S. 698 and the related legislation upon which these hearings are based, are attempts to provide at least a start to better intergovernmental cooperation. Most of the titles and legislative language are familiar to a majority of the members of this committee. The titles of S. 698 providing for improved administration of grants to the States, periodic congressional review of grants, provision for Federal technical services to the State and local governments, a coordinated Federal urban assistance policy and an urban land utilization policy were passed by the Senate in the last Congress and were in varying forms the subjects of extensive hearings going back to the Sith Congress. The same is true of S. 458 and S. 735, dealing with congressional review. Title VIII of S. 698, making relocation payments and assistance available to persons and businesses displaced by Federal or federally assisted programs, and title IX, providing for a uniform land acquisition policy, are similar to S. 1681, which also passed the Senate in the last Congress and which includes additional language based on S. 1201 on which hearings were held in the 89th Congress. This legislation came out of the recommendation contained in a special study on the problems of real property acquisitions conducted by a select subcommittee of the House. The entirely new legislation in S. 698 involves title VI, providing a method for the consolidation of Federal grant programs, and my amendment to the bill which would add a new title X providing for improved coordination in the accounting, auditing and reporting of Federal assistance programs. With so much of this legislation previously heard and agreed upon on the Senate side, the question might be raised: why additional hearings? Why not move it up and out? First, we have two new members who, from the beginning of their assignment to the committee, have exhibited an active interest in intergovernmental problems and will have, I am sure, a special interest in the subject matter of S. 698. Second, the accelerating problems faced by our State and local governments-in riots and tension; in expanding urbanization; in utilizing Federal aid programs, and in developing meaningful planningmake a new look at this legislation mandatory. Third, although we have labored diligently during the past few years to perfect the legislative language and to incorporate workable concepts, the recent proliferation of studies in the field of Federal-Statelocal relations give us justification for reviewing the latest thinking on these subjects, particularly with respect to assisting persons and businesses displaced by Federal programs. Fourth, we have before us also S. 458 a and S. 735, which propose somewhat different approaches to the objective of periodic congressional review of grant-in-aid programs. These need to be considered along with the corresponding provisions of S. 698. Finally, we shall be taking testimony on S. 2981, an entirely new bill, but closely related to the other legislation we are considering. This is the Joint Funding Simplification Act of 1968, introduced by Senator McClellan at the request of the administration, to provide temporary authority to expedite procedures for consideration and approval of projects drawing upon more than one Federal assistance program, to simplify requirements for the operation of those projects, and for other purposes. This raises some of the questions we would like to explore in these hearings. S. 698 has 10 prospective titles and a great number of separate sections. It is, in fact, an omnibus bill. We welcome comments and suggestions on any and all parts of the bill, but I hope the witnesses will make a special attempt to cover some of what we consider to be the more significant current issues. In title II, we provide for grant information to the States. What is the most effective means of channeling usable information to Governors and legislators concerning the impact and scope of Federal programs? To what degree have the Bureau of the Budget and the Federal agencies coordinated their resources to provide this information? The President's message on the quality of American Government and various executive orders have stressed the need for a free flow of information of this kind and we shall be interested to learn what new approaches can be used. Title II also gives a permissive waiver to the single State agency concept. What has been the degree to which this requirement has tended to weaken executive power and leadership in State and local development programs, and how has it added to the difficulties of program coordination and planning? In title III, permitting Federal technical assistance, we made a special attempt to improve the legislative language to meet the concern of private interests also providing special and technical services to State and local governments. Were our changes adequate, and are further changes needed to assure private enterprise an appropriate role in helping to improve our Federal system? Title IV, although general in its language, is one of the most farreaching requirements in the bill. It is a congressional mandate for a Federal intergovernmental coordination policy with respect to grant administration in urban development. In view of what we now know of the urban crisis, is the language of title IV properly geared to present needs? Does it lead in the direction of a national policy that takes into account the need for balanced development of both urban and rural areas? Does it provide for coordination on the full scale necessary if national, regional, State and local priorities are all to be fairly served? This is the delicate balance of federalism. I have suggested a special "working secretariat" in the Office of the President, a National Intergovernmental Affairs Council, to speak for the President in hammering out this policy. That legislation is not a part of this bill; but this title deals with the same problem. Title V concerns congressional review of future Federal grant programs. So also do S. 458 and S. 735. This idea has been with us for a long time, but there has been continuing opposition to some of the langauge we have used, particularly with reference to the provision for expiration after 5 years of grant programs hereafter approved without a termination date. In title VI, we have a new approach to coping with the proliferation of Federal grants which, in some cases, has caused confusion in the Federal system. I would like testimony on the benefits of this proposal. What are the merits, the savings, the advantages to coordination and flexibility for State and local governments of this title? Is this a realistic way of reducing over 500 authorizations and appropriations? Title VI is a step forward, but additional steps may be needed. On title VII, I have a basic question. Will the language assure that future land transactions by the GSA will support, rather than frustrate, the efforts of local communities in their land planning and use programs? Title VIII is, in my opinion, one of the most important titles in the bill. Although figures tend to be speculative, particularly in view of reduced Federal spending, we may expect the dislocation of over a million families and individuals, 180,000 businesses, and 40,000 farm operators over the next 10 years as a result of Federal or federally assisted programs. Much of this will concern the poor and the elderly-white and black-where the impact hits with greatest force. Are the measures we have provided adequate to assist and compensate these people and businesses in the light of what we now know about the personal and economic impact of dislocation today? For those whose property is taken to make way for public improvement, is the fair market value standard of compensation enough to enable people to take up their lives in a similar or improved manner elsewhere? What can be done to provide for relocation assistance at an earlier stage than is presently provided for assistance at the stage when the planning and surveying of the proposed project is announced, and people panic? What can be done to relieve them of the fear of removal and smooth the road to orderly relocation? With respect to title IX, have we succeeded in providing ground rules sufficient to insure that the Federal Government and State and local governments using Federal funds will deal fairly, whether by negotiation or condemnation, in taking land for public improvement? In closing, I want to say that I am optimistic about this bill. The House Committee on Government Operations held hearings on the first five titles in 1966, and is continuing with its consideration this year. The mood may be changing toward the concept of meaningful compensation and assistance for acquisition and relocation under Federal and federally assisted programs. It always takes years for good ideas to surface, and eventually become law. We are hopeful that the administration today will set the stage for a much stronger support for the measures contained in S. 698 than it has in the past. Last year we passed the first really significant step forward in intergovernmental relations legislation in years the intergovernmental personnel bill. That bill is moving forward in the House, and would provide funds and assistance for the development of State and local personnel systems, training programs, fellowships, and exchange of personnel. The support among State and local administrators for this legislation was tremendous. Now we are down to the next big step this year: The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. I emphasize again that this is a congressional initiative to help the States modernize their administration of Federal programs; to help the local governments to obtain coordinated Federal assistance in line with their comprehensive planning; and to help the people and the businesses to get a fair shake when the Federal bulldozer plans to move in on them. The cost of this bill is marginal compared with the efficiency, economy, and human protection it will generate to help build a better America. Finally, passage of the legislation would demonstrate recognition by the Congress that cooperation and coordination-the basic ingredients of the "new federalism"-start with local and State governments, with every measure of assistance and cooperation from the Federal level. I think I appreciate today, as I have for some time, that this is for most people a dry, technical, incomprehensible subject, but I think it is concerned with issues which are the very life of our democratic system. I notice that we now have some new additions to our audience this morning, some young, who probably will find it dry, technical language with which we will be dealing this morning, completely dry and incomprehensible, almost as much as in their classrooms, but what we are dealing with here is of great importance to them, and if they will remember nothing more about their visit here, what we are concerned with is ways to make our Government better, to make it work more effectively for the benefit of youngsters like yourselves. We welcome you here this morning. I shall now, without objection, place in the record the texts of S. 698, amendment No. 748, intended to be proposed to S. 698, S. 735, S. 458, and S. 2981, together with explanatory statements and agency reports on these bills. (The material referred to follows:) [S. 698, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government in order to improve the operation of our federal system in an increasingly complex society, to improve the administration of grants-in-aid to the States, to provide for periodic congressional review of Federal grants-in-aid, to permit provision of reimbursable technical services to State and local government, to establish coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration of grants and loans for urban development, to authorize the consolidation of certain grant-in-aid programs, to provide for the acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by Federal agencies in conformity with local government programs, to establish a uniform relocation assistance policy, to establish a uniform land acquisition policy for Federal and federally aided programs, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act be cited as the "Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1967." When used in this Act TITLE I-DEFINITIONS FEDERAL AGENCY SEC. 101. The term "Federal agency" means any department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch of the Government and any wholly owned Government corporation, and for the purposes of title VIII, the Architect of the Capitol. STATE SEC. 102. The term "State" means any of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, or any agency or instrumentality of a State, but does not include the governments of the political subdivisions of the State. For the purposes of title VIII and title IX the term "State" does include such political subdivisions. POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEC. 103. The term "political subdivision" or "local government" means a local unit of government, including specifically a county, municipality, city, town, township, or a school or other special district created by or pursuant to State law. UNIT OF GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEC. 104. "Unit of general local government" means any city, county, town, parish, village, or other general-purpose political subdivision of a State. SPECIAL-PURPOSE UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEC. 105. "Special-purpose unit of local government" means any special district, public-purpose corporation, or other strictly limited-purpose political subdivision of a State, but shall not include a school district. GRANT OR GRANT-IN-AID SEC. 106. The term "grant" or "grant-in-aid" means money, or property provided in lieu of money, paid or furnished by the United States under a fixed annual or aggregate authorization (A) to a State; or (B) to a political subdivision of a State; or (C) to a beneficiary under a State-administered plan or program which is subject to approval by a Federal agency; if such authorization either (i) requires the States or political subdivisions to expend non-Federal funds as a condition for the receipt of money or property from the United States; or (ii) specifies directly, or establishes by means of a formula, the amounts which may be paid or furnished to States or political subdivisions, or the amounts to be allotted for use in each of the States by the States, political subdivisions, or other beneficiaries. The term does not include (1) shared revenues; (2) payments of taxes; (3) payments in lieu of taxes; (4) loans or repayable advances; (5) surplus property or surplus agricultural commodities furnished as such; (6) payments under research and development contracts or grants which are awarded directly and on similar terms to all qualifying organizations, whether public or private; or (7) payments to States or political subdivisions as full reimbursement for the costs incurred in paying benefits or furnishing services to persons entitled thereto under Federal laws. FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE SEC. 107. The term "Federal financial assistance" does not include any annual payment by the United States to the District of Columbia authorized by article VI of the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1947 (D.C. Code, secs. 47-2501a and 47-2501b). SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES SEC. 108. "Specialized or technical services" means special statistical and other studies and compilations, development projects, technical tests and evaluations, technical information, training activities, surveys, reports, documents, and any other similar service functions which the Secretary of any department or the administrative head of any agency of the executive branch of the Federal Goverment is authorized by law to perform. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SEC. 109. "Comprehensive planning", except in title VI, includes the following, to the extent directly related to area needs or needs of a unit of general local government: (A) preparation, as a guide for long-range development, of general physical plans with respect to the pattern and intensity of land use and the provision of public facilities, including transportation facilities; (B) programing of capital improvements based on a determination of relative urgency; (C) longrange fiscal plans for implementing such plans and programs; and (D) proposed regulatory and administrative measures which aid in achieving coordination of all related plans of the departments or subdivisions of the governments concerned and intergovernmental coordination of related planned activities among the State and local governmental agencies concerned. |