Congressman Randall and Congressman Bolling they referred to approximately two-thirds of the population that would be served by area seven is in the Kansas City area, not Denver. We are not trying to get into a fight with Denver, Colo. Denver is certainly a wonderful town. In the plan that I have suggested, Denver would become a regional center and would serve the States in its immediate area, and we think would do a very fine job.

Mr. ERLENBORN. What area will be served by the center in Denver or Kansas City?

Mr. WINN. Under the President's plan? It would be 11 States, Congressman Erlenborn.

Mr. ERLENBORN. And is your proposal merely to change the location of the regional center, or would you change the area to be served? Mr. WINN. Basically it would be the same area, but I would break it down with Kansas City remaining a regional center, and Denver becoming a regional center. Kansas City would then serve six States with the highest population of that group, and Denver would be serving five States.

Mr. ERLENBORN. In effect what you are doing is dividing the region into two?

Mr. WINN. Right.

Might I, for the record, Mr. Chairman, submit a map of my proposed plan which, as I said, is based on the Civil Service Commission map, with few exceptions.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Without objection, that will be included in the record. (The map referred to follows:)

Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. The one question I had, Mr. Bolling, maybe you could answer. Plate 4 in this book shows regional population distribution by 1985-the circles surrounding Kansas City and Denver. What is the presumed mileage from the center of each of these cities to the perimeter of that circle?

Mr. BOLLING. I think that is a 300-mile circle.

I will ask to be sure that I am correct.

That is correct. The basic author of the document or the coordinator of the document is the person I queried. To show the nature of this he has been employed by the county of Jackson, and he prepared this basically for the mayor of Kansas City. So we have had some total cooperation, as I mentioned in my testimony; 300 miles.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. And the conclusion I draw from reading that is that by 1985 the Kansas City area will have a substantially higher population than the Denver area.

Mr. BOLLING. I think that is a correct conclusion. And the fundamental basis of our argument is that we have the population, and we will have the population, and we have the problem that these agencies deal with, and we have and will have, in my judgment, a substantially larger share of the Federal money expended by these agencies to solve these problems of the people that live there.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Bolling, how do you assess the administration's reasons and motivation for making this move?

Mr. BOLLING. The reason that I take the rather mild position that I do in this hearing is that I happen to be familiar, as I have brought out, with the fact that the Bureau of the Budget and other agencies of Government have been struggling with this problem, I believe, since the Roosevelt administration. And there has been a constant effort to come up with the boundaries that would result in conforming regional boundaries among agencies. And it is an extraordinarily difficult problem, it is a difficult problem objectively, and it is a difficult problem politically; we might as well face the facts, it is a difficult problem politically.

So far, this is the umpteenth attempt. I am not expert enough, with the number of attempts that have been made in one level or another, to do it. The basis for this, which I happen to believe is in error, the basis for argument for this region is the proximity of the regional center proposed, Denver, to the State capitals. I happen to think that while that is significant, that it cannot compare in importance with the location of the population. And, of course, we hear so much about the problems of the Nation that we call urban problems today, the locations of the major cities. And I think that you have one theory, with which I clearly disagree, which has a certain validity as opposed to another theory, one with which I agree. And I think that the approach that was taken can be argued for on a basis which I do not consider the fundamental basis.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much.

I think we also want to recognize and acknowledge the presence of Congressman Byron Rogers from Denver. We are pleased that you are with us this morning, Mr. Rogers,

Mr. ROGERS. I am highly interested in the welfare of the city and county of Denver. That is why I am here.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. We thought that was the reason.

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, who notified this gentleman of this meeting?

May I just make an additional comment? The growth, as it has been projected by the study down the road as far as population is concerned, will leave the so-called five eastern States of the proposed regional center and the western section of it in substantially the same balance that they are today, the projection of the population down to, I believe it is 2,000 in one instance, certainly down in 1985, and will not disturb the present preponderance of the population in the eastern section.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether this will be the only day of hearings. Hopefully not. My colleague, Dick Bolling, who has been working very hard on this, who is very knowledgeable, has been here many years and knows about this. He said it goes back to the Roosevelt days. I would hope that if we find it necessary to go deeply into these previous proposals, and we find that in several instances these have been recommended against by some of those who may still be in the Bureau of the Budget today, that we carefully find the reasons that they were recommended against back in former years.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. They probably had a change of heart.

Thank you very much.

And now we would be very pleased to hear from Congressman John Marsh of Virginia.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN 0. MARSH, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. MARSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful to you and to this subcommittee for undertaking this hearing today in reference to the proposed regional alinement.

In reference to the proposed move involving HEW facilities in region 3, I would point out that a number of members of the Virginia delegation have indicated their interest in filing a statement before this committee in support of the views that I believe I will express here. And in that regard I would like to request the chairman's permission for Senator Spong to file a statement. His office has indicated that he will file a statement.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Without objection, we will keep the record open until we receive those statements.

Mr. MARSH. And there are representatives of other congressional offices, staff representatives, in the hearing room today.

In reference to this question, ours is one that relates a great deal to geography on the proposed realinement of region 3. And I think the first question that we would ask in reference to consolidation is, No. 1, is this the best way to effect a consolidation?

Secondly, if it is the best way, is this the best place; namely, Philadelphia? And before we try to answer those questions, I think the very basic question is, will a consolidation of this type work; and secondly, how much will it cost?

Now, in reference to my own statement, I would invite the subcommittee's attention to the map on your left. Currently the proposed boundaries of the new region 3 would include the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

And it is interesting to note that one of the principal reasons advanced concerning the Kansas City versus Denver move is one of centrality, so to speak, geographically.

The State of Pennsylvania has not been in region 3 for HEW purposes. The new proposed regional offices will be located at Philadelphia. And I invite your attention to the map and ask that you consider the long distances that must be traveled from those areas, particularly of Kentucky and of North Carolina, in order to obtain central regional services in Pennsylvania as opposed to the present HEW facilities headquarters which is located just about at the present geographic center of the region at Charlottesville, Va.

My point is that I think many of these consolidations and realinements look much better on paper than they do in actual practice, and that the efficiencies that are reflected on paper and the budget savings that are reflected on paper are very frequently found to be rather illusory and unreal as to savings or contributions to efficiency when they are implemented.

I particularly invite the committee's attention to the present facilities at Charlottesville, Va. I have a photograph here that I would like to present to the committee for them to look at. The present HEW facilities in Charlottesville that employ about 450 to 460 people consist of two buildings. In one of these buildings, an older building, the headquarters were established, as I recall, about 1956. Currently, 125 employees work in that "annex." In the 1960's, for the purposes of constructing a new regional facility in Charlottesville, Va., the General Services Administration was authorized and given the authority and the appropriation to build a new regional headquarters for the HEW region to be located at Charlottesville, Va.

The original facility had a cost of about $460,000. The new facility was constructed at a cost of about $2 million for the building, probably slightly in excess of $2 million. This facility, built for this special purpose, has not yet been in use for a period of 3 years.

It was dedicated in June of 1966. That building is officially not 3 years old. Now, we are confronted with a suggestion that in effect would abandon this regional headquarters that was constructed for this purpose and move this facility and many of its key people to the city of Philadelphia.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. What would they do with the building?

Mr. MARSH. This is one of the interesting questions that I think needs to be answered. Because what will happen to this buildingthere is not yet an answer that has been furnished as to what will become of the building. Assurances have been made to the area that the facility will not be moved until an adequate use can be found for the building. However, this does not mean that it will be on a 1-to-1 ratio; that is, if you move one employee out that he would be replaced by one employee.

I have further understood that an effort will be made to relocate there some type of HEW operations. Now, what they will be I am not familiar with.

Now, I also further understand that if this facility is moved to Philadelphia that there are not presently available Federal structures in which they can be housed. So this means that when the facilities go to Philadelphia it is going to be necessary in a metropolitan area, one of the heavily populated areas of the United States, to obtain rented facilities.

And I am also given to understand that it not only will be necessary to obtain new rented facilities for HEW, but you are going to have to obtain new rented facilities for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and maybe some of the other agencies that will go into this new regional headquarters.

Mr. Chairman, this raises very serious questions, in my opinion, as to the economy, and the efficiency of the move, the efficiency from the standpoint of its geographic location, and its economy from the standpoint of abandonment of present facilities and the acquisition of new rented facilities.

I also have reason to believe that the General Services Administration did not play a key part in the original recommendations for this move, and that GSA is currently now having to make the necessary effort to do two things. No. 1, to acquire the necessary space in Philadelphia for all of the new regional agencies, or for a substantial portion of them; and, secondly, try to find an alternate use for a modern $2 million-plus Federal building less than 2 years old in Charlottesville, Va.

This raises the question, I think, in the nature of our times, the inflationary system, and the nature of our economy, whether or not it is both economical and efficient.

Now, one of the great arguments that is advanced for regionalization or central regionalization is the need for intercommunication and coordination between Federal agencies. I think that one of the principal reasons for this regionalization plan is the influence of a comparatively new department of Government, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I think this has had a very substantial factor in these plans.

And yet we are letting dictate, in a major reorganizational structure of the Nation's Government and its service to the people, affecting several major departments, a department that has a very vital mission, and is having its own organizational difficulties in launching its own programs.

And, consequently, it seems to me, that to orient a regional organization around the operation of a new Federal department that is in itself experiencing some growing pains may in the long run prove to have been a disastrous decision.

As an alternative that has been suggested-and I would point out here that although I have some knowledge of the attitude of very key and experienced Federal career employees in HEW, and their reluctance to want to move, yet these people have not had a personal conference with me from the standpoint of giving me certain background