CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
September 16, 1965
Page 24127
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
If I may, I would like to have the attention of the manager Senator RANDOLPH and also the attention of the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator NEUBERGER.
In speaking on the bill when it was taken up, I noted that in committee I had offered an amendment which was defeated. The purpose of the amendment was to maintain the strict standards applicable to the Interstate System which had been accepted by the Congress in the enactment of Public Law 85-767.
May I state what those standards were and are?
The standards with respect to the type of sign, number, lighting, and so forth, on the Interstate System could be determined by regulations issued by the Secretary. It was provided also that signs could be erected only in two areas on the Interstate System. The two areas in which signs could be erected were these: One was within the limits of a municipality; and, second, areas which on September 21, 1959, had been established as industrial or commercial.
The above are the standards applicable to the Interstate System under Public Law 85-767.
The amendment which has just been adopted, and one which I think should not have been adopted now provides that the Secretary of Commerce can provide standards for signs both upon the Interstate System and the primary system.
Section (e) is open-ended because it enables the legislatures of the States to zone whatever areas their legislatures may designate as commercial and industrial, upon which advertisements may be established. Because of this open-ended feature, I believed the last amendment should not have been adopted by giving the Secretary larger authority.
The open-end provision enabling the establishment of new zoning area applies to the Interstate System. I called this to the attention of the representatives of the administration when they came before our committee. I called it to the attention of the subcommittee. I called attention to the fact that we were adopting a bill which permits the extension of advertising on the Interstate System, now limited to two areas. We are now opening up to advertising the great Interstate System, with its 41,000 miles coursing through open country. to the decision of the State legislatures to establish areas upon which advertising may be established. I want the Senate to know this.
My judgment is that whatever we do with the primary system, we should preserve and assure a beautiful Interstate System. It will not be done under this bill, and this should be known.
My amendment is offered to maintain the character of the Interstate System, as was fought for under the leadership of the late Richard Neuberger and THOMAS KUCHEL, and then Senator NEUBERGER after the death of her husband. I very much hope that the amendment will be adopted. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield back any time I have.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I would like to hear some response to the argument of the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, so far as I am concerned, the Senator from Kentucky has made a very persuasive argument. I would like to hear from the manager of the bill or other colleagues on the committee comment on the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky; or are they willing to rest their case on the merits of his argument? As of now, I am going to vote with the Senator from Kentucky unless some Senator shows me some reason why I should not.
May I have the attention of the manager of the bill?
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time for that purpose?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield time out of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFF Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish to take such time as has been allotted to me by the Senator from West Virginia to develop an understanding on my part as to exactly what is the purpose of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER].
Language similar to that which has been offered by the Senator from Kentucky was introduced in committee, but was introduced to apply to the language of the bill as it then stood before the committee, and as provided in the committee bill which was reported to the Senate. The language involved has been amended by the amendment just adopted.
I would like to understand the meaning of the amendment of the Senator in the light of the amendment which was just adopted.
As I understand the concern of the Senator, it is that for an open period in the future, after the legislatures have once acted, with the concurrence of the Secretary, to zone, the legislatures can subsequently, as he understands the bill now pending, rezone new industrial areas on the Interstate System.
Is my understanding correct?
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct. I shall be glad to explain it.
Mr. MUSKIE. So that what the Senator is saying is that under the bill, even as it has just been amended, he feels that after there has been a zoning of the Interstate System, by the legislatures, with the concurrence of the Secretary, the legislatures could reopen the question in the future to rezone and include new areas on the Interstate System in industrial and commercial zones.
Mr. COOPER. No. My amendment is much simpler.
Public Law 85-767, providing for the control of advertising on the Interstate Highway System was enacted in 1958, chiefly. That bill was under the leadership of the late Senator Richard. Neuberger, and Senator THOMAS KUCHEL and Senator COTTON. We remember the -tremendous battle at the time of the enactment of that legislation.
The legislation provided for Federal standards relating to the signs -- their number, lighting, and so forth. It is the same language that we have in the bill concerning physical characteristics of signs erected upon the Interstate Highway System.
The act provided also that no signs should be erected upon the Interstate Highway System with the exception of two areas. One area was within the city limits of municipalities. I read from the act.
First, it provides that the prohibition of advertising, "shall not apply to those segments of the Interstate System which transverse commercial or industrial zones within the presently existing boundaries of incorporated municipalities wherein the use of real property adjacent to the Interstate System is subject to municipal regulation or control" -- that is, within a municipality.
It established another area in which advertising could be established. And I read:
Or which transverse other areas where the land use--
This is the important language--
as of the date of approval of this Act is clearly established by State law as industrial or commercial.
Under existing law affecting or applying to Interstate Highway Systems, advertising is limited to these two areas.
How does the pending bill change these standards for the Interstate Highway System? The amendment which has just been adopted would permit the Secretary of Commerce to regulate the type of advertising in municipalities -- on the Interstate System -- although the advertising in the commercial and industrial zones of a municipality could not be prohibited.
But the bill offered by the administration and reported by the subcommittee, and now about to be accepted by the Senate, goes much further with respect to the Interstate System.
It would permit the State legislature from now on to add zones along its 41,000 miles, wherever they saw fit, and open them to advertising.
I supported the provisions with respect to the primary system because its characteristics differ from the Interstate System. Advertising on the primary system has been long established. The system passes through communities, where advertising is necessary. I believe we made a mistake in accepting the Randolph amendment and authorizing the control of the Secretary.
The 41,000 miles of the Interstate System is being established for defense, and for interstate travel. The Federal Government pays 90 percent of the costs. No vested advertising rights existed prior to its construction. It transverses open country. Why should it be opened up for additional advertising as the bill would permit?
This is the contradiction of the bill. Imposing controls on the primary system and relaxing controls on the Interstate System. This I argued in committee. I have discussed the contradiction with representatives of the Department of Commerce. The Deputy Secretary of Commerce admits that what I say is correct, that new areas on the Interstate can be opened to advertising. He did say and correctly that if the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia were adopted, as it has been adopted, it would provide additional controls on the size of signs within zones on the Interstate System. But I make the point that we are opening up the Interstate System to additional advertising.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am still not certain that I understand what the Senator from Kentucky means.
Mr. COOPER.. That is probably my fault.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is probably my fault. I should like to narrow the area of his approach .
First, I should like to examine with more precision what the Senator believes and what I understand the bill does.
There is language, which as the Senator knows, I submitted, and which is a part of the bill, to the effect that the standards which have been adopted in the States which have complied under existing law shall not be less strict than they are under the agreement which implement that compliance. So with respect to the 25 States that have complied under the present law, the bill clearly does not relax what has already been done.
Mr. COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. So now we are talking about the other 25 States.
Mr. COOPER. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Do I correctly understand, then, that the Senator's concern is not directed to the States which have complied?
Mr. COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. As to the other 25 States, what the Senator is concerned about is this: He said -- and if I do not quote him correctly, the RECORD will -- that from now on something can be done to reduce the standards in the other States, and the Senator seems to be concerned that there is an open end in terms of time. Do I correctly understand that he is concerned about that point?
Mr. COOPER. Yes. I merely stated what the bill provides.
Mr. MUSKIE. The bill clearly provides that effective control means that after January 1, 1968, such signs shall be controlled. Moreover, on page 11, line 17, the bill provides that in the States which have cooperated with the Secretary, signs which do not conform must be removed by July 1, 1970. I do not see the basis f or the Senator's concern that there is an open end in terms of time.
Mr. COOPER. We talked all this over in committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. I never understood it there; I thought I would try to understand it here..
Mr. COOPER. The Senator from Maine will admit, will he not, that State legislatures, upon the enactment of the bill, will be enabled to create additional zones for commercial and industrial purposes both along the primary system and an Interstate Highway System?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have asked questions in the order of my choosing, so that I could understand the Senator's views. So I should like to clear up the question of open end on the point of time; then I should like to go to the point the Senator has just raised.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine has expired.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator from Kentucky feel that there is an open end in terms of time?
Mr. COOPER. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Why?
Mr. COOPER. Because there is no limitation upon the action of the legislatures -- and we cannot limit their zoning powers--from the date of the enactment of the bill. The legislature may create additional zones termed "industrial" or "commercial," on which advertising may be erected, both on the primary system and the Interstate Highway System. I am sure the Senator from Maine win agree to that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not agree to that. There is nothing in the bill that gives a legislature that power. Legislatures have power. Congress cannot take it away from them. We may disagree as to what effect the actions of Congress may have in that respect, but basically we agree that legislatures are sovereign bodies and that, within certain limits, they have powers that Congress cannot take away from them. We may disagree as to what the limits are.
Mr. COOPER. I should like to leave the argument of generalities. We talked about the subject in committee. There is no denial on the part of the Secretary of Commerce that under the bill additional zones can be created along the Interstate Highway System upon which advertising may be erected. I should like to know if the manager of the bill--
Mr. MUSKIE. The manager of the bill has yielded time to me, so that I may try to clarify this subject in my own mind and so that I may comment on the Senator's amendment for the benefit of the Senate, as suggested by the Senator from Oregon.
If the Senator from Kentucky believes he has made all the explanation he can, my only comment would be unfavorable; and I might conceivably have a favorable comment otherwise.
So the question I should like to ask is: Does the Senator from Kentucky feel that a loophole has been created in terms of time? Referring to the dates I have already referred to, it seems to me that we have closed the door so far as time is concerned.
Mr. COOPER. I said that the Interstate Highway Act provides a cutoff for areas upon which advertising can be established. It defines the areas: First, those within municipal limits; second, other areas where industrial or commercial use had been clearly established by State law as of the date of the approval of this act. That is the cutoff date under the Interstate Highway System.
Mr. MUSKIE. That act has expired.
Mr. COOPER. Of course it has expired; but the standards under that act were established in 1958. The point I am making is that they were much more restrictive than the pending bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Perhaps I had better make my comments first and then let the Senator from Kentucky comment upon them, because, with all due respect, I do not believe the Senator from Kentucky is giving an answer to my question.
Mr. COOPER. Will the Senator ask it again?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have made a study of the Interstate Highway Act, and I do not find anywhere in it any language that can be construed as limiting the power of the legislature to act at some time in the future when agreements entered into between the States and the highway administrator have expired. I can find nothing that makes agreements binding indefinitely in the future.
It is inconceivable to me that State legislatures would violate a policy that has been laid down and practiced under such agreements. But I cannot find in that act anything that establishes a cutoff date beyond which future legislatures cannot conceivably change the result of the Interstate System in the various States. If the Senator will refer me to it, I will consider the merits of his
argument on that point.
Mr. COOPER. Of course, no one can deny the right of a State legislature to create zones. I think we agree upon that. We cannot deny the right of a State legislature to establish, under its police powers, zoning areas.
What Congress can do, and what it did, was to say that if the States entered into agreements with the Federal Government, under which the States would agree to establish controls, and in return the Federal Government would make bonus payments to the States, it would be agreed that advertising could be established only in the areas which I have described, and as to which I quoted from the bill.
That is the point. As the Senator knows, the entire Interstate Highway System is not built in one stage and at one time. There are various segments. The agreements apply to each segment as it is constructed.
What I have tried to make clear as to the distinction is that in the Interstate Highway System the establishment of advertising was limited to the zones defined in the act.
The legislatures have authority, under the pending bill to create additional zones for advertising. The Secretary of Commerce would have control only over advertising standards.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, to sum up my understanding of the discussion on this point up to this moment, under the law that has been in effect until it expired in June, agreements could be entered into by complying States with the Secretary to control billboards on the Interstate System, and an exception was provided in that act related to commercial or industrial zones.
There is nothing contained in the act that I have been able to find that limits or attempts to limit, legally or illegally, the right of some legislature in a complying State, at some indefinite point in the future, to depart from that agreement.
It is inconceivable to me that a State, having embarked on such a policy, having entered into such an agreement, would depart, or that a State legislature would at some point depart from the policy laid down by such an agreement. However, there is nothing in the act to prohibit it, if it chooses, after the agreement has expired, after the State has received its bonus money, after the Secretary loses any authority to impose a penalty. In that respect the existing act to which the Senator's amendment makes reference, and which the Senate incorporated by reference, does nothing that the pending bill does not do on this point.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, there is a very simple explanation.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator has a simple explanation, I should welcome it.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, even a man who is not versed in the law and who has a strange background for being a Member of this august body understands this.
What my colleague, the Senator from Kentucky, is trying to say is that the rules laid down under Public Law 85-767 were more restrictive than the rules that would be contained in the pending bill.
I do not want to lose the Senator on this point.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has not lost me. I am right with him, but I disagree with him to this point.
Mr. MURPHY. The pending amendment would provide that the legislature may sit down with the Secretary of Commerce and, under certain circumstances, may institute new areas along the Interstate Highway System and designate them as commercial, and, under the conditions laid down by this law, it cannot be changed.
I believe that the Senate would be weakening the bill by eliminating this language.
I stand with my colleague, the Senator from Kentucky. I agree, as I did in the beginning, that this language should be placed back in the bill. I believe that if the Senator looks at it, not in the spirit of disagreement, but from the practical approach, he will find that it Is proper language.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I disagree with almost everything that the Senator has said, including his statement that I have entered into the discussion in a spirit of disagreement.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I did not mean that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was trying to work out an understanding upon which we could base an acceptance of the amendment. However, before doing so, we must know what the amendment means.
The comments of the Senator had absolutely nothing to do with the immediate point that we were discussing. Under the law which expired last June, there was a cut-off date which precluded any further action by legislatures or the Secretary beyond that cut-off date in the way of adding new zones.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall yield in a moment.
That provision is not contained in the present law. Simply referring to it in the Senator's amendment is not going to place it in the old law, and it is not going to place it in this law, because it does not exist.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, when we incorporate a law by reference -- and I shall yield in a moment -- and the only language, contained in the bill is that reference, we should understand what that reference is.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, may I say--
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I finish? It is more important to know all the details; and the details here are considerable, concerning what we incorporate in the bill. There are details that we have not had a chance to discuss in the Senate. There are things which have not been considered by the Senator from Kentucky or by the committee.
I do not know what we are hauling into the act by this reference. This was never a part of the bill. It was suggested in the committee. However, I do not know what we would be hauling into the bill by this reference. We would be hauling into the bill the understanding of the Senator that the old law is more strict than this law. However, I have not yet been satisfied that the old law is more strict. If it is, in a desirable way, we will buy it. What we want to know is what we are buying.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I do not know how I can explain this more fully. I explained it in the committee on two occasions. We discussed the amendment in the subcommittee. I offered the amendment in the full committee. It was rejected. I explained it as fully at that time as I have explained it today.
I have discussed with my distinguished friend the Senator from West Virginia the amendment, and he understands it. I discussed the amendment with the Under Secretary of Commerce. He understood it. He said that he agreed that it would permit the creation of additional zones upon which advertising could be established. He had no difficulty in understanding it. I discussed it with Mr. Boyd and with Mr. Bridwell. They both understood it and agreed that this bill would enable the inclusion of additional zoning areas on the Interstate System.
I say in answer to the Senator's argument, that no cutoff date is established in the old law, Public Law 85-767, and there is nothing to prohibit future legislatures from establishing zoning, that if he were correct, the purpose of the Interstate Highway Act respecting advertising would be a nullity. If the Senator's argument were correct, we would not have had our tremendous debate on this matter in 1958, 1959, and in 1961, when it was difficult even to secure an extension of the act. Everybody knew what the debate meant.
The Senator remembers the fights over efforts to obtain additional zones in which advertising could be established on the Interstate System and which were usually defeated.
This bill would make provision for additional areas.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois for the purpose of asking a question of the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. DOUGLAS. It is very difficult for those who are not members of the Committee on Public Works to follow the details of the discussion.
I should like to ask the Senator from Kentucky to which section of the current bill he is referring. Is it section (e) on page 11, lines 11 to 13?
Mr. COOPER. It would be section (e) but we must remember that the Senator from West Virginia introduced a substitute to section (e) which we debated all afternoon and finally agreed to. This amendment is an amendment to that amendment.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is the Senator addressing his criticism to the original text of section (e), or to the section as amended?
Mr. COOPER. Both, because both exempt from the prohibitions against advertising such zones as may be established in the future under authority of State law.
Mr. DOUGLAS. It would be helpful to me, at least, if the Senator would point out the specific language in section (e) on page 11 which in his judgment permits further industrial zoning along the Interstate System.
Mr. COOPER. I shall have to read the language adopted today. This is in the new section (e), and I shall read it, in order to note the reason:
Orderly and effective display of outdoor advertising, while remaining consistent with the purposes of this section, signs, displays, and devices whose size, lighting and spacing is to be determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary–
Thus far I have been talking about only the physical characteristics of signs that may be controlled. The section provides also that signs may be erected and maintained within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way within areas adjacent to the Interstate and Primary Systems, and this is the important language:
Which are zoned industrial or commercial under authority of State law, or in unzoned commercial or industrial areas as may be determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary.
The authority is prospective. It provides that if in the future, legislatures create additional zones., commercial and industrial, upon the Interstate System, in such areas, then, advertising could he established.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Would the approval of the Secretary of Commerce be required for that?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is exactly correct.
Mt. COOPER. No; he has no authority to deny advertising in areas zoned under authority of State law. Such authority, according to the statement of the manager of the bill, applies to the last section, in unzoned commercial or industrial areas.
Mr. RANDOLPH. No; he has authority with the States to control signs in the industrial and commercial areas.
Mr. COOPER. Only the type of signs.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The size and spacing of signs.
Mr. COOPER. Is it the type of signs?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, the type of signs,
Mr. COOPER. Not the establishment of signs but the type, am I correct?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. COOPER. Not the establishment of signs.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr, President, I request a few moments to sum up my understanding of the Senator's amendment on this question of cutoff in time. I have already read to the Senate the pertinent sections of the bill pending before us, which reads that after January 1, 1968, such controls must be imposed in States where the act is effective -- and it can be ineffective only if the States refuse to comply, and risk the loss of 10 percent of their Federal aid money.
So when the act becomes effective, it must become effective as of January 1,1968. Any agreements between the legislatures of the States thereafter are subject, of course, to the acquiescence of the Secretary. If the States should thereafter, notwithstanding whatever action they may have taken before that date, undertake action to open up adjacent to the Interstate system new industrial and commercial zones, they could do so only with the consent of the secretary of Commerce, as required by the amendment adopted this afternoon.
The Senator from Kentucky has spoken of the fact that representatives of the Department with whom he spoke agreed with him. If they did so, they did so before the adoption of the amendment adopted this afternoon. I should not be prepared to agree with him as to the effect of the pending bill before this amendment was adopted; but certainly the amendment which we have now adopted places control of any relaxation or any proposed relaxation in the future in the hands of the Secretary of Commerce.
Finally, I repeat what I have said in my questions directed to the Senator from Kentucky, who is completely sincere and honest in his view, that I can find nothing in the current law, which he would incorporate by reference, which would correct the problem as it exists, because there was no cutoff date in the law that expired last June which would deal with the problem he has raised. Indeed, the cutoff dates in the pending bill are more effective than anything found in the law that expired last June.
One final point. The Senator incorporated by reference the standards requirements of the old law.
Those are not all more strict than those in the pending measure. Let me read one. I read from the act:
Signs erected or maintained pursuant to authorization or permitted under State law, and not inconsistent with the national policy and standards of this section, advertising activities being conducted at a location within 12 miles of the point at which such signs are located.
This is not permitted under the pending bill. It is permitted under the old law, and I submit that that is a less strict provision than the measure with which we are dealing. I do not know what other provisions in the old law we might have second thoughts about, should we incorporate it by reference as the Senator suggests.
Mr, MURPHY. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MURPHY. In the language of the bill which was reported by the committee, there is protection against the point the Senator has referred to, I believe. It reads, “permit a reduction in standards." In other words, the standards cannot be more lenient.
Mr. MUSKIE. Than the old law;
Mr. MURPHY. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have just read a section of the old law which is reduction of the standards in this bill
Mr. MURPHY. The language in the original bill would not permit reduction of standards.
Mr. MUSKIE. It would if we incorporate it by reference.
Mr. MURPHY. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. When we incorporate it by reference, it becomes a part of this measure. T he language to which the Senator refers was written into the bill without the provision advocated by the senator from Kentucky. If we include the language advocated by the Senator from Kentucky, the effect of the language the Senator has just read will be different than it was without that language.
Mr. MURPHY. I do not mean to try the Senator's patience.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is not trying my patience.
Mr. MURPHY. But where it reads "nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a reduction in the standards," the strictest standards in Public Law 85-767 are guaranteed. Any
thing less stringent is not permitted, in the bill which came from the committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. The words "nothing in this section" mean something different when the language of the Senator from Kentucky is in the bill than when it is not in the bill. The effect is different.
Mr. MURPHY. Now I am confused.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from California is no more confused than I was during the discussion by the Senator from Kentucky. That is another reason why I cannot support the amendment.
Mt. COOPER. I do not desire to continue the debate. I will stand on the statement I have made, that the standards for physical characteristics of signs on the Interstate Highway System, are under the control of the Secretary of Commerce. If my amendment is adopted, standards relating to size, lighting, cannot be less than they are under the old act. My amendment intends, first, that all signs on the Interstate Highway System, as provided under the old act -- that is, their physical characteristics -- shall be in conformity with standards established by the Secretary of Commerce.
The second point of my amendment is that it could not permit as the bill does, the erection of advertising in additional zones or areas created by State legislatures along the Interstate Highway System.
I say this with the greatest courtesy, but some diversions have been made in the debate. We know that under the present act, signs cannot be established on the Interstate Highway System, except in two instances. The first is within municipalities, and the second is in areas which were established at the time of the passage of the act. My amendment would preserve those limitations. The pending bill would permit additional areas.
So far as the interstate Highway System is concerned, the bill is not as restrictive as the old law. It opens up the Interstate Highway System to advertising. The Senate should know it. I do not want to see it opened up. That is why I have offered my amendment. and why I hope it will be adopted.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 5 minutes?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Kentucky yield to the Senator from Oregon?
Mr. COOPER. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, at this moment, I believe that I personify confusion more confounded minute by minute and, therefore, if the Senator from Kentucky would help me by discussing the problem hypothetically with me, I would appreciate it.
I get in my car in Washington, D.C., after the bill is passed, assuming in its present form without the Senator's amendment, and I drive on the Interstate Highway System most of the way to Portland, Ore. I wish to know, if the bill is passed in its present form, without the Senator's amendment, whether any State along the way, through its legislature, after passage of this bill, could pass legislation zoning some of the wide open spaces on that highway which are not at present zoned?
Mr. COOPER. It could, under the language of section (e). The legislature could create additional zones for industrial and commercial purposes, or designate other areas which would be eligible for the establishment of advertising. By reason of the amendment which was adopted this afternoon can come under that, and the Secretary would be able to control the physical characteristics of advertising in such areas, but he could not prevent the actual establishment of advertising in additional areas about which the Senator from Oregon has raised his question.
Mr. MORSE. He could not stop the erection of signs. He could require only that the signs be of a certain size, is that what the Senator is saying?
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MORSE. What would happen if signs were erected contrary to his recommendations as to size?
Mr. COOPER. The Secretary could exercise the 10-percent penalty and could withhold money from the State.
Mr. MORSE, Next, do I correctly understand that the Senator is saying that would be a weakening of the law of 1958, in that it would. result in signs being put up in areas where, under the law of 1958, signs could not be put up?
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct. That is my contention and my position. I believe that I am correct.
Mr. MORSE. Let me ask the Senator from West Virginia, or the Senator from Maine, or both, what their answer is to that question. So far as I am concerned, this is the nub of the issue. I thought we would be enacting a bill today to protect the public interest on the Interstate Highway System, too, from cluttering up the Interstate Highway System with signs.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the bill, if enacted today -- and we hope to pass it today -- would not allow the cluttering up of the landscape along the Interstate System, as indicated by my good friend the Senator from Kentucky. That is not the purpose of the pending bill, as it so states. It is important to realize that the nub was not the amendment now before us, but it was the amendment which I offered and which was adopted by a vote of 44 to 40.
Mr. MORSE. Which I voted for.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes. That was the crux of this debate. We saw by the closeness of the vote how much of a fight it was. That amendment was opposed by the Senator from Kentucky. Let me say most emphatically that my amendment, which was adopted 44, to 40, restricts and forecloses any possibility -- and I underscore those words -- of the type of strip zoning for signs envisaged by the Senator from Kentucky as taking place if his amendment is not adopted.
Mr. President, let me say also that advertising on the Interstate Highway System could come about only where there was a commercial or industrial zone, and then only when there was an agreement between the State and the Secretary of Commerce. The penalty is written into the bill. Even with the amendment and the good intent of the Senator from Kentucky, it is possible that his amendment, as worded, might even authorize the bonuses to the States which have not received bonuses. There is a question implied in the legislation as it would be amended by the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.
Let me say to the Senator from Oregon that I have labored diligently on this proposed legislation. We considered the matter in the subcommittee and in the committee. Of course, it has been changed on the floor of the Senate today. That is why we took the time to probe the mind -- and it is a very fine mind -- of the Senator from Kentucky.
However, I wish to have a good bill. I have worked hard to bring a good bill to the floor of the Senate. I have leaned over backward to offer amendments on behalf of the administration. In offering them, I have done the best I could do to bring in a bill on which the House can work its will and bring forth a measure to final passage.
Mr. President, I regret very much -- and I say this kindly -- that the Senator from Kentucky, in the last minutes of this debate, after 2 days, brings in the pending amendment. I repeat, my amendment, which was adopted by a vote of 44 to 40, restricts and forecloses any possibility of problems arising of the kind envisaged by the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. MORSE, Let me ask one more question, and then I am through, because no one has greater admiration for the work of the Senator from West Virginia than I, not only on this piece of proposed legislation, but also on other legislation. I should like to know what damage, if any, adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky would do to the bill in its present form, as it now lies before the Senate.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I have stated that I believe it might extend by referral, reenact the old law. That is a possibility. In counseling with the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] at this point, I believe that there is a possibility that bonuses could be extended.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there are some effects which would be predictable and could be identified in a hasty review of the old law, but there are some effects which one could not properly predict without taking the old law and sitting down side by side with the new law, to get the net effect of molding these two laws together. This would involve, not only the section to which the Senator from Kentucky has directed his attention, but also other sections which are involved in the problem which he has described. The old law was worked out on the "carrot" principle, with the idea of bringing the States into compliance with the incentive to accomplish certain targets which were spelled out. The present law is mandatory.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. It uses a different technique and a different compulsion. It sets up slightly different targets but not, I assure the Senator from Oregon, any relaxed targets so far as the Interstate Highway System is concerned.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
Mr. MORSE. Let me ask this question, and I shall then be glad to yield to my colleague, I am speaking with a lack of knowledge of details of the law. I know the objectives that we wish to protect but fears have been raised in the minds of many, in whispered conversations, and we do not wish to do anything in the Senate this afternoon which in any way would endanger the objective of beautifying the Interstate Highway System. Therefore, my question is this: We must go to conference with the House, anyway, must we not?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is always possible that a conference will be necessary on such legislation as this; and I have in the amendment I have offered the provision in the original bill. The administration has come forward with this proposal because it found it was bad law.
Mr. MORSE. But the Cooper amendment is not in the House bill. There is no House bill yet.
Mr. RANDOLPH. No. The House committee is in executive session, and I am informed that the subcommittee is now working on a committee print which closely parallels the Senate version of the bill.
Mr. COOPER, Mr. President–
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a question on the comments made by the Senators from West Virginia and Maine? How could there be brought in the law that expired. on June 30, 1965? Both Senators have stated that this may be bringing a bonus into those 25 States, but the law expired on June 30, 1965.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read the language of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a reduction in standards established on the erection of signs, displays, and devices in zones other than as provided by Public Law 85-767.
By reference this incorporates the provisions of the old law, which I have not completely identified. I have not had an opportunity to identify it. So I would not presume to say to the Senator whether or not it would have that effect.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Does the Senator Mean that the old law could be reenacted by this amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. If we enact its provisions we do not know what we are pulling in from the old law.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I hesitate to go over these matters, but some of the arguments made -- and I say this with great respect for my friends -- astound me. I give the Senate an example. The Senator from Maine has suggested that I may be offering an amendment which would reenact the old law.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will permit me, I did not say that.
Mr. COOPER. If the Senator will permit, I was going to say what the Senator said. It was that my amendment might bring the bonus system into effect, which would mean the reenactment of the old law. He said that it could happen because I mentioned by reference Public Law 85-767.
Let me read what the committee did. This is what the committee stated. I refer to page 11, line 11, of the committee substitute:
Except as provided herein, nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a reduction in standards established pursuant to Public Law 85-767 or under applicable State laws.
It is the committee's language. All I have said is that nothing shall be construed to permit a reduction in standards -- and that reference to standards relates to the physical characteristics of the standards, that is, signs and displays -- other than as provided in Public Law 85-767. The standards provided in the old law are explicit and very limited.
This is the last time I intend to speak on the amendment. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] is a dear friend of mine. No one has worked harder, and no one has been more direct, honest and fair than he in the explanation of the bill and every amendment. I ask him this question; Under subsection (e) is it not correct that advertising will be permitted on the Interstate System in areas which are zoned industrial or commercial under authority of State law. Is it not correct that this includes any zoning which in future years may be declared by a State as industrial or commercial?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct; and I have so stated.
Mr. COOPER. In such zones, advertising on the interstate system may be established?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; and I have so stated.
Mr. COOPER. That is correct. And the Secretary of Commerce, while he may limit and control the physical characteristics of signs in that area, cannot prevent the establishment of advertisements in such areas. Is that correct?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I have said earlier, and I repeat, that the amendment which was adopted this afternoon restricts and forecloses the kind of zoning which seems to worry the Senator from Kentucky. I think that it is important here also to mention the old law. We have some 17,000 miles of the interstate system open to traffic. The best indication that it was a bad law administratively is the fact that bonus payments have been made on only 195 miles of the Interstate System out of the total mileage open to traffic of some 17,000 miles.
Mr. COOPER. I agree that only 25 States have accepted bonuses. I get back to my question. This is the key question. I know the Senator knows the bill well and I know he can answer this question. My question is, in those areas which may be zoned in future years under authority of State law, as commercial and industrial, can the Secretary of Commerce prohibit the establishment of advertisements, provided the advertisements meet his standards relating to size, number, and so forth?
Mr. RANDOLPH. He cannot.
Mr. COOPER. He cannot.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. How would the Senator from Kentucky close the loophole?
Mr. COOPER. By providing the same standards that are applicable under the law enacted in 1958.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Did that foreclose the State legislatures from prospectively putting in a zoning area for commercial or industrial purposes?
Mr. COOPER. No. We could not foreclose a State from zoning both industrial and commercial areas. What it did foreclose was the establishment of advertisements in those areas, as the Senator from West Virginia has just stated, and this is the basis of my amendment, the bill would not prohibit the establishment of additional industrial and commercial areas.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE]. We all know of the contributions he has made to the Interstate System through his authorship of the act.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
The President will recall that perhaps my most fruitful years in the Senate were during the sponsorship of the Interstate Highway Act. I worked very closely with the late Senator from Oregon, Senator Richard Neuberger.
With respect to the particular features of the law now under discussion, we did not succeed in obtaining the enactment of a law as strong and as adequate as any desired, and particularly as he and I desired.
It has been proved inadequate to bring about the desired results. That is acknowledged. I appreciate the concern of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], but we cannot foreclose the future.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GORE. The very necessity of change, the certainty of change, prevents foreclosing the future. The entire interstate highway program is base upon the principle that the States have the power of initiation. The Federal government has the power of approval or disapproval. This applies with respect to the location of the highway, the design standards of the highway, the number of access points, and the number of egress points.
It is provided that after an interstate highway has been allocated, and has been approved, and the number of access and egress points agreed upon, the State cannot add an additional access point except upon the approval of the Secretary of Commerce. This is necessary.
It is necessary that this power of approval or disapproval rest with the Federal Government, lest the States overcrowd the system and thereby create suicide alleys. The power to approve additional points of egress and ingress is necessary to meet the certainty of changing conditions.
The same principle is true and must be true with respect to the zoning of certain areas of our respective States.
Industry is going to develop. Commerce is going to grow. It may be necessary to relocate certain sections of the Interstate System in order to accommodate a rapidly growing, thriving, and necessary part of our future in commerce and industry.
I believe that here we have the safeguards of approval or disapproval in the Secretary of Commerce to provide for the objectives which we seek in this enactment.
Therefore, although I am always moved with interest and favorable inclination by the adequacy of the Senator from Kentucky, with whom I worked initially in the enactment of the Interstate Highway Act, I feel he is unduly concerned because its flexibility is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, for the system to serve well our whole economy and our people.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.