Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

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.

Mr. ERLENBORN. But it would be included?

Mr. Rотн. It would be included.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Whether it went to the individual or to the State? Mr. RoтH. 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.

20

Mr. ROTH. 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, do you have any question?

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

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »