October 2, 1964
PAGE 23503
ADDRESS BY SENATOR MUSKIE TO ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON METROPOLITAN PROBLEMS
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, at the 13th Annual Commissioners and Governors Conference on Metropolitan Washington Problems, the distinguished junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] delivered a stirring address on the problems confronting our Nation's metropolitan areas.
Senator MUSKIE is a leading authority in this field. His Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, on which I am proud to serve, has done an outstanding job of realistic study of the problems confronting urban areas and their governments.
I hope that Senators vitally interested in the orderly development of the Washington metropolitan area will read this important speech carefully.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator MUSKIE's address be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE METROPOLITAN CHALLENGE,
(Address by Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Democrat, of Maine, before the 13th Annual Commissioners and Governors Conference on Metropolitan Washington Problems, Arlington, Va., October 1, 1964)
By the year 2000, 85 percent of our population will live in urban areas, experts tell us. Here, in our own National Capital region, 3 million new residents will be added by the end of the century.
The pressures of a metropolitan America already pose the greatest threat to our traditional Federal-State-local relations, as well as the greatest challenge to the maintenance of a strong, representative, and flexible Federal system.
There are the physical problems. We face water shortages, transportation snarls, urban blight, and wasteful land use.
There are the social problems. We face increased juvenile delinquency, rising crime rates, and uneasy race relations.
There are the political problems. We face shifting metropolitan boundaries, fragmented local government, and conflict between the central city and the suburbs.
There are the financial problems. We face limited revenue resources and almost limitless expenditure needs; soaring tax rates in the suburbs and falling tax bases in the cities. State and local debts are mounting, while State and local revenue sources fall behind.
Metropolitan areas currently require: $600 million annually for sewage treatment facilities; $400 million annually for pure water; $200 million annually to rebuild each square mile of slums; and $1¼ million dollars annually so commuter railroads can stay in business.
These problems stagger the imagination. They tax our ingenuity as well as our purse.
The metropolitan area is a new type of community, one in which its inhabitants have little or no feeling of community. It is neither a neighborhood, city, State, nor nation. There are no anthems, flags, or mottos. Loyalties are mixed, and problems grow with growth.
While our population has skyrocketed, the land most of us occupy has diminished. In 1940 nearly a quarter of our population lived in rural areas. In 1962 less than 8 percent still lived in the country. The remainder, victims of a technological revolution, moved from farms to urban areas. Mechanized farming, hybrid seeds, better planting methods, and more efficient animal husbandry add to our wealth with continually less human effort. And as this agricultural revolution advances, even more rural Americans will stream into our cities.
What does the new arrival find in our metropolitan centers? Is his environment a liberating influence? Or does he see urban living as a necessary evil, imposed by a technological revolution that has made him an alien in his own land?
The truth lies somewhere between these extremes. Our cities are large and exciting; they house our cultural and educational centers. The standard of living, for most, is higher. On the other side of the ledger, inadequate transportation, excessive noise, dull architecture, and air pollution are strong barriers to safe and sane urban living. We have responded to the economic necessities and this press of population accompanying the transformation of the American landscape, on a haphazard basis. In spite of gallant efforts, we have not rendered our urban areas either beautiful or really habitable.
The press and flux of population made suburban development inevitable. The city -- dirty, crowded, and noisy -- accelerated this exodus. The city dweller fled in his automobile to find cleaner air, less congestion, and a slower pace of living. For this, however, he ransomed much. As one commentator put it, "he entered the land of 'no.' No storm drainage and no sewers. No curb, no gutter, and no sidewalks. No parks, no playgrounds, and no street lights. No fire plugs, no fire halls, and no fire trucks. No public garbage collection. No modern policing. No zoning and no subdivision control." Look-alike residential housing and gaudy commercial strip development quickly dotted the pastoral landscape the suburbanite sought.
This portrayal is both a historical analysis and a recitation of current events. As President Kennedy put it: "In a few short decades we have passed from a rural to an urban way of life, and in a few short decades more, we shall be a nation of vastly expanded population, living in expanded urban areas and housing that does not now exist, served by community facilities that do not now exist, moving about by means of systems of urban transportation that do not now exist."
How are we going to meet these needs?
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, in its report, "Alternative Approaches to Governmental Reorganization of Metropolitan Areas," explores various proposals designed to create a sense of community in metropolitan areas. The commission found there can be no pat solution for easing the problems of political and structural complexity at the local level. One approach called for the merging of outlying districts with the core city, thereby abolishing governmental fragmentation.
Another, apparently more feasible, approach called for areawide functions to be performed by a regional government, with each local unit having representation. This federated approach has been adopted by only one metropolitan area in the country.
The establishment of metropolitan councils on a voluntary basis, composed of elected officials; is yet another alternative.
Few such bodies exist. You, along with 9 or 10 other agencies, have been pioneers in developing the voluntary regional council as a happy compromise between those who want no change and those calling for the centralization of all metropolitan functions.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments is the institutional recognition of the fact that yours is a regional community. More than 5 million people will live here in another generation. And most of this growth will take place mainly in the suburbs. This staggering increase will require a sharp rise in public facilities. Federal, State, and local funds will all be required to finance independently planned and executed construction programs. Greater coordination, then, is vital. For example, metropolitan water supply and sewage disposal projects demand an areawide attack and a cooperative program. No one level of government alone can handle such regional problems.
Your council understands this need for coordination. You act as a forum where members can meet and discuss common problems. As a study group you make recommendations to member counties, cities, States. But you have never lost sight of the fact that planning is of no value unless it leads to appropriate action. The adoption of the "Year 2000 Plan" and the construction of the Potomac interceptor sewer bear witness to this.
One of the council's most recent and significant accomplishments is receipt of a Federal urban renewal demonstration grant. The purpose of this grant is to assist in bringing together for the first time various local governmental data. This in turn will encourage a greater degree of standardization for metropolitan land-use and housing classification. Federal efforts to bring about greater uniformity will also be aided. The project will demonstrate the feasibility of voluntary local cooperation as the basis for regional action. Despite these accomplishments, much work remains to be done.
The final report of the Congressional Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems, although dated in some respects, is still a fair assessment of the conference's basic difficulty. The report declared, in part, that "despite such welcome steps as the establishment of an operating budget, and the employment of its own executive secretary, the * * * conference has still far to go before it will be dealing effectively with Washington metropolitan problems."
The council has yet to become the authentic voice of the National Capital region. Metropolitan problems cannot be solved unless there are strong advocates able to reach and educate area residents, able to persuade local units that vitally needed action requires joint effort. The council must develop and fight for its own views on issues of areawide concern.
State governments must also bear a responsibility for encouraging regional solutions. Most States have tended to react to the metropolitan challenge in a haphazard fashion. The fiscal, jurisdictional, research, and planning needs of the large urban centers have commonly been ignored or handled on a piecemeal basis.
As a result, cities have turned to the Federal Government. This has alarmed many defenders of States rights. But demands for the preservation of States rights must be matched by an acceptance by the States of their responsibilities toward their major population centers.
The Council of State Governments and the Advisory Commission, the latter of which I am a member, have made several legislative proposals designed to assist State governments in meeting this urban challenge. If the States are to remain viable partners in our Federal system, they must adjust their operations and organization in light of the revolution on the urban frontier.
Both groups, therefore, have recommended the establishment of a new agency of State government for metropolitan or local affairs.
This new agency would assist the metropolitan areas with respect to the problems of local governmental planning, structure, organization, and finance. Neither Richmond nor Annapolis has such an office, although both provide some of these services. Such a department could also assist the Governor in formulating effective policies to meet metropolitan problems.
The national character of many metropolitan questions makes Federal participation necessary. Several existing Federal programs have already had a significant impact on our metropolitan areas. In addition, three current proposals could make a substantial contribution to orderly urban growth and development.
First, a dimension of the National Capital region's water pollution difficulties is covered in S. 649, which I introduced in the first session of this Congress. It would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act concerning grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works. Of special concern to metropolitan areas is the provision that these grants may be increased by 10 percent for a project that is part of a comprehensive regional plan. The Senate, by a vote of 69 to 11, passed this needed legislation. If passed by the House, this measure will do much to strengthen the position of metropolitan planning agencies.
Second, metropolitan area planning would be further assisted by the enactment of S. 855. Senators HUMPHREY, MUNDT, and WILLIAMS joined me in February 1963 in sponsoring this advisory commission proposal. It was considered at length by the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and unanimously passed the Senate last January. The bill would require
1. Establishment of a legally constituted metropolitan agency, charged with the responsibility for areawide planning; and
2. An assessment by this agency of certain Federal grant applications made by local governments before being acted upon by the relevant Federal departments and agencies.
Planning Agency approval of applications is not a prerequisite to Federal assistance under this bill. But the proposal recognizes the role of adequate planning as crucial to achieving metropolitan objectives relating to open-space land projects, airport construction, waste treatment works, urban renewal, public housing, hospital construction, and urban highways. These projects would be viewed as part of a regional plan. The bill would strengthen the concept of a metropolitan community.
It would also establish a frame of reference for all Federal activities affecting an urban area. Programs covered under this measure must be related to each other as well as to local development, if Federal funds are not to be spent on conflicting objectives. Economy, then, also demands this full exchange of information among the political subdivisions within a metropolitan area prior to the allocation of a Federal grant.
And finally, I have supported proposals for the establishment of a Federal Department of Urban Affairs. Until now, the Federal Government's reaction to the emergence of a metropolitan America -- like that of the States -- has generally been disjointed, sporadic, and unplanned. Such a department is necessary for coordinating the numerous Federal programs that have an impact on metropolitan areas.
These three proposals for congressional action differ in many respects, but all have one feature in common: they seek to establish the foundations for a viable metropolitan community.
A memorable passage from Prof. Kenneth Galbraith's book, "The Affluent Society” portrays our dilemma. He described "the family which takes its ** * air-conditioned, power-steered, and power-braked automobile out for a tour (and) passes through cities that are badly paved, made hideous by litter, blighted buildings, billboards, and posts for wires that should long since have been put underground. They pass on through a countryside that has been rendered largely invisible by commercial art. They picnic on exquisitely packaged food from a portable icebox by a polluted stream and go on to spend the night at a park which is a menace to public health and morals. Just before dozing off on an air mattress, beneath a nylon tent, amid the stench of decaying refuse, they may reflect vaguely on the curious unevenness of their blessings."
Galbraith may exaggerate, but there is indeed an "unevenness" of blessings. Our citizens, and their representatives at all levels of government, are becoming more aware that action in the public sector must be as imaginative and progressive in providing the public service we require as the private sector in providing the luxuries we want.
Joint Federal-State-local cooperation and innovations in government are needed now.
President Kennedy said: "The challenge is great, and the time is short. Shall we begin?"
The council, just by its existence, represents a beginning.
Now, as President Johnson has said, "Let us continue."