September 15, 1965
23871
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. At the end of the bill it is proposed to insert a new title, as follows:
TITLE IV
SEC. 401. There is authorized to be appropriated out of the Treasury in addition to all other sums herein authorized the sum of $5 million for expenditure by the Secretary of Commerce for research and development of methods, machinery, and processes for the destruction, conversion, and disposition of scrapped, discarded automobiles, trucks, and other motor vehicles. The results of such research and development shall be made available to all persons, firms, and corporations without cost.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, it would not settle the problem if we were merely to screen junkyards and automobile graveyards. It would be a little like the experiences of Alexander Potemkin, who was close to Catherine the Second, the Czarina of Russia, who, when he ran out of money and manpower, tried to create a false impression by running ahead of her carriage
and building facades to hide what he had not accomplished.
It is proposed that we merely screen with natural beauty the junkyards, used car and junk car lots, but the cars would still be there.
I wonder if anyone realizes how many cars are scrapped every year. I have some figures which have been obtained from the American Automobile Association. For the past 10 years these figures read as follows:
[TABLE OMITTED]
If we were to allow 10 feet for a car and the cars were stacked end to end, they would extend a distance of 10,000 miles.
The cars are here. It has been suggested that they be dumped in abandoned coal mines. There are not enough abandoned coal mines or caves in the country, or perhaps in the whole hemisphere, to take care of the junked cars.
Some method must be devised to process the cars, to separate the metal, to save the important metals in the car, and to dispose of the cars, if we are ever going to do the job. Otherwise, we shall only be hiding the ugliness, so to speak, rather than disposing of it. I have talked with the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and he will accept my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois (Mr. DIRKSEN].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the effect of the amendment which I propose would be to impose on the Federal Government the full cost of the program.
The bill, as reported to the Senate, would provide that with respect to the Interstate Highway System of some 41,000 miles, the Federal Government would pay 90 percent of the cost and the States 10 percent. With respect to the 225,000 miles of the primary system, the Federal Government would pay 50 percent of the cost and the States pay 50 percent.
Before I speak on the amendment, I wish to commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], who was the chairman of the subcommittee which considered this important bill, for the very fair statement which be has made concerning the work of the subcommittee and the full committee.
I should like also to state that as usual, he conducted the hearings with great fairness, and that he gave to every member of the committee, both those in the majority and those in the minority, full opportunity to express their views, to offer amendments, and to consider the amendments offered. I believe that, as a result of his work, the bill which was reported is a better bill than the one introduced.
As the ranking member of the committee, I attended the hearings and participated in the consideration of the bill in executive session. Every section of the bill and every amendment offered was discussed thoroughly. It represents, as it came from the committee, the best judgment of the committee.
In the hearings held by the full committee, under the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA], the same exhaustive study and consideration was given.
I do not agree with every provision of the bill, as other members do not, but the improvements made are just improvements, and were accepted by the entire committee. The bill, as it came from the administration, would have enabled the States to exercise their police powers and require of advertisers and owners of businesses which are characterized as junkyards that they screen or remove, with respect to junkyards, and remove, with respect to advertising, without compensation.
Because the bill extends controls over advertising, for the first time, to the primary system, a system of 225,000 miles which has been developing since 1921, a system which runs through thousands of municipalities, large and small, and where advertising has been conducted as not only a legitimate business, but as a necessary business, without any prohibition except those exercised by the police powers of the States, we felt that the owners should be paid for their property rights. The Constitution provides that just compensation shall be paid for the taking of a person's property. There is an exception where the State exercises its police powers, but in this case, with the long-established practice of advertising as a legitimate business, the committee felt that as a matter of justice they ought to be paid.
The bill provides that advertisers should be paid for such property rights as they enjoyed in their advertising signs and devices, and the property owners upon whose premises the signs were erected should be paid for whatever their property interest would be by reason of their contracts with the advertisers.
This amendment has been criticized. I believe that the committee acted properly and justly.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it should be emphasized that not only did the committee agree on the principle of compensation, but it agreed unanimously, without any dissent or serious question raised on the point.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree wholeheartedly with the Senator on the point he is making on just compensation for property rights taken, because the principle of billboard control is being extended to the primary system, a system which, as the Senator has pointed out, has been growing up since 1921 under a set of rules then extant, which permitted the development of businesses along highways and the development of advertising along highways.
We are now changing those rules. When we change them, I think we must respect the property rights which have developed over that period.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator has expressed most appropriately the considerations which led to the committee's modification of the bill. It is true that every member of the committee agreed to such change, because justice recommended it to us.
A number of changes were made from time to time in the committee, and now before the Senate are a number of amendments which have been recommended, I understand, by the administration since the committee acted upon the bill, which will require full consideration by the Senate.
Another provision of the bill was changed by the committee. The bill as proposed to us would have given to the Secretary of Commerce the authority to regulate what is known as on-premise advertising, that is, advertising by the owner of property concerning the business which he conducts on his own property.
We thought that went too far. Again, the States can, by their police powers, regulate and control the kind of advertising on property, even that advertising of an owner's business. But we did not think it proper that the Federal Government should be given the power to control advertising upon property concerned with the business of the man who owns the property. As the bill came to us, the Secretary could have exercised the control -- if he thought proper -- of advertising along the main street of a town which happened to be on the primary system, for example a drugstore or motel or hotel, and say to the owners, "I do not like the looks of your advertising sign. You are directed to take it down at your own cost, and if you desire to put up another advertising sign at your own cost, you can do so."
It seemed to us that provision was too great an intrusion into the rights of the property owner advertising his own business. We will all admit that there are many signs on private property which, from an esthetic viewpoint, could be and ought to be improved. Nevertheless, this seems to be too great a Federal intrusion into the business of a property owner. Other proper amendments in other parts of the bill will be discussed as they are brought up.
Now I should like to address myself to the amendment which I have to offer.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield?
Mr. COOPER. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. I have been mulling over the remarks of the Senator regarding police power versus appropriation, or appropriation versus police power. What was the reason for advancing the date to 1970, giving that much time in order to eliminate the billboards?
Mr. COOPER. The bill provides that by January 1, 1968, the States must accede to the program -- by legislative action, of course -- or suffer the denial of apportionment of all Federal highway funds.
It was considered in the committee that the legislatures, which meet in 1966, or in 1967, could take such action. The States would then have 3 or 2 years to actually remove the advertising from the nonexempt areas and to screen the junkyards, depending on whether their legislatures acted in 1966 or 1967.
The reason, therefore, is to give time to the States to effect removal of advertising or screening of junkyards after January 1, 1968. The date 1970 does not delay the date of compliance, which is January 1968, but, after compliance by State legislatures, additional time of 2 years is given to carry it into effect.
Personally, I thought the time too limited. I proposed an amendment to extend it to 1972, because I do not believe that it will be possible to remove all advertising, or to screen all junkyards, in 2 years. Also those conducting their legitimate businesses deserve reasonable and fair time to adjust their operations.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. The point I was making was regarding the police power to rid the highways of these unsightly billboards. As I look through the testimony, I gather that the signboard industry feels that it can amortize its investments in signboards in 5 years. Thus, if we give them 5 years, from 1965 to 1970, to complete the amortization of their investments, I would say, as one of those who are opposed to billboards -- which will be more concretely declared if this bill is enacted into law -- why should we use taxpayers' money to buy them out? Instead of giving them 5 years to know that they must get out, why not use the police power now and save the taxpayers' money?
Mr. COOPER. Whatever interest remains at the particular time the States act to compensate them, they would be paid, but as the amortization period advanced, of course, their property interests would be of less value.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Answering further, let me say that the 5-year period would be cut by whatever time it would take for the States to act to implement the legislation. That could be as long as 3 years, leaving only 2 years. Second, emphasizing the point which the Senator has made, under the bill, all that can be compensated for is whatever remains of the leaseholds or the unamortized values, so that if, in fact, the billboard has been completely amortized or the leasehold has expired, no compensation will be paid under the bill.