Senator MUSKIE. I think the only complexity in this whole business of the numbers is agreeing on what you are going to count, whether you are just going to count oranges or all citrus trees, or just citrus fruits or all tree fruits. Once you know what you are going to count it ought not to be too difficult to list them all and identify them all. I agree with you on that.

And you have brought into this a broader concept of the kind of information that ought to be included than some people have been counting.

Since it is obviously broader than just grant-in-aid programs, can you give us a figure as to the number of grant-in-aid programs that you have identified, just as broad a list as you have given us.

Mr. ROTH. To hazard a guess-and our list of programs is fragmented as a result of our definition, in contrast with, say, the catalog prepared by your own committee-there are probably roughly 800 or 900.

Senator MUSKIE. I think our latest study will show about 700, which is on the same order of magnitude.

It might be interesting to compare those lists sometime, so that we can see anything that we haven't identified.

Mr. ROTH. I understand that there has been a comparison, and that staff has contacted those who helped with your catalog.

my

I will be glad to give you any results that we have on that.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Congressman. I repeat that your testimony is most helpful and most impressive. And I would like to compliment you upon the obviously considerable work that you and your staff have done in this field. And I hope that you are able to move this legislation on the House side.

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope so, too.

Congressman Roth's full prepared statement, with enclosures, follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTтh, Jr.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee: 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 two years. The findings of this study make it unmistakably 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 red tape and move toward simplification of our Federal system.

Briefly, this is what we learned.

1. 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 than our 1968 listing. We know even this is incomplete, as we are still discovering new programs.

2. We found that the present maze of over 1,315 Federal assistance programs is so confusing that those who are intended to benefit often don't know what programs exist, where to get aid, whether they qualify for assistance, or how much money is available.

3. We found that there has been no centralized planning or management of Federal assistance programs in the Executive Branch; that there can be no consolidation of programs without a comprehensive sorting out of existing programs; and that one government agency is not fully informed as to the operations of sister agencies even though their activities are often interrelated.

4. We found that the Federal assistance complex helps the wealthy states and communities or colleges who can afford professional staffs to search out programs, but handicaps the smaller communities and schools.

5. We found that the present system of Federal assistance, with its duplication of programs, inconsistent guidelines and voluminous paper-work, is wasteful not only of Federal, state and local funds, but squanders irreplaceable time and manpower as well.

6. We found that the 1969 edition of the so-called comprehensive catalog published by the Office of Economic Opportunity was, like its predecessor, incomplete as to coverage and imprecise as to information. The steps that have since been taken to improve future editions have come only because of Congressional prodding.

7. We found that in the total of 1,315 operating Federal assistance programs, there are, for example, 51 business and economic development programs in 14 agencies; 19 civil rights programs in 6 agencies; 165 education programs in 14 agencies; 62 environmental and natural resource programs in 9 agencies; and 33 water resources and conservation programs in 8 agencies. A complete breakdown is attached to the testimony as Exhibit 1. In addition, this simple breakdown does not really reflect the magnitude of the problem. For example, the 165 education programs referred to above include only programs which aid classroom instruction-there are actually more than 455 programs in 27 agencies that can potentially benefit educators or educational institutions, such as housing, research, and man-power training.

Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a paradox. The Federal government has been engaged in massive efforts to raise the quality of the lives of all American citizens. These have been highly commendable efforts: to rebuild our cities and communities, to improve our educational system, to conquer disease, to bring the poor into the mainstream of American life.

But because the hundreds of new Federal assistance programs are literally uncoordinated, we see as an unwanted conclusion that the very programs which were intended to solve problems have helped create new problems. The amount of good that should have come from billions of tax dollars has been drained off into exorbitant administrative costs and wasteful procedures, with too few dollars finally reaching those they were meant to help

This undesirable situation must be changed if we are to succeed in solving the problems of the 70's. Accordingly, I believe the improvements in government operations encompassed in the three bills being considered by this Subcommittee are necessary to bring about that change.

I particularly want to deal in detail with the Program Information Act-the bill that I have authored. Although I have discussed on the House floor and elsewhere the reasons why I believe this legislation is needed, I hope a review of these reasons will be valuable to this Committee. Our subsequent studies, which I shall also discuss, have only reinforced the arguments I made on the House floor on June 25, 1968.

THE INFORMATION CRISIS

I believe the first step on our way out of the present maze is to make meaningful information on all Federal assistance programs readily available to the potential beneficiaries. Fifty states, 3,000 counties, 18,000 municipalities, 17,000 townships, 25,000 school districts, and 2,500 institutions of higher education-in fact, more than 200,000,000 Americans—are indeed potential recipients of Federal assistance.

In my June 1968 speech, I spoke of an information crisis. I called it a crisis since I believe firmly that the right and need to know is a basic criterion of true representative government, a criterion that is not currently being met. That right and need to know includes, among other things, ready access to complete, factual and meaningful information about the operation of all assistance programs administered by the Federal Government. Most important, this information should be readily available to the people back home-to those the programs are intended to help.

But the information is also needed by Members of Congress. In discussing this legislation, Members have repeatedly told me they do not have adequate program information. As a result, they often are not able to direct cities, schools, or other applicants to the programs best suited to their specific needs. Without adequate information on file, one must use the "hunt and peck" approach to determine what assistance may be available; this, in turn, not only forces one to rely on how much a particular agency may want to disclose, but frequently results in countless wasted manhours.

As a legislator, I believe it is especially important to have this information to better evaluate how effectively the Executive Branch is implementing the broad authorizations enacted by Congress, as well as to determine the relative need for funding of existing programs and the creation of new legislation. It is too often difficult, if not impossible, to determine with certainty what related programs are in existence when considering new legislation.

And certainly the Executive Branch itself needs such information to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlapping, between departments and agencies. I do not believe any company would long exist in the competitive market if new products were manufactured and sold without management being kept fully apprised. Yet, no one in the Federal government at any level has full knowledge of what Federal assistance programs do in fact exist. Furthermore, employees in the various agencies have advised me that they, in turn, are unable to direct applicants to the best source of assistance because they too have little or no knowledge about other programs.

Finally, full disclosure of Federal assistance program information is necessary to insure fair and efficient practices. The public watch dog, the news media, cannot operate effectively if government operations are covered with a cape of confusion. Confusion-and the resulting secrecy and protective screen-only helps those who would indulge in favoritism or other undesirable practices.

But the most important reason for improving program information, as I have already indicated, is to help those for whom the programs were created. Meaningful information is the open sesame of Federal assistance programs. The lack of such information handicaps everyone, but especially those in the greatest need. The small cities and counties or schools, for example, are left out in the cold. They cannot hire their own experts or organize their own private intelligence services like the major universities who maintain Washington libraries, staffed with grantsmanship experts, replete with government circulars, publications, regulations and correspondence. Typically and tragically, the lack of adequate information to the public has resulted in advantaging the advantaged and disadvantaging the disadvantaged.

The seriousness of this situation is underscored in the June 1968 issue of American County Government, the official publication of the National Association of Counties (NACO), which states on page 47:

If Federal assistance programs are to be of maximum benefit, every local official should have complete information on the full scope of Federal programs. Without this information to assist their officials in formulating programs and making decisions, many communities fail to participate in Federal assistance programs for which they are eligible. Others are slow in getting programs into operation, and still others pursue programs poorly suited to meet their priorities even though more effective programs are available.

The vastness of the Federal aid "administrative jungle" reflects the urgency of developing an information system to keep local leaders and administrators informed so they can fulfill their responsibilties. The present Federal aid system emphasizes the ability of grant applicants to know what aids are available and to obtain the necessary program information. Most counties have no mechanism for collecting current information about the flow of Federal grant funds into local government, much less for coordinating such programs. Information is a primary source for achieving the objectives sought by local government. Getting the right information to the right people at the right time can benefit all types of management action and decision-making.

This same publication recommends that each county establish a county development coordination office to collate and disseminate information on Federal programs. Now, if each one of more than 3,000 counties has been advised to set up such an office, it can likewise be contended that cities, schools and other potential recipients need similar information centers. We are faced with the incredible possibility then that thousands and thousands of talented men and women actually need to spend thousands and thousands of hours at the job of ferreting out information on Federal assistance programs. Could not their energy and intelligence be better utilized in solving problems?

Mr. Chairman I have gathered here beside me 32 different catalogs, all put out by government agencies, all intended to bring some order out of the chaos that now exists by providing a source of information for potential aid applicants. The

34-851-69-13

result, of course, is more chaos-a total of more than 4,700 pages of print, many advertising similar programs in different ways-that only includes the catalogs here, and we know that more government publications exist. If the government were to produce one adequate catalog, all the time, effort, and money that went into the production of these books could be saved-and the government would have gone a long way toward clearing up the confusion.

THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Because of this information crisis, I introduced in the House the Program Information Act, which has been introduced in the Senate as S. 60. The Program Information Act would require the President to publish each year a comprehensive compendium of Federal assistance programs, and to update the catalog on a regular basis. This legislation, as you know, has bipartisan cosponsorship from 11 Senators and 183 Congressmen.

The National Governors' Conference has unanimously endorsed the concept outlined in the Program Information Act, while the National Association of County Officials and the National Legislative Conference specifically endorsed this measure last year. The Council of State Governments and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations are both on record in support of a unified catalog as envisioned in this proposal. Copies of these endorsements are attached as part of my testimony, as exhibit 2.

I believe that the record makes it clear that legislation is essential to insure adequate information. The OEO catalogs of 1967 and 1969, the Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance are both inadequate, as I have pointed out (last year, on June 25, 1968, at page H-5434 of the Congressional Record, and this year, on April 24, at page H-3062). Improvements in the second catalog came only after the failures of the first were spotlighted. Future improvements, as reflected in the Revision of BOB Circular A-89, (the circular that sets the standards for the government-wide OEO catalog), seem to have come as a result of Congressional pressure, and only as a result of Congressional pressure. Now, the Bureau of the Budget has begun to compile a meaningful list of all Federal assistance programs. For this, I congratulate them.

Unless legislation is adopted, however, I do not believe we can be assured that progress will continue to be made indefinitely in the future. One reason legislative standards must be adopted is that the Bureau of the Budget seems to believe the development of a catalog is an "evolutionary" matter. For example, in the report submitted to this Subcommittee on July 11, 1969, it is stated that "we believe that the evolutionary approach which we are taking is the most practical and economical way in which to improve the catalog." The proposal for "evolutionary" development is only being used as a hollow straw man to hide behind, to avoid making definite decisions now.

Let me cite one example of why this is so. In May 1967, the Bureau of the Budget established a 12-man committee, with representatives from the various departments and agencies, to plan the OEO catalog. After 12 months the committee concluded that it was impractical to define a Federal assistance program. The lack of a definition, of course, meant that there was no consistency among departments and agencies about the most basic informational point-what constituted a program. As a result, the individual departments and agencies could pick and choose which "programs" they wanted to highlight and which ones they wanted to keep from the public eye.

Despite this conclusion, the Bureau of the Budget has now been able, in connection with these hearings, to formulate such a definition and suggests it be used in S. 60. This sort of response indicates that progress will indeed be slow unless the Congress imposes a legislative duty on the Executive Branch to publish a meaningful, up-to-date catalog.

THE HISTORY

I believe at this juncture it would be well to turn to what might be called the legislative history of S. 60.

The first government-wide catalog was produced for this very Subcommittee by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. The Catalog of Federal Aids to State and Local Governments, compiled by Mr. I. M. Labovitz, dated April 15, 1964, broke the ground for this kind of effort. The Office of Eco

nomic Opportunity used this as the jumping off point for its catalog in 1965. Congress so liked this first OEO effort that it mandated a second. The second OEO catalog, the Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs, came out in June 1967 with 459 programs and claimed, "the book now contains all domestic assistance programs of the Federal government."

On June 25, 1968, after an intensive eight-month study, my listing of over 1050 operating Federal assistance programs was introduced into the Congressional Record. First of all, this demonstrated conclusively that the second OEO catalog of June, 1967, was not complete; secondly, my listing provided precise eligibility requirements, restrictions placed on aid, financial information, definite contacts, application procedures, and program deadlines-all of which were either in complete or omitted in OEO's book. With this knowledge, I introduced the Program Information Act.

The demand for the 1968 listing was overwhelming. My office received hundreds of telephone calls and thousands of letters requesting the information. The demand for the June 25 Congressional Record was so great that my listing was reprinted, with the unanimous consent of the Congress, as a House Document (H. Doc. 399). Over three hundred newspaper columns and editorials in more than 40 states mentioned the proposed legislation favorably. I would like to include at the conclusion of my testimony a list of the newspapers that carried such comments (see exhibit 3).

After the original listing had been distributed, the Bureau of the Budget promulgated BOB Circular A-89 in August, 1968, a copy of which is attached as exhibit 4. This circular, based on a 12-month study by an ad hoc committee representing 12 departments and agencies, did not call for detailed program information, funding information, or frequent updating. The standards it set did not reflect the need of potential users-to whom my own efforts were directed, and to whom the efforts of the Federal government should be directed.

Then, in April, 1969, the Office of Economic Opportunity released the third Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, listing 581 programs. On April 24, 1969, I went to the floor of the House and demonstrated, on the basis of my 1968 listing, that the new OEO catalog again omitted programs, and contained insufficient information to meet the needs of potential users.

We are now beginning a new round. Last year, on June 25, I promised on the House floor that I would try to obtain program descriptions from those departments (Health, Education and Welfare; Agriculture; Transportation; and Housing and Urban Development) that did not cooperate fully with my first effort. This week, on Monday, September 15, I inserted into the Congressional Record, at page H-7896, a listing of 1315 operating Federal assistance programs, substantially more than twice the 581 contained in the 1969, OEO catalog. With one eye on the Congress, the Bureau of the Budget issued a Draft Revision of BOB Circular A-89, dated July 28, 1969. This revision incorporates many of the concepts contained in S. 60.

History, therefore, does not justify this "leave-it-to-us" attitude of "evolutionary" development. As I said, had it not been for Congressional pressure, the Executive branch would not have moved as far as it has-even the last catalog was inadequate, and, in fact, a failure.

It is not true, as the Bureau of the Budget seems to contend, that production of a meaningful catalog is an exceedingly complex task. My main purpose in compiling my "1969 listing" of programs-over 1300 of them-was to demonstrate that the job could be done, and could be done cheaply. One member of my staff spent roughly four months contacting the various agencies for program descriptions, and I hired a professional indexer who spent on the order of 100 hours preparing the index. And I understand that your own excellent catalog, Mr. Chairman, the Catalog of Federal Aids to State and Local Governments, was compiled under the direction of one person with occasional assistance from one other gentleman-and this was on top of many other routine Legislative Reference Service duties.

I ask any one of the distinguished members of this subcommittee or any of your colleagues to compare my own updated listing with other publications. Which do you find more useful? If my listing is more useful for persons who are schooled in the official jargon of Washington, do you not think it would also be better for the average layman back home who must work with these programs?

As I have stated many times, then, what is needed is not so much manpower, but willpower-the desire to produce adequate, useful, up-to-date information, and the willingness to make the hard, very detailed decisions involved in stand