Mr. SCHULTZE. No comment. I think the point is that by providing the information, at least, it will help (chart No. 5). CHART No. 5 Illustrative ELEMENTS OF A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM URBAN COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION URBAN HIGHWAYS PASSENGER MILES CARRIED TON-MILES OF FREIGHT CARRIED NUMBER OF MILES OF WAY COMPLETED NUMBER OF MILES OF WAY PLACED UNDER CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COST/MILE OF WAY FY 1967+ AVERAGE COMMUTER TRAVEL TIME (BY MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS) URBAN TRANSIT SYSTEMS PASSENGER-MILES CARRIED TON-MILES OF FREIGHT CARRIED NUMBER OF MILES OF WAY COMPLETED NUMBER OF MILES OF WAY PLACED UNDER CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COST/MILE OF WAY AVERAGE COMMUTER TRAVEL TIME (BY MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS) Now, all of this does not mean anything unless there is some information from a flow of data that goes into it. This says "fiscal year 1967+." I did not have room to get on the future years. For example, and for that purpose only, take "urban commuter transportation." Among the many things which would go into an establishment of goals and objectives would be quite specific measures of what is being done and what is to be accomplished, passenger-miles carried, tonmiles of freight carried on the highways, the number of miles of way completed—that is, under the proposed program-the number of miles of way placed under construction, under the proposed program; capital cost per mile of way; and average commuter traveltime-by major metropolitan areas. What are you doing with your program? One of the major objectives, of course, is either to decrease the commuter traveltime or, at least, to keep it from increasing as the cities grow. Another line ought to be down here which ought to be "Safety." Again, it can be with some hard evaluation measure there approximately what can be accomplished. Senator CASE. Ought not one more to be preservation of urban livability, in terms of cities, parks, streets? Mr. SCHULTZE. I fully agree; that is correct. That brings up a point that I want to stress. This is not going to be, and should not be, and it would be a travesty if it did become, solely a quantitative measure of accomplishments. You have to take into account nonquantitative goals, but explicitly rather than implicitly. Cochairman MONRONEY. If you do not understand the statement, feel free to break in because it will save time later. Is that all right? Mr. SCHULTZE. Anytime, if you wish, Mr. Chairman. We have already covered urban transit systems. There still is going to be, obviously, a whole host of qualitative, nonquantifiable aspects to all of these. Not only that, the ultimate decisions are not going to be made by this process, but it throws up to the decisionmaker more pertinent information and better categories to help make those decisions. Representative CURTIS. I know that it is implied here, of course, as to the evaluation of what the Federal Government's part is in this. Mr. SCHULTZE. Exactly correct. In other words, you can start with the national needs, and those national needs in most cases would not be met by the Federal Government, but there will be aspects where you do have Federal programs to meet them. Representative CURTIS. That is what I thought it was. Mr. SCHULTZE. That is why I do not like to use our 5-year plans. Mr. SCHULTZE. Let me give you another example. Let us take the USIA. As you think of the Information Agency, you can really think of it in two aspects: First, the areas of the world, and, actually, within each area the countries to whom the USIA programs are directed (chart No. 6). AREA ACTIVITY CHART No. 6 Illustrative USIA PROGRAM SYSTEM WEST FAR LATIN NEAR EAST & EAST WORLD-WIDE ACTIVITY AFRICA EUROPE EAST AMERICA SOUTH ASIA EUROPE SUPPORT TOTALS Our overall global objectives are pretty much the same, but there are specific objectives that differ from region to region, and within each region by countries. on. Certainly, the USIA works by various media-radio, television, motion pictures, publications, information centers, exhibits, and so What would be exceedingly useful and what we do not now have except kind of sporadically is an appropriate cross-classification of the USIA activities by media, and, in turn, by area, and within area by country. In other words, a matrix of information on media by country which, in turn, can be related to the U.S. objectives in these areas. Now this, of course, since it has nothing in here, is not itself very helpful. So let us go to the next chart to indicate some of the kinds of things that would be involved in each section here. Representative CURTIS. The word "quality" is really the important thing there. Mr. SCHULTZE. Agreed. Representative CURTIS. Rather than "quantity." Mr. SCHULTZE. I turned to that. I left a chart out. I left one chart out which has not been photographed. Let us take the case of radio. The U.S. Information Agency activities in a given country (chart No. 7). I do not have a photograph myself. but I do have a larger chart. It is a chart that says "Illustrative USIA program in country X." What you would find is that in country X, you would have a radio program "Voice of America"-direct USIA transmission 40 hours a month at a cost of so much, a cost of so much per hour-and we can attempt to find out what the cost per listener is. This can be done in some cases through surveys. Then you have direct radio placement where you place programs on local stations. Again, let us say 36 hours a month, achieved direct placement, costs so much, and total, so much per hour, so much per listener. TV, the same thing. Magazines, so many magazines distributed, total cost so much, per magazine, so much per reader. This does not tell you, of course, how to allocate your money, but it gets you to the place that you know in a given area what it does, and what the cost per listener is. Then you, of course, have the qualitative judgment as to whether something which costs five times per listener is worth five times more. 47-814-65-pt. 12-6 You cannot put numbers on that, but, at least, the decisionmaker is at a point where he can make another judgment. The last chart, of course, is the defense system (chart No. 8), which has already been in operation for some 4 years and which illustrates some of the points. Originally, the defense programing and budget decisions were mainly in terms of input-personnel costs, operation and maintenance, procurement costs-but those, of course, are not the purpose of the Defense Department. The purpose of the Defense Department, aside from the very general category of defending the United States, breaks down into analyzable categories strategic retaliatory forces, continental defense forces, general purpose forces, airlift and sealift, reserve and guard, research and development, and so forth. In turn, under "Strategic retaliatory forces," you have specific bombers, surface-to-surface missiles of specific types. Having your program both in terms of numbers and system costs, and relating those in terms of this in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness of one versus the other, produces the kind of analysis which makes it possible to make, I think, better decisions than if the whole system was done on the old input basis. This is, basically, the kind of a system that we are attempting to implement to improve our present system, to improve our present system into this system. As you can see, it is still fairly general. This is not a question in which the Budget Bureau works this all out. It is a question in which we attempt to get the agencies, and will get the agencies, to set up the system in which they will be doing the analysis, the flow of outside information, their own analysis in the form that we have indicated which, I think, will not make any decision easier in a sense-the decisions are always hard, but I think it will present more clear concrete choices both within the executive branch—it will make it possible for the Congress in examination of agency witnesses to have access to much harder, concrete information. Representative HECHLER. You still plan to break out such items as construction, generally, that are related to these? Mr. SCHULTZE. Exactly. The other side of this is that the data is still available, the presentation is still made in the old categories as well, so that both systems of information are available, and we would, of course, maintain the old system of information as well as the new system of information, because it is useful. You are quite correct; it is well to have a knowledge of the input categories as well as the output categories, to know the personnel operation and maintenance, construction, and procurement, as well as having the budget in these categories, and both systems of information will be maintained; that is right. Cochairman MONRONEY. In other words, part of this will result in perhaps dropping entire programs, will it not, where they are nonproductive or have small productivity, and to put forward programs that will have a greater yield for service to a maximum number of people? Mr. SCHULTZE. Yes. Cochairman MONRONEY. And a realinement could result in several duties of the various departments and agencies Mr. SCHULTZE. What it will do is to put forward the information on which both the Executive and the Congress could reach that decision. This will not make that decision, but you are right, it will throw up the information on which to make such a decision. Cochairman MONRONEY. In other words, on this concept, it is not only important to know what a program costs, but whether we ought to be spending any money on it in the first place. Mr. SCHULTZE. And what you are getting for it. That is right. And you are relating what you are getting to what it costs. Cochairman MONRONEY. Are you through with the witness? Senator CASE. I have some more questions. There were several questions that I would like to have answered, but I do not want to appropriate the whole time of the committee in asking them, such matters as the witness' comment on, well, changing the budget year to a calendar year, and the biennium which would be better than 1 year, and the like, that sort of thing. I would be happy if you would off-the-cuff now do it, or submit it for the record, the answer to several of these questions. Cochairman MONRONEY. Those are questions that have been raised in the hearings, and I think that most of them would be very important to have the answers to. Mr. SCHULTZE. In the case of going to the calendar year, it does have some advantages, but it seems to me that the disadvantages probably outweigh the advantages. Primarily, because what it would do is to force even further into the future the forecasts that would have to be made in presenting a budget; in other words, what you would find is that the President was coming forward with a budget in January which had been prepared before the end of the fiscal year a whole year before the budget year. Remember, that this would then be a whole year ahead before any information on the current year could be available, so that it would make the problem of making the budget and |