of the governmental units within the metropolitan to sit down and do certain things in cooperation. It is clear that if there are a dozen cities along the river, one of them can't take care of the pollution of the water. Even certain traffic features fall into that category. We have a beginning in this country, and perhaps a low level of activity, but we have it, a disposition on the part of the different governmental units to cooperate. If they have that attitude, they have already gained the main thing they need. They can get a grant for that now without any further legislation. The governmental units within a metropolitan may now form a loose voluntary association. In this area, the Metropolitan Council of Governments, for example, has received a Federal grant.

Mr. HARVEY. You cannot use the city of Washington as an example. Mr. STEWART. This didn't accrue to it out of any particular legislation for this area. I understand there is a similar organization in Los Angeles County and in perhaps half a dozen other cities where there is a high degree of formal cooperation between the different governmental jurisdictions within it. If they achieve that they have achieved the main thing. I am talking about a willingness of cooperation.

Mr. HARVEY. Your answer, as I gather it, would be that you see the Government more in the role of an arbitrator in settling disputes between these various units rather than extending the grants to encourage metropolitan planning: is that right?

Mr. STEWART. I don't think it is a problem that should go to the Federal Government for its solution. We have had metropolitanwide action in various particular ways induced by the urgency of the problem.

Under the 701 program the Federal Government now has what seems to me a very alluring and powerful incentive. They can get a substantial grant to carry out metropolitan planning on metropolitanwide problems. They must agree to work out plans, the execution of which will call for their cooperative action, and this is available now. This was in the 1965 Housing Act.

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Moorhead?

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me commend you on your support for the rent supplement program. I am totally convinced that public housing alone cannot do the job and something was needed and I hope that the rent supplements will work out and be successful.

My first question, gentlemen: Do I correctly understand your testimony that whether we enact this demonstration cities program or not, you recommended that either this committee or the Government Operations Committee, of which I am also a member, report to the House favorably a bill to establish a coordinator, a Federal coordinator to coordinate various Federal programs in the metropolitan area; is that correct?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Moorhead, the creation of a Director of Program Coordination is already in the law. This is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, the Cabinet bill. The Secretary has not appointed that Director, and that Director has the responsibility to achieve coordination. Now, S. 561 does address itself to coordination and it is a good bill. We have supported

the bill, particularly title V which requires comprehensive planning as well as coordination as a prerequisite for existing grants-in-aid.

Mr. MOORHEAD. What we are looking for is coordination, not just at the Washington level, but in the localities to be sure that housing departments and the poverty program and the HEW programs are working together. This I favor and I take it that this is what you favor.

Mr. EMLEN. We favor it without this piece of legislation.

Mr. MOORHEAD. With or without. This is what I am looking for. I think even in those areas which are not selected as demonstration cities, if this bill were passed, there are still enough uncoordinated Federal programs and there should be a greater degree of coordination at the local level.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Moorhead, I guess I have testified against the creation of a Cabinet-rank Department of Housing and Urban Development for several years and I remember Mr. Reuss questioning me rather thoroughly in 1962 or 1963. The principal thrust of that bill was the coordination of all these Federal programs that are designed to assist the cities. I think we can find in that bill the basis for a new degree, a high degree of coordination, if it is implemented. But this bill is not necessary-I don't think you have to give the cities more money to achieve coordination.

Mr. MOORHEAD. There is a thread running through your testimony that I would very much want to get some help in finding the answer to the problem you are reciting.

Mr. Emlen, on page 4 of his testimony, talked about a gap in local initiative. On page 1 he talks about the cities doing that which they should have been doing. Mr. Williamson talked about too much apathy and indifferences on the local level, the ills to be found in the local authorities and Mr. Stewart talked about the lack of willingness of the local authorities to cooperate.

In the testimony that is going to be presented by the chamber of commerce, they talk about the cities having the resources, but that the resources are not always mobilized effectively.

What you are saying to us is that there is something missing at the local level. What I want to ask you gentlemen is, Why?

Mr. EMLEN. I would like to just philosophize on this a little bit. I have had some experience in township government in suburban Philadelphia where I was serving on the board of commissioners for 5 years.

I watched, for instance, the development of the suburban transportation complex that required an intercounty cooperation. There are five bedroom counties outside of Philadelphia County. I watched and had a hand in putting together the enthusiasm for getting these commuter trains, having the two railroads and the Philadelphia Transportation Co. work together on this business.

I am particularly aware that one county held out and held out and held out and would not join this compact and we went down and beat on them and argued with them and so forth-but the thread that runs through this testimony, as I say, I feel very strongly about this. This is the initiative-the initiative that was taken is the kind that Mr. Williamson and I and Mr. Stewart are talking about. It was a 3- or 4-year struggle to get this thing together and you have people who are very

liberal and conservative in their leanings—it was hard to get them to work together. I think the commuter transportation problem in Philadelphia has become outstanding because of this effort. But it took a lot of local initiative on the part of these different political subdivisions, and the ones with the most initiative worked with the ones with less initiative.

These local cooperation programs, good or bad, depend on the competency of the local politicians and the administrators. It is very—a very hard thing to answer, I will admit, but it can be done, and it can be done without any Federal intervention as it did in this case.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I think, sir, throughout the years, there is a tendency on the part of Washington-and this is not criticism of this administration, the same thing happened during the Eisenhower administration-of trying to push this money out to the communities and not make the communities measure up to their own responsibilities. I think for many years the workable program was something that a mayor could dictate to his secretary some afternoon and send in. And I think that considerable apathy developed in the communities and the rush was on to get the money and they would come to Congress and cry about the redtape and Congressmen are always sympathetic to local officials who are not getting the money fast enough. I think that this is the source of considerable difficulty; I think we should have made it tough on the communities to qualify for these Federal grants-in-aid and should have made them adopt minimum housing codes, enforce the codes, and now we are waking up to the fact that these omissions on the part of local officials result in the program not meeting the goals that we talked about over the years.

Mr. MOORHEAD. If I understand the thrust of your testimony as far as answering this complaint about the local initiative gap, you recommend, not that we provide more in the way of the carrot, but a little more in the way of the stick, would that be correct?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That is right.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARRETT. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. St Germain?

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I certainly appreciate your testimony this morning. A good part of it is constructive. Yet, I am overwhelmed. I do not mean that in a derogatory manner, but I do not think that you gentlemen have grasped at all and come to the understanding that we on the committee have come to after almost 2 weeks of hearings, as to the technique that is to be used here, because you cite the facts, for instance, that a limit has been put on the amount of urban renewal for each of the next 4 years. Also, on public housing. True, that is a fact. But the 80 percent of the funds here are to be utilized for more programs that are not covered by Federal grants. So that the incentives here are not nearly-in my opinion it goes further than just all of a sudden push a great deal of Federal money into the local city treasury. It gives existing Federal programs-it exists for these programs but it gives the particular community-makes funds available to it, extra funds to work on programs that they probably would not be able to get to for many, many years. We complain a great deal about Uncle Sam trying to do so much for the local communities. Mr. Emlen states that he was on a board of commissioners. You were a member of local government. I do not know what the financial

status of your particular community is, but most of the communities today are in trouble. They cannot keep up with building of schools. They cannot keep up with many things. A highway depot-a facility needed to maintain the streets and what have you. We've got problems. Without Federal funds these communities would have deteriorated completely. So I do not think we should always be critical of this. I appreciate the fact that much of your testimony is constructive. I am wondering if you did grasp the intent or the techniques that is intended.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. In our testimony we said, I think, that the problems are more fundamental. You touched on it. Local and State governments, many of them, are impoverished. They need money. This just nicks at the problem. There are many Members of Congress that are getting ready to address themselves to that problem of helping local and State governments. I think if it were not for the Vietnam war there would be considerable consideration given every one of the several plans knocking around on the Hill involving shared revenues. Things like that approach it fundamentally and that is the problem; this bill won't do it. It will do it to a very limited extent. But we certainly agree with you that many State and local governments are in a bad way, and maybe as they become urban oriented and urban dominated under the one-man, one-vote rule they might become more responsive to the needs of urban areas, and they might not, too.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. As far as incentive is concerned, how do you gentlemen feel we can provide that incentive? How do we give these people a vote in the communities? How do we inject them with the necessary incentive where it is nonexistent? Oftentimes I feel we find a group within the community who are just anti's. They do not have the courage because there is a low incentive to make that investment in order that in the years ahead we will see this community thrive and will survive. Do you have any suggestions on that?

Mr. EMLEN. I would like to comment, Mr. St Germain.

You have something else besides lack of initiative. You have in many cases sincere political philosophy that rejects some of these programs and approaches and I know specifically in my own township, after I was off the board of commissioners, there was a chance to avail ourselves of some Federal money in the improvement of local parksa local park situation. The board unanimously rejected it and they said they did not want any Federal money and they would do it themselves, and they did.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. They did something about it, though. I am concerned about the communities where they reject the Federal funds and they do not do anything about it. They are the ones who are in trouble.

Mr. BARRETT. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Reuss? Mr. REUSS. I, too, want to commend you and your association for your stand on rent supplements and rent certificates. I think they are good programs and we need your support because it indicates just once again that your association is willing to evaluate matters as they unfold in the light of new facts.

I think you made a good point in your presentation when you point out, as you do on page 5, that you have one committee of the Congress, the Government Operations Committee, looking at the so-called

Muskie bill and then you have this committee looking at the proposition of relations of metropolitan governments. You say on page 5:

We thus have the rather strange situation of two House committees simultaneously considering the same subject in two different bills.

I agree. I think it is almost anomalous. Since I am a member of the Government Operations Subcommittee, I have asked that committee to coordinate its work and send over that portion of the bill which has to do with that subject matter, so that the right hand will know what the left hand is doing.

I have just one question to ask you.

On the bottom of page 6 you quote from Secretary Weaver's book, "The Urban Complex." And you quote just one sentence:

We seek to recapture control of the use of the land, most of which the Government has already given to the people.

Well, that makes kindly old Doc Weaver almost look like a Socialist. I wonder if you would mind reading the preceding sentence in that book, "The Urban Complex."

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I have the book and I will-I lent it to a member of this committee. I will put in the record-in my opinion it is not out of context, but we will put in the entire two or three pages.

Mr. REUSS. I have looked it up, and I think it is on page 6 of the book, is it not? The previous sentence says

Mr. BARRETT. This may be inserted in the record without objection. (The information referred to follows:)

EXCERPT FROM "THE URBAN COMPLEX-HUMAN VALUES IN URBAN LIFE" BY DR ROBERT C. WEAVER (DOUBLEDAY)

Originally this Nation was developed largely by offering people absolute control over wide areas to facilitate the rapid improvement of the land. Now we are trying to recover control of the way land is used so as to achieve a proper type of development of our urban areas and of our whole country. Our current objectives are to secure the open space needed both for urban and rural recreation, to protect wildlife, to promote conservation, to eliminate scatterization, and, of course, to provide sites for the shelter required by our population. Thus, we seek to recapture control of the use of the land, most of which the Government has already given to people.

Mr. REUSS. I will read the previous sentence:

Our current objectives are to secure the open space needed both for urban and rural recreation, to protect wildlife, to promote conservation, to eliminate scatterization and, of course, to provide sites for the shelter requied by our population. Thus, we seek to recapture control of the use of land, most of which the Government has already given to the people.

You are not against protecting wildlife?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. NO.

Mr. EMLEN. No.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. All right.

Mr. REUSS. You are not against open space?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. No, sir.

Mr. REUSS. How about conservation?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. We are all for it.

Mr. REUSS. You are not for scatterization?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That's right.

Mr. REUSS. Actually when you read the whole quotation including the "Thus,", it does not make Doc Weaver out as so bad at all.