Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

To sum up, like all of the other provisions of S. 2479, this title is geared to upgrading the management of Federal assistance programs to State and local governments. By encouraging the development of a more flexible "packaging" approach to the administration of these programs, it seeks to circumvent many of the negative by-products of grant-in-aid fragmentation. In the final analysis, however, there is no substitute for aggressive action on the more basic and more difficult problem dealt with in the previous title: the need for grant consolidation. At the same time, this title is still a significant means of reforming the existing system and its effective implementation in all likelihood will produce a number of well thought-out consolidation proposals.

CONGRESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The final title of the proposed intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969 focuses on the pressing need on the part of Congress, Federal department heads, and the President to acquire a more comprehensive and systematic view of the operations of Federal assistance programs. Title VI of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, which mandated a systematic Congressional review of grant-in-aid programs, having no termination provisions provided an excellent beginning in this area, but only a beginning.

There is a need to extend the review procedures stipulated in last year's legislation to cover future programs having a termination date. Hence, the first section of this title stipulates that during the year preceding the date on which a program's authority is slated to expire, the relevant substantive committees of Congress-either separately or jointly-will conduct studies of the grant and advise their respective Houses of their findings. Grants with termination dates, of course, receive fairly careful Congressional scrutiny before being renewed. But the procedures now applied do not always cover the intergovernmental implications of the program. This provision in the final title of S. 2479 is designed to correct this deficiency.

There is a problem of staffing with respect to Congressional oversight of grantin-aid programs. Sections 502 focuses on this problem by authorizing establishment of a position of review specialist on each of the standing committees of the Senate and House responsible for review, study, and oversight of Federal assistance programs. This additional professional staff member would be selected and appointed by the chairman of the standing committee with prior approval of the ranking minority member. He would serve on a permanent basis without regard to political affiliation and in recognition of his professional competence. His basic responsibility would be to assist the Committee in its performance of functions assigned under Title V of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, as amended by this legislation.

There is also a need to strengthen executive branch oversight with respect to Federal assistance programs. Hence, a third basic provisions of this title requires heads of departments and agencies administering more than one grant program to submit annually a report to Congress and to the President on the operations of their programs beginning with the first fiscal year following the date of enactment. Each departmental report, among other things, would describe the progress and effectiveness of departmental efforts to implement their programs' statutory goals; the arrangements used under each program to afford recipient governments an opportunity to review and comment on proposed administrative regulations and basic program changes; the various mechanisms utilized for achieving proper headquarters-field coordination of program activities; departmental efforts to simplify and make more uniform application forms and procedures as well as fiscal reporting and auditing requirements; the practicality of consolidating functionally-related assistance programs falling within the department's jurisdiction; the feasibility of delegating more administrative authority to departmental field offices; and finally whether the purpose, management, administrative procedures, and requirements in such programs should be changed and whether-in light of rapidly changing conditions-such programs are meeting the needs they were initially designed to support.

Finally, this title concludes with a requirement that the President shall submit a summary report on these various departmental studies not later than January 31 of each year following the first fiscal year after date of enactment of this act. This Presidential report would, in effect, provide an overview of the materials presented in the departmental analysis and would stress the broad problems confronting grants-in-aid as effective means for intergovernmental cooperation in this period of dramatic changes in our federal system. Presidential proposals for improvement, in all likelihood, would be included in such a report.

Some might question the usefulness of relying on this report technique of strengthening executive branch and Congressional oversight. Yet, the record to date indicates that individual agency reports on specific programs, special studies by the GAO, departmental presentations before Congressional committees in favor of extending program authority, as well as the budget document generally and the defense for individual appropriations requests specifically-neither separately nor in combination-provide the heads of departments, the Bureau of the Budget, the President, or the Congress with a meaningful departmental or interdepartmental overview with respect to the purposes, problems, and performance of Federal assistance programs. The reporting requirements of Title V of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969 are designed to help fill this management information gap.

Ideally, these reports should focus on the intergovernmental, interagency and intraagency ramifications as well as on the innovative needs of the various grant programs rather than on a "stand-pat" program-by-program description that lacks any analysis of these various interrelationships. Ideally, these reports would be used by departmental secretaries, the Executive Office of the President, and the relevant Congressional committees to assist them in discharging better their respective management and oversight responsibilities. In any event, what is sought here is not a flood of paper, but a fund of relevant information that would help put top management on top again, not in a position of being a pawn of the pressures that produce and perpetuate grant proliferation.

CONCLUSION

To sum up our comments on S. 2479, Mr. Chairman, by focusing on the fiscal management, consolidation, packaging, and oversight dimensions of the grant management challenge, this omnibus bill pushes strongly into crucial areas of intergovernmental administration that must be entered if our federal system is to be adapted to the jet age pace of change of the times. These areas cannot be avoided, although they are controversial and are crowded with avid advocates of narrow program politics. We cannot turn our backs on them and focus simply on easier, more dramatic solutions, because the problems we face simply don't lend themselves to simplistic remedies.

Intergovernmental relations today are more intricate, more involved, and more intense than they have ever been in or entire history. To succeed, this systemand especially its labyrinth-like pattern of administrative relationships-must be governed by a spirit of cooperation and greater order. Yet conflict and chaos seem to be the order of the day.

To curb this conflict and reduce the chaos, top policymakers at all levels-the President and Congress, the governor and the legislature, the mayor and the council-must be strengthened to withstand the mounting parochial pressures that swirl around them. As the Advisory Commission noted in its last Annual Report:

The complex of interests-middle management program administrators at all levels, Congressional subcommittees, and pressure groups-that coalesce around the individual grants carried the day far more times than the top policymakers. Thus, more often than not, efforts to achieve a simplified, more flexible federalism were thwarted."

Top policymakers then at all levels must be empowered to plan, pass, implement, and fund the vital public programs that this and future generations of America demand. Effective intergovernmental management then is crucial to both the executive and legislative branches, and efforts to strengthen it on an interbranch, interagency, and interlevel basis should and must be examined, debated, and-where meritorious-enacted and executed.

S. 2479 is rooted in these harsh facts of contemporary federalism. It is also rooted in our history, for it recognizes that ours is a system of shared responsibilities and powers. This was the intent of the Founding Fathers, and the pending legislation suggests that it must be our guiding principle today.

The Commission agrees with this basic assumption, for we believe that no other formula holds greater promise for resolving the many difficulties confronting us here at home. Bue we also feel that its effective application requires the ingenuity, initiative, and political courage of officials at all levels and that the future of federalism depends on how well we succeed now in rendering intergovernmental administrative relationships more relevant and more responsive, to the unrelenting times in which we live.

For all these reasons, we support S. 2479 and urge its early enactment. You have also asked us to comment on S. 60, a bill to create a catalog of Federal assistance programs, and for other purposes. The bill would require the President to transmit annually to the Congress a catalog of Federal assistance programs together with information describing efforts during the preceding year to simplify, coordinate, and consolidate application forms and procedures for such programs. The catalog would outline all the basic information a potential applicant for Federal programs might need, and would serve as the only overall compendium of program information published by any Federal agency or department. The catalog would be made available to the public and would be updated on at least a monthly basis. The President would be authorized to delegate the basic task of assembling the document only to the Bureau of the Budget, which would take over the OEO's existing functions of operating the Federal Information Exchange System and of preparing the catalog of Federal assistance programs. While the Advisory Commission has not specifically endorsed the proposal that a single catalog on grants-in-aid should be developed, two years ago the Commission adopted two recommendations which relate directly to this proposed legislation in its report on Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System. Among its recommendations for improving Federal coordination and management of grant-in-aid programs are the following:

"The Commission recommends an elevation of attention on the part of the President and the Congress to the more general need of insuring the conduct and coordination of Federal grant and other programs in such a way as to improve the overall capability of State and local government and consequently strengthen the American federal system .. The Commission further recommends the strengthening of the Bureau of the Budget's capability to sustain a vigorous program of interagency coordination of Federal grants-in-aid.

"The Commission recommends that the President establish within an appropriate agency of the Executive Branch a computerized system for storage and retrieval of information essential for the administration of grants-in-aid, formulation of Federal-State-local fiscal policies and other policy and management purposes. The Commission recommends that tapes and other data resulting from these systems be made available to State and local governments."

The development of a single catalog on grant-in-aid information as proposed in S. 60 clearly constitutes one significant way of elevating the Executive Branch attention with respect to these programs, of bridging the serious "information gap" concerning them, of providing the basis of improved program coordination, and of bolstering the top management functions of the Bureau of the Budget. The consolidation and simplification of grant application forms and regulations as provided in Section 8 is also meritorious. The Commission therefore endorses the objectives of S. 60. At the same time, we wish to point out certain difficulties that may arise concerning specific provisions of the bill.

(1) The all encompassing definitions of "Federal assistance program 'benefits' " and of "Federal assistance program 'beneficiaries' " in Section 2 raise serious questions concerning the size of the proposed catalog and what groups or individuals are to benefit primarily from its issuance. In short, the scope envisioned by these two provisions of the legislation is so broad as to render any document published under these guidelines unmanageable from the point of view of potential beneficiaries-especially State and local officials-and of the compilers.

(2) The question of scope again arises in connection with the "purpose" cited in Section 5 and the program information required under Section 6. If a more manageable document is to emerge, changes in Section 5 could be made so as to identify the primary users of the catalog, along with corresponding changes in the information format set forth in Section 6 and the relevant definitions in Section 2. (3) The monthly revision process provided under Section 9 raises the question of feasibility, since very likely it would lead to a flow of paper and the emergence of bulky looseleaf supplements to the basic document. This would defeat one of the bill's basic objectives-namely, a catalog that "assists" a potential program beneficiary "to understand and take advantage of each Federal assistance program" [Section 7(b)].

(4) In the Commission's judgment, the assignment of lead responsibility for assembling the catalog to the Bureau of the Budget under Sections 11, 12, and 13 is commendable, in line with its cited recommendation that the Bureau's capability in grant-in-aid coordination be strengthened. At the same time, we think it unde

sirable from the standpoints of flexibility and Presidential responsibility for the Executive Branch to mandate by legislation that the President delegate this function to the Bureau and to no other agency or agencies.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations on these three bills.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Governor. You have made an excellent statement.

May I express my appreciation again, to you, Governor Bryant, and to the excellent work of the Advisory Commission under your leadership and Mr. Colman's.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. I guess there wasn't that much need to rush Governor Bryant, I understand Mr. Mayo, who is our next witness, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, has asked permission to leave because the Cabinet members have been asked to assemble for the ceremonies which begin at 11:30, and Mr. Staats already agreed to appear on the 17th of this month. So at this point I guess we will all relax and go to the ceremonies in the rotunda.

With that the hearing this morning is recessed.

(Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned until Wednesday, September 10, 1969, at 9:30 a.m.)

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT OF 1969

AND RELATED LEGISLATION

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1969

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

in room

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie and Metcalf.

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 committee will be in order.

As usual, we have time problems again, so we will get right down to the business of listening to the testimony of our witness.

The first witness this morning is a distinguished public servant and old friend, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Shafer. We share a mutual secret which gives us a common bond. We are each accused of looking like the other. I guess that leaves each of us defenseless.

It is a pleasure, Governor, to welcome you this morning, and I compliment you for your interest in this subject and express my appreciation for your interest in testifying this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND P. SHAFER, GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE

Governor SHAFER. Thank you very much, Senator Muskie. I must admit that when people do say that we look alike, I am highly flattered. I feel sorry for you.

It is a real pleasure for me to appear before this subcommittee. Its past achievements in strengthening intergovernmental relations speak eloquently for themselves. The bills which are currently before you for consideration reemphasize your continuing efforts in this field, efforts for which every Governor and every State should be duly grateful.

I am here today and I speak as a member of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the National Governors' Conference Committee on Executive Management and Fiscal Affairs, as well as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, when I praise the important legislation which this subcommittee, and its counterpart in the House of Representatives, have been responsible for in the past several years.

« AnteriorContinuar »