CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
February 17, 1967
Page 3804
STUDY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution (S. Res. 55) 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 "$140,000" and insert "$130,000".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, what is the resolution that is before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Calendar No. 46, Senate Resolution 55.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, may we have an explanation of it?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations has been engaged since its creation in 1962 with the study of problems involving the three levels of government in the federal system: the United States, the States, and the municipalities.
This year we have been particularly concerned with, and have devoted quite a bit of attention to, legislation and studies related to the administrative difficulties in handling Federal grant-in-aid programs. As Senators know, there have been a number of these programs since 1948, beginning with approximately 70, until today there are approximately 220. The proliferation of these programs has created administrative problems on local, State, and Federal levels. We have been undertaking to emphasize this problem, to understand its dimensions, and develop, we hope, practical solutions.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Does the proposal that the Federal Government shall send back to the local and State authorities a definite percentage of Federal income, come within the jurisdiction of this study?
Mr. MUSKIE. The subject is one of many which has been raised in our hearings and has been discussed there. However, any legislation dealing with it must, of course, go to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LAUSCHE. When did this study begin that the Senator is now speaking of?
Mr. MUSKIE. The hearing phase began last November. We have already had 6 days of hearings in this session, and we contemplate more in March and throughout the year.
In the course of these studies, there has been a great deal of interest and discussion by the witnesses -- Governors and mayors -- in the tax-sharing proposals.
Mr. LAUSCHE. How much money was given last year?
Mr. MUSKIE. $137,000.
Mr. LAUSCHE. How much is being asked for now?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Rules Committee has recommended $130,000.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, that is all I have to say.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Government Operations Committee has split itself into six subcommittees. It is my belief that the
Chairman of that committee should look into this matter and try to prevent further proliferation of the Committee. It is getting not quite so big, but almost as big, as the Judiciary Committee. As I have said, there are six subcommittees for this year, and the permanent subcommittee has been voted $435,000.
The Executive Authorization Subcommittee is asking for $110,000.
Foreign aid expenditures, $105,000.
Government research, $75,000.
Intergovernmental relations, $130,000.
National security and international operations, $90,000.
It would indicate there that the Senate is being asked to appropriate for the Government Operations Committee almost $1 million.
I hope that the Chairman of the committee will look into this matter in the hope that fewer committees can be created, and that the proliferation I have been talking about will not be permitted.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator from Maine a question.
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall do my best to answer the Senator.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Do I understand correctly that one of the purposes of the Committee is to study proposals for sharing revenues of the Federal Government with the States?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. Let me repeat for the Senator, because he probably did not hear my colloquy with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE] a few moments ago, that the subjects of coordination and intergovernmental administration of grant-in-aid programs came up in our discussions, and some of the various witnesses went into the subject of tax sharing proposals.
However, we understand fully that the jurisdiction for that subject and that any legislation dealing with it should belong to the Committee on Finance. However, because Governors and mayors are concerned with this problem of redtape and administrative complexities when they testified before us, they did see fit to get into the subject of tax sharing.
Nevertheless, we do not consider it to be part of our jurisdiction, except in the discussion phase of the various ways State and local governments can be helped in the administration of Federal assistance.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Well, recognizing those facts, I wonder what its functions are?
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator permit me to read from rule XXV
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I have read it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Rule XXV of the standing rules of the Senate specifically charges the Committee on Government Operations among other things with, "Studying the intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities."
Understandably, tax sharing involves the important relationships between the States and municipalities, as witnessed by the testimony of governors and mayors and other witnesses before us discussing this new proposal which is high in the level of public interest. And understandably, the rule does not discuss this. But, as a matter of fact, it would be only one of many ways to diminish the administrative complexities in our grant-in-aid programs.
Thus, this is relatively new, and it is being discussed together with other problems before our committee; but, what we are concerned with primarily is the organizational problem of coordination of grant-in-aid programs.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Senator read rule XXV. That rule delegates it to the Government Operations Committee. The Government Operations Committee, as a committee, gets an adequate appropriation to carry on its functions. This is a subcommittee. Here we have a committee, and then there is a subcommittee delegating to the committee the duties of the other committee.I wonder if that does not require clarification?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. This phase of the work of the Government Operations Committee was delegated by the full committee -- with the approval of the Rules Committee in the Senate -- to the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee. If the full committee were to undertake this work in addition to the work it now has, presumably it would have to have additional staff. I cannot conceive that the workload now carried on by the full committee could be supplemented by this additional workload with the elimination of the subcommittee's staff now applied to it.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. That is all right, Mr. President, but I want the bill to go over for the weekend and then–
Mr. MUSKIE. What was that? Will the Senator repeat that? May I respectfully suggest to the Senator that he reconsider his request because it will affect the vital hearings on air pollution which are scheduled in Detroit, and which were set weeks ago. I canceled hearings throughout the day in Denver and St. Louis in order to be here in Washington for this purpose at this moment. There is a long list of witnesses to be heard which has already been set up.
The fact is, we chose the Lincoln Day recess for the purpose of holding hearings because we could not imagine that there would be another period; in fact, we thought there would be less likelihood of conflict between work on the floor of the Senate and the hearings.
Now the Senator is considering asking for the resolution to go over which would, in effect, force me to cancel those hearings. It does not seem to me that this legislation has that much controversy involved in it. The work of the subcommittee has been going on now for three and a half years. It has attracted a great deal of attention all over the country and has the support of Governors and mayors and Senators all across the country.
I would be happy to take as much time now as necessary to answer the Senator's questions. That is why I canceled the hearings in order to be in the chamber today.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I withdraw my request temporarily. But, if there is such an emergency in the matter, why could it not have been brought up earlier today? I should like to examine this problem in more detail, but if the Senator wants to have the resolution passed now, and there would be no motion made to reconsider, I could ask that it be reconsidered on Monday next, and would reserve that right to do so. If the Senator wishes to pass the resolution with that understanding, that will be all right with me.
However, I should like to ask for its reconsideration on Monday. I would like to ask that it lie on the calendar until the Senate comes back on Monday.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me ask the Senator this: could the Senator give me a definite time on Monday so that I could be here then, because I must do something about the witnesses in Detroit?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Could not the Senator go ahead and get someone else who knows something about the resolution? Surely, he is not the only member on that committee who knows something about it. If such is the case, I do not think we need it at all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution, as amended.
The resolution, as amended, was agreed to, as follows:
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, as amended by Public Law 89-733, approved by the President on November 2, 1966.
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this resolution the committee, from February 1, 1967, to January 31, 1968, 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 $2,300 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. 1968.
Sec. 4. Expenses of the committee, under this resolution, which shall not exceed $130,000, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee.