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.

Mr. BLATNIK. It would also facilitate making corrections and keeping it up to date. On that point, is it necessary to have four revisions a year? Are changes made that often in these programs?

Mr. WEBER. Well, as Mr. Roth indicated, this was the product of discussions between his office and my predecessor's in the Office of Management and Budget, and it seems to be a constructive compromise between the 1 month specified in earlier versions of the legislation and the past practice of annual publication. I think that programs do make changes as a result of congressional action and as a result of administrative action.

By the time we get a staff set up in the Office of Management and Budget, particularly in the Division of Management Information Systems, this would not be an excessive burden and the fact that it's in a looseleaf form would permit the insertion of changes.

Mr. BLATNIK. I would like to give more consideration to that. If you can, tell us something more of that. If you cut that in half, say semiannually, once every 6 months, how would that be? Not only would the cost be a little higher, but is it that necessary? You would have to mail the changes to all the subscribers and all recipients of the catalog; right?

Mr. WEBER. Yes, that would be done.

Mr. BLATNIK. And if you have a change in the agricultural section for new information on hoof and mouth disease and the Seminoles are interested in a child care center, they couldn't care less about the agricultural releases. "What are we getting this change on hoof and mouth disease for?", they would ask.

They don't need that. But that would happen if you had an acrossthe-board mailing of every revision. I think four times a year would be excessive, and you could get by twice a year, I think.

Any other of the large mailings of, say, telephone directories are made once a year; aren't they?

Mr. WEBER. Yes. Well, I think, obviously, we will learn from experience as we go along. There will be different outputs from Congress, and other congressional action.

Mr. BLATNIK. Were you directly involved at all in the preparation of this?

Mr. WEBER. I have only been on the job two and a half weeks or so. Mr. BLATNIK. Was your shop involved?

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Haase, on my right, was involved.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Haase, were you involved?

Mr. HAASE. Yes, very much so.

Mr. BLATNIK. It seems like a very, very well done piece of work, from first examination. These programs are physically easy to locate and I see where it would be easy to keep up to date with the revisions. I have no further questions.

Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me just ask about the present catalog.

I have been looking through it and you might, Mr. Haase, in particular, be able to help me.

If I have a constituent, say, who calls for a city or village and says they want to build a new sewage treatment plant, where can they get help? How do I identify in this 1970 catalog the various programs that might be applicable?

Mr. HAASE. We have tried to develop a fairly comprehensive system for indexing. In the front of the document is what we call a functional

index which breaks down into various purposive categories such as employment, community development, disaster prevention, so on and so forth. The first place you look would be in this functional index under the general subject matter that you are interested in.

Because of the fact that people call things by different names there are many instances where the subject matter may be referred to by various synonyms; so if you are looking for help in the area of employment you might look under manpower, jobs, or employment. Consequently, a very comprehensive subject index has been included in which we have attempted to identify virtually any term by which someone might want to identify a program. So here are two places that you can look to find a lead to a specific program.

Mr. WEBER. Specifically, Congressman Erlenborn, if you look on page 1028 under Sewage facilities and

Mr. BLATNIK. Could we start that? Say we have a request from a community addressed to Congress as he propounded.

What is your question? We are interested in what assistance?

Mr. ERLENBORN. Building on or expanding a sewage treatment plant.

Mr. BLATNIK. Say the whole sewage system plant, lines and all that are necessary. Let's start off. In your functional index summary, where would you find that?

Mr. WEBER. That would be under "Community development." The second item is "Construction, renewal operations." Of course, that is a very broad category.

Mr. Haase said if you go back into the subject index in the back you would find a breakout of sewage facilities and treatment on page 1028. That is alphabetical.

Under "Sewage facilities and treatment," the first item listed is "Basic facilities grants, 14.200". This number gives you the section of the catalog under which that program is listed. That's on page 441. And the program title is

Mr. BLATNIK. Is that your program on page 441?

Mr. WEBER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLATNIK. Basic water and sewer facilities grants, 14.200?
Mr. WEBER. Yes.

Mr. BLATNIK. That would come under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Is that where they would apply for the assistance?

Mr. WEBER. That is one of the options.

Mr. BLATNIK. What are the others?

Mr. WEBER. The points that were raised show there are a lot of programs, and one of the skills in grantsmanship is knowing how many bins are available and what the requirements are. So if I were an astute adviser on this I would also recommend, if it was a rural area for example, to look under, "Rural areas, grants and loans, 10.418." Mr. BLATNIK. Where do you find that?

Mr. WEBER. That is page 37.

That is a special program for water and waste disposal systems for rural communities. So obviously you would look at both programs to find which was most applicable and focused on the specific needs of your rural community. The second one would seem to be the appropriate one.

Mr. BLATNIK. That is page 37?

Mr. WEBER. 37, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. That is item 10.418.

Mr. WEBER. Right, sir.

Mr. BLATNIK. Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities. Department of Agriculture. All right.

Well, let's go back to the functional index summary. We started off with community development. Under the category of community development we are working on construction, renewal operations, which is i-6 in your index.

Now, you turn to i-6, Construction, Renewal Operations (see also housing), 14.200, and you have already checked that out.

Basic water and sewer facilities grants, 11.300. That would be economic development. Are those supplemental or additional grants? Mr. WEBER. Right.

Mr. BLATNIK. Now we didn't discover 15.700. What page would that be on? That is the basic construction grants for the treatment works.

Mr. WEBER. That is in the alphabetical index.

Mr. BLATNIK. How do you find that?

Mr. WEBER. Actually, your basic function would be on i-6.

Mr. BLATNIK. Page 523, is that it?

Mr. COPENHAVER. Yes.

Mr. BLATNIK. 523 under 15.700, under the program titled "Construction Grants for Waste Water Treatment Works" and this, of course, comes under the Federal Water Quality Administration, Department of the Interior. That is a big program.

Mr. WEBER. Therefore, Congressman Erlenborn, if you want to build a sewer, there are many sources of funding.

Mr. ERLENBORN. That was the reason I chose this example, because I think really this is one of those areas where grant consolidation would play a very helpful role. I know many communities in this field exactly get confused. They don't know whether to go to Interior, or HUD, or the Department of Agriculture; and each program will have different qualifications as to the size of the city or whether you are including collection systems as well as the treatment facilities and they have different matching provisions as well. Some 50-50; some 80-20, whatever the matching provision may be.

Mr. WEBER. I think that is a very important side effect of this catalog as was indicated in statements of Congressman Roth and Congresswoman Green; that it lays out for the first time the array of programs which are directed at the same issue and very often duplicate themselves in an awkward and different way.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Do you have a comment, Mr. Haase, on this area?

Mr. HAASE. To help in this area we have identified all public laws which relate to that so you can always identify what the basis for that program is.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me ask this question. I don't know whether this would be helpful or not; but say I was looking through this and I came across the Department of the Interior program for construction grants for waste water treatment works, would it be helpful or would it be practical at this point for you to identify similar programs as to where they could be found-cross-reference, without going to the index? In other words, when you found one program, would there be a reference to related programs and where they might be found?