(e) "Administering office" means the lowest subdivision of any Federal agency that has direct operational responsibility for managing a Federal domestic assistance program.

(f) "Federal agency" means any executive department, agency, or instrumentality of the Government and any wholly owned Government corporation.

EXCLUSION

Sec. 3. This Act does not apply to any activities related to the collection or evaluation of national security information.

CATALOG OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Sec. 4. The President shall transmit to Congress during the first days of each regular session a catalog of Federal assistance programs, referred to in this Act as "the catalog," in accordance with this Act.

PURPOSE OF CATALOG

Sec. 5. The catalog shall be designed to assist the potential beneficiary, identify all existing Federal assistance programs wherever administered, and shall supply information for each program so that the potential beneficiary can determine whether particular assistance or support sought might be available to him to use for the purposes he wishes.

REQUIRED PROGRAM INFORMATION

Sec. 6. For each Federal assistance program, the catalog shall—

(1) identify the program. The identification may include the name of the program, the authorizing statute, the specific administering office, and a brief description of the program including the objectives it is designed to attain. (2) describe the program structure. The description may include a statement of the eligibility restrictions, the available benefits, and the restrictions on the use of such benefits.

(3) provide financial information. This information may include obligations incurred for past years and in the present year, the range of financial assistance and average assistance given, where appropriate, and other pertinent financial information designed to indicate the size of the program and any funding remaining available.

(4) state the obligations on the part of the recipient receiving assistance or support. This statement may include a statement of prerequisites to receiving benefits, and of duties required after receiving benefits.

(5) identify the appropriate officials to contact. The list may include contacts in both Washington, District of Columbia, and locally, including addresses and telephone numbers.

(6) provide a general description of the application process. This description may include application deadlines, coordination requirements, processing time requirements and other pertinent procedural explanations.

(7) identify related programs.

FORM OF CATALOG

Sec. 7. (a) The program information may be set forth in such form as the President may determine, and the catalog may include such other program information and data as in his opinion are necessary or desirable in order to assist the potential program beneficiary to understand and take advantage of each Federal assistance program.

(b) The catalog shall contain a detailed index designed to assist the potential beneficiary to identify all Federal assistance programs related to a particular need.

(c) The catalog shall be in all respects concise, clear, understandable, and such that it can be easily understood by the potential beneficiary.

PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE CATALOG

Sec. 8. (a) The President (or an official to whom such function is delegated pursuant to section 9 of this Act) shall prepare, publish and maintain the catalog on a current basis and shall make such catalog and any revisions thereof avail

able to the public at prices approximately equal to the cost in quantities adequate to meet public demand, providing for subscriptions to the catalog and revisions thereof in such manner as he may determine.

(b) Gratis distribution of not to exceed 10,000 copies, in the aggregate, is authorized to Members of Congress and Resident Commissioners, Federal department and agency officials, State and local officials, and to local repositories as determined by the President or his delegated representative.

(c) The catalog shall be the single, authoritative, Government-wide compendium of Federal domestic assistance program information produced by a Federal agency or department. Specialized catalogs for specific ad hoc purposes may be developed within the framework, or as a supplement to, the Government-wide compendium and shall be allowed only when specifically authorized and developed within guidelines and criteria to be determined by the President.

(d) Any existing provisions of law requiring the preparation or publication of such catalogs are superseded to the extent they may be in conflict with the provisions of this Act.

DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS

Sec. 9. The President may delegate any function conferred upon him by this Act, including preparation and distribution of the catalog, to the head of any Federal department or agency, with authority for redelegation as he may deem appropriate.

QUARTERLY REVISION

Sec. 10. The President shall revise the catalog at no less than three month intervals. Each revision

(1) shall reflect for each Federal assistance program any changes in the program information listed in section 6.

(2) shall further reflect addition, consolidation, reorganization, or cessation of Federal assistance programs, and shall provide for such Federal assistance programs the program information listed in section 6.

(3) shall include such other program information as will provide the most current information on changes in financial information, on changes in organizations administering the Federal assistance programs, and on other changes of direct, immediate relevance to potential program beneficiaries as will most accurately reflect the full scope of Federal assistance programs, and the current organizational structure of the Federal agencies and departments that administer such programs.

(4) may include such other program information and data as in the President's opinion are necessary or desirable in order to assist the potential program beneficiary to understand and take advantage of each Federal assistance program.

Exhibit 6

TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, JUNE 5, 1969

Needless duplication and overlapping of Federal assistance programs is, in my judgment, wasteful of human resources, tax dollars and the all-important element of time. No one can deny that special needs may necessitate the duplication of programs, such as veteran and military hospitals, but unnecessary proliferation of Federal programs siphons off national resources that are already in short supply. I believe it to be imperative that we marshal these resources in such a manner to maximize service to the people with a minimum of manpower and money-power used in implementing the programs.

Duplicating programs is wasteful of human resources in that it requires additional administrative Federal, State and local personnel. The June, 1968, issue of American County Government, the official publication of the National Association of Counties, pointed out the difficulties of dealing with the maximum number of Federal programs. On page 25, it is frankly admitted that the "increase in number and scope of Federal grant-in-aid programs since 1960 has bewildered many state and local officials."

Again, on page 26, it is said: "While the amount of Federal aid available to local governments has been increasing, local officials are having difficulty taking advantage of this increase because of the complexity of the system."

Duplicating programs has resulted in duplicating guidelines, duplicating regulations and duplicating application forms. The problems of determining what

assistance is available, what programs best meet local needs and what forms need to be prepared are time-consuming and seriously delay the actual solving of our problems.

One of the common complaints about Federal programs is that only a fraction of the available Federal funds trickles down to those to be helped. I believe it to be self-evident that much of the funding is eaten up in red tape and bureaucracy that stems from the overlapping of programs.

Duplicating programs, then, means wasting personnel, wasting money, and wasting time as well as confusing those who stand to benefit from efficiently operated Federal aid plans.

For these reasons, I believe the Grant Consolidation Act is a highly desirable piece of legislation. To make our Federal system truly workable, it is essential that we simplify our approach.

In deciding whether or not programs should be consolidated, it is necessary that each of the overlapping programs be studied in depth.

My eight-month study of Federal assistance programs reflected vast overlapping and duplication of programs. A preliminary investigation of this area indicated many areas where consolidation of programs would be most valuable. In discussing a few illustrations of apparently unnecessary duplication, I do want to emphasize that these are only preliminary conclusions. What information we have is based upon the information the various agencies were willing to supply us. We had neither the authority nor the staff to ensure accuracy of our information or completeness.

First, I would like to make the committee aware of part of what I was able to learn in my study that bears directly on the proposal before us.

There are at least 56 water conservation and control programs spread among at least 7 different departments and agencies.

There are at least 470 education programs spread among 20 executive agencies and departments, with at least 69 manpower training and vocational education programs spread among the Office of Education, and Social and Rehabilitation Service in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and among 7 other departments and agencies.

There are at least 112 programs related to providing assistance of direct relevance to the poor spread among the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and 8 other departments and agencies.

There are at least 43 programs relating to child health and welfare spread among the Public Health Service, the Office of Education, and the Social and Rehabilitation Service in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, and the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Veterans' Administration.

There are at least 74 economic and business development programs spread among 10 separate departments and agencies.

There are at least 36 programs providing direct assistance to handicapped persons spread among the Public Health Service, the Office of Education, the Social and Rehabilitation Service, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Labor, the Library of Congress, and the Veterans' Administration.

I do not wish to suggest that all 470 education programs should be, or indeed could be, consolidated, nor am I suggesting consolidation for the 69 manpower and vocational education programs, nor for all 112 programs related to providing assistance of direct relevance to the poor, nor for the 43 programs related to child health and welfare, or the 74 economic and business development programs. I do think, however, that some beneficial groupings could be made-simply because so many programs do exist. In the area of aid to college students, for example, there is more than one program providing loans, and more than one program providing direct scholarship assistance. In the area of loans to assist businesses, the Small Business Administration, and the Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce both have programs.

Or, as I found in my June 25th study, there are 12 programs involving dental health care divided among three different departments and agencies and 10 programs involving migrant and farm labor spread among the Public Health Service, the Office of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, and the Office of Economic Opportunity. My listing also indicates there are at least 7 programs involved with the preservation of historic sites, monuments, and documents, spread among 4 separate departments and agencies, and at least 8 programs involving research into the information sciences spread among 3 separate departments and agencies.

The figures are startling. Is it any wonder that State, city, and local officials, school administrators, and private citizens are bewildered and confused by the present system of Federal aid? To zero in on specifics, I will briefly examine for the committee's benefit two areas where local officials might turn to Washington for funding assistance: urban planning and sewer facilities.

To make any headway at all in urban planning, a resourceful local mayor, for example, thoroughly acquainted with the mass of programs he must wade through, can begin by applying for Federal funds in this area through channels provided by three separate pieces of legislation. The funds will flow to three separate organs in his local area, he will be dealing with three separate administrative groups at the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, and he will need to cope with three separate sets of goals and evaluation criteria.

Specifically, our fictional mayor can turn to the Community Renewal Program, established under the Housing Act of 1949. It provides funds for up to two-thirds of the cost incurred in preparing for the community renewal program. These funds can flow to a number of governmental bodies, but typically they flow to the local, or city housing authority. The program is used for identifying and formulating solutions to help deteriorating neighborhoods, and results in a long-range plan for urban renewal. Its primary aim is improved housing.

Or he can apply for money under the "701" planning grant program under the Housing Act of 1954. Over time the money has gone to a number of different beneficiaries, but one of the most typical means of obtaining comprehensive planning funds is setting up a Metropolitan Regional Council. The program does permit funds to go directly to a city of over 50,000 population, but this section has not been funded. Thus, the Metropolitan Regional Council can apply for funds to cover two-thirds (in some cases, three-fourths) of the planning costs. The planning process is to deal with improved housing, and, in addition, with "low-income and minority group problems" such as "transportation, recreation, or other deficiencies of low-income or minority groups." A resourceful local mayor certainly can arrange to use these funds to a large extent for his own citywhich is the focus of the metropolitan area-and thus has a second source of general planning funds.

Or he can apply for Model Cities funds under the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966. The City Demonstration Agency, presumably part of the mayor's office, can receive up to 80% of the funds for planning and programming a comprehensive city demonstration project, consisting of improved housing, public facilities (including those needed for education, health and social services, transportation, and recreation), commercial facilities, and transportation within the model neighborhood. Though the model neighborhood originally was to cover only 10% of the city's population, the guidelines effectively call for and permit a city-wide planning effort. The neighborhood plan is to be made within the context of a “well-integrated perspective" of the city as a whole, including the "current social, economic, and physical characteristics of the city."

Our fictional mayor's very real problems are compounded once he steps outside the Department of Housing and Urban Development and sees what other agencies have to offer. First, he may benefit from the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1956, whereby each state highway department is to use 12% of the funds apportioned to it under the Federal-aid highway program for highway planning and research. Or he may benefit from Section 204 of the Model Cities Act, under which the state highway department is to establish procedures for day-to-day communications with the local area-wide planning agency. Or he may benefit from an older statutory section (23 U.S.C., Sec. 134), where the state highway department is to carry on a continuing comprehensive transportation planning process with cities over 50,000 in population.

One other program a local mayor could deal with-if he is not already inundated with forms and applications-would be the 75% matching funds available under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, which is designed to help plan for new industry and permanent jobs in areas of substantial and persistent underemployment.

Now, assume for a moment that all of these planning activities are going on at once. The State is planning, two regional commissions are planning, the city is planning, all for one given geographic area. The goals of each of these plans are contradictory, in that all of the given goals cannot be given top priority. What the local mayor will do, therefore, is probably what he would have done

34-851-69-14

anyway. He will have his planners take a comprehensive view of his city, studying physical environment, income levels, housing, health, education, social services, employment, transportation, community facilities, the utility grid, and present and potential industrial development. Having made one basic study, a prerequisite to all of these plans, he will then rewrite it several times to reflect the particular emphasis desired by a particular agency's guidelines. Since he cannot meet the scheme of priorities required by each of the planning programs— because of their mutual incompatibility-he will pretend to meet them all, and follow the one he feels best, to the extent he can get away with It.

He will also complain of the need to compose a description of his city written several different ways, of the need to take funding or staff from various different local planning groups, and of the contradictions inherent in the uncoordinate'd efforts of the Federal government.

Let's suppose, as another example, that our hypothetical mayor is interested in various programs dealing with sewer facilities. Seven different agencies give out grants for four different aspects of sewage disposal. Let me repeat that-seven different agencies, giving out grants for research, training, planning, and construction of sewer facilities.

Under the research category, we can turn to any one of three agencies: 1. The Office of Solid Wastes in the Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Services Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, issues research grants to universities and other non-profit institutions. 2. The Appalachian Regional Commission is authorized to make research and demonstration grants under Section 302 (a) (2) of the Appalachian Regional Develeopment Act of 1965.

3. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration makes research grants available through the Division of Manpower and Training.

For training personnel to operate sewage facilities, these programs are available:

1. The Division of Manpower and Training of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration makes two separate classes of training grants.

2. The Department of Labor, under the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, offers non-professional courses.

3. The Consumer Protection Environmental Health Services Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, also offers training programs. In the category of planning, we find five of the seven agencies involved.

1. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration allows grants for preliminary planning of sewage facilities.

2. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to pay up to half the cost of solid waste disposal survey and planning activities.

3. The Farmers Home Administration in the Department of Agriculture allows appropriation of funds for planning sewer facilities in rural towns whose population is under 5,500.

4. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has interest-free loans for preliminary or final or complete planning for communities in urban areas. 5. Under the Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce, if a community is within a redevelopment area, it may benefit from grants up to 75% of the total cost of a specific project.

In the category of construction, there are currently five separate agencies able to contribute financial assistance, and if S. 2005 is enacted there will be a sixth. 1. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration can provide grants of up to 55% of the total cost for constructing the sewage treatment plant.

2. If a community is interested in assistance for sewer lines and relay pumping equipment it must then look to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

3. If a community is in a rural area and is under 5,500 in population, it may apply to the Farmers' Home Administration. The rural community, strangely enough, might also be able to use funds from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in conjunction with the Farmers Home Administration money, but could not do the same with funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

4. If a town is in a Redevelopment Area, it may look to the Economic Development Association for money.

5. If a town is within the confines of Appalachia, it may look to the Appalachian Regional Commission for funding.