CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
February 21, 1968
Page 3768
A CHALLENGE TO STATE LEGISLATURES: SENATOR MUSKIE'S ADDRESS TO THE CITIZENS CONFERENCE ON STATE LEGISLATURES
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, last week Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, was host to the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures. That conference had as its principal speaker the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], who, as all of us in the Senate know, is an expert in the problems our States and the federal system face. Senator MUSKIE, a former Governor of Maine and chairman of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, has achieved national recognition for his study of the problems of the Federal system. His keen analysis of those problems and sound proposals for their solution are well known.
In his address at Johns Hopkins, Senator MUSKIE stressed the key role and responsibility of State legislatures in rejuvenating the States’ place in the Federal system. He pinpointed the crucial burden State legislatures must bear in redressing the balance of power which State inaction has upset. Senator MUSKIE stressed the State revenue problems and the imbalance in State fiscal policies, particularly over-reliance on the property tax base and inadequate equalization of funds between urban areas and rural areas and between central cities and the suburbs. In that regard he cited the nationally acclaimed fiscal reform enacted by the reapportioned legislature of my own State of Maryland last year.
Senator MUSKIE's address at the citizens conference is a comprehensive review of some of the major problems facing State legislatures. It emphasizes the key role that State legislatures must play if a healthy Federal-State partnership is to be restored and preserved. I commend that address to all the Members of Congress and the readers of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS BY U.S. SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE TO THE CITIZENS CONFERENCE ON STATE LEGISLATURES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MD., FEBRUARY 15, 1988
Almost a century ago, Lord Bryce in his American Commonwealth looked cynically on the role of States as he observed them at that time. He found a style of corruption and ineptitude which happily does not exist today. Nevertheless, he was one of the first to point out that the State -- as a level of government -- could have a special value for the future of American government. He said:
"Federalism enables a people to try experiments in legislation and administration which could not be safely tried in a large centralized country. A comparatively small commonwealth like an American State easily makes and unmakes its laws; mistakes are not serious, for they are soon corrected; other States profit by the experience of a law or a method which has worked well or ill in the State that has tried it."
This statement is relevant today. Indeed, the concept of the States as laboratories can be even more meaningful today. Why must they wait for the Federal Congress to show them the way? Why cannot they move ahead with broad and progressive new programs, particularly at a time when the national government is so preoccupied with international problems?
The challenge, I believe, rests inevitably with the legislatures of our 50 States. With reapportionment taking hold, they can become the true representatives of the citizens of their States, and in this role, they are basically responsible for the domestic future of this country.
Yet in recent years probably no part of our Federal system of Government has been more maligned, criticized or condemned than our 50 State legislatures.
This attitude has considerable justification in their performance, but it does not solve the problem, and it could discourage us from considering effective reforms. It could tempt us to embrace the conclusion that State government is a "lost cause," an anachronism which has no further utility in the solution of the complex domestic problems of today and tomorrow.
For we are involved in the basic question as to whether the States can survive as viable partners in the Federal system. And at the heart of State government lies the State legislature.
Governors, however strong their hold over their agencies and budgets, must eventually come before their legislatures for approval. State administrators, however progressive their ideas and programs, must subject themselves to the scrutiny of State legislators. Local leaders, however much they cherish home rule or local government reorganization, in general must obtain State legislative support.
And, the individual citizen, concerned with reforming the elective powers, with modernizing his State constitution, with strengthening human rights and improving social welfare, must turn eventually to the State legislature for initiative and action.
If our State legislatures do not face up to the public problems of our time -- and the anticipated escalation of these problems as we move toward the 21st century -- then we can only expect a greater incursion of Federal control and a by-passing of State authority. The history of our Federal system is dramatic evidence that the American people expect it to be an instrument for dealing with problems and the inadequacies of State and local government will not be permitted to stand in the way.
This would result in a new federalism that the vast majority of Americans do not want. The will to preserve State government is strong, and in fact, growing among many responsible political leaders. But the citadel for the preservation and progress of statism -- the State legislature -- has too long been one of negativism and indifference. My abiding fear is that change in this critical sector of American government is not taking place fast enough to cope with the oncoming demands of a rapidly rising population, particularly in our urban areas.
Legislative reform requires attention to the mechanics of modernizing State legislatures: annual sessions of longer duration; better salaries, staff and office space; reduction of the number of committees; removal of constitutional restrictions and the like. I might even get into the mysterious world of programing-planning-budgeting, of the post audit review, of computerized informational systems and legislative reference services.
Such housekeeping reforms are already under way in a number of State legislatures and should be pressed in others.
Tonight I would like to talk about more substantive reforms. We must now convert our State legislatures into responsible and responsive participants in our Federal system. In my opinion, this must take place in four basic areas.
First. State executive reorganization: in structure; in management; and in personnel. In too many States, the executive branch is a labyrinth of departments, boards, agencies and commissions with their own bosses and bureaucratic kingdoms, not under the budgetary or operational control of the State's chief executive.
How can we face the future of a growing government in every State, urban or rural, without more unified leadership in planning and programming, and more centralized responsibility for the carrying out of statewide social and economic development programs?
As Federal assistance to the States develops in the direction of broader grants, comprehensive planning assistance, regional development programs, Governors must be given and must utilize all the tools of modern management, and State legislatures will have to provide the oversight to see that such management is effective.
Similarly, the State legislatures must have the responsibility to create programs which will upgrade the administrative, professional and technical employees responsible for State and local services. This includes a realistic State merit system, modern personnel management, training opportunities, and most important, higher salaries for quality people.
The Intergovernmental Personnel Act, which passed the Senate last year, and which hopefully is proceeding toward final enactment in this session, is a Federal incentive toward improving State and local administration. But the giant step must be taken by the State legislatures themselves. If the States are to remain senior partners in our Federal system, the State legislatures must put administrative quality above politics.
Second. State tax and financial reform: At this time of great prosperity and economic growth, when income and profits are soaring, when we are reaching a gross national product of over $800 billion, the States must tap this prosperity for their own social and economic development programs. They cannot depend upon increased Federal financial support, when our Federal fiscal commitments are so concentrated on military, space, and other national and international commitments.
If the States are to play a role in the decentralization of domestic responsibility in a time of national stress, they must obtain the maximum revenues possible from their own sources on a fair and equitable basis. They must apply these revenues to meet the priorities which the Federal Government cannot reach.
Unfortunately, until recently, the history of State constitutional and legislative action in this area has been far too sluggish. Much more must be done to meet the growing critical need for State resources.
State legislatures can help in working on two fronts. First, they can develop a fair and balanced package of broad based taxes, including increased taxes on income and sales, blended with an increased State borrowing capacity, in order to provide a major State fund for State-sponsored programs.
Second and more important, they should examine the local property tax which currently provides 87 percent of local revenues and correct the inequities, abuses and administrative incompetence rampant at this level of government. In particular, the legislatures must curb the mounting madness of thousands of separate taxing authorities which has sharpened economic and social hostilities and has produced widening variations of tax responsibility.
Third. The distribution of State and local resources: Merely improving the marshaling of State resources is not enough. How these resources are allocated -- where the money goes makes the critical difference between good and bad State and local government. Here is the area where State legislatures have abdicated their responsibilities to the greatest degree.
Testimony before my Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, and a comprehensive study by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, of which I am a member, have highlighted some serious patterns of imbalance in the distribution of funds and the implementation of programs and planning between the suburban areas and the core cities.
For instance, an analysis of the 37 largest standard metropolitan statistical areas in the country showed that State financial aid to local schools favored suburban schools over central city schools where the cost of educating disadvantaged students was far higher than educating suburban students. Hardly any States have revised their school aid formulas to recognize this higher financial need of the central city.
"It is a paradox of education in metropolitan America," said the Advisory Commission's report, "that where the needs are greatest, the resources are the scarcest; the children needing education the most are receiving the least."
The Advisory Commission has uncovered other areas of fiscal disparity in per capita local highway expenditures, in police and fire expenditures, in public welfare expenditures, and in per capita State and Federal aid in general.
The central cities are the victims of these fiscal imbalances and have to shoulder the burden of providing governmental services to millions of people who move into their areas during the day and abandon them in the evening. These same cities have the highest costs of governmental services, the greatest problems of poverty, crime and urban unrest, the largest amount of dilapidated buildings, the most serious problems of health. Yet they are not being permitted to tap sufficiently the expanding metropolitan tax bases which surround them, or the overall State aid available to local communities.
Thus, the real challenge for State legislatures is (1) to develop methods for equalizing metropolitan tax resources to help the cities, and (2) to develop effective equalization formulas for State aid to cope with increasing urban demands.
I should like to say here, particularly because it involves this very State and city which host us this evening, that the Maryland State Legislature deserves a great deal of credit for recognizing this problem by developing methods of equalization of special benefit to Baltimore and other priority areas. California and New York have also moved in this direction. But by and large, the State legislatures have not taken substantial steps in this vital area.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, and as a member of the McClellan Subcommittee investigating riots in this country, I have had an inside view of the tensions and disillusion of the poor in our cities. In the past this disillusion has bordered on violence, but nobody listened. Now, that violence, and hatred, and even rebellion, are manifest throughout the Nation. It involves many thousands of people. It involves the future of our allies.
This is essentially a state problem. Are our state legislatures listening, or will they again abdicate their responsibility for urban unrest to the Federal Government?
Fourth. The structure and management of local government.
The results of the studies of both my subcommittee and the advisory commission indicate that as population increases, near chaos in governmental coordination at the local level is developing.
The sad results are haphazard development, waste, and inequity. We now have over 92,000 local governing units, most with independent powers of taxation, planning, financing, and operation.
Some of these are general purpose governments such as counties, cities, boroughs, towns, and villages whose boundaries and powers, rooted in the past, are often not consistent with modern public needs. Others are “special purpose” districts which have been allowed by state legislatures to take over basic programs such as education, water, sewage, transportation, urban renewal, and real estate planning.
Whatever the reason for these special governments, their recent growth poses a major threat to States. At present there is no effective orderly development. They overlap and conflict with general purpose governments. Their independent powers put them beyond the control of local elected officials, and often beyond public scrutiny. And too often they have become "little single-function empires," bent on protecting their own sovereignty rather than integrating with other units of government.
The New York metropolitan area is a terrifying thicket of general and special purpose governments. It is made up of 17 counties, 551 municipalities. and 1,400 other local districts and authorities located in three States. At present there is no effective means for achieving an all-round approach to critical regional problems.
New York City is not unique. Variations of its problem exist in most urban areas throughout the country. Indeed, it is meaningless to talk about comprehensive public development when political structures remain so fragmented and competitive at the local level.
The role of existing local units of government should be completely reassessed to reduce special purpose districts and to consolidate taxing, financing and operating responsibilities in the hands of viable general-purpose governments. To be effective, greater power over the coordination of services must bring with it the strengthening of local management and greater freedom of action at the local level to plan, finance, and implement public programs. At the same time, the States should reserve sufficient authority to step in when local "home rule" is not serving the interests of all its people.
The role of metropolitan and other area wide planning agencies must be developed, particularly as machinery for resolving interlocal disputes and providing for more efficiency in local spending. Federal aid already exists for such agencies, and more is provided under legislation presently before Congress.
And finally, the States might well consider the wisdom of assuming direct financial responsibility for the programs of welfare, education, manpower training, poverty, and housing which so long have placed an extraordinary burden on the fiscal capacity of our local communities. This could free the local units of government to be more effective in providing basic local services such as fire, police, street maintenance and other custodial functions.
In conclusion, I would like to leave one thought with you -- that decentralization of government in this country is healthy and necessary for freedom and competition.
Despite their differences in population and geography, the States are the best present mechanism to promote that decentralization. In time, I would hope that some of them -- notably those in New England -- would move closer together to form a more creative regional unity.
One of the more obvious challenges to the Federal system is the following:
1. People problems spill over the boundaries of political jurisdictions -- local and State -- thus inhibiting single jurisdictions from taking effective action to deal with them.
2. Resources -- e.g., air and water -- in the same way, are increasingly beyond the capacity of single jurisdictions to protect and conserve.
Thus the concept of regionalism emerges as the level at which we ought -- more and more -- to deal with such problems.
But the Federal system does not provide for regional government, and so we have
1. Ungoverned and ungovernable metropolitan areas.
2. Improperly managed air and water resources.
3. An accelerating deterioration in the quality of opportunity, of environment, and of life itself for too many people in such areas.
As Max Ways pointed out in the January issue of Fortune magazine:
"Trust is the cornerstone of civic order, but few of us, white or black, really trust the communities in which we live . . . the whole world knows the condition of U.S. cities -- and has known it for decades. The billions we have poured out for foreign aid and propaganda, the more numerous billions we spend for military support of our foreign policy, are half canceled by the damage that is done to U.S. prestige by our long-standing inability to deal effectively with gangsterism, poor, traffic jams, junkyards, billboards, and all the rest of the noxious mess. What, much of the world asks, is the point of being the richest and most powerful nation, if such problems can't be handled better? What is the point of capitalism? of democracy?"