convinced that real progress toward better public management, if it comes at all, will have to come through congressional leadership and congressional insistence. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION REVIEW NEEDED NOW Twenty-one years ago, in reporting the Lodge-Brown bill which created the first Hoover Commission, the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Department declared: The time is ripe for a general overhauling, for going through the Government with a fine-tooth comb and for casting some light into all the many dark places. I am convinced that the time is ripe again, and I would like to emphasize that we are not instituting any search for scandal or we are not suggesting any hostile probes, but we are very genuinely referring to a general overhauling to make the massive Federal Establishment more responsive to current demands and more capable of meeting future needs. The junior Senator from Kansas and others have documented the vast growth of the Federal Government in recent years, and the resulting proliferation of programs, overlapping of agencies, and confusion of goals, responsibilities and requirements. This subcommittee's extremely valuable hearings on the Federal role in urban affairs. last year, for which I believe the chairman is very largely responsible, illuminated the managerial confusion and inconsistencies which are particularly evident and particularly threatening-in that field. In this regard, a new note of urgency was sounded yesterday by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, whose ninth annual report reviewed the import of the urban crisis for our form of government, and concluded in part that: America's Federal system is on trial today as never before in this century of crisis and change . . . Throughout the Nation's history, a distinguishing feature of the Federal system has been its remarkable capacity . to adapt to changing demands. But now the rate at which circumstances and demands shift and change is of a totally different magnitude and impose a new demension. Despite this new dimension, some policies and attitudes of the Federal establishment continue more attuned to the problems and solutions of the thirties. and forties than to the horizon of the seventies and eighties. TRADITIONAL COORDINATION MECHANISMS DO NOT WORK Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government today is not an entity which can be captured in a single metaphor. Some agencies are fat; others are thin. Some offices are weak; others are muscle-bound. Some are experimenting with the most advanced techniques of systems analysis and management; others have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into this decade. In far too many instances, particularly in rapidly growing areas such as urban affirs, eduction and manpower training, new approaches and new missions have simply been piled on top of old ones. It is this very lack of uniformity, this absence of consistency or coherence, which has convinced me that managerial reforms, to be effective, must be broad and deep. The magic word in government today is "coordination". Recently I became intrigued by the extent to which federal managers, in order to "coordinate" new programs and closely related activities, have had to supplement the traditional channels of bureaucratic authority and communication with new mechanisms. Predictably, the most popular seems to be the interagency committee. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEES ARE REPORTED Since 1964, under BOB Circular A-63, the Bureau of the Budget has required all Federal departments and agencies to file an annual list of the interagency committees, commissions, task forces, boards, councils, conferences, panels and working groups on which agency representatives sit. These include the National Security Council, the Federal Council for Science and Technology, and the President's Committee on Recreation and Natural Beauty. They also include hundreds of groups such as the Census Advisory Committee on Small Areas, the Interdepartmental Coordinating Committee on Teen-Age Parents, the Southeast Alaska Federal Safety Council, and the Interagency Working Group on Psychological Operations in Critical Areas. Mr. Chairman, I was, in fact, so intrigued by my review of this area that I wrote an article which we entitled "When in Doubt, Form a Committee," which is appearing in the forthcoming February 8 issue of the Reporter Magazine. And if the subcommittee would like, I can submit a copy of that article for the committee record. Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, the article will appear in the record at the conclusion of Representative Mathias' testimony. TOTAL REEVALUATION OF FEDERAL ORGANIZATION NEEDED Mr. MATHIAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. After completing this study, I am not surprised that several departments, particularly HEW, have had to establish special offices to coordinate interagency coordination. I am also more convinced than ever that what we need is not more coordination of existing offices, but rather a thorough reassessment of the allocation of responsibilities within the Executive branch as a whole. I am also increasingly concerned about the extent to which the Executive branch or parts of it, may be overly fascinated with the creation of new forms and formulae for analysis, review and coordination. In some cases, I suspect that these new groups further confuse the picture rather than clarify it. REPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE TASK FORCE For example, last September Secretary Robert F. Weaver reported to the President on behalf of a Joint Administrative Task Force created at Presidential direction in May to "dig deeply into the problems of unnecessary red tape" and cut the time required to process applications for Federal funds. The Task Force, Secretary Weaver reported, "completed a study of 42 programs in four broad areas," involving eight departments and agencies. In the manpower field, the Task Force established a Systems Improvement Team, which analyzed some of the programs covered by the Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System developed last spring by the National Manpower Coordinating Committee. In the area of water and sewer programs, renewed efforts to cut confusion were made by a four-agency group representing the Interagency Coordinating Committee set up in 1965. Twenty-two programs embraced by the model cities concept were "placed under the microscope of a Model Cities System Improvement Team." Eleven programs in HEW, HUD and OEO, to be included in the neighborhood service centers pilot program, were reviewed by an Interagency Study Group "under the joint sponsorship of the Bureau of the Budget and the Executive Officers Group," which made its recommendations to the Washington Interagency Review Committee in charge of the program. REFORMS MADE IN PROCESSING GRANT APPLICATIONS The product of all of this was reports that processing time for grant applications in the programs surveyed could be reduced by an average of 50 percent. Hill-Burton applications, for example, could be handled in five working days instead of 11. Community action programs could be funded in 88 work days instead of 135. Most startling, urban renewal applications could be approved in an average of 295 working days instead of the current average of 495 days. Administration spokesmen, in testimony before a number of congressional committees, have pointed with pride to the efforts being made to resolve some of the most disruptive managerial problems, such as the scattering of regional offices, the proliferation of catalogs and brochures, the inconsistencies in planning procedures for various grants-in-aid. I do not wish to minimize in any way the progress which the Bureau of the Budget and individual agency heads have made, and certainly there are cases in which, I think, individuals have made progress, but the diligence and the perseverence that some have shown, I do not think has been widespread throughout the entire executive branch. It seems to me, further, that such a list of reforms, most of which appear to the casual observer to be fairly elementary and self-evident, dramatizes not how far we have come, but how far back we started from. SEPARATE OFFICE FOR MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS Second, it appears to me that the Bureau of the Budget needs help. BOB, after all, has only 546 authorized permanent positions in fiscal 1968, and is requesting only 9 more for fiscal 1969. Its budget of $10.3 million for 1969 is 0.0055 percent of the total Federal budget, and its mission includes not only management supervision, but also budget development and review, legislative reference and clearance, and the setting of statistical standards. In my judgment, the creation of a separate commission to review federal management would be not an adverse reflection on the Budget Bureau, but rather a recognition of realities. I had said earlier that I am disappointed by the Administration's failure to submit any formal reports to the Congress on S. 47, S. 2116, and H.R. 69, and the similar bills that have been pending for a long. time. Last August, however, Mr. Charles J. Zwick, who was then Assistant Director of the Budget Bureau and has now become its Di rector, did outline some of his thoughts on the commission approach to management reforms in a letter responding to my personal request for his comments on H.R. 69. With the committee's permission, I would like to submit this correspondence for the record. Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, so ordered. (The material referred to follows:) [From the Congressional Record, August 31, 1967] EXHIBIT 23 A NEW LOOK AT GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION: BUDGET BUREAU COMMENTS ON H.R. 69 (Mr. Mathias of Maryland (at the request of Mr. Gross) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Record and to include extraneous matter.) Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, for almost 2 years, in both the 89th and 90th Congresses, I have advocated creating a new blue-ribbon commission, similar to the two Hoover Commissions, to review the operations of the executive branch and recommend organizational and management reforms. Over 30 Members of the House joined me in introducing this legislation in September 1965, and in this Congress more than 40 have cosponsored the measure which I reintroduced in January as H.R. 69. Significant support for such a step has been expressed on both sides of the Capitol, and by many national organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Last month a large number of my colleagues joined me in a presentation marking the 20th anniversary of the first Hoover Commission and outlining some of the pressing problems which make another overall assessment of Federal operations so imperative. These remarks appeared in the Congressional Record for July 13, beginning at page H8677. In my statement of July 13, I noted that, although this proposal had been pending so long, the executive branch had never seen fit to submit any departmental reports to the Government Operations Committee. In fact, officials of the Bureau of the Budget and other agencies had made no specific comments on the proposal at all. I am glad to report that some comment, although very general and short, has now been made by Bob. On August 24, Mr. Charles J. Zwick, Assistant Director of the Budget Bureau, responded at some length to a note which I had sent to Director Schultze on July 17, requesting a response to my floor statement. I feel that Mr. Zwick's remarks about H.R. 69, and my reply of August 29, may be of interest to the cosponsors of this legislation, and to all others who share our concern for efficient conduct of the public business. Accordingly, I would like to place this correspondence in the Record at this point: "EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, "Hon. CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., "Washington, D.C. "DEAR MR. MATHIAS: This is in response to your letter of July 17, 1967, concerning your speech on current problems of Government organization. "We certainly agree with your basic observation that the Federal Government has undergone major changes in recent years. Most significant, we believe, has been the rapid expansion since 1961 of our grant-in-aid and other programs of assistance to State and local governments. This Administration has emphasized the objective of a system of creative Federalism which brings the resources of various agenices at all levels of government to bear on the solution of our society's very complex problems. "The successful execution of many of these new programs cannot depend solely on the establishment of clear lines of authority. And, because of our multijurisdictional approach and the growing interrelationships between many programs, it is no longer possible to solve our management and organizational problems simply by transferring functions and grouping related activities under a single agency. In the domestic area that would result in trying to create a Department of Everything. "What we need now is close cooperation and coordination, not only between various Federal agencies but also the various levels of government. This is never easy to achieve, but we have taken a number of actions and have others under way aimed at making this complex system work better. "We have reservations about the creation of a new Hoover-type commission at this time to conduct an overall review of Federal operations. It may be desirable at some point to have an outside group review and make recommendations with respect to the overall goals and objectives of Federal Programs and the Federal system. However, the area of study proposed in H.R. 69 and other bills is most difficult and complex, and we doubt that a single group of the type proposed could undertake the far-ranging study envisioned in the bills. We would have particular reservations about members of Congress, Governors, and Federal agency heads being able to devote sufficien time to the effort. Finally, such a study would duplicate or overlap many current efforts. "With respect to a number of the specific problems cited in your speech of July 13, we have the following comments: "1. Water resources management-We recognize that the area of water resources management represents a most difficult problem of coordination. It typifies our multijurisdictional and intergovernmental approach to dealing with a broad problem area. In part, to help achieve needed coordination, the Administration has proposed the creation of a National Water Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of water resource matters. Other steps have also been taken. For example, through Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration was transferred from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of the Interior to facilitate coordination with the other water resource programs of the latter. In addition, the agencies making grants and loans for water and sewer facilities have concluded agreements to coordinate those programs. "2. Catalog proliferation-In a letter dated February 7, we asked Federal agencies to avoid duplication in the production of general catalogs of Federal aid programs. As a result a single general catalog has been published under the leadership of the Office of Economic Opportunity. While other agencies may continue to issue publications regarding their own programs, the OEO catalog is intended to be the Government's one comprehensive effort. To improve that catalog further, we have established an interagency task force to advise on necessary additions, changes in format and methods of periodic undating. "3. Information centers-Enclosed is a copy of Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-84 which establishes a systematic means of reporting Federal outlays by geographic location. These data, to be incorporated in OEO's Federal Information Exchange System, will give State and local government a comprehensive picture of Federal activities in their areas. "In addition, the Bureau is working closely with a task force representing State and local government associations and various agencies to explore various problems involved in intergovernmental information systems including (a) compatibility of data which governments collect and use; (b) joint utilization of automatic data processing facilities; (c) coordination of efforts to conserve scarce statistical manpower skills; and (d) the possibility of developing a central data bank. "Finally, on a pilot basis, the General Services Administration has established central information centers to serve the public as well as others in Atlanta, Georgia, and Kansas City, Kansas. "4. Forms, directives, and reports-Enclosed is a copy of our recent Circular No. A-85 which establishes a procedure for advance consultation with State and local chief executives on Federal regulations affecting their governments. Also enclosed is a copy of Circular No. A-73 aimed at simplifying grant-in-aid audit procedures. "5. Regional offices-In his message on the Quality of American Government, the President directed the Bureau of the Budget to undertake a study of the structure and use of the Federal field service. That study is now under way and involves such matters as the location of field offices, regional boundaries, and delegations of authority. "6. Planning-Enclosed is a copy of Circular No. A-80 on the coordination of development planning for programs based on multi-jurisdictional areas. The Circular implements the President's Memorandum of September 2, 1966, on the coordination of Federal development planning. Agency procedures for carrying out the instructions have been reviewed to assure maximum consistency among the many Federal agencies and programs concerned. Under the Circular, Federal |