CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

March 14, 1967

Page 6534

REMARKS BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE BEFORE THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, CREATIVE FEDERALISM AWARD, MARCH 1, 1967

I am pleased and gratified to receive the creative federalism award of the National Association of Counties. I accept it with the mixed emotions, perhaps, of most people who are so honored. On the one hand is the excusable pride of recognition. On the other is the trepidation that such an award generates in the recipient, for he, of all men, knows that he must now set out to justify the honor.

I should like to use this occasion, not only to express my thanks to the officers and members of NACO for this expression of confidence and trust, but to review briefly the current status of creative federalism.

To the extent that this term embraces the improved coordination, organization and management of Federal assistance for State and local governments -- and I realize it means much more that – to that extent, I believe we have succeeded in identifying the most serious weaknesses of the system.. We have even set a possible course for a rational solution of those weaknesses.

Our subcommittee hearings last November and in recent weeks have focused attention on, and given voice to, the frustrations suffered by most officials at all three levels of Government, especially those involved in the administration of the grant-in-aid programs.

The grant-in-aid device is the most acceptable means so far found to translate nationally accepted goals into action programs. It has made a substantial contribution to the capacity of State and local governments to cope with the problems of an increasingly complex society.

But, overall, the lack of policy coordination, different planning requirements, confusion of authority, and lack of cooperation between different agencies at all three levels of Government have reduced the potential of the grant-in-aid programs. The problem is not just a shortage of funds; if all of these programs could be funded to their full authorization, I am convinced the problem would still be just as serious.

But I think we can be encouraged by the Demonstration Cities Act, comprehensive planning requirements which have been written into various grant-in-aid programs; and the statewide and area wide planning provisions of the comprehensive Health Planning Act. All of these approaches are designed to make maximum use of our resources.

At the executive level, I believe the President's deep concern for this program has produced some very encouraging actions. While I have some reservations about the potential value of the so-called "convener order," it is nevertheless a constructive move toward resolving problems of program coordination where HUD is concerned. The President's November 11th and 17th directions to Federal departments and agencies to make more effective use of the planning, programming and budgeting system underscore his determination to move toward a solution of these problems. His November memorandum charged the Director of the Bureau of the Budget with establishing procedures to carry out his directive. I believe the Director's letter to various department and agency heads will produce improved working relationships and more effective arrangements among the levels of Government concerned with administration of grant programs.

I am particularly pleased that the Director's letter specifically charged the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations with the task of providing a reference service to help improve relations between Federal agencies and State executives. I believe this brings into the administration a pool of talent and knowledge that has not yet been fully recognized for its contribution to improved intergovernmental relations.

At the State level, a number of encouraging signs appear. Some States have already established offices of program coordination, and others are moving in this direction. Several States have initiated constitutional revisions. I was particularly impressed by the statement of Governor Hughes of Iowa when he testified before the subcommittee a few weeks ago. He said:

"I believe in States' rights as devoutly as any man. but I am fully aware that for many years we have been giving out stereotyped dialogue about States' rights without paying constructive attention to obligations and responsibilities of State government.

"We have not held up our end of the Federal system -- either in relation to the Federal Government or in relation to our political subdivisions."

Governor Hughes' key words, "obligations" and "responsibilities" ought to be accepted by all of us who are concerned with reinvigorating our Federal system. Those two words, against the background of the problem as we see it today, can move all of us toward a realization of the goals of the great society. if we move with a determined approach.

The recent suggestions made by NACO for better coordination of Federal programs is yet another hopeful sign. Your recommendation that counties establish a coordinator for Federal and State programs is commendable. Your suggestion for a "block" grant as a primary means for bringing about better coordination through. among other things, comprehensive planning, seems to me to be a positive response of the lack of management capacity at the local level which Mr. Hillenbrand's testimony before the subcommittee emphasized. This kind of thoughtful analysis by groups such as NACO -- groups who are in close contact with the various levels of our Federal system -- cannot but help to guide us out of this morass of red tape and confusion.

All of us see the problem somewhat differently, and so have somewhat different approaches to solutions. I, of course, see great hope in the legislative proposals I have introduced -- the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, and the National Intergovernmental Affairs Council. I believe these proposals can contribute to a solution of some of the more pressing problems. But I am not totally wedded to them as final answers. I do believe they represent positive, forward steps, and I shall continue to press for them until better solutions are proposed.

The President's state of the Union message, for me, contains the most succinct statement on what is needed. He said:

"Federal energy is essential. But it is not enough. Only a total working partnership among Federal, State and local governments can succeed. The test of that partnership will be the concern of each public organization, each private institution, and each responsible citizen."