Mr. STAATS. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Does this mean that in every case the service is essentially performed at the State or local level of government with funds provided in accordance with some matching formula by the Federal Government?

Mr. STAATS. There would be some matching formula, and it all would involve administrative and procedural arrangements which are self-contained. That doesn't mean to say, though, that they would all be different. But they at least prescribe different conditions, either in the statute or in implementing regulations.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it possible that several programs if encountered separately might really be part of an overall program contained in separate authorization bills.

Mr. STAATS. Yes. And that is where we get into the problem of definition of what constitutes a program.

Senator MUSKIE. If this is so, then would it be fair to suggest that proliferation is just as bad at its best, but it may not be as bad as some of the numbers suggest?

Mr. STAATS. It may not be as bad as some of the numbers suggest, although I can see the point made by Governors and mayors and other local officials of the confusion that comes about from not being certain as to whether or not they have identified all the programs that may be available to them.

Senator MUSKIE. I don't know that that exchange clarifies much about the numbers, but maybe at least it suggests that there is a rational basis for the difference in numbers.

Mr. STAATS. Our institutional interest as the General Accounting Office and concern with these large assistance programs of course stems from our basic responsibility for auditing Federal activities, our interest in promoting economical and effective administration of Federal programs, our concern with the adequacy of audits made by both Federal agencies and State and local governments, and our overall continuing interest in improvement in financial management practices of the Federal Government including the development of adequate accounting systems.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the General Accounting Office has established working relationships with the staff of both Congressional Subcommittees on Intergovernmental Relations the concerned Federal agencies, the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers, the National Association of State Budget Officers, the Council of State Governments, and many other such public interest groups. Representatives of public interest groups have met with us in Washington and we have participated in their meetings elsewhere in the country. We have added to the staff of our office of policy and special studies an assistant director who spends his full time in dealing with the problems generated by the Federal Government's relations with the State and local governments.

This is in addition, I might say, Mr. Chairman, to all the regular staff that we have reviewing programs of the executive branch. Last year, as a member of the joint financial management improvement program, which incidentally was provided by statute several years ago, I participated in sponsoring a project to review the financial. administration of Federal grants-in-aid and develop recommendations

for simplification and improvement in the financial management of grant programs. A survey team was created under the chairmanship of a representative of the General Accounting Office and included representatives from the Departments of Treasury; Health, Education, and Welfare; Transportation; Housing and Urban Development; and Labor; the Bureau of the Budget; and the Office of Economic Opportunity.

The project team has completed its field work and its report is in the final stages of development. Among the more important findings and recommendations of the team are the following:

1. Consolidation of categorical grant needs to be expedited because the large numbers of different kinds of categories of grants give rise to a maze and complexity of instructions, forms, and procedures prescribed by the various grantors. However, there is a need for Federal agencies to maintain flexibility so that a mix of different types of assistance can be tailored to the requirements of individual grant situations. 2. Simplification of financial reporting requires priority attention because of the overlapping and complicated requirements by the several grantor agencies. There is need for vigorous action to design simplified, improved, and where feasible, a more uniform financial and program performance report format.

3. Simplification of audit administration needs attention because of the numerous Federal, State, and local government audit groups and public accountants all of whom tend to overlap and result in excessive audit. Further efforts need to be made to use cross serving auditing arrangements wherever practical. Also, cognizant Federal agencies need to give greater attention to review of grantees' internal control systems, including internal auditing, and make more definitive determinations as to the extent to which Federal audit can be properly reduced as a result of audit performed by grantees' internal audit staffs or by public accountants retained by grantees.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Staats, Senator Boggs is here, and it seems to be a logical point to interrupt your testimony. And we would appreciate your patience very much.

I think we might introduce our next two witnesses in tandem, since they have come in in tandem. Our distinguished colleague and longtime coworker in the field of water pollution, whose statesmanship and dedication and cooperation have been a pleasure to me over the years, Senator Boggs of Delaware, and his colleagues from his great State, whom I do not know as well but whom we welcome because of his interest in this field, Congressman Roth.

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. CALEB BOGGS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Senator BOGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very kind and most generous, and it is an honor for me to appear before you and the members of this subcommittee.

I wish to commend and thank you and the members of the subcommittee for calling these hearings. I believe each of these bills provides a useful and important tool to increase efficiency in the operation of the Federal Government.

www

I know, Mr. Chairman, that you have been a leader in pushing for adoption of many of the provisions contained in the three bills under consideration, and I wish to congratulate you for your leadership in this area.

You bill, S. 2479, Mr. Chairman, provides many improvements to existing procedures, I believe. Its sections dealing with accounting, consolidation, joint funding, and other features would improve Federal assistance programs. The problem of the often wasteful proliferation of Federal assistance programs would be met in large measure by S. 2035, authorizing a consolidation of assistance programs.

When President Nixon several months ago sent the Congress a message on this subject, consolidation of assistance programs, he said that one of the Nation's principal needs in assistance projects is "to insure that the intended services actually reach the intended recipients, and that they do so in an efficient, economical, and effective manner." If I might add my own thought, that is precisely the goal of S. 60, the Program Information Act. I introduced this bill in the Senate and it now has 14 cosponsors. I should like to devote the remainder of my testimony to S. 60. This is a bill designed simply for a single purpose: To provide the public with information on what assistance programs the Federal Government offers to local units of government and to individuals.

This bill would prove useful, I believe, to every Member of Congress and to many officials in the executive branch. It is a bill primarily to assist other levels of government-the States, counties, and cities—and fits easily into President Nixon's call for a new Federalism.

A catalog, such as S. 60 proposes, would cost in the neighborhood of $600,000. That seems to be a relatively inexpensive sum to chart for the Nation a roadmap through the yearly $25 billion maze of Federal assistance programs. The 50 Governors and the thousands of mayors and county officers across this land currently have no central, accurate, up-to-date source of information on such programs. Without that information, they are often unable to make the best decision on how to answer their needs.

As a former Governor of Delaware, I know from my own experience the great value a catalog, such as proposed by this bill would perform

for the States. A Governor needs a reference of this sort. His staff needs this.

More important, still, is the help such a catalog would offer to the small cities and counties of this country, the type of communities where most of the people live in my State. Communities of 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 persons usually can't afford to hire executive guidance to seek knowledge about Federal assistance programs. How simple and logical it would be to create an up-to-date catalog to assist these smaller communities in seeking their fair share of Federal grant and loan programs.

Before I close, I would like to add one point that I consider to be important for the proper implementation of S. 60. This is timeliness. In addition to the necessary comprehensive character of the catalog and its necessary accuracy, there is an essential third support we must give to such a catalog to make it useful. That is an up-to-date quality.

To be effective, the catalog must be updated periodically, so that a State or local agency may get latest data on the dollars and programs

available. Without this, the catalog would lose much of its very reason for existence.

Thus, I believe, the timetable for the publication of the report must be established clearly in the legislation, and not left at the discretion of the Bureau of the Budget. Quarterly publication of material for the catalog would seem to be a minimum standard to make the catalog effective.

Gentlemen, you have been more than generous of your time, and I thank you. With the chairman's permission, I should like to introduce to the subcommittee the distinguished Member of the House of Representatives from Delaware, the Honorable William Roth. Congressman Roth has been the prime advocate of this project to create a catalog. He has twice compiled his own catalog of Federal assistance programs. The Roth catalog, I believe, demonstrates the value of this legislation. I would like to introduce him at this time so that he may address himself to many of the specific features of S. 60.

Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator.

Before we turn to Congressman Roth I think it might be appropriate to insert in the record, since you are the sponsor of the legislation on the Senate side, a letter 1 which we received from the Bureau of the Budget, dated July 11, with enclosures, undertaking to define the Bureau's concepts as to what such a catalog might be. I think that has been distributed to some of you and you may have seen it. But I think it ought to be in the record.

Senator MUSKIE. Before you, Senator, and you, Congressman, came in, I got into a brief exchange with Mr. Staats on the numbers that are involved in the discussion of this proliferation of grant-in-aid programs. And the numbers vary so widely that it is a little difficult to understand why there is the difference. And so I think at this point I would like to make special reference to the proposed definition of Federal assistance programs which is contained in the Bureau of the Budget circular.

Congressman Roth may want to comment on it in his remarks, or you may want to. But in any case I think it would be useful to have before us as we listen to the testimony so that we are not too confused by the numbers.

So that the proposed catalog, in the opinion of the Bureau of the Budget, ought to include these programs: one, financial assistance, including grants, loans and advances, loan guarantees, and shared

revenues.

Two, assistance in the form of direct contribution of provision of Federal facilities, goods, or services.

Three, donation or provision of surplus real and personal property. Four, technical assistance and counsel.

And five, statistical and other informational services.

Now, I think that it is appropriate, from my first impression of these, that all of these programs answering any of these descriptions ought to be included in the catalog. But my impression is that this list is much broader and much more comprehensive than a listing of simple grant-in-aid programs. And this may explain the discrepancy

1 See agency reports, S. 60, p. 9.

in the numbers in various listings of programs. In this subcommittee's studies, for example, we have tried to include only grant-in-aid programs. It may be that Congressman Roth's list includes something beyond grant-in-aid programs, I don't know.

Mr. Staats has still a different one. But anyway we are concerned not so much with explaining the different lists, although that might be helpful, as agreeing on what ought to be included in the catalog. And I thought this discussion might be helpful.

Congressman, may I say with respect to your testimony, I have already scanned it last night, and I think it is excellent. But because of the time pressure I wonder if you could to any degree compress your testimony.

Senator Stevens and I are the only Senators present. I don't want you to dilute its thrust or to ignore a point that you think significant, but if you can it would be most helpful, because I am going to have to leave in about an hour and 25 minutes, and I am not sure we can cover everybody.

Senator BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I am going to leave it to the Congressman, who has devoted his full energies to this effort. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Boggs.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE, AT LARGE

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, needless to say, it is a pleasure and privilege for me to appear here before you and this distinguished subcommittee. I apologize for our lateness, but unfortunately we had another committee meeting on this side, and that was the cause of our lateness.

I shall of course be happy to proceed in any way that is most expeditious to you and to the other member of the committee.

I would like, of course, with your approval to include as part of the record my entire statement and the various attachments that we incorporated.

Senator MUSKIE. That will be done. And that would include the excerpts from the Congressional Record.

Mr. ROTH. Yes, sir.

I thought I might read some parts of it and summarize all of it. If at any time you would prefer for me to stop, I should be happy to do so. And I will at the end of my testimony discuss program definition.

As many of you are undoubtedly aware, members of my staff and I have been involved in a continuous study of Federal assistance programs for nearly 2 years. The findings of this study make it unmis takably clear that it is necessary for this Congress to enact legislation requiring the maintenance of an up-to-date catalog of Federal assistance programs and to give the President the authority, requested under S. 2035 and S. 2479, to eliminate redtape and move toward simplification of our federal system.

I should like to briefly state what we have learned as a result of this study.

We found that no one today knows exactly how many Federal assistance programs there are. Our latest collation, just completed, contains 1,315 Federal assistance programs, or roughly 225 more programs