Why Kluczynski did not mind losing jurisdiction in committee fight over urban mass transit bill
FOR A WHILE last year the urban mass transit bill was stalled in Congress because of a Jurisdictional dispute between two House committees. The Banking and Public Works Committees both had transportation subcommittees and both had approved the controversial concept of an operating subsidy for big-city subway systems. But it was the former committee that Senate sponsors of the legislation and the "transit lobby" were anxious to have represented on the House-Senate conference committee that would write the final bill.
With so much at stake, why would those who are in fundamental agreement quibble over Jurisdictional prestige? Why, with one notable exception, should the senior members of the Public Works Committee have been so irate?
The exceptional representative who did not protest was the one man who might have been most upset — Rep. John C. Kluczynski (D., Chicago), chairman of the Public Works subcommittee on transportation. The reason why Kluczynski swallowed his self-interest is explained by the different approaches. The Public Works Committee wanted to continue the traditional method of highway program funding by routing federal aid through state government agencies. State highway departments are responsible tor the disbursement of federal highway funds. However, for cities of over. 200,000 population, the Banking Committee version — that eventually prevailed — bypassed the state and sent the money directly to local transit authorities.
Walker's opposition to Crosstown
Gov. Walker's opposition to the Crosstown Expressway in Chicago caused Mayor Daiey to be especially sensitive about issues of state-versus" city power in transportation. MiltonPikarsky. chairman of the Chicago Transit Authority and probably the most influential figure in what has come to be known in Washington as the national transit lobby, wanted nothing to do with a federal assistance system that left open the possibility of transit funds being sidetracked in Springfield for whatever reason. So it was that Kluczynski and other loyal Illinois Democrats followed Pikarsky's directions while most of the suburban and downstate Republicans were in the peculiar position of standing up for the Jurisdictional prerogatives of Kluczynski's subcommittee.
The 'home rule' issues
"Home rule" for Chicago is a familiar element in the legislative politics of Illinois. Forever it seems, mayors have been claiming the right to run the affairs of such a large municipality without interference from governors and legislatures. And, historically, the logrolling seemed less complicated when a Democratic mayor was dealing with a Republican governor.
Not so well recognized though is the frequency with which issues of "state interference" arise in the enactment of federal legislation. Usually, when Chicago City Hall is aroused enough by a pending bill to flash danger signals in Washington, there is something in the measure that would give power to the governor that the mayor thinks ought to belong to him. Last summer, four Democrats from Chicago cast what turned out to be the decisive votes to kill a land-use planning bill in the House. The bill would have brought state agencies into metropolitan land-use decisions, such as the placement of airports, recreation sites, power plants and the like. Occasionally, but not often, the state and city share a common cause against federal power. An example ofthis occurred in the last session of Congress when the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare wanted to exclude state and municipal health officials from hospital and health cost planning.
Returning power to people
Since 1969, Republican administrations have been advocating a policy of "returning power closer to the people." But how close? There are at least two ways of going about this. One is to enlarge the state role. The other is for Washington to cut out the middlepersons and deal directly with the localities, an approach devoutly desired by the mayors.
The Nixon administration experimented with a demonstration program called the Michigan Innovative Federal Aid Reform Project (MIFARB). The object was to simplify the grant application process by making it easier to consolidate aid categories. The governor of Michigan, who happened to be a Republican, William G. Milliken, was authorized to administer certain federal aid programs as a way of giving the state more discretion in the grading of priorities. But the mayor of Detroit, who happened to be a Democrat, Coleman Young, was not pleased by this delegation of federal power. "Anytime lump sums go to a state government, we're in trouble," he said. "A governor is going to take care of his political base, and it's not in the cities." Extraordinary political skill is required, nevertheless, for a governor to advance his interests in Washington. When he can't, state government may suffer too.
(Rep. John C. Kluczynski died at his home in Chicago Sunday night, January 26, after the above column was written. He served in the General Assembly from 1932 1949 when he resigned to run for Congress, where he served since 1950.)
March 1975 /Illinois Issues/95