We had a conference in Albany on the local government and Commissioner Reid and I chaired the section on urban development and transportation.

Mind you, there wasn't a division of urban development at the one roundtable and transportation at another as would have been the case years gone by, but the recognition of the impact of transportation on urban development was such that in this conference we grouped together the representatives of the towns and cities in New York State having problems in these areas and they were usually interrelated problems. There we heard from people representing towns of 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000 and then going up to Albany and Schenectady, Rochester and Buffalo, giving us the same problems there, problems requiring coordination and national focus as it would be anyplace throughout the Union. The three small cities in the interior of New York have the same regional problems as relating to air pollution, as relating to water pollution, as relating to transportation and urban use just as we have, but to a lesser degree.

I say it is important more than just as a symbol, but for the advancement of the economy and the welfare of the cities throughout the country, and I stress once more the statement of Mayor Wagner that this is not just the big city deal. This is the problem of the town, the problem of any community where a group of people in the aggregate, live together.

Senator MUSKIE. When you use the word "coordination," are you simply speaking of the bringing together of people with common concerns for the purpose of discussing it and of accommodating each other's efforts, or are you talking about some central direction?

Mr. FELT. Central direction that can be developed on the highest policy level of the Nation.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, I think we ought to clarify the word "direction." If we were to give coordination on the Federal level, which is an objective to which almost everyone subscribes, I hope we are not talking about direction in the sense that the Federal Government would become the principal governmental source.

Mr. FELT. Not at all.

Senator MUSKIE. In the affairs of our local government.

Mr. FELT. That is not my intention whatsoever. I didn't intend to convey that, but take the problem of transportation. We now have opportunities to speak to HHFA and we can speak to Public Roads and we can speak to various groups, both in the Federal Government and in the State government in matters that are essentially elements of the total, the aggregate transportation problems.

Now that transportation problem, as I menioned before, leads very closely to the entire problem of urban development. One cannot move without the other. We believe it is essential to have one roof over

those problems.

Senator MUSKIE. Now let's turn to the question of resources. Those of us who come from States like Maine and other States of northern New England and some of the less developed States economically in other parts of the country, seek Federal action in many instances because our resources are inadequate and when we get Federal action, in effect, we get action which tends to equalize the resources of the States.

When you are talking about a State like New York you are talking about a State whose resources are greater than any other State in the country.

Now it might be said that in terms of resources, you would be better off if the Federal Government stayed out of these things. For example, if the Federal Government didn't get into Federal aid for education, if the Federal Government didn't get into urban renewal, if the Federal Government didn't get into public housing you would be better off, according to some people, because if we didn't drain Federal tax dollars from your State you would be in a better position to act on your own.

Now, I would like to get your reaction to this.

Mr. FELT. I think that there are certain elements which are so hard in the economy and the welfare of our Government and our people that to divorce the Federal Government from these elements would be a great error. I don't think it would be appropriate because one State happens to be a State with great resources to, in fact, circumscribe that State and let it be on its own because in the final analysis the merging and the interweaving of the resources of all of our cities and all of our States make up the strength of the National Government and all of the people.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you saying, in effect, that we ought to benefit from Federal action in these fields even though such Federal action means the spending of New York tax dollars in other States?

Mr. FELT. I would say that, however, the appropriate method may ultimately be determined as to how the money is spent, having a central agency or department having to do with the problems of the cities and towns of New York as well as the rest of the country.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, what we are concerned with here is the problem that is so great on a national level that we need additional solution to it; and that we ought to forget any other preoccupation we may have have with out right to deal with these problems on a State level or local level and that States like New York, the taxpayers in States like New York are willing to pay the price for this kind of national solution.

Mr. FELT. I agree with that, Senator. The national solution of these major problems has highest priority regardless of how we may have to direct our energies or redirect our thinking. We must not yield to the need. We must proceed with the need of developing national solutions.

Senator MUSKIE. I am trying to nail you down. I come from a have-not State and the latest statistics produced by the tax foundations point up the fact that it may, say for every 67 cents that is paid in Federal taxes we get a dollar back from the Federal Treasury in Maine.

Now do you think that is an equitable result from the point of view of the taxpayers in New York where the situation is probably reversed?

Mr. FELT. Well, I don't know whether it is equitable, the arithmetic that you just gave me, but I will say this: That it seems to me completely impracticable and unwise to develop a division of funds available for the needs of States and cities in direct ratio to the funds made available by those respective States and cities.

Do I make myself clear?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes; you do, and I think that if you were to take the opposite point of view and pursue it to its logical conclusion, then you could say the taxpayer ought to get back in services the exact equivalent in taxes that he pays. We are one country and whenever we are dealing with a problem national in scope, we should not hesitate to deal with it simply because the Federal Government hasn't dealt with it before.

I think that is the philosophy behind your statement and that is the philosophy that Senator Javits would express if he were here. He is occupied in another hearing in the Labor Committee.

Would you be willing to step aside, Mr. Felt, until Senator Javits comes and we will give him an opportunity to question you? Mr. FELT. Surely.

Senator MUSKIE. Our next and final witness for the morning is Mayor Ben West, of Nashville, Tenn.

We are delighted to welcome you.

Mr. WEST. Senator, we are delighted that you came to our State to address the Tennessee Municipal League some time back. Senator MUSKIE. I hope I can get back there again some time.

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN WEST, MAYOR, NASHVILLE, TENN. Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Ben West, mayor of Nashville, Tenn. I appear here today on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the American Municipal Association in support of the legislation to establish a Department of Urban Affairs as proposed in the administration bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Joseph S. Clark and others.

We who represent the Nation's cities believe the creation of a Department of Urban Affairs to be absolutely essential to sound progress in the development of our country. We are an urban Nation. Twothirds of our people live in urban areas. It is obvious that our future as a nation will depend in large measure on the manner in which we guide and control this continuous process of urbanization—this shift from rural to urban living.

Our urban areas constitute the industrial heartland of the Nation. They are our centers of culture and education; they are the places where our business is conducted and where our governments hold forth. They contain more than 75 percent of our wealth and productive capacity and provide the major part of tax base upon which a Federal Government is forced to draw. Their future is unmistakably the future of the Nation.

Today, urban problems are numerous, immediate, and overwhelming. Housing is shamefully inadequate and much of our industrial and commercial facilities are obsolete or substandard. Traffic congestion is stifling. Schools are generally too old or too small. Water supply is frequently uncertain in parts of our country. The task of assimilating our minority groups and generally looking after the underprivileged of the country is one which falls largely in the hands of local officials. Local governments have been unable to cope completely with these problems primarily for lack of adequate fiscal resources brought about in a large part by restrictions imposed by

State legislatures and by lack of adequate jurisdiction, which I might add is also imposed by State legislatures.

While over the past 20 years local governments have been able to convince the Congress and the several administrations of the need for Federal assistance in a limited number of areas, the problems themselves have for the most part outstripped the combined efforts of both local and Federal Governments at solution. The one positive aspect of this experience has been to demonstrate that local governments can work effectively with the Federal Government toward the achievement of mutually desirable goals without diminishing local prerogatives or dampening local initiative. But existing Federal programs affecting municipalities are, for the most part, uncoordinated. They have not been related to one another in terms of their overall or combined impact on the localities they seek to serve or which they sometimes inadvertently affect. Serious gaps in Federal domestic policy still exist. Neglect of the urban areas has largely resulted from the failure to include a responsibility for coordination in local governments in considerations which shape Federal policy.

An overall urban policy is urgently needed, and only departmental status with urban representation will be capable of sustaining the interest and carrying out the research necessary to its effective development and implementation. Community development programs such as those which deal with housing, renewal, and the construction of community facilities affect more people directly than any other Federal governmental activity. As such they deserve the highest level of attention Government can bestow.

When we speak of a Department of Urban Affairs we do not mean a department of "big city affairs" or "small town affairs." This Department would be charged with looking after the programs of vital interest to the big city and the small town. Indeed, the Department would have a responsibility to all the citizens of the country-those in the urban complex, those in the metroplitan area, and those who live in the countryside but depend on the city, large or small, for their markets, their communications, and their cultural activities.

In suggesting the establishment of a Department of Urban Affairs, we in the cities and urban areas are seeking no special favors, rather we are today advocating a degree of equity. The Federal Government simply does not have the machinery to keep informed about and to coordinate its programs insofar as they affect the urban community. Other identifiable units within our country are represented at the Cabinet table. The farmer has his Department of Agriculture. The rancher and the American Indian have their spokesman in the Secretary of the Interior. The individual interests of the laboring man are the responsibility of the Department of Labor, and the business community sits at the Cabinet table as the Secretary of Commerce. But there is no one at the Cabinet table whose business it is to view all proposals from the point of view of their effect on the urban community, its citizens, and their governments.

I do not want to criticize, or in any other way, pass judgment on the merit or administration of other programs of the Government. But it should be noted that the leading non foreign policy and nonsecurity item in the Federal budget is for the Department of Agriculture. Indeed in 1960 this Department spent 17 times that spent by the agencies which would be located in the new Department of Urban Affairs.

Think of it-less than 6 percent for urban affairs of that spent for agriculture. Out of this 6 percent comes the Federal share for slum clearance, urban renewal, low-income housing, research, and the whole program of community facility construction and urban development and redevelopment.

I want to also point out that the creation of a Department of Urban Affairs would not establish new Federal activities or new programs, but rather provide that these programs be administered consistent with sound administrative practice. And as important as this improvement in administration would be, the Department would make an invaluable contribution because it would have the mandate to secure coordination among other Federal activities affecting urban

areas.

Mr. Chairman, I have spoken thus far as a representative of the two great organizations of municipal officials. Now there are a few comments I want to make on my own. Let me give this committee just a few illustrations of what we mean by some of these generalized statements.

The highway program of the Federal Government and the urban renewal program of the Federal Government often go on in the same area at the same time, because these expressways are located through these so-called soft or deteriorating sections of our cities. You get into those programs. Dislocation of families takes place. When a family is relocated because of urban renewal activities you pay them, and next door to that family you do not pay a family that is relocated, if he is a tenant, because of highwy construction. How can you explain to the citizen that his Government has that sort of policy? We mayors have to face that and I cannot explain it. You have a program in the highway setup of secondary roads for rural areas. It was not until recently that we had the urban section established in the highway program. Up until 10 years ago in many States the State highway departments came to the city limits and stopped.

Today, as I talk to you, with the Federal aid to secondary road program the Federal funds can be used by the counties in municipalities under 5,000 population, but over 5,000 it cannot be used. I submit that there is where the need is. There has just lately, under the administration of the distinguished Mr. Rex Whitton, come about any real coordination between urban renewal and the Bureau of Public Roads. It has been a hodgepodge of misunderstanding.

Let us talk about some of the programs in connection with planning, some of the grants and loans that the HHFA makes. A loan is made for planning, or a grant for planning, directly from the Federal Government if you have a regional planning board. If there is no regional planning board the Federal act says they have to go through the State planning setup, and I am advised that less than half of the States of this country have planning commissions. What are the areas going to do which have no regional planning commissions? A lot of us are in mass transit. That is mentioned in this bill, and that is a very important matter in this country-getting our people to and from work and to and from the marketplaces. No city of any size can exist without mass transit in my opinion. You just cannot get enough automobiles in your central city to sustain the economy of the central city with the riding habits of 1.7 persons per vehicle. There is just not enough space.