on the substantive consolidation of functions but was required to come forward with a second package concerning the reorganization, which was necessary to permit the consolidations, there would be too much opportunity for the two to get out of phase with each other.

So it was looked upon as a simpler means on the one hand, and second, a means of securing congressional consideration of both a consolidation and the organizational means for accomplishing the consolidation together.

Mr. SCHNOOR. Mr. Turner, I just want to say both versions of the consolidation authority, the ACIR bill and the administration version, would permit basic reorganizations as part of the consolidation. That is, you could move programs from one agency to another under either bill, but the administration bill adds the incidental features of reorganization such as the authority to create an office or an agency.

Mr. TURNER. Right. My question was not necessarily directed to the differences between the two bills. What I am trying to do is to bring up some questions which have been raised and have you explain to us why the necessity for having these things. This is the purpose of my questioning.

But if I could go on to another section

Mr. INK. As I say, it is not a question of authority, it is whether you accomplish consolidations in two steps instead of one, and we do not think it makes sense to get at a problem in two steps through which, if one does not succeed, the other is not susceptible to fulfillment.

Mr. TURNER. S. 2479, section 802(a)(5), provides that the plan may transfer unexpended balances of appropriations from the superseded programs to the consolidated plan S. 2035, section 1006(d) would appear to provide that unexpended appropriations shall revert to the Treasury. The language here is ambiguous.

I wonder if you might comment on that, why your language differs from that which the ACIR developed, and why you think reverting it back to the Treasury would be better than our unexpended balances going to the plans?

Mr. SCHNOOR. I am sorry, Mr. Turner, were you talking about joint funding or grant consolidation?

Mr. TURNER. I believe we are talking about grant consolidation. Mr. INK. I would rather provide that for the record, since is gets into a fairly detailed technical discussion.

(The following was provided:)

RESPONSE TO TURNER'S QUESTION

Mr. Turner's question concerns the difference between section 802 (a)(5) of S. 2479 and section 1006(d) of S. 2035.

Section 802(a) (5) of S. 2479 provides that a Federal assistance consolidation plan "shall provide for the transfer of such unexpended balances of appropriations, and of other funds, available for use in connection with such programs as are involved in the consolidation, as the President considers necessary by reason of the consolidation for use in connection with the functions of the consolidated program." That language parallels a portion of the reorganization statute (5 U.S.C. 904(4)) which provides that a reorganization plan "shall provide for the transfer of such unexpended balances of appropriations, and of other funds, available for use in connection with a function or agency affected by a reorganization, as the President considers necessary by reason of the reorganization for use in connection with the functions affected by the reorganization, or for the use of the agency which shall have the functions after the reorganization plan is effective. However, the unexpended balances so transferred may be used only for the purposes for which the appropriation was originally made."

The above portion of the reorganization statute is incorporated in S. 2035 by reference, since section 1003 (b)(1) of the bill provides that a consolidation plan may include any reorganization or "measure incidental thereto" as provided in the reorganization statute (chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code). Thus, S. 2479 and S. 2035 provide for the transfers of funds in a similar manner. As noted in the Bureau of the Budget testimony, however, more specific language appears to be needed in S. 2035 (and the same is true of S. 2479) to insure that it will be possible to consolidate the appropriations, and authorizations for appropriations, for the programs being merged. A technical amendment to S. 2035 to deal with this matter was submitted for the record. Section 1006 (d) of S. 2035, to which Mr. Turner referred, deals with a different matter. In contrast to the provisions discussed above, it does not concern funds which may be used in connection with a consolidated program, but rather with those which may be unexpended as the result of a consolidation. It provides that the latter shall revert to the Treasury.

The language of section 1006(d) of S. 2035 is taken from the reorganization statute (5 U.S.C. 907(d)). It represents a limit on the President's authority which the Congress has, in the past, deemed necessary to cover unusual or unforeseen circumstances. In the context of grant consolidatin, for example, the President may propose the merger of programs, one of which may include funds that may be spent without regard to fiscal year limitations. If such a program were merged with another that is authorized for only one year, S. 2035 would bar the continuation of the merged program beyond the one-year authorization. In such a case, section 1006(d) would require the reversion to the Treasury of the "no-year" money left over after the merged program reached the end of its authorized life.

Senator METCALF. May I interrupt and say that because of events about which we are all familiar, we are going to have to end this hearing pretty soon. I am going to ask that some of the questions that we can have an opportunity to ask be submitted and you provide the information. In about 5 minutes I am going to ask Mr. Berry if he has some specific questions, and then I think we are going to be forced, with apologies, to close the hearing.

Mr. INK. Yes, sir.

Mr. TURNER. I have only one additional question which I would like to get your reaction to. Title II of the bill appears to be similar to the Bureau of the Budget Circular A-73. Why is this legislation necessary if we have a Bureau of the Budget circular, and secondly, what has been the experience of the effectiveness of that Bureau of the Budget Circular A-73?

It already gave us some knowledge as to how effective title II might be if we were to enact it.

Mr. INK. The primary purpose is to secure congressional endorsement, to make clear to the people we are working with that this is the intent of Congress. I think it is important to keep in mind that these problems dealt with in the circular and title II of the bill are an outgrowth of activities on the part of both the executive branch and the Congress. They are well intended and important steps taken to provide assistance to State and local governments, but, in trying to simplify and in trying to deal with the problems that have evolved, we think it is important that these people look upon this not just as the intent of the President-we think that is pretty important-but also the intend of the Congress.

There are many problems, Mr. Turner, which are not found in a specific wording of the legislation itself, but which deter us in trying to simplify because someone down in an organization is concerned about something that Congressman John Jones said in a hearing 4 or 5 years ago, or something that some GAO auditor commented on some

2 See p. 112.

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.