The Veterans' home loan program has made a great contribution not only to providing housing for millions of veterans but in stimulating residential construction. The recent action of the President in reducing the FHA interest rate to 54 percent, the present level of the VA rate, coupled with the certain approval of legislation extending the veterans' program to a termination date far beyond that which the administration has recommended for the FHA, means that this Federal housing program will experience a resurgence of activity in excess of that predicted for the FHA. Yet this program, with all its meaning for the housing industry and the national economy, will also remain out of the proposed Department.

Certainly these two omissions rebut conclusively any contention that the proposed Department of Urban Affairs and Housing seeks to coordinate the Nation's housing effort.

Not only does the bill fail to coordinate the several Federal housing programs, but it downgrades the most successful of these programs by abolishing the Federal Housing Administration as a separate corporate entity. Why does the bill abolish the identity of an agency which has become the symbol of homeownership on an economically sound basis? The answer does not lie in the assurances that the proposed Department will continue a mortgage insurance system.

When one studies this bill in the light of the housing bill recently approved by the Senate, the picture is clear that the two are part of a single pattern. Public and private acceptance of the drastic changes approved by the Senate in the philosophy underlying the FHA system will be frustrated unless the FHA as a 27-year symbol of an actuarially sound mortgage insurance system is destroyed. One of the May 24 witnesses before the House subcommittee presented a rather novel reason for a Cabinet Department insofar as housing is concerned. He suggests that if housing had been represented at the Cabinet level when major monetary decisions were made, housing would not have had to suffer any tightening of mortgage money." This presupposes that the Secretary of the Treasury in the decisions which he must make in managing a $290 billion public debt, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in the decisions which it must make in regulating the volume of money so as to avoid the dangers of inflation as well as deflation, would be less likely to make decisions adversely affecting housing if a Secretary of Urban Affairs and Housing were seated at the foot of the Cabinet table. Certainly the creation of a new department of the executive branch must rest on a firmer foundation.

10

Recently, the Housing and Home Finance Administrator addressed the conference of mayors and warmed to the subject of a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing with admirable enthusiasm." He characterized the Housing and Home Finance Agency as a "bureaucratic monstrosity," said that it was "scattered around the city in a dozen different buildings" and that in the constituent agencies there are "both overlapping areas of responsibility, and areas where nobody seems to have any responsibility."

We challenge Dr. Weaver's assertion that the HHFA is a "bureaucratic monstrosity." Certainly it wasn't under his distinguished predecessors. He cites as one example the fact that there are three programs for housing elderly persons; one through FHA insurance of private mortgages, one through the direct lending of Treasury funds, and the third as part of public housing. No Cabinet-rank department could remove these basic differences which are part of the law, and the Administrator made no recommendations along this line during the consideration of the 1961 housing bill. There is no chaos unless Dr. Weaver fails to coordinate these programs-a task which he would have as Secretary of Urban Affairs and Housing, unless Congress rewrote the statutes affecting these programs.

Overlapping areas of responsibility and areas where nobody seems to have any responsibility are not cured by this bill, assuming that Dr. Weaver was being something other than rhetorical when he made this charge. We are aware of no recommendations in the 1961 housing bill which are directed at this alleged shortcoming in the Housing and Home Finance Agency or in the basic statutes.

In our opinion, Dr. Weaver's recent charge that his agency is a bureaucratic monstrosity is a manifestation of his desire to vest all the statutory authority, now vested in the Federal Housing Commissioner and the Public Housing Commissioner, in himself and his successors. If the existence of separate corporate

8 TT R. 5723, passed House Apr. 13. 1961

9 Statement of Ed R. Reid on behalf of the American Muncinal Association, supra. 10 U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C., June 14, 1961.

entities with statutory responsibilities creates bureaucratic monstrosities, then most of the departments of the executive branch could be so characterized. 3. The bill erroneously assumes an expanding Federal role

A Cabinet-rank Department of Urban Affairs and Housing presupposes that the Federal Government's role in urban renewal and housing must be a permanent and expanding one. The Congress ought to weigh carefully the implications flowing from such a concession.

Many of the problems of our urban areas, such as housing, community facilities, and slum clearance, are inherently local problems. The energies of all levels of government should be directed at their solution on the local level and with greater, rather than less, local financial participation.

4. The bill would erode the Federal system

I now want to touch upon the significance of such a Department on the erosion of our system of Federal-State-local relations.

We are fearful that the creation of a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing would hasten the erosion of this system and that State and county governments would be completely circumvented. We have heard and read complaints that the States, because of rural-dominated legislatures, are refusing to give populous urban centers adequate authority to enable them to solve pressing local problems themselves. However, we fear that the current drive for a Cabinet-rank department may represent an abandonment by the cities of this fight for reapportionment.

Tennessee urban interests, for example, are spearheading the litigation " which soon will result in a U.S. Supreme Court decision as to whether or not a State which does not reapportion its legislative districts is violating the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment.

Mayor Ben West of Nashville is one of the appellants in this case. I hope that his testimony before the House subcommittee, during which he uttered the famous line, "The pigs in Moore County are better represented than the people of Nashville," does not mean that he is conceding defeat before the Supreme Court hears the arguments.

We hope that the cities will rededicate themselves to this goal and not resign themselves to bypassing the States and spending their energies on fashioning a direct pipeline to Washington for the means to solve local problems. We are fearful that the result of the present drive by the cities for increased Federal involvement will some day find the mayors shorn of all responsibility except the ministerial task of disbursing Federal money. Even today the 9th and 10th amendments to our Constitution are but fragile images of a basic constitutional principle. A Department of Urban Affairs would shatter this image beyond repair.

The pleas of the mayors for a Department of Urban Affairs necessarily focus attention on the efforts of the Nation's cities to solve problems which are inherently local. We are concerned that the creation of such a Department might lessen rather than increase the role of the cities in the solution of these problems. Let me cite as an example the role of the cities in the gerat urban renewal effort which is now underway. Between July 1, 1959, and March 31, 1961, the Federal Government executed 40-year subsidy contracts for public housing with 191 communities. According to the Housing and Home Finance Agency, 102 of these communities-more than half-had not adopted minimum safety and sanitation housing codes.12

During the same period, of the contracts executed for loans and grants for urban renewal, 18 communities of substantial size had not adopted such minimum standards housing codes. 13

The Administrator, on April 4, stated that 1,297 communities had adopted workable programs for the prevention of slums and blight." What he did not say was that 510 (now 545) of these communities had permitted their workable programs to expire, and of these 363 (now 380) had not indicated any intention of filing for recertification.15

11 Baker v. Carr (179 F. Sunn. 824), probable jurisdiction of U.S. Supreme Court noted Nov. 21. 1960 (28 U.S.C.A. 1253).

12 P. 156. hearings, Housing Subcommittee, House Banking and Currency Committee, April-May 1961.

13 P. 158. ibid.

14 P 249. hearings, Housing Subcommittee, Senate Banking and Currency Committee, April 1961.

15 Quarterly Status Reports, program for community improvement, HHFA, Mar. 31, 1961, and May 31, 1961.

I cite these only to point out that because the cities have attached so much importance to the role of a Department of Urban Affairs, we fear the effects of a further shifting of responsibility for the solution of local problems to the Federal Government. Yet all the billions in Fort Knox would not suffice to rid the Nation of its slums unless the communities accept greater rather than less responsibility.

We share with the Housing and Home Finance Administrator the concern he recently expressed in these words:

"There is a danger in the Federal Government attempting to do too much. There is a danger in not having a sense of responsibility in the local community."

In our considered opinion, the creation of a Cabinet-rank Department of Urban Affairs and Housing would be tantamount to congressional sanction of such lesser responsibility. This would toll the bells for our Federal system.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Mial, will you come forward, please? Mr. MIAL. I think it very appropriate that, as the last witness, I bring the answer to all your problems.

Senator HUMPHREY. Well, you are the man we have been waiting for.

STATEMENT OF H. CURTIS MIAL, CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CONTINUING COMMITTEE ON URBAN LIFE, THE ADULT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, AND THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY EXTENSION ASSOCIATION

Mr. MIAL. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Muskie, I am Curtis Mial. I am associate director of the National Training Laboratories of the National Education Association. I am here today as chairman of the Washington Subcommittee of the Continuing Committee on Urban Life. I represent today several of the major adult education forcesthe Adult Education Association of the United States of America, the National University Extension Association, and the Continuing Committee on Urban Life.

The Adult Education Association of the United States of America has 5,000 members scattered throughout the United States. This is composed of many different agencies and organizations-public schools, libraries, universities, such national organizations as the YMCA, the chamber of commerce, the AFL-CIO, the junior league, the Foreign Policy Association, and many others-in order to give focus and direction to the field of adult education in the United States. I recognize the fatigue level of all of us. I would, however, like to quickly identify the organizations that I represent, and then turn to a summary that may bring this testimony into focus.

The National University Extension Association, through its Community Development Division, draws representatives of some 82 university extension programs together in a consideration of the problems that modern communities face.

These two organizations sponsored a conference last January, out of which emerged the so-called Continuing Committee on Urban Life. It was this committee that, in effect, adopted the statement that follows on page 3, summarizing possibilities for the proposed new Department as it sees them.

16 P. 927, Hearings, House Independent Offices Appropriations for Fiscal 1962. 71743-61- -15

First of all, I would like to say in behalf of these three bodies, that we strongly endorse the proposed new Department. The statement, as adopted in Chicago in January, is as follows:

This conference strongly supports the expressed purpose of the new administration to give more considered and effective attention to the development and implementation of national policies with respect to urban life and the development of urban committees by the creating of a Department of Urban Affairs, or similar coordinating instrumentality.

We believe that this development is particularly timely in view of the predominantly urban nature of the United States and the consequent increase of national concerns.

We then cite as the increased migration between regions of the country from rural to urban areas, and within metropolitan areas; the growth of metropolis which has created problems transcending city boundaries and State boundaries; the tendency of urban communities to develop in haphazard manner without a clear understanding of the potential richness and stimulation which urban living can provide; the fragmentation of efforts to solve those interrelated social and economic problems which are of continuing national concern and come to focus in the community; the continuing tension and discrimination centering around racial and other groups in urban areas which are inconsistent with the ideals and spirit of American democracy and have adversely affected the image of America at home and abroad. We then urge five basic principles that we consider tremendously important for this new Department to consider in the formation of its policies and programs.

First, a governing philosophy and spirit which gives full attention to the human as well as the material requirements or urban areas including the cultural and creative opportunities which are essential to the life of man.

Second, more effective coordination of all Federal activities having important impacts on urban communities.

Third, substantial increase in Federal appropriations for education and research relating to urban affairs comparable to the historic programs for rural communities.

Fourth, and this we consider very important, utilization of those methods of adult education, community development, and community organizations which have proved effective in stimulating citizen participation in community planning and problem solving.

Fifth, full use of and cooperation with institutions and agencies now working in the field of urban and community development.

We call attention to the fact that there are tremendous resources, in one sense untapped, for more creative and more imaginative approaches to the problems of the urban community.

There is a need, and I do not think any of us would question this. All of the testimony before this committee has indicated this. Many of these needs are physical. We do need new buildings, new facilities, new systems of transportation. But the needs are also human. We need to build for and with people. This means that the proposed department must build into its program from the beginning educational

processes.

There are many resources to be tapped, in adult education, in community development, in community organizations, in the social sciences.

Now is a strategic moment, a moment of vast change, of transition; a moment when imagination and creativity can be used to the maximum, a moment when new ideas can be introduced. It is not yet too late to stop blight and decay and to renew and build cities of which America can be proud. Delay now means increasingly difficult and costly problems in the future.

We urge that we get on with the business of solving urban problems, but we also urge that this moment of initiation be extended; not just by days but perhaps by a year, and possibly even longer, to allow time for new, creative ideas to come to the surface to be seen, heard, tasted; to be weighed and evaluated; to be tested as far as possible; to be incorporated at the very beginning into the policies and goals of the new department.

We submit these specific ideas for consideration:

(1) A year of study not only to set wise directions but also to give interested groups opportunity to join in from the beginning. Their commitment and future support will undoubtedly grow if they are allowed to invest of themselves from the beginning and if they help to plan and develop the programs they will be called on to support.

(2) A major urban community development effort in the United States that will serve as a model to the world. Here we can build on State university-based experimental programs that have already demonstrated effectiveness.

(3) Rapid and intensive exploration of urban extension ideas now being pioneered at a few universities. We know what agricultural extension has meant to this country in raising the rural standard of living. We need similar bold and imaginative action for urban extension. What we need is not to apply the same patterns but to evolve patterns for today relating government and education in joint efforts to improve the urban community.

(4) An all out program of adult education to raise the level of knowledge, of maturity, of social competence so that the people in our cities can themselves formulate goals for tomorrow's cities and can join forces with their Government to achieve these goals.

My purpose, however, is not to suggest specific programs. My purpose is two-fold:

(1) To stress the educational implications of urban development. (2) To offer the wholehearted cooperation of the major adult education resources in this country as the program is developed.

There is a reference to community development in the bill that, in our estimation, might be made more explicit. By community development we mean an educational process. This means that the end is change, not in communities alone but in people themselves. Through community development, people can become involved in formulating community goals, making community values more explicit, and finding means consistent with these values for reaching the goals.

Since the quality of a community is best measured by the maturity of the individuals it produces, community development has to be measured not so much by better housing or better schools, per se, as by the degree to which people refuse to tolerate bad housing or poor schools, and by the wisdom and skill with which they collaborate in improving

them.

We appreciate this opportunity to present this statement.