CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

March 16, 1967

Page 7099

STRENGTHENING OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM -- ADDRESS BY SENATOR MUSKIE

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, on Monday, March 13, the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] spoke on strengthening our federal system to delegates attending the National Legislative Conference of the National League of Cities.

Mr. MUSKIE is a former Governor, chairman of the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Senate Government Operations Committee, and also a member of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. With this background he is eminently well qualified to talk with city managers and mayors on their relationship with State and Federal Governments and the kind of thinking that must be generated at all levels of government if we are to cope with the many problems besetting our cities and our States.

I heartily recommend to Senators that they read the remarks by the Senator from Maine, and ask unanimous consent that his speech be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STRENGTHENING OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM

(Remarks by Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE to the National Legislative Conference, National League of Cities. March 13, 1967)

Mayor Tollefson, Secretary Weaver, and my colleague, Senator Ribicoff, have spoken to you this morning on the need and the means for revitalizing the cities of America.

Your invitation -- through your executive director, Pat Healy -- indicated that this might be a good point in your proceedings for a "friend of the cities" to alert you to some of the choices and hazards that lie ahead as we seek to strengthen the cities for their role in a viable federal system.

The state of America's cities is one of the most vexing problems facing the country today. Here, in these rapidly growing urban concentrations, we find most of the Nation's people, most of our poverty and its associated ills, most of the sources of our vast national wealth, and most of the unmet public and private needs and demands of a nation approaching 200 million people.

Your organization, along with others, has identified the agonies of our cities, and you have been instrumental in focusing national and Congressional attention on them. But, while we are reaching agreement on solutions to some of the most glaring problems, we are held back by what appear to be basic differences in our philosophy of government. This has to do with our conception of the nature of federalism. It has never been very clearly defined, and mankind dearly loves a clear-cut definition.

Nevertheless. the attempt to define our unique system of government has occupied us from the very beginning. Thomas Jefferson noted that "some men look at constitutions . . and deem them . . . too sacred to be touched ... But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed .. as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change in circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times." A century later, Woodrow Wilson set forth basic reasons for the unending character of this national debate, when he wrote:

"The question of the relation of the States to the Federal Government is the cardinal question of our constitutional system. At every turn of our national development we have been brought face to face with it, and no definition either of statesmen or judges has ever quieted or decided it. It cannot, indeed, be settled by any one generation because it is a question of growth, and every successive stage in our political and economic development gives it a new aspect and makes it a new question."

Woodrow Wilson was speaking to a nation of about 92 million people, of whom only 42 million lived in urban areas. And Wilson was speaking to a nation in which could be found only the faintest stirrings of what we now call a "revolution of rising expectations."

In our world, which has been undergoing changes more rapid and far-reaching than most of us have comprehended -- in which our population has concentrated in large urban areas and radically changed its way of life -- there is the tendency to cling to comfortable notions about the nature of our federal system. It is only recently that we have become acutely aware that our internal "balance of power" has shifted to these urban areas. Here, as I said a moment ago, lies the bulk of our social, economic. and political problems today.

Moreover, in spite of Rousseau's judgment that "Man herded like sheep will perish in a short time" and that "Cities are the abyss of the human race," there appears to be no letup in the urge of mankind to go "Downtown."

What does this mean for the traditional view of the federal system as a balancing of governmental responsibilities between the Federal and State governments? I believe it means that we must recognize and give more than lip-service to urban areas as an active partner in the federal system, and by "we" I mean both the Federal and State levels of government. I think there can be little doubt that a good many urban leaders find it difficult to get a sympathetic hearing for their mounting problems at the State capitol.

Professor Alan Campbell, of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, states that "an examination of the data of expenditures, taxes. and State aid in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas demonstrates that metropolitan areas do spend more, tax more, and receive less aid than do non-metropolitan areas." Dr. Campbell finds, for instance, that metropolitan expenditures exceed those in non-metropolitan areas by 10.3 per cent, yet State aid to urban areas is a full third less than to non- urban areas.

Mayor Collins, of Boston, recently stated his view of the State's concern for urban areas this way:

"I am certain they (the States) are not fully committed to the problems of our cities . " And Mayor Tollefson recently stated that "where the States are willing and able to accept a significant fiscal role in the execution of crucial urban programs, we are ready to discuss the States' expanded role."

At the Federal level there is increasing recognition of the plight of our overburdened urban areas. The consolidation of urban functions of the Federal Government in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the passage of the Demonstration Cities Act, and the concentration of about two-thirds of the total of all Federal grants-in-aid to urban areas, are concrete examples of this recognition and concern.

But this is not to say that States are not still a very vital partner in this system of ours. The Constitution recognizes their important role, and assigns to them important governmental functions directly affecting our citizenry.

There is a temptation, in trying to improve the operation of our Federal system, to redefine the roles of the three partners in the system. I believe it is more important and more constructive to concentrate on strengthening the system by helping each level to realize its full potential. This involves not so much a strict delineation of powers and responsibility, as a truly cooperative effort among all levels of government.

There has been evidence of a new determination on the part of the Federal Government to help both States and local governments to realize their full potential as active partners in our federal system. President Johnson's State of the Union Message bore down on this problem. His memorandum of last November calling on Federal officials to take steps to insure closer cooperation among Federal, State, and local officials in the management of Federal aid programs offers encouragement that there may be other, more far-reaching moves to coordinate these vital programs. I hope we may look forward to the active and determined interest on the part of the executive branch in this area.

The designation of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations as a reference service to develop improved Federal relations with State and local governments expanded the usefulness of that agency. I might say, though, that we are still waiting for the Commission to come into its own as the very important instrument it could be for the improvement of our federal system.

In the 89th Congress, as never before, there was strong evidence of widespread concern for Federal, State and local cooperation. The activities of our Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, the passage of the Demonstration Cities Act, and the Comprehensive Health Planning Act, among others, as well as the introduction of a number of new legislative proposals for strengthening State and local governments, all testify to this growing appreciation of our serious problem.

The 90th Congress promises to maintain the "intergovernmental momentum" generated in the 89th. Our Subcommittee has completed its second phase of our hearings on Creative Federalism, in which we heard from several State Governors and local officials. A number of bills -- several of which I have introduced -- are now being considered by the Subcommittee. Among these are the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, and the proposal to establish a National Intergovernmental Affairs Council.

You are familiar with all of these bills, I am sure, for they were the nucleus of our legislative package last year. But changes have been made in some of this year's bills which I would briefly note:

First, the personnel bill includes a new title to permit a two-year interchange of personnel between the Federal, State, and local levels of government;

Second, the payments to State and local governments to strengthen their personnel systems have been increased;

Third, the bill provides for State, local. and Federal representation on a commission to study and make recommendations on merit systems and training programs; and

Fourth, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act includes a new title to permit the President to formulate plans for the consolidation of grant-in-aid programs along functional lines and to submit these plans to the Congress for its approval or disapproval, following the procedures in the Reorganization Act.

In addition to these proposals, the introduction of numerous bills to provide for revenue sharing promises to involve the Congress in a re-examination of the fiscal relationship between all levels of government.

At this point in the discussion the desirability of directing Federal revenues to the States and, hopefully, through them to local governments is what President Roosevelt would call a very "iffy" question:

If State legislatures were fully responsive to the needs of communities, especially the urbanized areas and the core cities--

If State governments had both the willingness and the capacity to provide an adequate level of services to local governments, including the cities–

If local governments were adequately organized and staffed to deal with the problems of our increasingly complex urban society, and–

If all that was needed was money to fund the operations of government at the State and local levels–

the answer might be clear.

But I see no evidence that we have reached that point. The problems remain, and so generally do the disability of State and local government. Money alone, funneled into the States, will produce no magic.

What, then, is the alternative?

I believe it to be this: Let us continue our system of Federal grants-in-aid, expand it as necessary to meet needs, and improve it as we go. At the same time, let us develop more effective ways of combining Federal, State, and local resources to meet national, State, and community needs. This calls for a candid acknowledgment of fault at every level of government and an honest effort to work together in productive ways. We should be aiming for the kind of intergovernmental cooperation that has come to be known as "creative federalism."

At the State and local levels, as I have mentioned, there are encouraging indications of activity that need to be nurtured. The creation of offices of State coordination is one encouraging sign -- admittedly not yet widespread enough to induce complacency.

Some States and localities are beginning to update tax structures and fiscal arrangements to meet their growing needs. Again, we could hope for more activity here.

There is some evidence that States and local governments are beginning to break through the straitjacket of political boundaries in dealing with such matters as transportation, economic development, and air and water pollution.

Finally, there is growing interest at State and local levels of government in area wide and regional planning.

I need not tell members of the National League of Cities that these developments, encouraging though they may be, fall far short of the level of accomplishment necessary for solution of the immense problems facing us. You would be the first to acknowledge that in many areas where we desperately need action, we are still at the preliminary discussion stage. Even where we understand the kinds of actions to be taken, we have not found the means of acting together in ways that are necessary in our complex society.

The National League of Cities can take pride in its contribution to the effort to improve government -- Federal, State, and local. The Nation needs the continued dedication of your organization to the great task of adapting our federal system to the realities of our own times and of the future, insofar as we can foresee them.

For our part, we shall do all we can to insure that the Federal government does its part to make our system an effective instrument of service to all our people -- and that, after all, is our ultimate responsibility as public officials.