties, and New Brunswick-Perth Amboy area.

The other areas are as follows:

Los Angeles-Long Beach, San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, and San Jose, Calif.

Bridgeport, and Waterbury, Conn.

Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, and Terre Haute, Ind.
New Orleans, La.

Mr. Chairman, I earnestly hope the committee will give favorable consideration to this amendment and end the omission of so many cities where the greatest numbers of unemployed are to be found, and where the need for new capital improvements is vitally needed if these cities are to continue to serve their indispensable functions in this Nation.

I have offered two amendments that I want to address myself to. The first would provide that appropriations, made as a result of further authorization, remain available until expended, and I believe this fits the pattern of other programs and we know the logic is sound. It would permit better planning because there will be a certainty of continuation of programs that are accepted.

The other amendment that I have proposed is intended to correct a glaring inequity that existed in the original $900 million accelerated public works program which was, of course, enacted last year. It would add a provision to section 3 (a) of the act which defines "eligible areas."

Its purpose is to assure the eligibility of certain municipalities which have hard-core unemployment problems but which are part of an ineligible labor market area.

Now, the situation, as we all know, is the labor market area, and it can be a rather large area, an entire county or maybe two counties. It can include a major city or maybe two major cities and then the suburbs around it.

In the city there can be substantial unemployment well beyond 6 percent and yet, because the city is lumped with the more prosperous suburbs about the city, it is ineligible. We see this in my home State. We see it in a city like Newark, for example, where the unemployment rate is tragically high, a city that has all of the chronic problemsteenagers being uneducated, unemployed, minority groups which, of course, are the first to be unemployed when there are hard times-and elderly people.

As a matter of fact, I believe there are 44,000 people in the Newark area who are unemployed, and yet because of prosperous suburbs, like Essex and Union Counties, no part of this program reaches into the desparate need in the city of Newark.

Throughout the country, if this amendment should be accepted as part of the program, there are 18 areas, and this is a national situation, stretching from Texas to the Northeast and from the West to the Southeast.

The list of all of these areas appears in my testimony and, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think that if this program is to fully realize its noble objectives, we should find ways, and I think this amendment is part of the way, to reach the great need of our hardpressed cities.

The amendment would change the percentage for the overall area of unemployment beyond 5 percent. The whole area would not be eligible but only those areas where the unemployment is as great as other areas that are qualified.

I commend it to you and believe that it would be most useful in meeting the needs particularly of the center cities and the problem exists throughout the country.

26-67864-5

Senator RANDOLPH. You mentioned, Senator Williams, the cities, and I think that we are a little surprised at some of them:

The Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif., area which heads your list; New Orleans, La., New York City, N.Y., and the Spokane, Wash.,

areas.

Certainly the subcommittee will give very careful consideration to this because you have spoken many times of problems with which these areas are faced.

Is it your opinion, Senator, that there is an accentuation of the problem by discrimination in employment in your area?

Senator WILLIAMS. There

Senator RANDOLPH. Or is it just a need for employment for all? Senator WILLIAMS. I would put it that way. I believe we know, as a matter of fact, that minority groups have not had the equal opportunities and advantages in education.

We know that in employment they are frequently the last hired and first fired, and we know, too, that there has to be a broadening of the base of job opportunity, and this is, as I have seen it, pretty much of a city problem, but if the job opportunity base is enlarged, why, it will have the secondary effect of relieving the problem of any economic discrimination in employment.

Senator RANDOLPH. Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. I am very appreciative of the fact that our colleague has come here to testify and help us. I must say that I believe, among the several valuable suggestions that he has made, is one that we should look into very carefully, and that is this problem of the designation of the market area or the labor market area.

I have noted that we have this problem in my own State. The designation of particular areas leads at some time to the inability to help specific parts of that area.

I think it is a very valuable suggestion.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much, Senator Williams.
Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator RANDOLPH. Again, the subcommittee members will care

fully consider the suggestions which you have presented.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, could I add that there are cosponsors of these amendments? Could I list them?

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes, we would like to have them.

Senator WILLIAMS. The following Senators are cosponsors:

Senators Ribicoff, Yarborough, Bayh, Hartke, Keating, Long of Missouri, and Senator Javits.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much. Again, we are grateful for your coming before the subcommittee, and now I have one final question:

You are strongly in favor of a further accelerated public works program.

Is that your premise this morning, in general?

Senator WILLIAMS. Absolutely, and I know that it has been a very effective program.

Communities, who have planned for a better environment through public works assistance too frequently have to have them shelved because of lack of resources, and this program has been a rifle shot at community needs.

I think it is most essential that we continue it and accelerate it. Senator WILLIAMS. Before introducing the two witnesses from New Jersey who accompany me, I would like to present for the record a statement by Gov. Richard J. Hughes, of New Jersey, in support of our expanded accelerated public works program.

(The statement of Governor Hughes of New Jersey follows:)

STATEMENT BY GOV. RICHARD J. HUGHES IN SUPPORT OF THE EXTENSION, EXPANSION AND CONTINUATION OF THE ACCELERATED PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM

The experience of New Jersey with the accelerated public works program demonstrates the wisdom and practicality of this imaginative approach to the dual problem of persistent unemployment and pressing public need for improved community facilities. This program has been of great benefit to the municipalities of New Jersey and I would strongly urge that it be not only continued, but expanded.

The latest figures on unemployment are not encouraging. Even though we continue to enjoy a high level of general prosperity, the stubborn problem of unemployment and underemployment continue, as does the lack of resources for necessary public facilities. Anyone familiar with both the frustration of men willing and able to work, but without jobs, and the frustration of public officials with pressing needs for new or improved facilities, but without sufficient revenues, realizes the happy combination offered in the accelerated public works program.

Speaking for New Jersey, I could enumerate at great length the number of needed projects which have had to be shelved for lack of funds. I know too from the requests processed by the State department of conservation and economic development of the great unmet need for permanent beach protection, municipal sewer systems, sewage treatment plants, water facilities, public administration buildings, to name a few of the many proposed projects.

The accelerated public works program is in the best tradition of Federal, State, and local partnership for the common good. The conditions which brought forth this program are still with us and the validity of this public investment in jobs and better communities has been proven. Therefore, it is my hope that Congress will give favorable consideration to the continuation and expansion of this very worthwhile public program.

Senator RANDOLPH. Senator Williams, I believe that you would want the privilege of presenting your distinguished mayor.

Senator WILLIAMS. I would consider it an honor if I could introduce two of our most effective and useful public servants from the State of New Jersey.

Perhaps if they both came up at this time, Mr. Chairman, I could do it then.

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes, they could sit on either side of you and you could remain, if your schedule allows.

Senator WILLIAMS. I can remain a while. Of course, you know the competition of time.

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes, I understand.

If the mayor and the other gentleman would approach the witness table the Senator can present you to the subcommittee.

Senator WILLIAMS. First is Mayor Thomas Whelan, of the city of Jersey City.

The mayor is a very experienced man in government and we are very grateful that he is the mayor of one of our major cities.

Our other representative this morning is Mr. Paul Busse, who is Newark's business administrator. His accomplishments in public affairs in community development are long, indeed.

He is a very distinguished citizen and we are proud of him, too.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN, MAYOR, JERSEY CITY, N.J.; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL BUSSE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, NEWARK, N.J.; THOMAS M. FLAHERTY, COUNCILMAN, JERSEY CITY, N.J.; AND FRED MARTIN, COUNCILMAN, JERSEY CITY, N.J. Mr. WHELAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, being new to the government of the city, I have two former colleagues of mine here, and I would like to have them sit with me.

They are as skilled in this problem as I am. I wonder if we could have them up here, too?

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes.

Mr. WHELAN. This is Councilman Martin from Jersey City and Councilman Flaherty from Jersey City.

Senator RANDOLPH. We are delighted to have them. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Busse.

I have often wondered what the difference is between a mayor and an administrator, but we do know that cities have certain types of municipal government in which there is not only a mayor but also a city manager.

I presume that applies in the instance here of Jersey City.

I believe, Mayor Whelan, we will open with you and you can tell us the story of Jersey City.

Mr. WHELAN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Thomas J. Whelan, mayor of Jersey City, N.J., but in a way I have come to speak to you on behalf of 125 million Americans.

That is the urban population of the United States; nearly twofifths of them living in cities of more than 100,000 population. And, in a sense, my city and its problems are typical of many of these other cities, although possibly more critical.

Our problems are two: age and money.

When Indians still roamed the rest of New Jersey, Jersey City was already a settled community. Today, we are 303 years old, but we feel 400. The sins and errors of the past have caught up with us.

Changes in taxing procedures and interpretations are continually shrinking our tax base. Railroads, once the major owners of industrial-type property in our city, are giving up more and more land on which they formerly paid full tax dollar.

Despite a moderate building boom in the last few years, our total of assessed valuations has dropped from $494 to $459 million in 3 years. Yet, over this smaller tax base, we have had to increase our property tax levies from $48 to $52 million.

Our population has gone through a serious decline; and our unemployment has been, and is, substantial.

Our per capita debt, not counting our school debt, is near $400; and our gross debt is, I believe, higher than that of Seattle, San Diego, and Denver, to name just a few cities all considerably larger than

ours.

We have a city ringed with major highways, a corridor to the entire eastern United States, yet our municipal roads are strikingly inadequate for the effective movement of traffic. We are trying mightily to induce industry to relocate in our city, yet in some areas where industry might locate, the city has only old sewerlines which cannot meet the requirements of heavy industries.