CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
February 11, 1965
Page 2634
SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has submitted its sixth 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 Advisory 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, chairman of the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, and the original sponsor of the bill creating the Commission, and Representative DWYER of New Jersey, 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 four from the executive branch: the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, 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 fifth annual report; and it is appropriate that the Senate be apprized of the Commission's activities during the past 12 months.
Mr. Frank Bane, of Virginia, Chairman of the Commission, continues to provide his invaluable leadership; while Mr. William G. Colman, its executive director, skillfully supervises the activities of the 23-member professional and clerical staff.
During 1964, general meetings of the Commission were held in January, May, and September; and this year, in January The following major reports requiring implementation were adopted during the course of these sessions:
First. "The Role of Equalization in Federal Grants." This study explores the present degree of equalization, and considers the extent to which Federal grants should recognize the comparative ability of State and local governments to finance their share of grants from their own resources.
Second: "Impact of Federal Urban Development Programs on Local Government Organization and Planning." This report asks
To what extent do urban financial aids promote the creation of special districts or otherwise affect the structure of local government, and to what extent do they employ performance standards requiring coordination of federally aided projects with local comprehensive development plans and decisionmaking?
Third. "Statutory and Administrative Controls Associated With Federal Grants for Public Assistance." The use of public assistance grants is reviewed, and current issues are discussed in this document.
Fourth. "The Problem of Special Districts in American Government." This study explores how special districts affect the organization and functions of general-purpose governments, and makes recommendations designed to strengthen multipurpose units of local government.
Fifth. "The Intergovernmental Aspects of Documentary Taxes." Tax overlapping of documentary taxes is examined in this report.
Sixth, "State-Federal Overlapping in Cigarette Taxes." This study concludes that the goal of maximum tax enforcement with minimum administrative costs can be achieved with increased coordination and simplification of tax laws.
Seventh, "Metropolitan Fiscal and Economic Disparities: Implications for Intergovernmental Relations in Central Cities and Suburbs." This valuable report is slated for distribution in the near future.
Three informational publications also provide useful data to officials at all levels of government:
First, "Tax Overlapping in the United States, 1964." This report updates an earlier study, and documents the principal taxes levied by more than one level of government.
Second, "State Technical Assistance on Local Debt Management." This study was prepared in 1964, and is due for release this month.
Third, "1965 State Legislative Program of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations." This publication contains the Commission's proposed legislative program for State government consideration.
Senators will be interested in what has occurred as a result of these and earlier reports, as well as of other activities. Since it is a continuing 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 relevant levels of government. Many Federal-State-local problems treated in ACIR reports were covered by legislation that came before the last Congress. These include:
First, in the report, "Governmental Structure, Organization, and Planning in Metropolitan Areas," 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, S. 3363 and HR. 11799 -- were introduced in the 2d session of the 87th Congress; but no action was taken. In the lst session of the 88th Congress, I reintroduced a similar measure -- S. 855; and Representatives FLORENCE DWYER and ALBERT RAINS introduced companion bills in the House -- H.R. 1910 and H.R. 2168, respectively. In the spring of 1963, the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations held hearings on S. 855. After six executive sessions, the subcommittee reported an amended bill to the Senate Government Operations Committee, which approved the bill for floor action. It passed the Senate last January, but died in the House. On January 15 of this year, I introduced the proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1965. Title IV of the bill contains an areawide planning provision similar to S.855.
Second, 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 formulas for such grants, the following bills were introduced in the 1st session of the 88th Congress: H.R. 2487, by Representative DWYER; H.R. 6185, by Representative FOUNTAIN; and S. 1051, by Senator MUSKIE. No action was taken in either House. On February 8 this year, I once again introduced proposed legislation -- S. 1023 -- to implement this recommendation. Cosponsors include Senators BARTLETT, ERVIN, MCCARTHY, MCGEE, MOSS, MUNDT, PEARSON, PROUTY, RANDOLPH, , and WILLIAMS of New Jersey. In the House, Representative FOUNTAIN introduced a companion measure -- H.R. 4610 -- on February 9.
Third, in 1962 a Commission report on intergovernmental responsibilities for water supply and sewage disposal in metropolitan areas recommended that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act be amended; first, to increase the ceiling for sewage treatment grants for a single project from $600,000 to $1 million; second, to authorize a ceiling of $4 million, instead of $2,400,000, for combined sewage treatment projects serving several communities; and third, to authorize a 10-percent Federal financial incentive for those treatment works, consistent with a comprehensive areawide plan for urban development. In the lst session of the 8th Congress, I introduced S. 649, to carry out these and other objectives; and Representative BLATNIK sponsored a companion measure -- H.R. 3166 -- in the House. My bill included a number of other legislative proposals, dealing with Federal enforcement power, additional grants, and organizational matters, on which the Commission took no position. The bill passed the Senate in October 1963, but did not come to a vote in the House. On January 6 of this year, I introduced S. 4, which resembled S. 649 in most of its provisions. Similar proposed legislation -- H.R. 3988 -- was introduced in the House, again by Representative BLATNIK, on February 1. Hearings were held on S. 4; and on January 28 the Senate passed it by a vote of 68 to 8.
In the same 1962 report, the Commission advised amending the public facility loan program so as to: first, remove population ceilings, and permit joint action by communities in meeting water and sewer needs; second, tighten eligibility requirements for the use of wells and septic tanks under the FHA mortgage insurance program; and third, provide insurance for site prepaxation and development costs of water and sewer lines and systems. The provisions of this recommendation were considered as amendments to the housing bill of 1964, but were defeated in committee. Similar proposed legislation to implement these Commission proposals will soon be introduced.
Fourth, in 1961 the Commission adopted a report dealing with State and local taxation of privately owned property located in Federal areas. The Commission recommended that Federal agencies be authorized to retrocede to State govermnents existing Federal legislative jurisdiction with respect to various lands and properties. It also endorsed a similar legislative proposal which had been developed earlier by the Senate Government Operationss Committee staff, with the cooperation of the Justice Department. The latter proposal implemented recommendations outlined in the 1956-57 report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States -- two volumes, part I, April 1956; part II, June 1957. As a followup, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN] introduced S. 815 in February 1963, at the request of the Attorney General of the United States. Identical bills were introduced in the House -- H.R. 4068, by Representative Schwengel; and H.R. 4433, by Representative DAWSON. Hearings on S. 815 were held by my subcommittee; and the bill was discussed in subsequent executive sessions, but no further action was taken. This year, similar measures have already been introduced -- S. 1007, by Senator MCCLELLAN, which Senator BENNETT and I are cosponsoring; and H.R. 278, by Representative BENNETT, of Florida.
Fifth, in its report, "Periodic Congressional Reassessment of Federal Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments," the commission recommended the establishment of a systematic procedure for continuing congressional review of all Federal grant-in-aid programs. Specifically, it proposed the enactment of legislation to subject future grant programs to an automatic termination provision. Such legislation would also require that, prior to program termination, appropriate congressional committees would undertake a comprehensive review of affected programs, and would report to Congress their findings and recommendations. To implement this recommendation, I introduced S. 2114 in the last Congress. Hearings were held, and the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but failed to come to a vote in the House. Provisions similar to S. 2114 are included in title II of the proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1965.
Sixth, three identical measures -- H.R. 5039, H.R. 6206, and H.R. 6207 -- to coordinate Federal and State inheritance and estate taxes, were introduced. These bills were based upon a Commission report entitled "Coordination of State and Federal Inheritance, Estate and Gift Taxes." The National Government and all but one of the States levy inheritance taxes. To eliminate such overlapping, the Commission recommended that a tax credit be given to individuals paying the State tax. No action was taken on the House bills.
Seventh, H.R. 10412 was introduced; it would implement an Advisory Commission recommendation to deny certain deductions, for Federal income tax purposes to companies which use facilities constructed with funds from tax-exempt municipal bonds when they also purchase such bonds. No action was taken.
Finally, one ACIR recommendation did become law. In the housing amendments of 1964 is a provision which allows counties, regardless of population, to be eligible for receipt of Federal planning assistance grants, and removes any restrictions on joint projects undertaken by two or more local governments.
At the State level, Commission recommendations met with greater success. Each year, model laws are drafted for State consideration. The recommendations touch on many areas -- some procedural, others substantive in nature. The Commission can justly be proud of its record in our State capitols. The 43 States that have implemented one or more Commission recommendations during the past 2 years are making strides toward improved Federal-State-local relations. Seven States, it should be noted, enacted four or more such proposals.
Much work remains, however. The Commission has not enjoyed many congressional victories. While many of its recommendations have resulted in proposed Federal legislation, only one became law during the 88th Congress. More times than not, the executive branch has halfheartedly supported ACIR Proposals; and Congress, in turn, has failed to guide Commission-inspired bills to final enactment. I hope the record will be better this year.
The Senate Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee plans to devote much of its time this year to consideration of Commission recommendations and to an appraisal of the Commission's functions and operations in its 5 years of existence.
Hearings are planned on the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1965 (S. 561). This bill is a by-product of close cooperation by the Senate and House subcommittees and the Commission. It has 37 cosponsors, and commands wide bipartisan support.
In late spring, the Senate and House Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittees plan to conduct joint hearings, to bring before Congress the 5-year record of the Commission's achievements, and to explore its strengths and weaknesses. The broader questions concerning present trends in intergovernmental relations and possible future developments will also be explored. This phase of the inquiry will provide the basis for a more penetrating assessment of the Advisory Commission's proper role in our overall endeavor to improve Federal-state-local relations.