The profound contribution of the Roth study cannot be underestimated. It concluded that neither the public, the Congress, nor even the executive branch of Government has really known the full extent of existing Federal aid. In this era of "big government,' no one should find this surprising. Keeping on top of the information explosion in these times is a challenge for anyone and is bound to test the limits of one's span of control. What is surprising is that we have been so long in coming up with a response as logical as the one originally proposed by my esteemed colleague.

I know what it is to mount a massive research effort into the workings of the Federal Government on a strictly ad hoc basis with limitations both of time and personnel. In consideration of the sheer size of the executive branch, Members should not be obliged to tackle such gargantuan tasks as Congressman Roth voluntarily took on with such splendid results.

In 1967 the official Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance prepared by the Office of Economic Opportunity listed only 459 programs. When the Roth study was first completed the following year in 1968 it located and named 1,050 operating programs. In 1969, the Roth study discovered over 200 additional Federal programs in existence making the total number of programs in its compilation 1,315. The OEO's catalog listed only 581.

However, in the year since the last publication of the OEO catalog, the Government now finds that it is operating 1,019 programs. This last effort by OEO finally approximates that which has already been done by Congressman Roth.

The lag in making an even near guess at the extent of Federal assistance programs points to the need for specific legislative direction as provided in this bill to insure that adequate and up-to-date information will always be current and available for the beneficiaries of Federal domestic assistance.

There is no doubt that the proliferation of programs and the dispersal of congressional responsibilities and`authorizations have contributed to the confusing problem which besets local and State governments and agencies and individuals who attempt to secure Federal assistance.

For example, although the Committee on Education and Labor on which I sit, is responsible for the authorization of important Federal aid to education programs, the Federal jurisdiction in education is actually spread among 14 congressional committees, 10 Cabinet-level departments, and 19 Federal agencies.

The task that confronts an educator attempting to find Federal sources of support for his school or university program is indeed a tremendous one. No doubt many possible avenues of assistance have not been followed simply because they have never been found. This situation benefits those who already are sufficiently staffed to search out the myriad ways of assistance and hurts those who are already desperately in need of funds and staff by making it exceedingly difficult and perhaps even impossible to undertake the necessary hunt.

In addition to the direct benefits that the up-to-date catalog of programs required by this bill would provide to recipients of Federal aid is the very direct assistance it would give Congress in determining exactly what types of aid exist. Duplication and overlap will be more readily discovered where it is sometimes now virtually impossible to uncover. The Roth staff and the OEO staff both had difficulty in gathering information from some agencies because the agencies were either afraid of admitting duplication and overlap or had a selfish interest in maintaining their own catalog of publications. By requiring every agency to supply information according to a single form as prescribed by law, useless and sometimes self-serving propaganda from the different agencies will be eliminated.

This legislation has my wholehearted and complete endorsement and my earnest hope that the committee will act upon it favorably.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Our next witness is Mr. Arnold R. Weber, Associate Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. Weber, I am told this is your first appearance before this subcommittee. I am pleased to have you here and I hope we will see you many times in the future.

STATEMENT OF ARNOLD R. WEBER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; ACCOMPANIED BY WALTER W. DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

HAASE,
STAFF

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my first appearance before this subcommittee in my capacity as Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget, although I must confess I have some pretty good minor league training with the Department of Labor over the last 18 months now.

I have a brief statement and I think we can move ahead most quickly by reading it directly.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Fine.

Mr. WEBER. So I will proceed.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee to testify in support of H.R. 17112, the Program Information Act. The provisions of H.R. 17112 would require the President to transmit a catalog of Federal domestic assistance programs to the Congress no later than May 1 of each regular session.

The basic purpose of the catalog would be to identify all existing Federal domestic assistance programs and provide sufficient descriptive information on each program so that the potential beneficiary can determine whether particular assistance or support sought might be available to him for the purposes he wishes.

The bill specifies types of information to be included in the catalog and requires that the catalog be updated on at least a quarterly basis.

Mr. Chairman, the Office of Management and Budget fully supports the basic objectives of this legislation. We believe that H.R. 17112 represents a substantial improvement over H.R. 338, previously submitted to achieve the same purposes. The language of this bill overcomes all of the major reservations we had previously expressed in considering the earlier legislation. As indicated in our June 2, 1970, letter to the Honorable William L. Dawson, chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, we recommend early enactment of H.R. 17112 with only one minor change in wording. This change, as outlined in the letter, would help to clarify the definition of the term "program" and minimize the possibility of misinterpretation.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, a comprehensive "Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance" programs was recently published for the Executive Office of the President by the Office of Economic Opportunity in conformity with policy guidance issued under BOB Circular No. A-89, dated September 30, 1969. This catalog was jointly developed by staff of the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Economic Opportunity and 56 Federal departments and agencies.

It contains descriptions of 1,019 Federal programs which provide various types of Federal domestic assistance, such as:

Grants, loans, loan guarantees, scholarships, mortgage loans, insurance, or other types of financial assistance;

Assistance in the form of provision of Federal facilities, equipment, goods or services, including the donation of surplus real and personal property;

Technical assistance and counseling;

Statistical and other expert information;

Service activities of regulatory agencies.

The 1970 catalog also provides a very comprehensive indexing system to aid the user in identifying the type of assistance he may be seeking. It provides an index by various functional categories-for example, community development, employment, education, et cetera an alphabetical subject matter index with key words and synonyms, an index of programs organized by administering department or agency, and an alphabetical listing of the programs.

This publication is being distributed to Members of Congress, Governors, and State legislative leaders, counties, cities, community action agencies, and public interest groups. The distribution is not yet complete and it is too early to provide a full assessment of the utility of the catalog in satisfying the needs of potential beneficiaries. The comments we have received to date, however, have been very favorable. We believe this new catalog meets the intent of H.R. 17112, and as noted in the comments of Congressman Roth it is built on the record of two previous catalogs and we think it constitutes a substantial improvement.

We also believe this catalog can serve a number of important uses beyond aiding potential beneficiaries in identifying types of available assistance. It can also serve to improve communication between Federal, State, and local governments and be used as an important management tool within the executive branch of the Federal Government. It is currently being used by OMB staff in evaluating various Federal assistance programs in conjunction with our grant program simplification efforts. It has also been used by the President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization in evaluating organizational responsibilities for various types of domestic programs.

The 1970 "Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance" has been developed as an integral part of information systems being developed by the Office of Management and Budget to support Federal program and budget decisionmaking. For example, each program description provides an indication of the appropriations through which this program is funded. This identification will permit OMB to interrelate the more detailed program information in the catalog with that contained in the President's budget.

On June 5, 1970, the Office of Management and Budget issued Circular No. A-98 establishing standardized procedures for Federal agencies to report grant-in-aid information to the States. A standard form is used for reporting the grant-in-aid actions to Governors, State legislatures or their designated representatives. The reports relate individual grant actions to the program in the "Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance" under which the action was taken, the statutory authority for the program, the funding appropriations and other descriptive information on the grant action.

The form is required for reporting on new grants, continuation grants, supplemental grants as well as changes in the timing or funding of existing grants. These reports will provide States with information on Federal grant-in-aid programs to support internal State planning,

budgetary, and program evaluation functions. They will also help Federal managers to monitor and evaluate particular grant-in-aid programs. Thus, the catalog is being designed to be an integral part of an improved information system to serve executive branch planning, management, and evaluation needs as well as the oversight needs of the Congress.

In the past, primary responsibility for policy guidance, preparation, and publication of the catalog were shared by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Economic Opportunity. The OEO's involvement arose from its statutory responsibility for publication of "a catalog of Federal programs relating to individual and community improvement." Since refinement of the catalog has necessitated progressively closer integration of catalog information with the President's budget and other executive office information. systems, responsibility for catalog matters vested in the Office of Economic Opportunity was recently delegated to the Office of Management and Budget.

This delegation by the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity is consistent with the intent of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970 to place greater responsibilities for Government-wide information systems development activities in the new Office of Management and Budget. We would also hope it would overcome the points raised about reluctance of particular agencies to provide information to another agency on the same line, so to speak, in the executive branch. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Office of Management and Budget not only fully supports the objectives of the proposed legislation but has been aggressively working toward the development of a publication which fulfills those objectives. We have been working closely with Congressman Roth, the sponsor of H.R. 17112, who has been a long-time advocate of the need for such a catalog. I believe this coordination has been mutually beneficial and has contributed to the proposed legislation. As previously indicated, we recommend early enactment with only one minor change in wording.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BLATNIK (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Weber, for a very fine statement. It was very concise and very much to the point.

Would you elaborate a little on your recommended change; and would that be on page 2, line 5?

Mr. WEBER. As proposed, we would strike the phrase beginning on page 2, line 8, "and which can be differentiated from any other such program on the basis of its"; on line 10 leave in "legal authority", strike "its" before "administering" strike "its" before "purpose", strike "its" before "benefits"; and strike "or its" on line 11. Add words so that the sentence would read, "A program shall be identified in terms of differing legal authority, administering office, funding, financial outlays, purposes, benefits and beneficiaries."

Mr. BLATNIK. This is the language you propose to insert in lieu of what you are striking out?

Mr. WEBER. Yes sir.

Mr. BLATNIK. That is what I was questioning.

Mr. WEBER. The problem is that it's almost a metaphysical problem of classification. We think that as the concept of programs has been defined in H.R. 17112, it would cause us to have duplicate entries of programs which essentially do the same thing for the same bene

ficiaries and if you identify a program in terms of these beneficiaries, you could consolidate under one heading several programs which otherwise might have unique status in the catalog.

Mr. BLATNIK. A few more questions will do it, Mr. Weber. Primarily for the record, we are trying to get all the information we can. Approximately what is the initial estimate of the cost of producing the current OEO catalog of Federal domestic assistance put out in 1970?

Mr. WEBER. Approximately $200,000 for assembly, printing and distribution. That is the direct cost.

Mr. BLATNIK. For how many copies?

Mr. WEBER. They have printed 30,000.

Mr. BLATNIK. Approximately 30,000?

Mr. WEBER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLATNIK. Of course, it wouldn't cover mailing costs, or would that be all franked?

Mr. WEBER. Yes, they would all be franked.

Mr. BLATNIK. Would this be about the same cost under the Roth legislation, H.R. 17112?

Mr. WEBER. In looking at the cost we would still estimate $200,000 for the direct cost. We would add $40,000 for in-house personnel costs associated with the preparation and updating of the catalog.

Mr. BLATNIK. All right.

Mr. WEBER. There are indirect costs in the agencies to the extent that they call upon staff in the agencies to make submissions. We estimate that that would be in the vicinity of $300,000 to $350,000; although that is a very subtle question because you are assuming that the agency staffs cannot do it as a matter of their normal responsibilities.

From that you would subtract the income from the sale of the catalog. The approximate cost is $7, actually $6.75 per catalog. The Roth bill specifies that the cost of the catalog, that is the purchase price, should be at cost of production.

Mr. BLATNIK. Do you think that would be under $7? About $6.75? Mr. WEBER. Yes, in that vicinity. Obviously production costs change over time.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Weber, would there be any merit to the proposal of perhaps having a catalog compartmentalization so you could send out a section dealing with health, for instance?

For instance, someone may be interested in setting up some health facility in the municipality or in a township and, of course, they would be interested in the nursing homes or outpatient clinics; or they wouldn't be interested in the agricultural aid and research on mining or demonstration grants for transportation or for recreation, et cetera. Mr. WEBER. Yes.

Mr. BLATNIK. Rather than get the whole load of hay and just to get the individual section, could that be done?

Mr. WEBER. We try to attack that in two ways; one, developing a more comprehensive index and system of cross-classification which I alluded to in my testimony; and secondly, by putting the catalog in a looseleaf form.

Mr. BLATNIK. Yes; I think this looseleaf style is excellent.

Mr. WEBER. So that would facilitate extracting particular pages and programs of interest to a potential applicant for a grant of some

sort.