CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

February 8, 1965

Page 2252

STUDY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution (S. Res. 59) authorizing a study of Intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities which had been reported from the Committee on Rules and Administration with an amendment on page 2, line 23, after the word "exceed", to strike out "$141,000" and insert "$129,000"; so as to make the resolution read:

Resolved, That the Committee on Government Operations, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized under sections 134(a) and 136 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and in accordance with its jurisdiction specified by subsection 1 (g) (2) (D) of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, to examine, investigate, and make a complete study of intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities, including an evaluation of studies, reports, and recommendations made thereon and submitted to the Congress by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 86-380, approved by the President on September 24, 1959.

SEC. 2. For the purposes of this resolution the committee, from February 1, 1965, to January 31, 1966, inclusive, is authorized

(1) to make such expenditures as it deems advisable; (2) to employ upon a temporary basis, technical, clerical, and other assistants and consultants: Provided, That the minority is authorized to select one person for appointment, and the. person so selected shall be appointed and his compensation shall be so fixed that his gross rate shall not be less by more than $2,100 than the highest gross rate paid to any other employee; and (3) with the prior consent of the heads of the departments or agencies concerned, and the Committee on Rules and Administration, to utilize the reimbursable services, information, facilities, and personnel of any of the departments or agencies of the Government.

SEC. 3. The committee shall report its findings, together with its recommendations for legislation as it deems advisable, to the Senate at the earliest practicable date, but not later than January 31, 1966.

SEC. 4. Expenses of the committee, under this resolution, which shall not exceed $129,000, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, this subcommittee has been growing like Topsy. It started in 1962 with $40,000. It is now asking for $129,000.

What is the purpose of enlarging the work of the committee?

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the first year's budget began in September of that year. It was not for a full year. The second year's operation was a projection of this first year's operation, largely on the basis of a full current year; and the budget we have now requested reflects the increase in the salaries referred to earlier.

The amount of the request as presented to the Senate was $141,000. Before appearing before the Committee on Rules and Administration with this resolution, I went over the budget again and reduced it another $12,000. The amendment by the Committee on Rules and Administration will reflect that reduction, so that the resolution, as amended, will involve $129,000.

Mr. ELLENDER. The subcommittee had formerly asked for $141,000?

Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. I cut the $141,000 to $129,000.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I notice that the budget justifies an additional editorial director, $15,554; an assistant director, almost $10,000: and special counsel for the minority, $20,000.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate staff is the same as we have had. There are no additions.

Mr. ELLENDER. Did the committee hold hearings last year?

Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. The committee held hearings on several pieces of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a letter which I wrote under date of January 27, 1965, to the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JANUARY 27, 1965,

Hon. B. EVERETT JORDAN,

Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a copy of Senate Resolution 59, authorizing the continuance of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, which I reported from the Committee on Government Operations on January 26. It has the unanimous approval of the committee.

Recognizing the concern of the Congress with keeping expenditures at an absolute minimum, I have made a careful, item-by-item reexamination of the proposed $141,000 budget and have cut the figure $12,000. This was accomplished by reducing the proposed number of staff members from ten to nine, a saving of $5,144.36, and reducing the administrative budget by $6,855.64.

Although it will place some restrictions on the subcommittee, I am confident that, with prudent planning, a budget of $129,000 will permit us to properly discharge our duties.

Acting on authority of Senate Resolution 280, 88th Congress, 2d session, agreed to on February 10, 1964, the subcommittee has this past year engaged in both legislative and research activities.

The resolution authorized us "to examine, investigate, and make a complete study of intergovernmental relations between the United States and the States and municipalities," and to evaluate the proposals made by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES, 88TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION

The subcommittee held hearings last January on S. 2114, introduced by me on September 4, 1963. This bill provided for "periodic congressional review of Federal grants-in-aid to States and, to local units, of government," and implemented the Advisory Commission's June 1961 report entitled, "Periodic Congressional Reassessment of Federal Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments.” Thirty-nine other Senators ultimately joined in sponsoring the measure, which, together with the accompanying report (S. Rept. 1056) was approved by the subcommittee and subsequently by the parent committee on June 19, 1964. It passed the Senate unanimously, was favorably reported by the House Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, but no further action was taken by the House Committee on Government Operations,

On January 23, 1964, the Senate unanimously passed S. 855, which "sought to provide for more effective utilization of certain Federal loans or grants by encouraging better coordinated local review of State and local applications for such loans or grants." Although this measure failed to pass the House, the principle set forth in the bill was adopted last year by the Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as a direct result of the Senate hearings on the legislation. The Division now requires that applications for construction grants for waste treatment works be accompanied by the comments and recommendations of the official State, metropolitan, or regional planning agency, where such exists, within whose area the assistance is to be provided.

During the second session of the 88th Congress, the subcommittee continued its exploration of S. 815, a bill providing for the "adjustment of the legislative jurisdiction exercised by the United States over lands in the several States used for Federal purposes." This measure was introduced earlier by Senator JOHN McCLELLAN as an administration bill at the request of the Attorney General. Extensive hearings were held by the subcommittee in August 1963 and two executive sessions were subsequently held on this somewhat controversial measure during 1964, but no final action was taken.

The question of the future disposition of Ellis Island has been a continuing responsibility of the subcommittee since its creation. At my invitation, various interested Members of Congress and Federal administrators participated in a conference on the subject in September 1963. This meeting prompted renewed Interior Department interest in the island and ultimately led to a recommendation by the Secretary of the Interior, contained in "A Study Report on Ellis Island," prepared by the National Park Service for the subcommittee in June 1964, calling for the conversion of Ellis Island to a national historic site, dedicated to public park and recreational uses. A majority of the subcommittee subsequently approved a report recommending that the Secretary proceed under the act entitled "An act to provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance," approved August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666-668, 16 U.S.C. 4461-4467), and designate Ellis Island as a national historic site. The report is now pending before the parent committee.

RESEARCH EFFORTS, 88TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION

To promote its understanding of contemporary Federal-State-local relations and to provide background information for its legislative endeavors, the subcommittee engaged in three types of research undertakings during the second session. These included (1) further efforts to gauge the attitudes and views of responsible officials at all levels of government and of other informed persons on crucial intergovernmental relations issues; (2) diverse ways of assessing the impact of urbanization on the traditional pattern of federalism; and (3) initial attempts to ascertain the role and effect of Federal grants-in-aid on contemporary intergovernmental relations.

In the first area of investigation, the staff went beyond its earlier study of "The Federal System as Been by State and Local Officials," and prepared a second intergovernmental relations questionnaire which was distributed in March, 1964 to Federal departments and agencies handling grant-in-aid programs. We are now in the process of analyzing responses to this inquiry and of preparing a study report.

As part of its continuing concern with the impact of urban area problems on the Federal system, the subcommittee issued a report in April 1964 on the nature and extent of urban research conducted under Federal auspices, prepared at our request by the Bureau of the Budget. This survey suggested that a more systematic and coordinated consideration of urban problems could be gained if there were a continuing inventory of urban research projects. In line with, this suggestion, I corresponded with Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, pointing out that no one agency was responsible for cataloging Federal research projects and stressing the need for such an arrangement. As a result, the Science Information Exchange now includes urban research as a categorical sector in its holdings. This innovation stemming from the subcommittee report, will help assure that projects are not duplicated and that similar or related research efforts are permanently recorded for use by interested individuals and agencies.

Indicative of the subcommittee's perennial concern for more effective coordination of joint Federal-local projects was the issuance in May 1964 of the Advisory Commission survey entitled "Impact of Federal Urban Development Programs on Local Government Organization and Planning." A few weeks later, pursuant to a July 1963 contract with the Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, the subcommittee distributed an expert analysis of the present condition of metropolitan planning in America. This study discusses many aspects of S. 855. as well as the more general problems relating to orderly metropolitan development. As its final urban research effort in the 88th Congress, and in response to numerous requests, the staff prepared and distributed in August 1964 a select bibliography entitled "Metropolitan America."

In an attempt to define the scope of its third field of research interest and to assist State and local officials, last year we distributed a "Catalog of Federal Aids to State and Local Governments," prepared by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. This publication covers all forms of Federal aid in effect as of April 1, 1964. More than 40,000 copies were distributed, on request, to Members of Congress and to State and local officials.

The publications cited have greatly assisted us in our legislative deliberations, and there is considerable evidence that officials at all levels have found these research efforts of value.

LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, 89TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION

Present plans and indications suggest a busy schedule for the subcommittee during the first session. A paramount legislative concern will be S. 561, the proposed "Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1965" which I introduced on January 15 last. This measure is, I hope, the first of an annual series of measures designed to keep our Federal system abreast of rapidly changing times. The omnibus bill includes five titles:

Title I: Improved Administration of Grants-in-Aid to the States.

Title II: Periodic Congressional Review of Federal Grants-in-Aid to States and to Local Units of Government (a modification of S. 2114, 88th Cong.).

Title III: Permitting Federal Departments and Agencies To Provide Specialized or Technical Service to States and to Local Units of Government.

Title IV: Coordinated Intergovernmental Policy and Administration of Grants for Urban Development (contains S. 855, 88^th Cong.).

Title V: Acquisition, Use, and Disposition of Land Within Urban Areas by Federal Agencies in Conformity With Land Utilization Programs of Affected Local Governments",

Most of the provisions of, this complex bill grew out of studies of the subcommittee and

recommendations by the Advisory Commission. This legislation will require extensive hearings and numerous executive sessions.

As of this date, 33 other Senators have joined in cosponsoring the measure. Other proposed intergovernmental relations legislation, probably including another version of the adjustment of legislative jurisdiction measure, doubtless will be referred to us.

RESEARCH PROJECTS, 89TH CONG., 1ST SESS.

To supplement these legislative activities, the staff will continue its efforts in the realm of research and information, including (1) a broad-scale investigation of the record and the future role of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations; (2) intensive efforts to gage the effects, and especially the economic impact, of Federal grants-in-aid on the States and their localities; and (3) a further probe of the views of responsible officials at all governmental levels on crucial intergovernmental relations questions.

Under the first, our subcommittee will join the House Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee this spring to sponsor joint hearings on the actual operations and record of the Advisory Commission's first 5 years. It is my hope that these proceedings will highlight the Commission's accomplishments as well as its shortcomings; moreover, since next year will mark the 10th anniversary of the submission to Congress of the final report of the U.S. Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (known as the Kestnbaum Commission, 1953-55), these hearings will, I hope, attempt to assess intergovernmental developments since 1935 and suggest the future course of American federalism. Present and past Commission members, in addition to numerous experts in the field of intergovernmental relations, will be among the witnesses.

As part of its continuing survey of the impact of Federal grants-in-aid on the Federal system, the subcommittee will sponsor at least four major undertakings during the coming year.

First, a supplement to our earlier "Catalog of Federal Aids to State and Local Governments," is being prepared to cover those programs enacted by the 88th Congress after April 1, 1964.

Second, I have directed the Staff to analyze the economic impact of Federal expenditures as that impact is distributed throughout the United States. The analysis is to determine the effects of Federal spending upon economic development within the States, in terms of population and personal income. The results will be invaluable as the basis for policy discussions on the role of grants as a part of total Federal expenditures.

Third, the staff will identify those States which under match -- in other words, fail to spend enough of their own resources to get their full share of Federal grant funds in some programs. The amount of under matching will be analyzed to assess the reasons for under matching and to determine the impact of the equalization provisions in Federal legislation on State participation in these programs.

Fourth, to gage more properly the impact of Federal grants-in-aid on the structure and functions of State government, the subcommittee, will schedule at least two field hearings during the coming year. This subject has not been explored in any great detail since the original Kestnbaum report of 1955.

Finally, in an attempt to further explore the effect of changes in our Federal system on Federal executive attitudes, the staff will continue to process the second questionnaire previously referred to. The final results of this survey of Federal administrative views will be published as a committee print some time this spring.

In order to achieve the purposes set forth in the attached resolution, an appropriation in the sum of $129,000 is requested.

Sincerely yours,

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this letter covers the activities of the committee in some detail. We held hearings last year in several areas of concern of some of the legislation that we dealt with in hearings, including S. 855, a bill to provide for more effective utilization of certain Federal loans or grants by encouraging better coordinated local review of State and local applications for such loans or grants. The Senate unanimously passed that. bill on January 23, 1964.

The subcommittee also held hearings on S. 2114, a bill to provide for periodic congressional review of Federal grants-in-aid to States and to local units of government. This bill was enacted unanimously by the Senate on June 19, 1964.

The subcommittee also held hearings on S. 815, a bill to provide for the adjustment of the legislative jurisdiction exercised by the United States over lands in the several States used for Federal purposes.

This is a bill which the Senate passed twice before. Hearings had never been held previously. Last year, we held hearings in the hope that we could build a basis for favorable action, not only by the Senate, but also eventually by the House. We shall take that bill up again this year in the hope that we can retrocede legislative jurisdiction of these Federal enclaves to the States.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, is the committee doing anything in the field of having the States and the local governments carry more of a burden than they are now carrying, instead of letting Uncle Sam do all the work?

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Louisiana will be interested in two studies that we are to undertake this year, which may be helpful in that connection.

Mr. ELLENDER. That would be a fertile field.

Mr. MUSKIE. I agree. One of the responsibilities of the subcommittee is to investigate the possibilities of readjusting the responsibilities of the several levels of the Government. We have been working in this field with the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Much of the work of that commission and the work of the subcommittee has been directed toward making suggestions helpful to the local State and Federal Government in picking up a lot of the responsibilities.

One of the studies we want to undertake this year is to identify States which under match Federal funds and ascertain why they do not take advantage of Federal program and why they under match funds under Federal programs, in the hope we can find answers for readjusting responsibilities for matching formulas applicable under various programs.

I invite the Senator's attention to a measure which was passed last year, which provided for periodic congressional review of Federal grants-in-aid to States which could have the salutary effects the Senator from Louisiana mentioned. That is included in an omnibus bill which has five titles.

Title I is designed to improve administration of grants-in-aid to the States.

Title II provides for periodic congressional review of Federal grants-in-aid to States and to local units of government -- to which I have just referred.

The third title permits Federal departments and agencies to provide specialized or technical service to States and to local units of government on a reimbursable basis.

Title IV provides for coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration.

Title V provides for acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by Federal agencies in conformity with land utilization programs of affected local governments.

What we are trying to do through this Intergovernmental Cooperation Act is relate a dynamic Federal system to the other two levels of government. It is important that all three levels of government discharge their responsibilities adequately. Perhaps if the lower two levels were doing so there would be less reason for the upper, or Federal, level to enter into these activities.

Mr. ELLENDER. I presume that much of that work could have application to bills we have already passed. Let us consider the Appalachia bill which the Senate just passed. In that bill we provided for assistance to States that are well able to take care of conditions that prevail there.

The State of Virginia and the State of North Carolina, for example, are both wealthy States. I am confident they could take care of the little pockets of difficulty that exist in various areas of their States. I can well understand that States like West Virginia, which was dependent almost entirely on coal in many of its areas, pose special problems, and that necessarily there may be a need for a certain amount of assistance based on need. But we should not pass a bill to give aid to all of them, as will be the case under the Appalachia bill and many other bills the Senate has enacted. If the Government would give aid more on the basis of need, it might save the Federal Government many millions of dollars.

Mr. MUSKIE. Two of the pieces of legislation I have referred to might be helpful in dealing with the very problem the Senator from Louisiana has referred to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The resolution (S. Res. 59), as amended, was agreed to.