We also strongly support the directives to the Secretary of the new Department to "conduct continuing comprehensive studies, and make available findings, with respect to the problems of housing and urban development" and to "encourage comprehensive planning by the State and local governments."

In closing, I would like to state that the National Housing Conference is fully in accord with the broad statement of policy contained in section 2(a) of H.R. 6433; this is an eloquent and accurate statement of the problems and objectives in urban affairs and housing. We have one suggestion to advance for the consideration of this commitee; namely, the inclusion in this policy statement of the following clause: "the promotion of orderly, efficient, and economic land uses." While this objective is implicit in many of the other objectives recited in the policy statement, we believe it is of sufficent importance to sound community development as to merit specific mention.

Throughout the country there is mounting concern over the condition of our cities and the unplanned course of urbanization. There is evident a willingness to commit local resources and leadership to the extent necessary to bring the forces of growth under control and guide them along constructive lines. There are signs of a determination to rid the cities of their slums and provide a decent level of housing for all people.

Communities throughout the country look for continued, responsible leadership on the part of the Federal Government in carrying out the work that must be done. That leadership can be provided only if the responsibilities of the Government in this field are given the recognition and the status that goes with a Cabinet-rank Department. If this step is taken, we believe it would be such a stimulus to the whole country that we would see develop hereafter a new great effort on the part of all our people to build the basis for an urban civilization entirely worthy of this Nation's highest aspirations.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Despres is still with us. I hope he can wait a few minutes with us.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Addonizio, of New Jersey, asked that a statement on the bill to create a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing be put into the record.

The National Retail Lumber Dealers Association asked that a statement on the bill be put in the record.

The Honorable Congressman Farbstein, of New York, has a statement.

And the Chamber of Commerce of the United States has a statement.

And various and other sundry statements should be submitted. (The documents referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. HUGH J. ADDONIZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to present by views on pending legislation to create a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing.

Advocacy of more adequate representation of the urban point of view in the Federal Government is not a recent phenomenon. In the early 1950's, the National Housing Conference proposed the establishment of a Department of Housing and Urban Development; and almost half a century ago, an issue of American City contained a proposal for the creation of a Department of Municipalities. Yet, since the 83d Congress when the first legislation was submitted for congressional action, very little progress has been chalked up to the cause of better coordination and administration of programs affecting urban population. The creation of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs and the formation of numerous committees and councils such as the Advisory Committee of Mayors, have been helpful, but limited in scope and virtually without any authority to take affirmative action.

Urban problems, however, have been growing in both depth and breadth to the point that many of the vital centers of economic energy are currently

1 January 1912 (Kates).

plagued with disordered growth, obsolescence and decay, at the same instance when revenues are being absorbed faster than financial sources can be found. I am convinced that coordinated action and research at the Federal Cabinet level would do much to facilitate more orderly development of urban areas and more efficient use and distribution of revenues. Such coordination is implicit in my bill, H.R. 2389, which proposes the establishment of a Department of Urban Affairs as well as in other proposals (such as H.R. 6433 introduced by Mr. Fascell) which have been presented to the Congress. A seat at the Federal domestic policymaking table for local government is long overdue, and it would be close to disastrous if this session of Congress failed to provide a means for coordinating Federal programs concerned with urban problems and growth. It is clear to me that the current piecemeal approach to the redevelopment of central cities and the development of metropolitan areas, is not achieving either the social or the economic goals which should be attained. It is equally clear that the governmental arrangements for coping with problems of urban growth are in part responsible for the failure to achieve orderly development of the metropolitan areas.

Urban blight has been in evidence in the cities, and in some of their older surrounding areas for several decades; more recent suburban development has been unplanned and uncontrolled, and the results are painful to behold. Excessive density of land use and incompatible uses of the land have made some of the urban areas complete hodgepodges of industry, business, and residential neighborhoods and settlements.

The finger of blame cannot be pointed at any one level of government or any particular program, all share in the responsibility for past mistakes, all will be accountable for any future mistakes, and all must strive to achieve socially desirable and economically stable urban communities. The Federal Government, however, has a heavy responsibility for the well-being of urban centers-the centers of economic activity. The Federal Government's responsibility for the urban population today assumes even greater proportions than prevailed when it became necessary and expedient to establish a Department of Agriculture for the purpose of fostering agricultural development and improving the lot of the rural population. I say greater, because the country is today not an agricultural country, but a complicated, diverse economy. Agriculture is basic and important, but agricultural income represents only about 10 percent of total personal income and rural population (both farm and nonfarm) is but 30 percent of the total population of the country. In 1860, rural population comprised 80 percent of the U.S. total.

The fact is, the U.S. economy and character is no longer rural in nature, but distinctly and overwhelmingly urban. Our governmental structures on the other hand, are still largely farm-oriented-they have not kept pace with the demands and needs of advancing technology. The county still attempts to handle its problems separately from those of its urban centers; the city and its suburbs do not fully cooperate with one another, and many State governments fail adequately to recognize the significance and impact of urban growth. One of the most glaring deficiences in governmental structure exists within the Federal Government. I have reference to the present agglomeration of Federal officials, bureaus, councils, and committees concerned with separate aspects of urban affairs, which does so much to contribute to the confusion of objectives and accomplishments in the area of urban development. The administrators of the several Federal programs of assistance have made attempts to coordinate their work, but under the presently constituted organizational patterns, the results have been disappointingly negligible.

A classic example of the problems resulting from the present setup exists in my own district. The approval by the Bureau of Public Roads of the Commerce Department of the elevated design of the East-West Freeway has been vigorously opposed by local officials as jeopardizing the objectives of the urban renewal programs which of course, are the concern of the Housing Agency. The joint steering committee of the Housing Agency and the Commerce Department was established primarily to assist in the coordination of the comprehensive planning activities of the two agencies but it is powerless to iron out conflicts in their respective programs. Interagency committees in the executive branch cannot as a rule take decisions that supplant the legal responsibilities of the agency officials, and hence no coordinated action on individual projects can be secured. The result is that Federal funds are being used to improve our urban areas with housing and other programs which are then confronted with irre

parable damage from federally financed highway designs. It is an intolerable situation.

Federal Government aids of a financial and technical nature are available to local and State governments in several major areas concerned with urban living. There is a vast program of housing and urban renewal under the jurisdiction of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, there are aids for waste treatment plants, water supply facilities, highway construction and public works planning-to name but a few. But most of these programs are neither legislatively nor administratively related to one another. At a minimum, a city mayor must communicate and consult with at least four separate Federal offices in order to undertake just one small redevelopment project. Under these circumstances delays, mistakes and unnecessary expenses are practically unavoidable.

The establishment of a Federal Department of Urban Affairs, with administrative machinery geared to the overall development of urban communities is the answer to the dilemma facing local government officials, for at least four logical reasons:

First, confusion and loss of time would be minimized if current Federal programs of assistance were properly coordinated;

Secondly, officials and planners of interested communities could have available to them the results of broad research and the experience of other urban areas, as well as specific technical advice and consultation on individual problems;

Thirdly, State and county governments could better assist the local communities in meeting their problems and assuring orderly growth and expansion of industry, as well as residential settlements; and

Fourth, there will be less overlapping of governmental functions within each level of government and clearer lines of responsibility and action will be possible between government levels.

A Federal Department of Urban Affairs, such as envisioned under my bill, H.R. 2389, and others now pending before the Congress, would accord recognition to the country's changing social and economic pattern which necessitates the modernization and updating of metropolitan areas. I urge this committee to act favorably upon this legislative proposal and report it to the House promptly.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. ELSE, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS ASSOCIATION

My name is John H. Else and the following statement is presented on behalf of the National Retail Lumber Dealers Association.

The 30,000 retail lumber and building material dealers of the Nation are vitally interested in construction, particularly in home construction.

As this committee knows, the Federal Housing Administration has, for over a quarter of a century, aided the homebuyer in obtaining long-term credit for the purchase of a home at reasonable interest rates and under convenient terms. All this has been accomplished without a drain on the Treasury.

The FHA has become a symbol of cooperation between the Government and private enterprise.

H.R. 6433, a bill to establish a new Department of Urban Affairs and Housing is now being considered by this committee.

The National Retail Lumber Dealers Association, its 32 State and regional associations, and its member-dealers are vigorously opposed to this legislation. Everyone is interested in owning his own home whether he resides in a large metropolitan area, a small town, or a rural area.

We submit that the proponents of this legislation seem to be more interested in projecting the Federal Government further into urban renewal, mass transportation, public housing and other subsidized programs in metropolitan areas than they are in aiding, through private enterprises, the purchase of homes.

There are those who are constantly urging the Central Government to assume additional duties and responsibilities of local communities.

To create a new department of Cabinet rank would provide an umbrella under which any number of so-called humanitarian or welfare programs of large cities could be transferred from the city to the Federal Government at the expense of all taxpayers whether they receive any benefit or not from such programs.

For Congress to create such a department would be tantamount to approval of the trend of more and more Federal responsibility and less and less responsibility by cities over matters purely local in character.

The ultimate result would, in my opinion, be that time-tested housing programs in the Federal Housing Administration would be downgraded in importance in the new department and the federally subsidized programs would receive greater emphasis. This we believe to be wrong.

The bill would eliminate the Federal Housing Administration as an agency and substitute therefor a Secretary. It is assumed that the Secretary would have to be acceptable to those who are constantly asking for more and more Federal subsidies for local programs.

Approval of this bill would, I believe, be an acknowledgment by Congress that the Government has not been doing enough in these areas and that these programs should be expanded.

We submit that as long as there are Federal funds provided for local programs there is little incentive for the cities and towns receiving Federal funds to do the job themselves.

Once the precedent is established that there is a Federal responsibility to aid in the solution of new additional local problems it is merely a matter of time before such Federal programs are made permanent and are expanded.

We recognize that each large city has its problems peculiar to its locality created by urban "sprawl" and other local conditions. However, small towns and rural areas also have their problems, perhaps of a different nature but just as important to the people residing in the smaller communities.

We do not want to leave the impression that we are not sympathetic to the many serious problems confronting metropolitan areas.

We are only suggesting that to expand the Federal responsibility in these areas particularly when the Government is faced with a sizable budget deficit is not sound.

The bill before the committee would, according to its terms, attempt to consolidate those programs dealing with metropolitan areas and housing, but the bill fails to bring into the proposed new department very important Government housing programs now under the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the Veterans' Administration.

If the proponents of this legislation are serious in their efforts to create one central department for housing programs of the Government then the bill is deficient in that it omits two of the largest Government housing programs.

It would seem logical that either these two programs should be brought into the new department or that Congress should retain the identity of the Federal Housing Administration by setting it apart from the new department as a separate agency solely as a mortgage-insuring agency.

Without the inclusion of the VA and the Home Loan Bank Board in the new department the argument of sponsors of the bill that the object of the bill is to coordinate the various housing programs of the Government is misleading.

We believe that the members of this committee have too much respect for the programs of FHA to do anything which would jeopardize the future soundness and usefulness of these excellent programs.

We respectfully urge the committee to reject the proposed legislation to establish a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD FARBSTEIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present my views regarding the need to establish a U.S. Department of Urban Affairs. In addition to the logic of creating such a Department, I also am congnizant of the importance of a full study and investigation of metropolitan problems in all of their ramifications. For this reason, my bill, H.R. 5346, goes a step further than the administration's bill, and some of the other bills under consideration in these hearings. H.R. 5346 not only provides for the creation of a Department of Urban Affairs, but it includes authority to set up a Commission on Metropolitan Problems and Urban Development. This Commission would be charged with the responsibility for a thorough study and investigation of the problems of municipalities and the dilemmas of metropolitan expansion.

Metropolitan problems have been described able fashion during the past decade or so.

and redescribed in every conceivSome of the phrases used to em

phasize the scope and magnitude of these problems have been used so often that at this point in time they have become somewhat shopworn. However, any way you describe it, regardless of the semantics, most urban areas today are beset with complications brought about by the increased use of the automobile; the expanding urban populations and the changing character of the majority of city dwellers; coupled with governmental structures which have not adjusted to the changing picture and are thus ill equipped to meet many of the complicated problems. There are also indications that the increasing and varied array of Federal Government programs, each administered separately and distinctly from the other, may have had some detrimental impact on urban communities. This situation cannot be tolerated.

Mr. Chairman, there are several logical and cogent reasons for this new Cabinet post. Some of those who are opposed to the establishment of a Department of Urban Affairs have expressed the fear that establishing such a Federal agency would serve to increase and fortify the Federal Government's reputed "interference" with the affairs of the lower levels of government. A more objective assumption, in my estimation, is that the existence of a specialized Federal agency, designed for the express purpose of coordinating Federal assistance programs, would result in less centralization of authority; instead, a desirable centralization of information sources and expert technical advice and consultation would result. A Federal Department of Urban Affairs would create a focal point for urban problems; a clearing house for research studies on all phases of urban growth and development; and a service organization to assist State and local governments in the delineation of problems and the formation of methods and techniques for handling overall planning and development as well as specific details.

There is still another important function which could be of major significance to metropolitan communities-that is the formulation of programs designed to be administered on a regional basis. Many of the country's metropolitan areas today, not only cross city and county lines, they spill over into several States as well. Currently only a small fraction of the Federal programs are geared to regional problems. There are some excellent instances of cooperative action between States which have common problems, but the Federal Government has done very little to encourage this type of cooperative effort. A Department of Urban Affairs could keep the Congress abreast with the need for legislative action to facilitate regional solutions to problems, and to assist in regional planning activities which would minimize some of the complications which have arisen from the attempts by separate governmental units to handle problems which are clearly regional in scope. In other words, a Department of Urban Affairs would foster the cooperative action of governmental levels when such concerted action was logical and expedient, but would also help to draw more distinct lines of responsibility between levels of government, and among similar levels of government.

There has long been a need to undertake comprehensive studies and investigations of revenue policies of State and local governments, as well as those Federal revenue policies whose impact is felt by State and local governments. I propose that, along with studies in other significant subject areas, a Commission on Metropolitan Problems and Urban Development undertake to iron out these revenue problems. The membership structure of the Commission-Federal department and agency heads, Governors of States, and heads of metropolitan and municipal governments-makes it a suitable body to achieve some constructive results. I trust that most of the other Members of the Congress will share this thinking and will vote in favor of establishing this Commission. The work of the Commission could assist immeasurably in formulating efficient functional lines in the Department of Urban Affairs and in guiding legislative action by the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, the complexity of the results of rapid urban growth and expansion, and the importance of orderly social and economic development and improvement of urban areas makes it imperative that urban interests be specifically represented at the Federal Cabinet level. Only through the cooperative efforts of governmental levels and the coordination of the many and varied Federal programs and activities can the cities of the Nation continue to efficiently serve in their traditional role as centers of economic activity and cultural advancement.