October 10, 1963
Page 19161
REPORT ON ACTIVITIES OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD Senator MUSKIE's report on the activities to date of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of which he is chairman. This report was prepared for presentation to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations at its 15th meeting held here in Washington last month.
There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
PROGRESS REPORT TO THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
SEPTEMBER 27, 1963
(By Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, chairman)
Today the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations is legally 14 months and 2 weeks old. Organizationally, it has enjoyed a somewhat shorter life span of 1 year and 24 days. Despite this, we have taken seriously our mandate "to examine, investigate, and make a complete study of intergovernmental relations . . . including an evaluation of studies, reports, and recommendations made thereon and submitted to the Congress by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.”
The subcommittee's activities are divided into two major categories -- legislative and research, or investigative. Under the former, we have thus far dealt with three legislative recommendations that were either initiated or strongly approved by the Advisory Commission.
The first of these, S. 855, introduced last February 19, implements the Commission's June 1961 recommendation that certain Federal grants-in-aid be reviewed by metropolitan area planning bodies. Hearings on this measure and Senator CASE'S somewhat more ambitious metropolitan planning bill, S. 915, were held May 21-23. Testimony was heard from 22 witnesses, including Senators CASE and WILLIAMS of New Jersey; our own Bill Colman; representatives of the Area Redevelopment Agency, Bureau of Public Roads, Public Health Service, and the Housing and Home Finance Agency; spokesmen for the American Municipal Association, National Association of Counties, American Institute of Planners, and various regional planning authorities; and many interested private citizens.
Official reports of 10 governmental departments, as well as statements on behalf of 17 private organizations, were received and made a part of the hearing record. All but two of the witnesses who testified during the 3 days favored the general objectives and basic approach of S. 855. Approximately half of them supported the bill as introduced; the remainder offered various amendments which in the opinion of the sponsors would strengthen the legislation. The subcommittee, after holding three executive sessions on the subject is now in the process of circulating a marked-up bill and a draft report among the subcommittee members. It is much too early to predict the fate of this measure, but the active participation and cooperation of the subcommittee's minority members indicate significant bipartisan interest in this measure.
S. 815 is a bill that would permit Federal agencies to restore to the States certain jurisdictional authority now vested in the United States which could be better administered by State authorities. The bill, introduced in this Congress by Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, on February 18, was submitted as an administration bill and at the request of the Attorney General of the United States. It is identical to legislation originally drafted by the Government Operations Committee staff with the cooperation of the Justice Department in order to implement recommendations outlined in the "Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States." In its June 1961 "Report on State and Local Taxation of Privately Owned Property Located in Federal Areas: Proposed Amendment to the Buck Act," the Advisory Commission supported the retrocession of legislative jurisdiction in such areas to the States and indicated its approval of a similar bill then pending before the 86th Congress.
Hearings on S. 815 were held on August 20, 21, and 22. Some 20-odd witnesses testified, including Nicholas Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General of the United States; Senator Frank E. Moss, of Utah; Hon. Thomas B. Finan, attorney general of the State of Maryland; Edward J. Ennis, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union; Clarence Mitchell, director, Washington Bureau of the NAACP; and our Assistant Director on Taxation and Finance, Laszlo Ecker-Racz. Official reports from 19 governmental departments were received and made a part of the hearing record. Every witness, save one, and all reports and statements submitted for the record favored enactment of the bill. The final transcript of the bearings is now at the Printing Office. An executive session on this measure is scheduled for early next month. Although the Senate, as you know, enacted a similar measure on two previous occasions, I felt that since hearings had never been held, such proceedings were necessary to make a complete record on the bill. This we have done and we are now in position to weigh effectively the arguments of those who favor and those who fear this legislation.
The third major measure that concerns all of us is the latest to be introduced S. 2114 -- which implements the Commission's June 1961 report, "Periodic Congressional Reassessment of Federal grants-in-aid to State and Local Governments." Twenty-nine other Senators joined with me in sponsoring this measure. Given the diverse geographic, ideological, and political backgrounds of these cosponsors, it would seem that this bill has an auspicious future. Hearings will definitely be held although no specific time has been scheduled.
I wish to gratefully acknowledge the valuable assistance which the Commission has given us in these various legislative undertakings. My only regret is that the Commission has been unable to develop a report on the future disposition of Ellis Island that would meet with unanimous approval of all parties interested in this momentous intergovernmental relations problem.
In the realm of research and investigation the subcommittee has engaged in various undertakings. We have studied and analyzed other congressional proposals and reports of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations so they will get the careful consideration they deserve.
In June, we joined with the distinguished chairman of the House Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, Congressman FOUNTAIN, to sponsor 3 days of joint hearings on the manifold problems confronting the governments in the New York metropolitan region.
Inasmuch as both our subcommittees have been charged with the task of investigating and studying intergovernmental relations between the United States, the States, and municipalities, it was fitting that we should journey together to New York and examine the extraordinary intricate Intergovernmental system that serves the 17 million citizens residing in that area. These hearings have just been printed and all of you soon will be in receipt of a copy. This is not the time or place to give my impressions of what we learned in New York except to note that I now believe more firmly than ever that the pressures generated by the emergence of a metropolitan America indeed constitute the most important single problem in the field of intergovernmental relations.
With a view toward procuring an expert analysis of the present condition of metropolitan planning in America, the Subcommittee contracted last June with the Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies for such a study. I understand their research has progressed quite favorably. During the summer months interviews were conducted in some 12 representative metropolitan areas possessing areawide planning agencies. The Center's staff is now in the process of analyzing this and other data relating to metropolitan planning. It is too soon to anticipate the kind of report we will receive in December. At the same time, we have been assured that facets of S. 855 in addition to more general problems relating to orderly metropolitan development will be examined in this study. Their final report should prove of interest to all of us.
Finally, the subcommittee has continued to process the questionnaire it distributed last year. With vigorous follow-up action, the number of responses was increased by more than 50 percent over the initial tally. The staff has updated the answers to the simple-response questions and is now completing the even more difficult task of tabulating and analyzing the 50-odd open-end questions that were not covered in our activities report last April. The final results of the entire questionnaire are now under final review by the subcommittee staff and a committee print containing our findings will be published sometime next month.
Such, in brief, is the broad outline of our legislative and research activities to date.