tionship? Is this legislation designed to achieve, or could it result in a simple concentration of all major governmental functions in the Federal Government which would deal directly with the local political subdivisions?

Suggested course of action: What I have asked or said is not to be construed as opposition and despair. We recognize the complexity of local problems. We need and want advice and help from the Federal Government. We feel there is great room for constructive planning and improvement. We may question the wisdom of the form, but, in turn, we do have constructive suggestions:

(1) We subscribe wholeheartedly to the needs for the Federal coordination in solving the massive problems of our urban areas.

(2) There is at the present time an Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. We suggest that consideration be given to the elevation of this body to the status of a full-time, fully manned arm of the executive branch. It may be that the executive head of this Commission should sit at the Cabinet table and enjoy simulated Cabinet rank just as does the head of the Bureau of the Budget and the head of the Housing and Home Finance Agency.

We suggest that, as a special assistant to the President of the United States, such a man can, as the direct spokesman of the President, more effectively coordinate the work of the departments and agencies that are concerned with urban affairs.

(3) We strongly urge that all levels of government concerned today with urban problems be represented at the President's council table so that none of the residents of the suburban areas, where our Nation's major growth is centered, are left without a voice at the council table of the President.

(4) We recommend that there be established a joint committee of this Congress to aid in the development of and to implement the policies of this proposed legislation. Such a joint committee should undertake studies of urban problems and should make recommendations on the approach to and solution of such problems.

Conclusion: The recognition of the plight of the urban areas has been expressed by Republican as well as Democratic national leadership. Now, with the sympathetic hearing that interested parties are receiving from this Congress, urban areas for the first time have fervent hopes that in our lifetime we may begin to see the solutions to many of the problems that beset us.

When one considers the frustrating series of circumstances which have faced our major cities in recent decades, the ceaseless demand for more and improved services, the exodus of the more affluent citizens to the suburbs, the crisis in transportation and highways, all these coupled frequently with unresponsive and unsympathetic State legislatures which refuse to grant adequate taxing and legislative powers, it is understandable why representatives of these cities and suburban areas need a closer and more effective relationship with the Federal Government.

But the major problems of our urban and suburban areas, however, will not automatically be solved by such a device without closer intergovernmental cooperation developed within the basic framework of our Federal system. Further weakening of the authority of the State and county governments by bypassing them to permit cities to deal

directly with the Federal Government will only further dilute the strength of all local governments.

The Federal Government can perform a valuable service in helping local urban governments meet their needs. This help is needed and this help is desired. In our view it can effectively be provided by working through the existing levels of government.

President Kennedy has said repeatedly that our best defense abroad is a strong and vital America at home. To a large extent our strength at home is no greater than the strength of our State and local governments. The Congress should carefully weigh the long-range effect on State and local governments of the proposal to establish a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing. Such a proposal must reinforce, not weaken, the urban and State governments of the United States.

Thank you very much. And now, if Mr. Hillenbrand may give his statement.

Chairman DAWSON. Are you for or against H.R. 6433?

Mr. FROSH. We are interested, Mr. Chairman, as I have said in my statement, that there be closer coordination and cooperation between the departments. We are not convinced that the creation of a Secretary of Urban Affairs and Housing is the answer. Rather, we feel that consideration should be given to the establishment of an executive assistant to the President more in the nature of the status of the Bureau of the Budget at the present time, and we feel that this would be preferable.

Chairman DAWSON. We have some very distinguished guests with us from Finland, who came in to listen to our discussions here this morning.

Won't you come up and have seats, gentlemen?

STATEMENT OF COL. B. B. McMAHON, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED), ALEXANDRIA, VA.

Mr. MCMAHON. As their spokesman, I will say that they will be able to stay only 3 or 4 minutes, just to see what a committee looks like. These gentlemen are all from Finland. They are the city managers and town managers of some of the most important cities in Finland. We have Mr. Tuuli here, who is, in addition, a member of the Finnish Parliament.

We have the president of the Association of Finnish Cities, and the president of the Finnish Association of Rural Communities.

Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that many Members of the Congress have very warm spots in their hearts for Finland, because we are not unmindful of the fact that Finland is the only country loaned money who has ever paid back money loaned to it by the United States.

If in your travels, you can spread that gospel among other nations, it will be very helpful to the United States. We are very proud of the relationships this country has had with the people of Finland, and we have high respect for the Finnish people and the Government of Finland.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would merely like to say that it was my pleasure to visit Helsinki, which is the capital of Finland, of course, not too many weeks or months ago, and I was certainly most

impressed with what I saw there as far as it being a very clean and modern and up-to-date city. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to welcome these foreign visitors to our meeting.

Chairman DAWSON. And if you would like to ask some questions of the witness, feel free to do so.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD F. HILLENBRAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS

Mr. HILLENBRAND. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of county governments, I hope they don't ask us any questions about how we can pay our own debts.

Mr. Chairman, we are very grateful to you for your kind invitation to appear here today on behalf of our National Association of County Officials.

My name is Bernard F. Hillenbrand, and I am the executive director of National Association of County Officials, and I appear this morning in the absence of Edwin Michaelian who is a member of our board of directors and who is the elected executive of Westchester County in New York. He was, unfortunately, unable to attend this morning. So I am pinch hitting for him.

NACO, directly or through our State associations of county officials in 44 States, represents elected and appointed policymaking officials in nearly every county in the United States.

Now the legislation before your committee proposes that Congress, with the approval of the President, promulgate à far-reaching, comprehensive national policy for housing and urban affairs. A Cabinet rank of Urban Secretary would be created to make urban studies; develop and recommend to the President urban policies; coordinate urban activities and provide technical assistance and leadership to States and localities in urban affairs.

NACO has considered this matter carefully, most recently on August 17, 1960, in Miami Beach, in Congressman Fascell's district, Miami Beach, Fla., and we have reaffirmed our statement which reads as follows:

Whenever possible, dealings between county and other local governments and the Federal Government should be channeled through an appropriate State agency. We oppose the establishment of a Federal Department of Urban Affairs on the grounds that it would further weaken the States and would tend to create an unwieldly bureaucracy of the type found in many foreign countries.

I might add that our national association has never taken a position or held any discussions on the question of whether we should create a department of housing. This is not a subject that we have considered.

You asked what our position was. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is summarized in these two paragraphs.

While we recognize and strongly support the need for continuing Federal participation in the staggering problems of urbanization, we believe that first priority is for the Federal, State and local governments to jointly develop a continuing national urban policy that identifies and implements the respective roles of each level of government and of private citizens in urban affairs. This should perhaps be the responsibility of the existing congressionally created and presidentially appointed advisory commission on intergovernmental rela

tions whose representatives are from all levels of government and the public.

There is also a need for continual study and redefinition of the particular role of the National Government, and we respectfully suggest that Congress may wish to consider the creation of a joint congressional committee on urban affairs. Finally, there is urgent need to coordinate the administration of literally hundreds of Federal urban activities that are and must continue to be scattered among every single Federal agency. This responsibility rests constitutionally with the President. We would suggest that the Executive Office of the President be greatly strengthened by the creation of a special Urban Assistant to the President and that he be provided with suffiicient staff and free access to the Cabinet table. This could develop into a Bureau of Urban Affairs comparable to the Bureau of the Budget, a staff area of the President in the Executive Office of the President.

Now, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, we would like to examine the present bill and some of the arguments advanced by proponents of a Department of Urban Affairs.

There are many statements in the proposed national urban policy statement in section 2 of this bill with which our NACO members, urban and rural, would heartily agree. Our association continues to support Federal aid for urban renewal, community facilities, airports, planning grants, water pollution control, air pollution control, urban highways and many other projects. Some of the proposed policy statements, however, like those on mass transit, open space cultural goals have not been considered by our officals. Many, we might add, are under careful study by other committees of Congress. Our point is that in considering our national urban policy we think that it is important that all levels of government have a part. As evidence of our counties' deep involvement in urban affairs, we would like to submit our American county platform statement which, you will note, is just shot full of ideas, and our urban county congress proceedings. What we are trying to do is establish the fact that our county governments are very deeply involved in urban affairs, and we are not speaking as representatives solely of rural areas. In point of fact, the overwhelming number of our county officials do come from districts that are urban in character. And, so, we are deeply involved in urban affairs.

Now, often, for example, there is a tendency to equate urban with the central city. This misses the point that at the present time approximately 50 percent of our citizens in the 217 metropolitan centers live in the central city while 50 percent live in the suburbs. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations reports, for example, that observed trends indicate that between 1950 and 1980, while the total population of metropolitan areas almost doubles, the population of central cities may increase only 30 percent while that in the metropolitan rings or suburbs may increase by 180 percent. These suburbanites are, generally speaking, provided municipal urban services by our urban counties.

The central cities are actually dropping sharply in population. Washington is down 6.9 percent; Boston, 15.4 percent; Pittsburgh, 11.2 percent; and Buffalo, 8.9 percent.

Our point in all of this is that when we are considering these urban problems we musn't consider them solely from the point of view of the

big central cities. There are some 17,000 cities in the United States. There are 3,000 counties and many towns, villages, and other local government units in addition to the 50 States that are all deeply involved in urban affairs.

If our counties were allowed to participate in the development of our national urban policy-and, obviously, we think they should be allowed to participate-we would specify that insofar as possible dealings between the Federal Government and local governments should be channeled through the States. This, in spite of the fact that our urban counties are often more underrepresented at the State legislature than our large cities. We feel that we have a vital stake in the preservation of our Federal system of government.

We would also, if we were having a part in the drafting of a national statement on urban affairs, like to have a much sharper definition of exactly what constitutes an "urban affair."

Now we will return to some of the arguments that have been made in favor of having a Department of Urban Affairs.

The argument is made that there is need to concentrate urban affairs in a single department so that there is a single place for a local government official to go when he has an urban problem.

This is something that we all wish were possible, but the Government is just too big, and putting a lot of things in one department does not necessarily mean that it will be easy to get access to the department. The present bill, for example, proposes to place all housing matters in a single department, and yet two major programs that contribute 63 percent of the residential mortgage financing are not included in the new Department. We refer to the Federal Home Loan Bank system and Veterans' home loan program.

In point of fact, the present Housing and Home Finance Agency has had Cabinet status for some time in the sense that the administrator has been invited to sit in Cabinet meetings when housing problems were discussed, and yet any local official can tell you that from their own experience the various housing agencies are located in many places in Washington, and there is no one single place that you can go to get aid on housing, and you won't even if you create a Department of Housing.

Now the argument is also made that the farmers have a Secretary of Agriculture, who is their spokesman at the Cabinet table, and that a similar Cabinet officer must be created to be spokesman for urban affairs.

In the first place, history has taught us that the farmers have not always felt that the various Secretaries of Agriculture have spoken for them.

In the second place, there is an inference that an Urban Secretary would take the urban point of view on all things. This ignores the fact that Cabinet officers must, of course, support the policy of the President.

I would like to cite an example. In the last session of Congress the American Municipal Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, NACO, and several other associations representing urban officials strongly endorsed Federal aid to airports located on the national airport plan. It was the view of the President that the Government. should gradually withdraw from this area.