the cost of the OEO catalog, Mr. Roth located 1,050 operating programs.

Then in 1969 they added 200 additional programs; and the OEO's catalog by that time listed only 581.

And, as I recall, the OEO cost was hundreds of thousands of dollars and since that time the OEO has totaled now 1,019, as Mr. Roth said. But I think he also accurately described the need for one catalog instead of innumerable pamphlets, each of which is pretty much, or is incomplete, I would say.

I also like his idea of the loose leaf. I, frankly, have some question about the quarterly revision. It seems to me in something like thisand I am not positive that this is right-but it seems to me that we might even have a more accurate catalog if it were not done every 3 months. I think this is the only part of it that I had some question about.

There is going to be a timelag anyhow. And perhaps if it were done twice a year and if it were the loose leaf, of course, it could be done more easily than if it were in a bound volume.

Mr. Roth referred to the proliferation of programs and the dispersal of congressional responsibilities in the authorizations that have contributed to the confusing problem that all of us in the Congress face and all the local and State government people are facing in their attempts to secure Federal assistance.

The committee on which Mr. Erlenborn and I sit is responsible for only part of the Federal aid to education programs. The Federal jurisdiction in education is actually spread between 14 congressional committees and between 10 Cabinet-level departments and 19 Federal agencies.

So the task that confronts an educator in attempting to find Federal sources of support for his school or university program is a tremendous

one.

No doubt many avenues of assistance have not been followed because they have not been found. As Mr. Roth said, this kind of a situation benefits those who are already sufficiently staffed to search out the myriad avenues of assistance and it hurts those in need of funds and staff by making it exceedingly difficult, perhaps even impossible, to undertake.

Many of the colleges and universities that are heavily endowed do have a person that is stationed in Washington on a full-time basis to find the programs. A small college that in this day and age is facing financial bankruptcy can't possibly afford to have one of their staff here in Washington; and they are the ones that need help on a much more larger scale than the heavily endowed university.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Haven't the education associations joined together to provide that assistance for their junior members?

Mrs. GREEN. Well, there are various associations. The extent of help, I think, is questionable because those universities that can afford it find it to their advantage to station a person here who does nothing except look at these programs, and this is true also with some larger cities. Some cities that can afford it have one representative, one lobbyist here that does nothing but find ways in which that city can get money. And the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Blatnik, also pointed out the need for it in terms of public works. So in various kinds of programs it seems to me this is highly desirable.

As I said earlier, it would, first of all, give the Members of Congress the help in determining what types of aid exist and the duplication and overlap would be more readily discovered where it is now virtually sometimes impossible to discover.

The Roth staff and OEO group both had difficulty in gathering information from some agencies because the agency was either afraid of admitting duplication and overlap or had a very selfish interest in maintaining its own catalog of publications.

And the chairman of the subcommittee asked a few minutes ago if there were need for this legislation; couldn't the executive department publish it.

I would like to emphasize that by requiring every agency to supply information according to a single form as prescribed by law, useless and sometimes self-serving information and propaganda from the different agencies, would be eliminated.

So, Mr. Chairman, just to conclude, this legislation has my wholehearted support and complete endorsement and it's my hope that this committee and the Congress would not delay in bringing this catalog into being.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much, Mrs. Green.

Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. I don't believe I have questions.

I want to express my thanks to you for your support for Congressman Roth's proposal. I think it is a worthwhile bill and I am sure we wouldn't have the present catalog we have now if he hadn't provided the leadership that put some pressure on the executive department to do this.

I would again suggest to you, as I did to Congressman Roth-and I think you would agree-we would all like to see the size of the catalog reduced by reduction of the number of programs and I will make the observation without asking you to comment on it, that if our committee would move in the direction of providing the President with grant consolidation authority and joint funding simplification we would move in that direction.

I hope that our committee would act on this bill quite soon now. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mrs. Dwyer?

Mrs. DWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to compliment the lady from Oregon for the constructive remarks. She is always constructive and I just want to say I admire you a great deal. Whenever you speak you have something constructive to say and, again, I want to congratulate you.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you, Mrs. Green. Without objection, Mrs. Green's prepared statement will appear at this point in the record. (The statement referred to follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDITH GREEN, a REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to testify this morning in support of H.R. 17112, introduced by Congressman William Roth of Delaware. I have cosponsored this legislation along with 180 other Congressmen and 15 Senators.

The need for this legislation was very graphically drawn by Congressman Roth in 1968 and 1969 when his staff completed a study of Federal assistance programs.

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. HAASE, DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 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,