THE FEDERAL PAPERWORK JUNGLE FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND GOVERNMENT STATISTICS OF THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., room 215, Cannon Office Building, Hon. Arnold Olsen of Montana (subcommittee chairman) presiding. Mr. OLSEN. The subcommittee will come to order. Starting today and continuing Monday through Wednesday of next week, June 22, 23, and 24, the Subcommittee on Census and Government Statistics is conducting part 5, the concluding sessions, of its current hearings on Federal Government paperwork. As you may recall, part 1 took place in Albany, N.Y., on May 1, last; part 2 in Chicago, Ill., on May 8; part 3 in Washington on May 19 and 20; and part 4 also in Washington from June 1 through June 3. For your information, the hearings records will be numbered in this fashion. Thus far, we have heard upward to 50 witnesses, approximately half from business and related associations, and half from the Federal Government. The private witnesses have told us about individual paperwork problems created by the Federal Government which trouble them and need attention; they have made recommendations (seven in the case of one witness) to overcome this type of problem; others have raised good philosophical questions of the relationship between the Government and those it serves; they have pointed out areas in which they cannot get a satisfactory understanding in regard to paperwork problems; and have demonstrated some inadequacy of communications on the part of the Federal Government as to the purpose of information furnished by the public; and several other areas similar to that. Finally, you will be glad to hear that the private witnesses have revealed areas in which little publicized but still significant progress in solving the paperwork dilemma is being made. The public witnesses have been cooperative and helpful in defining the problem and in discussing it. We appreciate the appearance of all witnesses, including our colleagues in the Congress who have testified or submitted statements for the record. The departments and agencies have done a good job of presentation and some have actually begun to reduce their reporting requirements. Unfortunately, however, increases have been more prevalent and will continue if we don't put a stop to them. Now, as you could be sure, we have been told that the whole thing is the fault of the Congress and the laws we pass. There is no doubt that this is partly true, and we may be able to do something about it. The point we want to stress on the other hand is the need for the departments and agencies to establish a consciousness of the paperwork burden they are imposing on the public and to exercise ingenuity in order to reduce it. From some of the things we have seen, the amount of paperwork involved is not even taken into consideration when plans for a given program are formulated. I think after plans for a program are formulated, there is a deliberate attempt to make paperwork. We found examples of it, especially in our hearings on June 3, where in one agency there was rather broad authority to determine health conditions in the Nation. They very nearly started a new Census Bureau. Before proceeding with the first witness this morning, I should like to place in the record at this time the following letters and other documents I have received: Letter dated May 26, 1964, and enclosure, from Mr. Robert E. Webb, president, the Tri-State Foundry Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; Letter dated June 1, 1964, from Mr. Frank S. Kelly, Jr., gas and oil producer, Shreveport, La.; Letter dated June 4, 1964, from Mr. Charles E. Hastings, president, Hastings-Raydist, Inc., Hampton, Va.; and Press release of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, dated June 12, 1964, entitled "Improvements Planned in Census Bureau, U.S. Export Statistics." (The material referred to follows:) THE TRI-STATE FOUNDRY CO., Hon. ARNOLD OLSEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. SIR: We read with interest a recent article in our local paper wherein you were to conduct a "safari into the paperwork jungle," which has been created and nourished by our Government. We are a small gray iron foundry which has survived 11 competitive years in the jobbing business. Our average employment is about 35 production employees and 5 nonproduction employees, which includes 1 female clerk and 1 female bookkeeper. As you may note from the various forms listed on enclosed sheet that our two office employees may not be sufficient to perform all of these services in addition to their regular duties. All of the following reports "not marked" statistics, we assume with some degree of reluctance as being necessary. The "statistical" reports are in our opinion absolutely worthless. They are just time consuming and of no material help to us or our industry. Thanks for your patience, and we trust your "safari" will prove profitable and enjoyable. Sincerely, MONTHLY ROBERT E. WEBB, President. *Federal Form M3-1: Bureau of Census, Industry Division-Manufacturers' shipments and orders. *Federal Form M3-2: Bureau of Census, Industry Division-Manufacturers' inventories. *Federal Form DL 1219: U.S. Department of Labor-Labor turnover. Federal Depositary receipt. *Statistics. QUARTERLY Federal Form No. 941: Employers Federal tax return. State Form UCO-2E: Ohio Unemployment return. City: City income tax withheld. *Federal Form BLS 1417: Department of Labor-Work injuries report. SEMIANNUALLY State Form A-31-135M: Workmen compensation report. ANNUALLY Form 1120: Federal income tax return. State Form 1-DWRF: Workmen relief fund. Federal Form 940: Federal unemployment compensation. City: City income tax return. County Form No. 930: Personal property tax return. Federal Form 938A: Security valuation statement. Federal Forms 1096 and 1099: Salaries, fees, dividends, and commission paid other than on payroll. Federal Form W-2: Gross earnings of all employees, etc. Federal Form W-3: Total income tax withheld each quarter. *State Form 1124: State industrial relations. *Federal Form MA-100: Manufacturers' census report. Representative OLSEN, Chairman, Committee on Government Statistics, SHREVEPORT, LA., June 1, 1964. DEAR CONGRESSMAN OLSEN: As a director of the Independent Natural Gas Association whose offices are in the World Center Building, Washington, D.C., I want to compliment you and your committee on investigating the so-called paperwork jungle which has been developing for the past 30 years in Washington. As an oil and gas operator I can certify to the terrific amount of paperwork and legal expense which is being caused our industry by a number of asinine rules and regulations perpetuated by the Federal Power Commission and other governmental agencies. Frankly, the industry is at a loss as to what information the Commission needs in most cases. I have been in their offices in the past and have seen tremendous reports filed by companies which were uncalled for. However, the Commission did not take the trouble to call the companies and advise them that they did not need this material. They merely included it in their files so they would have something else to look at down the road. As you know, all of these expenses for preparing the reports are included in the cost of doing business, so that the dear consumers in the North and East whom the Federal Power Commission is dedicated to protect, are the ones who are paying most of these costs. Keep up the good work. I am having to leave and office and am asking my Secretary to sign this letter for me. Sincerely, F. S. KELLY, Jr. HASTINGS-RAYDIST, INC., Hon. ARNOLD OLSEN, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE OLSEN: I read with considerable interest your recent article entitled "Paperwork Jungle," and I feel that you and your subcommittee should be highly commended in your efforts to reduce the amount of paperwork generated by Federal agencies. It is my hope that it will be possible for you to effect additional Federal legislation, or preferably modification of present legislation, to help relieve this situation. *Statistics. All too often, reports by Federal agencies have emphasized how little it costs to obtain information, disregarding entirely the cost to the companies involved in obtaining this information. I was amazed recently to find that in 1963 the Renegotiation Board recovered only $10 million. The recordkeeping resulting from the peculiarities of the renegotiation law is so costly to American industry that I am certain the amount that the U.S. Government could have collected in taxes because of the savings and increased profits of these corporations would far exceed the amount recovered. We are a small company that is not subject to renegotiation since we have not yet done $1 million worth of renegotiable business a year; however, we did $800,000 worth last year and had to keep records to ascertain whether we were subject to renegotiation. We have estimated one-half of a man-year of time was involved in maintaining such records, and we are a company of only 75 employees. Has there been an estimate made of the cost to American industry to keep these records for renegotiable purposes? I think if such could be determined it might be very interesting and enlightening. May I urge you to keep up the good work. I know of no other area where so much in savings to American industry, and ultimately the taxpayer, can be accomplished as in this field that your committee is tackling. Sincerely yours, CHARLES E. HASTINGS, President. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., June 12, 1964. IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED IN CENSUS BUREAU'S U.S. EXPORT STATISTICS Under a plan proposed by the U.S. Department of Commerce it will be easier to relate export statistics to statistics on domestic production and to trade data of other countries. The plan was developed by the Department's Bureau of the Census with the cooperation of the Brueau of the Budget and the Federal Committee on Foreign Trade Statistics. It is the second major step in relating U.S. foreign trade statistics to data on domestic output and to data of other trading nations. The first step was a similar plan applied to imports effective February 1964. Beginning with statistics for January 1965, export data will be collected in terms of a commodity classification that will permit publication of data in terms of (1) the standard international trade classification (SITC) as modified for U.S. needs, and (2) U.S. production classifications based on the standard industrial classification (SIC). The former will be published monthly and annually and the latter only annually. The arrangement of the proposed commodity classification will follow the SITC and will be released in Public Bulletin B-8 for review by exporters and users of the statistics. Public Bulletin B-8 will be mailed to all schedule B subscribers. In addition, a limited number of copies will be available for other interested persons on request from the Bureau of the Census. Recommendations for changes in this proposed classification should be submitted to the Foreign Trade Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 20233, or to the Budget Bureau's Advisory Council on Federal Reports, 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C., 20036, no later than July 31, 1964. This time schedule must be adhered to if this program is to be made effective with the January 1965 statistics. Mr. OLSEN. We are ready now for our first witness who is Mr. Anthony J. Nesti, chief statistician, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, New York, N.Y. Mr. Nesti, we appreciate your coming down from New York to appear before us, and welcome. Please proceed as you wish. We know you are taking valuable time to come here and we want you to know we appreciate it. You may proceed as you wish. |