Statement of Farris Bryant, Chairmen
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
Before the
Subcommittee on Treasury, Post Office and Executive Office
House ApprOpriations Cmmmittee
April 1, 1969

Hr. Chairman and Members of the Cammittee.

My name is Farris Bryant. Since February of 1967 it has been my
privilege to serve as Chairman of the Advisory Commission on Intergovern-
mental Relations, the agency in whose behalf I am appearing today. with
me are Wm. G. Colman, Executive Director of the Omission; John Shannon,
Assistant Director for Taxation and Finance; Elton K. HcQuery, Assistant
Director for Program Implementation; and Arthur J. Craten, our budget
representative from GSA.

The Conmisainn was created by Public Law 380 of the 86th Congress.
It is charged with studying the problems and relationships among Federal,
State and local governments and with developing recommendations for
improving these relationships. As you know, the Commission includes
three members from this House--Congreasman Fountain, Congresswoman Buyer,
and Congressman Ullman; three members of the Senate-Sen3tors Muskie,
Ervin and Mundt; three members from the Executive Branch; four governors;
and thirteen other State legislatiVe, county, municipal, and public members.
Attached to this statement is a list of the Commission's current membership.

The appropriation request for the 1970 Fiscal Year is $575,000, an
increase of $24,000 over the amount-~SSSI,OOO--appropriated for the current
flacel year.

During the 89th Congress the Intergovernmental Relation: Subcommittee.
of the house and Senate Comitteea on Government Operations conducted joint
hearings as the beats for a review and evaluation of the performance of the
Advisory Commission during its first five years. An effort was made to
obtain critical appraisals from public officials, organisations, and
individuals familiar with the Cmmnisaion's work and to solicit suggestions
as to ACIR's future role.

Following the hearings, the Committeea issued reports recommending
modest expansion of the activities of the Coamdsaion as follows:

I. Initiation of occasional regional meetings involving Federal,
State, and local officials.

2. Sponsorship of periodic nationwide conferences on intergovern-
mental relations.

3. increased attention to implementation of the Commission's
recommendations at both Federal and State levels of government.

A. holding at least one Commission meeting a year outside of
Washington.

5. Initiation of an internship program aimed at training beginning-
level professional persons in intergovernmental relations.

The Commission sought and Congress appropriated funds for P.Y. 1968
and F.Y. 1969 to implement the first four committee recommendations. The
budget request for P.Y. 1970 is based on the continuation of the present
activities and responsibilities of the Commission and the initiation of a
modest internship training program along the lines recommended by the house
Committee on Government Operations following the 1965 review.

The purpose of the proposed internship program is to further the
professional and. to some extent. the academic development of "intergovern-
mental relations Specialists" who. after one year with the Commission, would
pursue careers in State or Intel government. The program would include
three interns each year who would be assigned on a rotating basis to each
of the three ACIR staff sections (Governmental Structure and Functions,
Taxation and Finance, and Program Implementation). Each intern.would be
paid at the 65-7 level and would be eligible for a modest tuition allowance
(not more than $600 per academic semester) to encourage him to carry on
graduate work at an institution of higher education in the Washington area.

Since an important purpose of the program is to train intergovern~
mental relations specialists for State and local governments the interns
would be asked to agree, in advance, not to accept employment with any
organisation or agency in Washington, D. C. nor with the regional or field
offices of any Federal agency for at least one year after the completion of
their intership. At the close of the internship year the interns would be
assisted in securing employment with State or local governments or organio
rations thereof. The annual cost of the program is estimated at $25,000
including tuition allowances.

Contributions to ACIR from Nonfederal Sources

Follmaing the review of Commission operations by the House and Senate
Subcommittees in 1965, Congress enacted Public Law 89-733 which amended the
Commission's enabling statute to provide, among other things, an authoriza-
tion for the Commission to accept contributions from State and local govern-
ments and organizations thereof. This action was in line with recommendations
of the Concussion and views expressed by Members of Congress and others that

the Cmumissinn's financial support, as well as its membership, should be
intergovernmental in character. Early in 196, pursuant to this authori-
zation, I wrote to the Governors of all States calling their attention to
the statutory provision and suggesting that each State consider making a
voluntary annual token contribution of $l,000 to the Commission. The
response, on believe, has been quite encouraging. Thus far, one-third of
the States have made or authorised such contributions and the Governors
of most of the remaining States have recosmended favorable action by
their legis.aturcs. It nou appears that well over half of the States
will make contributions to the Advisory Commission during P.Y. 1970.

Public Law 39-733 also authorised ACIR to accept contributions from
nonprofit organizations. Accordingly, in July 1968, the Commission re-
ceived a grant of $25,000 from the Ford Foundation for the purpose of
preparing and publishing a one-volume report that would present in context
the findings and recommendations developed by the Advisory Commission in
all of its tudies relating to urban and netrOpolitan problems. This
project is nearing completion; the final draft will be ready for the
printer in a few weeks.

late last fall a proposal was submitted to the Ford Foundation for
a grant to finance a study of the feasibility of constructing and testing
measures of fiscal capacity and tax effort for cities, counties, and
towns. With the large amount of Federal grants presently going to local
governments and with growing demands for even larger amounts either through
project grants or block grants for particular functions, there is a rising
concern that allocations take adequate account of differences in fiscal
needs and fiscal efforts of various local jurisdictions. (For example,
the "fiscal capacity" of Boston may be quite different from Beverly Hills.)
Deficiencies in existing data have made it appear impossible to build such
factors into prior allocation formulas. But recent and prospective statis-
tical developments offer hope for more reliable comparative measures. The
time seems ripe for a breakthrough on this front and the study could be an
important step forward. We recently were notified that the Ford Foundation
has approved a grant of $65,000 for this purpose. The project will begin
in the near future and is to be completed within a year.

let no mention parenthetically at this point, that we have been
asked by the Urban Hess Transportation Administration of the Department of
Transportation to undortlhe a study closely related to the project I have
just outlined for the measurement of local fiscal capacity and effort.
DOT presently makes grants to State and local public agencies to help fi-
nance their acquisition and improvement of facilities for urban transporta-
tion systems. The purpose of the study proposed by DOT would be to develop
sound criteria for evaluating the general ability of public agencies to
provide the local contributions to "net project cost," and to devise a

framework for appraising the capacity of the individual applicants. The
project, if accepted by the Concussion, would cost $50,000 to $75,000 with
the entire amount being paid from research funds available to DO! and would
not constitute or necessitate any increase in appropriations to the
Commission.

One further Foundation grant now is under consideration. Last
December a pilot conference uas held in New Jersey under the joint sponsor-
ship of the New Jersey State legislature and Rutgers University. The
conference brought together approximately 35 Rev Jersey State legislative
leaders, State department heads, and resource people from academic circles
and the community at large. Attention was directed to three specific ACIB
proposals for State legislative action. The conference provided a unique
opportunity for Advisory Commission recommendations to be explored in some
depth with State legislatiVe leaders and their policy advisers. The con-
ference. we thought, was successful as a pilot project and should be re-
peeted in other States. The Commission staff now is cooperating with the
Council of State Governments in cheloping a joint proposal for a foundation
grant to cover the costs involved in holding a series of similar meetings
elsewhere dealing with State legislative proposals developed by both
organizations.

1 have reported on the matter of contributions to ACIR from non-
federal sources at some length in order that you would be informed as to
what has transpired pursuant to the authorization by Congress for ACIR to
accept contributions from nonfederal snurces. In carrying out proiccts,
such as those outlined above, the Commission will make nsa of outside con-
sultants and some temporary employees. We have not requested--nor do we
anticipate requesting--any additions to our permanent staff for these
purposes.

New Advisnrv Commission zolicz Reports

During the current fiscal year the Advisory Commission has completed
and published a policy report on Intergovernmental Problems in Hedicaid. The
Commission's study of this program focused on the basic policies affecting
Federal, State, and local sharing of responsibility for financing Medicaid
and, in addition, directed attention to certain nonfiscal problems involving
constitutional. legislative, and administrative changes in the operation of
the program.

Tun other major research studies new are under uay. One, a study of
State aid to local governments is awaiting Commission action: the secondv-n
study of State-local responsibilities for labor-management relations in
public employment is scheduled for completion near the close of this fiscal
year.

Implementation of Commission Racernmndationg

We are pleased to report, Mr. Chairman, that the Commussion's proposals
continue to receive favorable consideration. ACIR's Tenth Annual Report,
issued earlier this year, summarized the progress that has been made, at
both the Federal and State levels.

Last fall, Congress enacted the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of
196$ (P.L. 90-S77), climnxing {our years of continous effort by the Commis-
sion and a host of others to secure legislation in this field. The omnibus
measure implements many of the most significant recOznendations for Federal
action advanced by the Commission over the last nine years. In this con-
nection, let me note, that Congressman Fountain and others have introduced
the IntergOVcrnmental Cooperation Act of 1969 (H.R. 7366) which is designed
to build on the 1968 Act by further improving and simplifying the management
of federal assistance programs. In addition, a number of other measures new
are being developed for consideration by the 9lst Congress.

we are very encouraged by the record of State legislative action to
improve intergovernmental relations. As you know, where it is appropriate,
recormendations of the Advisory Commission for State legislative action are
translated into draft bill form and offered to the States for their
cons iderat ion .

During the last two years, 1967 and 1968, one or more statutes or
constitutional amendments generally following draft proposals developed by
the Commission or consistent with Commission recommendations were enacted
in 69 of the 50 States. The Commission recommendation enacted in.the
greatest number of States was one urging States to adopt the real estate
transfer tax upon withdrawal of the Federal Government from this field as
of January 1, 1968. Twenty-six States enacted this model bill in.uhole
or in part.

Eleven States established agencies for local affairs or community
development, along the lines of draft legislation proposed by the Commission.
Thirteen States enacted legislation to strengthen and coordinate programs
for water resources and pollution control. Other Commission recommendations
were adopted in from one to ten States. The most recommendations adopted
by individual States were eleven in Michigan and ten each in Minnesota and
Washington.

The Commission continues to perform a variety of activities designed
to carry out its statutory responsibilities for technical assistance in
review of proposed federal legislation and for encouraging discussion of
emerging public problems. On request, staff members review pending bills

and submit co:ments thereon to the Bureau of the Budget or to Congressional
Committees. Commission members and staff testify or file statements with
Committees of Congress and State legislatures on Commission findings and
recommendations as applied to the subjects before those bodies. On invita-
tion, Commission members and staff appear before conferences and special
meetings of national, regional, and State organisations of public officials
as well as business, professional, and specialised groups concerned with
intergovernmental problems. The Commission has inaugurated an information
bulletin service whose purpose is to make available to key State and local
governmental officials and others information on intergovernmental matters
that otherwise might not be called to their attention. In addition, the
Cmnmission, from time-to-time, issues informational reports that are intended
to provide policy makers with factual information to assist them in dealing
lth particular problems of Pedersl-State-local relations.

Search for a New Federalism

As the Commission stated in its Tenth Annual Report, the United States
is faced with a necessity of finding a "New Federalism"--s new system of
relationships among Rational, State, and local governments that is responsive

to the challenges of the day on the one hand, but preserves the diversity
and pluralism which the Iounding Fathers so wisely made the bases of
government in this country.

The work of the Advisory Commission is close to the center of the
cyclonic pressures for change and adaptation in our federal system. The
Commission is seeking through its recommendations and follow-up actions to
strengthen State and local government so that these governments may be
more responsible and responsive instruments of the American people. The
Commission is striving at the Rational level to convince the Federal
administrators and the policymakers in the legislative and executive
branches of the necessity and desirability of decentralising and developing
power if our overall federal system is to be preserved.

Mr. Chairman, the Conmission's work appears to be having Very
definite impact in this difficult field of intergovernmental relatioas. do
are being called upon increasingly for assistance and consultation by
officials at all levels of government, by public and private interest
groups concerned with intergovernmental problems and by those engaged in
academic research. We hope and believe that on are having a significant
influence in the country's search for a "New Federalism."

This cantludes our statement. He will be glad to answer any
questions.