August 5, 1965
PAGE 19578
PASSAGE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, S. 561, as amended, constitutes a constructive effort to eliminate some of the many sources of tension that have emerged in our intergovernmental relations during the past three decades. Its principal objective is to adapt the mechanics and processes of our Federal system to the dynamic period of domestic reform in which we now find ourselves.
I introduced this omnibus bill on January 15 of this year, with 32 Senators cosponsoring. At present, 41 of my colleagues have joined in cosponsoring the legislation. Five days of hearings were held this spring, and the Government Operations Committee unanimously agreed to report this measure to the floor last Friday.
Title I of the amended bill contains the definitions of 12 terms used frequently throughout the other titles.
Title II is designed to help unify and coordinate the standards and procedures governing the financial, organization, and other activities of the Governors and other State officials, insofar as these activities are affected by Federal grant programs. The provisions of this title do not apply to grants to the political subdivisions of the States.
Title III provides for systematic review of future Federal grants-in-aid to the States and to local units of government. It also stipulates that the Comptroller General shall make continuing studies of all grant programs to assist the Congress in maintaining proper legislative oversight.
Title IV permits Federal departments and agencies to provide specialized and technical services to State and local units of government on a reimbursable basis. Its purpose is to make available to such units of government only those services which agencies and departments of the Federal Government are uniquely able to perform.
Title V establishes a coordinated intergovernmental policy on the administration of Federal grants for urban development. It favors, therefore, the eligibility of units of general local government -- towns, cities, and counties as recipients of Federal aid, in contrast to special-purpose districts or authorities. It requires local governmental review of certain applications for Federal urban programs and encourages a broader approach for review, at the metropolitan level, of applications for loans as well as grants under certain Federal urban development programs.
Title VI amends the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, by prescribing a uniform policy and procedure for urban land transactions and use undertaken by the General Services Administration. Acquisition, use, and disposal of land in urban areas by this agency would be consistent, to the extent possible, with local zoning regulations and development objectives. Like title V, it will help make urban planning more effective.
These, in brief outline, are the basic provisions of this legislation. Support for S. 561 is widespread. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the Governor's conference have unanimously endorsed it, without reservation.
Formal resolutions adopted at the 1964 conventions of the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties gave support to almost all of the specific provisions of this bill. The Council of State Governments, the National Association of State Budget Officers, and the American Institute of Planners are among its warmest proponents. The Bureau of the Budget has approved all but a few of its provisions; and a week ago last Wednesday, Gov. Buford Ellington, now the President's Chief Adviser on Federal-State-local relations, declared in his address before the Governors' conference at Minneapolis that "this bill is supported by the President." Governor Ellington also expressed the hope that "this legislation can be moved shortly," since "it is badly needed."
To sum up, S. 561, as amended, is designed to correct certain recognized weaknesses in our Federal system and to close obvious gaps in our national policies on regional and local planning and urban development. It attempts these things because all levels of Government under our great American partnership share the responsibility to promote the general welfare of the people.
None of its provisions, in and of themselves, will eliminate all of the points of friction that have developed in intergovernmental relations. But each is significant. Each attacks one of the major problems in this critical area. And when combined, as they are in this omnibus bill, they constitute a meaningful definition of that elusive term "creative federalism." For these and many other reasons, I urge enactment of this legislation.