In this connection, what is the practice of the Bureau of the Budget with respect to title 701 planning grants to municipalities, metropolitan areas, and regions of the country with respect to avoiding duplication? Title 701, as you'know, says there shall be no duplication, but lo and behold, I found there was a few months ago. This, as I say, is all water over the dam, but I am anxious it not be repeated. Mr. SEIDMAN. There were really two problems. One, the situation in the National Capital area was a rather special situation because of the special interest of the Federal Government. The problem we have outside of the National Capital area is not of this type. We now have planning requirements provided in several different Federal laws. We have currently underway a study in the Bureau of the Budget of these rather duplicating or overlapping and competing planning requirements. This is the area where problems are being created for other local jurisdictions. There appears to be a large number of planning organizations which, in one way or another, receive Federal funds and are required under Federal law as a condition of receiving grant assistance. This is the basic problem. It is not only 701, but under other acts. The Area Redevelopment Act is an example. Mr. REUSS. I would hope, Mr. Seidman, that the Bureau of the Budget would, one, exercise a continuing jurisdiction particularly over the HUD, the title 701 fund-dispenser, and two, adopt a fairly rigorous principle of nonduplication. I grant you that Congress has got planning requirements in a number of acts, but that doesn't mean that all the plans have to be done again from scratch every time there is a planning requirement. For example, just take a water pollution study. If the Department of the Interior has made a water pollution study of a given area or river basin, I shouldn't think that Uncle Sam ought to shell out section 701 funds to have the same thing done over again by some regional agency. Mr. SEIDMAN. I would certainly agree, Mr. Reuss, and one of the things we were pleased to see, for example, in connection with the Council of Governments was that the Regional Transportation Board, when it was established, decided that it would not set up its own staff and administrative arrangements, but arrange with the Council of Governments to provide that service to the Regional Transportation Board. We would like to see more of this kind of thing done. Mr. REUSS. And am I right in thinking that the Bureau of the Budget does exercise a continuing surveillance over these grants? Mr. SEIDMAN. Not continuing surveillance on the grants. We certainly generally look into the basic requirements and the statutes and into areas where there are special situations. The Bureau has a rather small staff. With the small staff we have in the Bureau, we could not really maintain surveillance over all grants, but we are concerned with the kind of problems you have identified, and as I have said, we have a major study underway of this whole question, planning requirements, overlapping, competing planning requirements, where they may be serious problems for local jurisdictions. Mr. REUSS. For example, in the last 6 months, as I have pointed out, we were, I think, sinning. We were subsidizing with Federal funds both the Metropolitan Council of Governments and the National Capital Regional Planning Council, both of which were doing the same thing, planning for Metropolitan Washington. Mr. SEIDMAN. That is correct, and we were aware of this. Mr. REUSS. We stopped this, I am happy to say, quite soon. But for 6 or 8 glorious months we were wasting the taxpayer's money a bit, weren't we? Mr. SEIDMAN. There is a certain amount of pain involved, I think, in abolishing any agency, no matter how small, and I think in wisdom we shouldn't take arbitrary action. There were considerable discussions with the National Capital Planning Commission. We considered various alternative arrangements and discussed it with them before this proposal was sent forward. There was full discussion. As I say, nobody likes to be abolished. Mr. REUSS. I have one final question. In your arithmetic as to the savings, you point out that the Regional Planning Council has been spending around $100,000 a year, and you anticipate savings of around $25,000 a year. Your savings sound almost too modest, since, after all, how are you going to lose the $75,000? Mr. SEIDMAN. It is a very good question and I am glad it has been raised. As I pointed out in my testimony, the Regional Planning Council, as best we can ascertain, spent about 75 percent of its time on liaison functions and about 25 percent of its time on regional planning. Now, it is the regional planning function that will be assumed by the Council of Governments. The other functions will have to be performed by the National Capital Planning Commission, and we hope they would be made more effective, so that these functions now will have to be picked up by NCPC. Under its own statutes they already have the authority, but they used the RPC for this purpose. Mr. REUSS. But with the rebirth of the Metropolitan Council of Governments and its invigoration by title 701 funds, shouldn't the liaison task be a little easier and not cost as much as it did when we were dealing with scattered communities? Mr. SEIDMAN. In some ways easier and in some ways more complex, because not much was done. We anticipate that we will have much more dynamic regional planning programs conducted by the Council of Governments, and I think there will be an increase rather than a reduction in the amount of liaison between the NCPC and the Council of Governments and regional agencies in the area. It could be that the savings may turn out to be more, but we did not want to place the NCPC in a situation, at the time when RPC was being abolished, of not having adequate funds to carry out its liaison responsibilities. Mr. REUSS. Thank you. I think both the reorganization plans are sound. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I have no questions. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Seidman, according to the statute setting up the Regional Council, the Council is authorized to adopt and from time to time amend or extend a general plan for the development of the region. Now, I understand that the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments has planning functions, that is an ongoing thing. But the responsibility for developing a plan, as is set forth here, would be abolished, or would it be handled by some other agency, or how would that be done? Mr. SEIDMAN. The Council of Governments will be responsible for developing the comprehensive plan for the Mr. HENDERSON. What authority would they have to do that? Mr. SEIDMAN. It is the authority which has been agreed to among the members of the Council of Governments-let's see if I can find it. I haven't looked for it specifically in the charter. I think you have representatives of the Council of Governments here. Mr. HENDERSON. Anyhow, I just wanted to be clear on that point, that the function of adopting the plan that Congress set forth when it set up the Council would be carried on by some other agency? Mr. SEIDMAN. That is right. Actually, for the National Capital region, the central plan is adopted by the National Capital Planning Commission rather than the Regional Planning Council, which advised the NCPC. Mr. HENDERSON. What is the relationship between the Council and the Commission at the present time? Mr. SEIDMAN. The Regional Planning Council? Mr. HENDERSON. Yes. Mr. SEIDMAN. Subsidiary agency of the National Capital Planning Commission and serves in both a liaison capacity and advisory role. The members, other than those serving ex officio, are appointed by the Commission upon nomination from certain local jurisdictions and planning agencies. Mr. HENDERSON. So there is no danger that this function will be lost? Mr. SEIDMAN. No, the function-one of the reasons we provided for no transfer of functions is that we examined the statutes very carefully and we found there was considerable overlap between the functions put in the Regional Planning Council by law and those in the National Capital Planning Commission, so none of these functions would be lost. As I pointed out, too, Mr. Henderson, it is with respect to the regional planning function that the RPC has done less, and I think for inherent reasons because they represent essentially planning agencies rather than the political executives in the region. Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you. Chairman DAWSON. Any other witnesses? Mr. HENDERSON. Yes. Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Achilles M. Tuchtan, chairman, board of directors, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. He is accompanied by Mr. Frank J. Lastner, vice chairman; Walter A. Scheiber, executive director; and John J. Bosley, general counsel and deputy executive director. Will you introduce the gentlemen who are with you? STATEMENT OF ACHILLES M. TUCHTAN, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF Mr. TUCHTAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Achilles M. Tuchtan. I am the chairman of the board of the Council of Governments. I have with me, Mr. Frank Lastner, who represents Prince Georges County and is also vice president of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. And on my right, I have Mr. Walter A. Scheiber, who is our executive director, and also I have present with us, Mr. John Bosley, who is our general counsel and deputy executive director. You have been furnished the prepared text of the statements we wish to make on this subject. If you would so desire, Mr. Chairman, I can read mine. Mr. Lastner is prepared to read his. However, General Duke, who is the president of the council, is unavailable today, and Mr. Fred Babson, who is the chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Fairfax County and also the chairman of the Transportation Planning Board, who also has a statement, is also unavailable today. So, for the sake of time, in the interests of the committee, we can forgo, if you would wish, the reading of these statements and submit. them for the record; or, if you would prefer, I can go right on through the verbal testimony. Chairman DAWSON. I think your first plan will be better. We will file them and then you make your statement. Mr. TUCHTAN. I have for the record, the statement by General Duke, as president of the council and also member of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, which is here, and a statement by Mr. Frederick A. Babson, who is the Chairman of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, and also the chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County. Both gentlemen, of course, are not here but their statements are in support of the position of the Council of Governments. If you would like, Mr. Chairman, I can read my statement to you or defer my statement and have you hear Mr. Lastner's statement, whom I think you would like to hear because he is one of the pioneers in the development of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. He is one of the "daddies," so to speak, and I think that what he has to say would be of great interest to all of us and I can forgo reading my statement and defer to Mr. Lastner. Chairman DAWSON. Go ahead. Mr. LASTNER. Mr. Tuchtan, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I consider it a real pleasure to be here this morning and represent the cause in which I am speaking. My name is Frank J. Lastner, and I am appearing before you in my capacity as vice chairman of the board of directors and chairman of the Land Use Policy Committee of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. I am also a member of the National Capital Regional Planning Council, the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, the Washington Suburban Transit Commission, the board of directors of the National Association of County Officials, and recently I have been appointed to serve as a Maryland member of the board of directors of the proposed rapid transit interstate compact agency now before the Congress. I would like to say to the Honorable Mr. Holifield I have appeared before you on civil defense matters on previous occasions. I would also like to add that I have had 14 years of experience as councilman and as mayor of the city of Greenbelt; this affords me a broad view of these things that we are involved in. I have been actively involved with the work of the Council of Governments since the day of its inception in 1957. During these 9 years I have seen the Council of Governments ably serve the citizens of this metropolitan area in two important capacities: First, in helping its member governments do a better job of meeting their own local responsibilities; and, second, by enabling the local governments to act jointly in meeting areawide needs that could not be met through separate, unrelated programs. My purpose here is to summarize for you the capability of the Council of Governments to assume the role of the comprehensive regional planning agency for the National Capital region, and to describe how it has come about. First of all: Last year the Congress included in its Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 an amendment making agencies such as the Council of Governments eligible to receive Federal grants to supplement local funds for the purpose of conducting comprehensive regional planning as well as the full range of intergovernmental coordination activities. The Council of Governments is the only agency in this metropolitan region recognized by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as being eligible for these grants. Second, the Federal Government has also assigned to the Council of Governments the responsibility for reviewing Federal grant applications from the local governments of this region to determine whether they are consistent with regional planning objectives. These reviews cover such projects as open space acquisition and development, water and sewer proposals, and a growing number of others. Through these reviews, the Council of Governments endeavors to protect the investment of various Federal grants-in-aid to assure that they are not used at cross-purposes. Third, in recent months, the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, through a series of actions, have merged their staff activities and policy-making bodies into a single coordinated effort. This series of developments at the Federal, local, and metropolitan levels had made it possible for the first time to combine the various efforts and sources of funds into a single concerted regional planning process which can be truly comprehensive in scope and harnessed directly to the implementation powers of the responsible elected officials. In order to meet this new and vital responsibility, the Council of Governments has expanded its staff to include a team of outstanding 67-574-66- 3 |