CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
November 7, 1967
Page 31565
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT OF 1967
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 699) to strengthen intergovernmental cooperation and the administration of grant-in-aid programs, to extend State and local merit systems to additional programs financed by Federal funds, to provide grants for improvement of State and local personnel administration, to authorize Federal assistance in training State and local employees, to provide grants to State and local governments for training of their employees, to authorize interstate compacts for personnel and training activities, to facilitate the interchange of Federal, State, and local personnel, and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, S. 699, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1967, is one of the most important bills to come to the Senate floor in many years. It is designed to improve the balance of our Federal system and to help State and local governments to operate with maximum efficiency and independence. It will help them to do so within the framework of a national purpose to enable individual citizens to realize their potential in a free society.
The bill blends ideas from nearly every corner and segment of our country. In my years of experience in intergovernmental affairs, I have not felt a greater sense of urgency and support than I have for this legislation. It has come from Governors, State legislators, State and local administrators, and academicians, as well as from the public at large.
What makes the legislation so important, so acceptable to the officials of our State and local jurisdictions?
First, S. 699 provides grants to State and local governments for the planning and development of improved personnel systems. This could include everything from career incentives and improved recruitment policies to personnel research.
Second, it provides additional grants to State and local governments for training and Government service fellowships. This would include authorization for the use of Federal training programs and technical assistance, where requested, in addition to the establishment of State and local personnel training programs.
Third, it provides for the exchange of personnel between the Federal Government and State and local jurisdictions to provide a mobility of knowledge and experience for qualified administrators up and down the line.
Mr. President, there are other progressive features to the bill. It would provide for a special advisory council to study and report within 18 months on the methods by which the quality of public service at all levels can be improved. It gives particular emphasis to the feasibility of applying merit system standards and incentives to applicable programs and levels of administration. The council would be composed of representatives of Federal, State, and local governments as well as persons selected from educational and training institutions, public employee organizations, and the general public. Significantly, at least half of the council's members would be officials of State and local governments.
The Civil Service Commission would be the chief coordinating and administering agency under this bill. It would take over responsibility for a number of Federal programs which already require merit personnel administration, join with State and local governments in cooperative recruitment and examining programs, provide technical assistance, and coordinate the activities of other Federal agencies in the fields of training and technical assistance.
Like every Federal grant-in-aid bill, S. 699 contains some Federal requirements which are really prospective, rather than conditional in the usual sense. The Civil Service Commission has a mandate of flexibility in determining the funding. In order to be funded, the projects applied for must be consistent with certain merit principles set forth in the bill's declaration of policy.
Mr. President, the funding for this legislation is modest. Because the program is in its beginning stage, we have tried to be conservative in the money authorizations, even though our constituents in the State and local jurisdictions would like us to be more liberal. The legislation authorizes $20 million for the first year, $30 million for the second year, and $40 million for the third year.
The matching requirement on the personnel and the training sections is 75 to 25 percent. We have included an amendment that would guarantee a minimum to each State regardless of size, population, or number of employees affected. We have protected the interests of the smaller States by restricting the maximum allocation to any one State to 12½ percent of the total appropriation.
Mr. President, I think for the benefit of my colleagues that I should say that we have had an interesting and constructive dialog with our friends on the other side of the aisle on this bill. The junior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER] offered 16 amendments, most of which the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations accepted in reporting the bill to the full Committee on Government Operations. Senator BAKER's amendments were practical, helpful, and reasonable in the spirit of making the bill more effective in its application to State and local administration.
Under the bill, as reported, the Governors play a key role in the development and administration of the program.
They name the agencies to administer the projects at the State level, and they or their agencies review and make recommendations on all applications submitted for the projects in their States. The bill relies primarily on State governments to develop projects, including projects for local governments. If, however, a State government does not choose to provide projects for local governments, a local government can get a grant directly after submitting its application to the State for review and comment.
The senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] offered an amendment in committee which would give the Governors final authority over the distribution and use of the Federal project grant funds. His amendment was rejected by the committee. I understand he intends to make the same proposal today. I hope the Senate will support the committee's position and reject his amendment today.
Under the Mundt amendment funds appropriated for project grants would be allocated among the States on a per capita basis. Authority to determine whether or not any project conforms to the criteria for approval set forth in the bill would be transferred from the Civil Service Commission to the Governor of each State. If a Governor did not choose to use the project grant funds allocated to his State, they could not be transferred for use in another State. The Governor could prevent any local government from participating in the program simply by withholding his certification from a proposed project.
As a former Governor I am opposed to the Mundt amendment as unsound in principle and contrary to the intent of the project grant section.
For my part, I want to say that this legislation as reported by the Government Operations Committee represents the thinking and full support of many Governors, local officials and organizations, and professional and public groups, including the National Governors' Conference, the Council of State Governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties. It has been endorsed by some of the most respected academicians in the field of public administration.
The legislation has been the subject of extensive hearings. In August of 1966 we held hearings on the bill -- then known as S. 3408. We heard testimony from 15 witnesses, and we received over
a hundred supporting statements from a cross section of public administrators. In April 1967, we held 3 days of hearings on both S. 699, and on S. 1485, the Intergovernmental Manpower Act, which was sent to the Congress by the Administration as part of President Johnson's legislation related to his message to Congress on the quality of American government.
Again, we heard from 20 witnesses, and received hundreds of statements and testimonials from officials in the intergovernmental personnel and administrative fields.
Our purpose was to blend the best features of these two bills. However, both pieces of legislation contained a rather strong provision which would have authorized the President to require, insofar as he deemed practical, that personnel engaged in programs involving Federal grants must be employed under a State or local merit system. Except for the question of protecting employee's rights, this provision aroused the only major opposition to the legislation both in the hearings and in the committee. The consensus was that this requirement was too rigorous for the moment; that we should be reaching for this goal through encouragement rather than legislative mandate; and that the problem of what is, or what is not, a good or necessary merit system is still a thorny one.
Thus, we eliminated this merit system feature, but set forth in the declaration of policy
in the bill a series of merit principles to which each applicant must subscribe in order to obtain assistance in manpower development and training. We then authorized an advisory council to study the problems of merit systems and personnel administration and report back to the Congress its findings on more meaningful ways of encouraging merit principle applications to personnel administering Federal programs at State and local levels.
The committee also dealt with the question of preserving the rights of employees, by specifically including a clause stating that nothing shall prevent the participation of employees or employee organizations in the formulation of policies and procedures affecting the conditions of their employment. This is subject to the laws and ordinances of State and local governments concerned.
Mr. President, the last major questions before us are the amendments of the senior Senator from South Dakota, which I understand will be the major issue for discussion today.
Mr. President, I believe that S. 699, as reported by the Government Operations Committee, is a very essential piece of legislation. I believe it will benefit the entire country by strengthening the States and by improving the quality of local administration. I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUNDT. I send amendments to the desk and ask that they be read for the information of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendments.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendments be dispensed with. The remainder of the amendments is a matter of technical markings. I further ask unanimous consent that the various sections of the amendments be considered en bloc as one amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be considered en bloc; and, without objection, the amendments will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendments, ordered to be printed in the RECORD, are as follows:
On page 35, strike out lines 19 through 24 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "projects upon the certification of the Governor that those programs or projects are consistent with the applicable principles set forth in clauses (l)-(6) of the third paragraph of section 2 of this Act, to strengthen State and local government personnel administration and to furnish needed personnel administration services to local governments in that State. Eighty per centum of the grants authorized by this section shall be apportioned on the basis of the distribution formula set out in section 506, and funds shall not be transferable among the States.
The remaining 20 per centum shall be distributed by the Commission to applicants that the Commission finds meet the purposes poses of this Act and which it finds are consistent with the principles set forth in clauses (1)-(6) of the third paragraph of section 2. The authority provided by this section".
On page 38, line 25, beginning with "which", strike out through "finds" in line 1 on page 39, and insert in lieu thereof "upon the certification of the Governor that those programs or projects".
On page 73, beginning with line 9, strike out through line 7 on page 74, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"SEC. 606. The Commission shall allocate funds for grants among the States, and between State and local governments, on a weighted formula taking into consideration such factors as the size of the population and the number of employees affected.".
On page 75, strike out "(a) " In line 17 and beginning with line 22, strike out through line 2 on page 76.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, the views I am about to discuss have been conveyed to the Members of the Senate via a pair of mimeographed sheets which have been placed on the desks of individual Senators. It bears the heading, "Individual Views on S. 699." It is signed, in addition to me, by Senators CURTIS, HANSEN, BAKER, and ERVIN.
I am advised that the minority views are also printed in the record of the committee.
I ask unanimous consent that these individuals views may be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the minority views were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Individual Views on S. 699
There is no divergence of view that the purposes of this bill for improvement of personnel administration in State and local government meet an important need of these governments.
Serious burdens of administration are being placed on State and local governments with expanding populations placing greater demands for more governmental services provided more efficiently and effectively.
This measure would authorize Federal agencies to include State and local government officials and employees in existing Federal training programs and to provide special training for these governmental personnel having responsibilities in the grant programs concerned.
The Civil Service Commission would be authorized to make grants to States and local governments for carrying out training program of its employees and to provide fellowships for special university and college graduate training. The Commission would be authorized to cooperate with State and local governments in recruitment and examining activities. This bill provides for the initiation and expansion of temporary assignments of personnel between Federal, State, and local governments.
These are but a few of the provisions of this legislation which have highly laudatory purposes for strengthening personnel administration. My opposition lies in the manner in which funds authorized for a grant program are made available to State and local governments. Section 202 authorizes the Civil Service Commission to make grants to States for up to 75 percent of the cost of developing and carrying out programs and projects which the Commission finds are consistent with merit principles set out in Section 2. We support an amendment which would make available 80 percent of the annual appropriation to the States on the basis of population, upon the certification by the governor that the proposed program or project is consistent with the merit principles of Section 2.
Such an amendment would insure the desired assistance for State and local personnel programs while protecting the initiative and freedom of those governments to determine for themselves the personnel program best suited for the existing circumstances and conditions of their respective governments.
There has been a growing objection toward those provisions of grant programs for state and local governments which result in the accelerated centralization of authority in the Federal government and a growing dependence by State and local governments on that aid with its regulatory strings attached. In 1948 this type of Federal aid amounted to $1.6 billion and will probably amount to $17.4 billion in the current fiscal year. Today there are 379 programs with 197 having been enacted in the 1964-1966 period. Too frequently, the Federal government regulates the conditions under which these funds are spent.
The result has been an increasing concern that the rapidly growing number of grant programs has weakened the position of States and localities and has unbalanced the partnership of our Federal system and raised questions as to the future of the system. The partnership between the national and the other governments must be maintained by assuring that each may execute its rightful role in providing necessary services to its citizens.
I propose to offer amendments which would strengthen rather than weaken the Federal system by insuring the reservation of nontransferable funds for each State to improve its personnel administration when the governor certifies that a proposed plan meets principles of merit as outlined in this bill. It would place upon the individual governor the public responsibility and authority to certify the types of reforms and improvements they deem best suited to their respective areas. My amendments will move this legislation away from the direction of coercive efforts by Federal authorities to standardize and make uniform the various operating procedures and administration of personnel programs and will encourage local initiative and the development of new and original programs for improving and strengthening public service without the stultifying inhibitions of centralized bureaucratic control or the repressive directions of the Federal government.
KARL E. MUNDT, CARL T. CURTIS, CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, HOWARD H. BAKER,
SAM J. ERVIN.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I share with the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] and most of the other members of our committee -- although the bill was not reported unanimously by the committee -- the desire to do something under Federal encouragement and incentives and leadership to strengthen the sinews of State and local government, because I happen to believe that we should increasingly work in the direction of sharing the overall tax take of this country with the State and local governments and move in the direction of having them accept responsibility, which they do not now accept, for meeting some of the multitudinous problems that confront this country at every level. To do that the strengthening of State and local governments and the improvements of their efficiency is of course important.
In that regard most of us stand together in terms of supporting S. 699, provided it can be held to that mission.
The problems that concern me are the problems that I know concern a good many Senators because the issue here primarily in the areas in which I find myself in disagreement with the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] relates to the question of how much power we want to repose in the Federal structure, in the Federal Government, to influence and direct decisions which are made within a State, and especially decisions such as these which affect only -- I repeat, which affect only -- the governmental structures within the State.
How far should the outstretched hand of authority from the Federal Government be permitted to go with taxpayers' money to tell people within a State:
"This is the way we want it done”
Or do we want to retain, as I want to retain, within the State some recognition of the rights of State and individuals and communities to follow the inclinations of their own noses and determine what kind of activities in the direction of strengthening the sinews of local government are the ones they feel are applicable and acceptable in the local areas?
In a nutshell that is the nubbin of our disagreement. How do we meet that question? Or, do we really want, as this bill proposes, to give to the Federal Government, its Civil Service Commission, the right to take money collected from the taxpayers generally and to use it in an effort to drive or push or shove them into things which they otherwise might not be willing to do?
I do not want to do that. So, while I want to vote for the pending legislation, I cannot vote for it if once again we pack into the Federal power structure the muscle and the might and the money with which to shove around local governors and local government.
I think we have gone too far already in the direction of pushing and persuading and punishing and penalizing governors and local governments which fail to comply with some concept created here in Washington.
We have seen what is being done now under terms of the Highway Beautification Act which should have been a good bill and could have been made a good bill except for an amendment which was added on the floor of the Senate to give for the first time an American history to an appointed Federal official, the Secretary of Commerce, the right, if you please, to veto an act of the legislature in any one or all of our 50 sovereign States.
We propose here to give another veto once again to a functionary in the Federal structure.
My amendments are proposed simply to set in motion some aspects of the bill which will protect this dignity, this importance, this rightful function of the governments of our States.
I believe in the 10th amendment to the Constitution. It is not as well publicized as is the fifth amendment. It is not alluded to as often. However, I believe in many ways that it is the keystone of our whole Bill of Rights because it said then -- and it should mean now -- that we who operate at the Federal level should exercise only those controls and powers over the States and over the people as the States and the people specifically delegate to us.
We are now asked not to accept some exercise of power which has been delegated to us by the State, but to impose upon the States restrictions and restraints and powers of decision which are made here in Washington. If we did that, and only that, it would still be bad as far as I am concerned, and the measure would lose my support. However, we go further. We take the taxpayers' money, and we say: "We will match to the extent of 75 percent those funds which you contribute to the extent of 25 percent, and you would not get the money unless you submit plans and proposals and suggestions acceptable to Mr. Big, the Federal Government in Washington. And you not only will not get the money, but you will have to pay your share of the taxes to the extent of paying to the other States who do knuckle under 75 percent of the total cost of the operation."
I submit that we have gone altogether too far down that sorry road in this country now, and we are chipping away at the sovereignty of the States, at the dignity of the States, at the jurisdictions of the Governors, at the jurisdiction of the local structures of government. And now we propose to lure them to knuckle under once again by telling them: "The only way you can get back your money is to take our advice."
There are Senators who think that we should have a unitary system of government instead of a republic, a democratic republic of 50 States, but as a believer in the 10th amendment, I have cast my last knowledgeable vote in the direction of further stripping the great defenses of freedom, as I see them, which are incorporated in the 10th amendment. That is the issue.
Now, how do I propose to move in the direction that the Senator from Maine wants to move, without at the same time violating what I consider to be a very significant and uniquely American concept of divided authority and State responsibilities in this country? I propose to correct it in two ways.
The first part of my amendment is a simple change. It says that when we finally have negotiated around and worked out plans and programs and devices in order to upgrade the caliber and strengthen the sinews of local government, and it is decided whether or not the 75-percent Federal contribution is to be made, instead of the Civil Service Commission in Washington telling the State "Yes" or "No," it shall be certified in a public statement by the Governor, who will say: "In my opinion, we have conformed with the high principles and noble purposes of this act, and we want to apply for our portion of the funds."
It is not very complicated. It is very simple. Senators, in their good conscience, should be able to decide in whom they wish to repose confidence and whether or not they feel that the Governors should have at least that amount of authority within their own States, to determine what is being done, if you please, with their own structure of government and the structures of government in the local levels within the State -- just within the State.
I do not know how you could go further in vitiating the 10th amendment and the rights of the States than to give some Federal authority the right to tell them what they have to do at their own local levels of government in order to populate their offices and regulate their services and train their officials and promote them in conformity with some Federal doctrine.
The second change I propose, Mr. President, deals with the same problem in the bill as presently written, except for two interesting but rather ineffective late additions which were made to the bill just before it was voted out of our committee. The bill gives the control of the distribution of the funds to the caprice or the good judgment or the evil purposes of the Federal officials administering the act.
I propose to put in a distribution formula. Senator MUSKIE, in anticipation that I might offer this amendment, has described that part of it correctly and points out that it is a population ratio of distribution. My amendment also says that those funds shall not be transferable, that each State is allocated its fair share. It can participate in the program after the certification of the Governor, or it cannot participate; but by not participating, it does not have to pay extra taxes for its neighbor or for some other State that reaches out for that 75 percent contribution. What each States does not use reverts to the Federal Treasury.
Senator MUSKIE and I have argued this at great length over many weeks in the subcommittee and in the committee. There is not much reason for us to argue it at great length in the Senate Chamber, when we have presently only a few more people to talk to than we had when we argued it in our own committee. Others may of course come to the Chamber later. We will now address our various advocacies, then, to the distinguished Senator from Florida, who sits here as a sort of impartial referee. He has not heard the debate before. He is listening carefully. Others have also been in on it.
In an effort to be conciliatory, I yielded a bit, because I was a supplicant for votes. After you have been around this town a while, you find out that when you are a supplicant for votes, you sometimes have to back down a little from your basic premise and the full impact of the principles to which you are dedicated.
I said, "All right, we won't insist on the distribution formula including all the money. We won't apply that to the total amount appropriated" -- and it starts out with a pretty generous appropriation of $20 million and multiples itself in typical Federal form by a geometric progression year after year.
I said, we would not take the entire amount of money and freeze it and say that every State is entitled to its exact per capita quota. We will say that 80 percent of the total amount appropriated shall be so included, on a nontransferable basis. Eighty percent of the total divided among the States, under population needs or any other, specific and equitable criterion; it is not transferable. But under my amendment States declining the proposal do not have to pay taxes to the other people who decide to take it.
The other 20 percent the Civil Service Commission can use in order to browbeat Governors over the head and local communities over the head or to exercise a more appropriate influence. They can hold that great, big 20-percent carrot out in front of the State horse and the State house to try to pull it in its direction. They can take that 20 percent of the total and use it in order to persuade and to argue with local officials and the State Governor and say, "You ought to do it our way. Do it our way and you get 100 percent. If you don't do it our way, you get only 80 percent of the quota."
You have to buy that much authoritarianism, I suppose, to get the votes. I should like to see it 100 percent, but I backed down to 20 percent.
To meet this argument and to demonstrate the chairman believes my position and proposition has some validity, he reluctantly offered a couple of makeshift amendments moving in that direction.
The first was to say, "We will take a little, puny amount of the total and allocate that to the States equally, so each will get a small percentage or a small amount." I have forgotten at the moment whether he says 60,000 per State or 15 percent per State; I believe it is 60,000. That much will be allocated to the States straight out, without any type of performance guarantee. It is a type of subsidy or grant to the States, I suppose. So you move in that direction a little, to help them exercise the ingenuity and the initiative that I believe States and local governments should exercise in trying to improve their processes of public administration.
Then, at the other end of the spectrum, the chairman says that no State can have over 12½ percent of the money that belongs to all the people -- just 12½ percent. So no longer could it be argued that an overzealous administration, seeking to dominate the mores or the habits or the attitudes or the programs of a certain State, could offer the entire kaboodle to one. He says that no more than 12½ percent may go to any one State. So that means eight States could receive it all. If you find eight States that you want to get going under this act, you can give all the remaining funds to those eight, after taking off the reservation of the small percentage for every State.
Mr. President, those are the reasons why I oppose this bill as it is presently drawn, and why I urge my colleagues to make it a workable, cooperative partnership formula between the good purposes at the Federal level and the good purposes at the local level; because I deny and disavow the concept that the popularly elected Governors of the 50 sovereign States of the United States could not be trusted to have the good judgment and the sound ethics to survey carefully the certification they would be requested to sign. I do not believe they would stand before the public, trying to grab the money simply because it is available, and dishonestly to sign a certification that they are moving in the direction of strengthening forces of government, providing local employees with more rewarding merit systems, more security in jobs, and better protection against political malevolence. I believe you can trust the Governors that far.
Mr. President, I do not want to see this large amount of money held out, with its sweet smell and seductive potentialities, to lure State Governors to do that which they know they should not do, and that is to further destroy the dignity and the authority of their office over the operations of things which are strictly intrastate and intimately related to the taxpayers and the people, as are those programs dealing with administration of their local functions.
Mr. President, I would hope my amendment might be unanimously agreed to, but if opposition arises, as I am afraid it will, I shall later ask for a roll call vote.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if this bill did what the distinguished Senator from South Dakota has said it would do, I would vote for his amendment and I would vote against the bill.
By the most accurate count I have been able to get, up to this point we have grant-in-aid programs which will disburse about $17 billion to the States and local governments this year. Not one of them gives to the Governors the authority which the Senator from South Dakota would give to the Governors with his amendment in this program; not one of them.
I shall describe the pending bill with respect to the rights of the States and the authority of the Governors, as I understand it from writing the bill and from interpreting it.
As approved by the subcommittee and the full committee, the bill gives a key role to the Governors and State agencies designated by them. Projects initiated under this bill would be administered at the State level by an office designated by the Governor.
The applications initiated at the local level or at the State level, depending on which of the two levels of government is involved, or any application from local government, must first be submitted to the Governor or to a State agency designated by the Governor for review. The comments and recommendations of the Governor or his agency shall accompany the application when it is submitted to the Federal Government. The Advisory Council created by the bill, which would make recommendations to the President and the Congress on matters of policy and standards, would be intergovernmental in character with a majority to be representative of State and local government.
Finally, Mr. President, it is directed that the act shall be administered in such manner as to encourage innovation and allow for diversity on the part of State and local governments in the design, execution, and management of their own system of personnel administration.
These and other provisions make it clear that the bill relies primarily on the States to develop and carry out programs with the Governors exercising a large responsibility not only for State projects but also those submitted by local government.
What is the heart of the difference between the bill as it is before us and the bill as the Senator from South Dakota would amend it? The Governors would have authority to initiate projects or approve projects initiated by others at the local and State level, whether or not the Mundt amendment is agreed to. The difference between the Senator from South Dakota and me is that he would, in effect, give to the Governors the right to write the checks on the Federal Treasury because he would give to the Governors not only authority to certify the projects, which the Governor has under the committee bill, but also the authority to decide whether or not the disbursements would be made by the Federal agency to that Governor so that the Governor would be not only the applicant but in effect the Federal executive who would approve his own application. That is what the Senator from South Dakota proposes.
This principle is not embodied in any other Federal grant-in-aid program. There are well over 200 of them involving some $17 billion of Federal money in this fiscal year according to the last count I had.
The Senator from South Dakota has asserted his great confidence in the Governors of the 50 States. At the same time he has indicated almost complete lack of confidence in the executive branch of the Federal Government which was created by the Constitution of the United States. The executive branch was created to administer the laws enacted by Congress.
The Senator's amendment would give the administration of this law, or at least 80 percent of the funds provided by this law, to the Governors of the 50 States. That is the principle which separates the Senator from South Dakota and me.
I can understand his motivation. His motivation is the same one which is behind this bill: the desire to strengthen State and local government.
Where did this bill come from, Mr. President? It came from the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations following 3 years of study of the Federal system and especially of the problems of local government. It came from the ideas that were advanced to us by Governors, State personnel agencies, Federal officials dealing with State agencies, local governments and associations of State and local officials, to which I referred earlier, the Conference of Governors, the League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities. These are people who generated ideas which the subcommittee then incorporated in the Intergovernmental Personnel Act which I introduced last year as S. 3408.
When I introduced that bill I had no concept of the great tide of interest in the legislation which would emerge immediately across the country. However, that is exactly what happened and so we held hearings last year in order to fully expose the bill and the ideas it incorporated. As a result of that very great interest which was generated two things happened. First, I reintroduced the bill this year, and, second, the administration introduced its bill, the Intergovernmental Manpower Act, based upon our hearings last year and based upon the great interest in the bill at the State and local levels.
All of this year that interest has been manifested and expressed wherever I have gone anywhere in the country to talk to State and local groups, Governors, mayors, county officials, and to State and local leaders. In every section of the country great interest has been shown in this legislation.
We undertook to move this legislation through committee with the help of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER], who rendered extremely valuable assistance in perfecting the bill. In light of the testimony which we got in our hearings, we finally put together a bill which we thought was realistic, useful, and sound.
When we had made all these changes -- and this took a matter of several months -- the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] at that point offered his amendments. I think it is a matter of from 4 to 6 weeks since the Mundt amendments first saw the light of day. In that period, I have heard nothing but objections to the concept of the Mundt amendments from State and local officials.
S. 699 does not represent an attempt to create coercive Federal authority. Of course, the Federal Government retains the ultimate decision as to whether a Federal check should be made payable to a particular State. If that be coercive Federal authority -- I have never heard that kind of authority described as coercive before -- then we stand guilty. But the bill incorporates within its four corners less Federal authority than almost any other Federal grant-in-aid program I ran think of.
What would be the reaction of the Senate if we were to bring to the floor of the Senate legislation in effect giving to every Governor the right to sign checks for highway money? Can we not trust the 50 Governors? Why should we leave the check writing and the check signing to Federal officials? Why not give it to the State Governors? We who are members of the Committee on Public Works and who have been Governors know that Federal authority over the highway program has grown in the last 10 years in part because of some abuses that have taken place in the administration of that program by some States. I do not think Congress is ready to abandon all control by the Federal executive authority, which is the intent of the Federal legislation. But that is the principle which the Mundt amendments urge.
The bill sets forth in its policy section, on pages 30 and 31, a list of merit principles. These merit principles are a substitute for the more rigorous and inflexible merit system concept which the original bill, S. 690, incorporated
We made the change from that concept of the merit system to the approach to which I have referred, on pages 30 and 31 of the bill, in order to provide for flexibility in order to give greater recognition to variations among the States and among local governments, and in order to encourage development of innovation and diversity at the State and local level. So that all we have here is a list of principles with which no one interested in professional and qualified government could take issue.
For example, the first principle states:
“recruiting, selecting, and advancing employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge, and skills, including open consideration of qualified applicants for initial appointment."
Is that an unsound principle, Mr. President?
The second principle states: "providing equitable and adequate compensation."
Is that not a sensible provision, Mr. President?
The third principle states: "training employees, as needed, to assure high quality performance."
The fourth principle states: "retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance, correcting inadequate performance, and separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected."
The fifth principle states: "assuring fair treatment of applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel administration without regard to political affiliation, race, color, national origin, sex, or religious creed and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights as citizens;” and
The sixth principle states: "assuring that employees are protected against coercion for partisan political purposes and are prohibited from using their official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office."
These principles, Mr. President, are guidelines which, if the legislation is adopted by Congress, would represent congressional intent with respect to the use of the funds authorized and, hopefully, later appropriated as congressional intent.
Now, shall the Civil Service Commission, which would be the administering agency under the bill, have any authority with respect to deciding whether such congressional intent is being met or not?
The Senator from South Dakota says it should not have any authority, that the Governors should have complete and final authority to decide whether that congressional intent so spelled out in the bill should be implemented in pursuing State and local projects financed by it. He has retreated from that principle by saying--
Mr. MUNDT. That was a compromise, not a retreat.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, it is not a retreat from principle. If he had his way, he would want 100 percent of the money.
Mr. MUNDT. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. To implement the congressional intent of spending, with the ultimate authority of the governors to decide whether they should receive the Federal money. That is a precedent which, Mr. President, I do not believe we are ready to accept in Congress.
The second most important thrust, I think, of the Mundt amendment has to do with the allocation of funds authorized among the States.
Frankly, this bill is a project bill. It would not authorize a program such as a highway program with continuing support over the years at levels guaranteed to each State. It is a project bill. The purpose of the bill is to stimulate imaginative ideas in the States for improving their personnel systems or their management systems all across the country. Wherever and whenever, within the limits provided in the bill, such a project emerges, it should be encouraged and given Federal support.
The Federal Government would not tell a State what projects it should have. The projects must be initiated by the States. But it would be the purpose of the bill to encourage all worthwhile projects. To insure that that stimulus is spread nationwide as much as possible, we do provide a minimum in the bill which must be allocated to every State. Every State would get the same amount. The first year's authority would be $60,000 per State, which is more than a State would receive under the Mundt amendment and less than most States would receive under an assured allocation. But every State would be eligible to apply for additional Federal funds, if they generated the projects which merited Federal support.
I think that makes sense. If this were a highway program, we would have a formula allocating the funds to every State. If it were an aid to education bill, we would do the same thing. But, this is a project bill, designed to stimulate the generation of such projects.
I think that the Mundt amendment incorporates a principle we are not ready yet to buy. At some point if we endorse the Federal tax-sharing concept as a substitute for categorical aids, we may do that; but I do not think we are ready to buy a tax-sharing concept. If we were to do so, and at such time as we do so, I am sure that we will write safeguards into it which will protect the Federal interest as well as the State interest.
Here, under the Mundt amendment, the Federal interest would be protected not by the Civil Service Commission or anyone else, but would be interpreted by the Governors of the States who are also, at one and the same time, the proposed beneficiaries of the program.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I can conclude my section of debate on this issue rather briefly, but we are presently confronted with a dilemma in the Senate because I want a roll call vote on this issue. It is a tremendously important issue. While less than 20 persons have heard this debate, thus far, I hope that most Senators have diligently read the committee report and the minority views and have devoted time to it.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield for a question?
Mr. MUNDT. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. What amount of money is involved under the 75 percent program and then under the 80 percent program?
Mr. MUNDT. I believe it is $20 million the first year -- the Senator from Maine will correct me, if I am wrong -- $30 million for the second year, and $40 million for the third year.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Then the purpose of the proposal is for the Federal Government to provide moneys to State and local governments to develop better personnel?
Mr. MUNDT. That is right. The Federal Government would provide 75 percent, and it would be matched to the extent of 25 percent by the other instrumentalities of government.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Is there any such program in effect now under which the Federal Government is providing money for this purpose?
Mr. MUNDT. Not that I know of; certainly not as comprehensive a program. The closest I know of is what the FBI does, which is altogether more preferable, in my view, in which the FBI Academy opens its facilities to Cleveland or Sioux Falls, or other cities, in which the law enforcement officers of those cities can get training. That is a different formula, however, and I like it better than the Muskie formula.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that is a part of the Muskie formula -- the part in which the Federal agencies would open up their programs to the States and local governments. The purpose is to expand it across the board.
Mr. LAUSCHE. This will expand the program which exists, at a cost of $20 million the first year, and $30 million the second year and then to $40 million?
Mr. MUNDT. It will go much further. It is entirely possible, as the Senator from Maine [Mr. Muslim] has said, that incorporated into the mechanisms that the Federal Government contrives to help States strengthen their local governmental structures, they could have facsimiles of the FBI Academy set up, and they could do exactly what the Senator has said. In addition to that, there are the allocations, because the bill provides that the States and local instrumentalities will set up programs of their own, and at their level, in order to get the 75-25 allocation. I would assume -- and the Senator from Maine will correct me if I am wrong -- that as far as the Washington-based training facilities are concerned, they would be financed entirely by the Federal Government.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The committee's bill states that the elevating of the efficiency of the personnel by these subdivisions -- the State governments themselves and their subdivisions -- shall be consistent with the merit principles set out in section 2.
Mr. MUNDT, Yes. The Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] read those awhile ago.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The proposal of the Senator from South Dakota is that, if the merit system as promoted by a State, in its own judgment, is deemed adequate, it shall be entitled to the aid whether or not it conforms to the Civil Service Commission principles as set forth in section 2 of the bill?
Mr. MUNDT. Yes. Although the same principles are involved, under my proposal the Governors would certify the programs they sought to be evolved would comply with the principles. Under the other formula, it says, "The Civil Service Commission will not leave the decision up to the Governor to determine whether he has complied with the principle and thrust and objectives set out by the Federal authorities."
Mr. LAUSCHE. Why are not the States by themselves able to develop programs that will improve the efficiency of their personnel? Why is it necessary for the Federal Government to feed in $40 million a year?
Mr. MUNDT. I do not think it is necessary to have that matching program. I do desire to have some incentive provided by the Government to quicken the pace. I agree entirely with the premise of what the Senator from Ohio has said. Why should the poorest relative finance the other relatives of our governmental structure? Our Federal Government is in terribly bad financial shape. This is a bad time to bring in a new spending program. But if it could be done, without using Federal money, to dominate and direct the program, but simply as a partnership program, I could go along with it.
Mr. LAUSCHE. In my opinion, the Federal Government ought not to begin spending money at this time, when there is such dire pressure upon the purse strings of the Federal Government. I do not favor either Senator MUSKIE's proposal or the proposal of the Senator from South Dakota. Let us stay out of it.
Mr. MUNDT. May I say to my good friend, before he stays out of it, that my amendment is from the standpoint of the financial structure. I would hope he would support it because it is more economical. This is not a substitute bill. I am simply changing the way the money is provided and utilized and it is a move toward economy.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, inasmuch as the Mundt amendment will be less costly and less offensive to the rights of local governments determining for themselves what they should or should not do, I shall support the Mundt amendment, but finally vote against the bill regardless of what happens to the Mundt amendment.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUNDT. I yield.
Mr. COTTON. I have been reading the committee report and the bill. Would it be very far from the fact to characterize this bill as a program to teach State and county and municipal officials how to spend Federal money?
Mr. MUNDT. According to the gospel as written in the first chapter of Uncle Sam's Bible, I suppose that would be right.
Mr. COTTON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield a moment?
Mr. MUNDT. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Since the question put by the Senator from New Hampshire also goes to the intent of those who sponsored and wrote this bill, may I, for myself, say this is not the intent. The intent is to help the States and local governments to achieve a higher level of competence to do their own job.
Let me read something that was said by the Municipal Manpower Commission in 1962:
The quality of APT (administrative, professional, technical) personnel in local governments today, by and large, is inadequate to cope with present and especially emerging metropolitan problems . . . The local governments have not attracted at the entry level, a fair share of the ablest young people equipped with intelligence and training rise to APT positions.
Here is another comment from the Municipal Manpower Commission:
In a significant number of instances, local governments are living on the "fat" of the manpower they were able to recruit during the depression thirties . . . The retirement of a large proportion of all department and division heads in the next decade must be expected.
May I put this statistic before the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire? The total local and State personnel in 1946 was 2.3 million. By 1965 that figure had risen to about 8 million. This rise in the number of State and local personnel has created staggering problems -- manpower recruitment, training, and competence.
I cannot speak for the other 49 States as well as I can for my own in this respect, first as a Governor and now as a citizen, as I have watched State legislatures struggle with the manpower problem. I know the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from South Dakota are concerned with the integrity of government at the State and local levels in this country, and I am concerned. Everyone who is knowledgeable in this field, who has studied the problem, will tell the Senators as they have told our subcommittee over a period of 4 years, that one of the critical problems, the solution of which will be vital to the integrity of government at the State and local levels, is the manpower problem.
The devices used in this bill are devices which were recommended not initially by the Senator from Maine, who is no expert in this field; not by any member of the subcommittee -- and I do not know of any one of them who is an expert in this field -- but by practicing and academic experts from coast to coast who have addressed themselves to the question of manpower in local governments.
I consider this bill vital. It will not completely solve the problem, by any means, but it offers two methods of help which I think can be invaluable.
I realize this is not the time nor the year to offer new grant-in-aid programs. As a matter of fact, coming from Maine, I even have some reservations myself about this sort of thing, But the matter has generated much interest. It is not one of the spectacular issues; we have not seen it in the headlines; it has not been controversial in the sense that it has emerged in the political columns.
But one who has traveled throughout the country, as I have by virtue of my chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, and talked to the people concerned, knows how deeply they are worried about these problems.
It will not have a major impact on my career, whether Congress enacts this bill into law. There are other things with which I am associated which have greater public visibility, and for which it is easier to obtain Senate support, including the $6 billion water pollution program, or the several-hundred-million-dollar air pollution programs. But the point is that those programs, which are based upon responsibility being placed first at the State and local levels, will not work unless they have the manpower to do the job.
I remember, in the ease of the water pollution bill last year, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] rising to make the point: How are we going to administer this water pollution program without trained people? On program after program which has come to this floor, I have heard that same point made: How are the States to administer the program without the people?
Seventy percent of the money that is disbursed by the Federal Government in domestic social programs is disbursed through State and local governments, under guidelines provided by Congress. It has to be disbursed by people. As I said a few moments ago, the number of employees involved at those two levels of government, has risen from 2.3 million in 1946 to 8 million today, and it will rise to 12.5 million by 1970 or 1972. Those people must come from somewhere; and those governments must compete with the private sector for the available people. So many of the people that the State governments get are not experienced, because the State salaries are not sufficient to compete with private industry and the Federal Government. I remember, when I was Governor, we had to take a lot of people on who were not trained at all. And we did not have adequate training programs to train them. It is a terrible problem. I came to appreciate it as Governor.
I do not think Maine is so much different from other States. In fact, everyone I talked to, from coast to coast today, tells me it is a terrible problem. That is why I am here with this bill, when, frankly, it would be easier to concern myself with something else.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will a portion of the funds expended under this bill be used to augment salaries of State employees?
Mr. MUSKIE. No; this is a training program.
Mr. COTTON. So this bill would not in any way alleviate the difficulty the States experience in obtaining adequate people because of the scale of their salaries?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. To the extent that salary is part of the problem, this bill does not touch it.
Mr. COTTON. I say to my distinguished friend from Maine that if my remark, or the question that I asked the Senator from South Dakota, sounded ironical or sarcastic, to him, I did not mean it in that way.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would not so interpret anything the Senator from New Hampshire said, except in the privacy of the cloakroom.
Mr. COTTON. I do say, however, that the Senator from Maine speaks very persuasively in behalf of this measure. He is dedicated in these matters, and I have great respect for his judgment.
I think the Senator from Maine, however, by a strange contradiction, is a living, walking answer to his own argument. He has served as Governor of Maine. I know something of his record as Governor of Maine. I am not just being courteous or polishing the apple when I say that people of all parties recognized that he was one of the ablest of Maine's Governors.
We have an able Governor in my own State of New Hampshire. Even though he is not of my political faith. I think that he is competent to face the problems of developing skillful administrators, as was my friend from Maine when he was Governor of his State.
I believe there is merit in the bill. But I think that, in this particular year, with the problems we are up against, for us to start a. new program of teaching State and city officials how to spend Federal money is perhaps a supreme act of carelessness -- I shall not say callousness. It is an act which exemplifies the Federal Government's apparent viewpoint at this time.
I wonder if we all are afflicted with Potomac fever? It seems to me that if there is one disease, more than any other, that has crept into the Federal Government, it is the idea that we cannot trust, that we cannot have confidence in, the Governors and legislators of our several States, and that all wisdom emanates from the banks of the Potomac here in Washington.
I could not possibly vote for this bill at this time, and I say that with no disrespect for the very able arguments presented by my friend, the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I assure him that I did not so interpret his argument; I merely saw an opportunity to make a point, and I can never let such an opportunity pass.
Let me make this one further point: Far from representing the concept that all wisdom rises from the banks of the Potomac, all of the ideas in this legislation came from the grassroots, and not from the banks of the Potomac. This bill was developed, as I stated earlier, by the subcommittee, out of ideas which came to it from the grassroots.
Indeed, those ideas were so persuasive that finally the administration itself introduced the Intergovernmental Manpower Act this year, based upon the same idea. I can understand the argument that there should not be any more grant-in-aid programs; but that is for Congress to decide. However, I can say that this concept has been stressed as an extremely important one, and the outcome will be the judgment of the Senate at the end of the debate.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENTS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the vote on the pending amendments take place at 5 minutes after 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the amendment to follow the pending amendments, the vote take place at 5 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, the bill has a fundamental fallacy which has been alluded to in the colloquy between the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON] and the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] It is built on the false premise that the Federal Government structure is a paragon of perfection. It is not. A pretty good case could be built to have Governors and mayors suggest to the Federal Government how it could improve its governmental structure. I am far from convinced that all the wisdom about government is located in Washington. There have been malfunctions here; there have been malfeasance, waste, and inefficiency here.
I am not at all sure, as I listen to the comments from across the country, that this is not a case of the halt leading the blind. So I do not feel that the premise is sound to begin with.
I wish to answer briefly the arguments and suggestions recently presented by the distinguished Senator from Maine. He said that not a single Federal grant in-aid bill moves in the direction suggested by the Mundt amendment. The answer to that statement is quick and clear: There is not a single other grant in-aid bill, as has just been established on the floor of the Senate, which gets into the intimate structure of the selection of personnel and the operation of State and local governments. This is the first time the Federal Government has ever threatened to go so far as to tell State governments whom it wants to serve, and how they shall be selected and promoted; otherwise the Federal Government can veto the plan and say, "You people pay your taxes to support this program, but you will get nothing back."
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUNDT. Please let me finish. I am trying to conclude by 4 o'clock, because I promised to yield the last 5 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER] under the agreement to limit time.
The second point the Senator from Maine made was that Governors shall have the power to state whether the Federal Government shall make the payout of the 80 percent, while having complete control over the other 20 percent.
I propose that we would set up the rules and regulations, and then the Federal Government would make the payments in the form of certifications by the Governors that these principles had been complied with, and they would do so openly, publicly, and with no chance of subterfuge.
The Senator from Maine makes much of principles. He says the principles will be guidelines.
They are, but they are not self-administrative. They will work exactly like the rules in a baseball game. The rules of the game are known by the players, but the decisions made by the umpire are what count. And the umpire here is a Federal official, dominating and -- if he wants to do so --domineering the local governments and the State Governors.
It is the umpire that counts, because somebody must interpret the rules and somebody must interpret the regulations.
I am glad that the Senator from Maine made reference to the Federal highway program. The Mundt amendment proposes to bring into play in this legislation the concept of the Federal highway program, the broad guidelines provided at the Federal level by the local State highway departments, to determine whether to detour the town or whether to split a city or a community or whether to locate a project in that area.
Time after time after time local communities come to us with suggestions about what should be done. The matter is referred back to the State highway department.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUNDT. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I can recall a very celebrated highway case when I was Governor. The local community, the highway commissioner, and the Governor all wanted a certain location for that highway. However, our recommendation was vetoed by the Federal Highway Administrator.
Mr. MUNDT. I appreciate the Senator's anticipating my remarks. I was going to say that despite that precedent, there are times when the desire to coerce by the Federal Government overrides these people. However, the working formula and the accepted standard operates in the other direction. The power and the position that the Federal Government likes to exercise still sometimes reflects itself.
I do want to help strengthen the sinews of local government, but I do not want to build up another power structure now with the people's money, a power structure that can be used to bribe them to do things they do not want to do, especially with respect to these intimate details concerning projects which the local government or the Governor want. I think it preferable to have in the 50 States different people experiment and exercise initiative on how best to run governments.
I certainly cannot "buy" the major premise that the Federal Government is perfect. And I cannot "buy" the idea that the Federal Government is so wise and so pure and so good that it should have a right to tell a Governor, "You don't know what you want to have in your State; and to get the Federal money you have to yield, you have to knuckle under."
There are, of course, some Governors who give support to this, but the Senator from Maine did not dwell on the fact that the Governors who support that concept also support the concept that the major decision should be made at the local level.
If we hold up $20 million before a State Governor or local official, we know that it takes a man with a stern capacity of self-denial to say: "I do not want any of it. I do not want to participate."
I am going to offer a sequel to the pending amendment -- and it will be voted on at 5 o'clock -- to provide that the sharing will be at the rate of 50-50, and not 75 percent and 25 percent.
If this is a program the Governors, really want, they should be willing to share the cost. The Senator from Ohio brought out that the States and local communities, if they feel a need for this, should be willing to finance it themselves.
When will we stop this kind of grant program, no matter how good it is?,
The senior Senator from Florida said the other afternoon that he is spending half his time figuring out how to save some money. He and I have been meeting with conferees from the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives, and I have been spending a like amount of my time in the same effort.
It is kind of disillusioning to spend half of one's time figuring how to save money when we are asked to spend more money in a proportion of 75 percent to 25 percent and putting it out with an attractive label, so that those who want it can get $3 for every $1 they spend, provided they yield to the coercion of the Federal Government.
Mr. President, I promised that I would yield some time, before we conclude, to the distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee. So, I subside, urging the Senate in the roll call vote to vote for the preservation of the 10th amendment to the Constitution by voting for my amendment. Let us not stab it in the back with the taxpayers' money.
Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have no desire to prolong the debate.
My colleagues, the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] and the senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], respectively the subcommittee chairman and ranking member of the committee, have made most eloquent presentations.
But I have devoted a good deal of effort to the final draft of S. 699 and have participated in the subcommittee in support of the amendments submitted by the Senator from South Dakota.
I sense that there is something very basic and very vital in the future of federalism implicit in this debate, and this bill really, notwithstanding the enormous consequences of any demand on the Federal treasury, merits our attention with respect to the question of whether we are not in fact forging something of a new direction and a new effort toward upgrading, modernizing, and promoting a heightened and more efficient "partnership concept" of Government.
I am convinced that the question of vitality and efficiency of local governing units -- whether at the city, county, or State level -- is of the very essence in the consideration of whether we continue in the present mold of program after program after program of categorical grant-in-aid type, which now totals $17 billion a year, as has been pointed out by the distinguished Senator from Maine, or whether we do something to reestablish an effective partnership of governing units, not the domination of central Government, but as a partnership effort with this coordinate level of government.
I myself feel that in this field the next big decision we have to make is whether to launch into a program of Federal revenue sharing, the returning of a fractional share of the Federal tax dollar directly to the local units of government so that they can undertake a strengthening of effective local self-government without strings attached.
I happen to feel that the old axiom with respect to the taxing power of the Government is just as true today as it ever was and that the central Government, the National Government, has most of the taxing power.
Federal revenue sharing has a similar, corollary proposal that is discussed from time to time in committee and on the floor, which is that we consider the prospect of block grants, grants to cities, counties, and States, essentially without strings attached, for a given general purpose, but without explicit direction from the bureaucracy in Washington.
I happen to feel that either Federal revenue sharing or block grants or a mix of the two are essential if we are to turn around this tendency toward an ever increasing centralization of Federal Government power in Washington.
I know that from time to time the most persistent argument against Federal revenue-sharing or against block grants has been that the State governments, the county governments, and the city governments are so debilitated that these lesser units of government, if you please, are so little used to the matter of extensive government that they could not possibly handle a new inflow, a fresh infusion, of governing authority in terms of money that Federal revenue-sharing or block grants would entail.
For this reason, if for no other, I believe that something akin to S. 699 and the amendments offered by Senator MUNDT are essential if we are going to take this next step toward a pragmatic decentralism, toward the idea that we must rebalance and reestablish the equilibrium between the central Government and the other units of government which make up this partnership concept with which the Republic flourished for so many years.
Mr. President, according to this rationale, if we are to prepare for this next progressive, forward-looking, different step -- that is, the initiation of Federal revenue-sharing or block grants -- if we are to reverse this trend toward centralism, to reverse this growing concentration of all effective governing authority in Washington, we must do something and do it now to upgrade governmental skills at the local level. We must do something now, even though it is a small step, to assure that when the time comes to bring about the infusion of this new vitality of Federal revenue sharing or block grants, or their equivalent, the personnel, the structures of government, and the administrative techniques are available at State and local levels, so that this step in a new direction will not be in vain.
I share with Senator MUNDT and with Senator MUSKIE some of the ambivalence of feeling they have about the means for accomplishing this upgrading of job skills at the local levels of government, but I am far more concerned about this bill as a first step in the vital matter of reversing the process of galloping centralism.
I believe, therefore, that the question is whether we will content ourselves with the present print of S. 699 and embark on a program of trying to use Federal money in the traditional, categorical grant-in-aid technique to upgrade job skills at the local level, or whether we take the more far-reaching step -- in my judgment, the newer and more innovative step -- offered by Senator MUNDT. Mr. President, we must take this new step.
I believe that Senator MUNDT's proposal -- in effect -- amounts to a system of block grants. I believe that it is more far reaching and more forward looking than any other concept that might be engaged in at this time.
In the few seconds remaining to me, Mr. President, I urge that in consideration of this matter we not lose sight of the fact that if we are to reverse this continuing trend toward centralism, if we are to revitalize the forces of local government, we must take the first step now in providing for the orderly, non-regimented training and upgrading of administrative skills at the local county, city, and State levels.
Therefore, Mr. President, I have signed the minority views of Senator MUNDT. I shall support his amendments. I strongly support the concept and its necessity at this time.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call terminate 5 minutes after the hour.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I should like to be heard briefly on this matter.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request.
We have a unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. HOLLAND. I shall be very brief, in view of the request of the majority leader.
I am concerned to note on page 125 of the record of the hearings in this matter that the witness testifying, Mr. Charles A. Byrley, Director of the Office of Federal-State Relations, National Governors' Conference, stated:
My remarks today do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the State Governors, but rather of staff analysis of the general provisions of the proposals . . .
Then he continues:
The reason for this is that the Washington office of the National Governors' Conference was only recently established. Time has not permitted individual discussions with the Nation's Governors.
Then I note that on page 126 he said, in his statement:
Let us express general concern regarding three major issues: (1) the role of the Governor.
That is the first matter about which he expressed concern.
A little later he said:
Executive management at the State level, including coordination of Federal assistance programs, is clearly the responsibility of the Governor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPONG in the chair). The time for debate on this amendment has expired.
Mr. HOLLAND. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator may have 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, we do not have time to digest these matters. This bill was called up suddenly. The Senator from Florida has been intensely busy on appropriations conferences and other matters of that type. But I note some expressions by Governors later at this hearing which make it clear that they have reservations.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator that the point in the bill to which the Governors had reservations has been eliminated from the bill and is not in the bill as it is before the Senate.
Mr. HOLLAND. I have read the bill hurriedly and find no clear recognition of the fact that the Governors ought to be responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of this bill within their States.
I note this statement in the letter of Gov. Otto Kerner, of Illinois, appearing on page 264 of the record:
I have reservations concerning the question of undue federal control of state and local governments. My comments are similar to those I have made with respect to the Intergovernmental Personnel Act.
That is the bill before the Senate at this time. There is also another letter.
On page 275 of the record appears a letter from Gov. William L. Guy, of North Dakota, stating the same impression:
Even though the North Dakota Merit System Council is governed by members who have all been appointed by me, I would still prefer to see your measure provide for a designation of the administering agency by the various Governors.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLAND. I should like to read another portion of the letter.
The trouble is that these matters are sprung on us when we have been working on vital appropriation matters and other matters. This is a record of over 300 pages on points that are of vital concern to the various States.
I will read the other portion of Governor Guy's letter:
I would also like to invite your attention to another consideration -- that of enhancing the role of the state's chief executive as the chief executive. If the States are going to assume the responsibilities that they are presently neglecting, it is imperative that the position of the chief executive is given the authority and latitude necessary to permit leadership.
Those matters are red flags. I do not know what has been met and what has not, but I gather from the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota that he is trying to make it clearer that the Governors have a fixed responsibility to lead in connection with the application of this act to their several States.
I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if we are going to parcel out more time, I ask that whatever time is yielded to Senator MUSKIE may be compensated by an equal amount of time allocated to the Senator from South Dakota. I am willing to conclude the discussion at this time, but if the Senator from Maine is permitted to continue, I should like an equal amount of time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I believe the Senator from South Dakota makes a valid point. I only desire a minute to respond to the Senator from Florida, who has been here this afternoon and has heard me make these points before.
He has just raised the point, in reading the letter from the Governor, that the Governor was concerned that in the bill, as it was then written, there is no provision for the Governor to designate the State agency.
I indicated earlier that that agency is, under the bill as written, to be designated by the Governor; the projects would be administered by that office designated by the Governor; any application of the local agency must be submitted by the Governor; and that comments and recommendations of the Governor shall accompany the application. All of these points are contained in the bill and the Governors are now satisfied.
Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to hear that is the case. I am sorry we were not given that assurance by the report or the printed hearings.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, there is still valid reason for incorporating the provisions of the Mundt amendment which guarantees to the Governors the rights and authorities they have repeatedly said they would like to have because it provides that the ultimate decision is to be made by them instead of authorities in Washington.
The argument of the Senator from Maine breaks down with respect to who is to determine where you get the money. The principles are fine, but the Governors are concerned about whether or not they are going to be represented by their authority in the important decision place and that is where the program is to be financed. Therefore, the objections of the Governors have not been met and will not be until the Mundt amendment is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
So the result was announced-yeas 43, nays 39, as follows:
[LISTING OF ROLL CALL VOTE OMITTED]
So Mr. MUNDT's amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was agreed to be reconsidered.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.
Mr. CURTIS obtained the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please be in order. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor. The Senate will please be in order.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. In view of the fact that we are operating on limited time, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] and the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE].
Mr. CURTIS. I ask for only 2 minutes, Mr. President.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, let me offer my amendment first so that all Senators will know what it is all about.
Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 35, line 17, strike out "75" and insert in lieu thereof "50".
On page 38, line 24, strike out “75" and insert in lieu thereof "50".
On page 50, line 12, strike out "75" and insert in lieu thereof "50".
On page 54, line 8, strike out "75" and insert in lieu thereof "50".
Mr. MANSFIELD. If the Senator from South Dakota would further yield, I should like to modify my request and ask that there be a time allocation of 12 minutes, with 2 minutes to go to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS], the remaining 10 minutes to be equally divided between the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] and the Senator from Maine I Mr. MUSKIE].
Mr. MUNDT. That will be perfectly all right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank the majority leader.
Mr. President, I rise merely to state my position on the proposed legislation I have supported the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from south Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] and I shall support his other amendments. However, I shall not vote for the bill.
I do not argue that it does not have some merit and some need, but it is the beginning of a new Federal program. It is the beginning of another grant-in-aid program. It is another attempt to impose the will of the Federal Government on State and local governments.
So far as I know, it is not being requested by a very large segment of the people. Regardless of the merits of the proposal, I submit that we are now at war, that we are facing a deficit that may run to $30 billion, and that there is no crying need to begin another Federal program.
I hope that there will be many other Senators who will vote against the proposal. I say this recognizing that many of those interested in this legislation have spent a great deal of time and effort on it. However, I do not believe that we should start another program.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, this amendment is clear cut. It should not require 5 minutes to explain it. The formula in the bill provides that the matching funds between the Federal Government and the States be 75 percent from the Federal Government and 25 percent from the State and local governments. I feel that since this is a program which benefits entirely the local governments, it is only fitting and proper that there be a 50-50 matching arrangement; that they at least be interested enough in the program to match it halfway, on a partnership basis. This simply removes from the bill the temptation for a State or local government to go after a program because it is "easy money." We now have provided that the money reverts back to the Treasury -- it is not transferable if the States do not wish to participate. I do not want to subject the local governments and States to the temptation of saying, "Well, let us get into it or we will not get the easy money." This provides for a 50-50 matching for programs in which the States and local communities will receive benefits.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 or 4 minutes.
Frankly, the bill in its present form is not worth much additional consideration. The bill as it now stands gives the check writing authority -- I repeat, the check writing authority -- to the Governors of States. They will certify the applications from their States, and then they will decide whether or not the applications will be approved and whether or not the Federal check will issue.
Frankly, I think if the bill gets to the President in this form, it will be vetoed. I do not know this from any discussion had with him, but if I were President, I would veto it; and I would be surprised if the President did not veto it.
Nevertheless, I think there are provisions in the bill worth fighting for, worth sending to the other body, so it can take a look at the principle that we have written into the bill.
On the question of 50-50 sharing, frankly I am surprised. The sponsors and endorsers of the Mundt amendment urged the Mundt amendment in the name of the tax-sharing proposal. The tax-sharing proposal would give 100 percent Federal Government money to the States without strings attached. Having incorporated the tax-sharing idea of the bill, the Senator now proposes to cut back the Federal share to 50 percent. The two ideas are not consistent if I understand the purposes of tax sharing.
The purpose of the 75-25 formula is to provide a Federal stimulus to State action in a field which the States have neglected. If Senators do not believe the States have neglected it, I ask them only to read the two volumes of testimony, representing hearings last year and this year.
The great problem in local and State government is the failure of the States to develop competent, professional manpower. The States tell us so. The local governments tell us so. State and local personnel have increased from 2.3 million in 1946 to 8 million in 1965. They have not met the problem of competency in manpower. We are trying to stimulate State and local action in that field.
What we have done already gives the bill a body blow with respect to its objectives. If we now cut back the Federal share to 50 percent, we will give it another body blow. If that is the will of the Senate, I will accept it.
We are trying to respond to what we have heard for 3 years from States, from local governments, from political science experts, from academicians. I say to all of you who have voted for the Mundt amendment, if you want strong State and local governments, what has been done already sets back the cause in terms of what are the objectives of this bill. That is the effect of this amendment.
I can only be frank. I am speaking on the basis of 3 years of experience in listening, alone much of the time, to what State and local government experts have told me about the weaknesses of the State and local governments. I brought this bill up at a time when I realized it was a bad time to bring up a new grant in-aid program, because I am concerned, as one who served in local government, as one who served in State government, as one who watches the operations of States and local governments from Washington. I am concerned that they be viable, vital, dynamic, and progressive; and the great crisis is manpower.
I oppose this amendment, as I did the other.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I voted against the Mundt amendment. If it is true that the Mundt amendment has emasculated the intent and philosophy of the bill as it originally came to us, and we have left this responsibility to the States, then why would it not be better to have the States participate in the way of providing money? We would be going far afield.
I would be opposed to this amendment if the first amendment had not carried, but now, when we have changed the entire philosophy of the bill and given the reins to the governors, why not let the governors come into this program with 50 percent of their money and assume their full responsibility?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in reply, there is another body to consider this bill. I would be willing to bet that when the other body gets it, they will hear from the League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and I would like to have that case made on the House side. I would like to leave this bill as it is so we can have as good a bill for House consideration as we can.
Again, I accept the Senate's judgment.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, let us get away from the field of prophecy, because none of us has any great expertise in crystal-gazing. The Senator from Maine says the President will veto the bill. I do not know. He says he believes the House is going to change the amendment we have just adopted. I do not know what it will do. I do know however, what confronts us now. Let us accept the battle cry of the Senator from Maine. He says "We have given the check writing power to the States." If we have, we had better get them to pay 50 percent of the cost. We had better not say that they will have to pay only 25 percent and the Federal Government will have to pay 75 percent.
I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island. The States certainly should pay 50 percent since they now share the responsibility for the programs.
The other argument was a strange one, when the Senator says I had offered a tax-sharing proposal. The Senator from Maine says that under that tax-sharing, we return 100 percent to the States. I have never heard of such an idea. I have never seen a plan that says that the Federal Government will collect the taxes and give them all back to the States. This is a new concept of tax sharing which I here and now totally and emphatically disavow.
There is a far different tax-sharing proposal which makes sense, but we have before us, not a theoretical problem, but a practical decision to make. Should we ask the States to pay 50 percent for these programs which they certify and which are going to be in their interest, or are we going to continue to have Uncle Sam pour it out and on -- the poorest governmental relative of them all?
Why call on poor Uncle Sam to pour out 75 percent when the States can participate on a 50-50 sharing basis, which makes sense for this field of activity?
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUNDT. I yield.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I had the experience, just before January of this year, of having sat in the office of the Chief Executive of the State of Wyoming, and I think I know a little bit about how the States react to this sort of program.
My feeling is that the bigger the percentage of the Federal Government's handout, the greater will be the pressures at the State and local level to get in and participate in a Federal program, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent.
I support the amendment, because it makes good sense to me. If the States believe this program will be helpful, let them demonstrate that conviction and willingness by participating dollar for
dollar in what they are asking the Federal Government to do.
I have certain reservations as to how I shall vote on the bill, because with 379 programs already in existence, requiring the spending of $17,400 million, I am not sure we can stand another one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
All time having expired, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced -- yeas 50, nays 30, as follows:
So Mr. MUNDT's amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I take the floor for the purpose of directing some inquiries to the distinguished Senator from Maine, the manager of the bill.
Under title IV of the bill, as I understand it, authority is given to the heads of Federal agencies to assign Federal employees to State and local agencies of government.
I would like to ask first of all if there are any particular limits or guidelines as to how many Federal employees can be assigned to work for State and local units of government. Is there any assurance that all of these people will not be assigned to one State or two States? Is there any criteria by which the head of a Federal agency is to be guided?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Michigan that this title has to do with the interchangeability of personnel as between the three levels of government. In other words, if implemented -- and its implementation depends upon the initiative of the governments involved -- it would authorize the interchange of State personnel with Federal agencies, local personnel with State agencies, and so on.
It was argued very persuasively last year that making it possible for personnel at any one of the three levels of government to gain experience in the others would tend to improve the cooperative nature of the federal system. So, this provision was inserted as a result of the hearings last year.
There are no numbers spelled out. The details touched upon by the question of the Senator are not spelled out in the bill.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the response of the Senator, but as I read the bill -- and I would appreciate being corrected If I am in error -- there would be absolutely no limit to the number of Federal employees that could be hired and assigned by agencies or departments of the Federal Government and State and local units of government, except as limited by the appropriations in the bill. Federal employees could be assigned to units of State or local government, their salaries could be paid either in whole or in part by the Federal Government. As I understand it, if they are assigned on leave without pay, the Federal Government would make up the difference, if there were any, between State and Federal pay.
There is no express requirement for any man-to-man exchange, that there be a Federal employee in a State job and a State employee in a Federal job. There need be no equality, as I understand it; it could be all one way. There is no guideline whatsoever in terms of where the employees might go.
I ask the Senator whether the Federal Government could hire teachers and assign them to local school boards to teach in local school systems, their salaries to be paid in full by the Federal Government. And, if not, why not, under the bill? Teachers are employees of local units of government.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it is not the purpose of the bill to put teachers on the Federal payroll. The purpose of the bill is to make it possible for employees of the State government to benefit from the experience of working with a Federal agency at the Federal level, and the reverse.
The authority for State employees to participate in such a program will, of course, depend upon State legislation. We cannot legislate for the States. So, what the bill does is provide authority for the Federal agencies to participate in this kind of exchange.
The inhibitions would be the fact that, I take it, no Federal agency is so oversupplied with employees that it can assign them to this kind of duty without limit. There is the appropriation limitation.
The purpose is to experiment in a limited way, and not in an unlimited way, in the exchange of personnel so that people from the State agencies can get the benefit of working in a Federal agency, benefits that they can take back to their State agencies.
It is not the intent of the Federal Government to use this measure as a way of dominating the schools or the governments at the local and State level.
The proposal was urged upon us even more strongly by State and local leaders than by Federal agencies.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I point out also that title VI -- which also deals with assignments to and from States -- at section 3372 provides that this interchange of employees would be made on
request from or with concurrence of a State or local government.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I appreciate that assurance, but does the Senator not think that every State and local agency would be delighted to have as many employees as they can possibly get if the Federal Government would be willing to pay the salaries?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I respectfully feel that the second section of section 3372 implies that the coin has two sides, that the State, county, or city government can request Federal employees for a period not to exceed 2 years and the Federal Government can ask for State, county, or local employees in the Federal Government for a period not to exceed 2 years. So, it is my thought that the two-sidedness of the coin might have a very salutary effect on any abuse of the exchange.
Mr. GRIFFIN. There is no requirement?
Mr. BAKER. There is no requirement.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did the committee consider including that requirement in the bill because that would have a great effect on the matter.
Mr. BAKER. I would be going too far if I were to say that that particular point was not considered by the subcommittee. I am sure it was not considered in the full committee.
However, I am sure, and I would reassure my colleague in this respect, that the witnesses we had, both the so-called organizations witnesses such as the League of Cities, the Governors' Conference, and the like, and the academicians we had in this field, pointed out that one of the most salutary methods for training or for upgrading the job skills of local employees is by example.
As Senator MUNDT pointed out in his remarks in connection with his first amendment, one of the most satisfactory and most workable programs of this type has been the use of the FBI Institute and training facilities to train local law enforcement agencies. I believe that this is where the matter took its genesis, and I believe that this formed a pattern for the provision which is elaborated beyond title IV, in title VI, in section 3372.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I can see situations where it would be very desirable, within the framework of reasonable guidelines and criteria, perhaps in one field at a time, as we have done with respect to the FBI, to develop procedures whereby the Federal Government could assign employees on a temporary basis to local units of government, and vice versa.
However, what concerns me about this measure is that it would be a blank check. It appropriates a sum of money, and the head of each agency and department would have almost unlimited discretion. If he determined that it would be of mutual benefit, apparently that would be the only test, there would be no limit as to how many employees could be assigned and paid out of the Federal Treasury. There is no allocation formula in the bill -- no assurance that New Hampshire will get fair treatment, for example. There is no appeal from any determination, no review. It is a completely discretionary power that could be exercised arbitrarily, as I see it. Because of this I cannot support the bill.
Mr. BAKER. Not only is it substantially as the Senator from Michigan has characterized it, but also, it is without strings attached, which in Federal programs is a matter near and dear to my heart. As a matter of fact, if we were, by legislation or by administrative ruling, to set out the precise totals on how many employees, from what States, and for what purposes, it would become the most rigid of all categorical type programs and would lose the inherent flexibility that this measure tries to put on the statute books as a new approach to the matter of solving a problem without absolute determination and domination by the Federal structure.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I appreciate the response of the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield,
Mr. COTTON. When the Senator from Michigan used New Hampshire as an example, as a possible victim of this bill that has no limitations, I thank him for doing so, because he must have been reading my mind. That is exactly what I think,
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I find it most interesting, following the vote on the first amendment, that there should now be this concern with guidelines; because the first Mundt amendment, so far as a Federal agency is concerned, eliminated guidelines and provided that a Governor, on his own say-so, and without any test of Federal discretion, can get these sums of money.
Now I find that the Senator from Michigan, who voted for the first Mundt amendment, is concerned that, with respect to the title 4 program, there are inadequate guidelines and that that program may be abused by State and local people taking undue advantage. The bill, at least with respect to that feature, still leaves some discretion -- not involving dollars directly -- with the Federal agency.
I take it that at this point it is a moot question whether or not the Federal agency should have any guidelines to impose upon the States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the committee amendments as amended.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I did not intend to ask for the yeas and nays on final passage, but several Senators have expressed the desire that there be such a vote; and, out of deference to them -- a number of Senators being in the Chamber at the moment -- I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we first vote on the committee amendments?
Mr. MUSKIE. I withdraw my request at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendments, as amended.
The committee amendments, as amended, were agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Now, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this bill. I cannot conceive of any person who believes in the Constitution of the United States supporting this measure. The title itself indicates that it does not conform to our Federal system. What does the bill propose to do? These are a few things it would do. Listen to the title: Extends State and local merit systems to additional programs financed by Federal funds; provides grants for improvement of State and local personnel administration; authorizes Federal assistance in training State and local employees; provides grants to State and local governments for training of their employees; facilitates the interchange of Federal, State, and local personnel.
Mr. President, all these are State functions. They are functions of the States and the local governments. This bill is another attempt to extend the long arm of the Federal Government down into the functions of the States, which ultimately will lead to control of those functions. It seems to me that the Senate will make a great mistake if it passes this measure, because we will be setting the precedent for more Federal control. If that is what we want, this is the way to get it.
I do not know of a more appropriate bill that the Senate could pass than this one, if you want more Federal control.
There is no question in my mind that Federal control follows Federal aid, just as the night follows the day. The Federal Government may start giving this aid without controls. But in a year or two, the controls will be applied.
For years there was a clamor for Federal aid to education, and they said it would be without control. Those who favored such aid said, "We want it without control." And what do we have today? We have Federal control from Washington. Today, funds are being withheld from many school districts in this Nation, funds are being withheld from many hospitals in this Nation, funds are being withheld for other purposes. By whom? By the Federal Government. And funds will be withheld for the functions specified in this bill ultimately, if the bill is passed.
Aside from the funds, Mr. President, I am deeply concerned and becoming more and more concerned about Federal power. There is only so much power. It is a question of whether we are going to leave it at the State level and with the people, where the Constitution placed it, or whether we are going to give it to the Federal Government. Year after year, we are going further and further, shifting it to the Federal Government, shifting it from the State level to the national level, taking it away from the people and transferring it to Washington.
I believe the time has come, Mr. President, if we favor the rights of the States under the Constitution, for us to have the courage to restrain from accepting and advocating more Federal aid, when we know that such action will deprive the States and the people of power given to them under the Constitution, even though such action taken by us may result in the loss of Federal aid to the States.
I hope the Senate will kill this bill, and I hope it will kill other bills that may arise which would transfer power from the State level to the national level.
We have entirely too much power now at the national level. When the Constitution was written, it was never contemplated that the National Government would go into all the different fields that it has gone into.
Almost every facet of the people's lives is touched now by the Federal Government. How much further are we going? If we go much further, the States will be nothing more than territories, and the Federal Government will control every action of all the people throughout all the States of the Nation.
I hope the Senate will kill this bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall take only 30 seconds.
Despite the fact that I have grave reservations about the bill in its present form, I think it incorporates objectives which should be kept alive, and it is in the hope that the bill may receive careful consideration in the other body, careful review of some of the things the Senate has done this afternoon, that I urge the Senate to vote for the bill.
I must disagree with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. Rather than representing a massive Federal incursion into State power and responsibility, this bill in its present form may prove to be largely ineffectual because of what we have already done to restrict and inhibit it. Nevertheless, I think the bill is worth keeping alive. Therefore, I propose to vote for the bill despite the crippling amendments and I urge Senators to do likewise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
On this question, the yeas and nays, have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The result was announced -- yeas 54, nays 26, as follows:
So the bill (S. 699) was passed as follows:
[ROLL CALL VOTE LISTING OMITTED]