CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
February 17, 1969
Page 3502
RESOLUTIONS PROVIDING FUNDS FOR VARIOUS SENATE COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr. President, before I call up Senate Resolution 27, I should like to make an opening statement concerning the money resolutions which we are about to consider.
Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, 37 resolutions providing funds for various committees and subcommittees of the Senate to conduct inquiries and investigations during the coming year were referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. That committee held 3 days of hearings at which representatives of the committees and subcommittees involved appeared in support of the funds requested by them. In addition, the Senate Rules Committee received written justifications and budgets on each proposal.
After careful appraisal of all of the material presented and review of the accomplishments of the Senate committees' investigations during the previous year, it was the decision of the Rules Committee to reduce the amounts involved in 21 of the 37 so-called money resolutions. In making these reductions, it was the Rules Committee's objective to provide adequate staff representation and at the same time exercise a measure of control over the Senate's overall expenditures.
The total amount requested by all committees of the Senate was $7,748,360. The total amount approved by the Senate Rules Committee is $6,944,700. This represents a reduction of $803,660.
It has always been the Rules Committee's position that should a particular committee or subcommittee during the course of the coming year demonstrate a genuine need for additional funds and request authority for additional expenditures, the Rules Committee would give such request prompt and understanding consideration.
I point out at this point that the representatives of a number of committees appeared before the Committee on Rules and Administration during the last session and the money requested was promptly provided for them.
As a matter of additional interest, Mr. President, there are certain subcommittees of the Senate whose request for funds exceed or approach the amounts asked by full standing committees of the Senate. The Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, for example, has requested only $40,000; the Committee on Armed Services, $225,000; the Committee on Foreign Relations, $275,000 -- reduced to $260,000 -- and the Committee on Public Works, $240,000. The Committee on Agriculture requested no additional funds.
STUDY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution (S. Res. 27) authorizing a study of the intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities which had been reported from the Committee on Rules and Administration, with an amendment, on page 2, line 24, after the word "exceed", strike out "$175,211" and insert "$130,000"; so as to make the resolution read
S. RES. 27
Resolved, That the Committee on Government Operations, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized under sections 134(a) and 136 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and in accordance with its jurisdiction specified by subsection 1(j) (2) (D) of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, to examine, investigate, and make a complete study of intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities, including an evaluation of studies, reports, and recommendations made thereon and submitted to the Congress by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 86-380, approved by the President on September 24, 1959, as amended by Public Law 89-733, approved by the President on November 2, 1966.
SEC. 2. For the purposes of this resolution the committee, from February 1, 1969, to January 31, 1970, inclusive, is authorized (1) to make such expenditures as it deems advisable; (2) to employ upon a temporary basis, technical, clerical, and other assistants and consultants: Provided, That the minority is authorized to select one person for appointment, and the person so selected shall be appointed and his compensation shall be so fixed that his gross rate shall not be less by more than $2,400 than the highest gross rate paid to any other employee; and (3) with the prior consent of the heads of the departments or agencies concerned, and the Committee on Rules and Administration, to utilize the reimbursable services, information, facilities, and personnel of any of the departments or agencies of the Government.
SEC. 3. The committee shall report its findings, together with its recommendations for legislation as it deems advisable, to the Senate at the earliest practicable date, but not later than January 31, 1970.
SEC. 4. Expenses of the committee, under this resolution, which shall not exceed $130,000, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr. President, the intergovernmental relationships resolution, Senate Resolution 27, as referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, would authorize the Committee on Government Operations through its Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Operations to expend not to exceed $175,211 this year for a study of intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities.
During the last session of Congress $130,000 was authorized for that purpose, of which $113,908 was expended during the 12-month investigative period.
The Committee on Rules and Administration has reported the resolution with an amendment reducing the requested amount from $175,211 to $130,000, a reduction of $45,211.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE is chairman of the pertinent subcommittee. The ranking minority member of the subcommittee is Senator KARL E. MUNDT.
During the last session, this subcommittee was authorized an expenditure of $130,000 of which over $16,000 went unspent. It was the sentiment of the Senate Rules Committee that the studies performed by the subcommittee could be funded during the coming year by the same authorized expenditure of $130,000. In taking this action, the members of the Senate Rules Committee wanted it made clear that the amount of money spent by a particular subcommittee in a particular year does not necessarily govern the amount that the Rules Committee would authorize in a succeeding year. It is, however, a factor to be carefully evaluated in trying to apply a measure of economy to the Senate's operations and in projecting a likely cost to the Senate of a particular study or program.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I shall direct my remarks at the moment to the general situation that existed when the Reorganization Act of 1946 was passed. We recall that when Congress was reorganized, we provided for 150 employees and created 15 standing committees. Each committee was allowed four professionals and six clericals.
The Reorganization Act reduced the number of committees that we had in the Senate from 38, as I recall, to the 15 I have just mentioned. Initially there were very few, if any, subcommittees.
Soon after the Reorganization Act was passed, we began to create these subcommittees, and the amount spent at the beginning was approximately $140,000 over what could be spent under the Reorganization Act.
Since that time, Mr. President, all committees, except the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the Committee on the District of Columbia, created separate subcommittees of each committee, which required quite a sum of money. Over the years, we have been spending at the rate of approximately $5 million per year for that purpose alone, and this amount is in addition to the amount provided under the Reorganization Act.
In other words, under the Reorganization Act, a fixed sum is set for each committee, for its regular employees, and each committee is also allowed a certain amount of money to operate the committee. What we are speaking of today is an amount in addition to the regular amount provided for by the 15 original committees.
Since the Reorganization Act, we have made a permanent committee of the Select Committee on Small Business as well as the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. Those committees at first were provided with the same number of employees as the original committees created under the act of 1946.
As I have stated, the amount of money spent in the last 10 to 12 years has averaged approximately $5 million over the amounts provided for the regular standing committees, without any additions to them.
I have before me a table of figures for the last 4 years. It indicates that in 1965 the Senate provided $5,391,000 for special subcommittees. As I have said, that does not include the regular amount provided for the permanent employees or expenses of each Senate committee. In
1966 we went up from $5,391,000 to $5,798,000, and in 1967 we went up to $6,270,900. In 1968, the amount was $6,543,900.
I understand that the present resolutions call for a total expenditure during fiscal 1969 -- that is, in this year -- of $6,944,700; in other words, $400,000 more than was authorized last year.
As we all know, there is a move in progress to construct another Senate office building. Of course, we all know that more employees mean more spaces. Since 1946, when the Reorganization Act became effective, we have added, aside from the regular employees, 78 other permanent employees. So that in the Senate today, for all our committees, aside from the 150 employees originally provided for under the act, we have a total of 228 permanent employees. I point out that in addition to these 228 employees, we have added 478 investigative staff. So that in 1968 we provided for a grand total of 702 employees, which means more than 450 over and above the regular employees I have just mentioned, as well as the employees originally provided for by Congress.
It is no wonder that we are looking around now for more space and for perhaps a new Senate office building, when, as I point out, we are providing for 700-odd employees. Last year, we had 702 employees on the payroll, and the new presentation eliminates 17, leaving a total of 685 employees. If the 150 original regular employees I have just mentioned are removed from that amount, it will be noted that since reorganization we have added 535 new employees to operate and administer the 16 standing committees of the Senate, at the cost I have cited.
I note that the requests for this year were $7,748,360, and the committee saw fit to reduce the amount to $6,944,700.
As we go along, Mr. President, I should like to find out from the chairman of each subcommittee what has been done in the past 12 months by way of hearings and by way of legislation. I think it is in order for us to find out that information. As I have pointed out on many occasions, we have had the Committee on Juvenile Delinquency on the books now for over 20 years. That committee was supposed to complete its work in a year or 2 years at the most, from the date on which it was originally created. I notice from the number of committees we are going to deal with today that there have been few committees that have completed their work. It seems that once they are created they are there forever, although when created it is said they expect to do this, that, and the other and complete their work in just a few years.
However, the RECORD will show that with the exception of one committee, a case involving consolidation of one committee with another committee, we have the same number of committees. We will develop that as we go along.
I predict that if the trend toward additional employees keeps increasing there is no question that we will need more space. I can well remember when efforts were made to construct the New Senate Office Building. We debated the issue for about 11 years as to whether or not we should have a New Senate Office Building. Some of us felt we could find quite a few more offices in the Old Senate Office Building. Also, if we decided to extend the east wing of the Capitol, we thought we could find a sufficient amount of space, combined with the space we had in the old building, to take care of the situation.
However, because of the increase I have been speaking of, to the point where we now have 685 employees employed by these committees, every bit of space in the old building is now occupied.
The New Senate Office Building is also occupied entirely and the east wing of the Capitol is built and that is pretty well filled.
If this increase in employees continues, we may have to build a third Senate office building, which may well need to be much larger than either of the ones we have at present.
Mr. President, I want to be frank. I do not expect to receive much assistance in trying to cut back. Nonetheless, it should be done. I am very hopeful that the chairman of each of these committees, without being asked to do so, will rise and tell the Senate what has been done in the last 12 months to justify a renewal or extension of these subcommittees. I shall be very anxious to listen to them and to hear them.
With that, I have nothing further to say, although I shall have more to say as each individual resolution is considered.
Mr, President, what is the first resolution?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering Senate Resolution 27, Calendar No. 56, which the clerk will state.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A resolution (S. Res. 27) authorizing a study of intergovernmental relationships between the United States, and the States and municipalities, reported from the Committee on Rules and Administration, with an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2, line 24, after the word "exceed", strike out "$175,211" and insert "$130,000".
Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand it, this is a part of the Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. This is for the subcommittee.
Mr. ELLENDER. How many subcommittees do we have in the Committee on Government Operations? Does anybody know?
Mr. MUSKIE. There is this committee and there are five other subcommittees.
Mr. ELLENDER. Five others?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. As the Senator knows, the Committee on Government Operations is by nature and function an investigative committee under the Reorganization Act.
This is the only way in which it operates. It is not primarily a legislative committee and it is not a money committee. It is an investigating committee.
Mr. ELLENDER. Can the Senator tell us what the committee has done during the last year?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I shall be happy to do so.
Mr. ELLENDER. What investigations have been made? The Senator might make reference to copies of reports that have been made. We would not want them in the RECORD, but we would want to know what the members of the committee have done and also the employees of the subcommittee.
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall be happy to do so.
Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter which goes into some detail on the points the Senator raised, which I submitted to the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration in support of the resolution.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
JANUARY 30, 1969.
Hon. EVERETT JORDAN,
Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR EVERETT: I am enclosing a copy of S. Res. 27 authorizing continuation of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, which I reported from the Committee on Government Operations on January 17, 1969. It has the unanimous approval of the Committee.
Pursuant to Senate Resolution 221 in 1968, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations has carried forward the study of relationships between the United States and States and municipalities which has been its responsibility since the Subcommittee was established in 1962.
In the course of its efforts, the Subcommittee has examined the increasing demands made on government at every level, and has sought to identify areas where the capacity and purpose of government to deal with these demands could be increased through more effective intergovermental cooperation.
The records of the hearings on such subjects have been published and the findings of special studies have been issued as committee prints.
In accordance with the mandate given it, the Subcommittee has examined all reports and recommendations submitted to the Congress by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
It has considered and reported on legislation referred to it by the Committee on Government Operations.
A. LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES:
BOTH CONGRESS
I. Legislation
1. S. 698, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act -- S. 698, based in part on S. 561 which was passed by the Senate in 1965, and in part on S. 1681 which was passed by the Senate in 1966, was introduced in January, 1967. It was the purpose of this bill to promote the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government by improving the administration of grants-in-aid to the States, providing for periodic Congressional review of Federal grants-in-aid, permitting provision for reimbursable technical services to State and local government, establishing coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration of grants and loans for urban development, and authorizing consolidation of certain grant-in-aid programs. It also provided for the acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by Federal agencies in conformity with local government programs, and for a uniform relocation assistance policy and a uniform land acquisition policy for Federal and federally aided programs. On July 24, the Committee on Government Operations reported the bill to the Senate, which passed it unanimously on July 29.
The House of Representatives on September 16, passed a companion bill, H.R. 18826, and amended S. 698 by substituting for its provisions those of the House passed bill. On September 30 a committee of conference met to resolve differences between S. 698 and the House amendment (H.R. 18826), and agreed on a substitute bill. The substitute omitted the two titles having to do with uniform relocation assistance and uniform land acquisition policy, which had been included in the Senate bill but were not in the House bill. The House agreed to the conference report on October 1 and the Senate on October 4. thus completing action on S. 698, which, upon approval by the President, became Public Law 90-577.
2. S. 699, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1967 -- This legislation, containing basically the same provisions as S. 3408, considered in the 89th Congress, was introduced in January, 1967. In April, 1967, at the request of the Administration, I introduced S. 1485, the Intergovernmental Manpower Act of 1967. The objectives of the two bills were identical -- to improve intergovernmental cooperation in the management of Federal aid programs through: ( 1) broader use of the merit principle in public employment; (2) improvement of State and local personnel administration; (3) special training for public employees engaged in the administration of federally aided programs; and (4) opportunity for interchange of employees between Federal, State, and local levels of government. Hearings on both measures were held in April, 1967, and on October 10, 1967, S. 699 was reported, with amendments, to the parent committee. The Committee on Government Operations, on October 3i, i967, reported the bill to the Senate. The Senate, on November 7, 1967, approved S. 699 with amendments. No action was taken on the bill by the House of Representatives.
3. S. Res. 68, providing for the establishment of a Senate Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment. -- This resolution was introduced on January, 1967. It was identical to S. Res. 298, which I introduced in the 89th Congress. Hearings were held in March and April, 1967, and the resolution, with minor amendments, was reported to the parent committee on June 28, 1967. No further action was taken.
4. S. 2981, the Joint Funding Simplification Act of 1968 -- This bill was introduced on February 16, 1968, by request. It had been drafted by the Bureau of the Budget and submitted to the President of the Senate for introduction in order that certain of the objectives enumerated in the President's Message of March 17, 1968, on the "Quality of American Government" might be fulfilled. The purpose of S. 2981 was to implement the President's recommendation that legislation be enacted to permit "Federal agencies to combine related grants into a single financial package, thus simplifying the financial and administrative procedures -- without disturbing, however, the separate authorization, appropriations, and substantive requirements for each grant-in-aid program" The Subcommittee took testimony on this bill in the hearings held in May, 1968, and approved the bill without amendment, transmitting it on July 2 to the full Committee on Government Operations for consideration. No further action was taken.
II. Other legislation referred to the subcommittee
1. S. Res. 79. Introduced by Senators Mondale and Muskie, to authorize a study of revenue sharing by the Committee on Government Operations.
2. S. 567. Introduced by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, to establish a Temporary National Commission on Intergovernmental Fiscal Needs and Resources.
3. S. 671. Introduced by Senator Muskie, to establish a National Intergovernmental Affairs Council in the Executive Office of the President.
4. S. 799. Introduced by Senator Scott, to institute a system of comprehensive planning and coordination among the several levels of government.
These bills were studied by the Subcommittee and their purposes were examined in the course of hearings on Creative Federalism, but no action was recommended by the Subcommittee.
The Subcommittee considered two other bills, on which no action was taken beyond staff study, namely
1. S. 1364. Introduced by Senator Muskie, to establish certain conditions under which States or other taxing authorities might subject persons to liability for payment of property taxes on property located in Federal areas within such States; and
2. S. 3732. Introduced by Senator Boggs, to create a catalog of Federal assistance programs, and for other purposes.
III. Research and Information
1. Creative Federalism. This is a continuous study in the course of which hearings are held from time to time. Part I of the hearings, containing testimony of representatives of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government presented on November 16, 17, 18, and 21, 1966, was published in January, 1967. Testimony of officials from the State-Local-Regional level was taken at hearings held January 31, February 1, 2, 7, and 9, and March 21 and 22, 1967, and this has been published as Part II of Creative Federalism.
During the 90th Congress, the Subcommittee issued several committee prints.
2. The Federal System as Seen by Federal Aid Officials. S. Con. Res. 6 was considered and agreed to on May 11, 1967, authorizing the printing of additional copies of this publication.
3. Criteria for Evaluation in Planning State and Local Programs. This study was prepared for the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee by Harry P. Hatry, Chairman of the State-Local Finances Project of George Washington University. It was issued July, 1967 and reprinted in August, 1968.
4. Periodic Congressional Reassessment of Federal Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments. Prepared by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations for the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, this report, first adopted by the Commission, June, 1961, was revised to include fiscal data as of January, 1967, and was issued July, 1967.
5. State Utility Commissions. This publication is composed of data compiled from responses by State utilities regulatory bodies to questionnaires regarding their form of organization, jurisdiction, staffing, and other characteristics. It was issued on September 11, 1967 and reprinted in November, 1967.
6. Federal Disaster Relief Manual. The Subcommittee staff is engaged in revision of this manual. Questionnaires were sent to approximately twenty-five departments and agencies of the Federal Government requesting detailed pertinent information to be used in the revision.
7. Catalog of Federal Aids to State and Local Governments. With assistance from the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress, the Subcommittee is compiling a current and consolidated edition of the Catalog of Federal Aids to State and Local Governments, first issued by the Subcommittee in 1964, and its 1965 and 1966 supplements.
Reports of the ACIR
The Subcommittee continued to receive and review reports of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Three major reports were received, in final or preliminary form, as follows:
The published report entitled "Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System";
The published report entitled "Urban and Rural America: Policies for Future Growth"; Summary of report on "Intergovernmental Problems in Medicaid."
These reports and their recommendations remain for further consideration by the Subcommittee.
B. LEGISLATIVE AGENDA: 91sT CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION
1. Legislation
1. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy Act of 1969 (S. 1). This bill is intended to provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses or farms by Federal or federally assisted programs. It is also intended to establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies for Federal and federally assisted programs.
Provisions for uniform relocation assistance and land acquisition policies were included in the Intergovernment Cooperation Act of 1968 as introduced and passed by the Senate. Because of a conflict of committee jurisdiction in the House of Representatives, it was not possible for the Senate and the House to agree on the relocation and acquisition sections of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. These elements were left from the bill. This was a jurisdictional problem. There was no disagreement on the merits of the provision. Conferees have agreed on early action in the 91st Congress.
2. The Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1969 (S. 11). This bill is almost identical to the bill passed by the Senate in 1967. It is intended to help strengthen State and local governments through improved personnel administration and more efficient recruitment and training of personnel, particularly in.the administrative, professional, and technical categories.
This bill has the widespread endorsement and support of many public officials and citizen groups. It passed the Senate with a substantial majority. The House did not have an opportunity to act on it.
We anticipate hearings on the proposal and to report as soon as practicable a bill which can be considered in the House in this session, and hopefully, enacted.
3. A resolution to create a Select Committee of the Senate on Technology and the Human Environment. This is similar to the resolution approved by the Subcommittee ill the 90th Congress but not reported for floor action. The proposed composition of the Select Committee has been broadened and would be authorized to make a comprehensive study and investigation of (1) the character and extent of technological changes that probably will occur, and which should be promoted within the next 50 years, and their effect on population, communities and industry; and, (2) policies which would encourage the maximum private investment in means of improving the human environment.
4. Other Legislative Proposals. The Subcommittee anticipates that several proposals will emerge from draft legislation submitted by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
These would include (1) an omnibus Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969 to amend Public Law 90-577; and, (2) the Urban and Rural Development Act of 1969.
There is also a prospect of legislation to be considered by the Subcommittee on the availability to the Congress, the general public and particularly State and local governments of information on Federal assistance programs, and of the possible uses of information technology for this purpose. Legislation on this subject was referred to the Subcommittee late in the 90th Congress, and there is widespread concern over the underlying problem.
II. Creative federalism, part III
It is planned that most of the new investigative activities of the Subcommittee will be carried on through Part III of Creative Federalism hearings. These hearings would focus on major national objectives and the means of attaining them through the combined operations of Federal, State and local governments. As presently planned, the hearings will concentrate on certain areas of investigation most closely related to existing and emerging problems, namely–
1. The means by which Federal agencies can most effectively cooperate with State and local governments in the management and coordination of domestic programs.
2. The availability of social, economic, fiscal, and other data needed for purposes of policy development and decision making, for definition of problems, setting of goals, and measurement of process toward achievement of these goals.
3. Program planning requirements and aids necessary to achieve the orderly development and effective implementation of public programs with special emphasis on cooperation among the components of the Federal system.
4. Examination of the system of grants-in-aid and related financial and technical assistance by the Federal Government to State and local governments for the accomplishment of purposes identified with the national interest.
5. Fiscal relationships, examining the financial resources available to each element of the Federal system for performance of its responsibilities and proposals for redirection of the flow of public revenues by such means as tax sharing, bloc grants, income tax credits, and others.
Out of these hearings we would expect further legislative proposals to be developed.
C. CONCLUSION
In view of the responsibilities that confront the Subcommittee during the coming year, we are asking for an appreciable increase over our request for 1968. The projected budget totals $175,211, as compared with our request of $148,000 and an appropriation of $130,000 last year.
In 1967, we requested $142,500 and were reduced to $130,000. The reduction of funds in both 1967 and 1968 severely curtailed planned activities, including field hearings on legislation, staff consideration of several pieces of legislation of major importance in the field of intergovernmental relations, and Part III of our hearings on Creative Federalism.
The requested increase will cover proposed increases in our staff that are necessary to carry the prospective increase in workload, and the expenses of hearings and investigations that are incumbent upon us by the terms of our resolution.
Some additions to staff are mandatory of the outlined program is to be carried out. The projected budget would allow for the additions of two professionals in the middle salary range. It also includes funds for the mandatory salary increases expected to apply in the last half of this year. The only other increase of any significance is attributable to the program of hearings, again resulting from deferral of these investigative activities from 1967 to 1969.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S. Senate, Chairman.
Mr. MUSKIE. The work of this subcommittee, as is true of the full Committee on Government operations, is concerned with investigations, and our investigations are directed to the particular area of intergovernmental relations, that is, relations between the three levels of government. In that connection, we have three areas of work. First of all, there is the area of legislation. The subcommittees of the Committee on Government Operations do not normally handle much legislation.
In this subcommittee we do have legislation because we are charged under our charter with oversight of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and its work. For that reason from time to time we go into the legislation developed by the Commission in the governmental field.
Last year we considered the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (S. 698), which was the product of 3 years' work before we were able to put it into a form approved by both Houses and signed by the President last year.
Also last year we introduced for the second time the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1967, designed to be of assistance in coordinating manpower policies of Federal, State, and local governments. It was introduced for the second time.
We also considered legislation submitted by the administration and reported the bill to the Senate, which was passed by the Senate, with amendments. No action was taken by the House of Representatives. The bill has already been reintroduced this year and we hope we can get it through to final passage in light of the fact that the new administration is also interested in this field.
Mr. ELLENDER. Is that the reason for renewing this subcommittee?
Mr. MUSKIE. This is one of the aspects of work in which the subcommittee is involved. I should be happy to go into detail.
The third piece of legislation was in connection with Senate Resolution 68, providing for the establishment of a Senate Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment. This is an area in which there is growing interest in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and throughout the country. Because of the interest that was shown last year by the introduction of that legislation, there is a movement in both Houses to consider a joint committee. A new committee may not be created but the important thing is that this resolution was intended and did focus public attention on the importance of relating what we do here, in many of our legislative committees, to the rapid developments of science and technology. So we had hearings last year and by this resolution we were able to generate a useful dialog which was of benefit to other committees.
Mr. ELLENDER. What is proposed to be put there? Will the Senator inform us? What good will come from it?
Mr. MUSKIE. With that particular resolution?
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. The purpose is not so much the resolution as the necessity to focus attention upon the impact of science and technology on the lives of our people, not only the direct benefits of technology which they bring to the people but also the impact of new technology upon the lives of our people. We know what the automobile has done to our society in the form of overcrowded cities, congested highways, and dirty air. If there had been a committee of that kind in existence at the time the technology of the automobile began to be created, it may be that we would have focused a little more effectively and a little more wisely upon the implications of the automobile on the future lives of our people.
It is the purpose of the resolution, at the very least, if no committee is ever created, to focus the attention of Senate committees, dealing with legislation which stems from the technological development, upon the human implications of those developments and the question of whether, by Government policy or Government appropriation, we are to encourage particular forms of technological development. We have the expertise which is now being considered by the Senate and which has tremendous application for life in this country, which is under the jurisdiction of the committee and the committee is focusing on it. But what we are urging, when we introduce a resolution of this kind, is for Congress to focus attention upon those aspects of American life.
We are asking the American people to think about and to consider policies which can be proposed in the light of developments and the problems which may show up, so that we can legislate more wisely.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator from Maine led the way in introducing and having passed legislation to rid ourselves of air and water pollution. How did he accomplish that? Was it not through an existing committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. Which one?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Public Works Committee.
Mr. ELLENDER. All right. Why do we have to have another committee to step in and study that? To me, that is just duplication. The Senator was effective in having air pollution legislation enacted into law. They are very good laws, to do the very things he is talking about now. Now he wants to get another committee to look further into that. I just cannot follow it.
Mr. MUSKIE. That committee is not before us.
Mr. ELLENDER. No, but the Senator states he proposes to study that
Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator is saying is that he does not even want the idea proposed for consideration. I think that is a negative attitude to take.
Mr. ELLENDER. I did not say that.
Mr. MUSKIE. All I did was to introduce a resolution. I am perfectly aware of the difficulties of creating new committees. I submitted a resolution in order to point out an area of thought which I think Congress and the country should be exploring, so that the resolution to create a committee would be a stimulus to thought. As a result, we had many days of constructive hearings listening to people with good minds who came here to contribute to a better understanding of the problems. We may never get a committee, although I may say that I am going to continue to press for one. The important point is not whether a committee is created, but whether we can bring the attention of Congress to the fact that it should consider this matter, either through a special committee or through existing committees. What I am merely talking about right now is not being considered by the committees which have jurisdiction. They are all busy with many other items of business. They have not yet had time to focus attention on this area.
Accordingly, what I am trying to do with that resolution is, first, to stimulate existing committees to focus attention on that area for their future work, or if they cannot do it, if they have not got the time to do it, if a special committee is a better way to do it, that we consider doing it with a special committee; but, of course, that is a decision yet to be made.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand it, the Committee on Commerce will. Shortly, that committee will ask for quite a nice sum of money to make studies in the very areas the Senator is now speaking of. Automobiles -- if something should be done about improving the automobile, and other facilities that we now have that cause pollution, why cannot the Committee on Commerce do that? Why does a subcommittee want to barge in and study, evidently, the same subject?
Let me point out further to the Senator, as I said, the Senator was very successful in getting before a committee of the Senate bills on water and air pollution, which were enacted into law, and he did not have to have a special committee to effect that.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is after the fact, Senator.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand.
Mr. MUSKIE. What I am urging upon Congress is to try to anticipate difficulties like that. Right now, for example, we are involved in the problem of thermal pollution. We are being told by all of the fossil fuel industries and power companies that we do not have to worry about that, that we do not have to establish policies with respect to that until we know what the problems will be.
All the while the problems are developing, we will be discharging into our streams and waters all across the country massive quantities of superheated water. The problems will be upon us and we will have made investments in powerplants. Then, when we propose policies, the people will say it is too expensive, we cannot afford to close down the plants, or we cannot afford to close down the industries. Thus, after the fact, we may come up with some weak-kneed legislation that may not do the job.
Water pollution legislation was enacted after the problems were created. What I am urging now is that we do a little thinking about these problems, before they come into existence, and try to do a little something about avoiding their coming into existence at all. I am talking about preventive medicine.
If what the Senator wants is only surgery, after the problems have been created, then let us not think about the future. But, if what we are concerned about is avoiding some of the difficulties and social problems, then all I am asking the Senator is, let us do a little thinking about the future before we take these irrevocable steps.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand it, the Committee on Public Works is also engaged in work along the lines of–
Mr. MUSKIE. The Committee on Public Works has jurisdiction over air and water pollution and problems in existence
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; and also–
Mr. MUSKIE. What I am talking about is–
Mr. ELLENDER (continuing). Authorizing the very instrumentalities that will cause pollution.
Mr. MUSKIE. But what I am talking about goes across the board. For example, the Committee on Commerce has jurisdiction over the railroads
Mr. ELLENDER. A good deal more than that
Mr. MUSKIE. The Committee on Commerce has jurisdiction over aviation. Another committee has jurisdiction over other aspects of it.
When we talk about preventive medicine, we are talking about problems arising that lie within the jurisdiction of more than one committee. The fact is, the proposed select committee, which is not before us, would involve jurisdiction of seven legislative committees. That is how far reaching the implications of modern technology are. No committee in the Senate today has broad enough jurisdiction to consider all the far-reaching and interrelated implications of modern technology. I think that we should have some understanding of the interrelationship of the various areas of responsibility. When we settle down finally to identify the jurisdiction and the authority, we may settle on leaving it where it is, or we may decide to create another committee.
But that is for the Senate to decide at such time as it has completed its consideration.
All we are asking for here is the money to consider it, to explore it, to raise the questions, and to define the issues so that the Senate, as a whole, can decide how to handle the problem.
Mr. ELLENDER. Now, as I understand it, what the Senator is talking about now means the creation of another committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not proposing that.
Mr. ELLENDER. No, no, but it is to be studied by another committee, not by the committee which is now asking for $130,000.
Mr. MUSKIE. We are talking about–
Mr. ELLENDER. Is that right?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. ELLENDER. But I was particularly anxious to find out what the present committee intends to do. I thought that–
Mr. MUSKIE. I was in the process of doing that when we got into the discussion of the committee which is not before us. The Senator asked me what areas of activity we were involved in and I was in the process of describing the legislative activities of such a committee, and I had gotten to the third of 10 items.
There are other items of legislation which are fully described in the letter I put in the RECORD, which I shall be happy to go into if the Senator is interested in that; but all of them involve the kinds of operations that the Committee on Government Operations was created to perform.
It is the job of the Committee on Government Operations to look over the whole area of governmental activities; to look over the areas in which Government performance falls short of what it is supposed to do, and to suggest proposals for improving that performance. In order to do that work, the Committee on Government Operations was involved in 10 pieces of major legislation.
Mr. ELLENDER. One was enacted.
Mr. MUSKIE. One was enacted by Congress. Another was enacted by the Senate, and hopefully will be reenacted. Another was enacted by the Senate and was enacted in part in other bills that came out of committees as a result of our work. The uniform relocation assistance, and land acquisition policy found its way into legislation coming out of the Public Works Committee and the Housing Committee.
So that is an example of the work of this committee, coming under the jurisdiction not only of our subcommittee, but of the parent committee, which the Senator is interested in.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Committee on Government Operations has five subcommittees at the moment, I think. I think we started out with a very small amount. Now that committee is spending in excess of $1 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I point out that this is one committee whose appropriation was reduced by the Rules Committee this year.
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. And my committee has been held at the present figure for 3 years running.
Mr. ELLENDER. But the investigatory part of it is going to be increased.
Mr. MUSKIE. The appropriations of two subcommittees were cut.
Mr. ELLEnDER. In any event, as I said, it is easy to find work to do. I have my own Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I have always tried to use the money available that was provided under the original act of 1946. It may be that more work could have been done by that committee by employing more people than we now have, but I believe our Agriculture Committee has done a good job.
As a matter of fact, of the four professionals that I can employ, I employ only two. Ever since I have been chairman of that committee, I have had only two professionals -- a good lawyer and a good economist. In my view, if I were to put two economists and two lawyers on the committee, they would be passing the buck to each other. I believe that is the trouble in a good many of the committees today. They have too many employees who pass the buck to each other, and very few who do the work.
I am not making any excuses for my committee. I think a good job has been done. It is the only committee, as I recall now, that has not as yet appointed subcommittees of the standing committee, as we have been talking about here.
I notice among the resolutions one to create a subcommittee for the Committee on the District of Columbia. We will get to that matter after a while. That was the only committee, besides the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, that did not have subcommittees for which Congress provided funds for special investigations.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.
Mr. CURTIS. I have no particular criticism of this subcommittee, but I rise to defend the action of the Committee on Rules and Administration. In the Senate we are not only faced with a multiplicity of subcommittees; we have a shortage of room space. After reviewing all the facts, the Committee on Rules and Administration recommended an amount for its subcommittee equal to what it had last year. The committee had some money left over.
It is my opinion that this subcommittee has no jurisdiction that its parent committee does not have. Also, there is some possibility of overlapping of its efforts with other subcommittees of other parent committees that are seeking special funds from the contingency fund.
It would be my hope that the Senate would support the Committee on Rules and Administration. I believe that, under the chairmanship of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. JORDAN), the committee has done a good job. It has reduced some requests. In this case it has recommended as much money as the subcommittee had last year.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for yielding.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, the original Government Operations Committee started out by doing its own work with the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN) at the head. Now we have five separate subcommittees under that committee. They are going in every direction. For instance, why should foreign aid expenditures be under the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations? Also, we have the subject of national security relations. I think the committee of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. EASTLAND) has jurisdiction of that matter.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the one on foreign aid expenditures–
Mr. ELLENDER. Was under Senator Gruening.
Mr. CURTIS. That has been discontinued.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand, but it was there.
Mr. CURTIS. Yes.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I said, subcommittees should deal with subjects in the jurisdiction of their parent committees.
Take national security operations. A lot of time and money could be spent sending investigators around on the subject of national security operations. As I understand it, the Committee on the Judiciary has asked for $300,000 to do this very thing. In the Committee on Foreign Relations, there is also bound to be duplication. That is what I am complaining about. We have too many subcommittees that duplicate.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I do not stand in judgment over any Senator or any committee. It is my own personal feeling, however, that we do have too many subcommittees.
Mr. ELLENDER. If the Senator admits that, his subcommittee should have done something about it.
Mr. CURTIS. I understand. We did in some instances. We tried in others.
Mr. ELLENDER. Did the subcommittee do away with any of them? All of them got the money they asked for.
Mr. CURTIS. The Committee on Rules and Administration did not deny any request in its entirety; but I thought I was rising to support the position of the Senator from Louisiana against the idea of restoring the original request. Is not the issue the committee amendment?
Mr. ELLENDER. This committee is receiving $130,000.
Mr. CURTIS. Yes.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I said, I am not complaining so much of this. The Committee on Government Operations was supposed to deal with the Federal Government, and now we are dealing with Government research. Then we get into intergovernmental relations. Then we have national security operations. All of them are being looked into by the subcommittees.
For example, under the Committee on the Judiciary, there is a subcommittee headed by my good friend, the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. EASTLAND). Here we have a subcommittee on Internal Security which deals with the same subject matter that is envisioned under Government Operations.
Mr. CURTIS. The point I wish to make is this: I understand that the pending business is the committee amendment.
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes.
Mr. CURTIS. Which reduces this amount by $45,000. Is the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for the committee amendment, or against it?
Mr. ELLENDER. I am for the committee amendment.
Mr. CURTIS. So am I.
Mr. ELLENDER. I would like to see it wiped out altogether, because, as I have said, there are other subcommittees dealing with that field.
Mr. CURTIS. I have no quarrel with the idea that we have too many subcommittees.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I may say so to the Senator, what he is arguing for is abolition of the Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. ELLENDER. No; I am not.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me make my point clear. The Committee on Government Operations operates across the board and, through its entire jurisdiction, in a sense, overlaps the jurisdiction of all the legislative committees. It is not supposed to get into the substance of the legislative jurisdiction of the legislative committees, but it is rather difficult to separate substance from organization and procedure.
As the Senator from Nebraska has pointed out, these subcommittees have not enlarged the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations. We are discharging a function of the committee. I do not see what is so mysterious about that. Each of the subcommittees to which the Senator refers is handling a piece of the authority of the parent committee, because the parent committee standing alone could not do all of the work that is necessary concerning oversight of the efficiency and the economy of the whole of the operations of the Government.
The Federal Government has grown from something like a budget of $90 billion when I first came to the Senate to one of almost $200 billion, and the Government Operations Committee is charged with the responsibility to oversee all of this vast operation from the point of view of economy and efficiency. We in the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee have one piece of the parent committee's jurisdiction, because the parent committee decided that in order to do that job effectively, it had to have a subcommittee to do that part of its job.
So if the Senator is arguing against the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, if his argument is to have meaning, then he has got to extend it against the whole Committee on Government Operations, and say that because the Committee on Government Operations has jurisdiction that overlaps the jurisdiction of other committees it ought to be abolished, because we have separate subcommittees working on these various features.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I recall, not too long ago the original committee, under Senator MCCLELLAN, took care of all of these matters.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. ELLENDER. It is only in the last 4 years, as I recall, that subcommittees have developed.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, when I first went on the committee in 1959 there were subcommittees.
Mr. ELLENDER. There might have been one or two. But now we have five, until the one dealing with foreign expenditures is abolished.
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. ELLENDER. Then, as I have said, there is this Subcommittee on National Security, which to me is a field in which the Committee on the Judiciary is engaged, and could easily handle that, rather than have a separate committee under the Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I have just stated, we could have each legislative committee deal with that portion of the Government Operations Committee's work that falls within the department with which the legislative committee is charged; but, in the Reorganization Act, Congress decided that it would be useful and wise to have an investigative committee charged with the responsibility of oversight over the operations of the whole structure of the Government. The Committee on Investigations, which is Senator MCCLELLAN'S principal responsibility, has been heavily engaged in that work, as can be seen from its budget, in the investigative field. It would not have had time to get into this intergovernmental relations field, or into Senator RIBICOFF'S reorganization field, or the other fields that the committee has regarded as important and requiring investigation.
Is there anything so odd about the committee charged with the investigation of the whole structure of government breaking down its work into subcommittees, in order that it may do more and do it more efficiently, because the workload has grown? What is so strange about that?
The Appropriations Committee has divided its work up among subcommittees. Why do they not do it all with one committee?
Mr. ELLENDER. But we do not ask for any extra money to do it with.
Mr. MUSKIE. But they do it with subcommittees. They have plenty, I think, in their Appropriations Committee to do it. They break it up into subcommittees, because if it were left to one committee, they could not do all the work.
That is the point here. If we left it to the Investigations Committee, we could not do all the work. It is as simple as that.
Mr. ELLENDER. But this has grown and grown.
Mr. MUSKIE. The whole structure of government has grown. The supermarket down on the corner is bigger than the old country grocery store. The country has grown, and the responsibilities of government have tripled since I have been here. Do we have to do the additional work with the same number of people and the same number of committees?
Mr. ELLENDER. No; I am not saying that at all. But it strikes me that the job could be done; that is, the job of the Government Operations Committee with fewer subcommittees and fewer people.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the Senator's sense of responsibility with respect to the public trust; but may I, with all respect, suggest that we are also sensitive to it? We appreciate our responsibility to do our job, and to do it at minimum cost. I believe if the Senator will look at the figures on the costs for my subcommittee over the years, he will find we have never spent every cent appropriated to us, if I recollect correctly.
Mr. ELLENDER. This does not show that.
Mr. MUSKIE. We spent $113,000 out of $130,000 last year. So we are careful with the dollar.
We have a twofold responsibility. First, to do our work and, second, to do it as cheaply as possible. I submit that the record of my subcommittee over the past few years supports our dedication to both objectives.
Mr. ELLENDER. Did the Senator from Arkansas wish to be heard?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think I had better let it go.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution, as amended.
The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.