Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Chairman, there is one other point I want to bring out and express our concern, in so doing, about this erosion of our Federal system. We have witnessed in the last 25 or 30 years a steady erosion, and we think a bill such as this, which provides the mechanism to which all the mayors can go to solve problems which are inherently local, we believe that such a mechanism would considerably step up that erosion. We do not think we can be the great Nation, or continue to be the great Nation that we are, unless we have more local responsibility, and I have been concerned and our people are concerned, about the attempts or the efforts on the part of local government to shift responsibility to the Federal Government.

If it continues, I think that in our lifetime, most of the mayors will have little responsibility other than the ministerial task of disbursing Federal money.

Even in the field of urban renewal in the statutes, we had this workable program. You are all familiar with the workable program. Yet there are communities that have contracts executed for urban renewal that do not think enough of the problem right at their doorstep to even adopt a minimum safety and sanitation housing code.

We are just afraid that the mechanism provided by this bill will tend to lessen that local responsibility.

Now, we know that the cities have problems, that this malapportionment of State legislatures is a tremendous problem, but we are not ready to throw in the towel; to concede that the problem will continue to get worse. In fact, I think the U.S. Supreme Court will probably soon make a decision on the Tennessee case. It is a tossup as to what the Court will do, but there is just a 50-50 chance that the Court may say that the refusal of the Tennessee Legislature to reapportion is a denial of the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment. In which case, instead of having a disparity of, I think, 19 to 1 in Tennessee, which is not as bad as in some States, the States will have to reapportion their legislatures. Then the cities might find the States more responsive to their needs. Then we might find a trend going back to our Federal system, strengthening our Federal system.

But I think that if the Department of Urban Affairs is created, it is a concession that the situation can only be worse.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Chairman, having worked on all three levels of government-local, State, and Federal-it seems to me that the two lower levels of government, local and State, are more vigorous than they have ever been, and in many ways more vigorous than the Federal Government.

I think sometimes those who hold the view that has just been expressed draw that conclusion from the fact that the total functions of government have increased. The State government in Maine today is doing things that State government in Maine did not do 20 years ago. Local government in Maine today is doing things, in many instances, in larger areas, that it did not do before. So there are plenty of chores for government to do on each of these three levels.

Now I concur wholeheartedly in the philosophy that, to the extent possible, we ought to keep functions at the lowest possible level of government. Unfortunately, we can all agree on this philosophy but differ as to its application.

But getting down to this particular bill, I am sure that we agree that this bill, in and of itself, will not add any functions to the Federal Government. Or do you feel that it does?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I do not believe it does.

Senator MUSKIE. Its purpose is to coordinate. What you are saying is that its mere existence, in your judgment, as a department would tend to add momentum to the trend of shifting local functions and State functions to the Federal Government. Well, this is a matter of judgment. I do not know that either of us can prove our point. I think that there is some hope that by concentrating the attention which the Federal Government gives to local affairs in one department, it might be possible to reinvigorate State and local attention to these problems. That may be wishful thinking, but this is, I think, a sincere hope.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Well, I hope so. My hopes will be dimmed if this department were created. Now, I may be wrong. If it is created, I hope I am wrong.

Senator HUMPHREY. I have a feeling that even if it should not be created, these activities that will be transferred will continue. I think you have made a very good point about possible overemphasis in the presentation by the proponents of this bill on the administrative improvements. I really think that it could ultimately result in that, particularly if there were an expansion in functions.

I think it would be only fair to say that there may be a time in the future when, by subsequent legislation, there will be additional functions added, or transferred to this Department.

I think the happiest days of my public life were when I was mayor of a city, and yet they were the most frustrating days, in many ways. We have a pretty good town. It is an active city government.

But I have always had a little bit of prejudice that my friend, the former Governor of Maine, does not have about the response I used to get at the State capital, and I was a mayor of a city of over a half million people.

Senator MUSKIE. I do not know about the response, but I could say the demand was always vigorous.

Senator HUMPHREY. The demand was, indeed. When we got some help finally on urban renewal, our town started to grow-not grow so much in population, but in the richness of its life, and, today, whole areas of the city have been torn out and tremendous new commercial construction accomplished. It is just incredible.

We have two big hotels going up, bank buildings going up, a couple of new insurance companies. Great public buildings, like the city health department, the city library, the Federal courts building.

In other words, the city took on vitality. It was dying on the vine. We just did not have it. We revised our police department with some help from the Federal agencies. We went in and got help from the U.S. Public Health Service for our city health department. We put into a hospital research activities, in our general hospital, a city hospital which was essentially just a clinic and a hospital. All at once, it became a teaching hospital. The caliber of the professional staff improved. The city just got better.

I never found that if you are an up-and-coming Governor or a reasonably up-and-coming Mayor and you have a city council that is

reasonably good, that this outside injection hurts you. In fact, it gives you additional incentive. And interestingly enough, its citizenry was willing to do more when we got a little help. I think this has been true, for example, of the grant-in-aid programs to States.

When the Senator from Maine was saying that Maine was doing things that 20 years ago the government would never have thought of, I agree. This is true in many States. The United States has taken on a new vitality, and so have local governments. They have faced tremendous problems because of the preemption of revenues. Everybody is scrambling for money, and the pressure is on.

These mayors that come down here talk about keeping government close to the people. I never had a night when somebody did not call me to tell me that a street light was out. Once I even had a lady call me and say that her cat was up in a tree. I sent the fire department out and got the cat out of the tree. She has been very strong for me ever since. It was not quite as big as going to Vienna with Khrushchev, but it seems to me that if you want to keep government active and close to the people, it must be able to perform the tasks of the people.

Now, as to the erosion of the Federal system, I do not believe the Federal system will necessarily erode because of Federal cooperation and Federal assistance. I am perfectly willing to say that without active leadership at the local and State government, this can happen. I think we understand that people can get lackadaisical, and some of them do.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Before leaving, I wanted to make one statement about the FHA, because both the homebuilders and mortgage bankers were concerned about it. We share that concern, but I want to express it a little differently.

We know the FHA is going to be abolished and re-created as, maybe, a division of mortgage insurance. What we would hate to see happen is the destruction of the symbol, FHA. That symbol means a lot to the American people. It is a symbol of homeownership on an economically sound basis. It has revolutionized the whole concept of American homeownership. If you can keep that symbol, all right. But I am afraid that in this bill, it might not be re-created. It might be a division of mortgage insurance.

Senator HUMPHREY. I am afraid of it, too. I feel like, when you have a good trade name, a good house name, you should keep it. Some of these boys that put together these packages in reorganization come up with ideas with which I do not fully agree. I think it has been very helpful to get this kind of emphasis.

Senator MUSKIE. I think it ought to be clear, Mr. Chairman, to the witnesses who have appeared before us, that testimony goes into the record from both sides of the witness table.

Senator HUMPHREY. Well, I think that after 4 o'clock, you ought to enjoy the opportunity of discussion. Thank you very much, Mr. Williamson.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. You are very welcome.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you for waiting. We appreciate your cooperation.

(The complete statement of Mr. Huber is as follows:)

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS BY CURTIS E. HUBER, CHAIRMAN, REALTORS' WASHINGTON COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Curtis E. Huber, and I am engaged in the real estate business in Evansville, Ind. I appear before you on behalf of the National Association of Real Estate Boards to voice the opposition of this association to the creation of a Cabinet-rank Department of Urban Affairs and Housing.

The National Association of Real Estate Boards consists of approximately 70,000 realtors in 1,389 local boards located in every State of the Union.

The position of our association on this issue was first determined by our national board of directors in January 1955 and was reiterated as recently as our 1960 national convention.

We voice this opposition reluctantly because we hold in high esteem the agencies which would become part of the proposed Department and the able public officials who have administered them in the past and who administer them today. Our opposition to S. 1633 is premised on our sincere belief that its enactment would:

(1) not accomplish its purported objective;

(2) aggravate the fragmentation of the Nation's housing effort rather than contribute to its coordination;

(3) presuppose that the Federal Government's role in housing and urban renewal must be a permanent and expanding one; and

(4) hasten the erosion of our system of Federal-State-local relations. I shall attempt to present our arguments on these four points in that order.

1. The bill would not accomplish its purported objective

Creation of the Cabinet-rank Department envisaged by S. 1633 is not conducive to increased efficiency in Government, because the Department would never be able to escape the fundamental doubts which now exist as to its objective.

All of the proponents of this measure, without exception, insist that the problems of urban life dictate a voice on the Cabinet level so that the varied activities of the Federal Government which touch upon the problems of urbanization will be better coordinated.

Thus for the first time in the Nation's history a Cabinet-rank Department would be determined not by its functional role but by the location or place of residence of the people who would be the object of its consideration. Should the Department be created, "for the first time in the history of the Nation, there will be a voice at the Cabinet table for the vast majority of our citizens," is the astounding conclusion of a zealous proponent of this measure.1

What are these problems of urban life concerning which, in the recent words of the mayor of Chicago, "the mayor of a municipality must devote much time going from agency to agency to get an answer to a problem, or to get conflicting Federal programs coordinated"? ?

When the mayors of some of the big cities testified before the Democratic and Republican platform committees in July 1960, they recited the following as urban interests or urban problems which dictated the creation of a Cabinet-rank Department:

This list appears to grow every day. On May 24 witnesses before a House subcommittee added "education" and "snow removal" as other urban problems,3 and the declaration of policy in S. 1633 adds parks, recreational facilities, as well as facilities for cultural pursuits.

1 Testimony of AFL-CIO before House subcommittee, June 13.

2 May 24 testimony before House subcommittee.

Congressman Younger in oral testimony before the House subcommittee, May 24 (education) and Congressman Toll (snow removal).

Even the Housing Administrator has some doubts as to just what would be the jurisdiction of the proposed Department of Urban Affairs. Recently, before the House Independent Offices Appropriations Subcommittee, he replied as follows to a query on this point:

"For example, on the matter of sewage and water pollution, obviously the Public Health Service can carry out the program much better than we could, so we are very happy to have them do it * *

"On the other hand, water distribution systems and the establishment of certain types of sewage systems, as public works, comes directly into our purview."

994

It would appear that the proposal has a potential, at least, for generating an interdepartmental "cold war" with the spoils representing functions of most of the existing Cabinet Departments.

The problems of urban life are national problems which run through all the functions of the executive branch. The executive branch could no more concentrate the problems of urban living in one department than the Congress could in a congressional committee on Urban Affairs. Indeed, the Congress might well first experiment with a Joint Committee on Urban Affairs before it creates such a Cabinet-rank Department in what we believe is the mistaken belief that all the problems of urban life must converge in a new monolithic bureaucracy in order to achieve solution.

On May 24 a witness before the House subcommittee cited the following as an example of the harassment that confronts a mayor on one of his periodic pilgrimages to Washington:

"For housing assistance, frequently his contacts must be made with the Public Housing Administration, FNMA, FHA, the VA, and the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department, the Bureau of Public Roads, and the HEW." 5

I can understand the plight of this mayor, but the relief he seeks is not in this bill. Of the seven agencies involved in his pilgrimage, only three would enter the new Department, and these three are today as coordinated as it is possible to be and still retain their identities.

The Senate recently approved legislation providing for the establishment of a Commission on Problems of Small Towns and Rural Counties. However, the proponents of S. 1633 contend that the problems of small towns would come within the purview of the proposed Department of Urban Affairs. Another example of confusion over objectives.

I seriously doubt that there has ever been a bill to create an agency or department of the Government concerning which there has been so much doubt and difference of opinion as to its purpose than the legislation which is the subject of these hearings.

Obviously, it is not the object of this bill to concentrate or even coordinate all of the programs touching upon urban life in a Cabinet-rank Department.

2. The bill would not coordinate the Federal housing programs

We now shift to another possible objective, the coordination of the Federal housing programs—indeed a laudable objective, although certainly not requiring a Cabinet-rank Department.

However, we find that the Federal housing programs which contribute to approximately 63 percent of the Nation's residential mortgage financing are not included in the proposed Cabinet Department.' I refer to the Federal home loan bank system and the veterans' home loan program.

The Federal home loan bank system charters and supervises regional home loan banks and savings and loan associations. Its Directors are appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the Senate. On at least two occasions since January 20 the President requested the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to take action designed to increase the flow of residential mortgage money into the economy.

Obviously, insofar as this Government agency is concerned, the proposed Cabinet-rank Department does not serve the objective of coordinating the Nation's housing effort.

4 Pp. 921, 922, hearings, House independent offices appropriations for fiscal year 1962. 5 Statement of Ed R. Reid. executive director. Alabama League of Municipalities, on behalf of the American Municipal Association, May 24, 1961, filed with the House subcommittee. 6 S. 1869. passed May 26, 1961.

7 Housing statistics, Housing and Home Finance Agency, April 1961.