September 16, 1965
PAGE 24116
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE].
Mr. MUSKIE. I express my appreciation to the Senator from West Virginia for yielding to me at this time.
At the outset of my remarks, which I hope will not be too lengthy, I should say how much I appreciate the objective and the cooperative way in which the committee, on both sides, has dealt with the bill, both in committee and on the floor of the Senate.
I really do not believe that there is as much difference on this issue between the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] as might appear at first blush. I shall try to make that point clear.
As I listened to the discussion yesterday afternoon and this morning it seemed to me that the heart of the concern which has been expressed on the floor of the Senate has to do with unzoned commercial or industrial areas on the primary system.
I believe that as to the Interstate System there is nearly a consensus in this Chamber, as a whole, that we need to take effective action to control the areas adjoining the Interstate System.
I believe that the bill does this effectively. I believe that the amendment before us does this effectively, and that the amendment offered earlier by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON] would have done it more effectively.
So the heart of the concern expressed on the floor has to do with unzoned commercial or industrial areas. This also was the heart of the concern of the committee in the hearings and executive sessions in developing the language of the bill for almost 90 percent of the time that the committee spent on the bill.
There were some members on the committee who felt that the bill ought to be stronger than it turned out to be initially on this point. There were others who felt that the bill ought to be weaker than it turned out to be on this point.
The committee language which was finally reported to the Senate had the consensus which has been referred to by speakers on both sides of the amendment.
What is the heart of this interest in the unzoned commercial and industrial areas? It is this:
Over the period that the primary system has developed, there have been permitted to develop businesses the lives and viability of which depend on the business that comes to them over the highways, and whose ability to prosper from that business depends on their right to advertise their business, attract the motorists, and call them to their doors.
In addition, the advertising that has grown up in connection with business establishments performs a profound service for the motorist, giving him information in advance as to where he may find a particular brand of gasoline, or a particular kind of restaurant, or another establishment, or motel to serve his needs and those of his family.
I repeat to the Senate that the concern with which this problem has been so eloquently described on the floor of the Senate yesterday and today -- and which I described briefly here this afternoon -- has been at the heart of the concern of the committee throughout its deliberations.
What was the problem? The problem was this: How do we deal meaningfully in terms of beautification, in terms of control of outdoor advertising in these areas and at the same time preserve to the States and to the businesses the right to protect the interests which I have just defined?
We could, of course, leave the controls entirely up to the business establishments themselves, hoping in the process of enlightened self-interest and enlightened public interest that there may develop a self-discipline which would be effective; or we could leave it to the communities or the legislatures of the States; or we could leave it to the Secretary of Commerce.
A number of choices are open to us But what we tried to develop -- perhaps we did not succeed -- was a formula which would give the legislature a right to protect what it considered to be the legitimate interests of businesses, while at the same time imposing upon the legislatures a restraint which would keep them within reasonable and responsible limits, as the committee defined the public interest in this field. This is what we tried to do.
What was the formula we used to do it? I think it was the heart of the difference between those on the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield an additional 4 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. What is in the committee amendment, and what is in the amendment now before us?
The committee amendment on this point reads as follows -- and I shall skip the part that does not refer to what I am discussing:
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, signs, displays, and devices may be erected and maintained within areas adjacent to the Interstate System and the primary system within six hundred and sixty feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way which are zoned industrial or commercial under authority of State law, or which are not zoned under authority of State law, but are used for industrial or commercial activities, as determined in accordance with provisions established by the legislatures of the several States, which shall be consistent with the purposes of this section.
What, then, did we do with this language? First of all, we clearly placed initiative and responsibilities on the legislatures of the several States. Second, we imposed a restriction in these words: "which shall be consistent with the purposes of this section."
Those words have been interpreted on the floor of the Senate today as meaning that the Secretary should have authority to decide what shall be consistent with the purposes of this section.
Clearly it is a tenable argument that someone will have to decide whether or not the action taken by the legislature is consistent with the purposes of this section.
If that interpretation is correct, the language in the amendment which has been offered does nothing more than clarify language which is now in the bill.
If that interpretation is not correct, what is the meaning of the words: "which shall be consistent with the purposes of this section"?
The meaning of those words is that the legislation does nothing more than impose upon the legislatures a mandate which the legislatures would be morally bound to observe.
Therefore, this seeks to solicit from the legislatures self-discipline, which will carry out the purposes of the act.
Whichever interpretation is accepted, what is clearly intended is that the State legislatures shall not run wild in this field and shall exercise responsibility, and it imposes upon the legislatures a mandate which should stimulate them to that effect.
The Secretary of Commerce was aware of our concern. We repeated it to him in the hearings, and his responses reflected his understanding of our concern. We repeated it to him in our deliberations and discussions in the course of our consideration of the bill in executive session. Since the bill has been reported we have repeated it to him. He has repeatedly accepted the responsibility of recognizing that concern and of moving to implement it.
I have with me a letter from the Secretary of Commerce which I believe should be of interest to the Senate on this point. It is addressed to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and is dated September 14, 1965. I quote from the letter, as follows:
The administration recognizes that the present signs and procedures of informing the traveling public, along the Interstate System, are inadequate and must be improved. The Bureau of Public Roads, in cooperation with the State Highway Departments, has been working for some time on policies and procedures for replacement of signs which are now limited largely to notices that "Food, Fuel, and Lodging" are available at the next interchange.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I continue to read from the letter:
The Department of Commerce will start immediately on developing a system of signs to give the motoring public more information about services and facilities available within reasonable distances of the main traveled roadway where such information is not otherwise reasonably provided.
It should be pointed out that signs advertising services or facilities necessary or of interest to the traveling public can be erected in both zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas in accordance with the legislation now pending before your committee. It is our belief that signs in these areas can to a very great extent take care of the needs for informing the traveling public on noncontrolled access portions of the primary system and be completely consistent with the administration's program to make our highways avenues for the enjoyment of nature and beauty and to help enrich the life of our people in city and countryside alike.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the entire letter be placed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
September 14,
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Roads,
Public Works Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: This is in response to your request for information on the ways in which the traveling public would be informed of facilities and services available to them if the Congress enacts the administration's highway beautification program including the control of outdoor advertising.
The administration recognizes that the present signs and procedures of informing the traveling public, along the Interstate System, are inadequate and must be improved. The Bureau of Public Roads, in cooperation with the State highway departments, has been working for some time on policies and procedures for replacement of signs which are now limited largely to notices that "food, fuel and lodging" are available at the next interchange.
The Department of Commerce will start immediately on developing a system of signs to give the motoring public more information about services and facilities available within reasonable distances of the main traveled roadway where such information is not otherwise reasonably provided.
It should be pointed out that signs advertising services or facilities necessary or of interest to the traveling public can be erected in both zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas in accordance with the legislation now pending before your committee. It is our belief that signs in these areas can to a very great extent take care of the needs for informing the traveling public on noncontrolled access portions of the primary system and be completely consistent with the administration's program to make our highways avenues for the enjoyment of nature and beauty and to help enrich the life of our people in city and countryside alike.
In those instances, primarily along the Interstate System and controlled access portions of the primary system, where motorist service information is not otherwise available, the Department of Commerce, in cooperation with the State highway departments, will erect signs giving specific information on services and facilities. This would include specific brand names of gasoline, the names or other specific identification of lodging and food facilities and other specific information of interest to the motoring public regarding recreation, historic sights, hospitals, and similar information.
The Bureau of Public Roads, the State highway departments and the highway research board also have started work on utilizing available technology to develop communications systems along our highways to provide information to the motorists. This includes the actual development of a pilot project of installing a communication system along a section of the interstate highway in which prerecorded messages can be transmitted into an automobile with a standard radio which is traveling along the highway. This research and development work will be pursued vigorously so that this additional means of informing the traveling public of services and facilities can be made available in future years.
If there is any other information which we can furnish the committee, we will be pleased to cooperate.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN CONNOR,
Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in his letter, the Secretary recognizes not only the committee's concern with the problem I outlined at the outset of my remarks; he also indicates that he shares that concern, and that if the amendment is adopted and the bill is enacted, he is willing to initiate a discussion between the States and the Secretary which will have the objective, from the point of view of the Secretary, of protecting the legitimate interests of roadside businesses which have grown up on the basis of highway traffic, which business, to a large extent, is dependent upon the ability to attract the attention of motorists.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. Who would have the final say?
Mr. MUSKIE. The final say would rest in the interpretation of the language found in the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. The operative language is:
As may be determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary.
The emphasis is upon agreement. If agreement were not reached, presumably the Secretary would be empowered to withhold.
So the question is when, in the course of the negotiations designed to lead to agreement, the Secretary would be justified in exercising the authority which the bill gives him. It is the argument of the sponsors of the amendment that the burden upon him to justify withdrawal would be so great that he would not do so unless he found that the States themselves had been arbitrary and not cooperative in the negotiations.