CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
June 24, 1969
Page 16970
S. 2479 -- INTRODUCTION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT OF 1969
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill entitled the "Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969." This measure is a follow-up to last year's legislation, Public Law 90-577, the first ever enacted in this critical field. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the RECORD following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill and section-by-section analysis will be printed in the RECORD.
(See exhibits 1 and 2.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this new bill focuses on specific and sometimes controversial ways of strengthening the operations of the Federal grant-in-aid system. It is preeminently a modern management measure -- a critical need of contemporary American federalism.
Mr. President, developments during recent years have produced growing concern over the administration of Federal assistance programs to State and local governments. These programs now constitute the principal tool of fiscal and functional federalism, and they have had a near-explosive growth in recent years. From 1962 to 1966, the number of separate grant authorizations more than doubled, rising from 161 to 379. During the 90th Congress, at least 42 new broad grant programs involving well over this number in separate authorizations were enacted. As of that moment the total is well above the 420 mark. No one can tell us the exact figure with any certainty.
In dollar terms, Federal aid experienced a nearly fourfold increase between 1957 and 1967, with an average annual hike of over 14 percent. During the past 5 years alone, grant outlays have more than doubled, jumping from $10.1 billion in 1964 to an estimated $20.8 billion for the current fiscal year. According to the latest Bureau of the Budget projections, Federal grant expenditures for fiscal year 1970 will soar to the $24.5 billion mark, or more than 3½ times the 1960 figure.
These grant outlays now provide nearly 18 percent of State and local revenue. Their matching requirements have generated State and local expenditures in the order of one for every two Federal grant dollars. At the same time, State and local matching represents only about 10 to 14 percent of general expenditures from their own revenue sources. Bureau of the Budget projections for 1970 indicate that these matching funds will rise to an estimated $10 to $13 billion or nearly $5 to $8 billion more than the 1965 amount.
These findings clearly indicate that grants-in-aid are one of the major supports of our Federal system. At the time they have generated great difficulties.
Since its creation in 1962, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations has undertaken a continuous study of problems of the relationships that comprise our complex federal system.
In our studies of "The Federal System as Seen by State and Local Officials" and "The Federal System as Seen by Federal Aid Officials," as well as in our hearings on the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act in the 89th and 90th Congresses and on "Creative Federalism" in the last Congress, we have ample evidence that public officials at all levels are acutely aware of the adverse consequences that the profusion and excessive fragmentation of Federal assistance programs produce. Some of them follow:
First. There is an "information gap" concerning what programs, who administers them, how closely related grants differ, and the proper approach for assembling a proper application. Title II of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 partially fills this gap.
Second. There is a "communications gap" between top management officials and middle management program administrators at all levels -- with the latter being directly strengthened by the program fragmentation and the former weakened by it. Very little has been done to close this gap, although title IV of last year's legislation, if properly implemented, could begin to close it.
Third. There is the phenomenon of "grantsmanship," a game which has attracted private consultants and others who, for a fee, guide applicants through a maze of bureaucratic procedures and complicated catalogs of available assistance programs. This game is far from over.
Fourth. There is the "promise-performance gap," where funding uncertainties, the major hurdles facing attempts to package Federal aids on a multi-functional basis, and duplicating financial management requirements have generated significant disillusionment and distaste among recipient State local officials.
Fifth. There is the matter of overlapping and duplication among various grants and a resulting situation where eligible applicants may play off two or more Federal agencies against one another, especially when grants have differing matching ratios.
Sixth. There is the gap in understanding arising from the fact that department heads, the Executive Office of the President, and relevant standing committees of Congress do not periodically receive analytical information on the operations, interrelationships, and program performance of the various grants-in-aid falling under their respective jurisdictions. Comparable, if not more severe, problems face Governors, State legislators, county executives, and mayors.
The Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations has identified these and other administrative problems that arise as a result of the excessive complexity and categorization of the grant-in-aid system. Moreover, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, of which the senior Senator from North Carolina (Mr. ERVIN), the senior Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT), and I are members, has thoroughly corroborated the extent of these difficulties, most notably in its authoritative report on "Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System."
Since its inception, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations has sought and achieved Senate passage of measures that would come to grips with various aspects of this management morass.
In the 88th Congress, we developed and the Senate passed a measure to provide for periodic congressional review of future grant-in-aid programs.
In the 89th Congress, we developed and successfully urged Senate enactment of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1965, a measure designed to achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government.
In the last Congress, the Congress enacted the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. In the last Congress, we also reported and achieved Senate Passage of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act.
In this Congress, we have again considered legislation that will help fill the manpower gap at the State and local, levels (S. 11). The proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969 constitutes another attempt on our part to develop meaningful solutions to clearly identifiable problems in the critical field of grant management.
In sponsoring this and earlier legislation, I have sought to underscore the significance of achieving reform within the context of the grant system. Reform is our goal, because we recognize the essential wisdom of the grant-in-aid approach. Grants are both a symbol and a system of cooperative federalism, as the report to the President of the Kestnbaum Commission on Intergovernmental Relations noted over 13 years ago. They have revealed their ability to adapt to rural, depression-rooted, and urban growth problems. For these and other reasons, the categorical grant system -- while in need of reform -- is still deserving of support.
The measure I introduce today seeks to strengthen and improve the management of Federal assistance programs. It deals directly with immediate and pressing problems. Specifically, it comes to grips with four basic difficulties that plague grant administration: First, the overlapping and duplication in grant auditing, accounting, and fiscal reporting; second, the complicated application procedures that impede the packaging of Federal assistance by recipient jurisdictions; third, the excessive fragmentation of grant authorizations and categories; and fourth, the problem facing the committees of Congress, Congress as a whole, departmental heads, and the President in obtaining -- on a meaningful and periodic basis -- adequate information regarding the operation, interrelationships, and effectiveness of grants-in-aid over which they have oversight responsibilities.
Each of these problems has been fully documented in the subcommittee studies that I have cited, as well as in the Advisory Commission's "Fiscal Balance" report. The proposed legislation implements three specific recommendations advanced in this ACIR study and another from its earlier report on "Periodic Congressional Reassessment of Federal Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Government."
Three of the titles -- relating to financial management, Federal assistance consolidation, and joint funding simplification -- were considered at length in subcommittee hearings last year. In their present form, they incorporate many of the suggested changes advanced during these earlier proceedings. In addition to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, several major associations representing public officials throughout the Federal system -- the National Governors' Conference, Council of State Governments, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors -- have endorsed all of or a majority of the bill's provisions.
Mr. President, I have spoken many times during the past 5 years about the management problems connected with grant administration. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, the intergovernmental personnel bill, and the National Intergovernmental Affairs council legislation underscores the continuing efforts of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations to strengthen the basis of intergovernmental administration. The proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969 is another manifestation of this perennial concern. By focusing on the need for more uniform and less duplicative financial management, the desirability of facilitating the packaging of grant-in-aid applications, the paramount problem of achieving additional grant consolidations, and the pressing question of beefing up congressional and executive branch oversight, this omnibus measure comes to grips with well documented sources of tension and turmoil in the administration of Federal assistance programs.
Intergovernmental relations today are more intricate, and more involved, than they have ever been in our entire history. To succeed, this system must be governed by a spirit of cooperation. Yet, conflict and confusion seem to be the order of the day.
To curb this conflict and to reduce the confusion, top policymakers at all levels -- the President and the Congress, the Governor and the legislature, the mayor and the council -- must be in a position to plan, pass, implement, fund, and review the vital public programs this generation of Americans demands. Effective public management is crucial to both the executive and legislative branches. Efforts then to strengthen it on an interbranch, interagency, and intergovernmental level must be examined, debated, and -- where worthy -- enacted and executed.
The proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969 addresses itself to these pivotal questions. I do not overstate the case by asserting that the future of federalism depends on how well we, at the Federal level, provide meaningful answers to the critical issues dealt with by this legislation.
The bill (S. 2479) to improve the financial management of Federal assistance programs; to facilitate the consolidation of such programs; to provide temporary authority to expedite the processing of project applications drawing upon more than one Federal assistance program; to strengthen further congressional review of Federal grants-in-aid; and to extend and amend the law relating to intergovernmental cooperation, introduced by Mr. MUSKIE, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Government Operations, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Bill text omitted]
The section-by-section analysis, presented by Mr. MUSKIE, is as follows:
EXHIBIT 2
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS of THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT OF 1969
TITLE I-DEFINITIONS
This title contains definitions of two terms used frequently in other titles of the bill.
TITLE II-ACCOUNTING, AUDITING, AND REPORTING OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUNDS
Title II amends the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-577) by adding a new Title VII which deals with the accounting, auditing, and reporting of Federal assistance funds.
Section 701 sets forth the purposes of this new title: to encourage the simplification and standardization of the diverse financial reporting requirements of Federal assistance programs, to promote among Federal grant agencies accounting and auditing policies that rely on those State and local fiscal control systems which meet certain professional standards, and to empower the Comptroller General of the United States to establish rules and regulations for use of certain State and local audits in meeting GAO's responsibilities regarding Federal assistance programs.
More uniform financial reporting
Section 702 authorizes the President, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, to establish rules and regulations that will simplify and, where possible, make more uniform the financial reporting requirements associated with Federal assistance programs. The purpose here is to bring greater order to a situation where widely varying forms, differing time schedules, and divergent data requests have undermined the basic objectives of meaningful fiscal reporting on Federal assistance programs.
Federal agencies reliance on the financial management control systems of States and their political subdivisions
Section 703 declares it to be the purpose of this section that Federal agencies administering assistance programs to State and local governments shall, to the maximum extent feasible, rely on the internal or independent accounting and auditing of these programs performed by recipient jurisdictions. Under this section, heads of agencies are assigned the responsibility of determining the adequacy of the internal financial management control systems utilized by recipient jurisdictions. In meeting this responsibility, such heads will, among other things, ascertain whether accounting records are maintained and reports prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles, whether audits are carried out in a way that meets generally accepted auditing standards, and whether the auditing function is performed in a timely fashion by a qualified professional staff that is sufficiently independent -- in an administrative and political sense -- from program operations, so that a comprehensive and objective audit can be performed. Where such control systems are found acceptable, agency heads, in the absence of substantial reasons to the contrary, are required to accept the audits performedunder such systems as a substitute for those which otherwise would be performed by their own agency personnel. The periodic sample testing technique is cited as the chief means of verifying the continuing reliability of accepted control systems.
In order to strengthen the cooperative relationships among fiscal management personnel, each Federal agency administering assistance programs is required (under Sec tion 703(6) ) to maintain continuous liaison with counterpart State and local fiscal control administrators and the interchange of audit standards and objectives and interlevel collaboration in the development of audit schedules are specifically cited as means of furthering this liaison. To reduce the proliferation of accounting and auditing systems within and between Federal agencies, Federal agency heads are required, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, to coordinate the auditing requirements of assistance programs coming under their jurisdiction (Section 703(f)) and to establish cross-servicing arrangements with other agencies for audit purposes (Section 703(g)). The Bureau of the Budget, or such other agency as may be designated by the President, is authorized to prescribe government wide rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this section.
TITLE III-CONSOLIDATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
This title further amends the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (P. L.90577) by adding another title to it dealing with a new approach to achieving consolidations of Federal assistance programs.
Section 801 declares the title's basic purposes and states that the President from time to time shall examine the various Federal assistance programs and determine what consolidations are necessary and desirable in order to upgrade the management and coordination of individual programs falling within the same functional area, and to promote more efficient planning and use by recipient jurisdictions of such programs.
Section 801 (b) establishes a Congressional policy with respect to Federal assistance program consolidations and declares that the better management purposes of this title can best be accomplished by its enactment.
Preparation and transmittal of plan
Under Section 802, the President, after finding that a consolidation of two or more functionally-related aid programs is necessary and desirable to achieve the purpose(s) of this title, is authorized to prepare a consolidation plan and to transmit it to Congress along with a declaration indicating his finding that the plan will further the purposes of this title.
Each consolidation plan transmitted must place responsibility in a single Federal agency for the administration of the consolidated program; specify the new, single matching formula and, where the individual programs being combined have apportionment formulas for rendering Federal assistance under the consolidated program; include other conditions and requirements for rendering such assistance, including planning and eligibility requirements, which are suggested by counterpart provisions of Federal assistance statutes affected by the consolidation plan; spell out the differences between the formulas, conditions, and requirements of a consolidation plan and those in such counterpart provisions, provide for the transfer or other disposition of records, property, and personnel of the individual assistance programs involved; arrange for the transfer of those unexpended balances of appropriations and of other funds available for the individual assistance programs affected insofar as the President considers it necessary in light of the functions authorized by the consolidated program (except that unexpended balances thus transferred may be used only for purposes authorized in the original appropriation) ; and make provision for terminating the affairs of an agency or administrative unit whose programs have been transferred pursuant to the proposed consolidation. With reference to the President's discretion in determining a consolidation plan's formulas, requirements, and conditions, its scope is limited by two factors: first, no such provision can be included that is not present in at least one of the individual aid programs being consolidated, and second, whenever two or more differing matching (or apportionment) ratios are present in such programs the new figure must fall within the bounds set by these ratios.
Finally, this section stipulates that each Federal assistance consolidation plan shall provide for only one consolidation of individual assistance programs and that the president when transmitting such a plan, shall have it delivered to both Houses of Congress on the same date and to each when in session.
Congressional consideration
Sections 803 and 804 of this title set forth the manner in which Congress shall consider Federal assistance consolidation plans. In all major respects the procedure here parallels the provisions that formally applied under the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended. One major difference between the two appears in Section 803 which stipulates that a Federal assistance consolidation plan shall only become effective at the end of the first period of ninety calendar days of continuous session of the Congress after transmittal date (rather than sixty calendar days), unless between the day of transmittal and the end of the ninety day period either House passes a resolution not favoring the plan.
Expiration date
Section 805 limits the authority of the President under Section 802 to three years after the date of enactment. This provision is geared to giving both Congress and the Executive Branch an opportunity to review the operation of this title after a reasonable period of time.
TITLE IV -- JOINT FUNDING SIMPLIFICATION
Section 401 further amends the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 by adding a new Title IX dealing with joint funding simplification. Section 901 states that the purpose of the title is to enable States and localities to use Federal aid programs more effectively and efficiently, to adapt these programs more readily to their individual needs by facilitating the broader use of joint projects involving more than one aid program, and to acquire experience that would lead to additional legislative proposals regarding consolidation, coordination, and simplification of Federal assistance programs. The statement of purpose also indicates the basic organizational focus of the title (which differs from that of predecessor legislation introduced in the 90th Congress) wherein primary emphasis is given to developing widespread use of joint projects and joint funding arrangements within individual departments and placing counterpart efforts at the interdepartmental level on an experimental and limited demonstration basis.
Intradepartmental joint projects
Section 902 deals wholly with procedures involving intradepartmental joint projects and joint funding arrangements. Under it, the head of each Federal department and agency administering more than one Federal aid program is authorized to approve combined applications for joint projects requiring funding from two or more such programs falling under his jurisdiction. To develop the necessary departmental or agency capability for achieving the purposes of this title, Section 902 (b) requires departmental heads, among other things, to identify related aid
programs within his agency that are likely candidates for joint projects; to develop and promulgate guidelines, joint project examples, common application forms, and other materials that will facilitate development of an interdepartmental joint project program; to review the various administrative requirements of departmental assistance programs in order to identify those that might impede the expeditious processing of joint project applications and where appropriate make the necessary modifications; to establish common technical or administrative rules for related departmental assistance programs; to create common or joint application processing and project supervision procedures including establishing a single unit for handling these functions; and to develop common auditing, accounting, and fiscal reporting procedures to facilitate establishment of fiscal and program accountability with respect to joint projects approved by him.
In order to provide the means of cutting the red tape arising from the varying procedural requirements associated with individual assistance programs, the head of each Federal department and agency administering two or more such programs is authorized under Section 902(c) to adopt, subject to such regulations as may be promulgated by the President pursuant to Section 902(f), uniform provisions regarding inconsistent or conflicting agency requirements involving financial administration, the timing of Federal payments, whether assistance must be extended in the form of a grant or a contract, merit personnel systems (but only to the extent that a proposed joint project would cause these requirements to be applied to programs not otherwise subject to them), the accountability for or the disposition of property or structures acquired or constructed with Federal assistance, and other relevant administrative and technical Stems defined in regulations issued pursuant to subsection (f).
To develop the intradepartmental financial arrangements necessary for expediting joint projects, each head of a department and agency administering two or more Federal assistance programs is permitted under Section 902(d) to set up a single board or panel for the review of combined applications to his department; to prescribe rules and regulations for establishing joint management funds with respect to joint projects approved by him, so that the total amount approved for any project may be accounted for as if the funds had been derived from a single aid program or authorization; to establish uniform rules and regulations governing the fiscal reporting of projects financed through joint management funds; to have access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to relevant records and other data of recipient States and local governments relating to moneys received from joint management funds authorized by him; and to establish a single non-Federal share for any joint project authorized by him and covered in a joint management fund.
Section 902(e) permits such heads of departments and agencies, subject to such regulations as may be established pursuant to subsection (f), to enter into agreements with States to extend the benefits of joint projects and joint management funds to cover combined applications involving not only assistance from programs administered by his department but also from those administered by one or more State agencies. In most instances, such arrangements will be restricted primarily to those program areas where Federal assistance is normally channeled through the States.
Under Section 902(f), the President is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to provide for the more effective administration of funds drawn from more than one Federal assistance program or authorization in support of Intradepartmental projects authorized by this section. While fewer administrative problems can be expected to arise in establishing meaningful departmental joint project programs than in the case of interdepartmental projects, energetic and consistent departmental efforts may not always be forthcoming -- hence, the need for this section.
Interdepartmental demonstration joint projects
Section 903 extends selectively the benefits of joint projects and joint management funding on a government-wide basis. This is done in recognition of the administrative difficulties involved in this commendable but complex undertaking. Section 903 (a) authorizes the President to approve on a demonstration basis combined applications for joint projects requiring funding from two or more Federal assistance programs administered by more than one Federal department or agency.
Section 903 (b) gives to the President with respect to interdepartmental projects authorities comparable to those assigned to heads of departments and agencies under Section 902(b), (c), (d), and (e). This is done in order to facilitate the development of the necessary capability in the Executive Office of the President for processing and administering interdepartmental joint projects and joint management funds.
Section 903(c) authorizes the President to establish rules and regulations requiring the delegation by heads of Federal departments and agencies to other departments and agencies of project or program approval authority insofar as it involves programs or classes of programs included in an interdepartmental joint project(s). Without this authority, it is doubtful whether the goals of this section can be achieved. Such rules and regulations may also call for the delegation to other Federal departments and agencies of powers relating to the supervision of Federal assistance programs. These rules and regulations are conditioned by the proviso that they must be appropriate to assure that the powers and functions delegated are utilized in full conformity with applicable statutory provisions or policies.
Section 903(d) is geared to permitting establishment of joint management funds on an interdepartmental basis. Accordingly, the President is authorized to make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with other applicable law, governing the setting up of joint management funds involving moneys derived from two or more Federal assistance programs administered by more than one Federal department or agency. These rules and regulations will assure that the necessary accounting, auditing, and other fiscal information will be made available to the departments involved, the Congress, and the Executive Office of the President. They also shall stipulate that any department or agency administering a joint fund shall be accountable for the total amount provided for the purposes of each account established in the fund and shall practice accounting and auditing policies consistent with new Title VII. Such rules and regulations may include procedures for determining on a periodic basis whether amounts in the account are in excess of those required, for returning that excess to participating agencies according to an equitable distribution formula, and for making returns to applicable appropriations, subject to fiscal year limitations.
Section 903(e) requires the President to submit annually to Congress a report evaluating the progress in accomplishing the purposes of this title. This report will be submitted every January beginning with the first January following the end of the first fiscal year after the effective date of this section.
Section 903 (f) underscores the demonstration nature of this entire section. Consequently, individual interdepartmental joint projects initiated under its authority must not exceed 100 in any one fiscal year nor exceed 250 during the three year life of this section.
The final subsection stipulates that this section will become effective 120 days following the date of enactment and will expire three years after it has become effective. Such expiration, however, shall not affect the administration of interdepartmental joint projects previously approved.
Funding and personnel availability
Section 904(a) is designed to help provide technical assistance to State and local governments involved in developing combined applications for joint projects. Under it, appropriations available to any Federal aid program for technical assistance or personnel training may be made available for the provision of such assistance in connection with joint projects involving that program and any other Federal aid program. In addition, the personnel of any Federal agency (pursuant to Section 904(b)) may be detalled from time to time, where necessary, to other agencies to assist in processing combined applications or in administering approved joint projects.
The authority of the Comptroller General of the United States
Section 905 states that the Comptroller General of the United States shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of recipients of intradepartmental or interdepartmental joint projects relating to moneys received from joint management funds for the purpose of GAO audit and examination.
Effective date
Section 402 states that sections 902 and 903 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, as added by section 401 of this Act, shall become effective one hundred and twenty days after the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE V-CONGRESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Section 501 of this Act amends the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 by adding a new subsection at the end of Section 601. This amendment is designed to strengthen Congressional review procedures for grants-in-aid enacted on or after January 3, 1971 and having termination provisions of three or more years. During the year preceding the date on which the program authority is to expire, the relevant substantive Committees of Congress, either separately or jointly, will conduct studies of the program and advise their respective Houses of their findings with special reference to the factors cited in Section 601(a) (1), (2), (3), and (4). The Committee report will be filed with the respective Houses not later than one hundred and twenty days before the program is slated to expire.
Section 502 amends Title VI of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 by adding two new sections following Section 603 and appropriately renumbering Section 604. The first of these new sections authorizes establishment of the position of review specialist on each standing committee of the Senate and House responsible for the review, study, and oversight of two or more assistance programs. This additional professional staff member will be selected and appointed by the Chairman of the standing committee with prior approval of the ranking minority member. He would serve on a permanent basis, without regard to political affiliation, and solely on the basis of professional competence. His basic assignment would be to assist the Committee in its performance of functions assigned by this title and he would be under the joint direction of the Chairman and the ranking minority member.
The second new section (Section 605) is geared to strengthening Executive Branch oversight with respect to Federal assistance programs. Under it, heads of Federal departments and agencies administering more than one program would submit annually a report to Congress and the President on the operations of these programs, beginning with the first fiscal year following the date of enactment. These departmental reports among other things would cover the progress and effectiveness of administrative efforts to carry out the programs' statutory goals; the consultative procedures utilized under each program to afford recipient governments a chance to review and comment on proposed administrative regulations and basic program changes; the various intradepartmental and interdepartmental arrangements for achieving proper headquarters-field program coordination; efforts to simplify and make more uniform application forms and procedures as well as fiscal reporting and auditing requirements; the feasibility of consolidating functionally related assistance programs; the practicability of delegating more administrative authority -- including project or program approval power -- to departmental field offices; whether the purpose, management, administrative procedures and requirements in such programs should be changed; and the degree to which such programs are meeting the growing and changing needs they were initially designed to support.
This new section (Section 605) concludes with the requirement that the President shall submit a summary report on these various departmental studies not later than January 31 of each year following the first fiscal year after the date of enactment. This report would be a synthesis of the materials presented in the various departmental studies and would stress the broad problems confronting grants-in-aid as effective government-wide devices for intergovernmental cooperation. Presidential proposals for reform might well be a concluding feature of this report.