Mr. ERLENBORN. But it would be included? Mr. ROTн. It would be included. Mr. ERLENBORN. Whether it went to the individual or to the State? Mr. ROTH. That would be correct. Yes, sir. Mr. ERLENBORN. As counsel is pointing out, subsection 2(d) on page 2, just to clarify the intent here, the wording, therefore, excludes solicited contracts, automatic shared revenues or payments, and indirect assistance or benefits resulting from Federal operations. How would that apply to something like medicaid? Mr. ROTH. This section does not really apply in this case. The word "indirect" is not referring to the flow-through problem. If the funds flow to the State and the State has to apply for it, then it would be covered. Likewise, the ultimate beneficiary-the individual-is to learn of programs as well. Mr. ERLENBORN. So, again using medicaid as the example, the program of the State, where the individual applies to the State for medicaid help, is not included because that is not a direct Federal assistance help, but the payment by the Federal Government to the State to reimburse is included, because that is a direct Federal benefit. Would that be the proper interpretation? Mr. ROTH. Generally, yes, at least as to the specifics of the State program. The catalog should identify, however, Federal programs to help individuals or local governments, whether aid goes through an intermediary-the State government, for example-or goes directly, and for those programs with an intermediary the catalog should provide such information for the ultimate beneficiary as is practicable. Mr. ERLENBORN. You would include for purposes of the catalog that program that reimbursed the State but not the one that paid the individual's medical bill? Mr. BLATNIK. Would the gentleman yield for a further point in this area? Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes. Mr. BLATNIK. That would also exclude State matching funds to a Federal program. You would only have information pertaining to the Federal program. For example, let us say that we have the school library assistance, and airports where the Federal program may be one-third or 50 percent and the State program might be 20 percent and the municipality or the local governing unit provides the other 30 percent. Mr. ROTH. Well, matching grants should be included. Such grants have been included both in the OEO catalog and my catalog. If there is any question as to whether a program should be included, I hope the Government will err on the side of inclusion. It is important that our catalog be as complete as possible. We do provide for some flexibility in this area. It is provided in section 7(a) that the President or his designee has authority to determine what additional program information should be given. Again, I would say that where there are matching programs where part of the money comes from the Federal Government and part from the State, the programs should be incorporated. On the other hand, I have reservations about including in the catalog what States do with the funds they receive as a result of tax sharing with the Federal Government. Mr. ERLENBORN. That might get a bit complicated. Mr. RorH. That is right. It could get very complicated, and for that reason tax sharing is expressly excluded in this legislation. Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me ask a rather technical question. On page 3, section 6, subsection 1, it says that the catalog shall identify the program and the identification may include the name of the program, and so forth.. Wouldn't that better be "shall," rather than "may?" Mr. ROTH. Well, we much debated that point. Because of the complexity and diversity of the various types of programs, we put the requirement for information in the permissive form. This shows the congressional intent but yet provides for the flexibility necessary to cover all contingencies. Mr. ERLENBORN. What you really mean is that this information should be included if it's applicable to that program. Mr. RoTH. That's right. Mr. ERLENBORN. Is that your real intent. Mr. ROTH. That is correct. Mr. ERLENBORN. I notice that section 8 provides for quarterly revisions of the catalog. Would you contemplate that there would be some service available to identify changes on a more current basis? If the applicant looking at the catalog finds a program he thinks is applicable, there would be someplace he could get information as to some revision that may have occurred since the last revision in the catalog or application or program process; right? Mr. ROTH. I think that would be most desirable. I am hopeful that as we computerize this kind of information that the Federal Government will be in a position to answer specific inquiries. I think this is important because there is no reason why a county should spend several months studying a possible program only to find out that the aid is not available for one reason or another. Mr. ERLENBORN. Again, let me congratulate you on your testimony and on the concept that is included in your bill. As final comment let me say that I have presumed that you share my hope that some day we will be able to reduce the size of the catalog. Mr. ROTH. That is correct, sir. Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you. Mr. ROTH. Thank you. Mr. ROSENTHAL (presiding). Thank you, Congressman Roth. Mrs. DWYER. No questions. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Roth, do you feel it is necessary to make revisions every 3 months? Wouldn't it perhaps be sufficient to revise this annually? Mr. RoTH. No, sir; I feel that annually is not adequate. I think one of the great problems of the county or the local officials is that in the past they have suffered from lack of up-to-date adequate information. It seems to me that if we are going to do a meaningful job for the individual back home, we ought to keep it up at least quarterly. We originally provided for monthly updating but after long discussions and conferences with the Bureau of the Budget we agreed that this should be modified to quarterly. I might point out that the circular that has been put out by the executive branch of the Government also provides for quarterly updating. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much. I, too, want to join my colleagues in commending you for the prodigious effort you expended and the unusual and unique contribution you have made. I really think you have done a superb job. Thank you very much. Mr. ROTH. Thank you, sir. (Mr. Roth's complete statement follows:) PREPARED TESTIMONY OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 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 3 years, studying how the executive branch administers the legislation creating Federal aid, how it implements broad congressional authorizations with specific operating programs and how these specific operating programs are made available to the people back home. The findings of this study make it unmistakably clear, in my judgment, that it is necessary for this Congress to enact legislation requiring the maintenance of an up-to-date catalog of Federal assistance programs. Briefly, this is what we learned through my two compilations of Federal assistance programs, the second of which was completed on September 15, 1969. 1. We found that no one knew exactly how many Federal assistance programs there were. My second catalog contained 1,315 Federal assistance programs, or roughly 225 more programs than my 1968 listing. Even today, almost 1 year later, we are told of new programs not heretofore reported including, for example, disposal of surplus directly through the Department of Defense, the National Forest System Land Exchange, the naval stores conservation program, and the Golden Eagle program. 2. We found that nowhere was there a central, comprehensive repository of meaningful information on all operating programs. Instead there was a multitude of catalogs, pamphlets, and brochures attempting to fill a need, but none of which supplied the necessary overview of Federal programs. 3. We found there was no common definition in the Federal Government as to what constituted a domestic assistance program. Hence, there was no consistency as to the type of information either identifying these programs or relating to their operation. 4. We found that the maze of over 1,315 Federal assistance programs was so confusing that those intended to benefit often do not know what programs exist, where to seek aid, whether they qualify for assistance, or how much money is available. 5. We found that the Federal assistance complex helped the wealthy States and communities or colleges which can afford professional staffs or assistants to search out programs, but handicapped the smaller States, communities, and schools, which cannot afford such help. 6. We found that Members of Congress were likewise handicapped by the lack of an adequate overview of all Federal assistance programs which could help them evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs, as well as the need for new or restructured programs. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a paradox. The Federal Government has been engaged in massive efforts to raise the quality of life for all Americans. These have been highly commendable efforts: to rebuild our cities and communities; to improve our education system; to conquer disease; to protect and enhance our environment; to bring the poor into the mainstream of American life; to secure and enhance the opportunities for all to enjoy a full, safe, and meaningful life. But with so many hundreds of Federal assistance programs created and designed to help people back home, we see as an unwanted conclusion that the very programs which were intended to solve problems have helped create new problems. In the effort to improve the quality of life in the United States, the Federal Government has created an incredibly complex system to which it devotes a large share of our national wealth. Beneficiaries are many and diverse, and the administrative program structure has become a jungle penetrable only by the most skilled and sophisticated. This has caused the information crisis. 48-957 0-70- -4 THE INFORMATION CRISIS-THE NEED On June 25, 1968, I first spoke on the House floor of an information crisis. I called it a crisis since I firmly believe that the right and need to know is a basic principle of representative government, a requirement that is not currently being met. That right and need to know includes, among other things, ready access to complete, factual information about all assistance programs administered by the Federal Government. Most importantly, this information should be readily available to the people back home-to those the programs are intended to help. But this information is also required 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 unable to direct cities, schools, or other applicants to the programs best suited to their specific needs. Without adequate information on file, congressional offices are compelled to use the hunt and peck approach to determine what assistance may be available; this, in turn, not only forces them to rely on the willingness of a particular agency to disclose information, but frequently wastes countless man-hours. As a legislator, I believe it is especially important to have this information in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the executive branch in implementing the broad authorizations enacted by Congress, to determine the relative need for funding existing programs, and to evaluate the need for new legislation. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine, with certainty, what related programs are already in existence when considering new legislation. Certainly the executive branch itself needs such information to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlapping between departments and agencies. I do not believe any business 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, at least until recently, 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. I believe the lack of adequate information within the executive branch has been underscored by the fact that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ordered 1,800 copies of my 1969 catalog, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development purchased 2,000 copies. Finally, full disclosure of Federal assistance program information to the public is necessary to insure fair and efficient practices in program management. The public watchdog, 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. The taxpayer, likewise, needs to know where his money goes and to see what good it actually accomplishes-to pinpoint areas of strength and pride, as well as areas of waste, misdirection, and failure. 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" to Federal assistance programs. The lack of adequate program information handicaps everyone, but especially those in the greatest need. Under most of these programs, action must be initiated by either a local official or the individual desiring help. This means the advantage lies with those with the knowledge and means to take action. By definition, the disadvantaged have neither the means nor the knowledge. Hence, small cities, counties or schools are greatly handicapped. They cannot afford experts or private intelligence services; they cannot maintain Washington libraries, staffed with "grantmanship" experts and replete with Government circulars, publications, regulations, and correspondence; they cannot maintain liaison men to gumshoe applications. Typically and tragically, the lack of adequate information 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 at 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 responsibilities. The present Federal aid system emphasizes the ability of grant applicants to know what aids are available and to obtain the necessary program information to prepare the actual application correctly. 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 decisionmaking. This same publication recommends that each county establish a 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? The magnitude of the information crises with which we are faced is staggering. There are 50 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 million Americans-who are indeeed potential recipients of Federal assistance. In dollar terms, the assistance available to these various beneficiaries is unprecedented. Federal outlays for domestic assistance have more than tripled during 1960-71. Based on budget estimates for the fiscal year 1971, the yearly total is now more than $78 billion; in 1960, it was under $25 billion. (For tabulation, see exhibit 1.) In program terms, this assistance, by my count, is fragmented into over 1,300 operating entities or administrative routes for obtaining Federal aid. (For breakdowns of these programs by type, see exhibit 2.) As these exhibits indicate, there is considerable overlap and duplication in many different agencies throughout the Federal Government. This multiplicity of programs, with the resulting multiplicity of regulations, administrative practices, and reporting and auditing requirements, causes great confusion and frustration at home. This undesirable situation must be changed if we are to succeed in solving the problems of the 1970's. The Federal-aid delivery system must be as understandable and responsive as possible. THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION To meet the need created by this information crisis, I have 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 an annual comprehensive compendium of Federal assistance programs, and to update this compendium on a regular basis. This legislation, as you know, has bipartisan cosponsorship from 181 Congressmen and 15 Senators. (For sponsorship, see exhibit 3). 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 endorsed this specific measure last year. The Council of State Governments and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations have both recorded support of a unified catalog as envisioned in this proposal. Copies of these endorsements are attached as part of my testimony, as exhibit 4. I believe that the record demonstrates 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 were both inadequate, as I have pointed out 2 years ago, on June 25, 1968, at page H5434 of the Congressional Record, and last year, on April 24, at page H3062. Improvements were made in the 1969 catalog only after the shortcomings of earlier catalogs were carefully delineated and spotlighted. I am happy to say that substantial improvements were made in the 1970 Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs, as I pointed out in my House speech on June 4, 1970, at page H5167. But again, I believe it can be fairly said that these improvements came |