CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

February 21, 1968

Page 3762

NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on January 31 of this year, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations submitted its Ninth Annual Report to the President of the United States, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Members will recall that the Commission was established by Congress in 1959 "to give continuing attention to intergovernmental problems in Federal-State, Federal, local, and State-local, as well as interstate and interlocal relations."

The Advisory Commission is composed of representatives of the public and from each level of government. The senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], and I have served on the Commission since its establishment. On the House side, Representative FOUNTAIN, of North Carolina, chairman of the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, and the original sponsor of the bill creating the Commission, and Representative DWYER, of New Jersey, are also charter members. The other House member is Representative ULLMAN, of Oregon.

In addition to the six members of the Congress, the Commission has three members from the executive branch: the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning. Other members include four Governors, four mayors, three State legislative leaders, and three elected county officials. The public is represented by three members, one of whom is the Commission's Chairman.

A year has elapsed since the submission of the Commission's Eighth Annual Report. It is appropriate then that the Senate be apprized of the Commission's activities during the last 12 months. The Honorable Farris Bryant of Florida was appointed Chairman of the Commission last year and is providing outstanding leadership -- initially as a representative of the Federal executive branch and presently as a public member. Mr. William G. Colman, the Commission's Executive Director, continues his capable handling of the Commission's staff work.

During 1967, general meetings of the Commission were held in April, July, and October; and this year in February. Two major reports requiring implementation were adopted during the course of the 1967 sessions: the first deals with "State and Local Taxation and Industrial Location." The second is a far-reaching study of "Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System" and explores the size, shape, and significant features of fiscal federalism; the history, development, and present operation of the Federal grant-in-aid system; fiscal disparities among local governmental jurisdictions within metropolitan areas; and in-depth case studies of central city-suburban disparities in 12 selected metropolitan areas. The latter report will be published in the very near future. Information reports issued by the Commission last year included: "A Handbook for Interlocal Agreements and Contracts," "1968 State Legislative Program," and "Proceedings: National Conference on Legislative Leadership, October 13-14, 1967."

Senators will be interested in what has occurred as a result of these and earlier reports, as well as of other Commission activities. Since it is a continuing body, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations does more than simply draft studies and make recommendations. Its members are desirous to see their recommendations put into effect and have devoted a significant share of their energies to encouraging adoption of Commission proposals at the relevant levels of government. In this respect, I strongly urge my colleagues to review pages 25 through 35 of the report.

Finally, Mr. President, the Ninth Annual Report of the ACIR sets forth "Highlights in Intergovernmental Relations in 1967" which already have received considerable attention in various quarters and serve as a succinct chronicle of the challenges that confronted American federalism during the past year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this portion of the report be inserted in the RECORD.

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

I. SOME HIGHLIGHTS IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS IN 1967

In 1967, the American political system and in turn, federalism and the federal system, was on trial as never before in the Nation's history with the sole exception of the Civil War. The major crisis threatening the political system and, indeed, the whole fabric of American society, was in the Nation's cities. The crisis was characterized by serious rioting, the breakdown of law and order, and in a number of areas, the disappearance of any meaningful sense of community among the residents of blighted neighborhoods.

URBAN AMERICA: CITIES IN DISTRESS

Racial unrest and civil disorder

During 1967 some of the worst racial disturbances in the Nation's history broke out in many cities of the country: Newark, Detroit, Omaha. Minneapolis, Wichita, Rochester, and many other places, large and small, across the country suffered outbreaks of violence, burning, and looting. The National Guard was called out in a number of States to suppress the rioting, and Federal troops were sent into Detroit.

The immediate response generally was one of bewilderment and often outrage coupled with uncertainty as to what could be done to restore social health to the stricken cities. Contributing most to this uncertainty was the apparent lack of a clear link of cause and effect. A history of neglect and disregard for the welfare of minority groups in Newark contrasted with Detroit's record of continued concern with, and steady improvement in race relations over a period of several years. Yet both suffered greatly from the rioters and looters. There was concern at all levels of government lest accelerated action on programs for central city rebuilding be construed by some as "rewarding the rioters." In general, the effect of the riots upon Federal, State and local governmental action was to weaken "welfare" measures and to toughen "police" measures.

From the standpoint of federalism, a significant feature of the racial unrest and civil disorder was the tendency of local officials and news media to speak almost entirely in terms of remedial action by the Federal Government, occasioned perhaps by the feeling that only through access to Federal financing could sufficient resources be mobilized. Paradoxically, the apparent reason for much of the dissatisfaction of minority groups in the cities was and is rooted in local government structure and fiscal arrangements -- including the "white noose" of the suburbs, under-financing of central city schools, inadequate housing, unbalanced patterns of State aid, and repressive restrictions upon the administration of public welfare. These and other sources of unrest stem primarily from State constitutions and statutes and are not directly controllable by Federal law or regulation.

Economic and fiscal crisis of central cities

During 1967, subjective and statistical evidence piled high to dramatize the fact that many central cities of the Nation are facing not only a desperate social and political crisis, but dire economic and fiscal difficulties as well. Few could ignore that elementary and secondary education in the central city ghettos would have to be strengthened greatly in fiscal resources and in quality of teachers if Negroes and other minority group children were to have an even break upon graduation from high school.

Yet, a study of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, covering the 37 largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the country, showed that State financial aid to local schools tended to favor suburban schools over central city schools. Hardly any States have revised their school aid formulas to recognize specifically the much higher financial investment required to educate disadvantaged children. Added costs accrue for smaller classes to assure more individualized attention, for keeping school open longer hours, for offering additional recreational opportunities and for measures required to compensate for an inadequate home environment. The Commission's studies show that the schools serving low income central city children are receiving less per pupil as well as per capita than those serving the more affluent suburbs. It is the paradox of education in metropolitan America that where the needs are greatest, the resources are scarcest; the children needing education the most are receiving the least.

Need for a new look at urban-rural population balance

The year 1967 witnessed a growing consensus on the need for re-examining Federal, State and local policies -- as well as activities in the private sector -- that tend to influence the distribution of population in the United States. There was growing recognition of the tremendous future costs involved in the immigration to large central cities of low income, nonwhite populations from small towns and rural counties across the country. A number of people, including the Secretary of Agriculture, began to underscore the long-range benefits both from a social and fiscal viewpoint of retaining and attracting an increasing share of the future population to small town and rural America.

In a similar vein, recognition was being given to the dis-economies of congestion, transportation costs, environmental pollution and higher living costs incident to further concentration of population in large metropolitan centers. As the year drew to a close, however, new questions were being asked about a theory of population redeployment. Some contended that the problem of the hour was to meet present urban needs and that "keeping people down on the farm" would not cover the great fiscal and social deficits arising from the masses of underprivileged urban in-migrants who are already in the large metropolitan centers and are likely to remain there regardless of how much progress is made in industrializing the countryside. Others contended that alternative migration patterns can and must be encouraged, but that public policy and funds should be directed only toward "natural growth centers." Still others argued that to achieve balanced rural growth, private and public efforts must reach first into the hard core rural pockets of poverty.

Rising crime and juvenile delinquency

As the year progressed, there was growing concern about the continued increase in the incidence of crime and juvenile delinquency. This increase occurs not only in the urban centers, but continuing a trend of several years, is found in the suburbs and rural areas as well.

Early in 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice delivered an impressive report backed by a considerable number of in-depth studies of particular areas of this vital subject. Many recommendations were submitted; those dealing with Federal action were couched in fairly specific terms while those dealing with State and local action were somewhat more general. As the year progressed, however, the question of how to improve State-local relations in this field began to receive attention comparable to that focused on improving Federal-State relations. Questions arose in connection with the Administration's Crime Control and Safe Streets bill as to whether Federal grants for assistance to law enforcement activities should go to the States or directly to localities. Part of the argument advanced against using State government as an intermediary in this process was the fact that only a limited number of States possessed an overall police and law enforcement capability.

State Attorneys General, in addition to concerning themselves with the impact of court decisions upon law enforcement and with other means of attacking the growth of crime and juvenile delinquency, have become increasingly concerned with the relationship between the State Attorney General and local prosecutors and police. Similarly, the relationship of the State police to county sheriffs and municipal police officers has come in for increasing attention. There is little doubt that the field of law enforcement and administration of justice offers one of the most difficult and challenging areas of intergovernmental cooperation in the United States today.