of the Budget for their cooperation and for the giant step forward that they have taken.

But I believe we do need legislation. First of all, I think it should be clear that there is a congressional mandate requiring meaningful disclosure of program information to the people back home. I think it's important that we set up through legislation the minimum standards or elements of information that should be made available to potential applicants.

I think, furthermore, we should make it clear that we need and desire future improvement in this information.

I have already mentioned the present lack of adequate financial information. The Midwest Research Institute study, which I previously mentioned, showed that the lack of financial information has been a most serious deficiency. One of the problems has been that by the time the small counties have prepared an application, there were no funds remaining. And while this catalog will not prevent this from happening, if it includes up-to-date financial information, potential applicants will be in a better posture to know if they have a chance of receiving aid. Thus, one of the things we set out in the legislation is future goals or courses of action, such as better funding information.

I also think it's important that we have legislation to insure full cooperation and disclosure by the 57 or more Federal departments and agencies. We have been told that one of the problems, for example, that OEO and others have had is that they have run into an unwillingness, at least by some administrators, to supply information.

But the most important thing, I think, overall, is to provide or establish the basic principle that there shall be one catalog, which shall contain up-to-date and meaningful information that shall be readily available and understandable to the user, whether he be a mayor, a Governor or private citizen.

I should also like to point out I think this catalog could be of great assistance to those of us in the Congress. It will help us to answer questions or requests from our constituents back home. It will also help us with our legislative functions because it will help us to decide whether new programs are needed, to evaluate the efficiency and success of present programs and to decide what corrective action, if any, may be necessary.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this proposal is basically noncontroversial in nature. It has received broad bipartisan support in the Congress with 181 Members of the House and 15 Senators cosponsoring it.

It has also been endorsed by the Office of Management and Budget. We have also received and these are incorporated in the written testimony-endorsements by the National Governors' Conference, the National Association of County Officials, and the National Legislative Conference. It has also received broad support from over 300 newspapers who wrote about it on their editorial pages or in their news columns.

With that I would be happy to try to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you for making your summary. We commend you for an unusually first-rate job which you and your staff have done. I have heard many comments and I have seen written editorials and news items on the almost impossible Herculean job that one

Congressman with his own staff has done in compiling the compendium such as this.

Can you tell me, how long did it take to go through all these agencies and bring them all together? How large a staff did you have?

Mr. ROTH. We worked on the original catalog for a total of 8 months. I had one man who worked full time and everybody else in the office helped out in varying degrees. I also had two or three volunteers, who, for a period, devoted most of their time to this effort.

One of the problems we originally faced, for example, was just identifying the programs. We used many different sources, including the budget itself and its appendices. We even went to the agency telephone books and got programs by function from this source. I had my staff man, who was given overall responsibility for the project, gọ to the general counsels in the various agencies because I felt they had an overview of what was going on in their departments. We asked them, "if you treat it like a separate program, give us the name." We collected approximately 1,300 different programs, named by the approach I have described.

Then later on we went back and found out many of them were no longer in existence or they were never programs but we ended up with a list of approximately 1,090. To help with this we prepared a form in which we asked for the information incorporated in our catalog. Most of the agencies cooperated, but there were some notable exceptions.

Mr. BLATNIK. Was there any central agency, such as the then Bureau of the Budget, that was able to give you a good share of the information, or serve as a repository for this type of information?

Mr. ROTH. The best source at that time was OEO which was publishing its catalog, which claimed in the foreword to encompass or contain all programs. But, in fact, it did not. I think they were a little bit in the same posture we were. They could only get what was given to them by the different agencies.

Mr. BLATNIK. I thought of that when you mentioned your problem was to identify the programs.

Before you identify anything you have to find it. Like an archeological expedition, you find a small piece and you try to identify what year or what category it belongs in.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, would you yield just for an observation? I think you used a good phrase, archeological expedition, because I imagine some of these are old enough to be described by that

term.

Mr. ROTH. I think that identifying programs is a most serious problem. If we have this problem in the Congress, imagine the problems that the mayor, the Governor and the local governments must have. They are just completely lost.

But we finally put the initial catalog in the Congressional Record after an 8-month study.

The second time we collected the information, it was much simpler. We got wholehearted support and cooperation from all agencies. However, we do find that some programs are still cropping up that had not been uncovered before. And I think this will continue to be the case—that is, new programs will be discovered.

I might also mention that the basic number of programs is not the important factor. It's how the information is presented so that the person back home can understand what is being offered.

Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman Roth, just two or three more questions for the record, which will be made available to those interested in reading it.

First of all, the General Accounting Office has suggested that perhaps legislation is not needed, because, as the Assistant Comptroller General indicated in his report on H.R. 17112, the Bureau of the Budget Circular A-89 prescribes a comprehensive catalog of this sort to be published by the OEO. In view of the fact that they are sending out this catalog in looseleaf form, which makes it very easy to keep up-to-date without the expense otherwise involved; and in view of their position, would you care to respond to that, particularly why you believe that your legislation is needed?

Mr. ROTH. Yes, sir; first of all I think it can be said in all fairness that this progress would not have been made without congressional prodding. And, frankly, what the Bureau has done can be undone, if there is no legislation. But more important, I, for one, think that the information need is so great that we should not leave this to decisions to be made by the executive branch in the future. As I mentioned, I am pleased with the progress that was made in the last catalog and with the fact that the last circular establishing what should be included in the catalog incorporated much of our legislation.

This does not, however, guarantee that this will continue to be the case in the future. I think it's important that there be a congressional mandate that a catalog will be continued, because irrespective of what we in Congress do in the way of change or restructuring Federal programs, one of the great needs is going to continue to be meaningful disclosure.

I also feel that it is important that Congress establish the minimum standards for what should be incorporated in the catalog, rather than permitting this to be decided by somebody in the executive branch. One of the problems in the past has been, as I mentioned earlier, that some of the agencies were not willing to disclose fully what they were doing. As a matter of fact, in my own office I had one assistant secretary say that a detailed listing should not be created-that it would tie their hands-and yet I don't know how the person back home we are trying to aid can be helped if he does not know what programs are in existence.

Finally, I think that we will get better cooperation and fuller disclosure from the various agencies if we have a congressional mandate rather than rely upon Executive order.

Mr. BLATNIK. In short, you would have a clear-cut legislative and authoritative source for directing that this-which is also to be a single authoritative catalog-be created?

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. BLATNIK. It gives greater authority behind it; is that right? It gives it an official standing?

Mr. ROTH. We should establish the basic principle that there be a single source of all programs rather than a proliferation of catalogs and pamphlets which we could easily go back to again.

Mr. BLATNIK. Do you have any idea of what it costs to put out a catalog like this? Do you have cost estimates?

Mr. ROTH. I do have a copy, sir, of the letter you received from the then Bureau of the Budget concerning this. They estimated, as I recall, that it would cost something between $500,000 and $650,000; that they could recover somewhere between $50,000 and $150,000.

I think perhaps they would be in a better position to estimate those costs, but I would like to point out some savings that I think would be realized.

First of all, by providing one source, many of the other catalogs could be dispensed with, I think.

Now, we do not outlaw or preclude them from being published under the legislation, because the present draft permits other publications to be continued within guidelines established by the President or his designee.

Second, I think that these other catalogs could consist of printouts from the central catalog. There could be a catalog strictly on education, for example, as school authorities may be interested only in that area. Thus, these same basic materials could be supplied not only in the basic catalog but as part of a specialized catalog. So I think this prospect could result in a saving.

Third, as I have already indicated, a charge could be made for the catalog. How much we want to recover, would of course, be dependent on how much we would charge.

I am confident, however, that whatever we charge would be much cheaper than what individual cities and schools and counties now pay to get this same information.

Mr. BLATNIK. Would this contain information such as economic assistance in advising small producers of what type of common use items they may be able to contract for, to see what the Department of Defense was giving up, or would that be kept as a separate operation?

Mr. ROTH. Certain programs in the Department of Defense would be covered but it is not intended to cover contracts that go out, for example, on an advertised basis. On the other hand, one of the items that should be covered, we think, should be where surplus is disposed directly by the Department of Defense. But this catalog is not intended to be a procurement manual, no, sir.

Mr. BLATNIK. I see.

Any questions, Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congressman, let me congratulate you on your proposal, on the very broad support that you have for it, and your clear testimony today.

I have an observation or two to make.

First of all, there is a business that has grown up over the years known as "grantsmanship." Do you think you will put some of these people out of business or at least reduce their possibilities?

Mr. ROTH. Let me put it this way: It would be a sizable step in that direction, but only a first step. It would not eliminate the differing guidelines and series of applications and forms accompanying these programs; so I think the consultant will still be in business. What we are proposing here is only a first step in the direction of simplifying our whole Federal assistance programs.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I think that is certainly a worthy goal. I notice in your legislation you don't specify who or what agency shall actually prepare and publish and distribute this information, do you? You leave that to the President?

Mr. ROTH. That is correct. We granted that authority to the President or his designee.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I notice that the catalog that has been prepared and is available has been issued by the Office of Economic Opportunity, and-half seriously, half in jest-I would suggest that it carries the implication that economic opportunity lies not in the private sector but in some Federal program that might be available. Personally, I would rather see some other agency in the business of preparing this catalog.

Mr. ROTH. Actually this has been changed. The functions of producing the catalog have been taken over by the Office of Management and Budget by administrative delegation from OEO.

I have personally felt that the function of collecting material would be better accomplished by what I call a neutral agency rather than any one of the operating agencies who might have some tendency to try to highlight their programs in contrast to another. But in discussions with the Bureau of the Budget, with whom there has been fine cooperation, it was agreed that perhaps the best procedure was to give authority to the President and the power to designate, because actually this is only part of the information need; assuming a single agency ultimately has responsibility for the information service, it should certainly be the collector of the basic data.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I would think that the Office of Management and Budget would be an ideal place for this to be done.

A couple of questions now about interpretation of the bill. I notice in section 2 you refer to programs in the United States or abroad, when talking about the benefits or assistance programs.

Then in later sections of the act, more particularly, section 2(b), and then again in section 5, which specifies the purpose of the catalog, you refer to domestic assistance programs.

I wonder if you could clarify the intent as to the inclusion of foreign programs?

Mr. ROTH. These changes came about through recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget. They felt, and I agreed, that this catalog should not cover such programs as foreign aid to foreign countries. It should cover, however, Federal programs that provide assistance to an American, whether or not he is overseas. That is the reason for the language you referred to.

Mr. ERLENBORN. So if the aid goes to a citizen of the United States or a State or municipality, your interpretation is that it is included whether the aid is received or utilized at home or abroad?

In other words, you may have an office of some State for promotional purposes in Germany or in Japan and they may get some assistance. Would you include that?

Mr. ROTH. I would include that, yes.

Mr. ERLENBORN. How about-again the question of inclusion of programs things like medicare, medicaid, unemployment compensation, veterans benefits, railroad retirement, welfare programs?

Mr. ROTH. We have included any program where the individual receiving the benefit has to apply for it; and so as a result most of these would be included. If he automatically receives it without any action being taken on his part then it is not included.

Mr. ERLENBORN. The question is being raised by counsel now as to medicaid. I presume this is an assistance program to a State rather than to the individual.

Mr. ROTH. This is correct.