CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
January 26, 1967
Page 1640
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT OF 1967-JANUARY 26, 1967
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators JACKSON, BOGGS, MUNDT, and Moss, I submit, for appropriate reference, a bill entitled the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1967, to achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government in order to improve the operation of our Federal system in an increasingly complex society to improve the administration of grants-in-aid; to provide technical services to State and local governments; to establish a coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration of grants and loans for urban development; to authorize the President to submit to the Congress for its consideration plans for the consolidation of individual categorical grants within broad functional areas; to provide for conformity in Federal acquisition, use, and development of urban land with local government programs; to provide for uniform relocation assistance to persons and businesses affected by federally assisted real property acquisition; and to provide for a uniform land acquisition policy in Federal and federally assisted programs.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill remain at the desk for 10 days to permit other Senators to add their names as cosponsors.
Mr. President, developments in the past year have demonstrated a growing concern for the administration of Federal grant-in-aid programs. These programs, which have been described - - and correctly, I think -- as the most important vehicle of intergovernmental relations, now number- around 220. They are concerned with, and critical to, the development of the resources of this Nation. Their growth over the past two decades is a testament to their acceptance by a vast majority of the American people. Their effects on the development of our human resources, our natural resources, and our community environment are inestimable. They are critical to the development of our Great Society.
However, the administration of this multitude of programs has severely taxed the resources of all levels of government. And the proliferation of Federal grants has put the spotlight on the federal system -- that durable, but delicate balance of jurisdictions and powers that has evolved throughout our history.
Since its inception, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations has carried on a continuing study of the problems of the relationships which operate within our Federal system. In the 89th Congress, the subcommittee considered a number of proposals designed to resolve the problems associated with its findings. Several of these proposals focused on the grant-in-aid device. Others involved the problems of the inequities of property acquisition for public development programs, and the relocation of persons and businesses affected.
The Senate approved legislation in both of these areas during the 89th Congress.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
First, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act was passed by the Senate on August 5, 1965. This proposal was designed to achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities between the levels of Government in order to improve the operation of our federal system. As passed by the Senate, the measure would:
First. Authorize full information for the Governors on grants made to their States and would provide for more uniform administration of Federal grant funds to the States. It would also improve the scheduling of fund transfers to the States and permit the States to budget Federal grant funds in much the same manner as they budget other revenues;
Second. Provide for congressional review of future grant programs to insure that such programs are reexamined in a systematic fashion and reconsidered in the light of changing conditions;
Third. Authorize the Federal departments and agencies to render technical assistance and training services to State and local governments on a reimbursable basis;
Fourth. Establish a coordinated intergovernmental urban assistance policy, by requiring local government review of certain applications for Federal aid in urban programs. This provision would serve to strengthen metropolitan planning machinery and encourage more orderly metropolitan growth; and
Fifth. Prescribe a uniform policy of procedure for urban land transactions and use undertaken by the General Services Administration, by requiring consistency of that agency's policies with local zoning regulations and development objectives.
As I mentioned, the Senate unanimously adopted a bill which contained these five provisions.
That bill had been introduced with 42 cosponsors, and had drawn broad support from many sources, including national organizations and public officials at all levels of government. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives did not take final action on this measure.
Therefore, the bill I am introducing today contains, in titles I through V and title VII, the measure which received the unanimous consent of the Senate in the last Congress. This is a proposal of utmost importance in the improved functioning of the federal system, particularly as grant-in-aid programs affect that system. It contains all the provisions of H.R. 17955 of the 89th Congress, which the House Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization reported to its parent committee in the last week of the 89th Congress. It also includes title V -- the Senate-approved provision for periodic review of grant-in-aid programs by the Congress, which the House measure omitted. I believe this provision is a sound management technique which is badly needed and of critical importance to the overall grant system.
CONSOLIDATION OF CATEGORICAL GRANT PROGRAMS
Title VI of the bill I am introducing today contains a new proposal designed to improve the management of grant-in-aid programs. Briefly, it would authorize the President to submit to the Congress plans for the consolidation of individual categorical grants within broad functional areas and to effect the interagency transfer of administrative responsibility for grant programs, subject to the type of congressional veto proviso that governs executive reorganization plans.
This proposal would involve the submission to Congress of categorical grant consolidation plans, including such modifications in apportionment formulas and allocation requirements as the President deems necessary. The Congress would accept the plans or disapprove them in a manner similar to that provided in the Reorganization Act of 1949.
Mr. President, Federal grants-in-aid are unquestionably essential and effective methods of financing and administering essential programs to achieve national objectives. But, because their number and variety have increased so rapidly in recent years, the need for coordination in their administration is persistently acute. It was pointed out, in recent hearings before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, that over 220 Federal grants-in-aid to assist State and local governments are now administered by 16 of the 21 departments and agencies of the Federal Government. We have 50 different programs to aid general education; 57 programs for vocational and job training; 35 programs involved in housing; more than 20 programs involving transportation; 27 for utilities and services; 62 for community facilities; 32 for land use; 28 for recreational and cultural facilities.
One relatively simple example of the problems which a number of similar categorical grants produce may be found in Federal grant programs for community water supply, sewers and sewage treatment facilities. Five agencies of the Federal Government are presently involved in administering such grants:
First. The Farmers Home Administration in the Department of Agriculture;
Second. The Department of the Interior's Federal Water Pollution Control Administration;
Third. The Economic Development Administration of the Department of Commerce;
Fourth. The Appalachian Regional Commission (for communities within that Commission's jurisdiction) ; and
Fifth. The Land and Facilities Development Administration of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
In this particular group of aids, the agencies concerned have worked out arrangements which are designed to minimize administrative confusion. But during our recent subcommittee hearings. it became evident that confusion continues to characterize the administration of these programs.
The simple form 101 by which local officials attempt to present their case for Federal aid, cannot be filled out until the local official has carefully read -- and understood -- four pages of closely typed instructions. Judging from a number of examples of cases of grant applications from which local officials have had no response -- for sometimes as long as 2 years -- I think it can safely be said that improvements in their administration are imperative. This may require action beyond voluntary cooperation among the agencies involved.
Title VI of my proposed bill would give the President the authority he needs to consolidate these programs -- subject to congressional review -- if he determines such action would improve their administration.
Mr. President, this proposed title has been suggested by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. It has been studied carefully by the Commission's experts, and I believe it merits the Senate's serious consideration. I believe the Congress itself provided a precedent for such a consolidation of programs when it enacted the Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health Service Amendments of 1966. I hope this proposal will be seriously considered as a means to more effective management of these important grant programs.
UNIFORM RELOCATION
Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today contains two other important titles. The first of these -- title VIII -- is concerned with a program of uniform relocation assistance for those forced to relocate as a result of the acquisition of real property for Federal and federally aided public improvement programs.
Title VIII is not a new measure in this body. I introduced it as S. 1681 in the 89th Congress. It was passed unanimously by the Senate in July 1966 and subsequently was referred to the House Committee on Public Works, where no action was taken.
Very briefly, this title would provide a policy of uniform treatment for the thousands of individuals who are affected every year by such Government projects as urban renewal and highways.
Mr. President, relocation is a serious and growing problem in the United States. Federal and federally aided programs are displacing approximately 111,000 families and individuals, 18,000 businesses and nonprofit organizations, and 4,000 farm operators each year. The pace of Federal programs indicates this trend will continue. Federally assisted programs alone -- mostly urban renewal and highway programs -- displace about 96 percent of the families and individuals, 96 percent of the businesses, and 34 percent of the farms affected by land acquisition.
The uniform relocation bill passed by the Senate in the last Congress was the result of an intensive study conducted by the House Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition of the Public Works Committee and by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in cooperation with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, as well as by our own Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations.
These studies revealed serious inconsistencies among Federal and federally assisted programs with respect to the amount and scope of relocation payments and advisory assistance. For instance, a homeowner whose property is taken for a federally aided urban renewal project is entitled to moving costs up to $200. His neighbor, whose property is taken for a federally aided highway program, is also entitled to $200 but only if the State has authorized participation in the Federal relocation program. Inconsistency in payments for business moving expenses is even greater. Here, the Federal-Aid Highway Act allows such expenses only up to $3,000, whereas displacement by a federally aided urban renewal project entitles the businessman up to $25,000 for moving costs. Finally, urban renewal provides fairly comprehensive advice and counseling to business and individuals; the Federal highway program provides no such service.
Among other findings in the studies to which I referred is the fact that the single greatest problem in relocating families and individuals is the shortage of standard housing for low-income groups. Small businesses -- particularly those owned and operated by the elderly, such as "Mom and Pop" grocery stores -- are major casualties. They have less capital, find it more difficult to secure outside financing, and need assistance to supplement their energy or spirit to resume business in a new location.
Advisory assistance is of growing importance in the relocation process. The poor, the nonwhite, the elderly, and the small business people all need intensive counseling to prepare them for, and to help them carry out, their move.
With the continued growth of Government property acquisition, there has been more and more concern that relocation programs be made more uniform, and more equitable. Both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson have expressed concern over the human costs and the lack of uniformity in relocation of both families and business.
Title VIII of the bill I am introducing would establish uniform relocation payments, and advisory assistance programs for those displaced by Federal and federally assisted programs. Compliance with these relocation requirements would be a condition in Federal grants to State and local governments. The bill would impose on all federally assisted programs the present urban renewal requirement that no property acquisition project may proceed until there is assurance of available standard housing for those displaced.
It would provide full Federal reimbursement of relocation payments up to a maximum of $25,000; and above that, Federal sharing according to the project's cost-sharing formula. Urban renewal and public housing now pay up to $25,000, fully reimbursed by the Federal Government, for business moving expenses. The Federal highway program now allows only up to $3,000 for businesses reimbursed by the Federal Government on a 90-10 basis for interstate, and 50-50 for primary-secondary highways. Today's measure would thus make Federal reimbursement 100 percent up to $25,000, and would assure that relocation payments will be made by those States where highway displacees are not now entitled to such payments.
Mr. President, I believe the features of this relocation assistance title of the bill I am introducing today, which were passed unanimously by this body last summer, are of utmost importance to the welfare of those who are adversely affected by Federal and federally assisted programs.
URBAN LAND ACQUISITION POLICY
The final title of this legislation -- title IX -- provides for the establishment of a uniform policy for the acquisition of real property by Federal Government agencies and by State agencies using Federal funds for public improvement programs.
Mr. President, this title follows the legislative recommendation introduced by Senator SPARKMAN in the last Congress as S. 1201. His original proposal combined both a relocation assistance program and one dealing with a uniform acquisition policy for real estate in Federal and federally assisted programs. It is the latter of these two proposals by Senator SPARKMAN that is incorporated in title IX. Hearings were held on this proposal before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations in late June and early July of 1965. Title IX was drafted to include most of the recommendations made to the subcommittee by the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Justice, and the Bureau of the Budget.
As I mentioned in my discussion of the need for uniform relocation assistance policy in Federal and federally assisted programs, growing activity in development programs aided by Federal funds will continue to affect large numbers of property owners each year.
Studies, particularly the one conducted by the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, reveal that widespread and serious inequities are found in the acquisition of real property in public development programs. The select subcommittee's study revealed that, in many cases, Federal agencies acquired land at less than the agency-approved appraisals. This is true of some acquisitions by States and localities using Federal funds.
In some jurisdictions, it was found that property owners are, in effect, penalized for lowered market values which result from preliminary announcement of a proposed project; in other instances, the public is compelled to pay higher prices for properties whose values are increased by announcements of a proposed project. Mr. President, title IX of this bill would institute a uniform policy to guide Federal and federally aided land acquisitions. This is a matter of equity which ought to be an overriding consideration in such acquisitions.
I should say that this title, so far, has not yet been formally endorsed by the Senate as have most of the other titles in the bill. But I believe it is of utmost importance in restoring a measure of assurance to property owners faced with acquisition of their property by the Government. They should be able to expect equitable treatment.
Mr. President, I realize that the bill I am introducing is long and, at first glance, complicated. But as I have said, most of its provisions have already been accepted -- unanimously -- by this body. Only titles VI and IX are new, and I hope they will be thoroughly studied by all Members.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be reprinted in the RECORD at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill will be printed in the RECORD, and held at the desk, as requested by the Senator from Maine.
The bill (S. 698) to achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government in order to improve the operation of our federal system in an increasingly complex society, to improve the administration of grants-in-aid to the States, to provide for periodic Congressional review of Federal grants-in-aid, to permit provision of reimbursable technical services to State and local government, to establish coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration of grants and loans for urban development, to authorize the administration of grants and loans for urban development, to authorize the consolidation of certain grant-in-aid programs. to provide for the acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by Federal agencies in conformity with local government programs, to establish a uniform relocation assistance policy, to establish a uniform land acquisition policy for Federal and federally aided programs, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. MUSKIE (for himself, Mr. BOGGS, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. MUNDT, and Mr. Moss), was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Government Operations, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: