The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony.

Now, we have told the witness Mayor Rousakis of Savannah, Ga., that we would try to get through with him by 11:30 so he could meet another appointment.

I would like for the mayor to be recognized for that purpose, asking him any questions you care to ask, and, then, we can excuse him and interrogate the others.

Will that be satisfactory?

Without objection; so ordered.

All right. Would any of you like to ask the mayor any questions before he leaves?

Mr. STANTON. My. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stanton.

Mr. STANTON. Mayor, we appreciate your testimony.

I wonder if you would follow me in a little bit of arithmetic here? In your statement you say you represent approximately 17,000 incorporated municipalities. That is what we, in Ohio, call a city. Mr. ROUSAKIS. Fifteen thousand, I think.

Mr. STANTON. Further on in your statement, you quoted a survey of 1,105 cities in which it has been proven that for sewer treatment facilities over a 5-year period the total estimated cost of these facilities would be $33 billion to $37 billion, is that correct?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. STANTON. It bothered me here this morning on the testimony about the $5 billion bill. If there are 1,105 cities that need $37 billion over a period of 5 years and forgetting about the other 15,000 cities, would you recommend that the amount in this bill be increased considerably?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. Mr. Stanton, this is a projection of the total need for sewage treatment facilities over the 5-year period.

Mr. STANTON. The projected expenditure over a 5-year period is $33 billion to $37 billion for 1,000 cities?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. The 1,100 cities were used as a sample, and this total figure that we are projecting here is

Mr. STANTON. For all of your cities, roughly?

I wanted to clear that up, because on the surface it looked as if the amount of money involved was not nearly sufficient to meet the actual needs.

Now, under this bill of a $5 billion grant, of 100 percent participation, if the city of Atlanta gets a 100 percent grant and Savannah is down the list and you are going to go ahead under the formula of the 60-40 or 70-30, or something like that, what is that going to do to the city of Savannah? Would you wait for the 100 percent grant?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. Would we wait for it? We can't. We are under directives now. We are already in the process of financing our pollution abatement program.

Where this would come in to assist us is in keeping the tremendous contribution made by our citizens down as we move on into the completion of our pollution abatement program.

Mr. STANTON. Therefore, you would be happy to settle for what you have now or a little bit more and let somebody else get 100 percent participation?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. No.

Mr. STANTON. You would want the 100 percent?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. We would like some 100 percent participation, too, to keep down the ever-increasing burden that is being carried by the local taxpayers.

We do not have any other sources. We do not see any other sources coming in at the present time, and with the ever-increasing cost of the pollution abatement program that we are facing, unless moneys like this come into us we are going to sock it again to the center city, the inner city, people who can least afford to pay this for the additional costs that we are going to face.

Mr. STANTON. I want to ask just one last question. In my district in northeastern Ohio, I was amazed to find that after the grant had been approved and the money authorized, the Environmental Protection Agency has not approved a water treatment or sewage facility plant for over a year. They have come close. Then, they upgrade their standards after the grant has been given, and they just do not seem to zero in exactly on what they want. We have problems with outhouses and HUD tentatively has approved the project, but EPA says "No, we have to upgrade this thing," and it throws off all of the financial formulas and nobody knows where they stand.

Have you had similar problems?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. Let me ask our city manager who has been recently meeting with the EPA people and the Georgia Water Control people to make the comment there.

Mr. MENDONSA. Well, in Georgia at least, we have not had this problem with EPA. They have set down their requirements, and they have insisted that we comply with them, and they have not changed them, and that is a very costly undertaking for us.

We are up for secondary treatment, and they are moving toward tertiary treatment. We do not know yet what this will mean. But we have to go ahead without any further delay.

Mr. SNOWHITE. The Environmental Protection Agency has been criticizing State and local governments for not utilizing the funds that have been available under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Currently, it has been estimated that $2 billion is due State and local governments for local prefinancing of waste treatment facilities where the Federal share has not been paid, and the city of Cleveland, Ohio, I think, was given a 180-day notice, along with Detroit and Atlanta, about a year and a half ago to comply with water quality standards.

The mayor of Detroit said that he would give EPA 180 days to come up with the money owed the city for the Federal share covered by the city of Detroit.

So, it is a very serious problem, and it is not that the State and local governments are not submitting applications, it is that they are being held up in the regional offices and by EPA.

Mr. STANTON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else desire to ask the mayor of Savannah anything further before he leaves? Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Mayor, first of all, let me indicate that you are certainly a very, very sincere and impressive witness. We were commenting on that up here.

Obviously, I am wedded to the idea that is contained in this proposed legislation, but I would like to get your thoughts on a particular problem.

As you know, the national rate of unemployment has been hovering around 6 percent. The black rate of unemployment has approached 10 percent within cities. Certainly, in my city of Baltimore and other cities, when you look at certain age groups, 16 through 21, you get an astronomical rate of unemployment approaching almost 40 percent. We are paying the penalty for this in a steadily rising rate of crime. Now, even if you got all the money that you wanted, if this legislation goes through, you would not be able to cope with your black employment problem in Savannah, I assume?

I assume that is correct?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MITCHELL. What worries me is how can we assure that Black Americans who have the highest rate of unemployment, are going to get jobs in the counties contiguous and adjacent to the cities?

Has there been any dialogue with the areas surrounding Savannah vis-a-vis this problem?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. No. The problem is centered in Savannah and not in the outlying areas. The black population is primarily located within the city limits of Savannah, so the problem is centered there.

Mr. MITCHELL. Maybe I did not make myself clear.

I recognize that the high rate of unemployment for black America is found in cities, and I am saying that no matter what we do in terms of grants and other moneys, Federal moneys, coming into the cities, we cannot absorb all of those unemployed.

My concern is: How do you get some of these people who are living in Savannah and other urban centers, opportunities of obtaining jobs in counties or areas outside of the city which receive money under this legislation? Has there been any dialog in that area?

Mr. ROUSAKIS. None in Savannah, none in our area, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MITCHELL. All right.

Mr. MENDONSA. But I think the problem we have, Mr. Mitchell, is to try to find some way to transport people living in the central city, such as you mentioned, to the outlying area.

So, you see, this could be a right complicated problem.

Mr. MITCHELL. That is precisely what I wanted to get in. While we consider this very, very meritorious legislation, you have the problem of the inner-city workers not having transportation to get out to the sites and you also have the problem of exclusionary zoning practices in counties resulting in no housing opportunities for blacks.

I am for the legislation. My argument is that I am awfully afraid that the black unemployed, the subemployed black Americans are going to get the short end of the stick again.

Mr. ROUSAKIS. We will submit an answer in writing to the questions you raise.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.

(The following letter with attachments was received from Mayor Rousakis in regard to Mr. Mitchell's questions:)

Hon. PARREN J. MITCHELL,
U.S. House of Representatives,

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES,
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,
May 25, 1972.

Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MITCHELL: Responding on behalf of the National League of Cities and the United States Conference of Mayors to your question during my recent testimony before the House Banking and Currency Committee on H.R

13853, it is the policy of both the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to encourage and work vigorously for full employment opportunities regardless of where the job is and where the worker lives.

During the 48th Annual Congress of Cities of the National League of Cities, national municipal policy was adopted calling for a National Urbanization Policy, including "A specific policy for the settlement of people throughout the nation to balance the concentration of population among and within metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas while providing social and economic opportunity for all persons. The National League of Cities National Municipal Policy continues:

"Federal policies and practices which in effect restrict assistance for low income housing to central cities must be changed so that assistance is available and in fact encourages such housing throughout metropolitan areas and in rural areas and new communities. In addition, suburbs and new communities must assume more responsibility for increasing the supply of low and moderate income housing. Metropolitan areas should develop housing strategies which will achieve a balanced housing supply in central cities and suburbs."

In addition, I am attaching several sections from the Notional Municipal Policy chapter on Human Resources dealing with equal employment opportunity.

The United States Conference of Mayors is also strongly on record as supporting equal housing opportunities throughout the metropolitan areas. A copy of "Resolution 23, Housing Opportunities", adopted at the Annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Philadelphia on June 16, 1971, is also attached.

We would also add that our objective, for the nation and for my own City of Savannah, is to better the quality of life for those people in the central cities-the blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, the young, the elderly. We would hope that the past trend of growth and development occurring almost exclusively in the suburbs could be reversed. We would look toward the revitalization of our central cities— and also the older suburbs which find themselves facing the same problems as the inner cities-through measures as proposed in H.R. 13853, to create the jobs in the central cities.

I hope this is a satisfactory response to a very difficult problem.
Sincerely yours,

JOHN ROUSA KIS, Mayor, Savannah, Ga.

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY, ADOPTED 48TH ANNUAL CONGRESS OF CITIES, 1971, CHAPTER 2, "HUMAN RESOURCES"

2.205 EXPANSION OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

Every individual should be assured that his entry into the employment market will be conditioned by his own ability to satisfy work standards. In order to achieve this objective it is imperative that we:

A. Remove artificial barriers which bear no relationship to standards of performance such as arrest records or formal educational achievement.

B. Remove discrimination by reason of race, creed, age, sex or other social barriers.

C. Strengthen the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by granting it cease and desist powers and by providing funding for an expanded staff. D. Support fully Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

E. Require labor unions to carry out commitments to encourage and recruit minority groups into apprenticeship and journeyman programs.

F. Relocate and establish new federal facilities in areas that are easily accessible to low income people.

2.206 CREATING INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN DISADVANTAGED AREAS

Federal, state and local tax incentives and federal subsidies should be provided to those businesses which:

A. Hire or give training to residents of low-income neighborhoods.

B. Locate in low-income areas and give preference in hiring to residents in those areas.

2.207 ENCOURAGING LOCAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN DEPRIVED AREAS

To encourage the development of local entrepreneurship in deprived areas, the following steps should be taken:

A. Distribute funds and technical assistance, with local governmental coordination, to encourage local entrepreneurship and indigenous industry in deprived areas.

B. Grant the Small Business Administration (SBA) increased authority and funds, and require that SBA emphasize loans in areas which have substantial unemployment and loans or loan guarantees to "high risk" ventures. C. Economic Development Administration (EDA) and SBA loans, grants and guarantees should be made available to community development corporations as well as private profit-making corporations.

(Adopted at the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, in Philadelphia, Pa., June 16, 1971.)

RESOLUTION 23. Housing OPPORTUNITIES

WHEREAS, there are inadequate housing opportunities for low and moderate income families in many metropolitan areas; and WHEREAS, zoning and land use restrictions are sometimes used to impede equal housing opportunities throughout metropolitan areas; and

WHEREAS, some cities do not have adequate land and few cities have the additional financial resources necessary to provide adequate housing, education, police and fire protection, public works, health, and other public services; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, the Housing Act of 1949, and fair housing legislation has established that the provision of and access to and adequate supply of low and moderate income housing regardless of income or race in all parts of our country is a vital national goal; and

WHEREAS, in furtherance of this goal, each level of government, whether it be federal, state, county, or municipal, has an affirmative duty to assure that a full range of housing opportunities becomes a functional reality; and

WHEREAS, the federal government, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, has an affirmative obligation to administer its programs and to allocate its resources with this national policy firmly in mind; and

WHEREAS, President Nixon's policy on equal housing opportunities announced on June 11, 1971 raises great concerns about its potential effectiveness in achieving such opportunities; and

WHEREAS, low and moderate income groups, including blue and white collar workers, returning war veterans, the elderly, the young and minorities, cannot afford new single family housing, for all of which in 1970 median sales price was $23,500 including subsidized 235 lower income housing;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the USCM strongly urges President Nixon to support the incremental initiative taken by Secretary George Romney of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and direct all other appropriate federal agencies to cooperate with HUD to promote the development of low and moderate income housing throughout all Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, including suburban communities; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that President Nixon, or where appropriate Secretary Romney, direct federal agencies administering programs such as, but not limited to, highway appropriations, public works projects, and FHA mortgage loan guarantees, as well as community development projects, to advise all communities that the future availability of federal funds for these projects will depend upon the applicant-community's commitment to provide low and moderate income housing, and that to refuse to cooperate in this regard will serve to terminate all such federal assistance; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the federal government should take great care in analyzing the availability of housing opportunities when locating a government facility or when awarding a federal contract to a private company, and that where cooperation is not forthcoming from the community or company in question, the federal government should refuse to so locate the facility or approve the contract; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the USCM requests that a delegation of mayors meet with the President to discuss the ramifications of his policy on the development of low and moderate income housing for the nation.

The CHAIRMAN. We are obligated to a few other members who would like to interrogate this witness before he leaves.

Mr. Rousselot.