Now, however, the evolution of planning needs-as exemplified by the bill under consideration by this Committee-requires that we move up to a new, higher level in the planning field. Level Three is distinguished from Levels Two and One in that it asks not only what are our problems, and what are likely to be our future needs, but also asks what should happen in this region, this state, his urban or rural area, in the future. Furthermore, by Congressional directive. criteria have been broadened to include strong emphasis on the social and environmental as well as the strictly economic considerations.

< planning at Level Three likely to become an exercise in futility, full of ful thinking of little influence in the world of practical affairs? I think not. the contrary, I think well-conceived strategic plans, which are intended to le the subsequent decisions and activities of federal, state, and local agenas well as private activities, have every possibility of becoming, in the ds of a very apt phrase, "engines of their own verification." Obviously, it responsibility planners and others will have to grow up to. It would be a take to say that the necessary capabilities are in ample supply.

EXHIBIT TWO

PLANNING REQUIREMENTS FOR GROWTH POLICY

THE NEED TO CONSIDER URBAN AND RURAL GROWTH POLICY
ADDS A NEW DIMENSION TO PLANNING

Perhaps the chief question to be faced is that of interdependencies: how to identify them and how to deal with them. The consequences of actions (or lack of actions) in one part of the country for the present and future of another part; the shift from optimizing single functions to optimizing packages of functions, a problem made even more complex by the growing emphases on social and environmental considerations; the effect of grant terms in one field on availability of funds for another; these are the kinds of matters we will have to learn how to deal with. It will not be easy. But given a hard need, I believe the growth in capability can and will take place.

An approach to the preparation of fully integrated growth-policy models which I would like to suggest for the consideration of the Committee is illustrated in Exhibit Three. This approach has been designed to make the development and updating of growth policy an ongoing process in which all levels of government cooperate. It also has been designed to proceed through a series of stages, so that the proper questions can be raised in context, with agreement at one stage forming the basis for matters taken up in succeeding stages.

As indicated in the chart, information would be prepared at the national level, and would be passed to the cooperating regional, state, and local planning bodies for reaction. The reactions in turn would be passed back and all changes, both express and implied, incorporated in a revised version. The process would then be repeated until, thorugh a series of iterations, there would be sufficient agreement to proceed to the next stage.

In the first stage, the effort would be limied to agreement on an existing situation. At first blush, this stage may seem unnecessary. However, given the rate at which changes occur, and the long periods which elapse between the preparation of such basic benchmarks as the United States Census, this is in fact an important starting point to be determined by the parties concerned.

EXHIBIT THREE

AN APPROACH TO GROWTH POLICY PLANNING

THE PREPARATION OF FULLY INTEGRATED GROWTH POLICY MODELS REQUIRES A STAGED APPROACH IN WHICH ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT COOPERATE

In the second stage, the effort would be directed at achieving agreement on what I refer to in the chart as "simple projections." By simple, I mean projections which are largely extrapolations of observed trends, without the exercise of any value judgments. Here, the question is not what should happen, but rather, what is likely to happen, at least in the absence of any successful intervention to change the outcome.

The third stage would, of course, be the most difficult, because it would be at this point that the question of value judgments and the feasibility of interventions would be raised. Here the questions would become: Given the acceptance of a certain set of projections, what is good about them and what is bad about them? To the extent that bad features exist, what alternatives are there for dealing with them, and how feasible are the alternatives? Also, given a set of needs and desired activities in a given place, how should they be arrayed in order of priority? Getting the machinery set up and the processes established and in motion for such an approach would obviously be difficult and time consuming. However, I think two or three things can be said on this point. First, much of what is needed in the way of both administrative resources has become available in recent years. Second, while the first run through the various stages would be the most difficult, succeeding cycles should become increasingly easier as the participants accumulate data and experience.

Finally, we should not overlook what could become one of the most important benefits of such a system. Sooner or later it will become desirable, if not necessary, to build in provisions for monitoring program performance, in order to cultivate those activities which are effective in bringing about change, and weed out those which fail to accomplish the intended results. Such considerations have been a matter of concern to the Congress for some time.

I said that we already have much of the planning machinery and the data resources to do the job indicated in Exhibit Three, and I believe this to be true. On the administrative side there is the experience gained in activities such as the Appalachian Regional Commission or the several Economic Development Regions; the resurgence of state planning; the growth of Councils of Government and of metropolitan and non-metropolitan area wide planning; the development by the Bureau of the Budget (now OMB) of the project notification and review system for both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, in accordance with the provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. On the data side, in addition to the work in national income-product and inter-industry relations accounting, there are such newly emerging resources as the cooperative current population estimates of the Bureau of the Census; the annual metropolitan area income estimates of the Office of Business Economics, and the compilations of federal (and in many cases, state) expenditures by program and by county now being prepared annually by OEO's Federal Information Exchange. There are also numerous instances of projections, of which perhaps the most useful for purposes of this discussion are the economic and demographic projects for regions, states, and metropolitan areas prepared regularly by the National Planning Association. What is needed, however, is some central catalyst to bring these administrative and informational resources together to do the job which needs to be done. I have indicated in Exhibit Four my conception of a federal office which could accomplish this task.

This formulation is predicated on several basic assumptions. First, growth policy is regarded as sets of strategic decisions, periodically updated, and specific for particular regions, states, and localities. Thus the preparation of these decisions is an ongoing, operational type of activity. Second, because of the interrelatedness of these strategic decisions, all relevant bodies concerned should participate in making them. Third, all information which is germane to the subject should come within the purview of the participating groups.

Since the office would be performing very central type functions, it would be located. obviously, in the Executive Office of the President. Because of the considerable and continuing interest of Congress in these matters, a standing Joint Congressional Committee would be established, to keep the entire process under review, to receive and consider reports submitted by the President, and to make reports to the House and Senate as needed.

EXHIBIT FOUR

A FEDERAL OFFICE FOR GROWTH POLICY PLANNING

A FEDERAL OFFICE WITH ADEQUATE STAFF AND RESOURCES IS NEEDED TO
CONSOLIDATE AND GUIDE COOPERATIVE GROWTH POLICY PLANNING

The Office would be organized to carry out essentially two types of functions: first, appraisal of goals and priorities at the national level, and second, liaison among the participating bodies.

On the assumption that all matters which are germane to growth policy should come within the purview of this operation, I have included provision for consideration of foreign as well as domestic goals and priorities. All of us are aware to a greater or lesser extent of the impact of trade policies, military activities, and foreign aid and investment on development here at home. This formulation suggests that it is time to begin to make some of the choices in context, rather than on an ad hoc basis.

The liaison side of the chart is more or less self-explanatory, although perhaps one comment is needed. What bodies would perform the functions indicated for the regional, or multi-state level would not be clear at the outset. Presumably there could eventually be multi-state bodies modeled on the Appalachian Regional Commission. In the early stages, however, they might have to be simply regional arms of the central office.

One final comment on Exhibit Four. Most of the kinds of thinking and action I have included in the proposed federal office are already being carried out somewhere in the federal government-in the National Security Council, the Domestic Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the House and Senate Committees on Government Operations, to mention only a partial list. One of the chief contributions of this office would be to relate these activities to each other from the point of view of growth policy, in most cases by establishing close working relationships, but perhaps in a few instances by the transfer of functions to the new office.

What, now, can be said about how these general thoughts on growth policy and its formulation relate to the bill under consideration, S. 3640? While I am in agreement with the findings and intent of this bill. I have some reservations about the approach which is provided for in Sections 102, 103, and 104., establishing a three-man Council on Urban Growth and giving it certain powers and duties. I also have some reservations about the language in Section 101 (d), which sets forth what Congress intends the national urban growth policy to accomplish.

The functions proposed for the Council can be summarized briefly. Broadly waking, the Council would be directed to work along two lines. One line would