February 8, 1973
Page 3991
By Mr. MUSKIE (for himself and Mr. GURNEY)
S. 834. A bill to improve the financial management of Federal assistance programs to facilitate the consolidation of such programs; to provide 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. Referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT OF 1973
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit today, for appropriate reference, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1973, a bill designed to improve the financial management of Federal assistance programs; to facilitate the consolidation of such programs; to provide 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; to extend and amend the law relating to intergovernmental cooperation; and to extend and amend the law relating to intergovernmental personnel. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD immediately following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, last year the Office of Management and Budget identified at least 520 congressional authorizations for grant-in-aid programs. It also discovered some 1,060 separate programs totaling $43.5 billion. Taken by themselves, these numbers and dollar amounts are disconcerting. Taking into consideration the fact that they do not include direct Federal disbursements to individuals in such forms as social security or unemployment compensation payments, the figures are staggering. What they imply in terms of red tape, bureaucratic fiefdoms, and overall confusion should be clear.
And Congress, as the father of these categorical programs, has the responsibility to provide new and better tools to improve their management.
Last fall, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, I sent questionnaires on the Federal grant system to over 2,000 city officials in communities all over the country. The questionnaires were mailed to two separate groups: small- and medium-sized communities with populations under 100,000, and large cities with populations over 100,000. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of one of these questionnaires appear in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the questionnaire was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Please list the following characteristics of your community:
a. Population
b. Form of government (mayor, counsel, manager, etc.)
c. Name and title of chief administrative officer
d. Dates of your fiscal year and of the term of the highest elected official
e. Number of full time, professional, city employees
2. What is your community's budget for the current fiscal year?
3. What are your principal sources of revenue (list the percentage of revenue you receive from property tax, sales tax, income tax, State aid, Federal aid, etc.) ?
4. How much Federal assistance does your community receive? List the five major sources of Federal assistance, excluding welfare.
5. Do you believe there is too much red tape in applying for Federal assistance, and, if so, has Federal red tape ever discouraged or prevented your community from undertaking a program that you believed necessary or worthwhile? Please list specific examples.
6. Has your community participated in programs under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act? Does your community need more professional expertise in order to apply for Federal assistance? (List examples of special problems such as the need for information more complex than you can provide, and be specific about what kind of professional expertise you could use.)
7. Do you have a representative in Washington to help you seek out Federal money?
8. Do you feel the current Federal system of furnishing assistance in the form of categorical grants (grants for a specific purpose such as water and sewer grants or anti-poverty grants) prevents you from using Federal money in a manner which is best for your community?
9. Would you favor Federal assistance coming to your community in the form of block grants or revenue sharing rather than as categorical grants?
10. How do you plan to use the assistance your community will receive under the new revenue sharing program?
11. With the advent of revenue sharing, do you believe it would be desirable for the Federal Government to cut back its categorical grants programs?
12. Does your community belong to a metropolitan, county or other regional planning agency, and, if so, does that agency have veto power over your grant applications for Federal assistance?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the overwhelming majority of the city officials who have responded to the questionnaire confirm that they frequently experience great frustration and long delays in applying for Federal assistance. They bolster our belief that the current system of administering Federal grants-in-aid is riddled with red tape through confused, complicated, and sometimes conflicting Federal guidelines that tax both the patience and the expertise of overburdened local officials. Some of the responses are particularly illuminating.
The city manager of a small Texas community described his frustrating problems in trying to obtain Federal aid for a new sewer system:
It took us approximately a year to obtain approval of the grant by the Texas Water Quality Board. It is now in the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency. Every few days they write for more information, and there is every indication that this grant could be delayed as much as a year. We actually have raw sewage flowing in the streets at the present time, so if your committee can come up with some way of assistance in expediting these grants, it would be a godsend.
Mr. President, this type of situation is unfortunately repeated in cities and towns all over the country. I fear that we may rapidly be reaching the point where the Federal Government's capability to give local governments the assistance they need is being outdistanced by its capacity to create paperwork and delay.
The mayor of a New Jersey city put it this way:
There is too much red tape in all Federal programs. The applications require too much data and information. In many cases if we actually had all the data required by the application, we wouldn't need the grant we are applying for. The red tape never discouraged us from applying for funding, however, we find we spend an inordinate amount of time filling out applications when we could be working on these specific programs.
The manager of a Connecticut town cited two examples of Federal confusion that would be amusing if we were not talking about the capacity of our governments to govern:
Two specific examples of almost farcical federal behavior were experienced by the town with HUD programs. One involved the mythical Legacy of Parks program which apparently was a presidential publicity gimmick. The town applied but there were no forms. By the time some forms were available, the program did not exist. The second involved the HUD sewer facilities grant program. The town applied first in the middle sixties when the program was new. It was one of the first applications in the state. Political pressure was exerted to move two towns ahead of (us), and the word was the appropriation was exhausted ... The town, however, went ahead at its own expense. A year later, out of the blue, a publicity release in the local newspaper announced a wonderful sewer grant ... No advance notice was given to the town. Of course, the town was no longer available for the grant as it had proceeded to build the sewer system.
Obviously, this kind of red tape and delay is intolerable, and we must move to eliminate it. But eliminating red tape and streamlining our categorical assistance programs does not mean that the categorical grant system should be abandoned. In this conclusion, the mayors of some of our largest cities were agreed. A typical answer to the question, "With the advent of revenue sharing, do you believe it would be desirable for the Federal Government to cut back its categorical programs?" drew this response:
No, the categorical programs provide vitally needed revenues to the City to provide specific services. If these categorical programs are replaced with bloc grants enabling the City to program its efforts in the respective problem area, then we would favor fewer categorical programs.
However, any replacement must be at least on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
Another typical response was:
The goal to be achieved through revenue sharing has no relationship with the goals to be achieved through the categorical grant program. An example is that I should not expect revenue sharing would accelerate the construction of waste treatment plants or solid waste disposal systems, however, I am confident that a strong categorical grant program would achieve this national goal. It is my conclusion then that categorical grant programs should not be curtailed because of revenue sharing, but should be continued according to the national goals as set by Congress.
Mr. President, during the past few years, the executive branch has taken some positive steps to simplify the flow of Federal aid money to local governments through administrative experiments such as HUD's planned variations and Chief Executive's review and comment – CERC – in model cities and annual arrangements. And in keeping with the dictates of the "new federalism," the administration has begun to decentralize some Federal programs to permit regional officers to make basic decisions on funding Federal programs. Insofar as regionalism actually cuts red tape and thereby speeds up the funding process, this idea could be a constructive one.
However, the results of regionalization to date are not totally convincing to me. The mayor of a large city where one of the new Federal regional offices is located has complained to me that his communication with that agency was actually better when it was located hundreds of miles away than now when it is located across town. He commented:
The City ... often wonders if the Federal agency has misplaced the City's address and phone number. There is often a lack of communication and responsiveness on the part of the Federal agency ... In effect ... (decentralization) has created delay, frustration and disappointment by local units.
The administration has also instituted 10 Federal Regional Council's – FRC's – whose stated mission is better interagency coordination of Federal programs. Again, the record is very mixed, and there is disturbing evidence that FRC's may be a long way from fulfilling their goal.
But, Mr. President, I fear that the President's recent actions – particularly as outlined in the new budget – negate any earlier positive thrusts.
If Mr. Nixon has his way, OEO, model cities, and urban renewal will be no more. Major health programs, including regional medical planning, comprehensive health service grants, community mental health facilities, and maternal and child health services, will be eliminated. The emergency employment program will be abandoned, and vocational education is slated for heavy cuts. And the list goes on.
What concerns me is the extra burden that wholesale cutbacks in Federal social programs will place on State and local governments.
If the Federal Government is to slash categorical aid for disadvantaged schoolchildren, for vocational education, even for school milk programs, does that mean that the widely recognized need for such help has disappeared? It does not. It only shifts the pressure to fund such programs out of Washington and onto State and local governments.
If the Federal Government is to shrink its efforts to train and place the unemployed, does that mean joblessness – and the local consequences, including higher crime rates and welfare costs – will wither away? It does not.
If the Federal Government is to restrict its funding for local sewage waste treatment projects, does that mean our Nation's rivers have suddenly reverted to purity? It does not.
If the Federal Government is to abandon its experiment in direct aid to community mental health facilities or force elderly medicare recipients to scrape up more money they do not have to meet steadily rising medical costs, does that mean sick people will be better cared for? It does not.
What this does mean is that the demand to finance these same, enduring obligations will be made now on local financial structures that are already ill-equipped to meet existing burdens. This is not tax saving. It is tax shifting. Apparently, the new federalism means that State government, or local government, or those least able to bear the costs, will have to pay the bills.
In place of some of these categorical programs which he would eliminate, the President asks for four special revenue programs in manpower, education, law enforcement, and community development. The concept of special revenue sharing, with less red tape and fewer strings attached to Federal grants, may be attractive to State and local governments at first blush.
However, I am not convinced that special revenue sharing is a panacea for our intergovernmental problems. Nor am I any more convinced that wholesale abandonment of our categorical grant programs will provide the right kind of relief to our overburdened local governments. I am troubled by the prospect of special revenue-sharing money going to the most powerful – and that means, by and large, the most privileged – elements in every local power structure while the needs of the least advantaged citizens – the jobless veterans, the poorest ghetto dwellers, the old and the ill, the school-aged children – go unmet and underfunded. There is no reason to believe that special revenue sharing will provide more money to our States and cities. In fact, it is possible that the end result may be less money.
Mr. President, for all its shortcomings, the categorical grant system has two overriding advantages. First, it has provided the Federal Government with a handle to assure that basic national goals – like equal opportunity – are met. Second, categorical grants have permitted the Federal Government to target special resources on the most disadvantaged areas and on those people – like the poor, the elderly, and minorities – most in need of extra assistance. There is ample evidence that local political pressures may make it extremely difficult for local governments to maintain these twin efforts.
I do not argue with the President that some Federal programs may have outlived their usefulness and that others need revitalization and revamping. But I fear that President Nixon, in his zeal to reduce Government spending and return power to the people, may be in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
My own response – faced with the legitimate call for a more efficient Federal structure and for greater attention to the capacities of local government to judge and meet local needs – is to reform the grant process, not junk it. The record of our finest Great Society programs is a record of progress – not of instant success, not of full elimination of pervasive social ills – but above all, not a record of failure.
Moreover, special revenue sharing, I honestly fear, may become just a distorted and diffuse way of "throwing money at problems," with increased danger of putting the money into the wrong pockets and losing its targeted impact on our real, national demands.
I do believe that we can and must streamline our assistance programs, and this is exactly what the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1973 would do. It is a modest bill. It proposes no massive new Federal programs. It authorizes no vast new expenditures of Federal money.
What it does propose is congressional authorization for a trimmer more efficient, more rational Federal grant system.
This new bill is very similar to legislation considered and passed by the Senate last fall.
Unfortunately, that legislation died because of the failure of the House to act on it.
Specifically, this legislation would:
First. Permit the President to seek congressional approval to consolidate Federal grant-in-aid programs within the same functional areas through a procedure similar to Executive reorganization plans;
Second. Permit States and local governments to submit combined applications for joint grant-in- aid projects which require funding from two or more Federal programs;
Third. Allow States and local governments to use simplified auditing and accounting procedures in reporting on their Federal grant projects;
Fourth. Establish a new procedure for congressional oversight of Federal grant-in-aid programs through new review specialist positions on each standing committee of the House and Senate;
Fifth. Insure that State governments obtain full and complete information on the amount and purpose of all Federal aid dollars spent in their State; and
Sixth. Amend the Intergovernmental Personnel Act to permit a new program of Federal-State fellows and Federal-urban fellows.
Mr. President, on February 21 the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations will begin a wide-ranging series of hearings on the federal system. In holding these hearings, the subcommittee will consider the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act and related legislation.
Beyond the immediate legislation at hand, the subcommittee hopes to investigate the implications of the new federalism on intergovernmental relations. We want to learn about other proposals to streamline the current categorical grant system. In field hearings and in Washington, we shall seek the advice and guidance of Governors, mayors, county officials and others who have day-to-day experience on the receiving end of the Federal grant program. We intend to explore general revenue sharing at work. We expect to invite administration witnesses to testify on "new federalism" in action. We shall ask detailed questions about the President's special revenue-sharing proposals.
In holding these hearings, Mr. President, I am acting on the basic assumption that the way to strengthen our federal system does not lie in wholesale scuttling of categorical grants, or in Washington's abandoning its commitment to pursue broad national goals in favor of turning power – and responsibility – over to State and local governments.
Revitalizing the federal system, must be a two-way street. It must entail a willingness on the part of both the Congress and the executive branch to reexamine the categorical grant system; a willingness to eliminate those programs which may have outlived their usefulness or been proven failures; a willingness on the part of congressional committees to stop authorizing new categorical programs when similar programs with the same goals already exist; a willingness on the part of the executive branch constantly to review ways and means to cut red tape.
It also must involve a willingness on the part of State and local governments to modernize their own governmental institutions; a willingness to rewrite outmoded constitutions ; a willingness to reform antiquated tax structures which frequently impose disproportionate burdens on those least able to afford them.
Mr. President, nothing should be more important to the 93d Congress than legislation designed to give Federal, State, and local governments the means to function more rationally, more responsibly or more responsively. I do not maintain that the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1973 is the final answer to our efforts to streamline Federal grants, nor do I think it is a perfect bill. But I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as our colleagues in the House. to consider this legislation and to join with me in seeking new and imaginative ways to improve the effectiveness of our federal system.
EXHIBIT 1
S. 834
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act be cited as the "Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1973".
TITLE I – ACCOUNTING, AUDITING, AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUNDS
SEC. 101. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098; 42 U.S.C. 4201) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title:
"TITLE VII – ACCOUNTING, AUDITING, AND OTHER ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUNDS
"STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
"SEC. 701. It is the purpose of this title to encourage simplification and standardization and financial and other administrative requirements of Federal assistance programs, to promote among Federal agencies administering such programs, accounting and auditing policies that rely on State and local financial management control systems meeting certain standards, and to authorizing the issuance of principles, and standards governing the auditing of Federal assistance programs.
"MORE UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS
"SEC. 702. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President shall, to the extent feasible, promulgate rules and regulations simplifying and making more uniform the financial and other administrative requirements imposed by Federal agencies on recipients under Federal assistance programs.
"STANDARDS OF AUDITING TO BE DEVELOPED
"SEC. 703. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall develop, issue, maintain, and interpret standards of auditing for the guidance of Federal agencies, State and local governments, and independent public accountants, engaged in the review and audit of Federal assistance programs. Such standards shall serve the purpose of providing guidance to the Federal Government and State and local governments but shall not be construed as relieving such governments of the responsibility for the effective administration of their audit program.
"(b) The Comptroller General shall, in the course of carrying out his audit responsibilities, consider and report to the Congress on the utilization made by Federal agencies of the audits performed by State and local governments, or independent public accountants, and on the implementation of the standards issued pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
"(c) The Comptroller General shall from time to time make such recommendations to the Federal agencies administering Federal assistance programs as he determines desirable to assist such agencies in complying with the provisions of this title and any regulations or principles and standards of auditing prescribed pursuant thereto.
"FEDERAL AGENCIES' RELIANCE ON THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS OF STATES AND THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
"SEC. 704. (a) Federal agencies administering Federal assistance programs shall adopt accounting and auditing policies that, to the maximum extent feasible, rely on evaluation of internal or independent accounting and audits of such programs performed by or for States and units of local government without performing a duplicate audit unless deemed necessary.
"(b) Heads of such agencies shall determine the adequacy of the internal financial management control systems employed by recipient jurisdictions, including but not restricted to a determination of (1) whether reports are prepared in accordance with applicable requirements and are supported by accounting and other records; (2) whether audits are carried out with adequate coverage and in accordance with the auditing principles and standards issued pursuant to section 703(a); and (3) whether the auditing function is performed on a timely basis by a qualified staff which is sufficiently independent of program operations to permit a comprehensive and objective auditing performance.
"(c) Where such control systems are found to be acceptable, heads of such agencies shall, in the absence of substantial reasons to the contrary, authorize an evaluation of audits performed under such systems to determine their acceptability in lieu of audits which otherwise would be required to be performed by such agencies. Where the agency determines that audits performed under financial management control systems are acceptable, it will not perform duplicate audits. Where the agency does not accept audits performed under such systems in lieu of its audits, such agency shall make whatever audits are necessary to assure that the Federal funds are expended for the purpose of the Federal assistance program involved.
"(d) Periodic review and testing of the operations under such control systems shall be undertaken by such agencies to verify the continuing acceptability of the systems for the purposes of subsection (c) of this section.
"(e) Each Federal agency administering a Federal assistance program shall encourage greater cooperation with the personnel operating the internal financial management control systems of recipient jurisdictions by maintaining continuous liaison with such personnel, collaborating in accounting systems development and the interchange of audit standards and objectives and collaboration in the development of audit programs.
"(f) Each such agency administering more than one Federal assistance program shall, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, coordinate and make uniform the auditing requirements of individual programs.
"(g) Each Federal agency administering a Federal assistance program shall, to the extent feasible, establish cross-servicing arrangements with other Federal agencies administering Federal assistance programs under which one such agency would conduct the audits for another.
"(h) The Office of Management and Budget, or such other agency as may be designated by the President, is hereby authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as are deemed appropriate for the effective administration of this section including coordination in the field.
"NO DIMINUTION OF AUTHORITY OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL
"SEC. 705. Nothing in this title shall be construed to diminish the authorities and responsibilities of the Comptroller General of the United States under existing law."
TITLE II – CONSOLIDATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. (a) Title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting the following immediately after chapter 9 of such title 5:
"CHAPTER 10 – FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION
"Sec.
"1001. Purpose.
"1002. Definitions.
"1003. Federal assistance program consolidation plans.
"1004. Limitations on powers.
"1005. Effective date and publication of consolidation plans.
"1006. Effect on other laws and regulations.
"1007. Rules of Senate and House of Representatives on consolidation plans.
"§ 1001. Purpose
"(a) The President shall from time to time examine the various Federal assistance programs provided by law and with respect to such programs shall determine what consolidations are necessary or desirable to accomplish one or more of the following purposes:
"(1) to promote better administration and more effective planning;
"(2) to improve coordination;
"(3) to eliminate overlapping and duplication; and
"(4) to promote economy and efficiency to the fullest extent consistent with the achievement of program goals.
"§ 1002. Definitions
"For the purpose of this chapter
"(1) 'agency' means
"(A) an Executive agency or part thereof; and
"(B) an office or officer in the executive branch;
"(2) 'officer' is not limited by section 2104 of this title;
"(3) 'Federal assistance' or 'Federal assistance program' means any assistance provided by an agency in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, property, contracts (except those for the procurement of goods and services for the Government of the United States), or technical assistance, whether the recipients are a State or local government, their agencies, including school or other special districts created by or pursuant to State law, or public, quasi-public, or private institutions, associations, corporations, individuals, or other persons; and
"(4) 'consolidation plan' means any Federal assistance consolidation plan proposed under section 1003 of this title.
"§ 1003. Federal assistance program consolidation plans
"(a) When the President, after investigation, finds that a consolidation of Federal assistance programs is necessary or desirable to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 1001(a) of this title, he shall prepare a Federal assistance consolidation plan for the making of program consolidations, and shall transmit the plan (bearing an identification number) to the Congress, together with a declaration that, with respect to the consolidation included in the plan, he has found that the consolidation is necessary or desirable to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 1001(a) of this title and a declaration as to how each program included in the plan is functionally related.
"(b) Each such consolidated plan so transmitted
"(1) shall place responsibility for administration of the consolidated program in a single agency;
"(2) shall specify in detail the terms and conditions under which the Federal assistance programs included in the plan shall be administered, including but not limited to matching, apportionment, and other formulas, interest rates, and planning, eligibility, and other requirements; except that the President shall, in selecting applicable terms and conditions, be limited by the range of terms and conditions already included in the Federal assistance programs being consolidated;
"(3) shall specify the date of expiration of the consolidated plan and all the Federal assistance programs which have been included, except that in selecting the expiration date the President shall not specify a date which is earlier than the earliest or later than the latest expiration date of any of the Federal assistance programs being consolidated and in no case shall the expiration date of the consolidated plan be any longer than 5 years from the date the consolidated plan becomes effective;
"(4) shall set forth in the message transmitting the plan to the Congress the difference between the terms and conditions of the individual Federal assistance programs to be consolidated under the plan and those that will be applicable after the plan goes into effect, and shall also set forth the reasons for selecting such terms and conditions.
"(c) The President shall have a consolidation plan delivered to both Houses on the same day and to each House while it is in session, except that no consolidation plan may be delivered within 30 calendar days following the delivery of a previous plan in the same functional area.
"§ 1004. Limitations on powers
"(a) A consolidation plan may not provide for, and may not have the effect of, (1) consolidating any Federal assistance programs which are not in the same functional area, (2) providing any type of Federal assistance included in such a consolidation plan to any recipient who was not eligible for Federal assistance under any of the programs included in the consolidation plan, (3) excluding from eligibility under the consolidation plan any recipient who was eligible for Federal assistance under any of the programs included in the consolidation plan, or (4) transferring responsibility for the administration of the program or programs contained in a consolidation plan in an agency, office, or officer who was not responsible for the administration of one or more such programs prior to the taking effect of the consolidation plan.
"(b) Each consolidation plan shall provide for only one consolidation of two or more Federal assistance programs.
"(c) A provision contained in a consolidation plan may take effect only if the plan is transmitted to Congress before October 31, 1974. Section 905(b) of this title shall not limit any consolidation plan prepared under this chapter.
"§ 1005. Effective date and publication of consolidation plans
"(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this section, a consolidation plan shall become effective on the first day of the first month commencing after the expiration of the first period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress after the date on which the plan is transmitted to it unless, between the date of transmittal and the end of the 60-day period, either House passes a resolution stating in substance that the House does not favor the plan.
"(b) For the purposes of subsection (a) of this section
"(1) continuity of session is broken only by adjournment of Congress sine die; and
"(2) the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain shall be excluded in the computation of the 60-day period.
"(c) Under provisions contained in a grant consolidation plan, a provision of the plan may become effective at a time later than the date on which such plan otherwise is effective.
"(d) A consolidation plan which becomes effective shall be printed (1) in the Statutes at Large in the same volume as the public laws and (2) in the Federal Register.
"§ 1006. Effect on other laws and regulations
"(a) To the extent that any provision of a consolidation plan which becomes effective under this chapter is inconsistent with any provision of any statute enacted prior to the effective date of the plan, the provision of the consolidation plan shall control, to the extent that such plan specifies the provision of the statute to be superseded.
"(b) Any regulation, rule, order, policy, determination, directive, authorization, permit, privilege, requirement or other action made prescribed, issued, granted, or performed with respect to any matter affected by a consolidation plan which becomes effective under this chapter shall be deemed to be modified to the extent of any inconsistency thereof with the consolidation plan but shall otherwise continue in effect.
"(c) A suit, action, or other proceeding lawfully commenced by or against the head of any agency or other officer of the United States, in his official capacity or in relation to the discharge of his official duties, does not abate by reason of the taking effect of a consolidation plan under this chapter. On motion or supplemental petition filed at any time within twelve months after the plan takes effect, showing a necessity for a survival of the suit, action, or other proceeding to obtain a settlement of the questions involved, the court may allow the suit, action, or other proceeding to be maintained by or against the successor of the head or officer under the consolidation plan or, if there is no successor, against such agency or officer as the President designates.
"(d) A consolidation plan may provide for transfers of appropriations or other budget authority in such manner that the aggregate amount of appropriations and other budget authority available for carrying out the Federal assistance programs involved in such plan shall be available for any or all such programs; and the aggregate amount of authorizations of appropriations or other budget authority for such programs shall be deemed an authorization of appropriations and other budget authority for any or all of such programs. The appropriations or portions of appropriations unexpended by reason of operation of this chapter may not be used for any purpose, but shall revert to the Treasury.
"§ 1007. Rules of Senate and House of Representatives on consolidation plans
"(a) This section is enacted by the Congress
" (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House with respect to consolidation plan resolutions referred to in subsection (b) of this section; and it supersedes other rules to the extent that it is inconsistent therewith; and
"(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
"(b) The provisions of sections 910-913 of this title shall apply, with respect to a consolidation plan and, for such purposes–
"(1) all references in such sections to a 'reorganization plan' shall be treated as referring to a 'Federal assistance program consolidation plan', and
"(2) all reference in such sections to 'resolution' shall be treated as referring to a resolution of either House of the Congress, the matter after the resolving clause which is as follows: "That the ____does not favor the Federal assistance program consolidation plan numbered ___transmitted to the Congress by the President on 19__’. The first blank therein being filled with the name of the resolving House and the other blank spaces therein being appropriately filled.
"(b) The table of chapters of part I of title 5, United States Code, immediately preceding chapter 1, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item: "10. Federal Assistance Program Consolidation
"1001. TITLE III – JOINT FUNDING SIMPLIFICATION
SEC. 301. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098; 42 U.S.C. 4201) is further amended by adding after title VII, as added by section 101 of this Act, the following new title:
VIII – JOINT FUNDING SIMPLIFICATION
"STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
"SEC. 801. The purpose of this title is to enable States, local governments, and other public or private organizations to use Federal assistance programs more effectively and efficiently, to adapt such programs more readily to their particular needs through the wider use of joint projects drawing upon resources available from more than one Federal program, appropriation, or agency and to acquire experience which would lead to the development of legislative proposals respecting the consolidation, simplification, and coordination of Federal assistance programs. It is further the purpose of this title to facilitate the development of joint project and joint funding arrangements at the national level by giving primary emphasis to those arrangements involving intradepartmental actions and by placing interdepartmental joint projects and management funds on an experimental and limited demonstration basis.
"INTRADEPARTMENTAL JOINT PROJECTS
"SEC. 802. (a) The head of every Federal agency administering two or more Federal assistance programs is authorized to approve combined applications for joint projects requiring funding from two or more such programs administered by his agency.
"(b) To develop the necessary Federal agency capability to achieve the purposes of section 801, the head of such agency, among other actions shall
"(1) identify related programs within his agency likely to be particularly suitable or appropriate for providing combined support for specific kinds of joint projects:
"(2) promulgate guidelines, model or illustrative joint projects, common application forms, and other materials of guidance to assist in the planning and development of joint projects drawing support from different Federal assistance programs;
"(3) review program requirements established administratively within his agency in order to determine which of those requirements may impede combined support of joint projects and the extent to which these may be appropriately modified and make modifications accordingly;
"(4) apply common technical or administrative rules among Federal assistance programs administered by his agency to assist in the support of specific joint projects or classes of joint projects;
"(5) create joint or common application processing and project supervision procedures or mechanisms including procedures for designating a lead office or unit to be responsible for processing of applications and supervising joint projects approved by him; and
"(6) promulgate common accounting, auditing, and financial reporting procedures that will facilitate establishment of fiscal and program accountability with respect to joint projects aided by Federal assistance programs administered by his agency.
"(c) Where appropriate to further the purposes of this title, and subject to the conditions prescribed under subsection (f) of this section, the head of every Federal agency administering two or more Federal assistance programs may adopt uniform provisions respecting
"(1) inconsistent or conflicting departmental or agency requirements relating to financial administration, including accounting, auditing, and fiscal reporting, but only to the extent consistent with the provisions of clauses (2), (3), (4), and (5) of subsection (d) of this section;
"(2) inconsistent or conflicting agency requirements relating to the timing of Federal payments where a single or combined schedule is to be established for the joint projects as a whole;
"(3) inconsistent or conflicting agency requirements that assistance be extended in the form of a grant rather than a contract, or a contract rather than a grant;
"(4) inconsistent or conflicting agency requirements for merit personnel systems, but only to the extent that the joint project contemplated would cause those requirements to be applied to programs or projects administered by recipient agencies not otherwise subject to such requirements;
"(5) inconsistent or conflicting agency requirements relating to accountability for, or the disposition of, property or structures acquired or constructed with Federal assistance where common rules are to be established for the joint project as a whole; and
"(6) other inconsistent or conflicting agency requirements of an administrative or technical nature as defined in regulations authorized by subsection (f) of this section.
"(d) To further carry out the purposes of this title, the head of every Federal agency administering two or more Federal assistance programs
"(1) may provide for review of combined applications for joint projects of his agency by a single panel, board, or committee in lieu of review by separate panels, boards, or committees when such review would otherwise be required by law;
"(2) may prescribe rules and regulations for the establishment of joint management funds with respect to joint projects approved by him so that the total amount approved by any such project may be accounted for through a joint management fund as if the funds had been derived from a single Federal assistance program or appropriation; and such rules and regulations shall provide that there will be advanced to the joint management fund from each affected appropriation its proportionate share of amounts needed for payment to the grantee and amounts remaining in the hands of the grantee at the completion of the joint project shall be returned to the joint management fund;
"(3) may promulgate rules and regulations governing the financial reporting of joint projects financed through joint management funds established pursuant to this section; and such reports shall, as a minimum, fully disclose the amount and disposition of Federal assistance received by recipient States and local governments, the total cost of the joint project in connection with which such Federal assistance was given or used, the amount of that portion of the cost of the joint project supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective joint project audit;
"(4) shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and records of recipient States and local governments that are pertinent to the moneys received from joint management funds authorized by him; and
"(5) may establish a single non-Federal share for any joint project, authorized by him and covered in a joint management fund, according to the Federal share ratios applicable to the several Federal assistance programs involved and the proportion of funds transferred to the joint project account from each of those programs.
"(e) Subject to such regulations as may be established pursuant to subsection (f) of this section, the head of every Federal agency administering two or more Federal assistance programs may enter into agreements with States or appropriate State agencies to extend the benefits of this title to joint projects involving assistance from his agency and one or more State agencies. These agreements may include arrangements for the processing of requests for, or the administration of, assistance to such projects on a joint basis. They may also include provisions involving the establishment of uniform technical or administrative requirements, as authorized by this section. Such agreements ordinarily will focus on those program areas wherein Federal assistance is normally channeled through the States.
"(f) In order to provide for the more effective administration of funds drawn from more than one Federal assistance program or authorization in support of intradepartmental joint projects authorized under this section and to assure energetic and more uniform departmental and agency administration of the functions authorized by this section, the President may prescribe such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to achieve these purposes.
"INTERDEPARTMENTAL DEMONSTRATION JOINT PROJECTS
"SEC. 803. (a) In order to extend selectively the benefits of joint projects and joint management funding on a governmentwide basis and in recognition of the administrative difficulties involved in this undertaking, the President is authorized 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 agency.
"(b) In order to develop the necessary capability within the Executive Office of the President or achieving the purpose of this section, those responsibilities and authorities assigned to heads of Federal agencies with reference to intradepartmental joint projects under subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) of section 802 shall be exercised by the President in the case of interdepartmental demonstration joint projects.
"(c) To facilitate the expeditious processing of applications for interdepartmental demonstration joint projects or their effective administration, the President is authorized to establish rules and regulations requiring the delegation by heads of Federal agencies to other such agencies of any powers relating to approval, under this section, of projects or classes of projects under an interdepartmental demonstration joint project, if such delegation will promote the purposes of such project. Such rules and regulations may also provide for the delegation to other Federal agencies of powers relating to the supervision of administration of Federal assistance, or stipulate other arrangements for other agencies to perform such activities, with respect to projects or classes of projects subject to this section. Delegations authorized by such rules and regulations shall be made only on such conditions as may be appropriate to assure that the powers and functions delegated are exercised in full conformity with applicable statutory provisions or policies.
"(d) To facilitate the establishment of joint management funds on an interdepartmental basis, any account in a joint management fund involving money derived from two or more Federal assistance programs administered by more than one Federal agency shall be subject to such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with other applicable law, as the President may establish with re
spect to the discharge of the responsibilities of affected agencies. Such rules and regulations shall assure the availability of necessary information, including requisite accounting and auditing information, to those agencies, to the Congress, and to the Executive Office of the President. They shall also provide that the agency administering a joint management fund shall be responsible and accountable for the total amount provided for the purposes of each account established in the fund, and shall adhere to accounting and auditing policies consistent with title VII of this Act. They may include procedures for determining from time to time, whether amounts in the account are in excess of the amounts required, for returning that excess to participating Federal agencies in accordance with a formula providing an equitable distribution; and for effecting returns accordingly to the applicable appropriations, subject to fiscal year limitations. Excess amounts applicable to expired appropriations will be lapsed from that fund.
"(e) During the seventh month after the end of each fiscal year, starting with the first full fiscal year after the effective date of this section, the President shall submit to the Congress an evaluation of progress in accomplishing the purposes of this title.
"FUNDING AND PERSONNEL AVAILABILITY
"SEC. 804. (a) Appropriations available to any Federal assistance program for technical assistance or the training of personnel may be made available for the provision of technical assistance and training in Connection with projects approved for joint or Common funding involving that program and any other Federal assistance program.
"(b) Personnel of any Federal agency may be detailed from time to time to other agencies as necessary or appropriate to facilitate the processing of applications under this title or the administration of approved projects.
"AUTHORITY OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
"SEC. 805. For the purpose of audit and examination, the Comptroller General of the United States shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of recipients of interdepartmental and intradepartmental joint projects that are pertinent to the moneys received from joint management funds established for such projects.
"DEFINITIONS
"SEC. 806. As used in this title
"(1) 'Federal assistance' or 'Federal assistance program' means any assistance provided by an agency in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, property, contracts (except those for the procurement of goods and services for the United States Government), or technical assistance, whether the recipients are a State or local government, their agencies, including school or other special districts created by or pursuant to State law, or public, quasi-public, or private institutions, associations, corporations, individuals, or other persons; and
"(2) 'joint project' means any undertaking which includes components proposed or approved for aid under more than one Federal assistance program or appropriation or one or more Federal assistance programs or appropriations in combination with one or more State or local programs, if each of those components contributes materially to the accomplishment of a single purpose or closely related purpose."
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 302. Sections 802 and 803 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, as added by section 301 of this Act, shall become effective one hundred and twenty days after the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE IV – CONGRESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
SEC.401. Section 601 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098; 42 U.S.C. 4201) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(C) If any law enacted on or after the date of the enactment of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1972 authorizes the making of grants-in-aid over a period of three or more years, then during the period beginning not later than the twelve months immediately preceding the date on which such authority is to expire, the committees of the House and Senate to which legislation extending such authority would be referred shall, separately or jointly, conduct studies of the program under which such grants-in-aid are made and advise their respective Houses of the results of their findings with special reference to the considerations cited in clauses (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) of this section. Each such committee shall report the results of its investigation and study to its respective House not later than one hundred and twenty days before such authority is due to expire."
SEC. 402. Title VI of such Act is amended
(1) by redesignating section 604 as section 606; and
(2) by inserting immediately after section 603 the following new sections:
"CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW SPECIALISTS
"SEC. 604. Each standing committee of the Senate and House of Representatives which is responsible for the review and study, on a continuing basis, of the application, operation, administration, and execution of two or more grant-in-aid programs is entitled to employ a review specialist as a member of the professional staff of such committee in addition to the number of such professional staff to which such committee otherwise is entitled. Such specialist shall be selected and appointed by the chairman of such committee, with the prior approval of the ranking minority member, on a permanent basis, without regard to political affiliation, and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the position. Such specialist shall, under the joint direction and supervision of the chairman and the ranking minority member, assist the committee in the performance of its review functions under this title.
"REPORTS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
"SEC. 605. (a) Heads of Federal agencies administering one or more Federal assistance programs shall make a report to the President and the Congress on the operations of such programs at the end of each fiscal year, beginning with the first full fiscal year following the date of enactment of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1972. Such report shall include
"(1) the overall progress and effectiveness of administrative efforts to carry out each program's statutory goals;
"(2) the consultative procedures employed under each program to afford recipient jurisdictions an opportunity to review and comment on proposed new administrative regulations, and basic program changes;
"(3) intradepartmental and interdepartmental arrangements to assure proper coordination of headquarters and in the field with other related Federal assistance programs;
"(4) efforts and progress in simplifying and making more uniform (A) application forms and procedures, and (B) financial reporting and auditing requirements and procedures;
"(5) efforts and progress in relying on the internal or independent audits performed by or for States and political subdivisions;
"(6) the feasibility of consolidating individual Federal assistance programs with others in the same or closely related functional areas, where they exist;
"(7) the practicability of delegating more administrative discretion, including application approval authority, to field offices;
"(8) whether changes in the purpose, direction, or administration of such Federal assistance programs, or in procedures and requirements applicable thereto, should be made; and
"(9) the extent to which such programs are adequate to meet the growing and changing needs for which they were designed.
"(b) The President shall transmit to the Congress, no later than January 31 of each year, a summary report on Federal assistance activities of the preceding fiscal year. The first such report shall be transmitted not later than January 31 following the first full fiscal year following the date of enactment of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1972. Each report shall (1) summarize and analyze the findings of the department and agency reports provided in subsection (a) of this section; (2) set forth such recommendations as he may deem appropriate to convert the existing system of Federal assistance programs into a more effective vehicle for intergovernmental cooperation; and (3) such other matters that are considered pertinent."
TITLE V – MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 501. Section 201 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098; 42 U.S.C. 4201) is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 201. Any department or agency of the United States Government which administers a program of grants-in-aid to any of the State governments of the United States or to their political subdivisions shall notify in writing the governor, the State legislature, or other official designated by either, of the purpose and amount of actual grants-in-aid to the State or to its political subdivisions."
SEC. 502. Section 202 of such Act is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 202. No grant-in-aid to a State or a political subdivision shall be required by Federal law or administrative regulation to be deposited in a separate bank account apart from other funds administered by the State or political subdivision. All Federal grant-in-aid funds made available to the States or to political subdivisions shall be properly accounted for as Federal funds in the accounts of the State or of the political subdivisions. In each case the agency of the State or of the political subdivisions concerned shall render regular authenticated reports to the appropriate Federal agency covering the status and the application of the funds, the liabilities and obligations on hand, and such other facts as may be required by said Federal agency. The head of the Federal agency and the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, papers, and records that are pertinent to the grant-inaid received by the States or by the political subdivisions."
SEC. 503. Section 203 of such Act is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 203. Heads of Federal departments and agencies responsible for administering grant-in-aid programs shall schedule the transfer of grant-in-aid funds consistent with program purposes and applicable Treasury regulations, so as to minimize the time elapsing between the date of transfer of such funds from the United States Treasury and the date of disbursement thereof by a State or by a political subdivision; or between the date of disbursement by a State or by a political subdivision and the date of transfer by the United States Treasury. States and the political subdivisions shall not be held accountable for interest earned on grant-in-aid funds, pending their disbursement for program purposes."
TITLE VI – INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT AMENDMENTS
SEC. 601. Sec. 2 of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
"That the commitment, energy, and skills of younger citizens constitute an available source of talent that should be broadly utilized in the strengthening of personnel resources available to State and local governments, thereby strengthening the Federal system."
SEC. 3. Title III of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 is amended(1) by striking out
"TITLE III – TRAINING AND DEVELOPING STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES"
and inserting in lieu thereof–
"TITLE III – STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT
"PART A – TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT";
(2) by striking out of section 301 the word "title" and inserting in lieu thereof "part"; and (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new part:
"PART B – DEVELOPING ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE RESOURCES
"SEC. 321. The purpose of this part is to develop additional employee resources for State and local governments and simultaneously to create new avenues of Federal, State, and local government service for younger citizens of the United States by establishing programs of Federal-State fellows and Federal-urban fellows, and by authorizing support for related supplementary programs.
"DEFINITION
"SEC. 322. For the purpose of this part, organization' means
"(1) a national, regional, statewide, areawide, or metropolitan organization, representing member State or local governments;
"(2) an association of State or local public officials; or
"(3) a nonprofit organization, one of whose principal functions is to offer professional advisory, research, development, educational, or related services to governments.
"FEDERAL-STATE FELLOWS
"SEC. 323. (a) The Commission, or an organization designated by it, is authorized to make grants to a State to establish, develop, and carry out a Federal-State fellows program for that State. Each State program shall provide opportunities for learning and service in other work of State governments by younger citizens of the United States of diverse backgrounds. Each such program shall
" (1) emphasize the development of a group of informed and experienced citizens who, following their internship as fellows, may subsequently be available to State governments, and also to Federal and local governments, for career employment or special periodic service.
"(2) provide for the appointment of fellows from among outstanding young citizens at least twenty-one years of age;
"(3) be administered on a nonpartisan basis; and
"(4) provide for carrying out such programs by a State agency designated by the Governor or chief executive authority of the State or pursuant to an agreement with an organization (unless State law otherwise prohibits such an agreement).
"(b) The Council of State Governments shall be designated as advisers
"(1) to the States, with respect to the development of appropriate qualifications, standards, and methods of selection of fellows; and
"(2) to the Commission, with respect to the development of criteria for awarding grants to States.
"(c) Grants to a State shall be for not to exceed 75 per centum (or, with respect to fiscal years commencing after the expiration of three years following the date of enactment of this part, up to 50 per centum) of the costs of such program of that State, including
"(1) costs of stipends of not to exceed ten fellows per State a year;
"(2) administrative costs; and
"(3) related expenses as may be authorized by the Commission.
"(d) Each State shall agree to be responsible for the non-Federal share of the costs of its program. The State agency or the organization administering the Federal-State fellows program for the State may seek public or private funds to pay for the non-Federal share of the cost of its program and for educational activities designed to supplement or complement the work-service experience of fellows.
"(e) For costs incurred in connection with its advisory role, the Council of State Governments shall be reimbursed by the Commission, out of appropriations made pursuant to this Act, in such amounts as may be determined by the Commission.
"FEDERAL URBAN FELLOWS
"SEC. 324. (a) The Commission is authorized to establish, develop, and carry out a Federal urban fellows program which shall provide opportunities for learning and meaningful participation in the functioning of local government. Such program shall
"(1) recognize the common national implications of local problems and seek to build a coordinated national personnel resource for local governments;
"(2) provide for the appointment of fellows from among outstanding young persons, twenty through thirty-nine years of age, representing a variety of ethnic groups and occupational backgrounds, including the appointment of such persons from volunteer programs and community service organizations, and with business, labor, medical, teaching, community action, and other kinds of experience relevant to the needs of local governments; and
"(3) provide for the assignment of fellows, by agreements with a local government, or a local governmental or nongovernmental agency, designated by the mayor or chief executive authority of the local government.
"(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this section, the Commission shall enter into an agreement with an organization or another Federal agency to carry out such program for the Commission. If the Commission enters into such an agreement, it is authorized to reimburse such organization or agency for stipends for the fellows and administrative and other costs determined by the Commission to be related to carrying out such program. In no event, however, shall the Commission reimburse any such organization or agency for more than 75 per centum (or, with respect to fiscal years commencing after the expiration of three years following the date of enactment of this part, up to 50 per centum) of the total amount of stipends for five fellows to each local government or nongovernmental agency each year.
"(c) If the Commission determines it is not practicable to have an organization or other Federal agency carry out such program, the Commission is authorized to carry out such program by making grants directly to a local government or to a local governmental or nongovernmental agency (designated by the mayor or chief executive authority of the local government) to establish, develop, and carry out Federal-urban fellows programs of that government or agency. Any such grant shall not exceed 75 per centum (or, with respect to fiscal years commencing after the expiration of three years following the date of enactment of this part, up to 50 per centum) of (1) the costs of each such program of that local government or agency (including administrative costs and other costs authorized by the Commission to be paid out of the grants), and (2) the total amount of stipends for more than five fellows to that government or agency each year.
"(d) Each such local government or agency shall agree to be responsible (1) in the case of fellows provided by an organization or Federal agency under subsection (b) of this section, for that portion of the total amount of the stipends for fellows provided that local government or agency and not reimbursed by the Commission, or (2) in the case of a grant directly to that government or agency under subsection (c) of this section, for the non-Federal share of the costs of its program.
"(e) The local government or agency may seek public or private funds to pay the non-Federal share of the amounts of the stipends for fellows provided under subsection (b) of this section or its program under subsection (c) of this section.
"SUPPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS
"SEC. 325. (a) The Commission is authorized to make grants to States, general local governments, or combinations of governments that serve fifty thousand or more persons, or other organizations, for support of additional programs which, as determined by the Commission
"(1) are consistent with the provisions of subsection (a) of section 323 and subsection (a) of section 324 of this Act;
"(2) do not duplicate programs established under such sections;
"(3) constitute imaginative complements to those programs; and
"(4) in the case of programs proposed by organizations, have the endorsement of the appropriate State or local governments.
"(b) Grants may provide up to 75 per centum (or, with respect to fiscal years commencing after the expiration of three years following the date of enactment of this part, for up to 50 per centum) of the costs of such programs, as determined to be appropriate by the Commission, including stipends and administrative costs."