August 18, 1966
Page 19867
DEBATE ON DEMONSTRATION CITIES PROGRAM
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have already communicated this desire to the Senator from Texas. I have no objection except that I be permitted to have a half -hour on the bill.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, as have already assured the Senator from New York, there will be no difficulty in yielding him 30 minutes on the bill.
Mr. President, I suggest a further amendment of the request, that the 2-hour limitation relates to the Tower amendment No. 746, because there are other Tower amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, what is the limitation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour on each amendment, 2 hours on amendment 746, and 4 hours on the bill.
Mr. JAVITS. There is no limit as to whether it shall apply only to amendments on the desk?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield further?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. TOWER. I might note for the information of Senators that the vote on my amendment No. 746 will probably be the critical vote on the bill, and Senators should be present for a vote on that amendment.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. CLARK. Is this the kind of agreement in which it should be stipulated that amendments shall be germane? I think that should be included in this case.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement include that amendments must be germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent?
Without objection, the agreement is entered.
The unanimous-consent agreement later reduced to writing is as follows:
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Ordered, That, effective on Friday, August 19, 1966, at the conclusion of routine morning business, during the further consideration of the bill (S. 3708) to assist comprehensive city demonstration programs for rebuilding slum and blighted areas and for providing the public facilities and services necessary to improve the general welfare of the people who live in those areas, to assist and encourage planned metropolitan development, and for other purposes, debate on any amendment (except an amendment to be Proposed by the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER], numbered 746, debate on which is to be limited to two hours), motion, or appeal, except a motion to lay on the table, shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the mover of any such amendment or motion and the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE]:
Provided, That in the event he is in favor of any such amendment or motion, the time in opposition matters thereto shall be controlled by the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] or some has Senator designated by him:
Provided further That no amendment that is not germane to the provisions of the said bill shall be received.
Ordered further, That on the question of the final passage of the said bill debate shall already be limited to 4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled, respectively, by the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER]:
Provided, That the said Senators, or either of them, may, from the time under their control on the passage of the said bill, allot additional time to any Senator during the consideration of any amendment, motion, or appeal.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, proceeding to the pending business, throughout history cities have been mainsprings of social and economic growth. Men have gathered in them for common protection, for trade, for industry, for the exchange of ideas, for social intercourse, and for the comforts and attractions urban life could offer.
Men have been drawn to cities as if by magnets. Cities have used the power and imagination of their people to create states, nations and even civilizations. However much we may be attracted to rural scenes and quiet places, we still return to the cities and towns for our business, for government, and for the fruits of learning and the arts.
In a real sense cities are creators of life -- and at the same time they can be destroyers of lives. The pages of history are full of the tales of those who sought the promise of the city and found only despair. From the book of Job, to Charles Dickens, to James Baldwin, we have read the ills of the cities.
Our cities contain within themselves the flowers of man's genius and the nettles of his failures.
We are all familiar with the photographs of our Capitol, with slums blocking the foreground. We know of the explosive forces rumbling, and sometimes bursting, out of the crowded slums not far from the glitter of Broadway, the soaring new buildings of Chicago or the palm-lined streets of Los Angeles.
We also know of the other side of the tracks in smaller cities, where unemployment comes first and prosperity arrives last.
It is in the slum and blighted areas of our cities that unemployment rates have soared up to 24 percent; it is in the decayed neighborhoods that almost 70 percent of the poor live in delapidated, overcrowded, or unsafe and unsanitary dwellings.
It is in these areas of unrest that public welfare payments are concentrated. 24 percent of the population of Watts, for example, was on public assistance at the time of the riots.
It is in these areas of stifled opportunity that below average school buildings and teaching are concentrated.
It is in these areas of bleak ugliness that recreational facilities are most limited.
And it is in these areas that disease, ill health, and crime are most prevalent.
For example, a study by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare states that in one city, compared with a control "good area," the substandard area required police charges some 2½ times as high, ambulance runs and fire calls almost twice as high, welfare costs 140 times as high. In another city, the poor housing area produced 36 percent of the of city's juvenile delinquency and 76 percent of the city's tuberculosis cases.
Whatever its size, wherever its location in this land of ours, the city is a problem which grows as our Nation grows, a problem which belongs to all of us, a problem which all of us must join in solving.
We are, increasingly, a nation of urban dwellers. At present 70 percent of our population lives in metropolitan areas. By the year 2000 the proportion will probably reach 80 percent.
The two major phenomena of this urban growth are crowded, decaying and blighted areas and the surrounding, too often formless, surburban sprawl. The result is poor housing, inadequate public facilities, limited education and job opportunities, disease and ill-health, excessive dependence on welfare payments and the threats of crime and delinquency for those crowded into the slums and blighted areas. The more affluent members of society, who still use the city for business and entertainment, but who have used modern transportation to escape the problems of living in the city, now battle traffic problems, suffer through smog, recoil at riots in the slums and feel more uneasy over the dangers of urban life.
Too often, for the poor, for those of modest means, and for the rich, our cities have become nightmares rather than dreams.
Our awareness of the problems of the city is not new.
In 1902 my hometown -- Waterville, Maine -- celebrated its centennial. This was an age of universal optimism in that bright period before the first of the World Wars. President William H. P. Faunce, of Brown University, noted in a sermon at the centennial religious mass meeting, June 22, 1902, that “the century which has elapsed since the founding of Waterville has been justly called the wonderful century. Men have discovered more facts and invented more mechanisms in the last 100 years than in all preceeding history. But the greatness of our apparatus ought to mean greatness of intellect and character. The difference between the old hand loom and the modern loom is enormous; is the difference as great between the man who stood behind the former and the man who stands behind the latter? What is the use of the incandescent light if it does not enable the citizen to see his duty? What is the advantage of traveling at 60 miles an hour if we are as discontented at the end of the journey as at the beginning? The aim of our civilization is not to whiten the seas with the sails of commerce, but to develop simple, homely virtues which are the chief defense of our Nation, the best safeguards of the fireside and the home.”
Reverend Faunce's remarks were true 64 years ago, and they are even more pertinent today. He spoke almost a year and a half before the Wright brothers made their first successful flight at Kitty Hawk. In the brief span of time between his address and our day we have increased man's speed from 60 miles an hour on land to 18,000 miles an hour in space. The goals which he set for American society are relevant to our own time. He called on the citizens of Waterville to
"develop a new sense of civic pride and municipal duty." He notes:
Americans have succeeded nobly in founding States, but they have not yet learned to govern cities.
Since Reverend Faunce delivered his sermon we have labored to improve the lot of our cities. Our major efforts go back more than 30 years. During this time Federal, State, and local governments have worked together in the search for solutions to urban problems. Planning aids, urban renewal, public housing, aids to education, hospital construction, community facilities construction, public welfare assistance, employment assistance, transportation loans and grants -- all these and many more programs have been approved by the Congress.
These programs have accomplished a great deal -- but they have fallen far short of the need.
One reason is that every program of Federal aid to the cities has approached a single problem with a single weapon. They have operated side by side -- frequently indifferent to each other, sometimes even in conflict with each other.
A city might have urban renewal without adequate low- and middle-income housing, public housing but an inadequate public health program, a welfare program but little vocational training, a recreation program but inadequate schools. Repeatedly, neglect of one area canceled out efforts in another.
A second shortcoming has been that even where all existing Federal aids have been available to a city, there has been no systematic arrangement for coordinating their impact -- cities could be lost in a maze of Federal aids.
There have been no local plans broad enough to make effective use of combined aid programs.
There has been no focal point for concentrating their resources on the problems of a neighborhood.
There has been little incentive for coordinated use of Federal programs.,
Third, present programs are simply insufficient in two ways:
They are not adequate to meet the growing needs of growing urban populations.
They are not designed to meet all the needs that the neglected neighborhoods display.
Finally, compounding these difficulties has been the financial crisis of the cities.
Between 1954 and 1963, municipalities increased their tax revenues by 43 percent and local government indebtedness increased by 119 percent. For the central city the problem has become a vicious circle. The more determined the city's effort to raise funds to meet the need for increased services, the more likely that effort drives its economically affluent citizens to the nearby suburbs. Similarly, the greater burden the city places on industry within its borders, the less its opportunity to attract and hold the industry and commerce its economy requires. So the city becomes, increasingly, a home for the economically deprived, those least able to bear the cost of municipal services. It is not surprising that the cities with the greatest slum problems often have the least capacity to deal with those problems.
Conflicts in program goals, divisions of authority, major program gaps, lack of resources -- all prevent us from building and rebuilding cities our urban citizens deserve and all of us need.
Recognizing these human problems of urban life, President Johnson named a task force of distinguished Americans, working with Secretary Weaver, to study these problems, analyze the shortcomings of existing Federal programs, and recommend to him a program for immediate action.
The result was the demonstration cities program.
The essentials of the program the President transmitted to Congress on January 26, 1966 were these:
The concentration of available and special resources in sufficient magnitude to demonstrate swiftly what qualified urban communities can do and can become.
The coordination of all available talent and aid on these targets in a way which is impossible where assistance is provided across the board and men and money must be spread thin.
The mobilization of local leadership and initiative to assure that the key decisions as to the future of American cities are made by the citizens who live there and to commit local leadership, both public and private, to a comprehensive attack on urban problems, freed from the constraints that have handicapped past efforts and inflated their costs.
In his message to the Congress, the President said:
Today, I have placed before the Congress and before you, the people of America, a new way of answering an ancient dream. That dream is of cities of promise, cities of hope, where it could truly be said, to every man his chance, to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining golden opportunity, to every man the right to live and to work and to be himself and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him.
The new way of answering that ancient dream is this:
To rebuild where there is hopeless blight;
To renew where there is decay and ugliness;
To refresh the spirit of men and women that are growing weary with jobless anxiety.
To restore old communities and to bring forth new ones where children will be proud to say, "This is my home."
What I have offered is a massive program, involving everything that we know about building homes and schools and parks and streets that are safe from fear.
The choice facing the Nation was posed by President Johnson in that special message: Shall we make our cities livable for ourselves and our posterity? Or shall that we by timidity and neglect damn them to fester and decay?
The Housing Subcommittee and the Banking and Currency Committee have voted to accept the challenge, to make a new beginning in our campaign to improve prove the quality of life for all our citizens.
The legislation we present today is designed to meet the President's objectives and to achieve the American dream for the child whose playground is a trash-strewn alley -- for the young boy or girl whose classroom is a rat-infested cellar -- for the parent whose income is uncertain and whose housing choice is an overcrowded tenement room or the street -- for the young man who cannot get a job because he lacks training and cannot get training because he lacks funds -- for the man or woman who cannot find decent housing because of the color of his or her skin.
The legislation we present today places the central city in the context of the entire metropolitan area, and it addresses itself to the problems of metropolitan regions. It requires better coordination of Federal activities, and it provides incentives for coordinated metropolitan area planning and development.
Finally, the legislation we present today will help the States to provide technical assistance to local communities in making better use of Federal assistance programs.
As I have indicated, S. 3708 is based on recommendations made to the Congress by President Johnson. The Subcommittee on Housing made substantial changes in the draft legislation submitted by the administration, but it did not depart from the President's intent.
PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATION
Mr. President, as reported by the Banking and Currency Committee, S. 3708 has three titles -- Title I: Comprehensive City Demonstration Programs; Title II: Planned Metropolitan Development; and Title III: Urban Information and Technical Assistance Services.
All three titles have a consistent purpose of providing additional Federal assistance to help cities and metropolitan areas make effective use of existing Federal programs in order to make more significant progress toward the accomplishment of the national housing policy of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family. This would be done by the bill in two ways: First, better coordination of existing programs -- Federal, State, and local; and second, additional Federal financial assistance to be used by the locality for activities which supplement existing Programs.
Title I of the bill would establish 9, new city demonstration program of Federal grants and technical assistance to help provide the incentive and the financial means for a city to plan and carry out a program for rebuilding and restoring entire sections or neighborhoods of slum and blight and to improve the general welfare of the people in such areas.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, in this respect, how would this program differ from the urban renewal program?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the urban renewal program is aimed at the physical reconstruction of blighted areas. It is, of course, a part -- and a fundamental and necessary part -- of any city demonstration program developed under this legislation. However, the emphasis in this legislation is to supplement programs dealing with the physical reconstruction of cities by other programs designed to reconstruct the lives of people who live in those cities.
This will be done first by coordinating more effectively existing Federal programs dealing with the human side of the problem and, second, by providing supplemental funds to stimulate the development of comprehensive programs dealing with the shortcomings of existing programs and, in these diseased areas and cities, dealing with the human problem.
For example, we can help the cities become involved in education to a greater degree than they are now in these areas, and the record shows that usually the quality of the teachers in these areas is at the bottom of quality list across the country.
We can help the cities become involved in a greater degree in vocational training, recreational facilities, adequate transportation for residents of these areas between their homes and jobs, and so on.
There are a number of possibilities, some of which are already covered, in part, by Federal programs, and some of which we hope may be stimulated and developed under local sponsorship with the supplemental funds from the bill.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I think the Senator by his extemporaneous answer has given more life and meaning to the program than any explanation I have yet heard.
I want to observe that, not only in this instance, but also in many others, I have been impressed with the fact that the distinguished junior Senator from Maine speaks with a clarity, elocution, articulateness, and grammatical perfection that few Senators possess.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I was really trying to sell the program and not the speaker.
The demonstration city approach places maximum dependence upon the locality and its officials to plan and carry out the program. The Federal Government will help with technical and financial assistance, but it will be limited to those cities presenting imaginative and effective ways of dealing with the physical and social problems of slum and blighted areas.
The financial assistance will be in two forms -- planning assistance and program assistance. Planning assistance will be on an 80 percent Federal grant basis with the city making up the other 20 percent of cost. For this purpose the bill authorizes an appropriation of $12 million a year for each of 2 years, fiscal years 1967 and 1968.
The program assistance would provide supplementary financial aid to cities to carry out activities in addition to those already provided under existing Federal law. The supplementary aid will be computed in each case on a formula related to local contributions to Federal programs involved in the project. Under the committee bill the program assistance for any project would be a maximum of 80 percent of the total non-Federal contributions made on all projects under existing Federal grant-in-aid programs which are being carried out as part of the city demonstration program. The supplemental grant could not be used to reduce local expenditures on existing projects or activities or to reduce the local effort for similar activities. The bill calls for a 2-year authorization of $400 million for fiscal 1968 and $500 million for fiscal 1969. The 2-year level of authorization is consistent with administration estimates for a 5-year program.
This bill is limited to 3 years. The first year it would be planning assistance only, to the extent of $12 million. The second year it would be planning to the extent of $12 million, and $400 million programing; the third year, it would be $500 million for programing.
Under this title, the urban renewal grant authority would be increased by $250 million to be used for projects included within a city demonstration program.
Title II calls for improved coordination of Federal activities in metropolitan areas, requires minimum standards of planning and coordination by local governments in such areas, and authorizes supplementary Federal grants to State and local public bodies for metropolitan development projects as incentives for adequate metropolitan-wide comprehensive planning and adherence to such planning. The supplementary grant would be authorized only for those metropolitan areas which have met standards for comprehensive planning on a metropolitan-wide basis. The grant would be made to the public body sponsoring the metropolitan development project. It would amount to a maximum of 20 percent of the cost of the project. In no case could the total grant -- the basic grant plus the supplementary grant -- exceed 80 percent of the project cost nor could the supplementary grant exceed the basic grant.
Mr. President, this program would not be an addition to the demonstration program.
The benefits of this title are for projects in a standard metropolitan statistical area, which is defined by the Bureau of the Budget as the area in and around a city of 50,000 Population or more. The projects to be benefitted are generally of a public works nature but are listed in detail in the bill. The authorization under the bill is a maximum of $25 million for fiscal year 1967 and $50 million for fiscal year 1968.
Title II of the bill is designed to help local communities make better use of Federal urban assistance programs by authorizing Federal grants to States and metropolitan area agencies to help finance information centers to serve metropolitan areas and small communities throughout the State. The grant could not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the activity. The bill authorizes an appropriation not to exceed $5 million for fiscal year 1967 and $10 million for fiscal year 1968.
At this point, Mr. President, I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues the principal changes which the Banking and Currency Committee made in the administration's legislative proposals.
Section 101, the statement of findings and declaration of purpose, was tightened considerably. The committee believes the statement of purpose, in particular, is clearer and more forceful in expressing legislative intent. It reads as follows:
The purposes of this title are to provide additional financial and technical assistance to enable cities of all sizes (with equal regard to the problems of small as well as large cities) to plan, develop, and carry out locally prepared and scheduled comprehensive city demonstration programs containing new and imaginative proposals to rebuild or revitalize large slum and blighted areas; to expand housing, job, and income opportunities; to reduce dependence on welfare payments; to improve educational facilities and programs; to combat disease and ill health, to reduce the incidence of crime and delinquency; to enhance recreational and cultural opportunities; to establish better access between homes and jobs; and generally to improve living conditions for the people who live in such areas, and to accomplish these objectives through the most effective and economical concentration of Federal, State, and local public and private efforts to improve the quality of urban life.
The second major change made by the committee was in section 103 which contains the basic criteria, including need, for eligibility for assistance under the program. The basic intent of the original proposal is accomplished in a concise and logical manner. Subsection (b) contains new language emphasizing the prime importance of local initiative and prompt response by Federal departments and agencies to such initiative, maximum coordination of Federal assistance, and program flexibility. The new language is designed to underscore the intent of Congress that this will represent a new method of dealing with the complex and interrelated social and physical problems of slum and blighted areas in cities of all sizes.
The committee retained the President's 80-percent supplemental grant proposal for assistance to comprehensive demonstration city programs. However, the grant formula has been tightened considerably to insure that the base for the supplemental grants could not be distorted by the use of irrelevant projects, that funds provided could not be dissipated on projects not essential to the program; that the supplemental grants could not be used to replace local contributions which the community had committed to Federal grant-in-aid projects before starting the comprehensive program, and that the supplemental grants could not be used for general administration of the city. The supplemental grant funds must be used to support fully the innovative, non-federally aided activities of a program before they can be used to match additional Federal grants.
I realize, Mr. President, that the supplemental grant formula concept has given some of my colleagues concern. Therefore, I want to take this opportunity to explain it in detail.
The formula for supplemental grants proposed in the bill is designed to help overcome two of the major obstacles to the solution of the problem of city slum areas:
First. The inability of the cities to find the necessary money, especially to finance new and imaginative programs, and
Second. The difficulty of coordinating and channeling existing Federal aids to the solution of these problems.
The Federal aids are available through many different departments and agencies.
These aids sometimes go to the State, sometimes to the city, sometimes to special agencies independent of the city government.
These aids are distributed under widely varying formulas for allocating Federal funds among the States or for determining the amount and kind of local contribution required.
The existing aid programs are designed to accomplish different specific national objectives -- improve education, eliminate poverty, combat disease. This fact dictated differing incentives and requirements in each program.
Therefore, an aid formula was sought which would:
First. Provide cash to the cities needed to carry out the demonstration programs.
Second. Encourage and allow flexibility for innovation
Third. Provide an incentive to use the existing Federal aid programs in a coordinated fashion to the greatest extent practicable
Fourth. Preserve the requirements of existing aid programs, which were designed to accomplish specific national objectives
Fifth. Avoid the substitution of Federal money for city money in the support of existing programs.
The formula chosen:
First. Provides a city with an amount equal to 80 percent of the non-Federal contribution otherwise required for Federal aid projects included in the demonstration program in the city.
Second. Makes this money available --
To pay for new and additional activities in the program.
After the costs of those activities are covered, to provide matching funds for the Federal aid projects included in the demonstration program -- but not to replace matching funds committed before the program started.
Third. Requires the city to maintain its level of expenditure -- on all activities similar to those included in the demonstration program -- at least at the level existing before the program started.
The formula therefore meets the basic program objectives:
First. It provides the city with additional money. Based on a calculation of several sample programs, the 80-percent figure will furnish the city with the money needed for a demonstration program if
It uses as many relevant Federal aid programs as practicable.
Makes its own effort to raise some additional matching funds.
Second. It encourages and allows flexibility for innovation -- the money is not earmarked for specific Federal-aid projects and must be used first for the new and additional elements of the approved demonstration program.
Third. It provides an incentive to use existing, applicable Federal aid programs -- the amount of money depends upon the number of such programs used.
Fourth. It requires the city to continue to meet the specific requirements of existing Federal aid programs, thus protecting the national objectives of those programs.
Finally, it assures that Federal funds are not merely substituted for existing local funds.
At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that alternative formulas considered for the program, which were rejected because they did not meet its objectives, be included in the RECORD:
There being no objection, the formulas were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Alternative A. Grant the city a certain percentage of the total cost of the demonstration program.
* This would remove any incentive to use and coordinate existing Federal-aid programs.
Alternative B. Grant the city a certain percentage of that part of demonstration program costs not covered by other grants in aid.
* This provides no incentive for using existing Federal-aid programs: The fewer that are used, the more supplementary grants that would be made available.
Alternative C. Grant the city a certain percentage of the cost of those elements of the demonstration program which are not eligible for aid under other Federal programs.
* This would not allow the cities to use the money to increase their use of existing Federal aid programs. They often have difficulty raising the matching share.
Alternative D. Increase the Federal share on Federal aid projects included within the demonstration program.
* It does not assure funds to the city for innovative projects, since the recipient agency may be the State or a local unit of government other than the city.
* It is administratively complex if the original granting agency is to give the increased grant.
* It tends to break the line on the Federal share in a whole host of programs with specific national objectives outside the demonstration cities.
Alternative E. Provide a sliding scale grant formula, with differing percentages going to different cities, dependent upon (1) the extent of the cities problems, and (2) the ability of the cities to increase their own financial effort.
* We do not yet have the knowledge needed to specify equitable indices of need.
* We do not have reliable data available to measure the relative needs of cities, even if the indices could be defined.
* We would be opening up a continuing battle over the specific grant share to be provided.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, when I first examined the administration's proposal, I had questions about the supplemental grant formula. I gave long and careful study to this aspect of the proposal.
I have resolved my questions. The formula may be modified later in the light of experience, and as we develop more adequate statistics on need, effort and other indexes. But as the foundation of this demonstration program, I believe the formula is sound, workable and fair.
My colleagues will note that title I of S. 3708 contains a Davis-Bacon labor standards provision which was not in the original administration proposal. It is similar to the House Banking and Currency Committee proposal, as contained in title I of H.R. 15890, and is acceptable to all interested parties.
One of the most important changes made by the committee was the change from an open-end money authorization requested by the administration to a 2-year, $900 million program.
The committee provided such a limitation for two reasons: First, it believes the Congress has a responsibility to define the estimated monetary requirements of such a program; and second, it wished to insure a careful review of this new and experimental program before extending appropriations authority beyond fiscal year 1969.
During this period, the committee and the Congress will have an opportunity to evaluate the experience under the comprehensive city demonstration program. If it is as successful as the committee expects it to be, the committee and the Congress can provide -- on the basis of plans submitted by the cities, the progress of activities under demonstration programs being carried out, and the budgetary situation existing at the time -- a continued reasonable annual rate of funding for the program.
I want to stress that the program funds authorized for fiscal years 1968 and 1969 are consistent with estimates made by the administration on the probable cost of the program.
It should be noted also that the supplemental grant funds represent only a part of the total Federal, State, and local resources which will be available for cities to apply to their demonstration projects.
For the information of my colleagues, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD at this point a table providing a list and analysis of the existing Federal grant-in-aid programs which may be used in demonstration projects.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS LIKELY TO FORM CORE OF CITY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
This material contains brief descriptions of 49 Federal grant-in-aid programs deemed most likely to be among those utilized by a city in developing a city demonstration program "of sufficient magnitude in both physical and Social dimensions" to meet the criteria of the Demonstration Cities bill. The programs are arranged alphabetically under their respective administering departments and agencies. It is not implied that these programs necessarily will or should be used in any one demonstration or that other programs may not also be used.
This is a preliminary draft in connection with an ongoing legal project. When completed, all descriptions will have been cleared by the legal staffs of the agencies involved. In the meantime, this material must be used with caution because legislative history and regulatory limitations not appearing in the sources consulted may alter important details.
Mr. MUSKIE. In addition, I would note that the maximum impact on the fiscal year 1967 budget would be a modest $12 million for planning.
Finally, Mr. President, the committee has provided a $250 million authorization for additional urban renewal funds to assure that the demonstration cities program would not use a disproportionate amount of existing urban renewal grant authority to the detriment of cities not participating in the program, particularly small towns. The $250 million estimate is tied to the 2-year monetary authorization for supplemental grants.
I want to underscore the committee's intent that the comprehensive city demonstration program is not to be used simply as a means of accelerating urban renewal projects. The program is designed to place in better balance, social and physical renewal programs aimed at meeting the needs of people living in slum and blighted areas.
The comprehensive city demonstration program is a bold new effort, Mr. President, but it is essential if we are to make our cities what they ought to be. We have learned from the shortcomings of the past that fragmented, uncoordinated applications of individual programs -- however desirable in and of themselves -- will not correct the spiraling crisis of the cities.
What we propose to do is analogous to our aerospace program, where several years ago we abandoned the practice of trying to fit separately developed components together. Today we use the systems approach to complex, but interrelated problems.
The housing, education, job opportunity, physical, and social needs of men and women are part of the total environment of the cities. They should be treated as such.
As Prof. Norton Long has written:
It is this circle [of the troubled environment of the cities] that can indeed be a vicious circle, that housing, education, jobs and income are all linked together. If you don't have the housing, you don't have the access to the education. If you don't have the education, you don't have access to the jobs. If you don't have the access to the jobs, you don't have the income. If you don't have the income, you can't buy the housing.
The reason why we have to do something about this problem is that our policy of storing people is much more shameful and wicked than the policy of storing grain. The grain merely rots, but the people rot and reproduce, and the people they reproduce rot, too, until it is brought to our attention out in the containers of poverty, by explosions like Watts.
The comprehensive city demonstration program is also designed for broad application, throughout our Nation. Eligibility is limited by need, not size or geographic location. The net effect of the program will be to help those in need in the slum areas and by so doing to contribute to healthier and better balanced cities.
This approach appeals to me because it is humane, because it is consistent with our experience in other fields, and because it calls for prudent and sound management of our resources.
Mr. President, title II of S. 3708 is a logical extension of the coordination concepts of the comprehensive city demonstration program. As I noted earlier in my remarks, one of the principal objectives "will contribute to a well-balanced city." Such balance cannot be achieved unless the metropolitan area in which a city is located has an effective, coordinated planning program. And metropolitan areas without effective planning and coordination of their physical development are inviting blight, decay, and economic dislocation.
The original administration proposals were contained in S. 2977, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Housing Subcommittee [Mr. SPARKMAN]. The subcommittee broadened and reorganized those proposals to provide for a logical progression in metropolitan area planning and development, particularly in connection with Federal grant-in-aid programs which affect the physical development of such areas.
The first step in such coordination requires the Federal Government to put its own house in order. Under section 202 of the bill, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is authorized to obtain from other Federal agencies statistical data, program reports, and other material needed to carry out the metropolitan area responsibilities of the Department. In addition, Federal departments and agencies carrying out metropolitan area programs would be directed -- to the maximum extent practicable -- - to consult with and seek advice from all other significantly affected Federal departments and agencies.
I recognize that this language is primarily an expression of intent. It does not compel coordination by Federal agencies. But we hope this precatory language will be heeded by the executive branch. If it is not, the Congress may have to consider more detailed and specific coordination requirements.
To help encourage coordination of Federal activities in metropolitan areas, section 203 of the bill would authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, upon the request of duly authorized local officials and after consultation with local governmental authorities, to appoint for any metropolitan area a 'metropolitan expediter" to provide information, data, and assistance to local authorities, organizations, and persons and to relevant Federal agencies with respect to the Department's programs and activities and other related activities and needs in the area.
The committee has made it clear that the services of the expediter can be provided only on local request and that his role would be entirely advisory. In no way would he impose Federal control over local decisions affecting metropolitan development.
Section 204 is a committee amendment. It would require that all applications for Federal loans or grants to assist in carrying out projects for open-space land, hospitals, airports, libraries, water supply and distribution facilities, sewerage facilities and waste treatment works, highways, transportation facilities, or water development and land conservation within any metropolitan area must after June 30, 1967, be submitted for review and comments by a metropolitanwide comprehensive planning agency which is, to the greatest extent practicable, responsible to the elected officials of the general local governments. It would further require that such an application by a special purpose unit of local government must also be submitted to any affected general local governments.
This proposal is consistent with proposals contained in sections 503 and 504 of S. 561, the intergovernmental cooperation bill approved by the Senate earlier in this Congress.
The committee retained, essentially unchanged from the original administration proposal, section 205 which authorizes incentive grants on federally aided projects in metropolitan areas where State and local governments axe cooperating fully in planning and programing, and carrying out all their major activities in accordance with such planning and programing.
And so, Mr. President, in title II we have provided for progressive improvements in planning and development for our metropolitan areas.
First, we call upon the Federal departments and agencies to coordinate their activities.
Second, we provide for metropolitan expediters who, at local request, can help such coordination in metropolitan areas.
Third, we require minimum levels of cooperation and coordination at the local level as conditions for receipt of certain Federal grant-in-aid funds for metropolitan development.
Finally, we provide incentive grants for more effective coordination of metropolitan area planning and development.
Title III, Mr. President, is a modification of the earlier urban information center proposal contained in title IV of S. 2977. The distinguished junior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. McINTYRE) developed the new provisions which were adopted by the committee.
The new program seeks to fill the needs of local governments, organizations, and individuals to know more about Federal programs affecting urban development. It would authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make grants to assist programs of States and metropolitan area agencies for the establishment and operation of urban information and technical assistance centers. In addition, the program would provide technical assistance to small communities, of not more than 25,000 persons, relating to urban problems.
CONCLUSION
These are our proposals, Mr. President.
In my opinion, they represent a sound implementation of the President's recommendations. They are responsive to the national concern over the plight of our cities and metropolitan areas.
The proposals are not confined to one section of the country. They are not limited to one type of situation -- cities and counties of all sizes, councils of governments, State and local agencies are eligible to participate.
We have tried to treat the problems of these areas as a whole. We have kept the programs flexible. We have emphasized local initiative and direction.
I believe this legislation offers us a challenge and an opportunity to focus the great resources of our Nation through the use of "creative federalism" on one of the most critical, complex, and vital domestic questions of our day, the question posed by the President:
Shall we make our cities livable for ourselves and our posterity? Or shall we by timidity and neglect damn them to fester and decay?
Mr. President, I propose we take the constructive approach, learning from the past, using our imagination, building for the future. I urge approval of S. 3708.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, again may I say that even though I am opposing this measure, the distinguished Senator from Maine has made some very significant improvements in this measure
in committee, and he is to be commended for having done so. I only regret that I must debate what I consider the lack of merit in this measure with so formidable and estimable and eloquent a gentleman as my distinguished friend, the Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, President Johnson said before the National Legislative Conference, National League of Cities, March 31,1966:
The investments you are making in your cities are vital to our future. We would like to complete them all at once. But if we attempt to do too much, too soon, we will end by accomplishing less by borrowing our money, by issuing bonds when the cost of money is at the highest point in several years -- when costs are skyrocketing and materials and skilled labor are scarce. I ask you to go home and get out your lead pencil -- and take a good hard look at your next quarterly budget expenditures.
I believe the President's evaluation of the city development problem to be exactly right.
I believe that the President, to be consistent after having expressed this strong opinion, would join me in voting against this bill if he were back in the Senate.
The so-called demonstration cities bill, title I of S. 3708, is an expansion of a faltering urban renewal program which will be financed almost totally with Federal funds.
The facts and figures on urban renewal prove beyond doubt that the program has hit dead center because of the failure to inject some basic thinking into a program that deserved a better fate.
Urban renewal was an enticing fantasy that preyed on cities which could not afford all the luxury in a hurry that such a program offered. Much like the human failure of overindulgence at an attractive cafeteria counter, the cities' one-third share of the project costs has become more and more difficult to meet despite the promising tax profits to be derived from improved property rising on the project sites. One project created another -- moving people and businesses to less expensive areas than that to be developed by urban renewal.
Urban renewal, the great promise to the cities, has deteriorated to the point where only $1.5 billion in Federal funds has been spent since 1949 out of a total of $7.6 billion authorized during that period. Of course, $5.6 billion has been committed, but it obviously is much easier to commit than to spend when it is necessary for the cities to raise from their taxpayers the one-third of the cost of a project on which the Federal Government offers to pay two-thirds.
That is why another dreamworld of spending is planned for the cities, but this time the Federal Government's share in the demonstration cities proposal can run as high as 95 percent because under certain conditions the Federal Government would be authorized to contribute 80 percent to the local share of project costs.
The administration sought to have no limit on congressional authorizations for this new program and supported this indefinite money position by professing some indefiniteness in just how many cities would get the benefit of the program and to what extent each fortunate city would benefit.
Nevertheless, administration figures submitted in testimony before the committee made possible the estimation of total costs of approximately $2.9 billion for a 5-year program.
The committee reduced the program from a 5-year program to a 3-year program and fixed authorization limits at $12 million for the first year, which is a planning year, and at $400 million for fiscal 1968 and $500 million for fiscal 1969, which would be considered the programing years, or the years in which the Federal contributions would be made on active projects.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Texas and I wish to state the basic facts accurately. I wonder whether the Senator would explain the $2.9 billion figure. I understood that originally it was $2.3 billion for demonstration cities. There are additional costs associated with title II.
Mr. TOWER. I believe the total estimate for a 5-year period was $2.9 billion. But I shall be glad to check those figures and discuss them with the distinguished Senator from Maine tomorrow.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right.
Mr. TOWER. Even so, this change in the bill can hardly be classified as a redeeming improvement in light of the fact that new expenditures are to be committed by Congress at a time when "costs are skyrocketing and materials and skilled labor are scarce," as President Johnson said to the city representatives only last March.
Before our committee on August 1, Gov. J. L. Robertson, of the Federal Reserve Board, testified that recommendations for reducing Federal Government expenditures had been made to President Johnson because of existing inflationary pressures.
I believe it is appropriate to go further into the testimony of Governor Robertson, as well as that of Joseph W. Barr, Under Secretary of the Treasury who also appeared before our committee, because the basic issue before us at that time concerned the halting of inflationary pressures.
In testifying on a bill to deal with interest rate regulation, Governor Robertson warned of "boom and bust" dangers and said:
We are in the midst today of an inflationary situation. The inflation pressures are great. In my opinion the dangers of inflation are much greater than the dangers of high interest rates. The cost to the people of this country is much greater in the case of inflation than in the case of high interest rates.
Governor Robertson told the committee that the continued use of monetary policy and failure to use fiscal policy will put additional upward pressure on interest rates. He also said that recommendations have been made to President Johnson that expenditures be reduced to curb the demand for money.
Secretary Barr said that it would be desirable to "pay something on the Federal debt this year" and that this is the year "we should be in balance or as close to balance as possible, or surplus."
These statements by men charged with a great deal of the responsibility of protecting the economy against extreme and damaging fluctuations only serve to emphasize the President's own words of caution against overspending in the cities during these times of expensive money.
It should be noted that the committee minority did not take the demonstration cities program apart item by item for criticism because there are recognizable needs for assistance in many of our great cities. However, as the President said, too much might be attempted too soon.
As we indicated in our report, the Congress would not be deserting the cities by postponing the expansion of expenditures for city rehabilitation at this time. We have pointed out the inability of the cities to carry out commitments already given for urban renewal projects and much more money will be available throughout the next 3 years. Last July 1, an annual authorization of $750 million for urban renewal capital grants became effective. Additional authorizations of $750 million will become effective on July 1, 1967, and July 1, 1968,
Further proof that Congress is fully cognizant of the problems in the Nation's cities and that those problems will be subject to continued consideration is contained in the 1965 approval of an increase in planning grant authorization of $125 million, which brings the total to $230 million, to be available until expended.
The city redevelopment program need not stand still for lack of funds either for planning or actual development work in the event that the Congress rejects this proposal authorizing over $900 million. This is a period in which difficult decisions must be made. With our economic machine running wide open, priorities are necessary.
Expenditures cutbacks have been recommended -- and in some cases accomplished -- on a few isolated domestic projects. The savings from these cutbacks would be swallowed up, however, by only a fraction of what is sought to expand city redevelopment.
Aside from the obligations we face in Vietnam and second-front fighting against inflation in our Nation, the judgment used in planning this demonstration cities program is questionable. With Dr. Robert D. Weaver, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, admitting that a single city of 1 million population could qualify for more than $400 million and a city of 50,000 population could qualify for as much as $23 million, it becomes quite obvious that only a chosen few of the Nation's cities, large or small, would share in the benefits to be derived from the expenditures of additional hundreds of millions of dollars called for in this bill.
Title II of the bill providing grants to assist in the orderly development of metropolitan areas has a laudable purpose. Certainly planning is essential to orderly development and it is important that the planning, if approved by local civic leaders and a majority of the residents in an area, be followed.
It is no less obvious that the multiplicity of political jurisdictions and agencies involved in metropolitan development make it difficult to achieve the type of overall planning that would fully integrate the efforts of each to meet the economic and social needs of those residing in the subdivisions of a metropolitan area.
While we express accord with the objective of the bill we cannot support it as a means to that end.
Among other reasons why we withhold our support, is that already voiced about expansion of federally financed programs at a time when our economic machine is already straining its capacity. Even if this proposal contained no objectionable provisions, the economic situation at this time would warrant our opposition.
It is suggested that one of the reasons for this legislation is the complexity of metropolitan government and the multiplicity of political jurisdictions and agencies involved. We do not find anything in the bill that would lessen the complexity or reduce the number of jurisdictions. These, we feel, should only be altered by the voice of the people, and as has been evident in case after case, the people have not voted to accept an overall metropolitan government.
The voice of the people in each political subdivision of the metropolitan planning area must not be circumvented by any Federal redevelopment plan. They should have the opportunity to either be part of the plan or refuse to be part of it depending upon the combined judgment of the residents.
The requirement in section 202 of this title that all Federal agencies consult with and ask advice from all other agencies to assure fully coordinated programs is redundant at best and an indictment of the present administration of Federal programs. It is indefensible that agencies using public funds would not take all possible measures to assure that any projects under their administration relating to metropolitan development were in accord with proper area development and all other federally assisted projects, even in the absence of a congressional mandate.
There may be reason for rivalry among private individuals, firms, or institutions, but there is no excuse for such among those who are supposed to be public servants.
We are not of the opinion that it is necessary to provide an additional Federal incentive of 20 percent, thus reducing the local share in order to bring about metropolitan planning, nor have we been convinced that the funds provided in this title will increase planning. We suspect that those advanced areas which already are well along with their planning will receive the supplemental grants as a windfall and that little additional planning will result.
The Federal Government is already contributing from 50 to 90 percent of the cost of a wide variety of projects ranging from sewer facilities to beautification projects. We see no reason why the Federal contribution as set forth in programs which are already now part of the law are not predicated on the condition that the assisted project fit into a coordinated plan.
Last year, a bill which would have made areawide planning a condition for Federal participation in local programs was approved by the Senate. We feel that that bill, S. 561, would be a more appropriate measure for the stimulation of metropolitan planning, at no additional expense for the Federal Government.
Mr. President, this legislation would require that any land development or uses which have a major impact on the development of the area, whether federally assisted or not, must be carried out in conformance with the comprehensive plan approved by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thus, not only would the Secretary have a stranglehold over the projects which receive Federal aid, but also any other construction or development in a metropolitan area. He would have this by virtue of the fact that the supplemental Federal share on federally assisted projects can be withheld unless all development having metropolitanwide or interjurisdictional significance, is in accord with the plan.
While it is desirable that all development proceed in an orderly manner, we consent do not feel that it is necessary or in keeping with American tradition to give the tomorrow Secretary such great power over city development.
Some of the projects which, under this legislation, would receive an additional 20 percent Federal aid are not under the administration of the Department of Housing and Urban Development nor the jurisdiction of the Banking and Currency Committee.
If additional subsidy is needed by localities for the development of waste treatment works or outdoor recreational facilities, administered by the Department of the Interior, or if the Federal share of Federal highway programs and public works and development facilities administered by the Department of Commerce; or airport planning and development administered by the Federal Aviation Agency, then let those congressional committees which have responsibility for these programs recommend an increase in the Federal share. It would be far better that the increase be based on the operation of each program and the needs not now being filled than that there be an across-the-board, 20-percent increase in the Federal share.
Title III, setting up urban information and technical assistance services, is a belated recognition that small cities are not in a position to benefit from either the demonstration cities program or the metropolitan development program. Although it has been stated again and again by supporters of the two programs that they would be for both large and small cities, it is evident that the small city civic organizations are not even aware of the Federal subsidies now available, to say nothing of their inability to meet the planning requirements.
This prompted acceptance of title III of the bill which would provide a means by which a small community with a population of 25,000 or less can receive from the Federal Government, grants up to 50 percent of the cost of the operation of technical assistance and urban needs centers.
Mr. President, there is no convincing evidence that the administration intends to cut back its demands for domestic Federal expenditures. In the absence of measures bringing about an increase in receipts, it is unrealistic to suggest that we pay something on the Federal debt, as the Treasury Department testified, unless we take action that will lead to that end. We have yet to see a Federal budget that does not equal the sum of its parts. This bill would authorize an increase in spending of $1 billion.
We cannot expect others to show restraint unless, we, too, are willing to do so. It is extremely difficult to cut back on established programs but it is possible to either postpone or reject proposed new programs.
I suggest that the welfare of this Nation could best be served by such action.
Mr. President, I intend to call up an amendment so that it may be made the pending business.
That will be my amendment No. 746. 1 ask unanimous consent that the time agreed to in the consent agreement on debate will begin tomorrow, when the matter is taken up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 746, and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to state the amendment.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows
On page 14, strike out lines 7 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(b) The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Congress, not later than June 1 of each of the years 1967 and 1968, reports setting forth the number of comprehensive city demonstration programs which have then been submitted to him for review, as provided in section 105(a); the number of such programs which he determines satisfy the criteria set forth in section 103; the city demonstration agencies which have submitted programs which satisfy such criteria; and an estimate of the cost to the Federal Government in providing assistance under this title to such city demonstration agencies in administering and carrying out such programs.
" (c) No funds shall be appropriated for the purpose of financial assistance and administrative expenses under sections 105, 106, and 107 prior to the receipt by Congress of the reports referred to in subsection (b). "
On page 14, line 13, strike out " (c) " and insert "(d) ".
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, the thrust of my amendment is that it would make this essentially a planning bill, leaving in the authorization money for planning, but would eliminate the authorizations for fiscal 1968 and fiscal 1969, to the extent that we could come back next year and review the plans and perhaps pass an authorization measure then. This is the thrust of my amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] has the floor.
Mr. TOWER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN] is recognized.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself and the junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MONDALE] and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. An amendment is now pending at the desk.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside, so that the Senate may proceed to the consideration of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.
The amendment of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN] will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
(A) On page 14, line 20, after the second word "City" insert a comma and the words "the county," and line 22 after the words "governing body" insert the words "of such city or county."
(B) Starting in line 25 on page 14 and ending in line I on page 15, strike out the words "or, with respect to urban areas outside of incorporated municipalities."
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. The two modifications of section 112 of S. 3708 which are proposed are intended to make it clear that county governments may be the instrumentality for the administration of projects under the act and that their jurisdiction is not limited to unincorporated urban areas outside municipalities.
The first change proposed amends subsection (2) which now defines a city demonstration agency as "the city or any local public agency established or designated by the local governing body" to specify county governments making it read: "the city, the county or any local public agency designated."
The second proposed change in language eliminates from subsection (3) which defines the meaning of the word "city," to strike out the phrase "or with respect to urban areas outside of incorporated municipalities" and make it read:
City means any municipality (or two or more municipalities acting jointly) having general governmental powers.
To limit the counties to unincorporated urban areas will bar the inclusion in any project under the act of any predominantly rural area, and it will exclude the counties from any really meaningful participation.
In many of our States, counties are empowered to provide services contemplated by this legislation in both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
In 14 States, I am advised, counties are empowered to sponsor urban renewal and public housing programs. The National Association of Counties is working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development in developing model enabling legislation to extend county jurisdiction in other States to do likewise.
Where counties provide urban renewal and public housing, they are not limited to doing so in unincorporated areas only nor are they limited to building county hospitals or sewage treatment facilities or schools in the unincorporated areas.
The unrestricted authority of counties to participate is, in my opinion, a matter of very great importance. A city and its suburbs cannot be administered efficiently and successfully as two separate units. Nor are all urban problems going to be solved in urban areas for a considerable cause of urban problems lies out in the predominantly rural areas of America -- where 45 percent of all the poverty exists -- where victims of rural poverty by the thousands annually start their trek into the urban areas in search of opportunities.
Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the distinguished Senator in charge of the bill, and I hope that it will be adopted.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say that the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MONDALE] have indicated to us their great interest in this amendment. We have examined it from a technical point of view. We have discussed it with the agency. We find it to be completely consistent with the purposes and intent of the bill, and we are willing to accept it. It is a desirable, technical modification of the language of the bill.
To indicate its consistency, I refer to the following language, found in section 101 of the present act:
The Congress further finds and declares that cities, of all sizes Are covered.
Then later, in the same section, the following language:
The purposes of this title are to provide additional financial and technical assistance to enable cities of all sizes (with equal regard to the problems of small as well as large cities) to plan, develop, and carry out locally prepared and scheduled comprehensive city demonstration programs.
In other words, it is the desire and intent of the bill to hit at the disease wherever it exists. It is not our desire and we would not welcome any language in the bill which would inhibit our ability to deal with this disease because it happens to exist in a county which, for technical reasons, is not covered by the definitions in the bill.
We recognize the problem raised by the Senator from South Dakota and welcome his amendment.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, speaking for the minority, we are perfectly prepared to accept and be amenable to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Texas, who have given long and careful attention to this bill. I think they would be the first to recognize that many of the problems of poverty and disorder which we have in the cities today are aggravated by the migration of people who cannot find opportunities in the rural areas and move to the cities and add to the congestion and problems which already exist there.
Therefore, to whatever extent we can, we should apply the remedy of this bill to the people in the smaller towns and the rural areas where there are limited opportunities, because then we will be dealing with poverty at a major source rather than after it has been exported to the cities.
I thank the Senators from Maine and Texas.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is eminently correct, let me say, in suggesting the correlation between poverty in the rural areas and poverty in the urban areas.
In the sense that we have this urban migration from the country, we are transporting social problems which are implicit in the condition of so many of our rural areas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, before yielding the floor, I wish to express my appreciation to the Senator from Tennessee for being so generous in withholding the remarks he is about to make this afternoon, on what I am sure will be legislation of great importance, in order to enable us to proceed with our business on this bill.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, let me also express my great appreciation to the Senator for his wonderful generosity and patience in waiting on us.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I, too, would like to join in thanking the Senator from Tennessee for allowing me to proceed with my amendment.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I am about to be overwhelmed by these wonderful encomiums. Let me say that I am very happy to be able to accommodate my friends in expediting the business of the Senate.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I should like to join in the accolades being heaped on the Senator from Tennessee, and would ask if he would yield to me for a few moments to make a few remarks on the subject of the demonstration cities bill.
Mr. GORE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for that purpose.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice in support of the demonstration cities program, which I consider among the most important pieces of legislation to come before this Congress. Rebuilding our cities is the great domestic challenge of the next decade. Our country grows increasingly urban. But the cities themselves become less and less habitable, and less and less able to pay the costs of the reforms so desperately needed to arrest the precipitous decline in the quality of urban life.
At the present time over 7 million homes in our cities are run down or deteriorated. Over 3 million do not have hot and cold running water and adequate plumbing. The human and physical decay of our cities forces the costs of city services upward, yet attempts to finance those costs through taxes drives to the suburbs those best able to finance the cities' rehabilitation.
The problems of urban decay are most accentuated for the particularly blighted areas within our Nation's cities. Despite the national prosperity of the last 5 years, the great urban ghettoes have not shared in our growing affluence. In Watts, for example, in the last 5 years the rates of poverty, unemployment, and substandard housing have increased. Places like Watts, and they are many, are losing ground as they become the final resting places for the truly disadvantaged -- the aged, the handicapped, the deserted or unwed mother, the illiterate, the incompetent, and the Negro poor. These places exist in every major city and their identifying characteristics are everywhere the same: noise and filth and congestion; crime and disease and delinquency; lack of education and recreation facilities. In these areas people live in isolation, sealed off from the mainstream of urban life, full of anger and despair and hatred of the society outside.
The real test of America as a civilization will be whether we possess the determination and the ingenuity necessary to concentrate, from all levels of government and private industry, enough of our vast resources to reverse this decline, to meet this crisis by a joint, coordinated, and massive effort aimed at the physical and human renewal of the blighted sections of our cities.
I do not see how we can afford to delay any longer. The decline of our cities grows more serious each day, denying to all Americans what should be the centerpiece of a Great Society, and succeeding only in building higher the walls of separation between the urban poor and the suburban well to do, between the black man consigned to a ghetto life of hopelessness and failure and the white man driven to the suburbs by the ugliness and violence of today's cities, between the complacent and the despairing. This situation is wrong, and dangerous. It has sown the seeds of insurrection and riot and it will continue to do so as long as these conditions continue.
Indeed, I do not believe there can be any question that the racial problem in American today is as serious as it is largely because of our failure to make our cities livable. And I do not believe we can hope to bridge the gulf that presently separates Negro and white Americans until we can tear down these ghettos and revitalize our cities. For as long as the Negro is isolated from white America and denied mobility and access to decent housing, his children will go to segregated schools of inferior quality, he will pay more for the inferior housing to which he does have access, and he will be cut off from the power structures of government -- unable to communicate or participate in the white society that surrounds him.
The rebuilding of our cities will require nothing less than a massive undertaking -- an enormous commitment of resources, channeled through a program which can effectively harness our efforts in an intensive attack on our urban needs.
Up to now, we have simply devoted too little of our resources -- and expended them in fragmented, diffused and often conflicting programs -- to adequately cope with problems requiring the utmost in coordination and intensive focus in order to achieve maximum impact.
But the demonstration cities program offers something new. It reflects a number of key premises:
That the problem of our cities is a national problem of such dimension as to justify substantial Federal assistance.
That the problems are not just ones of physical renewal; physical rehabilitation must be accompanied by more effective use of existing programs focusing on human needs, providing those who live in the area with access to jobs and good schools and hospitals and recreation facilities and social services.
That for these existing programs to be truly effective, they must be coordinated by a larger design, providing a concentrated focus on the area being rehabilitated.
That each urban area is unique with its own problems, and that therefore each demonstration city program should be locally prepared and scheduled with the Federal financial incentives offered as support and to maximize local initiative and innovation.
In my judgment, all of these premises are valid. They reflect the lessons we have learned from a history of developing federalism, and from a growing awareness of what must be done to save our cities.
These premises apply to small cities as well as large and the legislation before us would afford assistance to both large and small cities in all parts of the country. Cities in every State could participate, each responding to its special problems in its own way. All a city would have to do is to designate the city demonstration agency to coordinate its program. The agency could then apply for a grant to plan a program and this planning grant would enable the agency to tie together the many local organizations and programs which must be joined together if our urban problems are to be adequately met. And once the program was thoroughly planned and coordinated the city could receive Federal funds in addition to the Federal assistance available under other Federal programs. This supplemental grant of up to 80 percent of the non-Federal contribution to these other programs should stimulate the cities to make maximum use of existing Federal aids as well as providing additional Federal support, to finance additional projects or upgrade ongoing projects.
In other words, the demonstration cities bill provides the machinery we need for the concerted and coordinated use of our wealth of specialized urban assistance programs. It provides desperately needed financial assistance to our cities. It provides for an exchange and coordination of the technical knowledge that is in short supply.
Mr. President, for a city to become eligible for assistance under this legislation, it must develop acceptable programs for increasing jobs, increasing educational opportunities, improving community and health facilities and increasing the supply of decent housing for low income families. In other words, it would be up to the city to harness the creative energies and resources available to it in order to launch the most effective attack on its problems. The cost of this program is minimal considering the impact it can have. Only $12 million is authorized for planning in fiscal year 1967-68, and supplemental grant authorizations total only $900 million for fiscal years 1968-69. Yet the resources which could be mobilized through this program at all levels of government would be many times this figure and the return