September 15, 1965
Page 23875
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator. Is the Senator able to state for the RECORD what the width of the area on each side of the center line of the right-of-way was under the Interstate System legislation, an area which was to be controlled so far as the erection of signs is concerned?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way, in the controlled area.
Mr. HOLLAND. From the right-of-way or from the center line of the right-of-way?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The nearest edge of the right-of-way. That is why I have referred to the right-of-way.
Mr. HOLLAND. In other words, under the interstate highway legislation, provision was made for the control of whatever was involved in the way of property rights over areas 660 feet in width on each side of the right-of -way?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes. I appreciate having the Senator from Florida carry forward this colloquy because it gives me the opportunity to note that interstate rights-of-way in rural areas are generally about 300 feet wide.
Mr. HOLLAND. The area as to which certain rights for the control of signs or obstructions are to be exercised is 660 feet on each side of the right-of-way?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; that is true.
Mr. HOLLAND. As to the very large mileage in the primary system that isalready constructed, some of it was constructed on a basis on which the States paid entirely for the rights-of-way, for 50 percent of the construction cost, and, as I understand, for all the cost of maintenance since the time of construction.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes maintenance is the responsibility of the State.
Mr. HOLLAND. A part of this mileage must be under the new legislation, which the Senator has described, under which the cost of the acquisition of rights-of-way enters into and becomes a part of the cost of the construction of the highway.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is true.
Mr. HOLLAND. As to that primary system, by what right of law does the proposed legislation seek to require the control of areas 660 feet on each side of the rights-of-way for the purpose of regulating signs? By what legal right can that function be exercised?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is the right of public interest, the benefit to the public, which I think is the primary consideration in the type of legislation we bring before the Senate today. I believe 20 of the 25 States which signed agreements under Public Law 85-767 have used their police power to acquire these rights.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Kentucky, so that he may respond further to the inquiry of the Senator from Florida,
Mr. COOPER. In discussing the power of the State -- the right by which a State can Control advertising within 660 feet of a right-of-way -- it was considered to be by right of eminent domain.
Mr. HOLLAND. That would involve, then, the payment of compensation for any part of a property right that was taken in a zone 660 feet in width on each side of the right-of-way of all primary aid roads, would it not?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is why we included the just compensation provision in the committee bill, substituting that section for the provision authorizing the use of police power in the original draft legislation.
Mr. HOLLAND. The point I am trying to make is this: Does the bill contemplate payment -- I think it must and should provide for the payment -- of any part of a property right that is taken by interference, which is accomplished when the right-of-way has on it signboards or other obstructions within 660 feet of the edge of the right-of-way?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes. That is why the bill contains a provision for just compensation. The committee believed this to be important. The administration legislation did not embody that concept when the bill was originally sent to Congress. We have written into the bill, as the Senator from Kentucky and other members of the committee know, a provision for just compensation.
Mr. HOLLAND. I am merely trying to place in the RECORD a clear picture of what is involved in the proposed legislation. As I understand, the bill has much more application to each mile of the primary system than it does to the interstate system, because in no instance has the Federal Government made such a requirement, so far as I know, with reference to such control of the 660 foot wide strip on each side of the rights-of-way of the primary system prior to this time.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is true. Until this bill comes to pass, as we hope will, that has not been done.
Mr. HOLLAND. That relates to the 225,000 miles, of the primary system?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It relates to the 225,000 miles of the primary system.
Mr. HOLLAND. The 225,000 miles involved, by all means the major part of the major expenditure, by whomever it is to be made, would be covered and provided. for in the proposed legislation?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct.
Mr. HOLLAND. If the Senator from West Virginia will indulge with me for a moment, I should like to make a brief statement. At one time, as the Senator, knows, I had the privilege of serving as Governor of my State of Florida. At that time, the same question had arisen. The State enacted legislation which at that time was suggested by the Garden Clubs of Florida -- legislation which I think has not proved to be adequate -- to cover the situation entirely, because speeds have become much greater. Other factors also now make the problem more difficult to solve than it was at the time the legislation was passed.
Under the program which the legislature enacted at that time, and in which I cooperated, it was provided that no signs should be erected on the right-of-way itself, except the required directional signs permitted by law, such as route markings, directional signs with respect to turns, and the like.
Would that be the case with reference to both segments of the highway system covered by this bill? In other words, would there be a ban on commercial signs entirely on the right-of-way itself, both on the Interstate System and on the primary system right-of-way?
Mr. RANDOLPH. On the highway right-of -way itself, yes.
Mr. HOLLAND. My recollection is -- and I may be in error -- that when we passed the interstate legislation, we excluded areas within incorporated cities and towns from the coverage of the billboard sign portion of the legislation.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HOLLAND. Is that concept preserved in the pending legislation, or is it departed from?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I would say that, in a sense, it is a departure in the proposed legislation, as applied to towns, municipalities, and cities, because we are stressing the zoning for industrial and commercial purposes.
Mr. HOLLAND. In other words, even though within an incorporated town, and even though the rights-of-way on the adjoining land might belong to the incorporated unit, this law would provide the exemption that is now applicable under the Interstate System to an area within incorporated towns, and to those portions, whether within or without incorporated towns, that could be designated as zoned for commercial or industrial uses.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I call attention to the language appearing on page 11, which reads as follows: "are used for industrial or commercial activities as determined in accordance with the provisions established by the legislatures of the several States."
Mr. HOLLAND. Does the Senator mean by that -- and I assume that he does -- that when the zoning legislation of the several States provides that there can be zoning based on commercial or industrial use, and where the zoning legislation of the respective States has been used to designate a certain area for commercial or industrial use, in such case that area would not be covered by the billboard provisions of this legislation'?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Off-premise signs in such zoned areas would be subject to control criteria in the pending bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, with respect to the requirements of the present law, I think it might be useful to read the language. The exemption would apply to the segments of the interstate system which "transverse commercial or industrial zones within the presently existing boundaries of incorporated municipalities."
Under the present law, to qualify for the exemption, the interstate system must not only be within the existing boundaries of an incorporated municipality, but must also be zoned commercial or industrial.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, under that concept, it would be correct to say, would it not, that the proposed law is a little broader than that, in that it would likewise apply the exemption to areas outside incorporated towns, which areas were zoned for commercial and industrial uses and were so used?
Mr. MUSKIE. That would have different application in different States. In my State, all the territory of the State, except the unincorporated wild lands, consists of incorporated municipalities, so that they would qualify, provided those municipalities had commercial and industrial zoning.
In other States, I believe that there are areas through which the Interstate System travels which are not within incorporated municipalities. As to those areas, the current bill would apply by permitting commercial and industrial zoning.
Mr. HOLLAND. Of course, this legislation would apply also to the primary system; and much of that, in my State, at least, would not be found within incorporated towns.
As I understand, the wording of the proposed legislation is such that areas which are not zoned for commercial or industrial use, whether they lie within or without incorporated towns or areas, would be exempt from this provision.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct, provided the State legislatures so zoned them. I believe that it is accurate to say also -- and this might be the time to say it -- that, in my opinion, the pending legislation operates less strictly on the primary system than on the interstate system.
Mr. HOLLAND. I wish the Senator would elaborate on that. I do not understand by reading the bill and report that it would operate in that manner. It seems to me that it would operate much more heavily, because, with regard to the interstate system, it has been operating from the beginning. There is no change, as I understand it, in the area that would be covered by the billboard requirement along the sides of the right-of-way, whereas this is completely new as to the 225,000 miles of the primary system.
Mr. MUSKIE. To that degree, the Senator is correct. The point I had in mind was that the bill provides for the exemption not only of areas which are zoned commercial and industrial, but also of areas which are not so zoned, but in which areas industrial or commercial activities are conducted, and which the legislature, with the approval of the Secretary, chooses to exempt from the impact of the bill.
In the Interstate System, such areas containing industrial and commercial activities have not grown because of the limited access feature of the Interstate System.
I do not believe that aspect of the bill would be of much consequence on the Interstate System. However, it can be of great consequence on the primary system by providing such relief as the legislature and the Secretary can agree upon.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I call attention to a matter now that I do not believe has been mentioned in the debate thus far.
I have heard nothing about this legislation except what has been in the press, until today. I have not been able to obtain a copy of the committee report until today.
I have had quite a number of calls from people in my State who do not pretend to speak for the entire billboard industry, but who do speak for the segments of the industry in which they have a part.
Their understanding was -- and I am asking for a very frank comment about this -- that legislation was agreed upon by the national representatives of their industry together with this committee, under date of September 3, and that legislation was included within the terms of the reported bill. They feel that certain amendments, with which I am not familiar, were supposed to be offered today which are very large departures from that legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I know of no agreement between the committee and the national billboard industry or any other industry. The billboard industry may have approved of what the committee did. However, there was no agreement. The bill does not represent any agreement between the national billboard industry or any other industry and the committee. I take strong exception to that implication or to that statement by the industry.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, there is no implication at all. I merely state that I received these calls today and that those people are good citizens. Perhaps they felt that they were right in relying upon what the committee had agreed upon. The individuals were satisfied and felt that they had a right to rely on it. We have not been able to obtain a copy of the report until today.
Mr. MUSKIE. The point at issue concerns the billboard industry, and, more importantly in my judgment, the small businesses in our resort States particularly, which depend upon roadside advertising, and the question of exempting areas in which there are industrial and commercial activities, but which areas are not formally zoned for that purpose.
The committee was concerned that this technique of exemption be used to provide legitimate relief, if the legislatures can justify it, for industries which have grown up in our States, which industries depend upon roadside advertising to call the attention of motorists to the services which they offer.
As the committee worked with the problem, it left the decision in these areas to the legislatures in the respective States. Understandably, the national billboard industry would approve of this, for whatever reasons they may wish to advance. However, the reason that the committee acted as it did was that it felt that the legislatures were the proper forum in which to consider the special problems attached to this kind of industrial and commercial activity.
The amendment which the Senate will be asked to consider and which will be offered, as I understand, by the distinguished Senator in charge of the bill, would give this authority in those areas to the legislatures, subject to the approval of the Secretary, thus making it a shared responsibility instead of the sole responsibility of the State. That is the issue as to which the billboard industry is now concerned.
Mr. HOLLAND. That is a very generous attitude of the amendment, if it is proposed to share the authority on primary roads. It certainly is within the jurisdiction of the States at present, and I cannot help commenting that I could not go along and approve of that kind of approach, because these are State highways, maintained by State money, in my State, and have been rebuilt, some of them two or three times, with much more money expended on them than there was at the time of the original construction.
The thing that makes the matter of particular importance -- and I have heard also from the motel industry in my State -- is that along the primary highways, the motels are located close to the highways. There are thousands off motels in my State, and many of them are located near or adjoining the rights-of-way of the primary highways, whereas they could not be so located under the Interstate System.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I point out that on-premise signs were totally exempted from the provisions of the bill?
Mr. HOLLAND. When people travel along the highways of Florida at 70 or 75 miles an hour, it is of little aid to them to have a sign stuck up immediately in front of the motel, indicating for the first time that a motel is there, or to have an electric sign which can be seen for only a limited distance. This presents a very real problem, in my State at least.
Mr. MUSKIE. And in mine. The Senator has touched upon a problem which I emphasized in the hearings before the committee, the executive sessions of the committee, and the markup sessions of the committee. It is a problem with which the entire committee was concerned and that is why it took the action it did.
Mr. HOLLAND. Then the committee is not supporting the amendment the Senator mentioned?
Mr. MUSKIE.. The committee members will have to speak for themselves. The committee has not met on this amendment.
I point out that under the primary system now, although they are State highways, as the Senator has stated, nevertheless, if the States undertake to take advantage of the Federal programs which are available on primary systems, they must now measure up to certain standards as to construction, imposed by the Federal Administrator and by Federal law.
Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator speaks of new construction on primary roads; and I agree with him completely.
Mr. MUSKIE. Not entirely new construction.
Mr. HOLLAND. But on construction that has long since been completed and subjected to reconstruction at State expense, in some instances time after time, where the right-of-way was paid for by the State, and where the people have invested their money in motels, service
stations, and the like, relying upon the existence of the rights-of-way that then existed, and located their property there, there is in our State an immense problem which I would not want the committee to overlook. I do not know how many motels we have, but they number in the thousands. I am sure that is true in other States also. I see the disinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE] is present. I have the pleasure, about once a year, of traveling over Highway 301 through his State. I believe I would be safe in saying that there are hundreds of motels along that highway, very fine motels, some of which I have been delighted to avail myself from time to time. The same thing is true all up and down the seaboard.
The matter of putting primary system mileage in exactly the same class as interstate mileage is the thing which disturbs me, for the purposes of considering this legislation. If we were merely
proceeding a little further than we did before in the Interstate System, with full knowledge that we had taken an approach, at the time that system was established, which gave full notice that we proposed to protect wide belts along the edges of the right-of-way, and also to have very wide rights-of-way, both of which objectives are now being fulfilled, that is one thing. But if we turn to the 25,000 miles of the primary system now existing, as I understand from my distinguished friend from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], that is of concern to me. I am not particularly concerned about new mileage on the primary system, yet to be constructed, because, from time
to time, it is our right to prescribe conditions for Federal participation if such conditions be reasonable. But I am disturbed about the existing 225,000 miles, when we know that many millions of dollars have been expended by investors in good faith, in building motels, restaurants; filling stations, and other service establishments along primary aid roads, and frequently close to the road, making it impossible to recognize the pending legislation without great harm, it seems to me, to many of the investors.
I thank my distinguished friend, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] for yielding.
I have not wished to take undue advantage of his time, but I thought we might as well know exactly what is involved. I understand that some amendments are coming. I am not seeking to go into the details of them, except to say that the complaints I have received from both the signboard interests and the motel and gasoline interests have had to do with the proposed amendments.
Perhaps they have received exaggerated reports as to what is involved.
However, they were relying confidently upon the contents of the proposed legislation which was reported by the committee and covered by the report -- although the report was not available until this morning -- and which, if I understand the amendments at all, would be nullified by the provisions of these amendments.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I believe that the comments of the Senator from Florida have been helpful in the clarification of the pending legislation as proposed. With regard to certain aspects, we are in disagreement.
I wish the RECORD to show clearly that no sign will necessarily be removed until July 1970. The Secretary will report to Congress on the primary systems in January 1967. It is also important that I read from the report, at page 5:
Therefore, subsection (d) provides that the Secretary shall, in consultation with the States, provide for an area at an appropriate distance from an interchange on the interstate system, on which informational signs, displays and devices may be erected and maintained in accordance with national standards to be promulgated by the Secretary.
Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is now referring entirely to the interstate system interchanges, as I understand.
Mr. RANDOLPH. At that point.
Mr. HOLLAND. The communications that I have referred to this morning do not refer at all to that subject.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I proceed to read from the report:
It is the committee's intention that the signs shall be erected and maintained by the State highway departments on the public right of way and shall designate by brand names and registered trade styles--
I said this earlier in my statement today--
available facilities for fuel, food, and lodging at or near the interchange.
The committee also emphasizes that such signs shall provide information regarding hospital facilities.
That was a concern of the committee.
The committee notes the problem of extending outdoor advertising controls to the primary
system on which roadside businesses and off-premise advertising have long been established.
That is the point that was made by the distinguished Senator from Florida.
It is apparent from the testimony of administration and State highway officials, that there is no clear and determinate knowledge regarding the impact of the proposed controls on the primary system.
Then reference is made to the statement I have just made:
It is expected that the necessary information would be available when the Secretary of Commerce reports to the Congress in January 1967, as required by section 303 of this act.
This is required under section 303.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MONTOYA in the chair). Does the Senator from West Virginia yield to the Senator from Washington?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I should like to make my statement now because I may not have an opportunity later on, during debate on the bill.
I merely wish to take a moment to make my position as clear as possible on the bill.
I compliment the committee on making this step forward. If I had my way, we would be making a great leap forward instead of a step.
Someone has said that there is not too much virtue in consistency. At least I have been consistent on this subject.
Yesterday, I checked and found that 32 years ago, when I was a member of my State legislature, I introduced a bill to take billboards off State highways.
Therefore, if I had my way I would do the same thing 32 years later.
I appreciate that there are many problems involved, but I wish my position to be made clear.
Although I shall vote for the bill, I would have gone much further and taken a leap forward instead of only a step.
I hope that someday we shall go further.