hensive plan for the metropolitan area in which the program is located."

Section 7 of the demonstration cities bill provides for the office of a Federal coordinator. While this is a good idea, it is definitely limited. The duties of the Federal coordinator should be extended to include providing a clearinghouse for all Federal programs in the metropolitan area. His office should be tied in with the metropolitan information center provided in title IV of the Urban Development Act.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT

We heartily endorse the goals of title I of this bill which would use Federal financial incentives to tie metropolitan planning directly into decisionmaking and action. The principle of supplementary grants to applicant State and local planning bodies that are actually carrying out development projects meeting truly comprehensive metropolitan or regionwide considerations is certainly commendable.

We have no quarrel with the language of most of the bill as contained in title I of most of its provisions.

We do suggest a change in section 105 of the bill, which defines development projects in terms of specified Federal programs. There are some notable omissions from the list of programs, including urban renewal, public housing, air resource management, public health grants, and Department of Agriculture assistance to water and sewer projects.

These omissions, in our opinion, further fractionalize the metropoli. tan area into central city and suburb and inhibit cooperation and commonness of purpose across jurisdictional lines.

It is our experience that it is unrealistic to administer an urban renewal program by taking only the interests of the central city into consideration.

This may seem politically objectionable to some. But it is a fact nevertheless that renewal and relocation must be dealt with at the total metropolitan scale. Otherwise, we continue to fence in the central city ghetto and to breed discontent and distrust when we should be committed to a policy of unity among all citizens. Furthermore, many urban renewal projects have failed to attract investment capital precisely because the total metropolitan market for housing, and for industrial and commercial facilities had not been taken into account. We would therefore recommend that major urban renewal and public housing projects having a measurable impact on metropolitan development be included in section 105, as well as Department of Agriculture grants for water and sewerage facilities under section 306 of the Agricultural Act of 1961, when they are made in metropolitan

areas.

Dr. Weaver has estimated that about a dozen metropolitan areas might become eligible for supplementary grants during fiscal 1967 and accordingly the administration is recommending a first-year program level of $25 million. It is further stated that with continued encouragement under this program, about 75 metropolitan areas would qualify by the end of 5 years. We would like to see the provisions of this act extended to all 250 or so metropolitan areas within 5 years and Federal policy directed to that end. Only then will we be on the way

Mr. BARRETT. I have just one short question here that I would like to ask you.

I want to thank you for your very fine statemnt here this afternoon. Anyone coming from Atlanta is always welcome here. We do have some very fine members from your very great State. Charlie is one of our most knowledgeable members on the full Banking and Currency Committee.

He might want to ask you one or two questions on mass transportation, and when he desires we will give that opportunity.

First, I do want to thank you on behalf of the subcommittee for your excellent and informative statement. I would like to ask you the same question that I asked Mayors Cavanagh and Lindsay earlier this week. Some people seem to have the fear that the Federal coordinator which the bill would set up for each demonstration city program would be some sort of a Federal dictator or czar. Of course, I do not think this is so. And I do think the bill makes this very clear, that they should not have any fears of a dictatorial power by this coordinator. I would like to ask you two questions: First, would the people who have such fears feel better, do you think, if we renamed the Federal coordinator or the Federal official as a local coordinator rather than a Federal coordinator?

And second, do you think the idea of making the services of a coordinator optional to the participating cities would be more acceptable in Atlanta, or any city if they had the opportunity to indicate who they think would be the most effective person to work between their respective city and Washington?

Mr. BENNETT. With respect to the first question, of course, I would think that any fear of a coordinator becoming anything like a dictator would be ridiculous. But there are people who speak against Federal aid for fear of having some strings attached. For that reason, I would emphasize the word "local" in the title somehow.

Now, the question of whether or not it should be mandatory is one that is very interesting. It seems to me that all metropolitan areas need much more information and much more coordination in Federal programs than we have had up to now. We have at the city and State levels discussed seriously setting up such a job ourselves. But I think it would be better if the Federal Government did it, and I would assume for political reasons it might be more expedient to have the provisions of the bill provide for an optional local choice. Mr. BARRETT. Thank you very much.

Mr. Weltner, would you like to ask any questions?

Mr. WELTNER. Mr. Chairman, if time permits, I have a few questions. But I would defer to the members of the subcommittee.

Mr. BARRETT. I am sure they will give you a chance to ask your questions.

Mr. WELTNER. I do have some questions I would like to ask the witness.

Mr. Bennett, thank you for your usual concise and clear statement. I was interested in two points. You have submitted to the Office of Transportation a $1.1 million request under section 702. And as you have stated, that request has not materialized because of lack of funds. I would like to know whether or not, consistent with sound procedures and with the conservation of money and resources, it would be possible

to proceed at this point on a substantially lesser amount? Is there one particular phase of the matter included in your total submission that might be funded and on which you might proceed at this time?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. It would be possible, and it would be beneficial to do certain of the jobs proposed in the bigger segment separately. So it would be possible for us to work effectively with a smaller sum. But it means that the preconstruction period would be lengthened and prolonged somewhat. We had envisioned spending something like $1.6 million or about 22 or 3 years in this particular period when we are precising the costs, the alinements, and the characteristics in getting a segment ready to present to the people for final approval in case it costs additional local taxes. And in order to do this you have got to have a lot of engineering. Our last plan was made in 1962. A great deal of growth has taken place since then. And we believe the basic premises that existed then still exist, but we think that we have got to update our plans. We have got to investigate all kinds of alternatives that different people in the community may be interested in. So this is a big job. We have got to take borings, we have got to make surveys, and we have got to get down to real engineering.

Mr. WELTNER. We also know, do we not, that somewhere along the line, before the cars start moving people swiftly and economically to and from work that $100 million of local money must be acquired and invested?

Mr. BENNETT. Some large sum. We are not certain what that is. And of course, the amount depends on what assistance we get from the Federal and State. And it now seems that we will get it from the State.

Mr. WELTNER. I think that is the Matterhorn of this entire matter that will have been glimpsed.

Mr. BENNETT. Certainly.

Could I elaborate a little on what I said earlier? We are going slow at this stage because of the fact that we do not see the big money, and we do not want to waste little money at this particular time, although we must be tooled up ready to go in spite of whatever happens eventually. And we do not want to waste anything. So far the authority which came into being in January of this year has not really spent much money, almost none. And I think this has been wise up to now. The overall picture, though, becomes more clear in favor of rapid transit eventually as we do more related planning work. Just recently our economists have told us for other planning purposes, in other planning projects, that between now and 1983 we are going to have about 15 million additional square feet of office building constructed in downtown Atlanta. This is in keeping with what has happened in the last 7 years. This is tremendous. Where are they going? So we need now to do a lot of additional planning that is closely related to the downtown rapid transit system. This is awfully important, and I have not been able to get this point over to some of my friends in Atlanta vet.

Mr. WELTNER. I hope your appearance might assist in that, Mr. Bennett.

I have the distinct impression that there are great unused resources, not only in our area, but throughout the country, simply because we in Congress passed these wonderful bills up here and nobody back home