April 1, 1963
Page 5250
REPORT ENTITLED "INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS" – REPORT OF A COMMITTEE (S. REPT. NO. 84)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, from the Committee on Government Operations, I have the privilege to file with the Senate the report of its Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, pursuant to Senate Resolution 359 of the 87th Congress, 2d session.
In taking up its responsibility of investigating the intergovernmental relations between the United States and the States and municipalities, the subcommittee focused its attention on an ancient American problem. "How to achieve a more perfect Union" has been the oldest and most challenging of all the political questions that have tested the wisdom of American statesmen.
Long before the establishment of our Republic and even before the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Americans were grappling with the problems of intergovernmental relations. Most of the American arguments that were raised between 1763 and 1775 in the heat of the debate with the mother country dealt with the overriding problem of imperial federalism. After the Revolution, the debate continued on this side of the Atlantic. The central question, however, remained one of intergovernmental relations. With the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, a satisfactory balance was struck between the need for central strength and regulation on the one hand, and the value of local freedom of action on the other. This rejection of the confederal and unitary extremes established federalism as the master principle in this field for all subsequent generations of Americans.
In hammering out the pragmatic decisions that gave rise to our Federal system, the Founding Fathers devised a new constitutional principle that was ultimately recognized as one of America's greatest contributions to the art of government. Since the establishment of our Federal Union, nearly all of our major domestic controversies have taken the form of disputes over the legitimate constitutional position or activities of the States or the National Government. This ever-present attempt to effect a new adjustment stems from the fact that yesterday's equilibrium may have become today's imbalance. Our habit of confining these debates to the framework of the U.S. Constitution highlights an unusual feature of our Federal system. In most other countries, such basic controversies would have produced philosophic tracts, rather than constitutional briefs. I am of the opinion that the history of these conflicts provides us with a valuable perspective with which to view our present Federal-State-local trouble spots.
What is most striking about the adversaries in these historic encounters is the flexibility with which they have adopted a nationalist position at one point in time and the so-called States rights position at another. The great geographic regions of our country, the major political parties -- including the Federalists, both conservatives and liberals, and our great economic interest groups -- have all failed to pursue consistent policies with respect to Federal-State relationships. Recognition of the remarkable ease with which groups have shifted their positions on this cardinal problem of domestic American politics dramatizes the dynamism of our Federal system and the essential neutrality of the Federal principle.
With reference to contemporary problems, I am confident that there would be less tendency to elevate the difficulties in our Federal-State-local relationships to the level of abstract slogans, if we were more aware that many of labor's centralizing arguments of today were those of business yesterday and that the liberals' States' rights positions of yesterday are the staples of the conservative case today. To put it differently, the pat ideological formulas for a more perfect Union that have been heard of late should be put aside and a sober consideration of the political proposals advanced by the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the House and Senate Subcommittees on Intergovernmental Relations substituted. In the long run, meaningful action, not political polemics, will strengthen our Federal system.
With this realistic attitude in mind, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations began operations in September 1962, pursuant to Senate Resolution 357, 87th Congress, 2d session. Under this resolution, the subcommittee was authorized to examine, investigate, and make a complete study of intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities, and to review the legislative recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and other legislative proposals dealing with intergovernmental relations which are referred by the parent committee.
In meeting these broad responsibilities during its first 5 months of existence, the subcommittee addressed itself to the fundamental problem of determining what objectives should be sought in the field of intergovernmental relations that would best reflect the will of the American people. Two basic devices have been employed to identify these objectives. The subcommittee has held 3 days of hearings on general problems of Federal-State-local relations and on the role of the Federal Government in metropolitan areas. Using another technique, it has undertaken the widespread circulation of a questionnaire dealing with major intergovernmental problems. As a separate consideration, the subcommittee, acting for the full committee, has held 3 days of hearings on proposals for the disposition of Ellis Island in New York. Due to the subcommittee's late establishment, action on bills referred to it was impossible.
At this point, permit me to summarize the detailed account of activities contained in this report.
The first hearing of the subcommittee on September 18 was in the form of a panel discussion on intergovernmental relations problems, with participants representing major State and local business organizations. The purpose of this hearing was to get the views of these experts on what could be done to improve our Federal system. This was a preliminary exploration designed to serve as the basis for future extensive hearings, to be carried out in the field during the 88th Congress.
On September 26 the subcommittee held a preliminary hearing on five bills relating to the disposition and future utilization of Ellis Island. These bills were introduced by Senators SPARKMAN, CASE, and WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Testimony was received from these Senators as well as from Senators KEATING and JAVITS, and from representatives of the General Services Administration and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. On December 6 and 7 the subcommittee held public hearings in New York City, at which 27 witnesses testified on behalf of 10 different utilization proposals. The subcommittee now hopes to proceed to discuss possible congressional action on the subject.
On December 13 and 14, hearings were held on the role of the Federal Government in metropolitan areas. Witnesses were members of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, representing all levels of government. A thoroughgoing examination was attempted of the complex intergovernmental relationships involved in governing our metropolitan areas.
Special attention was given to bills pending before the Senate to improve the metropolitan area planning process. Considerable attention was given to possible steps that might be taken to increase the role of the States in metropolitan area planning and development.
In early fall, an extensive questionnaire was prepared, after consultation with experts. It was distributed to 6,000 State and local officials and other authorities in the field. This questionnaire touched on problems in the areas of grants-in-aid, taxation and revenue, metropolitan areas, and general issues of Federal-State-local involvement. About 300 returns had been received as of January 7, but preliminary evaluations reveal some attitudes and opinions which will be of considerable assistance to the subcommittee in its deliberations on the legislative proposals referred to it. Efforts to increase the returns are being carried out by follow up contacts. As a result, over a hundred additional replies have been received. These are being tabulated and analyzed.
In examining intergovernmental relations, the subcommittee has attempted to maintain an objective viewpoint, and the report was written in this spirit. We are confident that the activities carried out by the subcommittee during the first 5 months of its existence will serve as the basis for invigorating our Federal system through legislation and investigations during the 88th Congress.
In order to give my colleagues an opportunity to review the highlights of the subcommittee report, I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed and the press release covering the filing of the report be printed in the RECORD at this point.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The report will be received and printed, as requested by the Senator from Maine, and, without objection, the press release will be printed in the RECORD.
The press release presented by Mr. MUSKIE is as follows:
WASHINGTON, April 1. -- A Senate subcommittee put a price tag today of between $11 and $14 billions annually on the combined cost of intergovernmental activities involving Federal, State, and local operations -- a crazy quilt of relationships described by the chairman, Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Democrat, of Maine, as "the hidden dimension of government."
Declaring that much of its present shape and impact is wrapped in mystery, the Senate probers nonetheless gave a tentative but emphatic endorsement to the federalist concept as a continuing and effective system of government for the United States.
In its first interim report to the Senate for the full Committee on Government Operations, the new Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations pointed out that the "hidden dimension" makes a major impact on all Americans through its involvement in highways, housing, public assistance, hospitals, airports, public health, unemployment compensation, education, agricultural extension, and waste treatment facilities.
"Performing almost as a fourth branch of government in meeting the needs of our people," Senator MUSKIE said, "it nonetheless has no direct electorate, operates from no set perspective, is under no special control, and moves in no particular direction."
"The world of intergovernmental relations is represented by no policymaking body," he continued. "There is no executive, no judiciary, and no legislature." And it is significant to note, he said, that "no governmental authority is prepared to provide any specific data on the subject" although "a substantial amount of our governmental expenditures is involved in these programs every year." Because of its interim nature, the report does not attempt to break down or analyze today's cost estimate of $11 or $14 billion, however.
The subcommittee report -- signed by the chairman and its four other members, Senators SAM J. ERVIN, JR., of North Carolina, and HUBERT HUMPHREY, Of Minnesota, Democrats, and Senators KARL E. MUNDT, Of South Dakota, and CARL T. CURTIS, of Nebraska, Republicans -- further defines its continuing mission as the identification of the hidden dimension -- "to understand what it is, what its potential is, and in what direction it is moving."
The Senate probers reveal they are concentrating first on four major areas: Federal grants-in-aid which alone, subcommittee figures estimate, will cost over $10 billion in $1964; taxation and revenues; metropolitan areas, and other general problems.
To supplement its relatively limited ability to amass vast detail through public hearings, the Muskie subcommittee will rely on the results of a massive questionnaire composed of more than 100 inquiries which has now been distributed to 400 State officials, 800 school boards, 1,900 county officials, 1,600 city managers, 900 mayors, and 400 professors and other experts on intergovernmental relations.
By the start of this year, subcommittee staff experts said, over 300 replies had already been elicited and partly tabulated. "The ultimate tabulation, analysis, and evaluation," Senator MUSKIE observed, "will yield a body of competent judgments never heretofore available and reflecting an expertise that will go light-years beyond the opinion sampling possible through the forum of the public hearing alone."
Some hint of things to come as the Muskie subcommittee pursues its mission can be found in its preliminary analysis of answers to the questionnaire already received. These indicate that:
A clear and surprising majority of respondents oppose any further concessions in the direction of making Federal grants-in-aid serve a greater equalizing function than they do now as between low- and high-income States.
There is a general lack of strong criticism of the Hatch Act or the merit system requirements associated with such grants. There is an unanticipated consistency among State and local recipients indicating basic satisfaction with requirements imposed for aid grants.
There is overwhelming endorsement of periodic review of Federal grants-in-aid by Congress even where termination of some grants might be threatened, a large percentage holding that this procedure would either improve the grants' effectiveness or lead to strengthening revisions in meeting new problems.
There is a strong and continuing interest in efforts to readjust the total tax base among the several levels of government which has shifted in the past half century from a 63-percent aggregate levied by State and local governments to a 70-percent aggregate levied by the Federal Government.
Respondents to date favor by 2 to 1 a Federal tax credit for income levies paid to State and local governments and an equally strong 2-to-1 sentiment for reducing State limitations on the borrowing and taxing powers of local governments to an absolute minimum.
There is overwhelming 5-to-1 endorsement in principle of Federal payments in lieu of taxes for the encroachment of Federal buildings in local jurisdictions and an even greater, 6 to 1, vote urging continuation of the tax-exempt status of State and local debt obligations.
The Muskie subcommittee concluded by promising "to give close attention to all proposals dealing with a proper balance of functions and revenues between levels of government. But, at the same time, we recognize that in the present-day operations of the Federal system a better solution than the strict division of functions or revenue sources might be found in the improvement of cooperative devices designed to enable each level to share in the whole governmental activity involved to the extent that it is capable.
"While we recognize that our efforts to promote cooperation and coordination may not meet with immediate success in every case, nonetheless the subcommittee is optimistic about the future of federalism. It has shown remarkable resiliency as a governmental form despite the centralizing pressures which stem from technological progress as well as from competition from totalitarian systems of government. It is our belief that this system still best serves the needs of our country and will continue to enable the United States to balance the requirements of freedom and security in the most effective way."