Page Small Business Administration: Letter, October 5, 1971, from Mr. Kleppe to Chairman Wright, with answers to questions submitted by Mr. Cleveland_ Letter, July 29, 1971, from Mr. Kleppe to Chairman Wright, with SBA Prepared statement of Mr. Thomas S. Kleppe, Administrator, Small Charts regarding Public Law 566, watershed protection program-.. Graph, projections, Public Law 566, watershed projects---- Other: Environmental impact statements: A view in three dimensions-panel 566 569 557 198 223 208 277 556 APPENDIX Civil rights material: EDA civil rights fact sheet__. 646 EDA Affirmative Action Program, narrative outline, Apr. 4, 1971; includes form ED 612__ 647 Title VI, Civil Rights Act of July 2,1964, nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs-- 657 658 Title 15, subtitle A, part 8, Dec. 29, 1964, effectuation of title VI____. Form ED 503A, assurances of compliance with title VI by beneficiaries 670 676 683 685 687 Corps of Engineers, environmental statements, proposed guidelines on preparation and coordination, June 11, 1971. 616 Executive Order 11296, August 10, 1966, evaluation of flood hazard in contemplation of Federal activity 693 Governors' replies to letters from Chairman Wright_-_. 701 Agencies replies to Chairman Wright's invitation for comment on Governors' comments__ Governors' representatives and highway safety coordinators, list submit- 608 634 Letter, July 2, 1971, from Mr. Larry N. Spiller, Director of Governmental affairs. Consulting Engineers Council of the United States to Chairman Wright re expanding Government red tape-- 699 Major Disaster Declarations, 1965-1971 (May), includes contract number, 694 Secondary Roads, eight letters, submitted by Mr. Hajzyk___ 640 EXHIBITS (Retained in Subcommittee File) 1. Information matrix for environmental impact assessment, U.S. De- Page partment of the Interior, circular 645, plate I.. 2. Federal Highway Administration "flow chart"-. 3. TOPICS program flow chart, State of California. 4. Texas Highway Department flow chart showing minimum, average and maximum time for each phase of a typical project's development_ 91 91 112 112 5. Maine State Highway Commission-critical path flow diagram, project initiation to advertising (a summary of the flow chart's various steps begins at page 127) ....... 112 6. Wisconsin Department of Transportation flow chart_. 113 7. New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways, flow charts 113 8. Colorado Department of Highways flow chart__. 113 9. North Dakota State Highway Department flow chart....... 10A. General Services Administration, life cycle management model for buildings, new construction, draft, March 1971--. 10B. General Services Administration, life cycle management model for buildings, new construction, logic networks, draft, March 1971---11. Office of Emergency Preparedness-material resulting from administration of the new Disaster Act__ 113 12. Delaware River Basin Commission System Analysis indicating total of 70 steps leading up to the issuance of a permit under section 13, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Refuse Act). 411 411 553 605 RED TAPE-INQUIRING INTO DELAYS AND EXCESSIVE PAPERWORK IN ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMS TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James C. Wright, Jr., (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. WRIGHT. The subcommittee will be in order. We begin this morning what I expect to be a very significant set of hearings into the question of red tape which causes delays in a wide variety of public works programs. Since the broadening of the jurisdiction of this subcommittee earlier this year to provide legislative oversight over the wide range of public works programs involved in the legislative jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee, our staff investigators have been looking into the administrative management of some $16 billion worth of Federal expenditures every year. We have been deeply concerned over what seems to be an inexorable, though natural, tendency on the part of each program as it matures to proliferate paperwork, to add on to the requirements for additional forms and papers, to the end that almost every program administered in the field of public works slows down. One gets the impression, almost, of the Government bogged in a mire of paperwork and shackled by its own red tape. In many cases, this results in confusion on the part of local interests, frustrations on the part of local communities, and waning enthusiasm on the part of conscientious administrators who believe in the projects they are attempting to forward to completion. And in too many cases, I fear, it also leads to a conclusion on the part of many citizens-especially the young "action now" people-that the system just isn't really working. Now, this hearing is not intended either as a "witch hunt" or as a "whitewash." I think we shall discover, for example, that in many instances the addition of paperwork and reports and delays have resulted from congressional enactments in which well-intentioned Members of Congress have required additional facts. There seems to be a tendency, however, to take these congressional enactments and build onto them administrative guidelines which sometimes go farther than the Congress intends. (1) In any event, it is our earnest hope that in these hearings we may isolate and identify those areas where the drag of paperwork is significantly slowing down the prosecution of the programs that Congress has authorized and appropriated moneys for and, to the extent that it is humanly possible, to eliminate all the unnecessary paperwork that seems to have encrusted itself like barnacles upon our ship of state. We have a number of very distinguished guests and visitors here today. Before we introduce them and bring forth our first witness, I should like to recognize the ranking minority member of the committee, Mr. Cleveland, who was to a large degree responsible for the setting upon this course of holding these public hearings. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might say before my opening remarks that the schedule this morning calls for me to be the second witness, and as the second witness before this subcommittee, I was going to discuss with the subcommittee what I consider to be a rather classic example of redtape; namely, the 12-year struggle of the New Hampshire Highway Department in getting the Interstate completed through northern New Hampshire, in the section of the State known as Franconia Notch. Because of a Republican conference that has been called, I have been rescheduled at 2 o'clock, and I appreciate the Chairman's accommodating me with this rescheduling. For those of you who are interested in this rather classic case of the redtape problem that has assaulted some of the local governments, I do have prepared statements setting out this interesting and rather melancholy tale, if you can't be back here at 2 o'clock this afternoon. In that connection it isn't just in the highway area that we have encountered these problems of redtape and delay, with the accompanying great increase in cost. There have been other examples that I have offered to the full committee under Mr. Blatnik, which is now studying the water pollution problem, that makes somewhat the same point. Mr. Chairman, my opening statement is as follows: I am very glad these hearings are getting underway. Red tape in Government-with all its attendant problems-has been a major concern for some time. In New Hampshire, we have too often been confronted with its burdens. Time and again I have tried to help my constituents-State and local officials, as well as private citizens-cut through the everpresent web of redtape facing them in their dealings with the Federal Government. Parenthetically, I might add here, I am sure I am not the only Member of Congress who has found himself devoting an ever increasing amount of his time and that of his staff to the red tape problem. This is not a complaint. It is an observation. As Congressmen attempt to help their constituents with the problem of redtape, it is a salutary thing for the Congressmen because of correspondence. This acquaints them with the problems that the agencies are facing, and to be frank, we have to admit that some of the red tape results from some of the proposals that the Congressmen themselves have embraced, and in some cases, the Congressmen have even proposed and urged enact ment of them. Quite frankly, I have found this general problem to be one of the most frustrating aspects of government. So much so, in fact, that I plan during the course of these hearings to assume the role of witness myself and outline for the record some of the specific redtape aggravations we in New Hampshire have struggled with in connection with projects and programs within the jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee. It is certain that potential recipients of Federal assistance—those very ones for whom we have designed the programs become frustrated and confused by the proliferation of paperwork requirements, the changes in regulations which often negate many hours of work they have performed in fulfilling Federal requirements, and the procrastinated decisions which often occur in the Federal establishment. Is it any wonder that there are some who question whether it is worthwhile to even request assistance from their Government? I have also noted with growing concern that simple paragraphs in the law, which require some agreement from a potential recipient of Federal aid, too often, in bureaucratic splendor of interpretation, catapult from this small paragraph size to an impressive and frightening super document of many thousands of words. If our aim is to offer assistance on a catch-me-if-you-can basis, we seem to be heading in the right direction. Regrettably, redtape has been a Government-wide problem for a long time. Over the years there have been many efforts to eliminate— or at least curb-its burdensome effects. Many studies and surveys have been conducted, some on a one-shot basis, others on a continuing or oversight basis. I may add to my statement, I applaud the chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Wright, in his efforts to once again assault this bureaucratic jungle of redtape, recognizing once again that Congress must sometimes share some of the blame. I have confidence that the situation has now reached such proportions that something solid can come from these hearings. We are concerned now with the problems of unemployment in many parts of the country. Congress has responded with an accelerated public works program, and Congress has responded with a program that will create some public service jobs. But all of us in our heart of hearts must be aware of the fact that even if Congress passes these programs, we must recognize and admit that it will be months, agonizing months, and in some cases years, before the effect of those programs can be felt and the people whom we wish to reemploy, be reemployed. Now, one of the more famous studies of the significance of the problem was conducted by the second Hoover Commission, back in 1955. In its report on paperwork and redtape, there was a particularly interesting observation concerning paperwork costs. An analysis prepared by management consultants revealed that, in government and in industry, the minimum cost of processing each five character word or five digit number by each person preparing a report was 1 cent per word. Apply that to the trillions of words put on paper and it is a staggering thought. Remember, that was in 1955. Today, I estimate that the 1 cent figure has increased over 100 percent, and the cost |