making the determination under subsection (b)-that is all eight of those he shall give maximum consideration to these others."

I don't know. We are experiencing something now that doesn't apply to all cities in all States. It just applies to 17 Southern States under the 1964 Civil Rights Act where they are giving guidelines. Now, in that act, it is specifically provided that there shall be no requirement for busing of students. Yet, there are guidelines requiring busing in the 17 States.

It says that there shall be no use of percentages in maintaining balances. Yet, the guidelines require that very thing in the 17 Southern States. They do not require it in Chicago.

I saw in the Chicago papers recently a study as to the distribution of teachers by breakdown and so forth. Many of the schools have not a single Negro teacher in them even though they have both Negro and white students. Yet, in our sections, they require those things to be done on a percentage basis.

I am afraid of anything that gives the right to somebody here in Washington to set guidelines. It seems to me that is what is done. And it seems to me it is something that mayors of individual cities ought to be very much concerned with.

What do you think of that?

Mr. BLAISDELL. John, you field that. (Laughter.)

Mr. GUNTHER. Senator, the mayors met with the Secretary on February 4 and raised similar questions when they first saw the demonstration city idea. They view the standards that are provided in there as a requirement imposed by Congress that local planning meet these criteria.

Senator SPARKMAN. Now, wait a minute. In the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Congress wrote into the law there should be no requirement for busing. Yet, we have guidelines that require busing of students. So I am afraid of guidelines despite what Congress may write.

Mr. GUNTHER. In the demonstration city program, we hope that the Congress in its judgment will set down criteria for local officials to meet, for local officials to know what they have to do with local planning, what kind of standards to follow in order to get the funds that Congress makes available. We feel that this is an obligation of the local citizen. The mayors believe this is a way the Congress wants them to plan.

Senator SPARKMAN. But you undercut that, it seems to me, when you give the broad powers that this bill gives to the Secretary to determine whether you have done those things.

Mr. GUNTHER. If it does that, we want you to

Senator SPARKMAN. And I think you ought to give very careful consideration to that.

Mr. GUNTHER. The mayors, Senator Sparkman, would like for the Congress to give them broad planning flexibility. They want Congress to say that is one of the problems.

а

You ask why not just do a little bit more under the urban renewal program. One of the problems is that urban renewal is a limited program of rehabilitation and rejuvenation. It has worked very well. However, it does have limitations.

There are certain things you cannot do. There are certain human needs. You cannot provide the health facilities for the poor children. You cannot provide some of the centers for the elderly because the city does not have the money to put them in. You cannot get the construction funds from the Federal Government.

And this is what this bill provides. It permits you to make an attack on human as well as physical deterioration.

Senator SPARKMAN. Why do you not amend the Poverty Act to provide that instead of writing it in indirectly in this way? I believe that Congress ought to lay down the laws. And I do not believe that a Secretary, any Secretary, I do not care who it is, here in Washington ought to have the power to tell the mayor of Honolulu what he has got to do and what he cannot do.

Mr. GUNTHER. We do not believe he should either.
Senator SPARKMAN. I believe this bill does that.

Mr. GUNTHER. Then we want to change it so it does not.
Senator SPARKMAN. All right, I want you to study it.

I do not see where we tell mayors that their cities can make certain plans and those plans will be acceptable. What we do is to say that the Secretary should make a determination as to whether or not it is sufficient. Now, the bill reads that very clearly.

Mr. GUNTHER. We will work with your staff and members of the subcommittee, Senator, to make certain that the bill is changed so it does not say that.

Senator SPARKMAN. I have a great deal of sympathy with anything that will give us a renewal of the cities throughout this country. I am in thorough sympathy with it. But I believe we ought to be very careful as to where we vest the power.

Mr. GUNTHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLAISDELL. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you.

Oh, Senator Proxmire.

Senator PROXMIRE. On page 2, you say,

In our judgment, the $2.3 billion earmarked for the program is substantially les sthan the amount which will be required to meet the goals set forth by the President. Moreover, there is no assurance now that even any part of the $2.3 billion would be available.

Can you give us an estimate as to what you think would be an adequate amount to meet the requirement?

Mr. BLAISDELL. I have absolutely no figure in mind, Mr. Senator. I have heard that some of the cities have in their testimony made reference to the fact that $2.3 billion would only be a nick in their

program.

Frankly, the city and county of Honolulu is not at the point where we can put a dollar sign on what we consider our requirements.

Senator PROXMIRE. The reason I raise that point is because when Mr. Weaver testified here, I was concerned about that. He talked about the possibility of some 35,000 individual dwellings being involved in an operation in a single city. And with the number of cities involved, not all those 35,000 houses would have to be rehabilitated and rehabilitation is not reconstruction and so forth, even still, it seemed to me that that $2.3 billion was a pretty modest amount.

At the same time, we have to be, of course, conscious of the demand on the Congress for funds. And if $2.3 billion is not enough, or are you thinking in terms of, say, twice that or three times that? You say it would hardly make a nick?

Mr. BLAIDSELL. I would say-well, frankly, I cannot say because I have absolutely no comprehension of the extent and the cost of this program.

In my capacity, I discuss this

Senator PROXMIRE. It is called a demonstration program. It is not expected to do the job of the other programs.

Mr. BLAISELL. It involves practically all of the programs.

Senator PROXMIRE. On page 1, you say that you think this would not create any inflationary problem. And I think you are right because the first year is only $12 million.

However, if we are lucky enough to have continued high employment and prosperity in the coming years, to what extent can we turn this off or slow it down or postpone it in the event, say, in 1968 or 1969 we are still going very strongly, we have inflationary factors in the economy and it seems wise to slow down considerably? Does it have this much flexibility, in your judgment, or would it be very difficult to slow or stop without serious inefficiency and waste?

Mr. BLAISDELL. I think it can be slowed down.

Mr. GUNTHER. I think, also, Senator, we have discussed it with the mayors and they are as concerned about inflation as practically anyone because it is playing havoc with their budgets. The big problem is if you are going to have to slow down some programs, you have got to select some priority. And this is one of the areas in which the Congress can make It can make these decisions on the Federal funds. You can decide on a stretchout. You can decide whether you want to stretch out a program that is aimed primarily at the poverty area or whether you want to stretch out a program that might be less aimed at these areas, these priority areas, Senator Douglas mentioned a while ago. You can select these programs here at this level in the Congress. And the cities, of course, will go along with the way you make the money available.

Senator PROXMIRE. On the basis of your experience as representatives or city officials, do you feel that it would be possible without gross inefficiency to arrest the program, at least to slow it down sharply, and do so to combat inflationary pressures?

Mr. BLAISDELL. Yes, sir; I do.

Senator PROXMIRE. All right.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate having your testimony.

Mr. C. David Loeks, president, American Institute of Planners, who will be introduced by our colleague from Minnesota.

STATEMENT OF WALTER F. MONDALE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Senator MONDALE. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I have the privilege today of introducing Mr. C. David Loeks, who is president of the American Institute of Planners and staff director of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Planning

Commission of Minneapolis. Since 1958 this commission has been carrying out topflight programs to deal with the planning problems of seven counties comprising the greater Twin Cities metropolitan

area.

These programs under the directorship of Mr. Loeks have brought national attention and praise to the commission.

For example, their joint program for land use and transportation planning, in which local governments participated directly in developing the metropolitan plan, has had a most impressive response both from local governments in Minnesota and those interested in adequate planning.

Mr. Loek's commission also helps local governments in such matters as open space planning and highway location matters, and under Minnesota law it serves the State legislature on metropolitan problems.

For 5 years, I served as the attorney general of Minnesota and had an opportunity to work with Mr. Loeks as he discharged his responsibilities. He is a nationally recognized man in his field, one who has fought in the trenches of governmental planning for a long time. Minnesota is very proud of Mr. Loeks. I am pleased to present him to you, for I know you will find his testimony interesting and useful. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. We appreciate that.

Mr. Loeks, we are glad to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF C. DAVID LOEKS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT L. WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND DAVID K. HARTLEY, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. LOEKS. Thank you, Senator, for the very generous introduction. I would like to speak very expeditiously.

I will introduce my two associates.

Mr. Robert L. Williams, who is the executive director of the American Institute of Planners.

Mr. David K. Hartley on my left, who is the director of institute development.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee we do have prepared testimony. I would like to proceed and stay rather closely with the script. I believe you have copies in front of you.

Senator SPARKMAN. We have.

Go right ahead.

Mr. LOEKS. I will proceed.

My thought is if you do wish to question me further when I am through or during the testimony, I would be pleased to respond.

As Senator Mondale mentioned, I am here representing the American Institute of Planners. We have 4,300 members in professional planning staffs in local, State, and National Government and in private firms which serve similar decisionmaking units. We work in housing and renewal agencies, State planning agencies, and organizations of this kind. Thus, we do feel we are in a position to give assistance

to this committee in giving our insights concerning how these programs might actually operate in a practical environment. Now, our comments are on two areas.

I. DEMONSTRATION CITIES ACT

One, on the demonstration cities bill which I found the previous discussion to be very interesting. And I will try to not embroider because I realize your time is short.

Basically, we do endorse the administration's concept of a demonstration-oriented and locally prepared and scheduled program for rebuilding and restoring entire sections and neighborhoods of slums in blighted areas. The magnitude of poverty, crime, unemployment, and deterioration in parts of our great central cities requires a major commitment from the American people and from the Federal Government.

It is also undeniable that Federal programs have not heretofore been sufficiently coordinated for maximum impact in the urban problems we face, nor has local leadership and private initiative been sufficiently mobilized, as the President's message of January 26 so well states. We look for new ideas from the proposed demonstration cities program.

I might just say parenthetically we do not think we have all the answers on this. The emphasis, as we read the bill, is clearly to learn additional answers and not necessarily new ways of more economically distributing existing resources. We hope this would be a supplement to a program of this kind.

Going back to the testimony, our primary concern is the dichotomy between parts of this legislation and this is symbolized by their titles-Demonstration Cities and Urban Development Acts. It is as if the administration were proposing two separate types of programs for two different constituencies, the older central cities and the growing suburbs.

Our basic point is an obvious one-namely, that in many ways, the metropolitan region is a single physical, social, and economic entity, for which there is no appropriate governmental counterpart.

We suggest, therefore, that a demonstration cities program for the central city alone will not be adequate. Although the practical difficulties are enormous, we should strive to extend this concept to the metropolitan area. The following are some specific suggestions pertaining to the proposed act which would move in the direction of this goal.

Section 4(c) (5) attempts to respond to the problem by directing the Secretary to give maximum consideration, in approving city demonstration programs, to an estimate of whether the program is consistent with comprehensive planning for the entire urban or metropolitan area. Such a passive requirement may be appropriate at this stage of metropolitan planning. However, as more metropolitan areas develop and implement comprehensive plans as guides to decisionmaking, the need to shift to a more active emphasis should be anticipated.

At that time, consideration might be given to amending the act to provide that an eligible city demonstration program make the