the fact remains that the States are not receiving information on all Federal programs in a readily usable format. The proposed grant consolidations may further complicate the confusion which exists in the present system.

The compendium of Federal programs to be supplied under the provisions of this bill will make available more information on Federal programs, which in turn will make the system more usable, and consequently the greater value, to all the States.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, let me say that I am informed there are approximately over 1,300 Federal programs at the present time. Having a useful compendium of all of these programs with accurate information readily at hand is something that is a vital necessity to our States and municipal governments, and I think also that it would be of great value to those in Federal service.

Finally, in conclusion, let me say this. I am aware of the legal, practical and technical criticism of the legislation which we are discussing today. This criticism deserves careful suggestions. However, it is my desire to see the principles and purposes of the proposed legislation remain substantially unchanged, and that further discussion will serve to enhance, and not to inhibit, their successful implementation. Theodore Roosevelt once said that, "A great democracy has got to be progressive or it will soon cease to be great or a democracy." This perhaps has more meaning for us today than it did for the public servants of Roosevelt's time. We have witnessed the growth of categorical grants because in some instances incentive was required, seed money was necessary, to help solve some of our problems.

These grants themselves are now creating problems. We have provided incentive, we have identified our major problems, most of us are aware of our priorities. What the States need now is the flexibility to attack these problems based on their own priorities, and the flexibility to accomplish this more easily with both functional and interdisciplinary approaches at the State level where the problems are best known.

We must continue to build not only a progressive image but also a program of progressive action. Demands are made upon us much faster than we can meet them. Promises are made much earlier than the promised services can be delivered. There is a growing sense of frustration with the apparent inaction and lack of momentum at all levels of government by our citizens. This has become evident on an increasing scale in the challenge to our system by the youth of our country, by the resort to illegal activities rather than to law by our minorities, by the reluctance of our taxpayers to support and finance one more program.

We must continue our progress, we must regain the momentum to satisfy the needs of those we serve, and to alleviate their frustrations and anxieties. You have before you legislation which will move us forward in this direction, which will enable us to better deliver services to our citizens.

I wish to commend this subcommittee for recognizing the importance of this legislation and to thank you for your courtesy in giving me the opportunity to state my views on it.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Governor, for your excellent testimony. I have just one or two questions.

First, have you had a chance to review the Bureau of the Budget guidelines on the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968? Governor SHAFER. Not in any great depth.

Senator MUSKIE. I wonder if your administration has had an opportunity to review them?

Governor SHAFER. Oh, yes.

Senator MUSKIE. And whether or not you would care to send us your views on those matters?

Governor SHAFER. Yes, we have. My office of administration has done that and we will send you an analysis and a memorandum on that.

Senator MUSKIE. I assume they have not created any great problems for you?

Governor SHAFER. No, they have not. I think they are steps in the right direction.

Senator MUSKIE. You are representing the National Governors' Conference here and you probably do not have the specific information which this next question would solicit, but I wonder if the conference would respond. How many States have State coordinators and State planning agencies which might be helpful in implementing the objectives of joint consolidation and joint funding?

Governor SHAFER. We discussed this in general terms at our last conference, and I cannot give you the specifics, but I can say that the vast majority of the States are headed in this direction. There was, in fact, no evidence of any State not wanting to do this.

I think there was uniformity among all the Governors there, of the necessity for providing this kind of implementation at the State level. Senator MUSKIE. So there is a really active interest?

Governor SHAFER. There is a very active interest in this. I think it is one of the most exciting things that is happening in our federal system. For all too long I think that our States have abrogated their responsibility in many respects. I think that we are rectifying that

now.

Senator MUSKIE. I am glad to hear that, because without that kind of attitude on the part of the State governments, I think that enactment of this kind of legislation would be a futile act.

Governor SHAFER. I could not disagree with that at all, Senator. I think that unless we are willing to assume our responsibilities and take care of our share of the action, this is meaningless.

All this would do would be to just make money available which would not be meeting the needs of citizens, and that is what we are trying to do, get more money where the needs are. This is why I am so wholeheartedly in favor of this legislation, because I think that it will do that.

I think the whole idea of our federal system is partnership, and partnership means that each partner has a share of the obligations involved to reach the goals set, and this I think is a giant step in making sure that the federal system is what we want it to be.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Governor. I think in your testimony you have covered the various pieces of legislation for us in a comprehensive way which shows their interrelationship and relevance to each other perhaps better than we have done ourselves.

Governor SHAFER. I thank you very much, and I am deeply grateful for the courtesies shown me by the chairman of the subcommittee and the committee itself.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, sir.

(The following material was supplied:)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Harrisburg, September 24, 1969.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations,
Committee on Government Operations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Upon completion of my testimony before your Subcommittee on behalf of the Intergovernmental Cooperation, Grant Consolidation, and Program Information Acts of 1969, on September 10, 1969, you requested that I provide you with certain information.

You requested that I inform you of the impact of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 and the steps Pennsylvania is taking to implement it. One reason for the delay in responding to your request is that two Bureau of the Budget Circulars which implement various provisions of the Act were only recently promulgated and were not received until September 16th.

Reference will be made to the substantive Titles and Sections of the Act pertaining to State action and with which we have had experience since its enactment. I can say, as a general comment, that the Bureau of the Budget is working to provide all necessary implementing instructions and has been most cooperative and responsive to our queries to date.

Title II

Section 201.-This section requires Federal agencies to provide information on approved grants-in-aid and has been implemented by Bureau of the Budget Circular A-95. This Circular, the provisions of which are effective on October 1, 1969, calls for the required information to be delivered to a central State reception point for use by the Executive and Legislative Branches and the various political subdivisions throughout the State. I have designated my Office of Administration, Bureau of the Budget, as the Central State reception point.

The Circular also states that a standard form will be provided for use by all Federal agencies, which form will be machine-readable. At the present time, BoB is having difficulty in achieving the agreement of all interested Federal agencies on the fundamental definition of grant-in-aid and the number of programs covered by the definition provided in Title I, Section 106, of the Act. Interim information will commence to be provided on October 1st, but until the standard form is agreed upon, Bureau of the Budget personnel inform us that the reliability of information supplied, in the aggregate, will be questionable. The primary reason for this is the different interpretation applied to the definition of grants-in-aid.

When the machine-readable standard form becomes available, the data provided will be stored and retrieved by our automatic data processing service bureau. Information provided in the interim will be stored and retrieved manually. A copy of all information received will be automatically sent to the State General Assembly and to the State agency which initiated the request for the grant-in-aid. We expect that, once the system is in full operation, we will have an accurate and reliable data base from which to extract and aggregate information on Federal grants-in-aid. The most immediate advantage of this section of the Act is that it is forcing Federal agencies to cut through a portion of their semantic jungle, and the clarity achieved will be of benefit to both Federal and State Governments. Sections 202, 203, 204.-Bureau of the Budget Circular A-96, dated August 29, 1969, provides implementing instructions on these sections, but was not received until September 16, 1969. The requirements of this Circular are effective immediately and direct all Federal agencies to comply with these sections of the Act. It is noteworthy that under Section 204, waiver of the "single State agency" concept, the Bureau of the Budget urges Federal agencies to provide an expeditious and affirmative response to requests for such waivers, and directs Federal agencies to notify the Bureau if a negative response is to be sent, with the reasons for the refusal.

We have not had any experience in implementation to further comment on these sections.

Title III

Section 302.-This is the only section of this Title pertaining directly to intergovernmental cooperation. The remaining sections provide guidelines to Federal agencies for the implementation of this Title. Bureau of the Budget Circular A-97, dated August 29, 1969, and received on September 16, 1969, provides implementing instructions for Section 302.

Circular A-97 enumerates the types of service that may be provided. In addition to other guidelines, the Circular allows each Federal agency to determine for itself whether the requested services are within the "special competence" of the agency. Paragraph 6.c. of the Circular reads as follows:

"C. If a Federal agency receives a request for specialized or technical services which are not covered in subparagraph a above and which it believes is consistent with the Act and which it has a special competence to provide, it should forward such request to the Bureau of the Budget for action. Similarly, if there is doubt as to whether the service requested is covered by sub-paragraph a, the request should be forwarded to the Bureau of the Budget for action."

If there is any weakness in this Circular, it is that Federal agencies are not required to inform the Bureau of the Budget of the refusal of services requested, in a manner similar to notification of refusals under Title II and Circular A-96. Again, because of lack of experience in implementation, no further comment can be made on this section.

Title IV

The major portion of Bureau of the Budget Circular A-95, dated July 24, 1969, promulgates regulations to facilitate coordinated development planning on an intergovernmental basis for certain Federal assistance programs, in furtherance of Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and this Title of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.

Within the limits of the State's experience in furthering intergovernmental coordination and cooperation, Pennsylvania has accumulated a substantial base of information and intergovernmental mechanisms which will be brought into use as the State proceeds with the application of Bureau of Bugdet Circular A-95 and the continued expression of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. A major objective of the Commonwealth is the development of a coordinated network of interfunctional and intergovernmental planning and program relationships upon which a Federal/State/regional program review and coordination system will be built.

Within Pennsylvania, the development of such a network in each of the major functional areas is in progress. While present over-all capabilities may be described as uneven, substantial progress has been made in recent months. Functional planning and review capabilities have been established in the Departments of Highways, Health and Welfare. In the area of Recreation, a major multidepartmental effort under the direction of the State Planning Board is now under way in the preparation of a Comprehensive State-wide Outdoor Recreation Plan. In the area of Transportation, the Legislature has been requested to authorize a State Department of Transportation which will bring together all of the State's transportation programs. In yet another program area, the Departments of Commerce, Community Affairs and the State Planning Board are presently compiling a comprehensive survey of area-wide planning activities in the Commonwealth including State, metropolitan, regional, and local programs, as a basis for submitting a total State request for comprehensive planning assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Over-all, the Planning, Programming and Budgeting system now being implemented in State Government is providing, among other things, a more systematic basis upon which to identify related programs and functions and to begin building more unified and coordinated administrative structures. As the designated State agency for implementing Title IV, the State Planning Board will serve as a central office charged with the responsibility to facilitate and assist in gaining the indicated planning and program coordination.

Pennsylvania has achieved considerable progress in the development of State/ Regional/Local relationships through the establishment of multi-county regional planning and development programs in the Commonwealth, and the delineation and utilization of multi-county State Planning Regions as sub-State units for planning and administering the programs and other activities of the State Government. Capable ongoing multi-county regional planning agencies have been active in both of the State's major metropolitan regions-Pittsburgh (the South

western Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission) and Philadelphia (the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission)-for more than two years. Both of these programs have been building a reservoir of experience in review, coordinating and directing regional development objectives at both the regional and State levels. The State Planning Board has been closely associated with these programs in terms of their original organization, as members of their policymaking bodies, and in working toward the provision of regional inputs to Statewide planning efforts. Elsewhere in the State, at least three other comprehensive regional planning programs have been established, and several of the seven Local Development Districts established in the Appalachia portion of the State have been moving toward the development of comprehensive regional planning capabilities. The working mechanisms and relationships established between each of the Local Development Districts, the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, the State Planning Board, and the Appalachia Regional Commission, in the preparation and implementation of the Appalachia Development Plan for 1969, demonstrate the unique capability to bring together a variety of governmental and functional interests in a coordinated effort of large area development.

In 1966 the boundaries of 13 State Planning Regions were officially designated after nearly two years of exhaustive studies. These State Planning Regions are finding increasing utilization as basic building blocks for sub-State planning, analysis, and administration by State Government. In July, 1968, an Executive Order of the Governor instructed eight State agencies to begin using uniform regional boundaries in their administrative breakdown of the State. The resultant six Human Services Regions are based upon the thirteen State Planning Regions. The delineation of Local Development Districts (LDD) organized for Appalachian and Economic Development Assistance are also based upon the State Planning Regions. The planning and administration of the Appalachia Development_Program have been carried out almost entirely within the framework of the LDD areas. In the evolution of both the concept and substance of a State-wide Development Plan, the State Planning Regions have provided a basic geographic framework. As a foundation for the State Planning effort during 1967 and 1968, a major reconnaissance of the Commonwealth was undertaken culminating in a report entitled Pennsylvania's Regions.

Beyond the development of a network of State and Regional planning capabilities, the Commonwealth has been building a background of experience in the utilization of administrative, coordinative and review mechanisms. The State Planning Board, designated by the Governor as the Pennsylvania State "Clearinghouse" under Circular A-95, has established ongoing review and comment procedures for a variety of programs.

Under its responsibility for the preparation of the Five-Year Capital Program, the State Planning Board has also demonstrated the means of bringing together a variety of State agency inputs in an increasingly unified and coordinated manner. Project review and comment systems have been developed and implemented by the State Planning Board staff for several programs of the Commonwealth.

The review and comment mechanisms established by Section 204 of the 1966 Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act and expanded by Bureau of the Budget Circular A-95 provide Pennsylvania State Government with a significant new means of coordinating Federal, State and regional development programs. Building upon the network of regional and interfunctional relationships described above, the State is presently establishing the initial procedure for implementing Circular A-95. Recognizing that the full implications of this coordinative effort will be realized only after a longer period of experience, the State Planning Board is approaching this task with care and caution. As a basic principle, we do not intend to add yet another layer of red tape to the already complex grant-in-aid processes. Rather the coordinative mechanisms will be imposed so as to ultimately simplify and expedite the procedures from the viewpoint of the individual applicants.

The Project Notification and Review System (PNRS) in Pennsylvania is administered by the State Planning Board within the Office of the Governor. Project review at the State level is carried out simultaneously with that at the regional level. Close contact between Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission and the State Planning Board has begun to be reflected in the identification of projects with both regional and State implication.