April 11, 1963
PAGE 6483
ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has submitted its fourth annual report to the President of the United States, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Senators will recall that in 1959, the Congress enacted Public Law 86-380 which established an Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The Commission, as constituted by Congress, has seven basic purposes:
First, to bring together representatives of the Federal, States, and local governments for consideration of common problems;
Second, to provide a forum for discussion of the administration of Federal grant programs;
Third, to give critical attention to the conditions and controls involved in the administration of Federal grant programs;
Fourth, to make available technical assistance to the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government in the review of proposed legislation to determine its overall effect on the Federal system;
Fifth, to encourage discussion and study at an early stage of emerging public problems that are likely to require Intergovernmental cooperation;
Sixth, to recommend, within the framework of the Constitution, the most desirable allocation of governmental functions, responsibilities, and revenues among the several levels of Government; and
Seventh, to recommend methods of coordinating and simplifying tax laws and administrative practices to achieve a more orderly and less competitive fiscal relationship between the levels of Government and to reduce the burden of compliance for taxpayers.
In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission has been composed of representatives of each level of Government and from the legislative and executive branches thereof. I was privileged to be one of the principal sponsors of the legislation establishing the Commission, and it has been a distinct pleasure to serve as a member of the Commission since its establishment.
The senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] and the senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] have also served on the Commission since its inception. On the House side, Mr. FOUNTAIN of North Carolina, chairman of the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations and the original sponsor of the bill creating the Commission, as has his colleague on the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. DWYER]. Mr. KEOGH of New York is the third House member on the Commission.
A year has elapsed since the submission of the Commission's third annual report. I think it appropriate to inform the Senate of how the Commission has been progressing since that time, and of the extent to which it has been measuring up to the responsibilities placed upon it by the statute. I will give today an overall report on the Commission's work; subsequent reports on particular subjects will be placed in the RECORD by other Members of Congress or by me, depending upon the subject matter involved and our respective interests in it.
At the outset, I should again like to pay tribute to the very able chairman under which the Commission has proceeded -- Mr. Frank Bane of Virginia, a man known to many Senators for his lifetime career of work and leadership in Federal, State and local governments. He was appointed the first Chairman of the Commission by President Eisenhower and last year was reappointed for a second term as Chairman by President Kennedy.
The Commission, in addition to the six members from the Congress, has three members from the executive branch-the Secretaries of the Treasury and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. Its other membership includes four Governors, four mayors, three State legislative leaders and three elected county officials. In addition to the Chairman, the general public is represented on the Commission by two other members.
The Commission has been assisted in its undertakings by an excellent professional staff which is under the able supervision of the Commission's Executive Director, Mr. William G. Colman. With 7 new appointments, the total staff was brought to its full 25-man complement.
It has been a stimulating experience for me to work with the distinguished people who have served on the Commission and to discuss and debate major questions of Federal-State-local relations with them. During the course of last year, the Commission published three new reports which were primarily of an informational nature and which did not require legislative or executive implementation. These technical studies which have been made available in order to provide much needed reference material to State and local governments, include:
First, "Factors Affecting Voter Reactions to Governmental Reorganization in Metropolitan Areas," Report M-15, May 1962;
Second. "Measures of State and Local Fiscal Capacity and Tax Effort," Report M-16, October 1962; and
Third. "A Directory of Federal Statistics for Metropolitan Areas," Report M-18, October 1962.
General meetings of the Advisory Commission were held last year on May 4-5; June 28-29; October 10-12, and December 13-14. During the course of these sessions, five reports inquiring implementary action were considered and acted upon. These reports are as follows:
First. "Alternative Approaches to Governmental Reorganization in Metropolitan Areas," Report A-11, June 1962;
Second. "State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions Upon the Structural, Functional, and Personnel Powers of Government,$' Report A-12, October 1962;
Third. "Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Water Supply and Sewage Disposal in Metropolitan Areas," Report A-13, October 1962;
Fourth. "State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on Local Taxing Powers," Report A-14, October 1962; and
Fifth. "Apportionment of State Legislatures," Report A-15, December 1962.
The Advisory Commission's reports have been widely distributed and have received considerable attention from Federal, State, and local legislative and administrative officials and from the professional, business, and academic communities. Five of the 1961 reports and one of the 1962 studies were reprinted last year in order to meet the demand.
I am sure Senators will be interested in what is taking place as a result of the Commission's reports. The Commission, as a continuing national body, is not content with merely making studies and recommendations. Commission members want to see the recommendations put into effect and have devoted considerable attention to following through in behalf of their recommendations in terms of legislative or administrative action. Permit me to summarize briefly what has happened in regard to the Commission's recommendations for action at the Federal and State levels.
Of the 13 recommendations requiring congressional action that were advanced in 1961, 6 have now been enacted into law and 1 has received executive implementation. Four of these proposals coincided with provisions subsequently incorporated into the Housing Act of 1961. These included: Expanded financial support for metropolitan planning agencies; Federal technical assistance to State and local urban planning; congressional consent in advance to interstate compacts for metropolitan area planning, and Federal financial assistance for mass transportation. The passage of Public Law 87-870 during the 2d session of the 87th Congress, in which I was proud to play a part, marked a clear-cut instance wherein the Advisory Commission assumed a major role in generating support for its recommendations. This legislation, among other things, provided for: (a) admission of State and local tax personnel to Internal Revenue Service training programs; and (b) the authorization for the performance of statistical and other services for State tax agencies. The most recent implementation of one of the Advisory Commission's 1961 proposals came through administrative action, rather than by legislative enactment. On December 14, 1962, in his testimony on the role of the Federal Government in metropolitan areas before the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations, the Honorable Robert C. Weaver, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, announced that HHFA had just revised its policies in administering section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 so as to provide for continuing assistance to metropolitan planning agencies, as well as to other planning agencies eligible under this program. In response to my question as to whether this action would implement the basic purpose of S. 3362 which incorporated the Advisory Commission's recommendation for continuing financial support for comprehensive planning in metropolitan areas, Mr. Weaver reported:
Yes. We recognize that comprehensive planning is a continuing process which does not stop when one overall plan has been prepared. I am advised that we do have the authority to provide grants to support certain and continuing planning functions in the comprehensive planning process and we intend to use this authority to strengthen the activities of planning agencies. ***
The Housing and Home Finance Agency and its esteemed Administrator are to be congratulated on this implementary step.
The items remaining from the 1961 agenda for congressional action are: (a) review of Federal grant-in-aid applications by metropolitan planning agencies; (b) revision of Federal estate tax credit for taxes paid to States; (c) authorizing transfers of funds among public health grants and provision of a standard allocation formulated for such grants; (d) provisions for retrocession of exclusive Federal jurisdiction of various Government lands and properties; and (e) providing uniform congressional policy and procedure under which all new grants-in-aid would be examined periodically. Bills to carry out these various recommendations are in the process of being, or already have been introduced in this session of Congress.
Since most of the Advisory Commission's 1962 action reports had a State and local emphasis, only three of last year's recommendations require congressional implementation. These include: (a) Amendment of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 to provide, first, an additional matching incentive for the development of sewage disposal facilities on a regional or area-wide basis; and second, an increased dollar ceiling in Federal grants to larger cities for sewage treatment works;
(b) Amendment of the statute governing public facility loans program of the Housing and Home Finance Agency to permit, first, communities of 50,000 or more to qualify for sewer and water loans, and second, the joining together of communities with an aggregate population of over 50,000 for purposes of such loan assistance; and (c) amendment of statutes governing the FHA mortgage insurance program and the home loan Program of the Veterans' Administration to, first, tighten eligibility requirements for individual well and septic tank installations, and second, include as insurable site preparation and development costs of water and sewer lines and systems.
Despite the relative recency of the report on "Intergovernmental Responsibility for Water Supply and Sewage Disposal in Metropolitan Areas," its recommended amendment of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 has already been incorporated into bills filed in this session: S. 649 and H.R. 3166 -- Representative BLATNIK, Democrat, of Minnesota. The two remaining proposals are receiving the preliminary analysis necessary for their later introduction.
Of the Advisory Commission's 21 recommendations for State legislative action, 10 have been developed into draft bills and 1 into a proposed State constitutional amendment. The draft proposals cover: (a) establishment of a State office of local affairs; (b) authorization for voluntary transfer of functions between municipalities and counties and vice versa; (c) authorization for interlocal contracting and joint enterprises; (d) authorization to local governments to invest idle funds; (e) authorization to secure and preserve "open spaces"; (f) establishment of State responsibilities for mass transportation in metropolitan areas; (g) authorization of establishment of metropolitan function authorities; (h) authorization of establishment of metropolitan area planning commissions; (i) authorization to municipalities for exercise of extraterritorial powers; and (j) regulation of new municipal incorporations.
The draft constitutional amendment is concerned with the removal of constitutional barriers to Intergovernmental cooperation.
The Council of State Governments has approved 9 of these draft measures and 9 of the 10 policy recommendations. These have been included in the council's 1963 legislative program. Both the Governors' conference and the National Association of Counties have endorsed 14 of the advisory commission's 21 State legislative recommendations. The American Municipal Association has passed resolutions approving 18 of the proposed bills and the U.S. Conference of Mayors has formally taken action in favor of 10. The State Legislatures of Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon, Minnesota, and Michigan have enacted or are in the process of considering one or more of these draft measures.
The Commission has performed other activities in 1962 in order to carry out its statutory responsibilities for technical assistance in the review of proposed legislation and encouraging discussion of emerging public problems. Members and staff of the Commission made presentations at the 1962 conventions of the major organizations of government officials and of other groups concerned with the intergovernmental aspects of public policy issues, taxation and finance, and urban area problems. Comments and advice were rendered to the executive branch and Congress on certain pieces of proposed legislation affecting Federal-State-local relations. During the year, consultations have been held between the Commission staff and Federal and State officials in an attempt to broaden the scope of administrative cooperation at these government levels.
In concluding, I am happy to report that during the last calendar year the Commission has demonstrated its ability to accomplish four things: (a) To focus its attention on selected issues and to face up to and take definite positions on them; (b) to prepare and distribute eight reports that have brought forth approval as to both their intellectual caliber and commonsense; (c) to secure widespread formal support from various organizations of State and local officials; and (d) to help secure the enactment of two of its recommendations requiring congressional action and executive implementation of another Commission proposal, thus bringing the record of Federal implementations to seven; and to effect an implementation of three of the Commission's recommendations for State legislative action. One is embodied in the Kentucky Interlocal Cooperation Act and the others in two provisions of the newly proposed Michigan constitution.
The Commission has been able to do these things with a reasonably small staff and without internal or external repercussions or recriminations. It is important to note that members of the Commission have not divided into blocs in considering the issues with which they have been confronted.
The major problems still confronting the Commission are threefold. Despite increased public awareness of its work, the Commission still has not received the widespread publicity in national periodicals and in newspaper coverage that its work warrants. Second, the significant contribution that the Commission has made to the body of literature dealing with intergovernmental relations has yet to have the kind of legislative impact that the Commission desires. Finally, although increasing somewhat, the Commission still is doing relatively little to discharge its statutory responsibility of assisting the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government in the "review of proposed legislation to determine its overall effect on the Federal system."
Despite these shortcomings, I think it will be agreed that the positive accomplishments of the Advisory Commission constitute a commendable record for a body that has existed for such a very brief time. I confidently predict that its effectiveness will continue to grow.