March 5, 1964
PAGE 4482
FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT, ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has submitted its fifth annual report to the President of the United States, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Members will recall that this Commission was established by Congress in 1959 for the following basic purposes:
First, to bring together representatives of the Federal, State, 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.
The Commission is composed of representatives of the public and of each level of government. The senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], and I have served on the Commission since its establishment. On the House side, Representative FOUNTAIN, of North Carolina, chairmen of the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, and the original sponsor of the bill creating the Commission, and the Congresswoman from New Jersey, Mrs. DWYER, are also charter members. The other House Member is Representative KEOGH, of New York.
In addition to the six Members from Congress, the Commission has three members from the executive branch: the Secretary of the Treasury, the HEW Secretary, and the HHFA Administrator. Other members include four Governors, four mayors, three State legislative leaders, and three elected county officials. The public is represented by three members, one of whom is the Commission's Chairman.
A year has elapsed since the submission of the Commission's fourth annual report, and it is appropriate that the Senate be informed of the Commission's activities during the past 12 months. Other Members of Congress have joined me in the past in calling attention to specific Commission reports, and I am sure they will do so in the future.
At the outset I should again like to pay tribute to the distinguished Chairman under which the Commission has proceeded, Mr. Frank Bane, of Virginia, a man known to many of you for his lifetime career of constructive work and leadership in the Federal, State, and local governments. President Eisenhower first appointed him as Chairman of the Commission; President Kennedy reappointed him for a second term in 1962. Mr. William G. Colman, the Commission's executive director, ably supervises the professional staff which as of December 31, 1963, numbered 24.
Serving on the Commission has been a stimulating and rewarding experience for me. I frankly enjoy discussing and debating major questions of Federal-State-local relations. I may not always agree with the majority view on particular subjects, but I never have left a Commission meeting without new insights concerning present-day intergovernmental relations.
During the past 12-month period general meetings of the Advisory Commission were held in March, June, and September 1963, and this year in January. The following major reports requiring implementation were adopted during the course of these sessions:
First, "Transferability of Public Employee Retirement Credits Among Units of Government" -- A-16, March 1963.
Second, "The Role of States in Strengthening the Property Tax" -- A-17, June 1963, two volumes.
Third, "Industrial Development Bond Financing" -- A-18, June 1963.
A very important study on the role of equalization in Federal grants was given preliminary consideration at the September meeting and adopted last month.
Last year the Commission published another in its series of studies which are primarily of an informational nature, not requiring legislative or executive implementation. This technical study, entitled "Performance of Urban Functions: Local or Areawide" – A-21, September 1963, was designed to encourage a fresh look at urban services by those concerned with the fragmentation and inefficiency of municipal functions in metropolitan areas. This analysis, along with its predecessors, has been made available in order to provide much needed reference material to State and local governments.
All of the Advisory Commission's reports have been widely distributed.. Federal, State, and local legislative and administrative officials, as well as professional, business, and academic leaders, have given them considerable attention. Two ACIR studies were reprinted last year in order to meet the continuing demand. An additional four are now out of print but summaries are available for two of these.
You will be interested in what has occurred as a result of these reports and other activities. Since it is a continuing national body, the Commission is not satisfied with merely drafting studies and making recommendations. Its members are anxious to see their recommendations put into effect and have devoted a significant share of their energies to stimulating and encouraging the adoption of its recommendations at the pertinent levels of government. Six problem areas at the national level were emphasized last year:
First. In the report, "Governmental Structure, Organization, and Planning in Metropolitan Areas," the view was expressed that Federal grants to metropolitan planning agencies under section 701 of the Housing Act, as amended, would be more effective if provided on a continuing rather than a project basis. The Housing and Home Finance Agency subsequently determined that continuity and financial support of the kind recommended by the Commission could be provided under existing legislation. As a result, the Urban Renewal Administration issued a directive on August 23, 1963, authorizing use of section 701 funds by metropolitan and regional planning agencies on a continuing as well as a project basis.
Second. In the same report, the Commission suggested that the coordination of Federal programs providing financial assistance for physical facilities within metropolitan areas be improved. It recommended that applications for certain Federal grants-in-aid be reviewed and commented upon by an areawide planning agency prior to final Consideration by the Federal agency concerned.
Bills implementing this recommendation were introduced in the 2d session of the 87th Congress -- S.3363 and H.R. 11799 -- but no action was taken. In the 1st session of the 88th Congress I reintroduced the measure -- S. 855 -- and Representative FLORENCE DWYER and Representative ALBERT RAINS introduced companion measures in the House -- H.R.1910 and H.R. 2168, respectively.
The Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations held hearings on S. 855 last May. After six executive sessions the subcommittee reported an amended bill to the Senate Committee on Government Operations, which approved the bill for floor action. It passed the Senate on the 23d of last month.
Third. To carry out the recommendations made in the Commission's report entitled "Coordination of State and Federal Inheritance, Estate, and Gift Taxes," the following bills were introduced in the 1st session of the 88th Congress: H.R. 5039, KEOGH; H.R. 6206, FOUNTAIN; and H.R. 6207, DWYER. These bills are still pending before the House Ways and Means Committee.
Fourth. To implement the Commission's recommendation for increased flexibility at the State level in the handling of certain public health grants and to provide for uniform apportionment and matching formula for such grants, the following bills were introduced in the 1st session of the 88th Congress: H.R. 2487, DWYER; H.R. 6195, FOUNTAIN; and S.1051, MUSKIE. Cosponsors of my bill include Senators BARTLETT, ERVIN, MCCARTHY, McGEE, MOSS, MUNDT, NELSON, PEARSON, PROUTY, RANDOLPH, TOWER, and WILLIAMS of New Jersey. These bills are pending before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee.
Fifth. In 1961 the Commission adopted a report dealing with State and local taxation of privately owned property located in Federal areas, and recommended that Federal agencies be authorized to retrocede existing Federal legislative jurisdiction to State governments with respect to various lands and properties. It also endorsed a legislative proposal along these lines which had been developed earlier by the Senate Government Operations Committee staff with the cooperation of the Justice Department in order to implement recommendations outlined in the 1956-57 report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States. Legislation to carry out this proposal was introduced by Senator MCCLELLAN -- S. 815 -- last February at the request of the Attorney General of the United States. Identical bills were introduced in the House -- H.R. 4068, SCHWENGEL, and H.R. 4433, DAWSON.
Hearings on S. 815 were held last August by my subcommittee, and the measure is now being considered in executive sessions.
Sixth. In 1962 a Commission report on intergovernmental responsibilities for water supply and sewage disposal in metropolitan areas recommended that the Federal Water Pollution and Control Act be amended (a) to increase the ceiling for sewage treatment grants for a single project from $600,000 to $1 million; (b) to authorize a ceiling of $4 million instead of $2,400,000 for combined sewage treatment projects serving several communities; and (c) to authorize a 10-percent Federal financial incentive for those treatment works consistent with a comprehensive areawide plan for urban development.
In the 1st session of the 88th Congress I introduced S. 649 to carry out these and other objectives. Cosponsors are Senators BAYH, CLARK, DOUGLAS, ENGLE, FONG, GRUENING, HART, HUMPHREY, INOUYE, LONG of Missouri, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY, McGEE, MOSS, NELSON, NEUBERGER, PELL, RANDOLPH, RIBICOFF, WILLIAMS of New Jersey, and YOUNG of Ohio. Representative BLATNIK introduced a companion measure in the House -- H.R. 3166. My bill includes a number of other legislative proposals dealing with Federal enforcement power, additional grants, and organization matters on which the Commission took no position. The bill passed the Senate in October 1963; hearings on the House bill have now been completed by the House Public Works Committee.
In the same 1962 report, the Commission advised amending the public facility loan program so as (a) to remove population ceilings and permit joint action by communities in meeting water and sewer needs, (b) to tighten eligibility requirements for use of wells and septic tanks under the mortgage insurance program, and (c) to provide insurance for site preparation and development costs of water and sewer lines and systems. Representative DWYER's H.R. 9080 implements this proposal.
The Commission also recommended that the President direct the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to evaluate present enforcement powers and financial incentives to control industrial pollution in order to determine how their effectiveness may be improved through changes in procedures, policy, or statutory revision, and the roles of State and local governments in such programs. In response to this recommendation, the Public Health Service contracted with the Institute of Public Administration to evaluate possible measures for providing financial and other appropriate incentives to encourage industrial population abatement. It is expected that this report will be completed in the near future.
The Advisory Commission has been as concerned with the implementation of their State and local recommendations as with their Federal. A wide variety of recommendations for State legislative action were distributed to State and local officials during 1962 and 1963. These proposals, designed to improve State, local, and interlocal relations, were distributed in the form of draft bills. Most of these bills have met with the approval of the Committee of State Officials on Suggested Legislation, of the Council of State Governments, and have been included in the Annual Programs of Suggested State Legislation submitted by the council to the Governors and State legislatures. The year 1963 witnessed enactment by the States of many measures which incorporated substantially all or a significant part of the draft language proposed by the Advisory Commission.
These measures covered six recommendations: First, the grant of permissive authority for interlocal cooperation and other local government action to meet local problems, particularly those in metropolitan areas; second, imposition of stricter standards for municipal incorporation; third, establishment of a State office of local affairs; fourth, investment of idle cash balances; fifth, State government action to acquire or preserve "open space"; and sixth, State financial and technical assistance to urban areas for mass transportation.
The full story of State legislative accomplishments in these areas was set forth in an address which I recently placed in the RECORD. I wish to again call your attention to the significance of this 1963 State legislative record. It refutes the notion held by some that the States are incapable of or unwilling to assist or enable their local units of government to meet the severe problems of growth and expansion. The Commission's role in this development should not be overlooked. Some 15 to 20 legislative enactments in 12 States appear to be directly attributable in whole or in part to proposals of the Commission. It is impossible to measure the indirect effect which ACIR's policy recommendations have had on legislation in a number of additional States. The increasing demand for Commission reports from State legislative committees, research agencies, and various agencies and executive branches of State government, suggests that it may be considerable.
Mr. President, this summary is only a bare outline of the more significant accomplishments of the Commission during 1963. It has been able to accomplish these things with a relatively small staff and with a minimum of internal or external repercussions or criticisms.
Certain major problems still confront the Commission, however, in terms of being fully effective. Despite increased staff effort and increased public awareness of its work, the Commission still does not receive the kind of publicity in national periodicals and newspapers that its activities deserve. Further, the Commission has had a minimum of success in discharging its statutory responsibility of assisting the executive branch of the Federal Government in the "review of proposed legislation to determine its overall effect on the Federal System." This, in part, may stem from the fact that the executive branch -- of all the membership groups -- has yet to indicate a complete awareness of the Advisory Commission's potentialities.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, I think all can agree that the positive accomplishments of the Commission, especially at the State level, during the past year constitute a remarkable record for a body that has existed such a brief time. I am confident that its future record will be equally productive.