succeeded in establishing a voluntary schedule of fares that all operators agreed to. In 1961, the Metropolitan Area Transit Commission was created with the support of the council.

After that encouraging beginning, the Council of Governments succeeded in a wide variety of pursuits. The air pollution sampling network has given us valuable data which dramatically demonstrates the need for a strong air pollution control ordinance. The council is now drafting such an ordinance.

The council began the Wolman-Geyser study which today is the basis for the location of major sewer lines in the metropolitan area. The council was a cofounder of the National Capital joint open space study which developed a program now being put into effect.

The list could go on and on. Over the years, the Washington Council of Governments has fought pollution, aided the police, caused health standards to be raised, and coordinated the flow of information between local governments.

Today, the council has a budget of about a quarter of a million dollars. It is experienced and vigorous. It richly deserves the opportunity President Johnson seeks to give it through the implementation of Reorganization Plan No. 5.

The Federal interest in the Washington metropolitan area will not be slighted by the plan, which does not change the basic responsibilities of the National Capital Planning Commission, the parent of the Regional Planning Council. The Commission will continue to work closely with the Council of Governments to insure that Federal point of view is represented in local planning.

The Federal Government will save money under the reorganization plan. The Regional Planning Council, which is being abolished, was supported totally by Federal funds. The Council of Governments, which will be doing the same work, is supported in part by local contributions.

Regional planning plays a vital role in the quality of urban life, and therefore in the quality of American life. The Nation's Capital should lead the way in developing cities and suburbs which are clean and exciting. This reorganization plan is a step in that direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman DAWSON. Thank you, Mr. Sickles.

Mr. Seidman of the Bureau of the Budget will advise us on the reasons for supporting this plan and representatives of the National Capital Planning Commission and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments are also present.

Mr. Seidman.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD SEIDMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET Mr. SEIDMAN. I will now testify concerning Reorganization Plan No. 5, 1966, which provides for the abolition of the National Capital Regional Planning Council established under the act of July 19, 1952. In transmitting this reorganization plan, President Johnson stated; The time has come to recognize the readiness of local governments in the Washington area to undertake a role which is properly and rightfully theirs. When the Regional Planning Council was established in 1952, the local governments in the region had no instrumentality for carrying

on regional planning. Although the need was recognized, at that time our area cities and counties had no mechanism for joint or cooperative action, and were not able to see their way clear to provide financing for a regional planning organization. Therefore the Council. was established as a Federal agency with representation from the National Capital Planning Commission, District of Columbia government, local planning agencies, and, to some extent, from local governments.

During the 14 years since 1952 the situation has changed radically. Beginning in 1957 the area local governments have worked together on a constantly increasing number of area wide problems.

They established and have financed their own cooperative organization, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. This organization has assumed, de facto, the regional planning function. Therefore the primary reason for which the Regional Planning Council was established no longer exists. There is no further justification for the Federal Government to carry this responsibility. To continue to do so would be to duplicate activities of local government in this region. Indeed, the continued existence of the Regional Planning Council could only serve to confuse lines of authority and responsibility for regional planning in the Washington metropolitan area.

The National Capital Regional Planning Council, or RPC as it is called, is comprised of 10 members. The Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission and the Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia are members ex officio. Members from Maryland and Virginia are nominated from regional bodies therein and appointed by the National Capital Planning Commission.

RPC has had, basically, two functions under the 1952 act:

1. To adopt, amend, or extend a general plan for the development of the region, and

2. To perform a liaison function between NCPC and the localities of the region in connection with Federal installations planned in the environs of the District of Columbia.

Despite the primary purpose behind the establishment of RPCto develop a general plan for the region-the predominant part of its activity has been devoted to the liaison function.

The National Capital Planning Commission, by law, acts as "the central planning agency for the Federal and District Governments in the National Capital region." In performing this function, it must, of course, maintain liaison with the local governments of the area and their agencies. In part it has done this directly, but it has also utilized RPC extensively in this connection-particularly for liaison with subregional and local planning agencies from which the RPC membership is largely drawn.

Nevertheless, the basic responsibility for liaison with local governments in the environs on Federal planning matters rests with NCPC. Section 4(e) of the National Capital Planning Act of 1952 provides that

In carrying out its planning functions with respect to Federal developments or projects in the environs, the Commission may act in conjunction and cooperation and enter into agreements with any State or local authority or planning agency, as the Commission may deem necessary, to effectuate the adoption of any plan or proposal and secure its realization.

67-574-66

Moreover, the Commission has authority to establish advisory and coordinating committees, and "As it may deem appropriate, the Commission may invite representatives of the planning and development agencies of the environs to participate in the work of such committees". (sec. 2(d)). Thus, from the standpoint of liaison, RPC as such is not

necessary.

However, it is primarily in connection with its responsibility for the development of a regional plan that the functions of RPC overlap that of the Council of Governments.

Metropolitan planning, in this region as in others, is not yet very far advanced, and presents many difficulties. Metropolitan planning divorced from the local governments lacks reality, and local governments divorced from responsibility for planning may ignore regional needs. The most appropriate solution seems to be to make such planning a cooperative function of the local governments of the area which must take the actions to carry out the plans.

There is no doubt as to the need. The importance of metropolitan planning has been generally recognized for many years, and during the last decade a number of metropolitan planning agencies have been established. In large part this has been due to the action of the Congress in enacting the urban planning assistance program, popularly known as the 701 program, established under section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954. That program provides grants to metropolitan planning agencies, covering two-thirds of the cost of developing comprehensive metropolitan plans.

As a Federal agency, RPC has never been eligible for assistance under this program. However, amendments to section 701 in the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 make the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments eligible for assistance under the 701 program.

The Council of Governments, or COG as it is called, has been in existence since 1957. It was established by the elected officials of the area and the District Commissioners to provide a forum for the discussion of mutual problems. Until the last several years, its primary interest was more in mutual administrative problems than in planning activities. However, even during this period it undertook a variety of studies of substantial benefit to the resolution of area development problems. The most noteworthy of these was the study it did which provided the basis for the planning of the Dulles interceptor sewer system. COG has also undertaken studies of air and water pollution, solid waste disposal, and other areawide problems.

Over the years, COG has developed a competent professional staff, and its budget grew in 1965 to about a quarter of a million dollars, almost all from local contributions. The Congress has, each year, appropriated in the District of Columbia Appropriation Act the funds contributed by the District.

In the last session of Congress, as I have indicated, organizations of elected officials in metropolitan areas, such as COG, were made eligible to receive planning grants under the 701 program. With this new source of support, the COG membership-the elected officials of all major local governments and the Commissioners of the District of Columbia are members-voted to undertake the regional planning responsibility. COG, in late 1965, applied for and received a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to design

a comprehensive regional planning process for the Washington metropolitan area. The design report is now under consideration by COG leadership. At the same time, COG has recruited its top planning staff and will have a full-scale effort mounted during the next several months.

What is particularly significant about COG is that it is an organization of elected officials and the Presidentially appointed District of Columbia Commissioners. It thus avoids one of the difficulties observed in connection with regional planning agencies that very often they are not truly representative of the elected local governments of the area, nor closely linked to them, and therefore, their planning efforts may tend to be out of the mainstream of developmental decisionmaking and have little chance of being implemented. In the case of the Council of Governments, it is the decisionmakers who have decided that they need an effective regional planning process to assist them in making those decisions.

Now that local governments of the area have assumed this responsibility, it means that the Federal Government can divest itself of a function which, admittedly, was never wholly appropriate.

The development of such a regional planning agency will, I believe, be helpful to the protection of the Federal interest as well. NCPC, as the central planning agency for the Federal Government in the region, will be able to work with one central planning agency for the local governments of the area on regional issues. The existence of RPC has, in fact, often served to cloud the identity of NCPC as the spokesman for the Federal Government on planning matters. Thus, with the taking effect of this plan, we will have a situation where the two major parties at interest in the development of the National Capital region are clearly identified. This can only provide a healthier climate for collaboration and negotiation on regional development issues.

In summary, RPC was created to fill a void that no longer exists. The supplementary function it has had of providing liaison services between NCPC and area planning agencies can just as well-and perhaps better-be performed directly by NCPC. If NCPC finds a need to set up advisory groups representative of subregional and local planning agencies or other suburban agencies, it already has authority to do so.

The plan does not provide for any transfers of functions, personnel, or funds. Outside of the regional planning function, which has been otherwise assumed, all other functions can be carried out by NCPC under its own basic authority, as I have just noted.

All RPC staff are provided by NCPC, and RPC activities are funded by NCPC out of funds appropriated to it for coordinating metropolitan planning. Such savings as may accrue from the taking effect of the reorganization plan will be in proportion to the extent to which RPC actually engaged in regional planning activities. This has been estimated to average about one-quarter of its total effort. In fiscal year 1966, the budget for RPC activities amounted to $113,000, although its actual expenditures, as in 1965, were approximately $100,000. Thus, we can anticipate a savings of around $25,000 per year.

NCPC, of course, will continue to have the basic responsibility for Federal planning in the National Capital environs and will need to

maintain continuing liaison with local governments and their planning and development agencies, directly or through the Council of Govern

ments.

In view of the fact that there is no longer any need for a Federal agency to carry on comprehensive planning for the development of the National Capital region, we urge that Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1966 be allowed to take effect.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Holifield?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I don't think I have any important questions that need to be asked. I am impressed very much with the importance of both of these plans.

Chairman DAWSON. Do you have any, Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. I have no questions.

Mr. SEIDMAN. I will say, Mr. Holifield, this is one case where we are abolishing an agency.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. This is unusual. It reminds me of a play on Broadway that I saw a few years ago where two little old ladies had been in an obscure bureau for about 40 years, I can't remember the name of the play, and suddenly somewhere up above in the bureaucracy, a stroke of the pen abolished this agency, and then as I remember, all hell broke loose.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. That was the Passport Division. [Laughter.] Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am just hoping there won't be any strong repercussions in the abolishing of this very important Regional Planning Council.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, in light of Mr. Rosenthal's questions, I gather because of the date today, which is August 9, that Reorganization Plan No. 5 is probably the last leaf of autumn?

Mr. SEIDMAN. Yes, there would not be at this time any further reorganization plans because we have to permit 60 days to elapse before they become effective.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. As a comment on that, I would say as a last leaf, it is fitting that it should be a very small leaf.

Mr. REUSS. I do have a couple of questions on this last plan, because, as you perhaps know, I have interested myself in the dual career of the Metropolitan Council of Governments and the National Capital Regional Planning Council, and I am happy to see that the executive branch has made a decision that one has to go, and as far as I am concerned, the decision made is a sound one.

One retrospective question which bothered me, and I wrote the Budget Bureau a letter on this some months ago-this plan was sent up to Congress on June 29, 1966, but for 8 or 9 months prior to the attempt to abolish the National Capital Regional Planning Council by this Reorganization Plan No. 5, there were in existence side by side the Metropolitan Council of Governments and the Regional Planning Council. Both were getting funds through Uncle Sam.

Now, I realize that the Regional Planning Council got its funds directly, whereas the Metropolitan Council of Governments got its funds through title 701 of the Housing Act, general planning title, but this presented what I thought was a problem of duplication. It has now been happily resolved as far as I am concerned. But I am rather anxious that in the future Uncle Sam does not subsidize a planning agency which merely duplicates planning that is done by some other Federal agency.