that further cross jurisdictional lines and no longer can we just say in some legislative committee, here is a grant in aid, and then forget about it, because when we get down to the beneficiaries we find out that we have great complexities.

We hope that we can work out some legislation which will solve this. We look forward to continued advice from you.

Unless there is objection, and there is none, we will have you submit further information for the record, and we will be asking you for additional counselling and advice. Thank you very much.

Mr. INK. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. We are in recess. The subcommittee will be in recess until Friday at 10 o'clock, at which time we will convene the hearings in this room.

(Thereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene on Friday, September 12, 1969, at 10 a.m.)

time ago. The conditions change, but he does not know whether Mr. Jones' views have changed, and we find that that kind of problém is a very serious one in trying to simplify procedures.

Mr. TURNER. Is there a possibility in title II of S. 2479 that by making this a congressional mandate, we may be running in two directions; one, we may be giving certain Federal agencies the feeling that they must go overboard to accept State and local audits when in fact they probably should not; or two, that Federal agencies may feel that they have to be very restrictive as to looking at State and local audits to make sure that only those that really meet the line should be accepted. I mean, is there that possibility of an ambivalence here?

Mr. INK. Well, this is a possibility. I think it can be met, however; one, there is language in the legislation which, for example, requires departments to test the audit programs they are relying on. They may have determined that in a given community, in a city, they have developed a good system for accounting, a good audit system, but that may change overnight. Maybe a new election, a new mayor would come in and he may not be particularly interested in that system, and the ability of the Federal Government to rely upon that system may change radically.

So there is language in here which I think makes clear that the department is expected to exercise its judgment as to the acceptability of these fiscal programs and to continue to test them, to recheck, to make sure that, once achieved, the level of competence continues. And if it does not, the Federal agency is free and is expected to go back in and supplement auditing in any way that it sees fit. I would also suggest that this is something you might want to consider mentioning in the report on the legislation, just to make sure that the intent is not misconstrued.

Mr. TURNER. I will be going over some of these matters.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Webber says are you saying that an act of Congress carries more weight than a directive from the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. INK. We do feel in a serious way that we need the expression both of the President and of the Congress, even in addition to the Bureau of the Budget.

Senator METCALF. We are delighted to be going down the same road together in this case.

Mr. TURNER. That concludes my questioning, Mr. Chairman. Senator METCALF. Now, Mr. Webber and Mr. Turner, I know, may have other questions which they will submit to you.

Mr. INK. I understand.

Senator METCALF. And ask you to answer. I am going to have to close this up, Mr. Berry, in a few minutes. If you have a couple of questions that you would like to direct because of the advantage we have of having the witnesses here, you may go ahead; otherwise, I will give you the same permission to submit some questions.

Mr. BERRY. That will be fine.

Senator METCALF. Well, we are very grateful for your appearance, for your testimony, for your support of this, I think, most important and significant legislation. As we go forward both in the administrative and legislative branches, we are going to find increasing complexities

that further cross jurisdictional lines and no longer can we just say in some legislative committee, here is a grant in aid, and then forget about it, because when we get down to the beneficiaries we find out that we have great complexities.

We hope that we can work out some legislation which will solve this. We look forward to continued advice from you.

Unless there is objection, and there is none, we will have you submit further information for the record, and we will be asking you for additional counselling and advice. Thank you very much.

Mr. INK. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. We are in recess. The subcommittee will be in recess until Friday at 10 o'clock, at which time we will convene the hearings in this room.

(Thereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene on Friday, September 12, 1969, at 10 a.m.)

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT OF 1969

AND RELATED LEGISLATION

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1969

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie and Percy.

Staff members present: Edwin W. Webber, staff director; E. Winslow Turner, general counsel; Robert E. Berry, minority counsel; and Lucinda T. Dennis, administrative secretary.

Senator MUSKIE. The hearing will be in order.

I see our first panel is in place. It is a pleasure to welcome Clifford Tuck, president of the National Association of County Redevelopment Coordinators from Shelby County, Tenn.; Mrs. Lois Blume, county development coordinator for Nassau County, N.Y.; Thomas Haga, president of the National Association of County Planning Directors, from Genesee County, Mich.; and Mrs. Aileen Lotz, county development coordinator of Dade County, Fla.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES BY CLIFFORD TUCK, PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COORDINATION, SHELBY COUNTY, TENN.; ACCOMPANIED BY LOIS BLUME, FEDERAL-STATE AID COORDINATOR, NASSAU COUNTY, N.Y.; THOMAS HAGA, DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION, GENESEE COUNTY, MICH.; AND AILEEN LOTZ, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, DADE COUNTY, FLA.; AND RALPH L. TABOR, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

Mr. Tuck. Thank you, Senator. I would like to start off by saying, if I may, the only person I usually testify in front of is my wife, and if I seem a little nervous, it is because I am a little nervous.

On behalf of the panel, I would like to present a fairly brief statement. Each of us is working full time coordinating county programs with available Federal and State grants-in-aid, and between us we have had a fair amount of experience with many different Federal programs.

We believe we may be of more assistance to the subcommittee in reserving as much time as possible in answering any specific questions you may have.

Although this legislation will not take care of all the intergovernmental strains and problems resulting from the complex array of Federal programs, we believe that the legislation can achieve significant improvements.

This subcommittee is very familiar with the problems local and State governments encounter in obtaining and administering Federal grant-in-aid funds.

You have been exploring these problems in great depth for years. The many reports and recommendations of the subcommittee bear this out very well. I would like to summarize some of the problems as we see it at the county level. Briefly, these are:

1. Difficulty of planning and budgeting county programs effectively when continual adjustments have to be made to take advantage of available Federal grant funds.

2. Difficulty of coordinating and administering a large number of separate federally funded programs at county level.

3. Difficulty of maintaining up-to-the-minute information on constantly changing requirements and necessity of resubmitting applications to comply with the changes.

4. Lack of firm information from Federal agencies about the availability of funds.

5. Time and effort required to research Federal programs which possibly could be used to assist particular county programs on objective.

6. Different interpretations of regulations and requirements by regional and national offices.

7. Additional time and cost to maintain separate accounts and reports for each Federal program.

8. Overlap of comprehensive planning requirements.

One question which continually has to be asked in evaluating any consolidation proposal is: What is the ultimate net gain to the grant recipients? This objective may seem very obvious but we believe it cannot be stressed enough.

How much confusion, uncertainty and delay will be caused in the changeover? What will be the effect on pending applications? Will application procedures be simplified? What will be the effect on processing time of the applications?

We ask these questions because we believe there should be early and frequent consultation with local and State governments in developing particular consolidation proposals. We recognize that many of the more difficult problems in a proposed consolidation involve interagency differences at the Federal level.

It is not necessary to involve us in the interagency battles. But we should have an early opportunity to review the proposal and be able to offer our recommendations. We don't want to be just informed about the proposal a few days before it comes up to the Hill, which is normally the case.