position of your association. I have no disagreement with that at all. I think that is entirely proper.

But taking this one step further then, and purely philosophically again, if we don't have a direct referendum on the issue but, through the representative system of government, we do this, can you still make this statement that you made?

Mr. BELKNAP. Of course, you get into the manner which we mentioned here are the public officials at home, the mayors and city councils and so forth, are they really living up to their responsibilities in this area, or is it easier for them just to run to Washington, you know, and

Mr. FASCELL. Or, we could say it another way.

Is any public official truly representative of the people?

Mr. BELKNAP. Probably not because the people will have varying opinions, but

Mr. FASCELL. I think we are agreed we can't do away with public officials, not yet.

Mr. BELKNAP. No, of course not.

I think the point that you are trying to make here and which is really the point at issue is: Is this a local or is it a Federal responsibility? In other words, if society here does not do what they should do, then does it become the responsibility of the Federal Government more or less to urge them or take leadership and that kind of thing?

Mr. FASCELL. I am not sure this is the point I am raising at all because, frankly, I am not too quick to agree to that theory, that there is a void or a lack of interest or lack of desire or lack of assumption of responsibility at local level, and therefore it becomes the responsibility of the Federal Government. I am not sure I agree to that proposition at all.

Mr. BELKNAP. Actually we are pretty close together then because that is our feeling.

Mr. FASCELL. I am not sure I agree to that at all, but what I am saying is that if the people themselves decided it is not a matter for local interest or that it is a matter for local interest and State interest and national interest, then who are we quarreling with? Ourselves?

Mr. BELKNAP. Of course, I would have to say to that that the people elect their own officials in the cities and States, and if they are not satisfied with the progress, they should change it.

Mr. FASCELL. Exactly. And, believe me, there is nobody more sensitive to that than a Congressman.

Mr. BELKNAP. That is right. So they do have the power at home to change their own situation if they really want to, through the vote. Mr. FASCELL. I agree with you. And I say, as far as the assumption of responsibility is concerned, at any level of government, all it takes is desire and initiative to assume the responsibilities, and it is all over with.

Mr. BELKNAP. Perfectly true.

Mr. FASCELL. And I can say this, that I would support any individual or any association, for that matter, which, as a matter of political philosophy, so expounds the theory that it is on the individual to take all the initiative that he can to support the government or do what is necessary for himself and his people.

Now would you agree that there would be a point where reasonable men could differ on what is truly a national task?

Mr. BELKNAP. Oh, I think that is true. Perhaps it is not something that is clearly defined in some areas. And, yet, our Constitution does set forth specifically certain tasks which are clearly national tasks.

Mr. FASCELL. Yes, but what I was getting at is you wouldn't want your testimony to be interpreted as meaning that the only national tasks are defense and foreign affairs.

Mr. BELKNAP. No, certainly not. That is not the intent.

Mr. FASCELL. I am sure that it wasn't, but it might be read that way. Mr. BELKNAP. We were just simply comparing those two facets as against these others.

Mr. FASCELL. As truly Federal.

Mr. BELKNAP. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. But there would be others that perhaps would be not quite as definitive but would be truly national?

Mr. BELKNAP. Interstate commerce and things of that sort.

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you.

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman DAWSON. Mrs. Granahan?

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think Congressman Fascell has covered it very well in his questions, and you have answered them as you see fit, but I am wondering if there isn't a human element in this. Let us go back to the States and the urban areas and see how poorly the housing situation is, the depressed areas.

Now what has been done about it in the cities? I imagine their taxes will become terrifically high if they have to put all these extra experts on, which are at hand, with the Federal Government or would be trained to be, and I think it goes back to a very simple little way I might be able to explain it by saying if the Federal Government

If it is a necessity and the Federal Government assumes this responsibility, it is much-they are much more determined, and it is a greater responsibility to them than it is to the mayor or the local officials of the city, in my opinion, because I think if you travel throughout Pennsylvania and look at some of the depressed areas and the slums and the blight in those counties where no effort has been made to do anything, and I know our Governor is trying very hard, but apparently he doesn't get the cooperation, that when it is a Federaĺ project, it seems to me it is much more successful.

Mr. BELKNAP. Mrs. Granahan, I certainly share your feeling for these areas which do need help.

You may be interested to know, however, that the State of Pennsylvania paid out $1.41 for every $1 received from the Federal Gov

ernment.

Now I fail to see how more Federal aid is going to help the State of Pennsylvania when it pays out $1.41 for every $1 they receive. That is our point. The money should be left at home to be used at home.

Also, our second point is that the Federal Government, in many cases, has usurped the tax sources to such an extent that there is not enough left at home.

So we make two points: First of all, let the Federal Government get out of some of these programs which are taking the tax dollars; leave these dollars at home so the local people can take them and use them in the areas at home.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Isn't it a lot better that we centralize our money in the Federal Government? Just for example, would a small hospital in Philadelphia or would anybody there be able to continue the research-this is far away but comparable-research on crippling diseases the way the National Institutes of Health do?

Mr. BELKNAP. There, of course, we get into the area Mr. Fascell mentioned. There is a fuzzy area of what is truly a national task. But so far as the cities of Pennsylvania or any other State are concerned, they are local, and Pennsylvania is a rather wealthy State, and it would seem if the Federal Government cooperates by leaving enough tax sources at home, that you should be able to work out your own problems. You have some good universities in the State to do the planning, and so forth.

That is our contention.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FASCELL. I was curious about one thing-excuse me, Mr. Chair

man.

On page 10 you said the major proportion of our population lives in the States.

Mr. BELKNAP. That was just partly a facetious remark illustrating that the same argument has been used for the cities, you see, that the major portion of our population lives in the cities. By the same token, they live in the States, and the State is also a unit of govern

ment.

Mr. FASCELL. I just wanted to be sure you were facetious and not missing the point.

Chairman DAWSON. Any questions?

Mr. LANIGAN. I just had one.

We had one witness who testified before in the committee, who was a supporter of Governor Rockefeller, and his complaint or statement was that when an effort is made to shift from the Federal to the local responsibility in certain areas, that the same people who oppose the Federal Government performing certain functions also oppose a State or local government performing those same functions when the same issues come up before them.

Now is your association on such matters as houses and urban renewal-would it support fully the programs to the same extent if they were performed and paid for by State and local governments as they are now performed by the Federal Government?

Mr. BELKNAP. Our association does not deal with State and local government. We are a national organization, and our principal function is to try to distill policy from the thinking of all our members, which comes in this booklet "Industry Believes."

We have policy on such things as Federal-State relationships, taxation sources, and all kinds of things. We would not go down on the local level and promote or talk against any program. That, we think. is their local affair.

Mr. LANIGAN. So your position then is that you oppose the Federal Government carrying on these activities, but you don't take any position at the present time, at least, as to whether you are in favor or oppose the same activities being carried on in local government.

Mr. BELKNAP. We stated it as a local responsibility. It definitelv

Mr. Lanigan. But a program to the same extent

Mr. BELKNAP. Well, for instance, urban renewal: if this is performed by the city itself, it is a very commendable thing, and I think it is fine. I certainly would be for it.

Chairman DAWSON. Supposing you go beyond State, beyond city lines, embracing urban communities, several counties and several States. What are you going to do then?

Mr. BELKNAP. You mean where a city might be across the State line?

Chairman DAWSON. Many urban areas have developed that are bigger than the city, ofttimes bigger than the county, and they become a problem of the Members of Congress to provide the services that they need that no local community can, part of the community can provide.

Mr. BELKNAP. Of course, we have many examples of interstate compacts, intercity compacts and that sort of thing that work.

Chairman DAWSON. We don't have many of them in comparison with many that do exist, and we find that in those compacts the Federal Government usually takes a hand.

Mr. BELKNAP. Well, we simply have stated our views, and that is what we believe to be possible.

Chairman DAWSON. But the Members of Congress take into consideration what is best for the people as a whole. Some communities cannot carry their responsibilities. Some States are richer than others. Yet the welfare of the whole is the thing at stake where a Congressman is concerned, and it is for the benefit, the actions will be for the benefit of all the people of all the States.

Mr. BELKNAP. There are only, I believe, 15 States which pay out more than they take in.

Chairman DAWSON. Yes. Those are the 15 rich communities that have been established through the years, and they take in far more than their own expenses would be from the Federal Government. But some of the States cannot raise enough revenue to take care of the welfare of the people, and it devolves upon the Congress to try to give to the people of the United States the benefits that the country, that the United States can afford to give them. Now not of the particular community in which they might live. That is the responsibility of the Federal Government for the welfare and benefit of the country as a whole.

Mr. BELKNAP. Well, of course, that is where this honest difference of opinion might enter the situation.

Chairman DAWSON. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. BELKNAP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity.

Chairman DAWSON. Our next witness will be Mr. George D. Riley, who is legislative representative of the AFL-CIO.

Mr. Riley.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AFL-CIO

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am George D. Riley, legislative representative of the AFL-CIO.

I have a prepared statement. I hope you will indulge me by including the whole text of it, which is brief, including also the appendix at the end of the statement.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AFL-CIO

The AFL-CIO holds that the two-thirds of our population in urban areas are entitled to administrative representation by a major department. We support the purposes of H.R. 6433 and urge its early enactment.

The greatest amount of taxes is derived from the 75 percent of the productive capacity and wealth of the Nation found in these areas where the population growth will continue.

We make no odious comparisons between urban residents and citizens located elsewhere. We simply say the time is overdue for considering the city dweller just as important as any others, since we are Americans all.

I also believe it important at the outset to say that though there are those who appear to think in terms only of large cities when they speak of urban affairs, we need also to remember that beneficial legislation for those same large cities redounds certainly and quickly to the benefit of what we regard as smaller cities, the so-called secondary or even sedentary class cities. It happens that what is good for people in particular likewise is good for people in general whether they occur in large, medium, or small clusters.

Dr. Philip M. Hauser, chairman of the department of sociology, University of Chicago, points out that when the first population census of 1790 was taken, we had only 24 urban localities in the United States. Of these 24 urban places, there was only one with more than 25,000 population.

Ten years ago, we had more than 4,700 urban places and now the Bureau of the Census tells us that 84 percent of the increase in total population between 1950, and 1960 occurred in standard metropolitan statistical areas-in cities of 50,000 or more and the outlying areas surrounding them.

The 212 standard metropolitan statistical areas grew by 23,600,000. Of this increase, 17,900,000 occurred in outlying parts of the metropolitan areas and 5,600,000 in the central cities.

The general pattern of metropolitan-nonmetropolitan growth represents a continuation of a similar pattern which occurred in the 1940-50 decade. I am including a census table as an appendix to this statement showing just what happened during the most recent decade. Only 8 of the 212 standard metropolitan statistical areas failed to gain population in those 10 years.

These were Altoona, Jersey City, Johnstown, St. Joseph, Scranton, Texarkana, Wheeling and Wilkes-Barre Hazleton.

Yet, the 1960 census is the first to show population losses in some of our larger cities, including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit. Only Los Angeles gained.

The Bureau of the Census says:

"These losses are not necessarily evidence of economic decline but may simply reflect the decentralization of population within the metropolitan area. New York City had about a 1-percent decline in population, but the New York SMSA increased by about 12 percent. The corresponding figures for Chicago were -2 and +20 percent, respectively; for Philadelphia, -3 and +18 percent; and for Detroit, -10 and +25 percent. In short, although there was a decline within the corporate limits of these cities, the entire SMSA increased in population. Since the location of city limits has little relevance to economic and industrial growth in urban aggregate, population trends in the central city as legally defined do not necessarily constitute a good index of the economic health of the

area.

"It has long been recognized that for many types of social and economic analysis it is necessary to consider as a unit the entire population in and around the city whose activities form an integrated social and economic system. Prior to the 1950 census, areas of this type had been defined in somewhat different ways for different purposes and by various agencies.

"Leading examples were the metropolitan districts of the census of population, the industrial areas of the census of manufactures, and the labor market areas of the Bureau of Employment Security. To provide general purpose areas of this type, the Bureau of the Budget has established standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's)."