June 13, 1964
PAGE 13676
IMPACT OF FEDERAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in cooperation with the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Committee on Government Operations has just released a significant report describing the impact of Federal urban development programs on local government organization and planning. The report was prepared and adopted by the Advisory Commission to fill a need for systematic attention toward two much-discussed questions of intergovernmental relations.
First, to what extent do the more than 40 separate programs of Federal financial aid for urban development promote the creation of special districts or otherwise affect the structure of local government?
And second, to what extent do they employ performance standards requiring coordination of federally aided projects with local plans and decisions?
As an organization composed of both legislative and executive officials representing Federal, State, and local governments, the Advisory Commission makes recommendations which carry special significance. The Commission's recommendations in this case are based on detailed descriptions and evaluations of each urban development program.
Among the major findings of the Commission report are that almost all of the Federal aids are available to special purpose units of government at the State or local level, as well as cities, counties, and other general governments, and almost half are available to nongovernmental persons or groups. Only four of the programs surveyed-open space, urban renewal, community renewal, and public housing-had the positively stated objective of furthering locally adopted comprehensive plans for urban development.
Through one means or another -- legislative or administrative, formal or informal -- a little more than one-quarter of the surveyed programs provide that aided projects should not be inconsistent with comprehensive plans for urban development, if such plans exist. About one-quarter of the programs operate under formal interagency agreements for sharing review responsibilities for plans or projects, and another quarter have legislatively established working relationships.
The Senate Committee on Government Operations has as one of its functions the duty of studying intergovernmental relations and overseeing the work of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. This responsibility has been delegated to the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, The Commission has made a number of fundamental recommendations for reorientation of many of the Federal urban development programs, in order that they may be better administered through effective and responsible State and local recipients coordinated with each other and with local planning and decision making.
The most controversial recommendation was "that the States assume their proper responsibilities for assisting and facilitating urban development; to this end Federal grants-in-aid to local governments for urban development be channeled through the States in cases where a State first, provides appropriate administrative machinery to carry out relevant responsibilities, and, second, provides significant financial contributions and when appropriate, technical assistance to the local governments concerned."
The States, of course, have the authority to require that Federal grants to localities be channeled through them. On the other hand, as the mayors on the Commission pointed out, a uniform Federal procedure for channeling grants through the States might entangle lines of intergovernmental communication which have been clear and disrupt a direct Federal-local relationship, which has worked well in existing programs. The failure of many States to develop an understanding of and sympathy with these cooperative efforts must not be overlooked.
It is my thought that the administrative and financial responsibilities set forth in the last four lines of the recommendation should be linked directly with the initial statement:
The Commission recommends that the States assume their proper responsibilities for assisting and facilitating urban development.
This would provide the kind of emphasis that is required here. It would clearly place the burden on the States to initiate any rechanneling.
This new publication will provide the basis for further examination by the subcommittee, by the affected Federal agencies concerned, and by others concerned with the impact of Federal programs on urban development.