Committee On the Organization of the Congress and closely resembles the proposed amendment (Section 136 (b) and (c)) to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 190 d) contained in Section 105 (a) of S. 355 (90th Congress). Second, Section 4(b)(3) requires that each standing committee of the Senate and House of Representatives submit not later than March 31 of each year reports on their review activities of the preceding calendar year. This section parallels the proposed amendment to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (Section 136 (d)) appearing under Section 105(a) of S. 355. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has found that grants-in-aid to State and local governments have been and are the National government's principal mechanism for securing intergovernmental collaboration in accomplishing national legislative objectives. As you know, reliance on the grant device has increased significantly during the past few years. With this have come mounting problems of fragmentation, manageability, and coordination. In view of the paramount position of Federal grants in the American system of intergovernmental relations, the Advisory Commission believes that the efficacy, value and public acceptability of this mechanism must be safeguarded and that its usefulness as a collaborative device be strengthened. More than six years ago the Commission was struck by the widespread concern over the deficiencies in existing legislative procedures pertaining to grants, especially as related to determining those grants that had achieved their initial objectives and to redirecting others to reflect developments subsequent to their enactment. On May 25, 1960, the ACIR placed the subject of periodic review of Federal grants-in-aid on its work program and subsequently at its June 15, 1961 meeting the Commission adopted a report entitled Periodic Congressional Reassessment of Federal Grants-In-Aid To State and Local Governments. This report was made part of the record of the hearings on S. 2114 in the 88th Congress. It spells out in depth the Commission's recommendation for systematic review. This recommendation would be implemented by the enactment of S. 458, S. 735, or Title V of S. 698. The Commission position has consistently been that there is a need for general legislation providing for systematic review and assessment of grants-in-aid. This should not be interpreted to mean that Federal grant-in-aid programs under current congressional and administrative processes go unreviewed. The executive agencies involved are giving closer and closer attention to the operation of their programs and requests for grant funds are subject to the usual scrutiny of the appropriation processes in Congress. Moreover, the legislative oversight committees exercise surveillance with respect to grants coming within their jurisdiction. In general, however, the review and redirection of grants are treated unsystematically and on an uncoordinated basis. The findings of the Joint Committee On the Organization of the Congress in this area only confirms these earlier ACIR recommendations. The Commission position is, therefore, that the proposed legislation would be beneficial on a number of counts. It would stimulate development of more uniform criteria with which Congressional committees could critically assess the effectiveness of grants-in-aid in important subject matter fields. Equally significant is the provision for systematic committee review since it would give State and local governments a regular forum for voicing their views concerning the problems that have arisen in connection with the administration of individual grant programs. Further, the five year termination provision relating to certain future grants is a salutory feature of the legislation. Much confusion has arisen concerning this issue, but it should be pointed out that this section obviously would in no way affect those grants that have a termination date or those that have been specifically exempted from its application. In short, the termination provision merely affects those few programs each session that Congress fails to designate as short-term or long-term undertakings. In such instances, the Commission feels that the five year termination provision, along with the review process that in most instances would result from it, would be helpful. With reference to Sections 4, 5, and 6 of S. 458, and to Sections 504 and 505 of S. 698, the Advisory Commission has taken no formal position. The first three embody amendments which were adopted by the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations during its deliberations on S. 2114, in the S8th Congress and which appeared in Title II of S. 561 in the 89th Congress as it was enacted by the Senate. As in the case of the above, the Commission has taken no formal position with reference to the review specialist and annual report provisions of S. 735. These subsections do not appear to conflict with the Commission's basic recommenda tions in this area, and tend to further implement those of the Joint Committee on the Organizatiton of the Congress. We hope these comments will assist the Subcommittee in its deliberations on this proposed legislation. I should like to make clear that in the submission of these comments, I am speaking only for the Advisory Commission and not for the President or the Administration. Sincerely yours, FARRIS BRYANT, Chairman. COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovermental Relations, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: As you requested we have reviewed S. 458 and S. 735, bills "to provide for periodic congressional review of Federal grants-in-aid to States and to local units of government." We find ourselves in sympathy with the proposal calling for evaluation of grant-in-aid programs after several years of experience. But we hesitate to support an arbitrary review and termination date for each program not otherwise covered by a termination date. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, GARDNER ACKLEY. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Your letters of February 28, 1967, requested the views of the General Services Administration on S. 458 and S. 735 of the 90th Congress, similar bills to provide for periodic congressional review of Federal grantsin-aid to States and to local units of government. These bills relate to programs to be enacted by future Congresses for grant-inaid assistance by the Federal Government to States or their political subdivisions; provide expiration dates for the authorization of such grants; and require the review of such programs by appropriate committees of the House and the Senate on or before June 30 of the calendar year preceding the year in which such programs will expire. Committee reports covering such studies would show the extent to which the purpose for which each grant was authorized has been met, whether the recipient can carry on without further Federal assistance, and whether changes in purpose or direction should be made. S. 458 would also vest centralized responsibility in the Comptroller General to review presently existing and all future programs for such grant-in-aid assistance and submit to the Congress reports and recommendations concerning the effectiveness of the programs. With the enactment of Public Law 88-383, GSA has at this time one program for grant assistance to States and local agencies and to nonprofit organizations and institutions. These grants, which will terminate on June 30, 1969, are to assist in the financing of recipients in the collecting, describing, preserving and compiling and publishing of documentary sources significant to the history of the United States. However, we do not believe that payments under this program would be determined to be "grants-in-aid" under these bills in that section 7(3) (ii) (6) of S. 458 and section 4(c) (B) (vi) of S. 735 exclude "payments under research and development contracts or grants which are awarded directly and on similar terms to all qualifying organizations, whether public or private." Inasmuch as we do not expect that the enactment of either S.458 or S. 735 would substantially affect any programs of the General Services Administration, we defer to the views of the interested Federal departments and agencies as to the merits of the proposed legislation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, J. E. MOODY, Acting Administrator. Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: By letter dated February 28, 1967, you requested our comments on S. 735, 90th Congress. The stated purpose of this measure is "To provide for periodic review of Federal programs of grant-in-aid assistance to the States." We note that section 5 of the bill erroneously listed as section 4 includes "any agency or instrumentality of a State" in the definition of the term "State." It is possible that the proposed legislation could be construed as applying to any new authorizations, or changes in existing authorizations for Federal payments to the National Guard enacted by the 90th or subsequent Congresses, since the National Guard is an instrumentality of the various States. However, hearings on similar bills do not indicate that such legislation is intended to apply to Federal funds appropriated for the National Guard. Moreover, since the National Guard has been in existence since the formation of our country and apparently will continue in existence for the foreseeable future, we do not believe that Federal aid in support thereof will be terminated, or that the Congress intends to require the authority for each Federal support to terminate automatically every five years as provided in S. 735 and hence require new study and authorization periodically. Hence, it is our opinion that S. 735 is not intended to apply to Federal payments to the National Guard. It would be preferable, however, if the bill itself or its legislative history would clearly so indicate. We note that this measure, in large part, would provide for the same type of Congressional review of grant-in-aid assistance as would be provided by title V of S. 698, 90th Congress. The primary difference between the provisions of this bill and title V of S. 698 is that in this bill no specific provision is made for studies by the Comptroller General of Federal grant-in-aid programs as provided in section 504 of S. 698. As pointed out in our report of today's date on S. 698, we do not feel that such requirement in S. 698 imposes any requirements on our office in addition to those we believe now exist for reporting to the Congress on the results of our reviews of Government programs, including Federal grant-in-aid programs. Consequently, we do not feel that-so far as our office is concernedthere is any substantial difference between S. 735 and title V of S. 698. We recognize that any provision for specific review by the Comptroller General of such programs will perhaps change the frequency of our review of such programs and of course, such provision would serve to emphasize congressional interest in a continuing overall review of grant-in-aid programs. In any event, the question of whether specific provision should be made for review of grant-inaid by our office is viewed as fundamentally a question of policy for the sole determination of the Congress. We are of course strongly in accord with the objectives of this bill and title V of S. 698. Legislation along the lines of these measures would appear to be beneficial not only as an additional device for strengthening congressional control over Federal grants-in-aid but also as an additional means for acquiring current information as a basis for legislation in the complex and changing area of Federal-State-local relationships. Sincerely yours, ELMER B. STAATS, Comptroller General of the United States. 95-626-68 -6 Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D.C., September 28, 1967. Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to S. 735, 90th Congress, a bill "To provide for periodic review of Federal programs of grant-inaid assistance to the States." The Department of the Army has been assigned responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense. This bill, which if enacted, would be cited as the "Federal Grant-in-Aid Review Act of 1967," would establish procedures for review of grant-in-aid programs authorizing assistance from the Federal Government to two or more States or their political subdivisions. All future programs, unless the enacting statute specifically provides otherwise, shall expire on June 30 of the fifth calendar year which begins after the effective date of the enactment of such program. The bill provides for a specific review by the Congress for such programs as are authorized over a period of three or more years. This review would be conducted during the period beginning not later that twelve months immediately preceding the date on which such authority is to expire and the results of committee investigation and study would be reported not later than one hundred and twenty days before such authority is due to expire. In the case of existing statutes authorizing the establishment of programs for grant-in-aid assistance over a period of three or more years to two or more States or their political subsdivisions, each standing committee of the Senate and House of Representatives which exercises legislative jurisdiction and oversight over such programs would review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, operation, administration, and execution of such program, and would submit, not later than March 31 of each year, a report on its activities during the immediately preceding calendar year. The studies both for future and existing programs shall be conducted to ascertain whether the purposes for which such future grants-in-aid would be authorized have been met, the extent to which such programs can be carried on without further Federal financial assistance, the extent to which such program is adequate to meet any growing and changing needs related to the purposes for which it was originally designed. and whether any changes in purpose, direction, or administration of the original program should be made. The Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of Defense, has no objection to S. 735. With respect to the details of this bill, this Department defers to other agencies more directly concerned, that is, those administering grant programs, for example, the Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development and Transportation. The fiscal effects of this legislation are not known to the Department of Defense. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, STANLEY R. RESOR, Secretary of the Army. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D.C., December 7, 1967. Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to S. 458, 90th Congress, a bill "To provide for periodic congressional review of Federal grantsin-aid to States and to local units of government." The Department of the Army has been assigned responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense. This bill would provide that all programs of grants-in-aid (authorized by the Eighty-ninth or any subsequent Congress) from the Federal Government to two or more States or their political subdivisions, unless the enacting statute specifically provides otherwise, shall expire on June 30 of the fifth calendar year which begins after the effective date of the enactment of such program. Concurrently, the bill provides for a specific review by the Congress for such grantsin-aid programs as are authorized over a period of three or more years to ascertain whether the purposes for which such grants-in-aid would be authorized have been met, the extent to which such programs can be carried on without further Federal financial assistance, and whether any changes in purpose, direction, or administration of the original program should be made to conform to recommendations of the Comptroller General under Section 4 of the bill or the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (established by Public Law 86-380) under Section 5. The bill provides that such Congressional review shall be conducted during the period beginning not less than twelve months or more than twenty-four months immediately preceding the date on which such authority is to expire and the results of committee investigation and study shall be reported not later than one hundred and twenty days before such authority is due to expire. The bill further provides that the Comptroller General shall make continuing studies of presently existing as well as all future programs for grant-in-aid assistance from the Federal Government and furnish reports, together with recommendations, to the Congress. Finally the bill provides that each recipient of assistance whether under any new Act of Congress enacted after the effective date of this Act or any new grant-in-aid agreement, or extension, modification or alteration of any existing grant-in-aid agreement pursuant to existing law shall keep records in accordance with the requirements of the Federal agency administering the program. The majority of the grant-in-aid programs administered by the Department of Defense, which includes direct reserach grants authorized by the Act of September 6, 1958, P.L. 85-934 (42 U.S.C. 1891), are excluded from periodic Congressional review by the language of this bill. Therefore, the Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of Defense, defers to the views of other more directly affected Federal agencies. Enactment of this bill would have no foreseeable fiscal effect on the budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, STANLEY R. RESOR, Secretary of the Army. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Governmental Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for our views on S. 458, a bill: "To provide for periodic Congressional reviews of Federal grantsin-aid to State and to local units of government." and S. 735, a bill: "To provide for periodic review of Federal programs of grant-in-aid assistance to the States." The Department of Transportation administers several grant-in-aid programs. The Federal-Aid Airport Program under the Federal Airport Act provides 50 percent matching funds for airport construction. The Interstate Highway Program provides 90 percent federal funds, plus a bonus to States having large areas of public lands, for the construction of the 41,000-mile system of Interstate and Defense Highways. The ABC Highway Program provides 50 percent federal money (plus some bonus) for construction of primary, secondary and urban extension highways. The Highway Beautification Program provides 75 percent federal funds for billboard and junkyard control and 100 percent funding for landscaping and scenic enhancement. The Highway Safety Program provides up to 50 percent federal money for assistance to States in implementing programs to meet federal highway safety standards. |