which have previously existed. The President's decision to establish uniform regional boundaries and common regional office locations was one of three major steps toward a more rational pattern of delivery systems for services available through Federal grant programs. A second step is the expansion of the Federal regional council concept to all eight of the new regional centers to provide an institutional framework for greater coordination. Third, the President announced an interagency review and action program under Bureau of the Budget leadership to accomplish greater decentralization of decisionmaking. The President ordered these actions in response to a widespread national concern expressed by State and local officials and private citizens about the complexities of the mechanisms for utilizing Federal grant programs, especially when the representatives of related Federal agencies are scattered in different locations. Each of the five Federal agencies administered programs in Kentucky from a different city. Labor was in Chicago; HEW was in Charlottesville; HUD was in Atlanta; OEO was in Washington, D.C.; and SBA was in Philadelphia. Four of the agencies have managed programs in Kentucky through regions which also included North Carolina and three agencies through regions which included Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. Since North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland are part of the new region III with headquarters in Philadelphia, it was considered most appropriate to keep Kentucky in the same region. The President is launching these actions as a concerted effort to reduce Government redtape required in processing paperwork involved in Federal grant programs. We hope to simplify procedures and administrative requirements, achieve more uniformity and consistency in requirements for similar or related programs, and apply such mechanisms as joint funding and single-package applications for multiple-source grants where appropriate. Throughout these efforts, we expect to pay special attention to possibilities for relying more heavily on State and local governments in the administration of Federal programs. I am certain you can appreciate the difficulty of determining the most appropriate composition of each region. Your concern for the impact on Kentucky was shared by the President. Careful consideration was given to a variety of factors before the decision was made. These included location in the region, transportation patterns, population distribution, and others. A significant factor, therefore, was the accessibility of Philadelphia to all of the State capitals in the region. Because of its transportation systems, Philadelphia is most easily accessible to the State governments involved, although there are only a few direct flights from Louisville and Lexington-Frankfort. With best regards, Sincerely, The PRESIDENT, WILLIAM E. TIMMONS, Deputy Assistant to the President. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 31, 1969. The White House, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: While recognizing the advantages of common regional boundaries and common regional offices for five Federal agencies which you announced last week, I must respectfully disagree with this action in at least one important respect. This is the inclusion of my home State, Kentucky, in the new region III (Philadelphia.) In support of this position, I point out that the distance between many points in Kentucky and Philadelphia are very great, and that transportation arrangements are at best awkward and inconvenient. While I have not checked this out in minute detail, it is my immediate impression that there is not a single direct flight scheduled by any airline from any city in Kentucky to Philadelphia or vice versa. Moreover, the inclusion of Kentucky in a regional office that is also supervising Federal activities in Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Delaware is a virtual guarantee that its rurally oriented problems will be considered secondary in importance to those major urban problems afflicting the major cities dominating the other jurisdictions. While the situation presently obtaining has its drawbacks, Kentuckians at least could feel that the appropriate Federal officials in Chicago, Atlanta, Charlottesville, and Washington were reasonably close to the problem, and were concerned with areas reasonably homogeneous. During the past few years, Congress and the Executive branch have laid much stress on regional development. The Appalachian Regional Development Act is an example of this important concern. We have been able to stimulate a great deal of cooperative work between the several States of Appalachia, as well as between the States and the Federal Government through the Appalachian Regional Commission. I am somewhat dismayed to note that in the reorganization plan you announced on March 27, the States comprising the Appalachian region are fragmented into four separate regions. I recognize that this is not an overwhelming handicap and I would not propose that all of Appalachia be included in a single service region. I simply cite it as an instance in which homogeneity of concerns and problems appears to have been overlooked. I would hope, Mr. President, that you could delay final action in restructuring Government service systems, at least with respect to my State, until you have had time to review the objections and review all of the implications. Best wishes to you always. Sincerely, CARL D. PERKINS. Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Government Operations Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to join my colleagues in protesting the proposal for moving the Regional Office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from Charlottesville, Va. The Federal building in Charlottesville was constructed within the past few years for the purpose of accommodating the present offices of EW. This, of course, was constructed to administer HEW programs in Virginia, West Virginia, and surrounding States. It is my sincere hope the present facilities may continue at Charlottesville and not be moved if possible to the rented quarters in Philadelphia, Pa. Thanking you for your consideration, and with kind personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, HARLEY O. STAGGERS. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM B. SPONG, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express to the subcommittee my concern with respect to the proposal to consolidate the Charlottesville, Va., office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with a new region III headquarters in Philadelphia. I would like to endorse and associate myself with the remarks of my Virginia colleague, Congressman Marsh, in whose district Charlottesville is located. The efforts to make the Government function more efficiently are to be commended, but changes should be accomplished without the waste of either time or money. It has not been demonstrated to me that this consolidation can be accomplished either without such waste or without unnecessary inconvenience to the public. In a response to my initial inquiry concerning this move, I was advised by a member of the White House staff that one of the factors in the selection of Philadelphia was the relative accessibility of Charlottesville and Philadelphia to the State capitals in the region. It was also pointed out that consideration was being given to the consolidation of some of those activities now being performed in 90,000 square feet of space in 11 different leased locations into the 75,000 square feet to be vacated in the HEW building in Charlottesville. It appears that upon careful review the argument with respect to air travel cannot be documented. Apparently, the individuals making this study did not have complete information and therefore drew a conclusion which could only be based on inadequate information. Information developed by local interests in Charlottesville clearly indicates that the study by Federal officials failed to take into account travel time in Philadelphia from the airport to the HEW facility, the location of which apparently is still unknown, as well as the hourly air service available from Charlottesville to Washington. On the second point, Federal officials failed to take into account the type of Federal activities currently occupying leased space in Charlottesville which could not feasibly be transferred to the vacated HEW building. It seems pertinent to point out that from a cost standpoint neither this move, nor the consolidation of the Richmond regional subsistence headquarters with New York has been specifically justified. I hope that this subcommittee will look closely not only at the costs of these proposals but at the potential loss of efficiency. Once again I am grateful for this opportunity to express to you my deep concern with this proposal which in my judgment simply has not been justified. Thank you Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement in opposition to the proposed moving of the regional office of the Department_of Health, Education, and Welfare from Charlottesville, Va., to Philadelphia, Pa. Admittedly, we are living in a day of consolidation and change; but I believe my opposition to this proposed consolidation is sound and I will list my reasons which I hope will be considered by your committee. First, the physical facility in Charlottesville is adequate. Housing has been provided through contractual arrangement by GSA and private enterprise. I have not been assured that adequate space exists in the city of Philadelphia in like manner. The regional office in Charlottesville is serving the States of Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, and Kentucky. Geographically, Charlottesville is far more desirable than would be the city of Philadelphia. It has been stated that this move is suggested to effect economy and efficiency. This suggestion raises serious questions in ny mind. Certainly the consolidation will in no way reduce the number of employees nor affect any reduction in salaries. The North Carolina public schools have been in litigation with HEW regarding the Civil Rights Act as much or more than any other State. There is a constant stream of attorneys, school administrators, and other personnel traveling to and from Charlottesville in order to solve these problems. Each of these frequent trips, must be financed by local taxpayers from school budgets. So, obviously, this would be far more costly, travel, telephone, et cetera, for the people of North Carolina to travel to Philadelphia than it would be to Charlottesville. So, when the theory of economy is advanced, I think we should consider the overall situation as it affects all concerned. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask that your committee give serious consideration to opposing this proposal of the relocation of the HEW regional office. Thank you for permitting me to include these brief remarks in the record. STATEMENT OF HON. WILMER D. MIZELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for permitting me to submit this statement for the record in connection with the proposal to move the regional office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from Charlottesville, Va., to Philadelphia, Pa., for this is a matter of genuine concern to me and to many of my constituents. Mr. Chairman, only 3 years ago, a modern five-story office building was constructed in Charlottesville under contracts placed by the General Services Administration at a cost of $2 million for the specific purpose of housing the facilities of the regional office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This building was designed to meet the needs of this regional office, and more than 400 experienced personnel now work there. At the same time, while it is proposed to move this regional office to Philadelphia, no vacant government-owned office space is available for this facility in that city. Rented quarters might be found; however, this only adds extra taxes to our already over-burdened taxpayer. At a time when the emphasis is on reducing Federal expenditures and especially nonessential expenses, this doesn't make good economic sense. More importantly than this facet of this proposal, however, is the fact that an office now centrally located in the region it serves will be moved into another State which is not now a part of that region and which will not be assigned to the region. Although modern transportation and communication media have done much to collapse time and distance, it is still important, I think, to make these facilities as accessible as possible to those who must use them. Charlottesville, being in a central location, can be reached from any point in the region presently served in the space of a very short time, while individuals who must use these facilities will now have to travel a much greater distance at more cost to accomplish their purposes. I respectfully call upon the members of this committee to reexamine this question carefully before approving this move. Under the circumstances, I fail to understand the reasoning which prompted the proposal in the first place-certainly, not economy nor convenience to the public. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank A. Stubblefield and I represent the First Congressional District of the State of Kentucky. I am appearing before your subcommittee today to voice my opposition to the President's governmental-reorganization plan which is allegedly designed to realine regional boundaries and which would take my State of Kentucky out of the Atlanta region and place it in the region served by Philadelphia. For the information of the committee, I submit the following letters which I recently addressed to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and which I would like to have made a part of the record of these hearings: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April 16, 1969. Hon. GEORGE W. ROMNEY, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, DEAR MR. SECRETARY: It has been brought to my attention just recently that the President announced his decision to relocate a number of regional offices of Federal agencies, many of which affect my First Congressional District of the State of Kentucky. The contemplated move of the regional office for the Department of Housing and Urban Development is of particular concern to me. For a number of years now, since the days when housing and utility project proposals for urban areas were being studied by consultant engineers for the old Housing and Home Finance Agency, my constituency has had an excellent working relationship with officials of what is presently your department. We have enjoyed a rapport that unquestionably has resulted in very efficient and effective service to the business and professional segments of our district. I am representing many engineering firms, local government officials, and professional people in my area by protesting the proposal presently under considera tion in moving the HUD regional office from Atlanta to Philadelphia. A reversal of this decision on your part, Mr. Secretary, is not only requested but keenly urged. Your comments will be appreciated. A copy of this letter is being sent to President Nixon in order that he may be made aware of my views also. Sincerely, Hon. ROBERT H. FINCH, FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April 16, 1969. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Just recently it has come to my attention that the President has announced his decision to relocate a number of regional offices of Federal agencies, many of which affect my First Congressional District of the State of Kentucky. I am particularly distressed over the contemplated move of the HEW regional office from Charlottesville, Va., to Philadelphia, which would place my State in an entirely new region. As you know, within the last 5 years, the Congress authorized and appropriated nearly $2 million to construct a five-story Federal building at Charlottesville for the very purpose of accommodating the present offices of HEW in order to serve this region that covers a number of States. I am strongly aware that we live in a computer age and I certainly am a firm advocate of technological advance. However, because I feel that our first responsibility is to serve in the best manner possible the people on the local level through these regional offices, and also in the interest of economy, I request and even urge a reversal of the recent decision. Your comments will be appreciated. A copy of this letter is being sent to President Nixon in order that he also may know of my views. Sincerely, FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Mr. Chairman, I find no argument with the desirability for conterminous boundaries and the goal of efficiency and effectiveness in government; however, I am convinced that this contemplated move would bring greater operational cost to the entire region and specifically the States of Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Should the President's proposal be effected, Kentucky would be placed in region III with headquarters in Philadelphia for five major Federal agencies: the Department of Labor; the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Small Business Administration; and the Office of Economic Opportunity. Such a move would greatly inconvenience the people of Kentucky and particularly my constituency in the western part of the State, as it is practically impossible to get a direct plane connection to Philadelphia from anywhere in Kentucky. Furthermore, the city being chosen as the new regional headquarters is in a State that was not in the original area served. Of particular concern to me, for a number of reasons, is the proposal to transfer the HEW_regional office from its present location in Charlottesville to Philadelphia. In the past 5 years, in order to accommodate the regional headquarters for HEW at Charlottesville, a modern, five-story building was erectedplanned for HEW purposes and authorized to be constructed for their use at a cost of $2 million. The economic waste and loss which will result to the Federal Government itself by the sudden abandonment by HEW of its building which was designed for exclusive use by HEW seems to me totally impractical. Further, there will be an adverse effect upon the services previously provided by HEW within this region. The regional headquarters for this area, if transferred to Philadelphia, would no longer be readily accessible to the State and local |