October 18, 1966
Page 27357
DEMONSTRATION CITIES CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. SPARKMAN. Madam President, I believe that covers the items in the bill briefly but completely.
I wonder whether the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], who managed the bill, S. 3708, would like to make some remarks at this time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. Madam President, the report which has just been made by the distinguished Senator from Alabama is correct. It gives the substance of what was done in conference. The demonstration cities bill was not in conference because the House version was essentially that which the Senate approved; so that the conference revolved about the differences between the House and Senate versions of the FHA insurance provisions of another bill, and so forth.
What was quite frustrating was the fact that the Senate, having passed the two bills as separate pieces of legislation, and the House having passed similar provisions as one piece of legislation, the second Senate bill was not in conference as such. So that any provisions of the second Senate bill in which we are interested, including in the conference, were subject to a point of order.
We fought hard to include the five items which the distinguished Senator from Alabama has described.
I had a particular interest in the seasonal homes version. The House managers were convinced of the merits of that proposition. On yesterday, agreement was obtained on it and it was concluded tentatively to include that provision in the conference report; but this morning the House Parliamentarian ruled that that provision, not having been included in the House bill, and the Senate bill not being in conference, the seasonal homes provision was not germane to the conference and could not be included or it would be subject to a point of order in the House.
I say this because I know the particular interest of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], as he was the sponsor of the original bill.
We worked it out in the Senate committee and in conference. It is a viable proposition and holds great promise for development of the rural undeveloped areas of his State and my State.
Mr. HART. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HART. I wish to thank the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Maine and the conferees for going as far as they were able to go. I am glad to know that the House conferees were persuaded as to the merits of it. It promises enactment of it shortly after the beginning of next year's session.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. We have gone a long way down the road toward enactment. With the sympathetic reaction we have received, there is great promise for development of relatively undeveloped lake and seashore areas of New England and the Midwest.
Madam President, I think it should be noted that the conference report on S. 3708 preserves the basic provisions and the intent of the Senate version of the demonstration cities title of the housing legislation. You may recall that the Senate Banking and Currency Committee modified the original administration proposal to make the comprehensive city demonstration program truly innovative, responsive to local needs and dependent on local initiative.
The Senate version preserved the intent of President Johnson, making possible:
First. The concentration of available and special resources in sufficient magnitude to demonstrate swiftly what qualified urban communities can do and can become;
Second. 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; and
Third. 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 be a comprehensive attack on urban problems, freed from the constraints that have handicapped past efforts and inflated their costs.
The House made several changes in the demonstration cities proposals. Most of them simply made explicit reference to actions the Secretary could not take which were already implicit in the bill. There were two changes made by the House which concerned me. The first dealt with the use of supplemental grant funds; the second involved the metropolitan expediter proposal.
In the Senate-passed bill it was clear that new, innovative, nonfederally aided programs had first claim on the supplemental grants under the comprehensive city demonstration program. A House committee amendment removed the priority requirements between these new approaches and the traditional grant-in-aid programs. Fortunately, in conference the House conferees agreed to recede, thus restoring the original intent of the legislation.
The House also removed the authorization for metropolitan expediters in spite of the explicit provisions of the Senate-passed bill, preventing the appointment of such expediters except on the request of local officials, some mayors were concerned that they would have the service thrust down their throats. The conferees agreed on compromise language which spells out in more detail the importance of local initiative under this program.
I am pleased to note that the House conferees also agreed to the restoration of a modified version of the Senate's urban information and technical assistance program. This will make it possible for smaller communities to gain the same benefits of coordinated information and technical assistance which the large cities and metropolitan centers can obtain from the metropolitan expediters. This proposal was developed by the distinguished junior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. McINTYRE].
Finally, Madam President, I would like to point out that the combination of the demonstration cities, metropolitan planning and development, and urban information and technical assistance programs in this legislation gives us a balanced approach to the problems of our large cities, growing metropolitan areas and small communities. The tools are experimental: the proposals are, in some ways, tentative; but I consider them sound and constructive. I am pleased that they have been incorporated in the compromise version of S. 3708.
Madam President, I think that is about the substance of the conference report. I compliment the Senator from Alabama for his usual patience and effective leadership in conference. We were able, I think, to sustain the Senate's position on most of the items that came before us.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I thank the Senator. I thank him for his fine work and his cooperation.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I first yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. HARRIS].
Mr. HARRIS. Madam President, this is a different bill from the one which passed the Senate.
I choose to vote "nay" on this conference report in order to indicate my strong belief that we must hold the line on domestic expenditures in the face of mounting costs of the war in Vietnam.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.