program successful. It may be a necessary element, though, in some tuations. Mr. MATHIAS. Well, the eight-county program is actually seven ounties. Tulare County is not involved in the eight-county program. Mr. KRACKOV. We were the author of the program, but we are not nvolved, because we would not duplicate the same types of programs. Mr. MATHIAS. Why was this not coordinated so that Tulare Couny was included in the eight-county program which you initiated? ou believe in coordination. Why did you not coordinate the eight counties, and why did you exclude Tulare County? Mr. KRACKOV. We are in it, Congressman. It is because a grant was given to us earlier for adult education and, in order to be businesslike, they do not want to duplicate money so that Tulare County will get wice as much as the other seven counties. Therefore, our program will be phased into their program next year, we understand. It was just that we previously, we got our program previous to the other programs. So in order not to give us more money than the other counties, we were excluded from some of the benefits of it. Mr. MATHIAS. I have no further questions. Mr. RESNICK. I want to thank you, Mr. Krackov, for a very fine statement and for coming all this way to be heard. Some of the statements you made are very interesting, particularly the one with the fact that these seasonal workers are left out. We know they are the forgotten men in many Federal programs, but now they are even forgotten when it comes to counting them as part of the labor market. I think that was a very important suggestion you made, and I assure you that that will be in at least my final report, and certainly we will communicate it to the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Agriculture. Thank you very much. Mr. KRACKOV. Thank you. Mr. RESNICK. The next witness will be Mr. Charles L. Crangle, director of planning program, Office of Planning Coordination, New York State. I want to welcome you, Mr. Crangle. I would like to ask you this question. I have in parenthesis that you are representing Governor Rockefeller. Is that correct? STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CRANGLE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION; APPEARING ON BEHALF OF CHARLES T. LANIGAN, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION Mr. CRANGLE. No, sir, Mr. Lanigan was to represent Governor Rockefeller and I am representing Mr. Lanigan, as my statement will show. Mr. RESNICK. In other words, any answers you are going to make will be on behalf of yourself or Mr. Lanigan rather than Governor Rockefeller? Mr. CRANGLE. That is right, the office of planning coordination. Mr. RESNICK. Might I ask what you do? That is a mighty fancy name. Mr. CRANGLE. It is the State planning agency, Mr. Resnick. Mr. CRANGLE. Gentlemen, I am Charles L. Crangle, assistant director for program operations, New York State Office of Planning Coordination. I am appearing for Mr. Charles T. Lanigan, director of the office of planning coordination. Mr. Chairman, we wish to commend you and the members of your committee for taking the initiative to explore rural problems and the impact of Federal programs on rural America. The scope of these hearings is broad; encompassing many different types of social, physical and economic programs. I will not attempt to comment on all of the many aspects of rural development, but will largely confine my observations to the planning aspects. The key need is to assure that the various programs are in fact, bringing about the sound development of rural areas that the programs are coordinated and do not cause duplication, confusion and delay. We are conscious of this need in New York State. The office of planning coordination has the responsibility to coordinate development planning activities at the State level and with municipalities. Federal programs are an important aspect of this process and I accordingly welcome this opportunity to comment. In New York we are currently developing and implementing plans for the present and future well being of all citizens of the Staterural and urban. Our approach is to actively encourage local planning efforts on the part of villages, towns, cities and counties. This provides a firm basis of local interest and contribution to a planning process which moves upward through the county to culminate at the regional level with State coordination. The State has been divided into 12 regions for planning purposes, each of these regions having a common economic identity. At the regional level, it is possible to achieve interaction between the local planning process and the programing of State departments and agencies. This process is already underway for some regions of the State. and is proving an effective means of bringing into focus common needs and aspirations and providing a foundation for developmental decisions. To facilitate this process, and to meet the needs of rural New York, Governor Rockefeller has initiated and supported a number of farreaching constitutional, statutory and administrative measures. Changes which can significantly facilitate the coordinated development of areas of the State include a constitutional amendment adopted in 1963 which permits local governments to enter into cooperative arrangements with one or more other governments within or without the State, to perform jointly whatever undertaking they may perform separately. Such authorization enables rural communities to join with each other or with cities to participate in the construction and operation of large water supply and waste treatment systems, for example, or in the development of an integrated regional plan. Measures which particularly benefit rural areas include A multicounty library system initiated in New York 15 years ago now reaching the remotest rural communities. The New York Council on the Arts in 1960 embarked on a program designed to bring cultural events of the highest professional quality to people in all areas of the State. The council has been the model for other States and the Federal Government. New York's vigorous program of planned consolidation of school districts has resulted in superior education. These larger, more efficiently operated school districts have made it possible to bring to rural New Yorkers wider educational opportunities than would otherwise be possible. Local community colleges have been established with State support to provide low cost higher education within easy reach of rural areas. Last year Governor Rockefeller created the commission on the preservation of agricultural land to examine the impact of urban sprawl on New York's prime agricultural land resources. The Erwin Town Road program, under which about 15,000 miles of farm-to-market roads have been built or improved with over half the cost borne by the State has been extended. The State enacted the most comprehensive program in the Nation of financial aid to those who cannot afford needed medical care. Mr. RESNICK. I would like to interrupt you right there. The point of these hearings is to learn the impact of Federal programs on rural America. Now, even though the State passed medicaid it did not help the poor counties in New York State or the poor people in those counties, because those counties are now in the business of going bankrupt. At the same time that we passed this bill, a good share of the burden was put back on the local counties. No provision was made for proportional cost representation-in other words, Schoharie County, which is one of the poorest in the State, pays the same percentage of the cost of medicaid as Westchester County. So while there are lots of pros and cons about medicaid, I do not think that Mr. Lanigan should start saying or make it appear that New York State has done something for its poor counties in this medicaid program, because I think it has not. I think we both realize that a very definite problem is going to arise in how that is going to be paid. But please continue. Mr. CRANGLE. To meet the transportation needs of all New Yorkers, Governor Rockefeller proposed, and the legislature overwhelmingly endorsed a $2.5 billion bond issue to finance highway, mass transit and airport facilities. This will be before the voters of the State in November. Mr. RESNICK. May I ask you, is any part of this money earmarked for rural counties? Mr. CRANGLE. Yes, sir. This money will be used throughoutMr. RESNICK. How is it earmarked, on a percentage basis? Of the $2.5 billion, how much of it is going to rural counties? Mr. CRANGLE. This will be on the basis, Mr. Resnick, of an overall comprehensive development plan for highways that will cover all areas of the state. There is no earmarking by specific sum for any one county in the program. Mr. RESNICK. This is the point. I will make a small wager right now that the rural counties are going to get the smallest piece of it. I know how many miles of four-lane highway there are in my 4,500 square miles. There are not very many. I will give you a good example. It takes too long to get from Poughkeepsie, NY. to New York City, which is a distance, I believe, of 70 miles-we are talking now about road travel. Our railroads are going out of business. By bus it takes even longer. I will give you a better example. It takes longer to get to New York City by bus from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., than it does from Albany, N. Y., and there is a difference of about 80 miles. Now, the question I am asking you is, is there any money in there. for example, to facilitate public transit between Poughkeepsie and New York? Mr. CRANGLE. The program has not been worked out, Mr. Resnick, yet. The bond issue is simply being proposed at this time. There evidently is no plan for the construction of roads yet developed or of mass transit. Mr. RESNICK. Right. I use it as representative of a rural district: however, I would like the record to show that I am saying to you right now, and I am certainly going to say it to our good governor, that a fair amount of money is not left in the rural county for the problems of mass transit in rural counties. Up to this point, we have been left out. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you one question or the witness one question? Mr. RESNICK. Yes. Mr. GOODLING. What you have been talking about, is this the responsibility of the Federal Government or the State of New York? Mr. RESNICK. Oh, the State of New York, there is no question about it. But on the other hand, if I remember correctly, there are matching Federal funds available. So if the State leaves the rural communities out, then the Federal Government, consequently leaves the local communities out. Mr. CRANGLE. Both programs encompass a comprehensive development program of mass transportation. Mr. RESNICK. Mr. Goodling, I think you would have to agree with me without becoming partisan about it that basically, rural America has been left out. It has been left out of Federal programs as well as of State programs. It is my belief that the fault lies with the States, because the States refuse to give it the action that they should. Now, with all due respect to Mr. Crangle, and we welcome him here. and we are glad to hear him read the statement of Mr. Lanigan, I would have hoped that we would have had someone here who would have spoken with authority, who would have spoken about the prohlems of the rural parts of New York State. Again, with all due respect to Mr. Crangle, all we are getting is rhetoric here. Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that you let the witness he is a guest of the committee. I suggest you let him finish. Mr. RESNICK. I certainly will. Mr. CRANGLE. Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman? Mr. RESNICK. Please do. But before you do, because this is somehing I am very disturbed about, I would like the record to show, Mr. Iontgomery, that I apologize in that possibly I am not being as coureous to our guest as possible. However, this is not the first time that I ave had this problem. Here in this committee, we passed a bill and he bill provided for grants and loans to unincorporated towns and illages to provide them with money for water and sewage. Are you Familiar with that at all, Mr. Crangle? Mr. CRANGLE. Yes, sir. Mr. RESNICK. Are you aware that New York State cannot participate in that program because after the State legislature enacted the enabling legislation, Governor Rockefeller vetoed that bill? Are you aware of that? Mr. CRANGLE. I am not here to debate, Mr. Resnick, with you on State policies, I am sorry, Mr. RESNICK. On that basis, you might as well put the statement in the record. I am sorry the State of New York spent the money sending you down here. Whatever differences of opinion that I have with you we shall discuss later. But the point that I am trying to make and the point I am trying to make to Mr. Montgomery and for the record is that the State of New York says that rural counties have a particularly vital stake in the State's pioneering $1.7 billion pure water program to provide new waste treatment facilities. And at the same time, they vetoed a bill that would have permitted incorporated villages to get these things. Now, I would ask you again if you are aware of the veto, if you are aware of the reason for the veto? Mr. CRANGLE. No, sir; I am not aware of the reason. Mr. RESNICK. In other words, you know there was a veto? Mr. CRANGLE. Yes. Mr. RESNICK. And you know that on the face of it, then, what you are saying is not so? Please continue. Mr. CRANGLE. Thank you. Rural communities have a particularly vital stake in the State's pioneering $1.7 billion pure water program to provide needed waste treatment facilities. Well in advance of the Federal Government's program of open space land acquisition, New York State launched its own open space program and is now deeply engaged in the next step of developing park and recreation facilities. In many instances, New York's programs are of a comprehensive nature. Thus, while the differences between an urban and rural environment are full recognized, in many cases, the functional needs are similar. For example: The pure waters program, while essential for city water supplies, is equally important for rural water supplies, for enhancement of rural recreational opportunities, and for broad economic growth. 82-388-67- -39 |