CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
February 16, 1966
Page 3103
SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has submitted its seventh 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.
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 three from the executive branch: the Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. 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 Commissions Chairman.
A year has elapsed since the submission of the Commission’s sixth 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 skillfully guide the Commission, while Mr. William G. Colman, its executive director, provides able leadership in overseeing the activities of the 23 member professional and clerical staff.
During 1965, general meetings of the Commission were held in January; May, and October; and, this year, in January. The following major reports requiring implementation were adopted during the course of the sessions:
First. "Relocation: Unequal Treatment of People and Businesses Displaced by Governments." This study explores the need to achieve consistency and equity in the treatment of those persons and businesses forced to relocate because of Federal and federally aided public improvement programs.
The Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations acted swiftly to implement the Commission’s findings. On April 1, 1965, I introduced S. 1681. Companion measures to S. 1681 were introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressmen FOUNTAIN -- H.R. 7821, and DWYER -- H.R. 7970. H.R. 10212, introduced by Congressman SICKLES, includes provisions similar to S. 1681. Hearings were held by the subcommittee on June 30, July 1, 13, and 14; 1965. Final action by the Senate is expected in the near future.
Second. "Federal-State Coordination of Personal Income Taxes." If our States are to remain viable partners in our Federal system, their fiscal position must be strengthened. . This report looks at this problem and develops a number of useful recommendations, including a proposed Federal tax credit for State income tax payments.
Third. "Metropolitan Social and Economic Disparities: Implications for Intergovernmental Relations in Central Cities and Suburbs." This report investigates who lives in the central cities and corresponding suburban rings of each metropolitan area. What are the fiscal resources in our central cities and suburbs? How do governmental expenditures differ among these jurisdictions? What changes, if any, should be made in Federal, State, and local policies regarding such social and economic disparities, and what specific legislative and administrative actions should be taken to implement these changes?
Current work projects on the Commissions agenda include:
First. State taxation of interstate commerce. This report considers policy issues raised in H.R. 11798, WILLIS, Democrat, of Louisiana, pertaining to State taxation of interstate commerce.
Second. Intergovernmental responsibility for building codes and regulations The variety of building regulations and how greater uniformity can be achieved were considered at the January meeting of the Commission.
Third. Effect of tax and expenditure practices on location of industry and economic development. State laws designed to attract industry pose serious intergovernmental problems. This question is now being scrutinized by the Commission.
Fourth. Intergovernmental relations in the poverty program. The war against poverty is running into serious obstacles and is being attacked in some quarters. The Commission is exploring ways in which more effective cooperation among levels of government can be achieved in the administration of this program.
Fifth. The Advisory Commission has contracted with the Department of City Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to reassess Commission recommendations relating to urban areas and to measure their effectiveness as devices for relieving pressing metropolitan problems.
Sixth. In October, the Commission sponsored and chaired a meeting to consider the need for a full-fledged conference to discuss the question of urban research. The staff of the subcommittee participated in the conference.
Of more general concern to those interested in intergovernmental relations is the tracing by the Commission of significant intergovernmental events in 1965. Brief descriptions of the Voting Rights Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a grant program for the improvement of State and local law enforcement are included. Two major fiscal problems, State taxation of interstate commerce and the treatment of income derived from securities of State and local governments, are also discussed.
The brief survey of State legislative reapportionment in 1965 will be of special interest to. all Senators.
The Commission’s report also highlights a number of significant developments at the State level, including increased State interest in urban problems, improvements in intergovernmental fiscal relations, new and higher State and local taxes, and greater concern with revising State constitutions. A number of recent examples of greater area wide cooperation in urban areas were cited.
The Commission’s report takes note of other significant intergovernmental relations developments that took place at the Federal level in 1965. The creation of the Department of Urban Affairs brings into better focus Federal activities as they affect our cities. The passage by the Senate of S. 561, the proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1965, also marks a real milestone in intergovernmental relations. S. 561 will help to better coordinate Federal efforts as they influence State and local affairs The continuing debate on the so-called Heller proposal suggests that the topic of intergovernmental finances will occupy much of our attention in the months to come.
The report takes special note of joint hearings held by the House and Senate Subcommittees on Intergovernmental Relations last May on the 5 year record of the Advisory Commission.
In transmitting the subcommittee’s findings to the Senate Committee on Government Operations, I pointed out: The hearings revealed that the Commission, in its 5 years of operation, has achieved a high level of competence and productivity in its continuing study of problems which affect intergovernmental relations at the Federal, State and local levels.
Nothing reveals this more than the Commission’s success in the implementation of its recommendations at the Federal and State levels since the issuance of its last annual report.
The Housing Act of 1965 contains eight provisions that stem from Commission recommendations. Two suggestions offered by the ACIR are found in the medicare bill. An amendment to the Water Pollution Control Act, offered by the commission, was accepted and included in the final bill. Finally, the Commission was successful in having one of its
recommendations adopted in the Manpower Development and Training Act. There are also a number of Commission recommendations presently being considered in bills pending before the Congress.
At the State and local government levels, Commission recommendations met with even greater success. Each year, model laws based on these recommendations are drafted for State consideration. Thirty-nine States have implemented one or more Commission proposals during the past 2 years. The ACIR should be well satisfied with their efforts at the State level.
Increased concern over the operation of our Federal system is of major significance to both the subcommittee and the Advisory Commission. The President is working to reduce interlevel friction that is impeding the implementation of Great Society programs. This effort will require a substantial research effort and thoughtful legislation. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and as a member of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, I feel certain that each will play a significant part in attaining President Johnson’s goals of a truly "creative federalism."