Mr. OLSEN. The National Science Foundation has financed a number of studies among high school and college graduates. We are familiar with the research program of the Office of Education. I am wondering if your studies have not in effect been competing with the research program of the Office of Education? Dr. DEES. I am not absolutely certain, Mr. Chairman, what studies you are referring to here. Among our various science education programs at the Foundation we have a considerable number of activities that have to do with secondary school science education, and it may be some of the standard reporting forms we use in our own active program are what you are thinking of here. The two survey or research projects we have supported that could have been though of as having some duplication with the Office of Education were studies we conducted with the Educational Testing Service and the College Entrance Examination Board which were to give us and the Nation some information about what it was that was preventing students from going on to college. I might say these studies were done with the full knowledge of the Office of Education. The results of these studies have, in the intervening period, proved to be extremely useful to the Office of Education and I think I can state categorically that we are in no sense duplicating any of their effort because we work very closely with them in all these matters. Mr. OLSEN. I see one here, a survey of offerings and enrollments in secondary schools. You awarded the contract to the Office of Education. Dr. DEES. This was a transfer of funds to the Office of Education. We do this in a number of instances where, because of our own interests, we are deeply concerned, and this is simply to help round out the picture of studies that the Office of Education is engaged in. I might point out that in the very early days of the Foundation one of the major areas we needed information on was the number of degrees by field of science being awarded in this country, and at that time the U.S. Office of Education was getting information on degrees but not in as much detail as seemed to be necessary for our purposes. We were able, by making a transfer for 1 or 2 years, to make it possible for them to get these data earlier than they otherwise could have, and later they incorporated this kind of study in their own operation so that we are not any longer involved in a transfer of funds for this survey. Mr. OLSEN. Then you have another contract to the National Research Council, a study of the high school background of doctorates, 1959 to 1962. Dr. DEES. This was in no way a duplication of the Office of Education and it grows out of a study the Office of Education and the Foundation jointly support, a study which is designed to make sure that we have data with respect to all Ph. D.'s awarded in the United States in science and in all other fields. Out of that stockpile of information a substudy, this small study you have referred to, has been carried out by Dr. Lindsey Harmon to determine what were the characteristics of the individuals and schools and localities that led them, as far back as high school graduation, to go on for terminal degrees at the Ph. D. level. Mr. OLSEN. Here is a standard question we ask all witnesses: To your knowledge, has the Bureau of the Budget ever refused clearance on a survey proposed by the National Science Foundation? Dr. DEES. No, sir. We have looked into this matter. We find there are two that are still pending because of questions that have been raised by the Bureau. I can from personal knowledge say there have been a large number they have raised questions about. We have modified and changed around until we saw things eye to eye. There have been none on which we have been told, "No, you may not have approval." Mr. OLSEN. In your opinion, do you think the Bureau of the Budget has done a good job of policing the survey questionnaires that have been issued by the Government? Dr. DEES. From our experience, there is no doubt that the Bureau has, on the one hand, able people looking after this problem, and is doing a fair job-fair in the sense of equitable-in looking at both the agency problems and the problems of the respondents. On a number of occasions I personally have dealt with reviewers who very obviously were attempting to make sure we were not including more than we really needed to include, that we were raising the questions in an understandable and germane way, and looked at from the standpoint of a citizen, and I like to do that, too, I think they are doing a good job. Mr. OLSEN. In your own department, is it you as the Director of Planning that reviews the particular survey questionnaire; or who is it? Dr. DEES. In the studies that go out for large numbers of respondents as contrasted with our own operational forms, such as fiscal reports from grantees, yes; it is my responsibility to review such questionnaires as the one that you saw a few minutes ago. Obviously, on occasions this sort of thing is delegated downward to office heads who report to me, but it is my responsibility. Mr. OLSEN. After you approve the form, it has to go to the Bureau of the Budget? Dr. DEES. Yes, and Mr. Tihila at the end of the table is our forms clearance officer. Mr. OLSEN. That is all. Thank you very much, Dr. Dees. Thanks to your colleagues for coming here with you. I might say I think you discharged yourself very well in justifying the work you are doing. Dr. DEES. Thank you. Mr. OLSEN. Chairman Goff, we are very happy to have you here. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. ABE MCGREGOR GOFF, CHAIRMAN, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY BERNARD F. SCHMID, MANAGING DIRECTOR; ERNEST WEISS, ASSISTANT MANAGING DIRECTOR; HAROLD McCOY, SECRETARY; MRS. BERTHA F. ARMES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY; MATTHEW PAOLO, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS; CHARLES N. GRAHAM, CHIEF, SECTION OF REPORTS, BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS; ROBERT L. ABARE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO MANAGING DIRECTOR; MRS. AGATHA L. MERGENOVICH, CHIEF, PAPERWORK MANAGEMENT BRANCH; AND HIRAM H. SPICER, CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON OFFICER Mr. GoFF. I am pleased to appear before your committee, Mr. Chairman. It is a particular pleasure as you are a graduate of the State University of Montana, and I am a graduate of the University of Idaho. Each has a law school, but there is now, and has been for a great many years, a very friendly athletic rivalry between the two institutions. I played football at Missoula several times and have played against Montana at Moscow, Idaho. It was the custom of my wife and myself to always drive over to Missoula in the years that the annual football game was played there. As I think you know, Mr. Chairman, the ICC has the regulation of all domestic surface transportation in intersate commerce that falls within the scope of the act. That includes all the railroads, the bus and truck lines, the barge lines operating on canals and rivers, the interstate oil pipelines, the freight forwarders, transportation brokers, and those special services like the Railway Express Agency, and the car companies who rent to railroads. Mr. Olsen, I do not know how you want to proceed, as I have a fairly long prepared statement. I can summarize it if you prefer. Mr. OLSEN. Chairman Goff, I think it would be best if you could highlight it. We will at this point place your full statement in the record as though read. Mr. GOFF. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to testify before you today on a subject which has been of great interest to the Commission which it is my privilege to represent. The Interstate Commerce Commission strongly supports your continued efforts to cut down on paperwork-reporting requirements on the part of Government agencies. During the past few years, the Commission has made what we consider significant progress in this area. We intend to continue our efforts. We are well aware of the natural tendency to collect information from persons or concerns which is needed at the time and then to lose track and continue the required. reporting after the need has passed. Recognizing this, back in 1959, we established a Commission Reduction of Paperwork Burden Committee. This staff committee continuously has reviewed, along with the bureaus concerned, the Commission's reporting requirements to determine whether the information gathered is necessary to our regulatory processes in the light of existing conditions and needs. In the past 312 years carriers under ICC jurisdiction have been relieved from filing more than 450,000 reports annually; and more than 22,000 pages of data have been eliminated from annual reports filed by carriers. Altogether, carriers have been relieved from filing approximately 34 million items of information formerly collected. As a result of this reduction in data collected we have been able to discontinue the preparation and printing of 110 publications. I assure you that we intend to continue this effort to guard against the danger of collecting information which is outmoded or unnecessary in our regulatory process. We want to eliminate any unnecessary burden on the carriers and we will use our own resources conserved to advantage in other Commission functions. In my testimony today, I am prepared to report on the seven items that you set forth in your letter of April 28, 1964, as follows: 1. The volume of paperwork presently required of the public by departments and agencies of the Federal Government as compared with the volume at the time of the Hoover Commission report in 1955, and the principal reasons for the increases and decreases. Before specifically answering, I note that the Budget Bureau, in testimony before your committee on June 1, 1964, reported a reduction of 52 in number of repetitive forms approved for use by ICC on December 31, 1955, as compared to December 31, 1963. The Budget Bureau figures include application forms and other administrative forms that are public-use forms but are not considered by us to be reporting requirements imposed upon carriers. Therefore, the following figures are limited to increases and decreases in carrier reporting requirements as administered by the Interstate Commerce Commission. ICC reporting requirements and reports filed 1956 compared to 1963–64 Discontinued or consolidated.. Reporting requirements 1964- 121 28 40 -12 109 1,386, 368 867, 301 -519, 067 As you can see, here has been a decrease of more than a half million in reports filed by carriers under ICC jurisdiction since 1956.1 The decreases in reporting have largely been accomplished by eliminating reports no longer considered essential; by substituting reporting in summary form for reporting individual occurrences; by increasing dollar criteria when used as a reporting base; and by reducing reporting frequency. Increases in reporting have also occurred. These are mainly the result of valid needs for information to assess growth and changes in the transportation industry. Typical of these needs are the "piggy 11956 has, with the permission of your committee, been substituted for 1955 because more complete records were available for 1956. back" reporting requirements which became effective in January of this year. Other increases have resulted from amendments to the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Accident Reports Act. Some changes are the result of changes in the size of the industry, due to mergers, consolidations, new authority, and other such matters. 2. The effectiveness of the Federal Reports Act of 1942, and the need for legislation which may be required to guard against the growth of unnecessary paperwork in the agency, including records retention requirements. The Interstate Commerce Commission believes the Federal Reports Act of 1942 (5 U.S.C. 139) has effectively served to coordinate Federal reporting services among agencies, to eliminate duplication, thus reducing the cost of such services, and accordingly has minimized the cost to industry of furnishing information. Adoption of the Bureau of the Budget's Commodity Classification for Transportation Statistics, as a basis for carrier reporting of freight commodity statistics to the Commission, is a good example of our working with the Bureau of the Budget and the Advisory Council on Federal Reports to eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort in compiling statistics and minimizing burden on the tranportation industry. This effort resulted in adoption by the Commission of a new commodity classification code (order of Sept. 13, 1963, docket No. 34206) providing compatibility between Commission compiled commodity data and related census of transportation. The coordination of our reports, particularly those filed by small motor carriers of passengers and of property, for use in the census of transportation exemplifies the usefulness of the Federal Reports Act of 1942. With limited modification of our report forms, the reports filed by motor carriers subject to the Commission's reporting requirements are being used as source documents for the census. It was unnecessary for the Bureau of the Census to require further reports from these carriers, thus minimizing the paperwork burden upon industry and at the same time reducing the cost to the Government of gathering data for the census of transportation. Insofar as guarding against the growth of unnecessary paperwork in the agency is concerned, the Interstate Commerce Commission believes this responsibility can most effectively be exercised by the constant vigilance of responsible agency officials. We are grateful that your committee has recognized the progress the Commission has made in the last few years in reducing its public reporting requirements. While this progress did not stem directly from the administration of the Federal Reports Act, per se, the activities of your committee and the Budget Bureau have each served to emphasize the need for reducing Federal paperwork imposed upon the public. The program carried out by the Commission, as I stated earlier, has resulted in reduction of reporting by the carriers and more efficient administration of agency resources. On our part we are not aware of the need for additional legislation to guard against unnecessary paperwork and see no particular advantage to be gained by subjecting records retention requirements promulgated by regulatory agencies to clearance procedures similar to those exercised by the Budget Bureau in administering the Federal Reports Act. New or revised records retention regulations were issued by the Commission in 1957 for railroads and water carriers; |