And, as I noted earlier, if S. 2005 is passed, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would be authorized to make grants up to 25% for construction costs for a single community and up to 50% for facilities serving two or more communities,

Another area in which there are several programs that might be consolidated is educational guidance and counselling for high school students.

Let me list only some of them :

Under Title V-A of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, there are authorized formula grants to State educational agencies to aid the establishment and maintenance of programs of testing and guidance and counselling.

Under the Vocational Education Act of 1963, there are authorized formula grants to States for vocational guidance and counselling.

Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Section 408, the Office of Education is authorized to make project grants to institutions of higher learning to identify exceptionally qualified youths who need assistance in going to college. Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title V (Educational Professions Development), Section 504, the Office of Education is authorized to make grants to States or local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, or other public or nonprofit agencies.

These four programs differ in purpose and are administered by four different bureaus in the Office of Education. But local educators have told me that these programs could be grouped together. The philosophy behind such possible consolidation is that at any given time, there is only one body of high school students to be tested and counselled. Generally, at most high schools, there is only one office for student counselling. It has been suggested to me that instead of spotty testing of different fragments of the student body, there should be a more comprehensive testing and counselling program with all funds directed to it. I have been told that the kind of approach that is being used now-in a sense, a buckshot approach, with no central focus-uses up unnecessary manpower, extra funds, and consumes too much time.

Another specific example I can cite involves training for local government officials. In the Office of Education, under Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965, money is available to states to strengthen community service programs, which are educational programs to assist in solving urban problems. And in another agency, Housing and Urban Development, Title VIII of the Housing Act of 1964 provides that the Secretary can make matching grants to states for special training in skills needed for economic and efficient community development. Another area in which two separate agencies grant funds for a very similar purpose is in regard to scientific equipment to help with under-graduate instruction. Under Title X of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Office of Education may provide money for purchasing books, audiovisual aids, and other materials or equipment to help with instructions. How different can this be from the Instructional Scientific Equipment Program at the National Science Foundation, whereby grants are awarded to assist institutions of higher education with the purchase of equipment that will significantly improve scientific curricula at the undergraduate level.

One further example of two very similar programs in two different agencies is this loans to rural community groups for recreational purposes administered by the Farmers Home Administration in the Department of Agriculture and loans (and some grants) for neighborhood facilities in the Rural Assistance Administration of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

If we consider possible areas of consolidation of Federal programs in the area of recreation and open space, we find four programs administered by three different departments in three different agencies: the Open Space Land program, administered jointly by the Renewal Assistance Administration and the Community Resources Development Administration in the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Urban Beautification and Improvement program, program, administered by the Renewal Assistance Administration in the same agency; the Outdoor Recreational Financial Assistance Program, administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the Department of the Interior; and the Rural Recreation loans made by the Farmers Home Administration in the Department of Agriculture.

These are but a few examples of the possibilities one might find for consolidation in the mass of Federal programs that now exist. Much of the duplication is created by administrative or executive fiat; much of the duplication could

be eliminated by passage of the Grant Consolidation Act. By my examples, I have not meant to pinpoint any particular area—I just wish to show the Committee that consolidation can occur with programs of any nature.

If I may, I would now like to deal with a few broader thoughts regarding the necessity of passage of the Grant Consolidation Act.

Congress passes legislation in terms of grappling with particular functional problems to achieve particular goals, without regard to an overall, broader view. There are housing laws, transportation laws, labor laws, education laws, laws for public works, and laws for open space and recreation. Congress works in one direction, but doesn't consider the organizational structure and interests of local officials and governments-the ones who will make use of the program, the ones who will spend the money.

The organizational point of view our hypothetical local mayor takes, for example, is a total one, for a given geographic region. He deals with a single entity: from his point of view the Federal government, too, is a single entity. He does not cope with single specific functions-transportation, housing, jobs, and business development—he copes with them all.

In his dealings with the Federal government, therefore, he would prefer as unified an approach as possible. One body of socio-economic data should be adequate to describe his city. He should not be forced to retype a description of his city in slightly different formats and for different application forms to satisfy the whims of separate Federal agencies. Accounting procedures acceptable to one Federal agency should be acceptable to all. He keeps one set of books; if one part of the Federal government will not accept what another requires, the Federal government should come to some internal agreement: it is not the local mayor's responsibility to keep double books because two Washington agencies do not agree.

The Federal government needs to be organized as much as possible so that local officials can treat it as a single entity. Administrative detail and paperwork, too much a part of their dealing with Washington, must be made as simple and uniform as possible.

The problem that this Committee faces was articulated in the June, 1968 edition of American County Government. I quote:

"The relationship between the federal government and state and local governments is a complex one. More and more federal programs are becoming available and local governments are finding it harder and harder to sort them out. The sheer number and complexity of federal programs makes it extremely difficult to place one program in context with others or even to determine which programs are available in the first place.

"One question which often arises concerns what program among the four or five designed to meet the same need is most appropriate for a particular county. Sometimes federal field personnel are not informed completely about newer programs within their own areas of concern. Federal departments and agencies still have difficulty relating similar programs to each other or to the scores of different comprehensive and functional planning requirements. Each individual grant-inaid program has its own set of special requirements, separate authorizations and appropriations, cost-sharing ratios, allocation formulas, administrative arrangements, financial procedures, and reporting requirements."

The people who wrote that statement are the ones who deal most directly with Washington, and it is our job to clear things up so their confusion will not linger on to a point where they are completely buried in paperwork and completely hidden under brochures.

That same issue of American County Government contained another important statement, which I would like to relay to you gentlemen today. I quote once

more:

"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 responsiblities."

I add one final thought: passage of the Grant Consolidation Act would be a major, significant first step toward clearing out the jungle we are trapped in today.

Thank you very much.

[From the Congressional Record, Oct. 11, 1968]

Exhibit 7

COORDINATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

(Mr. ROTH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his remarks, and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, early this summer, I introduced two pieces of legislation, each of which is now cosponsored by nearly one-third of the House. I had hoped we would have the opportunity to act on these bills before Congress adjourns.

Most of us are in agreement, I believe, that the Federal assistance programs could be doing a far better job; that the problems of our schools, the crises of our cities, and the plight of the poor demand action, and action now. For that reason, I regret that we have not had the opportunity to act on these bills, which have been cosponsored by Democrats and Republicans alike, and have met with universal support by the national press, as well as the National Governors' Conference, the National Association of Counties, and the National Legislative Conference.

These two bills are the "Program Information Act," H.R. 17915, with 122 cosponsors in the House, and the "Executive Reorganization and Management Improvement Act," H.R. 18574, with 131 House cosponsors. By delaying action now, we have postponed by 6 months to a year the opportunity of taking decisive steps in the direction of more effective program management and more effective participation of private citizens and officials at the State and local level-the very ones the Federal aid and assistance is supposed to benefit.

I especially regret that Congress has not had the opportunity to take at least the very first, but basic step, of requiring the development of information on Federal assistance programs by adopting the Program Information Act, H.R. 17915. If Federal assistance programs are to function effectively, it is obvious that there must be a centralized source of complete, up-to-date information about Federal aid programs which cuts across agency and departmental lines and is readily accessible to local government decisionmakers.

To participate in many of the new aid programs, action by local officials is required. They cannot act without adequate information. And as I have pointed out many times before: No one, anywhere, in the Government-in the White House, in the departments and agencies, or in the Congress-knows exactly how many programs there are, or what assistance is currently available to our schools, our cities, the poor, or anyone else. Very few local officials have all the information they require to make effective decisions concerning Federal aid. There is no question but that the present lack of complete, accurate, and timely information on the scope, requirements, and availability of Federal aid represents a major barrier to the effective use of Federal assistance by local governments.

I believe strongly that the Congress must, itself, deal with this information crisis. It cannot rely upon action of the executive branch. I regret to say that the announcement on August 30 by the Bureau of the Budget that it will soon publish a comprehensive catalog simply does not correct the existing information crisis. In fact, insofar as I can tell-and I hope I am wrong-the new catalog will only be an updated version of the present OEO Catalog of Federal Assistance.

The OEO catalog-for the reasons outlined in my June 25 speech on the House floor-is inadequate. Some of its inadequacies are highlighted by the letters I am including at the end of this statement. These inadequacies will not be solved by merely making the information current. I might point out that the out-of-pocket printing cost of the two previous OEO catalogs, both grossly inadequate, is in excess of $400,000.

REPORT OF BOB TASK FORCE IS DISAPPOINTING

I recently received the findings of a BOB task force looking into the requirements for a comprehensive Federal aid catalog.

Frankly, I am greatly disappointed with the results of that 12-month study. The recommendations of the task force, which was made up of representatives of numerous Federal agencies, are contained in the Bureau of the Budget's Circular No. A-89, dated August 23, 1968.

A careful study of the policy statement indicates no hard decisions on specifics, such as defining what is a Federal assistance program. By and large the report is characterized by generalities. I can only speculate as to why this is the case, but it appears to me that the report represents a compromise of the agencies, some of which are reluctant to give full information, as it may result in the elimination of unnecessary or overlapping programs as well as force the raising of the bureaucratic screen behind which some departments are now operating.

I think it is unfortunate that the Bureau of the Budget in appointing the task force did not include State and local representatives, the very people who know best what information they need. As pointed out in a Midwest Research Institute study, one reason better Federal program information is not available is the misunderstanding, on the part of Federal program administrators, as to what local officials need to know. Furthermore, I see no evidence that the task force made any use of the survey of local government needs by Midwest Research Institute for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at a cost of $30,900. This study is a most useful survey of what local officials need to know. If utilization had been made of it I am sure the report of the task force would have been quite different.

As already indicated, the recommendations of the task force are presented in the Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-89. On the basis of this policy statement, the Bureau of the Budget announced on August 30, 1968, that a third edition of the OEO catalog would be published next year. Later, on September 20, 1968, the OEO issued its "Reporting Instructions for the 1968 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, OEO Inst. 1800-1." These instructions or guidelines establish what information will be contained in the third edition of the catalog. A careful study of the task force recommendations and the OEO instructions is what has led me to the pessimistic conclusion that there will be no substantial improvement in the information service of the Federal Government. I base this conclusion on the following:

NEW CATALOG WILL BE INADEQUATE

First. The information and format of the new OEO catalog are practically identical with the existing catalog. In fact, the OEO instructions specifically authorize program descriptions contained in the present catalog to be used, unless they meet the changes in the new catalog, and except where there are significant changes. The only changes in the format for the program descriptions are: First, the popular name of the program; second, the appropriation account number; and third, the present section entitled "Who Can Apply" has been expanded to include "How To Apply." Reference has already been made as to the inadequacies of the existing OEO catalogs.

NO ATTEMPT TO DEFINE "PROGRAM"

Second. No effort is being made to define what constitutes a Federal assistance program except in the most general terms. Thus, each agency has almost unlimited discretion in reporting what constitutes a program and how it should be reported. Admittedly, the development of a sound definition is difficult in light of the expanding and diverse nature of Federal programs. Nevertheless, the task is not impossible. I believe our definition of a Federal assistance program in the Program Information Act is at least a good starting point. It defines a "Federal assistance program" as being "any program providing Federal benefits, regardless of whether it is identified as a separate program by law or by any administering agency, which can be differentiated from any other such program on the basis of its legal authority, its administering office, its specific purpose, the specific benefits it provides, or the specific qualifications of its beneficiaries."

Standardization of the term "program" it not only necessary but the same is true of all elements of Federal information. Different terms and usages only confuse those using the information.

The individual agencies not only have almost absolute discretion in defining its own programs but are also granted specific authority to omit programs that benefit highly limited areas, organizations and individuals; that are not funded and/or are not operational. Much of this information is of particular significance to the Congress in determining whether legislative action is needed, such as canceling or consolidating programs, or determining why certain programs are not being implemented. Authority to omit programs also means future catalogs, like the existing one, shall not be complete, even though the foreword in the present catalog claims otherwise.

NO CROSS-REFERENCING

Third. The OEO instructions do not require an agency to report related programs administered either by the same agency or by other agencies. This is a failure of most serious proportions as it means that local officials can never be certain whether they are seeking assistance under the programs best suited to their individual local needs. The Midwest Research Institute report finds "program cross-referencing" to be a most critical information need. On this point, the National Association of Counties, on page 47 of the June 1968 issues of its monthly publication, American County Government, states:

The relationship between the federal government and state and local governments is a complex one. More and more federal programs are becoming available and local governments are finding it harder and harder to sort them out. The sheer number and complexity of federal programs makes it extremely difficult to place one program in context with others or even to determine which programs are available in the first place.

One question which often arises concerns what program among the four or five designed to meet the same needs is most appropriate for a particular county. Sometimes federal field personnel are not informed completely about newer programs within their own areas of concern. Federal departments and agencies still have difficulty relating similar programs to each other or to the scores of different comprehensive and functional planning requirements. Each individual grant-in-aid program has its own set of special requirements, separate authorizations and appropriations, cost-sharing ratios, allocation formulas, administrative arrangements, financial procedures, and reporting requirements.

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 program 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.

Unfortunately, our experience is that the Federal agencies themselves have little information on related programs. A quick scanning of the program descriptions contained in my catalog derived from my study shows that very few agencies answered the question asking for disclosure of related programs. Certainly, it is not too much to ask the executive branch to develop this information to permit better local planning.

NO FUNDING INFORMATION

Fourth. The OEO instructions make no provision for funding information, even though former Director of the Bureau of the Budget, Charles L. Schultze, is on record as stating at hearings held before the Senate Committee on Government Operations in November 1966, that State and local governments "need fiscal information-how much money is available under both formula and direct project grants, and for what periods." Likewise, the Midwest Research Institute lists financial information among that most needed at the local level. Yet, it is among that most difficult to obtain.

For some unexplained reason, the problem of providing adequate financial information for each program seems to cause the most difficulty for the various Federal agencies. I would assume that in the interest of sound management the agencies themselves would need up-to-date financial information. But one gathers that, at least in some agencies, the financial accounting systems are hopelessly archaic and inadequate.

The preparation of an application for Federal assistance by local officials is a complicated, costly, and time-consuming task. Certainly, they are entitled to upto-date financial information in order to determine their chances of success in applying for assistance.

NO ESTIMATE OF PROCESSING TIME

Fifth. The time it takes to process an application is of special importance to a local planner who must dovetail the Federal program with State and local requirements. Despite this need, the OEO instructions require no information as to the average time to approve, reject, or return an application. Again, those responsible for developing the Federal catalog show little understanding of the needs of the people back at home.