October 19, 1971
Page 36714
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE – POLICY POSITIONS AND FINAL REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, it has been my privilege to work closely with State and local officials in a continuing effort to improve our federal system. I have been impressed by the growing interest on the part of these officials in asserting themselves on the major intergovernmental issues facing our Nation.
In this connection, I call attention to the recently published report of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference. This committee of State legislators from across the country has made a significant policy input on issues of importance to Federal-State relations. As our counterparts in the States, the views of these legislators should be of particular interest to Members of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the report of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE – INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE POLICY POSITIONS AND FINAL REPORT
AUGUST 1971
INTRODUCTION
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference was established to serve a dual function: to report to and be guided by the Conference on issues of importance to federal-state relations and to take policy positions between conference meetings on matters of urgent and current significance to the States.
In recent years; the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference has assumed an increasingly significant role as the focal point for state legislator involvement in the major intergovernmental issues facing the Nation. As state legislators have moved to assert themselves more vigorously in our federal system, the Committee has been measurably strengthened and expanded. During the past year, membership on the Committee was increased substantially.
The Committee has also been active in encouraging close cooperation in federal-state relations among the three national organizations representing state legislators – the National Legislative Conference, the National Conference of State Legislative Leaders and the National Society of State Legislators. Pursuant to a directive of the Executive Committee of the National Legislative Conference issued early this year, members of the Executive Committees of the NCSLL and the NSSL were invited to membership on the Committee. An excellent example of this cooperation occurred on June 10, 1971, when a panel of five legislators representing the three national organizations testified before the House Ways and Means Committee in support of general revenue sharing.
FUTURE ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE
In many respects the meeting at the White House on May 18, 1971, between state legislative leaders, the President and cabinet officials marked a new high point in recent efforts to increase the involvement of state legislators in intergovernmental relations. Every effort will be made to assure that the Intergovernmental Relations Committee remains at the forefront of this movement. To this end, consideration is being given to increasing significantly the size of the six Task Forces in order to achieve an optimum operating level and a greater degree of representativeness. The possibility of holding some Committee and Task Force meetings outside Washington will also be explored. Increasing emphasis will also be given to the earliest possible involvement of the members of the Committee in the development of federal legislation which would affect the States.
While the development of policy on major intergovernmental issues will remain the central thrust of the Committee, the implementation of this policy must receive the highest priority. The best of policy is of little value if it is not forcefully advocated by state legislators. In this connection, it is imperative that state legislatures develop an in-house capability to respond to federal-state issues.
Proper utilization of the services of the Washington Office of the Council of State Governments and the Intergovernmental Relations Committee should remain a high priority.
The Executive Committee of the National Legislative Conference has urged a strengthening of federal-state relations operations within state legislatures. Additionally, the 1971 edition of Suggested State Legislation contains a resolution providing for each legislature to ultimately establish a staffed Joint Committee on Federal-State Relations or staff a functioning commission on Interstate Cooperation. The further strengthening of the role of our Legislative Federal-State Coordinators is also imperative. These individuals serve as the prime contact for the Committee and the Washington Office in communications with a particular legislature. The coordinators met for the first time during the 1970 Annual Meeting of the National Legislative Conference. On March 18, 1971, a one-day briefing on major federal-state issues was held for the coordinators in Washington, D.C.
ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is composed of seventy-eight state legislators representing thirty-seven States. Representative John Concily of Illinois has served as Chairman of the Committee in 1971. During the year, the Committee held three meetings in Washington, D.C. and a final session in conjunction with the 1971 Annual Meeting of the National Legislative Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The substantive work of the Committee is handled primarily by six subject matter Task Forces on Commerce and Transportation, Government Operations, Human Resources, Natural Resources, Public Safety and Urban Affairs. Each Task Force is staffed by a Special Assistant from the Washington Office of the Council of State Governments.
The Task Forces devote the major portion of their time to policy development. In this process, experts from both the private and public sector are drawn upon. Final policy positions developed by the Task Forces are submitted for approval to the full Committee and then to the Legislators' Section of the National Legislative Conference at the Annual Meeting. Approved policy statements are printed in a final report of the Committee and given wide distribution. Policy positions are also communicated to Congressional Committees and other federal officials through testimony and informal contacts. While the Committee does not purport to speak for all state legislators, it does provide a valuable representative state legislative viewpoint on intergovernmental issues.
The Intergovernmental Relations committee is reconstituted every year at the prercgative of the incoming National Legislative Conference President.
Based on all indications; the next year should be a productive one for the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Strengthened in size and quality and building on an excellent record, the Committee should expand considerably its contribution in the intergovernmental arena.
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION
The Task Force concerned itself with those areas of transportation such as planning, development, policing and regulation as they involve all modes of transportation. Most of its efforts were discussions of the National Tranpsortation Policy, National Transportation Needs Study, and trends and problems facing transportation as a whole. The Committee requested the U.S. Department of Transportation that in developing a National Transportation Policy, a National Transportation Needs Study and legislation that it provide the appropriate opportunity for input and adequate consideration of ideas and suggestions from state legislators.
In the field of commerce, the Task Force limited its view to that of regulatory procedures. It is within the area of deregulation or regulatory consolidation that a great deal of work is proposed for the coming year.
National transportation policy and 1972 transportation. needs study
States must broaden their technological and financial role in transportation. The bringing about of a more balanced and integrated transportation policy and system responding to the social needs as well as economic demands should be done in a way which will reflect local, state, multi-state, and national goals and policies.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference suggests that planning of a comprehensive national transportation system should reflect the needs and priorities established by local and state governments. This will lead to the development of a system which integrates the methods of public financing and supervision of priorities and interrelations of existing and alternate modes of transportation. States must broaden their technological and financial involvement in development of transportation systems.
State departments of transportation
State Departments of Transportation are increasingly becoming the mechanism by which state government is meeting the challenge of providing comprehensive and efficient transportation services. Thirteen States have created Departments of Transportation with responsibility for overall planning, development, implementation, and administration of efficient transportation programs. This legislative process has taken place in an effort to bring about a central agency with authority for consolidating and coordinatingthe development of all transportation systems.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recommends that, in order to bring about the proper cooperation between the different transportation agencies in planning, developing, and implementing a balanced transport system, the States should enact Departments of Transportation or designate another coordinating agency. This would provide the consolidation required to bring about a truly integrated transport system.
Aviation
In meeting the transportation needs of the pepole, states must strengthen their role in aviation. There is a great need for more adequate and frequent air transportation service to the communities of a State, regardless of size.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges the state aeronautics agencies to take action to develop and implement comprehensive plans combining both intrastate and interstate needs. Aviation system plans should consider the large, well-established air carrier airports and reflect the possibility of fostering and encouraging another type of air carrier service – air taxi and commuter. Guidelines for the development of this service should come from the Civil Aeronautics Board, with the regulatory responsibility at the individual State level.
There is an immediate need to reduce noise pollution in order to protect the health and welfare of our citizens, and this responsibility is vested in the state governments. In certain areas, it is desirable to also recognize federal responsibility and the immediate initiation of coordinated, remedial action is recommended.
Highway safety standards
Due to the continuing problem of traffic accidents, deaths, injuries and property damage, the federal government and the States have established a nationwide safety program. The federal role is one of guidance and encouragement to the States, which have the basic responsibility of highway safety.
The National Legislative Conference encourages in every way possible the adoption of the National Highway Safety Program Standards as soon as possible.
Urban mass transit
In developing the basic theory, planning and implementation of urban mass transit systems, greater recognition must be given to the requirement that mass transit is of no value unless utilized. Attention must be given to methods and procedures to make it economically advantageous, convenient, and efficient to utilize public instead of private transportation.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges States to move immediately to better understand mass transit when addressing the problem of transporting people within populated areas. In many communities, large and small, mass transit is the only method of transportation not available. States should be aware and take action to establish state authorities or municipal authorities which move to create mass movement of people in these areas.
Railroads
The expense of constructing and maintaining grade crossings is a primary expense that cannot be met by the companies. Most of the damage to crossings is occasioned by trucks and auto traffic and should be the responsibility of the general public to maintain. Grade separations would aid a great deal in this regard as well as being a very favorable safety factor. Such grade separations have been constructed along the interstate system and should now be done on the primary system.
The separation of grade crossing from the primary highway system in the United States should be accomplished as soon as possible out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund established under the road-use tax.
Under the Amtrak authority, a State or city may contract for extended passenger service in return for a guarantee against a set percentage of losses occasioned by such service. Each State should study the feasibility of such an agreement to determine its economic soundness and relationship to the constant increase in the use of cars and buses to transport passengers on local and regional trips.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges States to encourage a systematic abandonment of railroad spur lines and certain secondary roads within the States to strengthen the railroad system.
States should further study the feasibility of enlarging existing rail passenger service within each State by entering into a guarantee agreement with the Amtrak Corporation, Congress should establish authority for joint truck-rail tariffs to encourage an orderly and economic flow of commodities from the producer to the market.
Auto accident reparations – no-fault
With respect to the demand for reform of our system of determining and paying reparations for injuries from automobile accidents and the establishment of so-called "no-fault" insurance' it is essential that the States develop an adequate response. This must include necessary revisions of the laws of negligence and procedure and the requirement for appropriate insurance coverages and procedures to accomplish a no-fault or modified fault concept.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that all States give careful consideration to uniform legislation in this field now being drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, with the cooperation and assistance of the Council of State Governments.
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Revenue sharing
The National Legislative Conference has consistently supported the principle that the Federal Government share a portion of its revenue with the States. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference reiterates its stand on this issue and further recommends, consistent with criteria approved by the Conference in 1968, that a revenue sharing plan be formulated on the following basis:
(1) Congressional appropriations for revenue sharing should be made on the basis of a fixed percentage of the federal individual income tax base.
(2) Congressional appropriations for revenue sharing should be made to a trust fund established in the Treasury of the United States.
(3) A specified proportion of shared revenues should not be reserved for the (17) poorest States.
(4) The sums appropriated should be allocated among the States based on state population modified by state tax effort. State tax effort would include state and local taxes and net profits from state liquor stores relative to personal income.
(5) Congress in its appropriations to the States should specify a pass-through formula to local governments which will indicate the state and local share of the federal monies allocated to the States.
(6) The pass-through allocation by formula should be made to relatively populous cities and counties based on population and revenue effort.
(7) An alternative state allocation plan of distribution should be accepted if (a) each city and county receives an amount equal to or greater than that allocated by formula, or (b) city and county councils or governing bodies representing fifty percent of those entities entitled to receive at least fifty percent of payments by formula concur in the State's alternative plan.
(8) The federal pass-through formula should provide for sharing revenue only with general purpose units of government.
(9) State and local taxes levied for education should be included in ascertaining the state-local effort of individual States.
(10) Any federal revenue sharing bill should not include a provision that any unit of government entitled to funds under the provisions of the bill maintain its present level of tax effort in order to retain an interest in the funds allocated.
(11) No functions should be excluded from expenditures made from shared funds.
Constitutional convention-revenue sharing
"The need for revenue sharing between the Federal Government and the States is essential to the continued vitality of the federal system and has grown more acute each year. The failure of the Congress to act on revenue sharing is so destructive to the future of federalism that action must be taken by the States themselves to accomplish this goal.
The National Legislative Conference calls upon the legislaturesof the several States to act pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution to make application to the Congress which shall call a Convention on application of two-thirds of the States for the purpose of amending the United States Constitution.
Such call shall be for the sole and exclusive purpose of proposing to the several States a Constitutional Amendment which shall provide that a portion of the taxes on income levied pursuant to Amendment XVI of the United States Constitution shall be made available each year to state governments and political sub-divisions thereof without limiting directly or indirectly any use of such monies for any purpose not inconsistent with any other provision of the Constitution."
Constitutional convention procedures Article V of the Constitution of the U.S. provides that on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments.
This constitutional provision represents a significant grant of authority to the States for a potential role in the future development of our constitutional system. To date, this important grant of power under Article V to the States has remained unused, largely because of the absence of procedural machinery necessary to effectuate it.
However, it is realistic to presume that a call for a constitutional convention by the requisite number of state legislatures is a probability in the future. In the last two Congresses, Senator Samuel J. Ervin, Jr. of North Carolina has introduced federal legislation which provides procedures for calling constitutional conventions for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. on application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference supports the efforts by Senator Ervin in this area and calls upon the Congress to promptly enact legislation to implement Article V of the Constitution.
Special revenue sharing
As part of his plan to revitalize the American system of government, the President has proposed to the Congress a Special Revenue Sharing Program. Under Special Revenue Sharing, 130 separate grant programs would be grouped under six broad headings: Law Enforcement, Urban Community Development, Manpower, Rural Community Development, Transportation and Education. Eleven billion dollars would be made available to state and local governments in the first full year of operation of the total program. All programs would require conformity to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Legislation covering each of the six areas has been submitted to the Congress.
The Intergovernment Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference supports the effort of the President and others in the Congress to improve the delivery of federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments. Because of the importance of this issue to state government, the Committee urges Congress to give prompt hearings to the Special Revenue Sharing legislation.
Any legislation approved by the Congress in this area should include specific language assuring the direct action of state legislatures in the distribution of funds made available under the new programs to the States.
Planning and management assistance to the States
The President, as a part of his revenue sharing program, has asked the Congress to authorize a new $100 million program of Planning and Management Assistance to States, areawide agencies and localities. The purpose of this new program is to strengthen the capacity of state and local governments to govern effectively.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference believes that if state legislature are to assume a meaningful role in any decentralization programs enacted by the Congress, it is imperative that these bodies be eligible for assistance under the President's proposed new $100 million program of Planning and Management Assistance.
Campaign expenditures
The cost of running for public office in this country has reached a crisis level. In the past decade, these costs have doubled. The total cost of campaigns for all elective offices in the United States is projected at $400 million in 1972. Increased use of the broadcast media, particularly television, has accented the problem. At the national level, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1926 was the last major attempt to limit campaign giving and spending. In the last several sessions of the Congress, serious consideration has been given to legislation that would reduce political spending. These Congressional efforts are motivated by a growing awareness on the part of public office holders and citizens alike that campaign costs must be checked.
On May 6, 1971, the Senate Commerce Committee ordered reported S. 382, a major campaign reform bill. Certain provisions of this legislation would apply to candidates for state or local offices. Broadcasters would be required to use the lowest unit charge as the rate for legally qualified candidates purchasing broadcast time. In addition, the legislation permits the States, by law, to place state or local offices under a spending limitation for the broadcast media.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference supports the principle that all candidates for public office be afforded the opportunity to purchase broadcast time at the lowest unit charge. The Committee further recommends federal legislation to permit a credit against the federal personal income tax for contributions to candidates for all public offices.
State and local bonds
A number of bills have been introduced in the present session of the Congress which would shift a portion of state and local borrowing from the tax-exempt to the taxable market. In many instances, this objective would be achieved by the creation of federal agencies to act as intermediaries between the state and local governments and the public in the marketing of municipal bonds. These agencies would buy tax-exempt bonds and then either resell them on a taxable basis or issue their own taxable obligations.
In the last Congress, legislation dealing with FHA and Hill-Burton Programs created what amounts to small urban operations and taxable municipal securities. In addition, Title I of the 1970 Housing Act allows States and localities to issue taxable bonds and receive a federal guarantee and subsidy.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recognizes the vital importance of the tax-empt bond market as a source for the capital needs of state and local governments.
In order to insure the future strength of this market as a source of capital funds at reasonable rates of interest, the Committee recognizes the importance of broadening investor participation in this area.
With respect to any federal legislation to restructure the municipal bond market, the Committee recommends that Congress adhere to the following criteria:
1. Use of any federal credit assistance program by state and local governments should be entirely voluntary.
2. The program should be automatically applicable to all legitimate state and local borrowing.
3. Such assistance should not be subject to elaborate administrative procedures.
4. Access of state and local governments to the existing tax-exempt market should not be impaired.
Proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1971
Federal aid to States and localities represents a major aspect of our federal system. Grant outlays have grown from less than one billion dollars in 1946 to over 30 billion dollars in the current fiscal year. There are now in existence over 1,000 federal assistance programs. The growing dollar volume and complexity of these programs have a heavy impact on state government. It is imperative that the federal grant-in-aid system work to the best advantage of governments at all levels and ultimately our citizens.
With passage of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, Public Law 90-677, the Congress took affirmative action to strengthen effective delivery of federal assistance programs.
In the present Congress, H.R. 30, the proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1971, has been introduced in the House. This legislation would build on the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969 to strengthen further the administration of federal grant-in-aid programs.
Specifically, H.R. 30 provides for: (1) consolidation of federal grant-in-aid programs, (2) improvement in Congressional and executive oversight of federal assistance programs, (3) acceptance of state audits of federal grant-in-aid programs where adequate, and (4) a quarterly revised compendium of federal domestic assistance programs.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference supports efforts to improve the administration of federal grant-in-aid programs and calls upon Congress to give prompt consideration to H.R. 30.
Federal grants-in-aid to State legislatures
Since the early 1960's, state legislators have evidenced an increasing awareness of the potential value of federal grants to state legislatures for research and planning. Initial efforts to obtain such grants met with little success as a result of a reluctance on the part of federal officials to fund such projects. At the urging of the National Legislative Conference and other interested organizations and individuals, Robert P. Mayo, then Director of the Bureau of the Budget, issued a memorandum on December 22, 1969, stating that: "State legislatures and state legislative agencies are eligible to apply for federal grants-in-aid unless a federal statute specifically excludes their eligibility." Following the issuance of this memorandum, a number of state legislatures have applied and received funding for research projects. However there is evidence that some federal agencies still have a negative attitude toward granting funds to state legislatures.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that all executive departments and agencies of the federal government comply with the letter and spirit of the 1969 memorandum of the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) stating that state legislatures and their legislative agencies are eligible to apply for federal grants-in-aid for research and demonstration projects.
Compatible intergovernmental information systems
The growth of federal assistance programs to States and localities, whether in categorical grants-in-aid or in shared revenues dramatically increases the need for accurate and timely intergovernmental program and fiscal information.
The States are moving rapidly toward the creation of management information systems for government decision-makers. A recent report of the National Association for State Information Systems indicates that the States are spending in excess of $300 million annually for the development and operation of such systems. It is increasingly clear, however, that the States' further progress in this important area of government management is now hindered by fragmented and uncoordinated developments at the federal level. In spite of the progress we have made under the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 and OMB Circular A-98, much needs to be done.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recommends that the Office of Management and Budget exert vigorous leadership toward coordinating information systems development within federal agencies, particularly those systems which have an impact upon state government.
Some specific issues with which the States are concerned include:
1. The need for States to become involved earlier in federal spending decisions which will directly affect state budgeting. Many decisions at the state level could be better made if more definitive information on federal spending priorities were available at an early date. Information on spending priorities is directly related to the need for state-by-state information on program appropriations and quarterly reports on program expenditure levels.
2. Action toward uniform data reporting requirements among federal agencies. Presently, state data systems must be tailored to meet unnecessarily divergent reporting requirements.
3. Increased coordination of technical assistance to States for improving planning and management of information systems. Coordination of these federal assistance programs would help develop systems which are compatible from State to State, and between States and the federal government.
4. Coordination and sustained funding for innovative model projects which benefit the broadest range of government agencies.
5. The elimination of federal agency policies requiring single purpose or designated use of federally supported data processing facilities. At present, state central management staff may be denied the use of state functional agency equipment because of regulations promulgated by counterpart federal agencies.
Development of sub-State district systems
Sub-state districting is an issue of growing concern to state and local elected officials. The essence of the concept lies in the creation of a statewide system of multi-jurisdictional planning units composed of elected officials or appointed representatives and provided with a professional staff.
The sub-state districting concept is an organizational one. It proposes a structure which cuts across the array of substantive programs, enabling elected officials to effectively coordinate the use of federal, state, and local resources in solving areawide problems.
The sub-state district is essentially an aggregate of local governments, and local acceptance and commitment are vital to successful implementation. The critical catalyst must be applied by state government, however, since the ability to designate district boundaries, enact enabling legislation, and provide needed financial and technical support lies at the state level.
At the present time eight major federal programs require a sub-state regional approach to planning and program delivery. Each of these programs has its own rules, regulations and guidelines and each are different with regard to organizational structure, broad representation, program coverage and staffing arrangement.
Further rational and good government actions are virtually prohibited to the uncoordinated and competing array of federal assistance programs operating at the substate district level. This situation exists in spite of two Office of Management and Budget Circulars specifically addressed to this problem, Circulars A-80 and A-95.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference, therefore, recommends that the Office of Management and Budget give more serious attention and staffing to the implementation by federal agencies of Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-80 and A-95 concerning sub-state district organizations.
The Committee also recommends that:
1. Each State give serious consideration to the enactment of state legislation that would better enable local-general public governments to cooperate in the solution of areawide problems.
2. That state agencies use these sub-state districts for the administration of state programs to the greatest extent possible.
3. That federally supported sub-state district organizations be made responsible to those organizations authorized by the State and established and operated by local officials.
The role of State government in Federal programs
In recent years, the Congress has shown an increasing inclination to enact programs which fail to recognize the central role of state government in our federal system. A current example of this dangerous development is the consideration of general revenue sharing legislation by the House Ways and Means Committee that would bypass the States and channel funds directly to county and local governments. Unless this trend is immediately reversed the intergovernmental structure of the Nation will be seriously undermined.
The National Legislative Conference, therefore, expresses its strong opposition to the enactment of any domestic federal program which falls to provide a primary role for state government.
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
The deliberations of the Human Resources Task Force during 1971 have been primarily concerned with needed federal actions and related State actions which would "reform" the present welfare system and change the related manpower, social, rehabilitation, and training services complementary to such reforms. In addition, health, vocational education, family planning, and government reorganization were topics considered by the Task Force. The Task Force conferred with various federal officials to learn of the alternatives being considered and to convey their views directly to such officials on needed federal actions to improve federal grantin-aid programs administered by States.
A number of the new policy statements recommended by the Human Resources Task Force urged specific actions by State Legislatures in the human resources program field. The Task Force feels that effective and efficient operation of welfare, manpower and training, health, rehabilitation and social services programs requires not only federal legislative and administrative changes but also actions by State Legislatures to develop and provide improved organizational and service delivery capabilities by States.
Federal assumption of the cost of welfare
The problem of welfare is of major concern to state legislators because of its fiscal impact on the States and the serious social consequences of the problem. Welfare is a national problem and, given the extent of federal control over States' welfare programs, States are left very little control over the fiscal resources they are required to commit to the welfare program. In fact, the growth and direction of welfare programs is largely controlled by the Federal Government. The continuing growth of welfare costs has caused a fiscal crisis in state and local government.
Therefore, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recommends that the Federal Government assume on a phased basis the total cost of welfare cash assistance programs for families, the aged, the blind, and disabled and the present general assistance programs in States.
Administration of welfare programs
The Social Security Amendments of 1971 (H.R. 1), which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June and is now being considered by the Senate Finance Committee, proposes to make a number of major changes in the area of administration of the cash assistance programs.
There are strong financial incentives for States to contract with the Federal Government to administer the entire cash assistance program, including:
1. The bill requires that the Federal Government administer, by July 1, 1973, the 100 percent federally financed federal minimum standard cash assistance payment for families and the aged, blind, and disabled.
2. If a State chose to supplement the federal payment, it could contract with the Federal Government to administer such a supplement and the costs of administration would be 100 percent federal. However, if a State chose to administer the state supplementary payment, the State would have to bear the full cost of administration, and it would not be covered by the fiscal protection provision in the bill which limits future state costs to calendar 1971 welfare costs.
3. The Federal Government may contract with a State for up to one year, after July I, 1972, to administer the federal payment and the state supplement with the cost of administration being 100 percent federal.
4. States would be required under Section 507 of the bill to accept responsibility for administering under a federal contract in the fiscal year beginning July I, 1972, all or such part or parts as the Federal Government may decide of the federal assistance program for the aged, blind, and disabled and for aid to families with children. However, no such agreement could apply in the administration of such programs with respect to the working poor. If a State refused, it would not be eligible for federal payments under the other grant-in-aid titles of the Social Security Act, including social services, Medicaid, etc. After the transition period, the financial incentives for total federal administration would apparently apply in all cases.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that welfare reform legislation provide for 100 percent federal assumption of the cost of administering the state supplementation of the basic federal minimum payment of aid to the aged, blind, disabled and families, regardless of whether or not a State chooses to contract with the Federal Government to administer any or all of these programs.
Work incentives and encouraging family stability
Welfare programs developed should provide optimum encouragement for recipients to seek employment and for family stability.
Therefore, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recommends that total cash assistance benefits to families be provided in an equitable manner so as to provide work incentives to encourage recipients to seek employment and to encourage fathers to remain with their families. Laudable efforts to cover the working poor can and must be implemented in such a way as to fulfill these goals. This will require assistance to families where the husband remains in the home.
Federal assumption of the cost of medical assistance
The cost of providing medical assistance to the poor through the Medicaid program, as with the welfare cash assistance programs, has resulted in an onerous fiscal burden to the States. As originally conceived, the cost of this program was seriously underestimated, both as to the amount of use by the consumer and the resultant inflationary costs for health care. Just as in the welfare cash assistance programs, the Medicaid program is a national problem, and control of the growth and direction of this program is heavily dependent on national legislative and administrative action.
Therefore, the intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that the cost of medical assistance programs to the poor be assumed on a phased basis by the Federal Government.
Federal participation in the cost of longterm care under Medicaid
In the House-passed Social Security Amendments of 1971 (H.R. 1), there are various provisions intended to pressure States to more closely control the utilization of long term institutional care under Medicaid under threat of reducing federal participation in the cost of such care.
These provisions include:
a. Unless a State can prove to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare that there is in effect in the State an adequate independent medical audit and utilization review procedure for skilled nursing home programs under Medicaid, the federal share in the cost of nursing home care under Medicaid will be reduced.
b. After an individual's first 60 days of care in a general or TB hospital, the federal share of the cost will be reduced by one-third.
c. Federal share of the treatment costs for mental hospital patients would be reduced by one-third after 90 days, with no federal participation after 365 days of care for the lifetime of a particular individual. The 90-day period may be extended for an additional 30 days if the State shows that the patient will benefit therapeutically from such an additional period of hospitalization.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference, therefore, recognizes that there is a need in the Medicaid program for improved utilization review procedures and independent medical audits to insure that a certain level and kind of care is actually needed by patients. However, proposals to reduce federal matching of long-term care are opposed because the time periods are arbitrary, do not recognize variable patient needs, and would increase costs to States.
The Committee recommends instead, that the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, in cooperation with the States, evaluate the barriers and problems involved in making utilization review and independent medical audit procedures more effective in controlling medicaid costs and recommend means to overcome such barriers and problems.
Social services to combat dependency
The continuing expansion of social service programs by States to deal with social and family problems which have or potentially could lead to dependency and total reliance on welfare cash assistance is an essential part of a welfare reform program.
In addition, States should be encouraged to comprehensively plan and interrelate the various social services for individuals, such as child development, family planning, development of alternatives to institutional care, family counseling and services needed to complement manpower and job placement programs.
In the Administration's proposed Social Services Reform Amendment of June 1970, in the proposed child development legislation of 1971, and in the day care provisions of the welfare reform legislation, it is proposed that various size cities, regardless of present designation of responsibilities for such services by a State, have the option to do their own planning, designation of service delivery agencies, or administration of such social services. This approach would be disastrous to any continuing concept of statewide responsibility and accountability and would contribute to the undermining of both the legislative and executive branches of state government.
Furthermore, grave constitutional questions may be raised with regard to the powers of the Federal Government to confer authority on the cities without regard to the States.
Present provisions in the Social Security Act provide that federal funds are available to match on a 3-1 (federal-state) ratio whatever funds are appropriated by a State to provide such welfare- related social services. The Administration proposed that this "open ended federal appropriation" approach be discontinued. This proposal is included in the Social Security Amendments of 1971, i.e. that a number of States be limited to the present federal funds available for such services. It would appear that additional funds for those States that are presently above average in their spending for such social services per poor person in the State would probably not receive an increase in federal funds until the spending for social services in the "below average" States is up to the average spending for social services in all states.
Current provisions for funding of social services under the Social Security Act would be preferable to these new proposals.
Therefore, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recommends that the Federal Government encourage state initiative in the provision of social services that will alleviate the dependency of families and individuals on welfare by continuing the open ended availability of federal matching funds for state social services and administration of welfare cash assistance programs.
The administration of federal grants for social services under the Social Security Act should continue to utilize the States as the primary focal point for the administration of social services and should not bypass state governments in the planning and administration of such services.
Providing State options in establishing work requirements and evaluating the employability potential of welfare recipients
The problems, handicapping conditions or impediments which prevent a family unit from being fully self-supporting are many and varied. The tendency has been in the current Congressional actions in welfare reform to attempt to statutorily define those heads of family welfare recipients that are deemed to be "unemployable" and required to register for work and training compared to those deemed "unemployable" and not required to register.
The need for a greater degree of objective appraisal of the potential for some extent of employment by a welfare recipient is recognized. The many variables involved require that federal statutes provide the opportunity for States to develop alternative criteria and systems for evaluating the employability potential of welfare recipients. Such state-developed systems and criteria may, for example, utilize comprehensive methods now used by state vocational rehabilitation agencies.
The wide variations in employability potentials of welfare recipients and the changing nature of an individual's family, social, mental, and physical characteristics suggest the possible need for more complex gradations of who is employable and who is unemployable than is presently contemplated. Also, the "unemployable" classification by statute and administrative separation may be negative and demeaning for those with handicapping conditions seeking to achieve at least partial self-support. In addition, there is the difficulty in weighing the pros and cons regarding monetary and social costs of achieving or sustaining employment for the parent in a single-parent family. Also, employability is directly related to whether the job market at a point in time can use a particular skill of a particular individual on a continuing basis.
Standards must also be developed for both pre-school and after school day care and child development services to ensure that such services that free mothers from child rearing are adequate and do not become the cause of future behavioral problems leading to dependency or anti-social behavior in the children so affected.
Unless there are effective client evaluation and appraisal activities in the manpower- rehabilitation-social services program for welfare recipients or other disadvantaged, low skilled, or handicapped individuals, the training and job placement efforts may be unsuccessful in achieving self-support and wasteful in the use of the public funds and limited personnel and facilities which could have been put to more effective use. Therefore, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that: The Federal definition of those welfare recipients required to register for work or training provide the opportunity for States to develop and implement alternative criteria and systems for evaluating the employability potential of welfare recipients.
Welfare reform: State fiscal relief provisions and provisions for cost of living benefit increases
In the present Social Security Act, limitations are not placed on the level of cash assistance benefits for which federal matching funds are available. Therefore, there is a wide variation among States as to level of benefits. This funding approach of responding to state-determined payment levels has not created federal matching barriers to increasing welfare payment standards.
However, federal welfare reform legislation recently reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee would change the current federal-state fiscal and program relationship of the Federal Government responding to state cash assistance payment levels. Instead, the approach in current legislation is to have a "federal minimum standard" with full federal financing for welfare and health services for all low income people, to apply uniformly throughout all States, and to be federally administered. In States that presently have higher cash assistance standards, the cost of adding on or supplementing the federal minimum would not be directly shared by matching funds from the Federal Government.
The result of this proposed change away from a federal matching grant-in-aid system to a fully federally financed minimum standard system affects States in different ways. Of course, it is most advantageous to those States under or near the federal minimum standards established by Congress. Current federal sharing of the cost of welfare has not inhibited and, in fact, has encouraged increasing payment levels. Furthermore, the cost of living and standard of living variations which at least partially explain some of the current state variations compound the inequity which may result from such a change in federal-state fiscal relations., An abrupt change to a federal minimum standard system without federal cost sharing in state supplementation of benefits or services up to at least current levels, or some other fiscally comparable federal share of benefits and services available to a State, would be inequitable. Also, States will continue to have pressure applied to increase their payment levels at least to compensate for increases in the cost of living.
Therefore, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that the state welfare costs "hold harmless" provision in the proposed Social Security Amendments of 1971 (H.R. 1) should provide that, in addition to not requiring a State to spend more for cash assistance in any of the five years beginning July 1, 1972, than it spent in calendar year 1971 if it did not exceed its Jan. I, 1971, payment level plus the cash bonus value of food stamps available at that time, that there be federal participation in the costs to a State of: (1) maintaining present levels of support; (2) increasing payment levels to reflect cost-of-living increases; and (3) increasing payment levels to pass on to recipients the benefits of social security increases.
Social services, vocational rehabilitation and training, and employment services-State role and needed options
In the past few years, federal legislative and administrative actions have produced increased similarities in the services which can be provided and the clientele to be served under the welfare-related social services program, the vocational rehabilitation programs, and the employment services programs.
Vocational Rehabilitation Programs:
Until recent years, the traditional clientele of vocational rehabilitation programs have been those whose disabilities are the result of medically definable physical or mental impairments. More recently, the clientele has expanded to those whose instability consists of behavioral disorders characterized by deviant social behavior or impaired ability to carry out normal relationships with family and community, which may result from vocational, educational, cultural, social, environmental, or other factors. Under such definition, those eligible for vocational rehabilitation under certain circumstances include individuals who are public offenders, alcoholics, drug addicts, or the socially and culturally deprived, provided such individual is substantially handicapped in finding and holding suitable employment.
Nationally, vocational rehabilitation programs are supposed to include as a goal in each year the rehabilitation of 35,000 welfare recipients as part of their clientele.
Welfare-Related Services:
The social services programs funded under Part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act are funded according to the present regulations to provide services "to maintain and strengthen family life, foster child development, and achieve permanent and adequately compensated employment" for welfare families. In addition, social services funded under this and other welfare titles of the Social Security Act are to provide services to individuals in circumstances or having social problems such that they are likely to be potential welfare recipients; for example, alcoholics or drug addicts.
State Employment Services:
State employment service agencies are also funded through a federal grant-in-aid program. The employment service function was, until recent years, primarily concerned with obtaining job listings from employers and providing a job information exchange.
Only since about 1962 has the state employment service been designated responsible also for providing services for the disadvantaged or the unskilled or the welfare client with numerous social and behavioral problems with the intent to assist such individuals to become self- supporting. The employment services, in response to this new mandate, have developed various new services, either as a part of the traditional job information exchange functions or, in other cases, by establishing separate organizational units at the local level to carry out such services. In addition, various attempts have been made, organization-wide and by individuals in the employment service, to develop team efforts with vocational rehabilitation and welfare social Service agencies in providing what was deemed to be necessary employability development services.
These cooperative efforts include the Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System (CAMPS) which is intended to be a means for communication between the various federal, state, and local public or nonprofit private agencies to enable them to achieve some degree of cooperative resource allocation planning in States and designated areas of States. While the CAMPS effort has accomplished, on an ad hoc basis, incremental gains in improving the interagency procedures for joint agency efforts to provide services to an individual, the effort has been frustrated by a number of factors. These factors include the fragmented federal legislative authority for the manpower or employability development services plus each program requiring or encouraging separate administering organizations at the federal and state level or the programs being operated by direct federal-to-local project contracts without meaningful state level involvement. These problems have then been compounded by federal administration which can at times be characterized as sorely lacking in central leadership over the interrelated manpower, vocational training, rehabilitation, and social service programs and unwillingness to provide the flexibility in the individual programs, budgeting, and programming procedures possible under present law which would facilitate joint program agency planning at the state level.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges States to provide for the establishment of an organizational and policy framework through state legislative and/or executive authority for coordinating various development services. Such services should be designed to help make self-supporting or to improve the employability of those persons who are unemployed, employed only part-time, or employed at or near the poverty level. In such an effort, the state should devote special attention to reaching the chronically unemployed whose situation is more difficult by reason of age, physical condition, educational limitations, obsolete or inadequate skills, minority status, and inexperience at work.
To overcome fragmented federal legislative authority and administrative leadership, the Committee recommends that federal programs providing for welfare-related social services, vocational rehabilitation and training, and employment services allow States the option of jointly funding or organizationally and programmatically combining at the state level the services now available under these separate federal programs.
Vocational training to fit labor market needs
A problem cited in many vocational training programs is that of providing training for an individual for an occupation only to find, upon completion of the program, that no available job opportunities exist. Such a situation causes frustration for the trainee and is wasteful of public funds. Adequate information is not available at the present time, at the state or local level, for determining those skills and occupations for which individuals should be trained.
Because of the fluid nature of the job market and economy, a perfect picture of needs over the long run will not be possible. However, a minimum amount of federal resources has been allocated for programs to obtain such job market information compared to what the need is for such planning in the manpower program field.
Consequently, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that increased state and local efforts with federal financial assistance be committed on an ongoing basis for programs to more accurately determine those occupations for which federal and state programs should provide training to fit labor market needs.
Job placement followup services
In manpower programs, evaluation of their effectiveness is usually measured by the number of job placements made through the program. However, a major problem for those individuals whom manpower programs are intended to serve is a lack of job stability and their inability to hold employment because of a variety of social and work adjustment reasons. Such individuals and the employers with whom they are placed require more extensive job placement follow-up services by not only the job placement specialist, but by those that provided social services, family counseling, or vocational rehabilitation services.
Such services are needed because of the need for added understanding by the employers of the new employees' particular adjustment problems and to provide such supportive services to the individual placed so as to give him a greater chance for continued employment.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference believes that increased emphasis and resources should be committed to job placement follow-up services in manpower programs for the disadvantaged in order to assist such individuals placed in a job in overcoming social and work adjustment problems and provide assistance to the employer in understanding and dealing with the new employee's adjustment problems.
The Committee further recommends that state legislators require, and be more directly involved in, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the manpower programs in their State, including determination by follow-up studies of the job success of individuals served by such programs.
The State's role in increasing public service job opportunities for the disadvantaged, handicapped, and low-skilled
Various means are available to States for increasing the availability of jobs for the disadvantaged, handicapped, and low-skilled individual. If jobs are not available in the private sector, public service employment opportunities may be expanded by creating new jobs for individuals to work in needed public services or by redesigning present public service jobs to fit different skill levels.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference believes that States should examine the entry level requirements for state civil service jobs to determine if the required qualifications and testing procedures are relevant and do not impede efforts to provide job opportunities for the low-skilled, physically and mentally handicapped, members of minority groups, or others that are socially disadvantaged.
Federal grant-in-aid manpower programs should provide flexibility in the use of such funds by States so that new public service employment opportunities to meet essential public service needs can be funded when there is an absence of adequate private sector jobs.
State government's role in organizing health care services
Nearly all of the health insurance proposals which have been introduced in Congress provide for investment in, and incentives to utilize, prepaid and organized comprehensive health care systems serving defined populations. Such systems, which are being called Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO), are basically a four-way arrangement between:
1. an organized health care delivery system, which includes health manpower and facilities capable of providing or at least arranging for all the health services a population might require;
2. an enrolled population, consisting of individuals and groups of individuals which contract with the delivery system for provision of a range of health services which the system assumes responsibility to make available;
3. a financial plan which incorporates underwriting the costs of the agreed upon set of services on a pre-negotiated and prepaid per person or per family basis; and
4. a managing organization which assures legal, fiscal, public and professional accountability.
State statutory barriers to the provision of health care through such health maintenance organizations exist in 21 States. While recognizing the need for various safeguards to protect the interests of citizens in receiving health care, such state barriers deny the population a choice as to the type of health care system it may utilize. These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The rapid rise in health care costs affecting both governmental expenditures for such services and costs to the individual private citizen for health care requires that various means be available to control health care casts. Such means should include provision of health maintenance rather than only crisis medical care and the development of incentives for cost control by the health care providers and the delivery system while continuing to ensure control of the quality of health care.
To enable citizens to have a choice concerning the type of health care systems they may utilize and to provide the opportunity for governments to develop various means to control health costs the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that States remove existing state statutory barriers to provision of health care through prepaid group practice health maintenance organizations (HMO). In addition, the Committee recommends that the federal and state governments consider steps which would encourage the development of such health maintenance organizations and other alternative health care systems in addition to the traditional fee for service, private practice systems.
Family planning services
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference believes that environmental problems resulting from overcrowding, family and child welfare problems resulting from unwanted children, and economic and public service problems resulting from rapid population growth make it imperative that States act aggressively and rapidly to make available and encourage the use of family planning services by all who desire them.
State efforts to moderate hospital costs
Increases in the cost of hospital care are greatly exceeding increases in the cost of living and are one of the major reasons for the unexpected large costs to States for the Medicaid program.
Various problems and situations have been identified which contribute to this situation, including:
Health insurance programs which pay for inpatient care but not outpatient services, thus encouraging over-utilization and inflationary pressures on costs for inpatient hospital care.
Hospital care cost reimbursement procedures through Medicare which reward inefficiencies in hospital operation.
Maldistribution or overbuilding of hospitals and hospital equipment which inflates per patient cost by under-utilization of such facilities.
Inadequate hospital accounting systems which fail to identify accurately sources of major hospital cost.
Rapid increases in hospital staff wages in efforts to catch up with other service occupation wages.
Some States have attempted to moderate hospital costs through such actions as: establishing health care costs rate setting commission, requiring state government certification of the need for health facility construction, changing emphasis on health care utilized through revising state health insurance program regulations, and providing incentives to hospitals for increased efficiency through changes in cost reimbursement procedures.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges state legislators to examine and evaluate for possible adoption the various alternative legislative and administrative actions available for moderating the rapid increases in hospital costs, including controlling unnecessary construction, controlling hospital rate increases, providing incentives for efficiencies in operation, and changing insurance regulations to effect health care utilization.
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
The Natural Resources Task Force has been charged with the responsibility of analyzing issues and developing policies relating to the quality of the environment and to the wise and rational development of the nation's natural resources. In carrying out this mandate, the task force has sought to identify the major federal-state issues and to assign priorities and courses for action.
The problems that beset the environment have been amply documented. There is no need to elaborate here on the indiscriminate use and abuse of limited natural resources which has visited so great and deleterious a burden upon the air, the water, and the land. What does bear repeating, however, is the interdependent nature of ail problems, whatever their classification. If the pleasure of living is adversely affected by one problem, the resolution of others will not provide the quality of life necessary to a happy and fruitful existence.
The Task Force recognizes the dual nature of environmental problems, embracing as they do the intrinsic conflict between the development of natural resources and the control of pollution. In this light, it accepts the challenge of achieving full utilization of natural resources within the limitations imposed by sound and effective conservation practices. To that end, it has structured its own activities to focus independently on natural resources and environmental management and to provide the forum for synthesizing opposing interests.
Within the context of this responsibility, the Committee wishes to express genuine concern for the integrity of the American political system in the face of the inevitable strains that will be put upon it as a result of the extraordinary efforts that are necessary to achieving the goal of enhanced environmental quality. Inherent in the urgent public thrust for action is a tremendous risk of neglecting those basic principles which are built into the structure of government for the preservation of American federalism. This danger derives principally from the nature of initial government response to the need for environmental control, which is almost wholly regulatory in character, hence dependent upon the police power of the State. Whatever means this Committee finds requisite to the accomplishment of its ends, they must accord with the principle that, insofar as it is possible primary responsibility should be placed at the lowest administrative level commensurate with the efficient dispatch of the assignment.
In carrying out its assigned or assumed responsibilities, the Natural Resources Task Force faces new priorities and problems:
1. Expansion of responsibilities of the Task Force's work program to include land use planning and related management approaches to protecting the environment.
2. Increased demand on the time of the individual members for committee meetings and testimony before Congress.
3. The need for identification of expertise on a state legislative level to supplement the activities of the Task Force as expert witnesses in Washington.
4. The need for increased communication and dialogue between the Task Force and the legislative committees involved in resource and environmental planning, protection and management.
In spite of present limitations, the Task Force represented the National Legislative Conference in testimony before House and Senate committees of the U.S. Congress on water pollution control, land use planning, coastal zone management, ocean dumping and the Interstate Environment Compact. The Task Force hopes, in the future, to further increase its activities in Washington so that the role of the States in the federal system becomes ever stronger.
The following issues and policy positions are built principally on the substantive base developed in last year's report, with the addition of statements on land use planning, water pollution control, erosion control, power plant siting, Interstate Mining Compact and the Interstate Environment Compact.
Federal-State water pollution control
Efforts to abate the pollution of our vital water resources will be successful only if they include the fullest cooperation and coordination of all levels of government with a clear definition of their respective roles.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference, therefore, recognizes that strong federal support is essential to effective state and local programs. To that end, it urges that federal water pollution control legislation should contain the following provisions:
1. Financing:
(a) Increased levels of funding for all programs.
(b) A higher sharing ratio of 75 percent federal and 25 percent state and local.
(c) Full reimbursement for States which have prefinanced the federal share to municipalities.
(d) 100 percent federal grants to States for implementation of requirements under new amendments to the federal water pollution control legislation.
2. Planning:
(a) Consolidation of federal planning programs including both administration and funding.
(b) Increased levels of support for state and local planning programs.
3. Standards:
(a) Minimum national standards to prevent further degradation of water resources.
(b) Non-preemption of state authority to establish standards higher than those set by the federal government.
4. Enforcement:
(a) Left to the States if the problem dealt with has little or no interstate effect.
(b) Where the problem arises from interstate pollution, the Governor or Pollution Control Board should be able to enter into interstate compacts spelling out the understanding by each State (or province).
(c) Where disagreement persists or lack of initiative toward a compact continues, the Federal Court shall have jurisdiction and shall order necessary compliance by any or all parties.
(d) Amend 1899 Refuse Act to allow state permit systems to prevail where they are adopted pursuant to an approved implementation plan.
(e) Transfer enforcement provisions of 1899 Refuse Act to the Environmental Protection Agency.
5. Interstate arrangements:
(a) Encourage Congressional action which would facilitate interstate agreements for more effective state water pollution control programs.
(b) Review existing river basin commissions to determine environmental impact of ongoing programs.
Federal funding of water projects within the States
The cost/benefit ratio analysis taken alone and in narrow context, as the basis for funding water projects within the States, has outlived in usefulness, and hence must be broadened in concept.
Therefore, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference believes that:
1. There is need for a new formula (basis) for federal funding of water projects within the States; a formula which includes factors other than economic factors imposed upon the primary users of the water. These factors must be agreed upon by the States and the Federal Government, and must encompass regional, national and international perspectives.
2. New concepts should be inculcated into the formula which serves the public interest including: water pollution environmental control factors, recreational factors, aesthetic factors, and regional and national considerations.
3. Additional consideration should be given to reduced interest rates in the pay back plans and longer pay back period.
MULTIPLE USE OF WATER
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that the States study, plan for and implement the Multiple Use Concept for water, including the following areas of concern:
1. Source of the watersheds and the priority of controls thereover.
2. The use and re-use of water, including diversion systems thereof for irrigation, navigation, industrial, agricultural and municipal purposes.
3. The use or non-use of interstate compacts and international treaties respecting the use and re-use of water.
4. Means of enforcement of water use controls by state and federal court systems or by international judicial panels.
Federal-State-local programs for environmental management
The effective management of the environment can become so restrictive of traditional personal rights, that support should be given to the establishment of programs for planning and implementation at the lowest level of government capable of carrying out assigned responsibilities.
In this respect, the States should be in the position of being the prime planners, implementors, and policemen of the environment; utilizing local administration and federal funding where appropriate. The development of a program of this type in States would prevent a federal takeover of environmental control, with all its accompanying police power, which is inconsistent with the American concept of federalism.
Therefore, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recommends that federal legislation develop grant assistance programs to encourage state efforts to:
1: Establish a coordinated approach to environmental planning and management on a state, regional and local basis.
2. Provide assistance to local agencies in developing bond or other financing for capital programming.
3. Institute state supervision of standards enforcement at the local level.
4. Utilize interstate cooperation to achieve these ends.
Land use planning
Land use planning is hardly a new function of government; indeed, there is evidence of it in this country as far back as the late 1600's. But it is coming in for renewed emphasis and in a new perspective with today's increasing awareness of environmental considerations.
Land use planning is the key to environmental management and provides the wherewithal to assure the wisest use of our resources and the most efficient means of guiding growth for the mutual good of all citizens.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference believes that the planning process should involve, in appropriate degree and with regard to applicable lands, each level of cooperation among separate agencies within the same level of government.
The Committee recommends that federal legislation should set broad national policy and should encourage and assist the States to prepare and implement land use programs for the protection of areas of critical environmental concern and the control and direction of growth and development of more than local significance.
The Committee further urges that each State should:
1. Set policy and establish guidelines for land use within its borders, with particular emphasis on environmental considerations and balanced useage.
2. Direct the implementation of comprehensive local land use plans in conformance with such guidelines.
3. Reserve for itself direct determination of land use only in instances which it deems of impact or importance beyond the scope of a single locality to determine.
4. Set policy with regard to the creation of new communities.
Erosion control
Land erosion is a very important factor in water pollution. One aspect of this problem is that the use of commercial fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides has increased to its present extent with indications that their use will further increase. Presently, erosion is partially controlled on only a small proportion. of tilled land, and areas of untilled land contribute to stream pollution.
Therefore, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference believes it behooves state and local government as well as the Federal Government to encourage and assist in a broad program of erosion control, both financially and educationally.
Coastal zone management: The role for States
The need for coastal zone management legislation derives from the inestimable importance of the estuarine and coastal environment to the Nation's economy, environmental health and quality of life. The overwhelming pressures of modern industrial society threaten the complete degradation of these vital areas. The development of a coordinated federal-state approach to the solution of coastal problems began only recently with pilot studies conducted by the Marine Sciences Council.
While federal and local government involvement is essential to any effective coastal management program, States must assume primary responsibility for assuring that the public interest is served in the multiple use of the land and water of the coastal zone.
In this context, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that the optimal state role should include the following propositions:
1. A coastal Zone coordinating council, consisting of any agency heads possibly involved in coastal Zone management, should draw a state plan for the zone following an inventory. Management plans should be flexible enough to involve multiple agencies.
2. A coastal zoning board within the framework of state constitutions should be given the statutory power to implement the plan by assigning wet lands and affected uplands to specific management authorities. The board should have power of eminent domain.
3. In areas where interstate activities must be involved interstate agreement should be reached spelling out zoning for maximal protection of the involved coastal resources.
Coastal zone management: Criteria for evaluation of Federal legislation
The key to evaluating any legislation which attempts to establish a coastal program lies in the flexibility it allows States for creating management instruments most suited to their own specific conditions. States should not be bound, for example, to the creation of one powerful agency for performing all coastal management functions. This is particularly important with regard to the implementation of state plans. Providing flexibility does not foreclose the designation of a single agency as the state authority for receiving and administering federal coastal grants.
No matter how well a coastal authority bill is drawn, lack of money to implement it expeditiously will drastically reduce its effectivenesses. Action in this area has such great consequences for the Nation and moneys available to the States are so limited that a matching ratio of 2/3 federal,1/3 state funding is clearly needed. Thus coastal legislation must be adequately funded and properly apportioned if it is to be successful. Anything less may prove dysfunctional to the stated goal.
Localities must participate fully in the planning process. Legislation which seeks to completely override local autonomy can only invite determined opposition instead of needed cooperation, particularly in the initial planning stages. All levels of government must be built into the planning process in the most efficacious manner to achieve the requisite ends of enlightened resource management.
Therefore, in summary, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recommends that federal coastal zone management legislation should be:
1. Flexible; no mandated all-embracing state coastal agency.
2. Non pre-emptive, no blanket pre-emption of local zoning authority.
3. Adequately funded; no lightly funded, heavily worded project grants.
4. Properly shared; 2/3 federal-1/3 state to provide incentive.
Power plant siting
The need for a major new approach to provide for long range, coordinated planning of power needs of the Nation has been brought into focus as the result of recent conflicts between the States and federal agencies and increasing controversy between industrial and environmental interests.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference believes that it is not in the interests of the States to allow new power plant construction without a new federal-state and local partnership to accomplish the following minimum requirements:
1. Development of power plant siting programs with primary responsibility and certification procedures at the state level.
2. Promulgation of standards and criteria by the federal government to guide the States.
3. Coordination of federal rules, regulations and responsibility in a "one-step" administrative agency.
4. Authority for the States to set standards higher than those required by the federal agencies.
5. Effective one-stop certification at the federal, as well as the state or regional levels, to eliminate duplication of procedures.
6. Siting inventories on both a state and regional basis.
7. Development of regional plans for siting with criteria and guidelines provided by the Federal Government.
8. Review of the responsibilities and budgets of various interstate planning and anvironmental commissions, ad hoc committees and compacts to seek more efficient use of funding and manpower of its States.
9. Provision for federal review authority with emergency federal certification procedures in the event that construction of a facility is essential to supply extraordinary power needs.
State air pollution control
It has been asserted that: "All civilization will pass away, not from a sudden cataclysm like a nuclear war, but from gradual suffocation in its own wastes." While this statement may be somewhat dramatic, the facts of one form of waste alone, air pollution, are nothing less than astounding. The hundreds of millions of tons of aereal garbage dumped into the U.S. atmosphere each year constitute a prodigious waste of potentially valuable resources. These pollutants are damaging health, defacing buildings, and despoiling crops. They cannot be tolerated.
The States assume primary responsibility for the health and well-being of their citizens. They accept the challenge of providing clean air for people, whatever their number of density.
To achieve this end, they must be able to plan for the control of air pollution from all sources, to implement the requisite programs, and to enforce compliance with standards established to meet their respective needs.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference believes that such intent implies that States must be allowed to:
1. Establish air quality control regions of appropriate dimension, whether regional, state or interstate.
2. Establish ambient or emission standards stricter than those set by the federal government, where warranted.
3. Retain the authority to enforce regulations which they promulgate.
4. Develop multi-jurisdictional approaches to the solution of common air pollution control problems and urge that Congress expedite action on any necessary, state-approved interstate compacts.
5. Expect that federal air pollution control programs will be funded to the full extent of authorization to provide grant assistance to the States for planning and implementing programs for the control of air pollution.
Interstate mining compact
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference strongly supports the enactment of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. This Commission will work in conjunction with the States to develop and pool experiences in dealing with mining problems. Each State will continue to run independently, with the interstate agency to make recommendations to assist the mining industries in safety and improvement of their techniques.
Interstate environment compact
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges federal enactment of the Interstate Environment Compact. This bill, introduced by Sen. John L. McClellan of Arkansas in the Senate (S. 907) and by Rep. Harold R. Collier of Illinois in the House (H.R. 4819), asks the consent of Congress to an interstate compact which would facilitate the subsequent establishment of "supplementary agreements" between the States for the purpose of taking joint action to abate pollution problems which affect more than one State. It would strengthen the ability of States to deal effectively with environmental pollution problems which ultimately affect the health and welfare of all the peoples of this Nation.
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Because of the crisis nature of the problem the Task Force on Public Safety, chaired by Senator Julius Michaelson of Rhode Island, focused its attention this year on drug abuse in America.
At its first meeting on Jan. 8, 1971, the Task Force discussed the States' role in combatting narcotics and drug abuse. Rayburn Hesse of the New York State Narcotics Addiction Control Commission and a representative of the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs made presentations to the Task Force explaining their programs and how they are interrelated. The presentations and discussion convinced the Task Force members that an on-site inspection of operational programs would be desirable in conceptualizing the problem and its possible solutions. Through the excellent cooperation of various city officials arrangements were made by the staff of the National Legislative Conference for the Task Force to take a first hand look at the New York City programs, on May 9 and 10. The members toured the city's drug facilities and were briefed by the professional staff on the scope and effectiveness of programs dealing with community education, vocational and remedial education, therapeutic treatment, methadone maintenance and programs especially aimed at youth. Members of the Task Force also spent several hours riding with on-duty New York City police patrolling areas of high drug consumption. They were alarmed by both the number of known addicts and the incredible availability of narcotic drugs. It was obvious that under such conditions the rehabilitative services are inevitably overwhelmed. The members were convinced that if the problem of narcotic addiction is to be overcome it is essential that the availability of narcotic substances be drastically reduced.
At their final meeting in Washington on June 4 and 5, the Task Force discussed the availability of drugs with an official of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Alternative means of reducing international production of narcotic plants were explored as were the advisability and feasibility of curtailing domestic production of amphetamines and barbiturates.
The Task Force also considered the issue of federal criminal code revision now before the Congress. While recognizing the need to reform and revise the federal criminal code, the Task Force members were concerned that promulgation of the draft prepared by the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws would result in a marked diminution of state criminal jurisdiction. They, therefore, urged the Congress to carefully weigh the effect any revision of the federal criminal code might have on traditional state jurisdiction.
The President of the National Legislative Conference, Senator William James of Maryland, met with the Task Force on May 5 to discuss expansion of the federal writ of habeas corpus and its detrimental effect on the finality of state court decisions. The Task Force agreed to place the issue on its agenda for 1972 and directed the staff of the National Legislative Conference to survey the literature on the subject.
The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 19681
The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968 was enacted by the Congress as a companion to the Omnibus Crime Control Act. Unfortunately, the act provided two equally unacceptable alternatives for state participation. The modified bloc grant approach, which mandated a comprehensive, state prepared juvenile delinquency prevention and control plan, required that all allocated action funds go to local juvenile delinquency programs – when in a great many States, the juvenile courts, institutions, and services operate on a statewide basis. If the States chose the other option – to receive money under specific program grants from the Secretary of HEW – the state and local programs would have to compete for funding, with no state level planning being required nor apparently desired. With no authority to establish priorities among competing state and local projects, with the only role open to the State that of a program monitor, and with a set of detailed, restrictive guidelines received very late, some States decided not to even apply for funds. Moreover, the Congress voted just $5 million for the entire program in its first year, most of which was consumed by federal administrative costs. This resulted in a maximum of only $50,000 being allocated to each State.
State administrators have voiced considerable criticism of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in its handling of the program. The Office of Juvenile Delinquency, which is responsible for the program, has gone without a permanent Director until one month ago. The federal guidelines for the program took nine months to write and are twice as long as those for the much more comprehensive Omnibus Crime Control Program. No elected state officials were consulted in the drafting of the legislation or of the guidelines.
There are six separate agencies in HEW, responsible for juvenile delinquency programs. The Congressional concern is growing over the confused approach to a serious national problem.
The following policy statement is recommended:
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference reaffirms, its concern with the growing problem of juvenile delinquency. State and local efforts to control and prevent juvenile crime have been frustrated by the uncoordinated administration of multiple federal programs designed to deal with the problem. We urge the Congress to make a comprehensive study of all existing legislation and programs dealing with juvenile delinquency with a view to creating a single comprehensive agency to administer and coordinate the federal effort.
Federal criminal law reform
On January 7, 1971, the Congressionally mandated National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws filed its final report and submitted to Congress a basic draft for revision of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. At the request of President Nixon, the Department of Justice is working on an alternative to the Commission's recommendations.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference commends the Federal Government for its efforts to reform and revise the Federal Criminal Code. By doing so it follows the footsteps of a majority of the States which have revised their criminal codes in recent years. Nonetheless, certain recommendations for revision of the federal code are quite controversial, particularly those extending the reach of federal jurisdiction.
The Committee, therefore, urges the Congress to give careful consideration and study to the impact of federal code revision on state criminal justice.
Drug abuse
The problem of drug addiction in America is reaching crisis proportions. At least 1,000 babies born in New York City each year inherit their mothers' addiction to heroin. In order to purchase the quantity of heroin needed to sustain their habits, addicts in Washington, D.C., stole $300 to $500 million last year. As much as fifty percent of big city crime may be accounted for by narcotics addicts. The total financial loss can only be guessed. The cost in human suffering is impossible to quantify.
In view of the crisis nature of the problem and its national and international implications, priority attention by the federal government is essential. However, the federal effort has been fragmented and lacking in aggressive leadership.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recommends the following:
1. Creation of an office within the Executive Office of the President with authority to coordinate the various federal drug efforts with those of state and local governments.
2. Intensified efforts by the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration to identify and treat veterans who become addicted to narcotics while in military service.
3. Affirmative action up to and including diplomatic sanctions against nations producing narcotic substances to reduce the production and illegal importation of such substances.
4. Enactment of interstate compacts to foster cooperation among the States in drug control programs.
5. Development and implementation of state programs for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug offenders.
6. Consideration and study by the Congress of the need for amphetamines and barbituarates to determine whether the overproduction of such drugs should be legislatively curtailed.
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON URBAN AFFAIRS
Community growth policy
The Nation has never developed identifiable and articulated goals toward which urban growth efforts of federal agencies and state and local government can be directed to enhance maximum utilization of private enterprise in community development. There is little or no coordination between the sporadicand uncoordinated federal agency planning and that being carried out by state and local governments.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference, therefore, recommends that the following necessary actions be taken:
1. Identify and articulate a National Community Growth Policy;
2. Direct and coordinate federal agencies in their planning activity with a high level federal planning agency which is cognizant of our national goals; and,
3. Provide for and encourage the voluntary meshing of state and local government planning efforts with a federal planning effort on the national level.
Any effective urbanization policy and planning legislation should embrace these concepts and:
1. Recognize the role of state legislature in overseeing planning for urban growth as an integral part of a national urbanization program;
2. Provide the state legislature with considerable responsibility in the coordination of federal and state-local urban planning;
3. Specifically include legislative eligibility for grants under the planning aid sections; and
4. Establish a high level federal planning agencies as an independent body responsible directly to the President and not included in any particular department.
Community development grants
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges Congress and the Administration to adopt a program of Community Development Grants for all communities in need of assistance whether located inside or outside metropolitan areas. These grants should be:
1. Allocated to large metropolitan cities by means of a statutory formula.
2. Allocated to smaller cities by administrative discretion based on local need.
3. Free of local matching requirements.
4. Statutorily free of requirements for the submission of detailed plans except for a post audit review.
The Committee further recommends that cities be able to use Community Development Grant funds to carry out any of the activities now authorized under:
1. Title I of the Housing Act of 1949urban renewal, rehabilitation loans and grants, demolition, code enforcement and interim assistance;
2. Title I of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Act of 1966 – model cities supplemental grants;
3. Title VII of the Housing Act of 1965 – water and sewer, neigborhood facilities, and advance acquisition of land; and
4. Title VII of the Housing Act of 1961 – open space, urban beautification, and historic preservation.
The funding level for Community Development Grants should be guaranteed to the cities for at least a three-year period in advance of appropriations. Cities located outside metropolitan areas should be reserved a percentage of the total funds appropriated for Community Development Grants in the same proportion as they currently receive for the programs to be consolidated.
New communities
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges development of a federal "new communities" program that seeks achievement of the following objectives:
1. Relief of population pressures on large and growing urban centers;
2. Improvement of the quality of life for urban dwellers; and
3. Expansion of new employment and investment opportunities.
The Committee clearly sees the need for a truly comprehensive new communities program that is accompanied by a large financial commitment by the Federal Government since only the larger States may be able to commit long-term financial resources for the construction associated with a new communities project.
The comprehensive nature of new communities demands an equally comprehensive service response from government and the Committee urges that financial commitments to a new communities program be accompanied by an equally strong public service delivery system.
Modifications to achieve a comprehensive new communities program must contain a series of alternative public and private financial mechanisms which state governments could mix so as to target financial resources to achieve optimum impact. Such legislation should make it possible for state and local governments to choose between totally new communities, new towns-in-towns or revitalized small communities.
State governments have the requisite constitutional powers and capabilities to make a new communities program effective. Through their powers of eminent domain they can acquire land in necessary quantities. They are the best means for the identification of growth centers. They have the capacity to provide seed money and technical assistance to project sponsors. Therefore, the Committee seeks recognition of state governments as qualified sponsors of new communities projects and eligible recipients of program grants.
Obstacles to new technologies
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges Congress and the Administration to continue their vigorous support of programs designed to increase housing production through the introduction of new technologies such as mass production.
The Committee further urges recognition of state governments as the best focal point for reform of standards and practices which may impede the introduction of new technologies. State government agencies with primary responsibility for assisting local governments to respond to community problems are well along in the process of identifying and securing sizable future housing markets. Many States have already passed legislation which revises building code certification processes for industrialized housing systems. The largest remaining obstacle
is restrictive zoning practices. The Committee believes that state legislatures should consider this issue as a high priority item.
Housing
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges development of federal housing programs with the following goals:
1. To provide assistance to all persons who need help to afford decent housing;
2. To insure a stable financial market so as to continually expand housing production;
3. To encourage States to assume more responsibility for housing; and
4. To provide all citizens with a safe and sanitary environment in which to live.
The Committee also recommends that Congress and the Administration should immediately revise existing housing programs so as to increase the availability of housing by (1) simplifying program and eligibility requirements, (2) adapting finance procedures to regional market variations, (3) expanding the opportunities for home ownership, and (4) providing for housing subsidy block grants to States and cities.
The Committee recognizes that the problem of the availability of subsidized housing for low- and moderate-income families must be attacked on a housing market area basis.
Congress and the Administration should establish a comprehensive program to make better use of the existing housing stock. We are encouraged that members of the House Banking and Currency Committee are actively considering a proposal to establish "neighborhood preservation areas" and we reaffirm our position of a year ago. Such a comprehensive housing program should:
1. Include a home counseling service for prospective homeowners and home improvers;
2. Establish a government-sponsored institution to increase the volume of mortgage credit in slum areas;
3. Authorize below-market rehabilitation loans for families living in designated "improvement districts";
4. Authorize a Presidential Commission to study the impact present federal, state, and local taxes have on housing maintenance, especially to study the impact of real estate taxes on housing maintenance;
5. Encourage States to develop their own housing redevelopment programs; and
6. Provide for grants to States and cities for rehabilitation purposes.
Housing management opportunities
Federal and State Governments are currently building public housing units at the rate of approximately 400,000 units per year. The training of professional housing managers for these units has not kept pace with the rate of construction.
Therefore, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference urges that additional emphasis be placed on encouraging the development of housing management training programs. To assist in this effort, States should make available the facilities and expertise of state universities, departments of community affairs and housing finance agencies.
Uniform Federal relocation and land acquisition policies
There is a demonstrated need for uniform relocation assistance for persons and businesses displaced by federal and federally assisted projects. This concept is presently embodied in the Uniform Relocation Policy and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646).
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference recommends that such assistance should be provided in the spirit of helping those who are dislocated, and incentives to rapid resolution of conflicts should be provided. The Uniform Relocation Act should be amended so as to delete all cut-off dates for the federal funding of the first $25,000 of relocation expenses.