U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking and Currency. Housing Committee on Government Operations. Create a commission on metropolitan problems. Hearing before the subcommittee on reorganization and international organizations, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. on S. 1431 and S. 2397, July 24, 1959. Washington, U.S. Govt, Print. Off., 1959. 73 p. Establish a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing. Hearings before the subcommittee on reorganization and international organizations, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 1633, S. 289, S. 375, and S. 609, June 1961, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off,, 1961, 238 p. Hearings before the committee on government operations, 87th U.S. Congress. To establish an advisory commission on intergovernmental relations. Joint hearings before the intergovernmental relations subcommittee of the House Committee on government operations and the Senate committee on government operations. 86th Cong., 1st Sess. on H.R. 6904, H.R. 6905 and S. 2026, June 16, 17, 19, and 22, 1959, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1959. 206 p. Reports U.S. Congress. House. Committee on government operations. Approving reorganization plan no. 1 of 1962. (H. Rept. 1360, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., on H. Res. 530.) Feb. 15, 1962, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1962. 47 p, Establishing a commission on metropolitan problems and urban development. (H. Rept. 940, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., on H.R. 7465.) August 18, 1959, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959. 22 p. Establishing a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing, and for other purposes. (H. Rept. 1053, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., on H.R. 8429.) Aug. 28, 1961. Wash., U.S. Gat. Print. Off., 1961. 33 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking and Currency. Department of housing and metropolitan affairs. (S. Rept. 1607, 86th Cong., 2d Sess,, on S. 3292.) June 16, 1960. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off,, 1960. 12 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Providing for the establishment of a commission on metropolitan problems. (S. Rept. 881, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 1431.) September 2, 1959. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959, 21 p. The Department of Urban Affairs and Housing. (S. Rept. 879, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 1633.) September 6, 1961. Wash., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1961. 30 p. Presidential Messages U.S. Congress. House. Message of the President of the United States. Drafts of bills relating to housing. H. Doc. 206, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. January 27, 1964. Message on housing and community development. H. Doc. 102, Reorganization plan no. 1 of 1962. H. Doc. 320, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. January 30, 1962. State of the Union Message. H. Doc. 73, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. H. Doc. 1, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. January 4, 1965. Senator RIBICOFF. We are fortunate today in having as our first witness Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania. Not only is he an outstanding Senator, deeply involved with all these problems affecting our society, but having been one of the great mayors of one of our great cities, he has intimate and deep knowledge of the problems of our cities. I want you to know, Senator Clark, that we appreciate your giving of your time this day to come and share your views with us. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Senator Ribicoff and other members of the subcommittee. I am delighted to have the opportunity to appear before you. I would like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee for permitting me to be the first witness on this bill and to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for the fine opening statement which he has made. Mr. Chairman, a visitor from outer space, looking at the structure of our Federal Government would conclude that America is still a rural Nation, with rural problems its dominant concern. We have a Department of Agriculture which devotes itself to the problems of the farm. We have a Department of the Interior which reflects the interests and needs of the more sparsely settled States. But there is no department with responsibility for the problems of the tens of millions of people living in forced congestion in sprawling metropolitan areas. This S. 1045, introduced by me on February 8, and S. 1599, introduced by Senator Ribicoff on March 25-both bills are practically identical-would cure by establishing a Department of House and Urban Development. City people, too, need an advocate in Washington. Ever since the first session of the 85th Congress I have fought to win them that voice. Perhaps this year, with the full support of President Johnson, they are about to get it. The principle included in these two bills in simple. It simply would elevate to Cabinet status the Housing and Home Finance Agency. The only major question that must be resolved by the Senate concerning these bills is, Are the responsibilities of HHFA sufficient to warrant Cabinet rank? There can be no question of that. The HHFA employs more than 13,000 persons, in 6 major bureaus, It has obligational authority well over $1 billion. It is making commitments to insure mortgages and loans at a rate of $5 billion per year and has insurance outstanding well in excess of $25 billion. In size alone, therefore, HHFA deserves such status. BENEFITS GAINED BY ESTABLISHING NEW DEPARTMENT Departmental status for the agency would bring into the highest council of Government a spokesman for the metropolitan areas of the country in which, very soon, three-fourths, of the American people will reside. It is true that the HHFA Administrator now has a concern for these problems, but a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development can command the attention of the White House, the Congress, and the public at large as no administrator of an agency can. In addition, such rank woud make it clear that the agency's concerns extend far beyond housing and home finance to embrace all the profound problems to which enormous metropolitan concentrations of people give rise. A third benefit to be gained from Cabinet status would be greatly improved coordination of grants-in-aid, technical assistance, and information to the State and local governments on problems arising from urban growth. I fully expect that if given Cabinet status the agency would be enabled to interpret and enforce its mandate more broadly and provide a broader range of assistance to local governments than that possible under the present fractured responsibilities for urban problems spread out among a dozen or more Federal agencies. I would expect to see more research and information coming out of the Federal Government on such problems than in the past. Several years ago, for instance, the Senate became disturbed about the plight of the Nation's railroads. The Department of Commerce was concerned; so was the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Commerce Committee of the Senate has a standing jurisdiction over railroads. So it organized a study. Those of us who had been worried about a related problem-the plight of the commuter railroads—tried to make sure that urban mass transit problems would be covered in the general study that was organized. The answer was "No." States rights intervened. No department of Government had any interest at that time in what should be done about the really serious problems of commuter transportation. To be sure, we have come a considerable distance since then with passage of the Mass Transit Act and the current studies of the northeastern transportation corridor but that incident is symptomatic of the sort of shortsightedness to which the present, fractured responsibilities for urban affairs in the Federal Establishment can lead. ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS AGAINST BILL Now there are three issues most frequently raised in opposition to this proposal, each of them without any foundation. The first is that we are taking the first step toward establishment of a huge spending bureaucracy. Naturally, questions of new functions and new programs will arise in connection with the new Department. If they do not, it will call for an investigation, because I would expect the new Department to concern itself with some of the really pressing problems in the metropolitan areas which are not receiving attention at present. But such extensions of concern arise every year in connection with all departments. They arise now in connection with HHFA. In the last 3 years, for example, we have assigned mass transit and open space to HHFA even though they have nothing to do with either housing or home finance. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL NECESSARY The important point to remember is that every new program will have to come before Congress for approval. Does anyone seriously think we are going to roll over and play dead just because a Secretary instead of an administrator comes up to Capitol Hill to ask for an expansion of responsibility? The second issue raised against these bills is States rights. The argument goes something like this: it is up to the States to decide the future of their metropolitan areas and under this proposal the Federal Government would usurp that power. Nonsense. Every time Congress passes a new program it determines what special intergovernmental relationships will be involved. When we passed the Hill-Burton Act for hospital construction, we gave a major role to the States. When we passed antipollution bills we did the same. And the same goes for highways and welfare. Why? Because the States had strong agencies in these fields which could function effectively in helping to administer the program. RELATIONSHIPS WITH STATES UNCHANGED But few indeed are the States with strong agencies in the field of urban affairs. Indeed, the bias is most State capitols is against the metropolitan area in favor of the rural areas. So with the passage of the Housing Act of 1949, Congress made it possible for cities to come directly in HHFA for assistance. Changing HHFA to a Cabinet department would not alter that 15-year-old relationship one bit. It would merely continue a pattern adopted by Congress a decade and a half ago. LARGE CITIES NOT FAVORED The third issue raised against these bills is a bogus one: it charges that a Department of Housing and Urban Development would be biased in favor of the large cities. The record refutes that charge. Several years ago, I did a survey of HHFA activities. I found that of the 1,800 communities receiving urban planning assistance, 92 percent had populations under 25,000; about half of all those communities using urban renewal funds have less than 25,000 residents; almost 80 percent of communities with public housing programs are under 25,000 in population; our various public works assistance programs, as well as the Hill-Burton Act for construction of hospitals, were purposely written in favor of small communities; and over 30 percent of the colleges receiving college housing loans have fewer than 10,000 residents. In short, Mr. Chairman, there are no strong arguments against this bill. For 100 years, the farmers of America, who now account for only 7 percent of the population, have had a seat at the Cabinet table. It is not right that 150 million urban residents of the country are denied at least equal representation by a bill which authorizes no new expenditures, no new authority, and no expansion of governmental power. Senator CLARK. I will just summarize my views. |