APPENDIXES APPENDIX I.-CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS TABLE 1.-NUMBER AND PERCENT OF MEMBERS RESPONDING, BY CONGRESSIONAL BODY, PARTY AFFILIATION, 1 Total for each category does not add to total respondents because 2 Members did not identify themselves. TABLE 2.-NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS FROM EACH REGION, BY PARTY AFFILIATION 1 Total for each category does not addto total respondents because 2 Members did not identify themselves. TABLE 3.-DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSE AND SENATE RESPONDENTS, BY PARTY AFFILIATION APPENDIX II CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Washington, D.C., September 18, 1973. DEAR COLLEAGUE: The Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee is presently engaged in a comprehensive study of the several types of Federal grants made to State and local governments, and of possible approaches for improving the effectiveness of Federal grant programs. General revenue sharing is one of the methods, and the newest, used by the Federal Government to assist the States and their political subdivisions. Some $8 billion of the $30.2 billion voted by the Congress in general revenue sharing funds have been distributed so far under Public Law 92-512 (the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972). I believe it would be very useful, while general revenue sharing is still in its early stages, to obtain the impressions of the Members of Congress on certain of the provisions and effects of this legislation. I am therefore requesting each Member of the House and Senate to respond to the enclosed short questionnaire. Your responses to the questions will be treated confidentially and will be used only for the compilation of summary information. Members are encouraged to supplement their responses with narrative comment where appropriate. I will greatly appreciate your cooperation in completing the questionnaire and returning it to the subcommittee as promptly as possible. Sincerely, L. H. FOUNTAIN, Chairman. Enclosure. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON GENERAL REVENUE SHARING 1. The initial reports on the uses of revenue sharing funds indicate that the payments have enabled some recipient governments to reduce taxes (or avoid tax increases) as permitted under this legislation. Do you regard this as a desirable use of revenue sharing funds? Desirable Undesirable No opinion 2. Some State and local officials have expressed concern that Congress may not renew revenue sharing because of reports that some localities have used funds for "frivolous" purposes. Please indicate by checkmark which, if any, of the following uses of revenue sharing funds you would regard as "frivolous" or undesirable: (a) Purchasing land for bike and hiking trails (b) Constructing a public golf course (c) Sharing with private enterprise the cost of free off-street parking in central business district (d) Increasing salaries of State or municipal employees (e) Making contributions to an employee pension fund 3. Are you aware of any specific expenditures that have been made or are planned from general revenue sharing funds which you would regard as frivolous or undesirable? If so, please describe below: 4. Would you indicate below what you believe to be the primary purpose or purposes of the general revenue sharing provisions enacted in 1972. 5. Some 38,000 units of local government now receive revenue sharing payments. It is alleged that because so many local governments receive revenue sharing payments, the funds are spread more thinly than is desirable. What is your opinion of this allegation? Agree Disagree Don't know 6. Revenue sharing funds are divided between the county government and other eligible local governments within a county in the proportion that county taxes bear to total local taxes collected within that county (excluding taxes for education). Revenue sharing funds are divided between the State government and local governments in each State in the fixed ratio of one-third for State government and two-thirds for local governments. Would you favor amending Public Law 92-512 to provide for a division of revenue sharing funds between the State and its local governments on the basis of the ratio of State tax collections to total State and local tax collections? No opinion Favor Oppose 7. The Federal Government is presently using three types of grants for assisting State and local governments-categorical, broaderpurpose block grants, and general revenue sharing. In your opinion, does the Federal aid system as presently constituted have: (a) Approximately the right mix of these three types of grants? or (b) (1) Too heavy reliance on categorical grants? (2) (c) (1) (2) (d) (1) (2) Too heavy reliance on broader-purpose block grants? Too little reliance on broader-purpose block Too heavy reliance on general revenue sharing? 8. If the Congress were to extend the general revenue sharing program, would you favor: (a) Giving local governments the same flexibility in the use of revenue sharing funds as the States now have (that is, eliminate the specification of high priority areas of expenditure)? Favor Oppose No opinion (b) Restricting the State use of revenue sharing funds to high priority purposes specified by the Federal Government? Favor Oppose No opinion (c) Eliminating the prohibition against using revenue sharing funds as a source of required matching funds for Federal grantsin-aid? No opinion (d) Excluding from participation those smaller general units of local government which provide few public services (e.g., a township in which 70 percent or more of general expenditures are devoted to a single purpose such as highways or welfare assistance)? No opinion 9. If you have been called upon to help resolve disputes between the Office of Revenue Sharing of the U.S. Treasury Department and your State or local governments in your district, or have been contacted by constituents questioning the use of revenue sharing funds, would you estimate the number of such contacts since January 3, 1973? Contacts from: State officials Local officials Private individuals Member's name State о |