June 29, 1978
Page 19631
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. MUSKIE, and Mr. DANFORTH)
S. 3267. A bill to streamline and simplify the generally applicable requirements attached to Federal assistance programs and their implementation; to provide for multiyear funding of certain grant programs; to expedite the processing of applications for Federal assistance involving more than one grant; to extend and amend the law relating to intergovernmental cooperation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Government Affairs.
THE FEDERAL SYSTEM REFORM ACT OF 1978 AND THE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today, Senator ROTH and I are introducing two pieces of legislation (S. 3266 and S. 3267) which we believe will add significantly to the debate on the President's national urban policy begun this week in the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations.
The first bill, the Federal System Reform Act, would establish a grant program of State incentives to encourage State governments to analyze and take steps to improve their policies and programs affecting distressed local governments. That bill would also create an Office of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Executive Office of the President to administer the State incentive program and to provide a focal point for all Federal grant assistance programs.
The second bill, the Federal Assistance Paperwork Reduction Act, would streamline and make sense of our fragmented and confused system of Federal assistance programs.
Mr. President, 3 months ago, President Carter called on all of us to help him build a new partnership to conserve our cities — a working alliance of all levels of government with the private sector of our economy and with our citizens in their communities and neighborhoods.
The proposals we are introducing today go to the heart of that new partnership. They force us to address such fundamental questions as which levels of government should bear responsibility for urban programs and how we can improve the efficiency and coordination of government at all levels.
That program questions whether it is necessary or wise for the Federal Government to continue to pick up more of the tab for local governments — and the large cities in particular — while the States continue to pick up relatively less.
I do not believe it is. And that is why I consider the Federal effort to encourage the States to provide greater help to their distressed local governments to be of critical importance.
The State incentive legislation we are introducing today addresses what I view are the most fundamental issues.
It targets the benefits to the most distressed local governments which need them the most.
It sets out realistic actions that States can take to aid those communities.
It offers incentives — both monetary and otherwise — to the States to induce them to change longstanding policies affecting their cities.
And it is drafted to insure that the States which participate in this program are rewarded solely on the basis of performance and not promises.
But, if we are going to ask the States to assume a new role in helping distressed local governments, the Federal Government must do its part, too.
That means we must make our existing grant-in-aid structure more effective so that we can make better use of the resources we now spend.
Today, we have a creaking structure ofaid programs that overlap — that conflict — that are snarled in red tape and regulations — that do not keep up with changing needs — that are poorly administered — in short, a structure badly in need of renovation.
The second piece of legislation which we are introducing with Senator DANFORTH will help us start making those repairs by establishing a single office to coordinate the grant system, by reducing the regulatory burden, and by simplifying grant application procedures.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two bills be printed in the RECORD immediately following Senator ROTH's statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
THE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am introducing important legislation today with Senators EDMUND MUSKIE and JOHN DANFORTH to reform the administrative burdens that excessive paperwork and regulation imposes on State and local governments and other recipients of Federal assistance. The Federal Assistance Paperwork and Regulation Reduction Act is the product of several months of consultation and coordination among our offices and with representatives from public interest groups. I applaud the efforts of Senator DANFORTH and Senator MUSKIE and their many weeks of labor in helping to develop this important legislation.
This reform legislation was developed to address the costly and cumbersome procedures for receiving Federal domestic assistance and implementing Federal program objectives. It is sadly true today that many communities choose not to participate in the domestic assistance process because the costs and regulatory burdens outweigh the program benefits. As a consequence, many communities are becoming dropouts in the grantsmanship quest for Federal program benefits.
In my remarks today I would like to outline some of the more serious problems that have plagued domestic assistance administration and explain the approach for reform that we believe would be a significant improvement. In one sense our approach is limited in that we have tried to make improvements in the categorical system of Federal assistance. Our aim is to improve the administration of domestic assistance to recipients.
The bill has several major purposes. First, it provides for greater uniformity of program requirements that apply to grant recipients. Across-the-board requirements such as citizen participation, access to information, equal opportunity, planning, and environmental quality would be standardized so that a recipient is not asked to comply with different regulations for each administering agency.
A second major aim of the legislation is to facilitate the administration of programs by providing funding commitments one year in advance of State and local budgeting deadlines.
Third, the Joint Funding Simplification Act would be amended to facilitate greater use of funding of a single plan or program with more than one source of Federal funds.
Fourth, State or local governments could request a certification of approval from the responsible Federal agencies that they are in compliance with all crosscutting requirements applying to the grants administered by each of those agencies. Once certified, a State or local government would not be required to fulfill all the red tape regulations associated with the many crosscutting requirements. The certification would in no way allow the State or local governor units to escape their responsibility to fulfill the law; it would merely cut the red tape and paperwork in a most effective manner.
GRANTS MANAGEMENT
The haphazard administration of grant dollars to State and local governments used to be a small problem in Washington. In 1960, $7 billion was distributed to State and local governments in the form of grants and aid. Today it a big problem — the 1979 budget targets $80 billion for intergovernmental transfers to city, county, and State government. Managing this annual budget is equivalent to managing a corporation with gross sales the size of Exxon Carp and Ford Motor Co. combined. Overseeing this huge Federal grants system efficiently with a minimum of red tape and confusion has become a serious problem.
The expanded amount of Federal dollars going to the State and local governments is not the only, nor indeed the greatest, problem facing the Federal grants management system. One of the
severe problems is the increased number of Federal agencies which currently administer grant programs. The responsibility for providing assistance to State and local governments has been widely scattered. In the mid-1960's, some 123 different Federal bureaus or divisions administered one or more aid programs. In 1966, all but 2 of the then 11 Cabinet rank departments offered some form of assistance. By 1975, grant programs were offered by some 74 bureaus within 28 Federal agencies and departments. With so many Federal players involved it become quite difficult to keep track of progress and development of Federal grant procedures.
As if the number of Federal agencies were not enough, the numberFederal grant programs is even greater. Although some of the grants which previously existed have been consolidated into block grants, there are still far too many categorical grants in our Federal grants system. The number of separate grant programs for very specific purposes run by the Office of Education of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to use a startling example, is 85. Among them are grants for bilingual vocational education, media services and film loan program centers, undergraduate instructional equipment, university community services programs, and consumer and homemaking education. Other functional areas, such as health services are nearly as crowded and contain only a few less programs. The sheer volume of grants programs has made it increasingly difficult to manage the Federal grants system with a minimum of paper,delay and red tape.
The number, variety, and confusion apparent in the assistance programs system is compounded by continuing management weaknesses evidenced by the agency primarily responsible for overseeing the system, the Office of Management and Budget. Since its creation in 1921 when itwas a part of the Department of Treasury, OMB has assumed three primary duties: Budget preparation, legislative clearance, and management improvement. Through the years since its creation but especially during the reorganization efforts of 1967, 1970, and 1973, efforts were made to improve OMB's handling of the issues relating to Federal Management, including intergovernmental and interagency coordination. The symbolic representation of these efforts was the addition of the "M" to the agency's name in 1970.
Sadly, these attempts to strengthen tie management side of the agency have proved to be largely unsuccessful. The fact remains that despite official disclaimers, the agency's management activities have never come to be regarded as important as its budgetary role. Consequently, the agency has in fact had limited success and has made a limited effort to obtain full compliance with its Management initiatives. The agency, for a variety of reasons, has been lax in its enforcement of management circulars, monitors the grants management system in a largely reactive fashion, and has failed to foster greater intergovernmental cooperation in existing and newly created programs.
In sum, its efforts have not been effective in reducing the red tape and the profusion of regulations and requirements which currently saddle the Federal grants process, and its failures, added to the problems described earlier, have reduced the effectiveness and utility of grant programs.
PUBLIC SECTOR GROWTH AT STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL
Despite a decline in public sector growth in 1977, the trend during the past quarter century has been toward an unparalleled expansion of government. State and local governments have grown rapidly, as demonstrated by the nearly threefold increase in their work forces from about 4.1 million to 12.2 million between 1953 and 1976, and the nearly ten-fold increase in their own revenues during: the same period, from about $27 billion to approximately $200 billion. The roles of these governments have also expanded and diversified greatly.
While the size and scope of State and local responsibilities have grown, policy initiatives, allocational decisions, and administrative authority have increasingly been centralized at the national level. This expansion of the Federal Government's role has taken a variety of forms. In 1950, Federal grants-in-aid to State and local governments amounted to about $2.3 billion but by 1977, the total had risen to over $70 billion. An increasing amount of these grants have been in the form of general revenue sharing and block grants which now comprise almost one-fourth of what was once an entirely categorical system. These newer grants have greatly expanded the contemporary intergovernmental partnership, as virtually all State and local units are recipients of Federal aid and are, therefore, bound by the accompanying conditions and controls.
CROSS-CUTTING REQUIREMENTS
Currently, there are at least 33 crosscutting regulations routinely attached to most aid programs. Over 450 categorical grants are now funded for use by State and local governments with several hundred more remaining unfunded but still alive in statute.
The 33 so-called across-the-board or crosscutting requirements are attached, in varying forms, to almost every one of the 450 grant programs, creating an incredible hodge-podge of strings and regulations. A partial listing of such requirements would include nondiscrimination statutes and regulations, environmental protection requirements, planning and project coordination laws, labor and procurement standards, and various public participation requirements. We have four separate Federal laws covering the same public policy goal: To encourage public participation in grant programs. There are 13 separate Federal statutes that specify compliance procedures for equal opportunity and discrimination. Six separate Federal laws require grant recipients to make environmental impact assessments. Area-wide planning and program development statutes exist in 17 different forms.
My point is obvious: There are too many crosscutting strings attached to Federal grant programs.
It is clear that the crosscutting requirements attached to each grant are burdensome, difficult to comply with and often conflicting. The attached Federal strings in grant-in-aid programs have made it difficult for the States and their local governments to use available Federal moneys effectively and productively. As if all of this was not bad enough, each of these crosscutting statutes can be interpreted differently by each agency and all Federal agencies have issued their own regulations to implement the various statutes. As a result, potential grant recipients must not only know the crosscutting laws which apply to each grant program, they must also become familiar with the regulations which each agency promulgates to implement the law. And the Federal agencies which administer grant programs affecting the State and local governments can be very imaginative. It is sad but true that the bureaucracy as well as the Congress seem to be able to cut red tape in only one direction: lengthwise.
How did we let our grant system become so snarled and twisted in red tape? The general revenue sharing program illustrates just how Federal crosscutting strings have been allowed to sprout. Revenue sharing began as a program to allocate Federal moneys to local governments whose use of such funds was supposed to be largely discretionary. Cutting red tape and eliminating regulatory snags was one of the primary reasons for the creation of revenue sharing. Under the original program, each recipient government was required to follow its normal hearing procedures to assure public participation. This meant that a local government was to budget, appropriate, and spend its revenue sharing funds under the same procedural safeguards it applied to funds appropriated from its own tax revenues. In addition, local governments were required to complete one planned-use report and one actual-use report for each entitlement period, file these with the Secretary of the Treasury and publish each report.
The revenue sharing amendments of 1976 added more requirements to the act and significantly increased local regulatory burdens. Local governments are now required to hold two public hearings where no hearings were mandated previously. Each of these hearing provisions is accompanied by technically specific publication requirements. Even more disturbing, three reports are now required of local governments on an annual basis.
The original act wisely contained waiver provisions so small local governments and those receiving relatively little revenue sharing money would not be required to fulfill the burdensome reporting requirements. Sadly, the regulations issued by the Office of Revenue Sharing removed even these provisions. In the area of revenue sharing, as in most other Federal grant programs, it is apparent that red tape, bureaucratic dallying and plain insensitivity to the needs of local government has begun to shackle the program.
The public participation strings added to the revenue sharing program are similar to some of the crosscutting requirements attached to most other grant programs in an attempt to encourage citizen involvement. The growth of these requirements in the revenue sharing program is amazingly similar to the process which has gradually added the many crosscutting requirements contained in our Federal grant-in-aid system. The process is a gradual one, addinga new public participation requirement here and an environmental requirement there until a massive system of Federal statutes and requirements has grown up around the grants system. Because of the huge volume and complexity of these requirements, many of them, though seeking to reach laudable goals, become useless and largely pro forma in nature. The system has become too huge and confusing to manage and its benefits are questionable.
What has resulted from this twisted network of crosscutting requirements, regulations, and statutes? For one thing, smaller jurisdictions have been hard pressed to compete for needed Federal grants. Drawn into the grants process by expanded use of block grants and general revenue sharing, smaller jurisdictions have been finding that they are less and less capable of complying with the plethora of Federal mandates. As one HUD official recently acknowledged,
Government in general is not taking into account the capacity of these small jurisdictions to deal with Federal programs.
The costs of the system have vastly increased, in part due to crosscutting mandates, and both State and local officials and Federal administrators are finding that the costs of many grant programs are greater than the benefits. Numerous examples of the administrative costs of the crosscutting regulation thicket have been revealed in the press and by congressional studies and reports.
For instance, crosscutting and other grant requirements have prompted the State of Georgia's department of education to use a rule of thumb of $5,000 for determining whether to apply for grants from Federal agencies. If the possible grant award would be less than $5,000, the State estimates it would lose money in the paperwork process associated with the grant application and therefore does not apply for it. A large share of these paperwork costs are mandated by the various crosscutting requirements.
In another case, the city of Tulsa, Okla., estimates that it spends 15 to 20 percent of all the Federal aid it receives just to apply for and administer Federal grants. Many cases have arisen in recent years in which towns, counties or States have refused Federal grants because of excessive Federal requirements and costs. The explosion of Federal crosscutting strings has, indeed, had serious negative effects on the utility and effectiveness of Federal grants.
The legislation we introduce today seeks to address these problems by the provisions described in title I. It provides that within 90 days of enactment of the act, the President would be required to designate a single Federal agency which would be responsible for issuing a standard set of rules and regulations in each of nine subject areas. These areas include citizen participation, procurement standards, and environmental protection requirements which are attached to most grant programs with the intent of achieving certain national policy objectives. Once the standardized rules and regulations have been issued, each of the Federal agencies having responsibility for a Federal grant program in which the various crosscutting requirements apply would be responsible for implementing the standardized regulations in its programs. The Office of Management and Budget would have the general responsibility of monitoring the new act and adjudicating any disagreements which arise between the agencies during implementation.
The simplification and clarification provided by our legislation would prevent State and local governments from complying with differing standards and regulations in each grant application. It would strengthen the management role of OMB by providing for a simple and rational system of crosscutting requirements and by delegating to it the role of interagency manager and facilitator with respect to the provisions of the act. Finally, the legislation would aid the agencies in their administration of grants programs largely because of the fact that grant applications submitted by State and local governments would be better prepared under the streamlined system created by this legislation. Overall, the provisions contained in title I work to the benefit of all the participants in the grants system and in the long run should help save money, time, and unnecessary effort.
JOINT FUNDING
The need for a coordinated, unified Federal response to State and local requests for multi-Federal assistance has been apparent since the beginning of Federal grant assistance. The Congress attempted to meet this need with passage of the Joint Funding Simplification Act of 1974. The act was intended to enable State and local governments to use Federal assistance more effectively and efficiently, and to adapt that assistance more readily to their particular needs through the wider use of comprehensive projects drawing upon resources from more than one Federal agency, program, or appropriation. Ideally, the joint funding concept should promote and provide support for the accomplishment of State and local goals and projects by allowing a combination of funds from several Federal agencies to be used in a concentrated manner.
Unfortunately, the grand designs originally contemplated for the program have not been fulfilled. Joint funding is not working. As of October 1977, there were only two new joint funding projects initiated and funded. Simplification, as envisioned in the legislation, has not occurred. In some cases, unnecessary red tape, excessive paperwork, duplication, delay, confusion, and frustration often associated with existing grant administrative practices and individual programs have been compounded rather than alleviated.
There has been a noticeable lack of commitment toward implementation of the joint funding process at the Federal level. This has been manifested in a number of ways, from lack of agency participation in joint funding projects to the inability of many States or local governments to gain consideration of their proposals because no Federal agency would "volunteer" to serve in a lead capacity. Joint funding has not been viewed by the agencies as part of their mission, but rather as a layon. Because the joint funding process is different from the normal categorical grant processes utilized by most agencies, joint funding matters have often been shuffled to the bottom of the pile. Generally, though the joint funding process could be immensely valuable to State and local governments, it has seldom been utilized due to agency indifference.
Title III of our legislation would strengthen the Joint Funding Simplification Act. The bill provides language mandating a more serious consideration of the joint funding process by Federal grant agencies. It also provides for a new section in the Joint Funding Simplification Act which would allow the creation of joint management funds accounts. These accounts would be maintained with funds from the participating agencies so that any State or local government with an approved jointly funded project could more easily receive its funds from a single agency.
Competent management of jointly funded projects would be encouraged and red tape and delays cut significantly.
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed legislation makes several other grants management improvements, two of which deserve special note. One of these provisions would allow Stateand local governments to petition agencies administering Federal assistance programs for a certificate of compliance. The certificate, once approved by the respective agency, would be accepted as proof that the State or local government was in compliance with State or local laws or regulations which are at least as stringent as the standard rules and regulations mandated by the Federal Government. Upon approval, the State or local unit would no longer be required to fill out all of the forms and reports required by each agency for the newly standardized crosscutting requirements attached to each grant. The result will be a significant decrease in paperwork frustration and red tape.
The second important provision is contained in title II of the bill. The provisions in title II would require the appropriations committees of both the House and the Senate to continually study the multitude of Federal grant programs and recommend, from time to time, to their respective Houses changes and modifications which could be made to authorize those programs for more than 1-year periods, also known as advance funding. The Senate and House could then decide to make those programs available on an advance funded basis.
Advance funding for grant programs would allow the States and localities to plan ahead with greater certainty. Planning and budgetary processes at the local level would be strengthened and State and local governments would be able to interlink their planning and implementation systems to a much greater degree. It is a necessary and important reform and one which will help improve financial management by the States and their local governments.
Mr. President, this legislation would go far toward cleaning up the red tape, confusion, and frustration which exists for all participants in our Federal grants system. It is a bill designed to improve the management of Federal assistance programs, a theme which the administration has constantly stressed. I believe the bill will help strengthen our Federal assistance programs and it will help smooth the relationships between the Federal Government and its State and local partners. Out of these more positive interactions will emerge a stronger Federal system, one in which all partners cooperate and participate. We have spent many months carefully crafting this legislation and I hope my colleagues will give it careful consideration.
The bills ordered to be printed in the RECORD follow:
S. 3266
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Federal System Reform Act of 1978".
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds that—
(1) Federal programs to aid State and local governments are too often duplicative, overlapping, and uncoordinated;
(2) the benefits of such Federal programs are diminished substantially when State governments take actions which work at cross purposes with such Federal programs;
(3) there is no systematic method to assess the impact of Federal programs on state and local governments;
(4) States play a pivotal role in the Federal system because local governments derive the authority to raise revenues and make expenditures from the States, and, as a result, the fiscal well-being of local governments has been dependent upon the actions of the states;
(5) during the past twenty years, the proportions of Federal and State assistance to local governments has been reversed, and many local governments, particularly those facing economic difficulties, have received more Federal assistance than State assistance; and
(6) the Federal system would be substantially strengthened if—
(A) the coordination and assessment of Federal programs to assist State and local governments were improved;
(B) State governments were encouraged to coordinate their actions with Federal programs to aid local governments; and
(C) Federal programs providing grants to State and local governments were reformed.
(b)The purposes of this Act are to—
(1) establish an Office of intergovernmental Affairs in the Executive Office of the President to coordinate and assess Federal grant-in-aid programs for State and local governments;
(2) create a program of Federal grants to provide incentives to the States to provide additional assistance to local governments and to coordinate such State assistance with similar Federal assistance; and
(3) simplify and reform the Federal grant-in-aid system and Federal assistance to State and local governments.
TITLE I — OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE
SEC. 101. (a) There is established in the Executive Office of the President an Office of intergovernmental Affairs. The Office shall be administered by a Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(b) There shall be in the Office a Deputy Director, who shall be appointed by the Director. The Deputy Director shall perform such functions and exercise such powers as the Director may prescribe, and shall act as Director during the absence or disability of the Director or in the case of a vacancy in the office of the Director.
(c) The establishment of the Office of intergovernmental Affairs in the Executive Office of the President shall not affect or limit access by the Congress or the committees of either House of Congress to information, documents, materials, or studies, in the possession of or conducted by the Office, or to the personnel of the Office.
(d) The President may authorize any individual who held a position in the Executive Branch of the Government on the day before the date of enactment of this title to act as the Director or Deputy Director until the Director and Deputy Director are first appointed pursuant to the provisions of this title or by recess appointment, as the case may be. The President may authorize any individual acting as the Director or Deputy Director under this section to receive the compensation prescribed for the Office of Director or Deputy Director, as is appropriate. Such compensation shall be in lieu of and not in addition to any other compensation from the United States to which such individual may be entitled.
FUNCTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR
SEC. 102. The Director shall—
(1) coordinate and establish goals for Federal efforts under grant assistance programs in accordance with the provisions of section 103;
(2) make recommendations to the President for the resolution of conflicting actions between Federal departments and agencies in the administration of Federal grant assistance programs, in accordance with the provisions of section 104;
(3) maintain liaison and communications with officials of State and local governments involved with Federal grant assistance programs, in accordance with the provisions of section 105;
(4) provide technical assistance to State and local governments in accordance with the provisions of section 106; and
(5) provide management oversight review to Federal departments and agencies in accordance with the provisions of section 107.
COORDINATION OF FEDERAL GRANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
SEC. 103. (a) The Director shall review the grant assistance programs for State and local governments of all Federal departments and agencies, and shall establish goals to achieve the coordination of actions by all Federal departments and agencies in regard to such programs. In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Director shall consult with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(b) To carry out his functions under subsection (a), the Director shall—
(1) establish goals to achieve the coordination of actions by all Federal departments and agencies in the administration of grant assistance programs;
(2) (A) review the rules, regulations, guidelines, requirements, criteria, and procedures of departments and agencies operating grant assistance programs;
(B) determine whether such rules, regulations, guidelines, requirements, criteria, and procedures are consistent with the goals established under paragraph (1) ; and
(C) assist such departments and agencies in making such additions or modifications to the rules, regulations, guidelines, requirements, criteria, and procedures of such departments or agencies as may be necessary to achieve consistency with the goals established under paragraph (b) (1) ;
(3) recommend changes in organization, management, and personnel of such departments and agencies, which may be advisable, in order to implement the goals established under paragraph (b) (1) ;
(4) conduct, or provide for the conduct of, evaluations and studies concerning
(A) the performance and results achieved by Federal, State, and local grant assistance programs; and
(B) possible programs and activities which provide alternatives or supplement existing grant assistance programs and the projected performance and results of such programs and activities; and
(5) require departments and agencies engaged in State and local grant assistance functions to submit such information and reports with respect thereto as the Director determines to be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title, and such departments and agencies are authorized and directed to submit to the Director such information and reports as the Director may reasonably require.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION RECOMMENDATIONS
SEC. 104. The Director shall examine the manner in which each Federal department or agency conducts grant assistance programs for State and local governments with a view towards identifying areas in which the conduct of such a program by a particular department or agency conflicts with or impairs the administration of a grant assistance program by another department or agency. If the Director identifies actions by a department or agency in the conduct of its grant assistance program which conflict with or impair the administration of a grant assistance program by another department or agency, he shall submit his findings and recommendations to the President who shall take appropriate action.
LIAISON WITH FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SEC 105. The Director shall maintain communications and liaison between all Federal
departments and agencies administering grant assistance programs for State and local governments.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SEC. 106. (a) Consistent with his functions under this title, the Director may—
(1) provide technical assistance to State and local governments to analyze and identify the problems of local government recipients of grant assistance and assist in the development of plans and programs to solve the problems identified, including advice and consultation concerning local programs, technical and professional assistance, and where necessary, the use of task forces of public officials or other individuals assigned to work with State and local governments;
(2) convene conferences of Federal, State, and local officials and such other individuals as the Director deems appropriate, to promote the purposes of this title, and provide for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses of individuals incurred in connection with participation in such conferences; and
(3) draft model legislation to further the principles and purposes of this title and make such model legislation available to State and local governments.
(b) To carry out the provisions of subsection (a) (1) , the Director may—
(1) request, in accordance with the provisions of section 3341 of title 5, United States Code, the detailing of any employee of a department or agency who is involved with the administration of a Federal grant assistance program to serve as a member of a task force established under subsection (a) (1) , except that no such detail may be permitted for an aggregate of more than ninety days in any fiscal year without the express approval of the head of the department or agency in which such individual is employed;
(2) assign any individual employed by the Office to serve as a member of any such task force or to coordinate management of such task forces; and
(3) enter into contracts or other agreements with any individual or organization to serve on or work with such task forces.
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT REVIEW
SEC. 107. The Director may provide for the performance of a management oversight review of the conduct of any grant assistance program by any department or agency. Such review may be conducted by an officer of any Federal department or agency other than the department or agency under review, and may not be conducted for a period in excess of 30 days during each calendar year. The officer conducting the review shall submit a written report to the Director concerning his findings and recommendations.
SINGLE NON-FEDERAL SHARE REQUIRED
SEC. 108. The Director shall review State and local grant assistance programs wherein funds are made available to an individual, organization, or agency by more than one Federal department and agency, and establish for such individual, organization, or agency a single non-Federal share requirement. Each individual, organization, or agency shall be required to provide a single non-Federal share in order to qualify for the grant assistance for which the individual is otherwise eligible which are offered by all Federal departments and agencies. The amount of the non-Federal share assignable to the grant assistance program of each department or agency shall be equal to the product of a single non-Federal share and the proportion of grant assistance provided by that department or agency to each individual, organization, or agency, divided by the total amount of grant assistance provided to such individual, organization, or agency by all Federal departments and agencies.
(b) The Director may order any Federal department or agency to waive any technical grant or contract requirement established in regulations which may be inconsistent with the similar requirements of other Federal departments or agencies or which other Federal departments or agencies do not impose under grant assistance programs.
DELEGATION
SEC. 109. Unless otherwise provided by law,the Director may delegate any of his functions, duties, or powers to individuals or organizations within the Office. The Director shall remain responsible for any functions, duties, or powers delegated under this section.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Sec. 110. (a) The Director is authorized—
(1) to appoint and fix the compensation of personnel of the Office;
(2) to allow and authorize payment of travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, for any employee of the Office in accordance with the provisions of section 5703 of title 5, United States Code;
(3) to employ experts and consultants in accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, except that:
(A) the limitations contained in such section concerning the number of days or time period of services shall not apply to individuals employed under this paragraph; and
(B) individuals employed under this paragraph may not be compensated at a rate in excess of the rate prescribed for GS-18 of the General Schedule contained in section 5332 of title 5 of such Code;
(4) to promulgate such rules, regulations, and procedures as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Office;
(5) to utilize, with their consent, the services, equipment, personnel, information, and facilities of other Federal agencies and of State, local, and private agencies and instrumentalities, with or without reimbursement therefor;
(6) (A) without regard to section 3648 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529), to enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions of the Office, with any public or private nonprofit agency or individual, or to make grants to any public agency or private nonprofit organization; (B) to require the recipient of a grant or contract under this paragraph to contribute money, facilities, or services for carrying out the program for which such grant or contract was made; and
(C) to make payments for such grants or contracts in advance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments and on such conditions as he may determine, as well as adjust such payments for prior underpayments or overpayments;
(7) to accept voluntary and uncompensated services, notwithstanding the provisions of the second sentence of section 3679 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 665(b));
(8) to request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as the Director may from time to time require and as may be produced consistent with all other provisions of law; and
(9) to make such reports and recommendations to the Congress and the President, including recommendations for additional legislation, as he deems appropriate.
(b) Upon request made by the Director, the head of each Federal department and agency is authorized and directed to make its services, equipment, personnel, facilities, and information available to the extent permitted by law.
COMPENSATION OF DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SEC. 111. (a) Section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"(24) Director, Office of IntergovernmentalRelations.".
(b) Section 5313 of such title is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"(114) Deputy Director, Office of Intergovernmental Relations.".
SAVINGS PROVISIONS
SEC. 112. Except as provided in section 108, nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize or permit the Director or any other Federal officer to waive or disregard any limitation or requirement, including standards, criteria, or cost-sharing formulas, prescribed by law with respect to any Federal program or activity.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 113. There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, and $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1980, and September 30, 1981.
TITLE II—STATE INCENTIVE GRANTS
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 201. For purposes of this title—
(a) the term "Director" means the Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs established under title I;
(b) the term "local government" means the government of a county, municipality, township, or other unit of government within a State which
(1) is a unit of general government, as determined by the Director on the basis of the principles as used by the Bureau of the Census for general statistical purposes;
(2) performs substantial governmental functions; and
(3) has a minimum population of 2,500. Such term includes the District of Columbia and includes the recognized governing body of an Indian tribe or Alaskan Native Village which performs substantial governmental functions;
(c) the term "distressed local government" means any local government which
(1) has an average per capita income of less than 125 percent of the average per capita income of the State;
(2) has an unemployment rate during the most recent four-year period in excess of the average national unemployment rate for the same period; and
(3) has a standardized distress ranking which is greater than or equal to the standardized distressed ranking of 50 percent of the local governments within the State which meet the criteria established in subparagraphs (A) and (B); or
(4) has substantially met the criteria set forth in section 201(c) (1), (2), and (3) and has been determined by the Governor of the State to be a "distressed local government" because the local government has a record of exceptionally low per capita income or high unemployment or faces extraordinary problems resulting from a combination of the criteria in section 201(a).
(d) the term "standardized distress ranking" means, for each local government, the sum of the standardized distress ratios for the following factors:
(1) the percentage of the civilian labor force unemployed;
(2) the percentage of the population that is younger than 18 years old or older than 64 years old;
(3) the percentage of the population which is 25 years of age or more with less than a twelfth grade education;
(4) the per capita income;
(5) the percentage of occupied housing units with more than. one person per room; and
(6) the percentage of families below 125 percent of the poverty level;
(e) (1) except as provided in subparagraph(2), the term "standardized distress ratio means, for each factor in paragraph (e); the product obtained by multiplying 100 times the quotient of (A) the "local distress ratio" for each local government in a State minus the minimum "local distress ratio" for. local governments in that State by (B) the imum "local distress ratio" for local governments in the States minus the minimum "local distress ratio" for local governments in the State;
(2) in the calculation of the standardized distress ratio for per capita income under paragraph (d) (4), the "standardized distress ratio" means the amount obtained by subtracting the product obtained under paragraph (e) (1) from 100; and
(f) the term "local distress ratio" means for each factor in paragraph (e), the quotient obtained by dividing the percentage for each local government by the average percentage for each factor for all local governments in the State which meet the criteria established under subparagraphs (1) (2) of paragraph (d).
INITIAL ASSESSMENT GRANTS
SEC. 202. (a) From the amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (e), the Director is authorized to make grants to States the purpose of obtaining (1) an accurate assessment of and report concerning State policies toward distressed local governments, and (2) an identification of problems facing distressed local governments.
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Director shall make grants to each State that submits an application in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c). In determining the amount of each grant, the Director shall take into account—
(A) the population of the State, and
(B) the number of persons residing the jurisdiction of distressed local governments.
(2) Grants to any State under this section shall not exceed an amount equal to 7.5 cent of the amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (e).
(c) (1) The Director may not make any payment under this Act to any State unless an application therefor has been submitted to and approved by the Director. Such application shall be submitted to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information and assurances as the Director may by regulation prescribe.
(2) The application required under this subsection shall contain an agreement by the State to—
(A) use the grant applied for and authorized under this section for the sole purpose of conducting a study and analysis of State policies towards distressed local governments. Such study and analysis shall be presented in quantitative terms to the extent possible and shall include
(i) a detailed description of specific State policies affecting distressed local governments within the State, such as taxing and annexation policies, siting of State facilities, development and construction policies, and distribution formulas for Federal funds under State control;
(ii) a detailed analysis of both the positive and negative effects of the State's policies toward distressed local governments within the State; and
(iii) a description of the economic, administrative, and structural problems facing local governments within the State;
(B) submit a report to the Director concerning the results of the studies and analyses required under this section; and
(C) provide the Director with such additional information, reports, and assurance as the Director finds necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
(d) The Director is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September30, 1979, for the purpose of making grants under this section.
PERFORMANCE GRANTS
SEC. 203. From the amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (f), the Director is authorized to make grants to State governments which have changed their policies towards distressed local governments in order to provide solutions to the problems described in the initial assessment grant study under section 202(c) (2) (A).
(b) The Director may make grants under this section to States which received an initial assessment grant under section 202, which completed the study and analysis required by that section, and which
(1) show demonstrable and measurable progress toward meeting the problems faced by distressed local governments within their jurisdiction as described in the analysis submitted under the initial assessment grant study pursuant to section 202(c) (2) (A) and
(2) have improved their performance in the following categories since the submission of their initial assessment analysis under section 202:
(A) the raising of State revenues through more progressive means;
(B) the reduction of the fiscal burden on distressed local governments by (i) authorizing tax-sharing programs; or (ii) by increasing State responsibility for the financing or delivery of public services previously financed or delivered by such distressed local governments, and reassigning responsibility for such public services to less-distressed levels of government;
(C) the channeling of increased State aid and Federal aid administered by the State to distressed local governments;
(D) the achievement of reforms increasing the management capacity of distressed local governments;
(E) the enhancement of distressed local government borrowing capacity and participation in bond markets;
(F) the establishment of procedures to allow distressed local governments to modify their tax structure or extend their boundaries to improve their tax bases;
(G) the location of an increased percent-age of State facilities within the jurisdiction of distressed local governments;
(H) the redirection of State development, construction and tax programs and policies to encourage and facilitate private-sector investment within the jurisdiction of distressed local governments;
(I) the elimination or reduction of State and local governmental barriers which restrict investment within the jurisdiction of distressed local governments; and
(J) the increased participation by the State in federally financed or Federal-State financed programs which benefit residents of distressed local governments.
(c) (1) The Director may not make any payment under this title to any State unless an application therefor has been submitted to and approved by the Director. Such application shall be submitted to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information and assurances as the Director may by regulation prescribe.
(2) The application required under this subsection shall contain an agreement by the State to—
(A) maintain existing types and levels of assistance to distressed local governments during the period in which the State participates in the program established under this section;
(B) provide for the verification by officials of local governments of the information in the application for performance grants under this section; and
(C) provide the Director with such additional information, reports, and assurances as the Director finds necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
(d) Prior to approval of any application under this section, the Director shall provide a reasonable opportunity to any local government to verify such application.
(e) (1) The Director shall, by regulation—
(A) establish criteria for measurement of State progress towards attaining the goals specified in subsection (b); and
(B) set forth procedures for the verification by local governments of the information in the applications for performance grants under subsection (c) (2) (B).
(2) The Director may promulgate such other rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, including procedures for incremental or installment payments of the grants authorized under this section.
(f) For the purpose of making grants under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $350,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1980.
SEC. 204. For States which receive performance grants pursuant to section 203, the Director may, in addition—
(a) assist in facilitating the award of a Federal grant by another department or agency to such State or distressed local government within such State if the grant could reasonably be expected to improve the performance of the State in the categories cited in section 203(b) (2);
(b) assist in facilitating use of the provisions of the Joint Funding Simplification Act of 1974; or
(c) simplify the procedures of Federal programs operating within the State which could reasonably be expected to aid the performance of the State in the categories listed in section 203(b) (2).
S. 3267
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of .Representatives of the United States of America assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Federal Assistance Paperwork Reduction Act."
TITLE I — ADMINISTRATION OF GENERALLY APPLICABLE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 101. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4201) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title:
"TITLE VII — ADMINISTRATION OF GENERALLY APPLICABLE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS
"STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
"SEC. 701. It is the purpose of this title to encourage simplification and standardization in the administration of national policy requirements which are generally applicable to Federal assistance, to strengthen the supervision and implementation of such requirements, and to reduce their overall administrative burden and adverse economic impact on assistance recipients.
"DEFINITIONS
"SEC. 702. As used in this title
"(1) The term 'generally applicable requirements' means requirements which are placed on assistance recipients by Federal legislation or administrative rules and regulations to achieve national policy objectives and, whether contained in one or more laws or other instruments, apply to two or more assistance programs.
"(2) The term 'designated agency' means a Federal agency designated by the President pursuant to this title as responsible for establishing standard rules and regulations for specified generally applicable requirements and for reporting on the implementation of such requirements.
"(3) The term 'assistance recipient' means a State or local government or a nonprofit private organization.
"ASSIGNMENT OF DESIGNATED AGENCIES
"SEC. 703. (a) The President shall, within 90 days following the date of enactment of this title, designate a single Federal agency to establish standard rules and regulations for, and to report on, the implementation of generally applicable requirements attached to Federal assistance in the following subject areas:
"(1) labor practices requirements;
"(2) equal employment opportunity requirements;
"(3) public employee standards;
"(4) equal services requirements based on prohibitions of discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or physical handicap;
"(5) access to government information;
"(6) citizen participation requirements;
"(7) environmental protection requirements;
"(8) relocation and real property acquisition requirements; and
"(9) procurement standards.
"(b) Relevant provisions of new legislation affecting generally applicable requirements for Federal assistance in these subject areas shall come within the rule making purview of the designated agencies. Generally applicable requirements in new subject areas shall be assigned to a single Federal agency designated by the President.
"ISSUANCE OF STANDARD RULES AND REGULATIONS
"SEC. 704. (a) Each designated agency shall develop for the President's review and approval standard rules and regulations in its field of designated responsibility in consultation and cooperation with affected Federal agencies, assistance recipients, and other interested parties. Such standard rules and regulations, to the maximum extent possible, shall be simple, internally consistent, and clear. They shall include standard compliance procedures, provisions for technical assistance and other facilitative actions, and a list of those Federal assistance programs to which such rules and regulations apply.
" (b) On issuance, such standard rules and regulations shall be binding upon all Federal agencies administering Federal assistance programs to which such standard rules and regulations apply. Except in cases covered by section 706 of this title, the standard rules and regulations shall be developed by each designated agency, reviewed and approved by the President, and issued by such agency not later than one year following the enactment of this title, or in the case of new legislation creating a generally applicable requirement, within six months after the effective date of such legislation. Each designated agency shall review its standard rules and regulations and may prepare amendments for review and approval by the President to reflect new legislation and changing conditions, but, to the extent possible, such actions shall occur no more than once in any calendar year.
"(c) Within 180 days after a designated agency issues standard rules and regulations,each Federal agency administering a Federal assistance program to which such standard rules and regulations apply shall issue specific rules and regulations for such program. Such specific rules and regulations shall conform to such standard rules and regulations unless, with respect to any matter, the designated agency authorizes a variation from its standard rules and regulations. If a Federal agency has not issued itsspecific rules and regulations within such 180-day period with respect to a Federal assistance program, the designated agency shall issue specific rules and regulations for such program which shall remain in effect until such Federal agency issues its specific rules and regulations for such program.
"(d) Any application for assistance under a Federal assistance program may, at the request of the applicant, be revised to comply with standard rules and regulations and specific rules and regulations issued pursuant to this section.
"ROLE OF FEDERAL AGENCIES IN ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE
"SEC. 705. (a) Each Federal agency administering a Federal assistance program to which standard rules and regulations issued pursuant to section 704 apply shall be responsible for securing compliance with such standard rules and regulations. Designated agencies may render such assistance as is necessary for Federal agencies to carry out their respective responsibilities.
"(b) Upon the request of any affected State or local government, a Federal agency administering a Federal assistance program may accept a certification by such government that its performance is in compliance with State or local laws, regulations, directives, and standards that are at least equivalent to those required by standard rules and regulations. Such acceptance may be rescinded by such Federal agency upon a finding, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that the government involved is not in substantial compliance with such State or local laws, regulations, directives, and standards or that the latter are not fully equivalent to the applicable standard rules and regulations.
"(c) Federal agencies administering Federal assistance programs shall take appropriate steps, including the provision of technical assistance, to assist affected assistance recipients in their efforts to comply with applicable standard rules and regulations.
"LEGISLATION TO REMOVE IMPEDIMENTS TO IMPLEMENTATION
"SEC. 706. If a designated agency is unable to develop standard rules and regulations pursuant to section 704 in its field of designated responsibility because of conflicting or inconsistent provisions of law, such agency shall prepare and submit to the President for review and approval, a legislative proposal to remove any such impediments to the development of such standard rules and regulations. The President, on approval. of such a legislative proposal, shall submit it to the Congress.
"GENERAL OVERSIGHT
"SEC. 707. The President shall designate an agency of the Federal Government to oversee the administration of this title until there is established an Office of Intergovernmental Affairs which shall assume the oversight responsibility. It shall monitor and facilitate the activities of designated agencies under this title as they prepare, adopt, and report on their standard rules and regulations. It may convene interagency meetings as needed to help resolve conflicts and inconsistencies which may arise within or among standard rules and regulations. It shall insure that designated agencies report on the implementation of standard rules and regulations, and it shall monitor the compliance efforts of affected Federal agencies.".
TITLE II — ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 201. (a) The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4201) is amended by adding at the end of the new title provided in Title I of this Act, the following new title:
"TITLE VIII — ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROGRAMS PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS"
SEC. 801. As used in this title—
"(1) The term 'advance appropriation' means an appropriation made by Congress one or more years ahead of the normal time for making appropriations for the fiscal year in which the appropriation first becomes available for obligation. (For example, the summer of 1978 is the normal time for making appropriations for FY 1979; if during the summer of 1978 Congress makes an appropriation that does not become available for obligation until FY 1980, that is an advance appropriation.) Such an appropriation is counted as budget authority in the fiscal year it first becomes available for obligation.
"SEC. 802. The Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives shall consider whether, in the light of matching requirements, program size, and other factors, new budget authority for Federal financial assistance, as defined in section 107 of this Act, should be provided at least one fiscal year in advance of the fiscal year in progress at any time.".
"SEC. 803. In the case of each program of Federal financial assistance, as defined in section 107 of this Act, for which an advance appropriation is authorized by law for more than one fiscal year in advance of the fiscal year in progress, it shall be in order in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to include in appropriation Acts for a fiscal year (1) new budget authority which shall be available for obligation in the next succeeding fiscal year and (2) if new budget authority is authorized for any such program for any following fiscal year, new budget authority for such program which shall be available for obligation in such following fiscal year.".
AMENDMENT TO BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING ACT OF 1921
SEC. 202. Section 201 of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (31 U.S.C. 11) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(k) With respect to each program of Federal financial assistance, as defined in section 107 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1093), for which an advance appropriation is authorized by law for more than one fiscal year in advance of the fiscal year in progress, the budget transmitted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section for each fiscal year may include a request for new budget authority for such program and estimated outlays under such program for the next succeeding fiscal year, and, if new budget authority is authorized for such program for any following fiscal year, may include a request for new budget authority for such program and estimated outlays under such program for any such following fiscal year.".
FIVE-YEAR PROJECTION OF NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAYS
SEC. 203. Section 301(d) (7) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (31 U.S.C. 1322 (d) (7) is amended to read as follows:
"(7) projections, for the period of five fiscal years beginning with such fiscal year, for each program of Federal financial assistance, as defined in section 107 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1093), and a statement of any significant changes in the proposed levels of Federal assistance to State and local governments; and".
EXERCISE OF RULE MAKING POWER
SEC. 204. Sections 201 and 203 are enacted by the Congress—
(1) as an exercise of the rule making power of the House of Representatives and, the Senate, respectively, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, respectively, or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rules of such House.
TITLE III—JOINT FUNDING SIMPLIFICATION
SEC. 301. (a) Section 3 of the Joint Funding Simplification Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1604; 42 U.S.C. 4252) is amended—
(1) by striking out "He may" in the see. and sentence of subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof "He shall";
(2) by striking out "may prescribe" in the matter in subsection (b) preceding paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof, "prescribes", and by striking out "may take" in such matter and inserting in lieu thereof "shall take";
(3) by inserting the following at the end of subsection (b) (1) : "Such programs shall be grouped or identified as having a logical relationship for joint funding purposes with programs within a particular Federal agency or with other Federal agencies."; and
(4) by inserting the following at the end of subsection (b) (5) : "Participating agencies shall contribute proportionately to the support of the lead or managing agency's joint funding administrative costs, including but not limited to the provision of staff, administrative, and fiscal services.".
(b) Section 5 of such Act is amended—
(1) by striking out "Where appropriate to further the purposes of this Act, and subject" in the first sentence and inserting la lieu thereof "Subject";
(2) by striking out "may" in the first sea tence and inserting in lieu thereof "shall"; and
(3) by striking out "and with program purposes and statutory requirements" in the last sentence. (c) Section 6 of such Act is amended—
(1) by striking out "may" in the matter in subsection (a) preceding paragraph,(1) and inserting in lieu thereof "shall"; and
(2) by striking out subsection (c) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"(c) In promoting the more effective and efficient use of Federal assistance resources, Federal agency heads shall waive requirements (1) that a single or specific public agency or other organizational unit been utilized or designated to receive, supervise, otherwise administer, or (2) that a single or specific pattern of internal organization be utilized or designated to administer a part of the Federal assistance drawn upon by any jointly funded project to the extent that administration by another public agency or pattern of internal organization is determined to be fully consistent with applicable State or local law and with the objectives of the Federal assistance program involved. This authority may be exercised only (A) upon request of the head of a unit of general government, with respect to agencies that he certifies to be under his jurisdiction, or (B) with the agreement of the several State of local public agencies concerned.".
(d) Section 8 of such Act is amended to read as follows:
"FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS AND PROCEDURES
"SEC. 8. (a) In order to provide for the more effective administration of funds drawn from more than one Federal program or appropriation in support of projects under this Act, there may be established joint management funds with respect to such project. The total amount approved for such a 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. There shall be transferred to the joint management fund from each affected appropriation, from time to time, its proportionate share of amounts needed for payment to the grantee. Any amounts remaining in the hands of the grantee at the completion of the project shall be returned to the joint management funds.
(b) Any account in a joint management fund shall be subject to such agreements, not inconsistent with this section and other applicable law, as may be entered into by the Federal agencies concerned with respect to the discharge of the responsibilities of those agencies and shall assure the availability of necessary information to those agencies and to the Congress. These agreements shall also provide that the agency administering the joint management fund shall be responsible and accountable for the total amount provided for the purposes of each account established in the fund; and 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 the participating Federal agencies in accordance with a formula as providing an equitable distribution, and for effective returns accordingly to the applicable appropriations, subject to fiscal year limitations. Excess amounts applicable to expired appropriations will belapsed from that fund.
(c) For each project financed through a joint management fund established pursuant to this section, the recipients of moneys drawn from the fund shall keep such records as the head of the Federal agency responsible for administering the fund will prescribe. Such records shall, as a minimum, fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of Federal assistance received, the total cost of the project in connection with which such Federal assistance was given or used, the amount of that portion of the cost of the project supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective audit.
(d) The head of the Federal agency responsible for administering such joint management fund 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, documents, papers, and records of such recipients that are pertinent to the moneys received from such fund.
(e) In the case of any project covered in a joint management fund, a single non-Federal share shall be established according to the Federal share ratios applicable to the several Federal assistance programs involved and the proportion of funds transferred to the project account from each of those programs.".
(e) Section 13 of such Act is amended by striking out "five years following the date upon which it becomes effective" and inserting in lieu thereof "December 6, 1984.".
TITLE IV — ADMINISTRATION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE STATES
Sec. 401. (a) Section 201 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4211) is amended to read as follows:
"FULL INFORMATION ON FUNDS RECEIVED
SEC. 201. (a) Any department or agency of the United States Government which administers a program of Federal assistance to any State shall, upon request, notify in writing the Governor, the legislature, or other official designated by either, of the purpose and amounts of Federal assistance to the State. After two years following the date of enactment of the Federal System Reform Act of 1978, any department or agency of the United States Government which administers a program of Federal assistance to any of the political subdivisions of the States, shall, upon request, notify the Governor, the legislature, or other official designated by either, of the purpose and amounts of such assistance and, to the extent practical, such other information, as requested, including, but not limited to, the program number (established pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act of 1977), title, recipient, date of award, and geographic location of the recipient, as may be necessary to the accurate determination of the impact of Federal assistance on the State budget. In each instance, when information is requested by either the Governor or the legislature, such information shall be furnished to both.
(b) A department or agency of the United States Government which administers a program of direct Federal assistance to any local government shall, after two years following enactment of the Federal System Reform Act of 1978 and upon request, notify in writing the chief executive officer, the local governing body, or other official designated by either, of the purpose and amounts of such assistance to the political subdivision, and to those governments or other recipient units that lie wholly or partly within it, and, to the extent practical, such other information, as requested, including, but not limited to, the program number, title, date of award, as may be necessary for the accurate determination by such government of the impact of direct Federal assistance on its budget. In each instance, when information is requested by the chief executive officer or the local governing body, such information shall be furnished to both.
"(c) The Office of Intergovernmental Affairs shall develop the information system needed to implement this section, shall issue regulations to provide uniform compliance by the departments and agencies, and shall oversee compliance by the departments and agencies with the provisions of this section.".
(b) Section 203 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4213) is amended to read as follows:
"TRANSFERS OF GRANT FUNDS
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 disbursement 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.".
(c) Section 204 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4214) is amended to read as follows:
"SINGLE STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY ORGANIZATION UNIT PROVISIONS
"SEC. 204. Notwithstanding any other Federal law which provides that a single State or local government department, agency, multimember board or commission, or a single bureau, division, other organizational unit, or specific officer within a department, agency, multimember board or commission or State or local government, must be established or designated to administer or supervise the administration of any grant-in-aid program, upon certification by the appropriate executive or legislative authority of the State or local government responsible for determining or revising the organizational structure of such government that such provisions prevent the establishment of the most effective and efficient organizational arrangements, within the State or local government, the head of the Federal department or agency administering the program shall waive such provisions and approve other State or local administrative structure or arrangements, unless he determines that the objectives of the Federal statute authorizing the program will be thereby endangered.".
(d) Title II of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
"STANDARD MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENT
SEC. 205. (a) When the Congress desires to ensure that the making of grants-in-aid to State and local governments will not result in a reduction in relevant State or local governmental expenditures or the substitution of Federal funds for State or local funds previously made available for the activities aided, the Congress shall incorporate in the legislation authorizing such grants-in-aid a maintenance of effort provision providing that—
"(1) the amount available for expenditures by such State or local government for the activities aided for the fiscal year for which the grant or subgrant is sought shall not be less than the average expended based on recurring expenses for such activities during the preceding two fiscal years; otherwise, the Federal amount will be reduced proportionate to the State or local reductions below such an average;
"(2) the Federal agency head may waive the requirement established by paragraph (1) in any case in which he determines, in accordance with regulations establishing objective criteria and reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget or such other unit as the President may designate, that application of the requirement would result in unnecessary hardship or otherwise be inconsistent with the purposes of the grant legislation; and
"(3) the amount of expenditures required by subsection (1) may be reduced for State or local governments in fiscal distress. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget or the head of such other unit as the President may designate shall be responsible for defining and certifying eligibility for waivers under this subsection and such certifications shall be honored for all programs when requested by eligible grantees.
"(b) For the purpose of standardization, the Congress shall limit itself to the elements specified in subsection (a) in the prescription of maintenance of effort requirements, and shall declare that such elements apply to subgranted funds.".