So if you are not going to be able to provide the information that is really needed by people like us, why bother to go to the expense of printing at all?

To get down to open space program, I note it says "Eligible for most public bodies." I do not know what the phraseology "most public bodies" means. There is a statement in here by the agency that the average grant size is not really meaningful so they are not going to give it to you. Well, it happens to be very meaningful for people like me who have applications turned down because their grant application is too great. So we are just not on the same wave length in terms of what the agency considers important and what we down here consider important information.

They never tell you in that little blurb that if you take Federal money to acquire a park, you have got to open that park up to people. I think this is a necessary kind of information, not only for people like me, but for the average person in the street who takes this open space program and says, "My goodness, here it is, why aren't we taking advantage of it?"

Highway safety-they do not ever tell you in here that there are Federal priorities established and the list is not exhaustive.

They tell you the local contact office is the Federal regional office, but the Federal contact office ought to be the State agency because it is a State-directed program. This is true in all of the State programs administered by the State.

Local political subdivisions are involved in the program, but local nonprofit agencies can work and get a grant through a local political subdivision. If we are trying to provide information for individuals out in the community, they ought to be aware they can become involved in the program this way. They do not learn it here.

In this particular program they talk about approval in 30 days. I would like to find anybody who has received an approval in 30 days. Well, I have just given you three. I could go on and on.

Senator MUSKIE. What document is this?

Mrs. BLUME. This is the Roth study, and the Roth catalog.

But the point I am trying to make, I am sure the Congressmen did not push this as an end-all of everything, but you have to know what kind of information is necessary in order to publish it, and I would hope if this bill goes through that we will be provided with a catalog that is going to supply meaningful information-not the kind of information contained in these catalogs.

Senator MUSKIE. What we ought to have here and I suppose we could indicate a desirability of it in the committee report is the active participation of your organization in developing this information form. It may be that a catalog, unless it is on the order of one of the commercial publications that sends out changes monthly or quarterly, cannot conceivably serve the purpose you have described in the same detail. It involves so many hours to change funding, for example. Well, I think that is all very pertinent. We will try to get at it as we go along.

Any other comments?

Mr. TUCK. No; we know there are other witnesses and we just want to express our thanks to the subcommittee for permitting us the time, even a few minutes extra, to present our views, and we are with you.

Senator MUSKIE. You are very welcome. Thank you very much. The next two witnesses, the Honorable William S. James, president of the Maryland State Senate, and the Honorable W. Arrington, president pro tempore, Illinois State Senate.

I understand Senator Percy would like the opportunity of presenting his colleague from Illinois.

May I say it is a pleasure to meet Mr. Arrington again.

Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, it is a distinct pleasure to not only introduce a friend of long standing, but also my own State Senator, from my own State district in Illinois.

Senator Arrington has served in the State legislature in both the house and the senate for 21 years, under both Republican and Democratic Governors. I should not say "under" since the legislature is a separate branch of government, as many Governors have learned to their dismay. But I will say during that period of time he has in the tradition of Everett Dirksen, who at the national level has served under six Presidents, Democratic and Republican, proven that he has been first partisan, at exactly the right time, but he knows exactly when to subordinate partisanship to his devotion to public service.

Senator Arrington has been one of our most successful lawyers, runs a fine law firm, but has really at a tremendous sacrifice to his personal health and many other inconveniences to himself, put in probably some of the longest hours of any legislator in the history of Illinois. I can never find him on Sunday other than in his office, not his law office, but his legislative office. We are not always agreed on issues, but we have agreed on many.

He is the president pro tem of our senate. He has been the majority leader on the Republican side for years, and is here in this capacity on the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference.

I am very proud indeed to have the benefit of the expertise that he brings to us on the operation of the State government. I might say today, as we are filing our income taxes in Illinois for the first time in Illinois history, his name is probably on the tongue of many people because it took great courage, great forthrightness for him to support this proposal.

He has simply said if State government is to be effective, it must raise its revenue, it must do its job, it must rely second, not first, on the Federal Government, and we have got to pay our own way.

I commend you, Senator Arrington, for your courage, your foresight and your cooperation, because without your cooperation the State government's revenue-raising program simply would not have been possible.

I think you have done a great deal to educate the people of Illinois as to how State government must function and can function if it is responsibly financed.

We welcome you.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Arrington, it might be some comfort for you to know in Maine we are doing exactly the same thing for the first time in history, filing income taxes.

STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS BY HON. W. RUSSELL ARRINGTON, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, ILLINOIS STATE SENATE; AND HON. WILLIAM S. JAMES, PRESIDENT OF THE MARYLAND STATE SENATE; ACCOMPANIED BY ARLENE T. SHADOAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND ROBERT M. RHODES, SPECIAL ASSISTANT

Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you very much, particularly, Chuck. Just so the record will be accurate, I have been in office 45 years. I discovered, to my dismay. I had the dubious responsibility of introducing the income tax law. I might say I am becoming slightly bolder by exposing myself publicly in my district so far without too severe repercussion. The Lord knows what is going to happen next March.. when we-I don't think this has ever occurred before-all members of the Senate and all members of the house are up for renomination and election. We are hoping that the public will have the large understanding that you have just recited, Chuck, and we shall see.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am speaking today on behalf of the National Legislative Conference and its Committee on Intergovernmental Relations.

I am also a member of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations on which I have the privilege to serve with the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Muskie, and the ranking minority member Senator Mundt.

With your permission, I would like to discuss S. 2035, the Grant Consolidation Act, and S. 2479, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, which includes title VIII on grant consolidation, together.

Both bills are much needed to further modern management measures and strengthen the operations of the Federal grant-in-aid system which this committee has been so zealously concerned with in its action regarding the Intergovernmental Relations Act of 1968.

We have read with interest, concern, and wholehearted agreement Chairman Muskie's and Senator Mundt's statements in the Congressional Record explaining this legislation.

We, as State public officials are, in the chairman's words, "acutely aware of the adverse consequences that the profusion and excess fragmentation of Federal assistance programs produces.”

The basic evils cited namely the communications gap, the phenomenon of grantsmanship, the promise performance gap, the matter of overlapping and duplication among various grants, and the understanding gap between legislative and executive branches of governments have all been experienced by Illinois..

A. ACCOUNTING, AUDITING, AND REPORTING OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUNDS As we interpret this legislation, it does come to grips with the basic difficulties that plague grant administration.

First, as to overlapping and duplication in grant auditing (title II). we agree in principle that Federal agencies should rely on the financial management control systems of States and their political subdivisions. We would suggest that perhaps in lieu of these audit programs, the

Federal agencies might consider an audit by an independent agency, such as a certified public accounting firm. This audit could be jointly funded.

With respect to consolidation of Federal assistance programs, we believe title III which would confer and expand the authority of the. President to examine and consolidate various Federal assistance programs is needed. I need not compare the two proposals, for Senator James will do that in his presentation.

So, let me merely emphasize here that regardless of which grant consolidation plan might be approved, I hope that provision will be made in either bill, or in the guidelines for implementing it, that provision be made for consultation with the States before consolidating grant programs. Such a provision is absent from both bills.

One point of distinction between the bills, section 802 (1) of S. 2479 makes it quite clear that full responsibility is lodged with one Federal agency for administering a consolidated grant program. It would be, I assume, that such might also be the case in S. 2035, although the bill is not fully clear on this point.

It obviously would be much easier and more efficient if just one Federal agency would be given complete jurisdiction over a consolidated plan. This subcommittee is undoubtedly aware that one of the frequent complaints of State agencies and localities is the confusion which rises. when beneficiaries have to deal with two or more Federal agencies.

Another comparison deals with the discretion given the President in altering the terms and conditions when proposing consolidated grant programs to Congress. Section 1003 (b) (2) of S. 2035 appears to give the President unquestioned broad authority to alter the terms and conditions provided by law under which Federal programs included in the consolidated plan shall be administered including, but not limited to, matching, apportionment and other formulas, interest rates, and planning, eligibility and other requirements-provided congressional intent is not violated.

Similar scope of Presidential authority is not clear in S. 2479.

If you would allow me I would like to provide specific examples relating to Illinois concerning ways in which consolidation of Federal grant programs would be beneficial to a State agency administering the Federal comprehensive planning assistance (701) program.

The guidelines established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pursuant to the Housing Act of 1968 require. that State agencies develop and provide a broad range of planning and technical services to localities in the State.

Such services are to be designed on the basis of surveys made to determine a locality's planning needs in all developmental areas—for example, housing, manpower, recreation, transportation, health, and so forth.

This implies that work programs should be designed to coordinate all Federal planning assistance from grant programs that appear to be most applicable.

In light of the current situation where separate Federal and State agencies administer planning programs in such areas as sewer and water planning (FHA), law enforcement planning (Department of Justice), health planning (HEW), manpower training planning (De

partment of Labor), and economic development planning (EDA)— it is impossible to properly consolidate the aids and funds needed within one overall planning framework.

It would be extremely difficult even if all the Federal agencies involved had similar administrative procedures. Due to the fact that each agency has differing requirements regarding (1) composition of the local planning agency, (2) funding levels, deadlines for completion of planning work, (3) involvement of citizen groups, the task of interrelating such programs is practically impossible.

In Illinois, our State planning agency has been able, with a great deal of hard work and consummate patience, to interrelate within one framework planning activities financed in part by HUD (701) and USDA (Farmers Home Administration's water and sewer planning program), as well as planning activities financed under the 702 program (local water and sewer planning and construction) and the Economic Development Administration's planning assistance program.

Some success has been had by metropolitan and regional planning agencies in setting up law enforcement planning programs under the aegis of the general comprehensive planning program.

However, all these examples of interrelating of programs are exceptions to the rule and each has required an undue amount of effort and time.

If it is not feasible or desirable to consolidate all planning grant programs, there could at least be some consolidation in broad areas such as physical development planning in which such grants could be under HUD's 701 program.

Another example would be economic development and manpower development planning grants jointly administered by EDA and

Labor.

At the very least, all Federal agencies administering planning assistance programs could agree to the same administrative procedures, funding levels and other related requirements.

Federal agencies should also generally allow States and localities to determine the composition of the local planning agencies.

Another problem is found in reporting procedures due to the lack of consolidation of Federal grant-in-aid programs. When the State has been successful in interrelating one or more Federal aid programs in an overall planning program, problems still continue to plague the State agency and the localities involved.

Each Federal agency involved still requires its own set of products and separate reporting procedures.

In the case of the Farmers Home Administration, they are concerned only that the project (the water and sewer plan) be completed. On the other hand the State agency administering the planning assistance program is concerned about establishing a planning process, one within which the project is an adjunct. At times, the sewer and water component has had to be rushed to completion to meet an FHA deadline, thus making it difficult to coordinate with other components of the planning program or to insure local understanding of its content.

In the case of EDA, reports have to be made relative to an overall economic development program which duplicates reports that are be