Senator Hansen, would you like to inquire? Senator MUSKIE. The next witness is Secretary Robert C. Weaver, Department of Housing and Urban Development. We are pleased to welcome you, Mr. Secretary. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT C. WEAVER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT Secretary WEAVER. I am pleased to appear before you today to present the Department's views on the proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1967-S. 698-and several related measures. We welcome the continuing exploration of the problems of federalism and the role of the Government in dealing with the problems of an urban society. It is appropriate that the legislative proposals contained in this omnibus bill focus not on Washington alone, but also on the State, regional, and local levels of government. A complex and decentralized system of government, an exploding urbanization process, rising expectations, and advances in technology mean that there can be no ultimate or unchanging solutions to how government conducts its business. We endorse the general objectives proposed in this act more uniform administration of Federal grants to State governments; extending reimbursable technical assistance services to both State and local governments; supporting rather than bypassing the local general-purpose governments of the country, where ultimately all public and private services must be coordinated and delivered; continuing congressional review of Federal grant-in-aid programs to assure their relevance and adequacy in meeting national needs; simplifying and consolidating grant-in-aid programs where greater effectiveness can be achieved thereby; more uniform and expeditious Federal practices with respect to the acquisition, use, and disposition of urban land, including consistency, to the extent possible, with local planning goals, and more equitable and uniform Federal relocation policy to minimize the possibility of hardship among the people and businesses displaced by Federal and federally-aided programs. It should be emphasized that none of these objectives designed to support strong and capable governments are meaningful unless they have the effect of bringing public resources to bear in making our urban places worthy of the people who live in them. Neat and orderly administration is a mockery unless it assists the people of urban America in providing decent housing, averting the spread of slums and blight, focusing resources on needs that are most pressing, and providing opportunity for people to choose among types of environment that fit their needs and desires. It is indicative of the great strength of our democratic system that most of our public debate centers not on the objectives of his bill but rather on the most effective means of achieving them. In this context I would like to comment on the titles of the proposed legislation and briefly identify some actions currently underway by our Department in cooperation with other Federal agencies and State and local governments that complement or that are consistent with the bill's basic objectives. Senator MUSKIE. Secretary Weaver, I cannot resist making a comment on two hearings I recently chaired, one yesterday and this one today. Yesterday, we were concerned with considering the potential of the steam engine as motor power for the automobile. We had two exhibits, two steam automobiles constructed in terms of the available technology today. We could not find room in that hearing. Everybody wanted to come to look at these gadgets and hear what the potentials were. We had the television cameras, the newspapers, and cameras. I suspect that as a result of that hearing yesterday, I got publicity from coast to coast, on the networks and in newspapers whose names I have never even heard. Well, today we have a dry technical bill which is concerned with the problem of making government work. The reason I am stimulated to make this comment is the first complete statement on this page, that it has to do with making this system work for people of this country. It is technical, it is dry, but it has more meaning on which the people affected are responding and upon which they have focused attention than almost any bill that comes before a congressional committee. There are exceptions, the housing bill, which is before the Senate, is equally meaningful. But here, we cannot get attention upon legislation that can really, in somewhat fundamental ways, redirect the process of government so it can achieve the goals you so eloquently stated at the beginning of this paper. I could not resist that comment. Secretary WEAVER. If I may make a postscript, I think one of the problems that faces us is we are a gadget oriented society. When we come up with a gadget, no matter how superficial it may be, we get a response. When we come up with tough analytical problems that have great meaning and importance, we are faced with the situation you mention today. Senator MUSKIE. Now that we have commiserated with each other, you may proceed. Secretary WEAVER. We favor title II which has the objective of making full information available to the Governor and of furthering the uniform administration of Federal grant funds to the States. In this connection, the Department last year initiated a service to each of the Governors under which we provide his designated representative with quarterly reports on HUD supported projects within the State. HUD has several programs which are administered through the States. Two of these are relatively new, the urban information and technical assistance program authorized under title IX of the Demon stration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and the community development training program authorized under title VIII of the Housing Act of 1964. In both of these, maximum discretion has been given to the Governor for designation of appropriate State agencies to carry out the programs. In addition, several elements of the section 701 planning assistance program involve grants to the States. There too, particularly in connection with the program of assistance to State planning, we have taken advantage of the administrative leeway permitted under the law in order to assure the involvement and support of the governors. We also favor the provisions of title III which authorize Federal agencies to provide specialized and technical services to State and local governments on a reimbursable basis. It is premature to identify the specific HUD services that will be called for by the States and localities. They might, for example, utilize aid in connection with certain of our specialized market housing analysis activities or ask us to provide specialized training services as the Department's training capacity becomes further developed. The Department is in full accord with the objectives of title IV to achieve a more coordinated intergovernmental policy in the administration of Federal urban development programs. The Department's model cities program has a special pertinence to the objectives of title IV since the very essence of the program is an attempt to bring about the most effective and economical coordination of Federal, State, and local governmental efforts and private efforts to improve model neighborhoods. The program is an experiment in bringing together old programs and new so that they may be focused on the physical and social needs of the area. It involves a multiple funding approach which uses separate established programs; but it also provides supplementary funds to bridge the gaps between existing programs and to permit new and experimental approaches. In the model cities program, the mayor and his model city agency staff are charged with developing comprehensive, coordinated neighborhood programs and with obtaining widespread participation of neighborhood residents in program planning and execution. For this purpose, Federal programs cannot bypass the city government, and there must be assurance that independent local agencies will not work separately, or at cross purposes with each other. For the model city program to succeed, local activities, though funded from separate sources, must be responsive to an overall strategy for solving the neighborhood's basic problems. In meeting the challenge presented by the need for comprehensive and coordinated model city activities, local officials have raised hard questions as to the ability and willingness of the Federal Government to respond in a correspondingly coordinated_manner. Doubt has been expressed as to the commitment of the Federal Government to change its old and established ways of doing business. They ask whether the Federal Government will provide adequate funds in a timely manner; will provide adequate technical assistance: and whether Federal procedural requirements will be streamlined both in planning and execution stages. We recognize the problems and share the concerns expressed by local officials. They are very real. We are now actively engaged 95-626-68-26 with other Federal departments and agencies in making the changes which are necessary to provide a coordinated Federal response. I would also like to take this opportunity to describe briefly several efforts that the Department currently has underway in support of more coordinated policy and administration of grants for urban development. The Council of State Governments is currently working on a major HUD research project aimed at strengthening the role of State governments in the administration of federally assisted grantin-aid programs. The purpose of the project is to provide better links between comprehensive planning and the functional State plans required by many Federal grant programs. Over 80 Federal grant programs currently require the States to prepare a plan as a condition of receipt of aid. The study should lead to more consistent Federal planning requirements and strengthen the role of the Governor in the administration of State programs. The Department has recently established an interagency committee to examine federally supported State technical assistance programs for helping localities in all aspects of community development. This committee is composed of representatives from OEO, EDA, HEW, Agriculture, Transportation, and Labor. It is assessing the impact of federally supported technical assistance programs on State administrative structure and ways of coordinating the funding, coverage, and administration of these Federal aids. The study will identify specific instances in which improved coordination might enhance the effectiveness of federally supported State-local technical services, propose improvements in interagency review of proposed activities, and help reduce duplication of grant coverage and approval. Another recent effort by the Department to improve HUD relations with States and localities was the further decentralization of Departmental operations and a reduction in time for processing grant applications. This was done in line with the recommendations of the Joint Administrative Task Force established by the President and chaired by our Assistant Secretary for Administration, Dwight Ink. In addition, in order to better assist States and localities, we hope to establish a staff in each HUD regional office to coordinate and unify HUD program relationships at the State and local level. They will assist the Regional Administrator in serving as liaison among States and localities on matters involving more than one program or requiring Departmental level participation and coordination. This should contribtue to a more coordinated policy and a better mix of programs for improved urban development. We recognize the desirability of assuring that there be periodic congressional review of new Federal grant programs, as provided for in title V. It is important after a reasonable time to examine grant-in-aid legislation in order to be satisfied that the authority and funding provided is appropriate and adequate to current needs. We endorse, however, the views of the Bureau of the Budget concerning the disadvantages of a fixed 5-year termination date for grant programs as compared with more flexible provision for review. Title VI of the bill would authorize the President to follow a procedure based on the Reorganization Act of 1949 in proposing the consolidation of grant-in-aid programs. There is undoubtedly a continual need to focus the attention of the Congress and the executive branch on opportunities for combining related grant programs, especially those that are too narrowly defined. The finest example we have in recent years of consolidating grants to form a more flexible and effective grant program is the Partnership for Health Act. This act consolidated upwards of some 15 small and specific categorical health programs into a single authorization, appropriation and set of requirements. Under it, each State now has maximum discretion in providing health services in the light of its own special needs. It may be instructive, however, that this major reform was accomplished through the conventional legislative route. This route was also followed with the somewhat more limited, but potentially significant consolidation in last year's economic opportunity amendments of a number of federally assisted work and training programs. We are not certain that title VI as drafted adequately deals with the problem. The language authorizes modifications of grant-in-aid formulas but does not deal with related matters of consolidated grant administration, such as eligibility to receive funds, planning requirements or program coverage. We therefore defer to the Bureau of the Budget on the approach taken in this title. I am glad to report that earlier this month the Department of Housing and Urban Development took action to consolidate the administration of three of its programs designed to bring about a positive commitment by the States to the urban development problems of communities, and to strengthen the management capability of State and local governments. This reorganization brings the urban information and State technical assistance program and the community development training program under one roof with the long established section. 701 planning assistance program. These three closely linked programs of technical assistance, training and planning are now consolidated administratively under our Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development. We are already working on a number of steps that will permit us to translate this Federal administrative action into improved and simplified procedures. One of these, as Governor Connally indicated in his testimony for the National Governors Conference and the Council of State Governments, is a single application covering State aids under the three programs. The provisions of title VII are designed to assure that the Federal Government, in its real property acquisition and disposition procedures, takes account of local land use controls and planning objectives. We are, of course, in basic agreement with this objective. It is, however, worth noting that from an urban development standpoint, the significance of this title is necessarily dependent upon the quality of the local land use controls and planning. And in connection with disposition activities particularly, the most notable area for intergovernmental cooperation may extend well beyond the minimum standards of this title and involve, not conformity of land disposition to current local regulations and objectives, but the establishment by the locality of new regulations and objectives that will enable Federal surplus land to be used in new and imaginative ways. |