February 16, 1966
Page 3127
PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on February 4, the able chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Roads [Mr. RANDOLPH] commented on the proposed guidelines for control of outdoor advertising published by the Department of Commerce in the Federal Register of January 25, 1966. The senior Senator from West Virginia was joined in colloquy by other members of the Committee on Public Works, the junior Senator from Utah [Mr. MOSS] and the junior Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. HARRIS].
It is unfortunate that articles in the local press have interpreted the comments of these Senators as aligning them with the outdoor advertising industry against the Department of Commerce and the Highway Beautification Act which the Congress passed last year. Members of the Committee on Public Works are not for or against any industry with respect to the highway beautification legislation. Members of the committee are, however, for the Department of Commerce administering this legislation in accordance with the intent of Congress. And some of us are disturbed by the prospect that this program, which was strongly advanced by President Johnson and the First Lady, with the overwhelming support of the Congress, may be unnecessarily jeopardized by an overzealous interpretation in the Department of Commerce of one section of the act.
I comment on the issue at this time because I have received -- as have other Senators -- queries regarding the implications of the proposed guidelines. In light of the intent of the Congress concerning outdoor advertising in industrial and commercial areas, such queries are understandable.
It would be appropriate, therefore, to review the legislative history of this section of Public Law 89-285 for the guidance of Department of Commerce officials and others who will be involved in the hearings to be held in the several States in the forthcoming months. I emphasize that my comments are concerned solely -- as were those of the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Roads on February 4 -- with the proposed guidelines as they affect subsection (e) of title 131 which governs outdoor advertising in industrial and commercial areas.
It will be recalled that the draft legislation originally proposed by the administration distinguished between areas zoned industrial or commercial and unzoned areas used predominantly for industrial or commercial purposes. No controls were proposed for industrially or commercially zoned areas, while it was proposed that unzoned areas of commercial or industrial use would be "determined in accordance with national standards to be established by the Secretary."
No section of this act received more exhaustive attention by the Committee on Public Works. After 4 days of hearings on the bill and 3 days in executive session, the committee reported an amended bill which required that the unzoned areas would be determined "in accordance with provisions established by the legislatures of the several States, which shall be consistent with the purposes of this section."
The last proviso of the amendment was accepted in committee on my motion, and I believed then, as I believe now, that it would have given the Secretary of Commerce quite adequate authority to implement the act.
As the committee report stated:
The committee has given long and deliberate consideration to this subsection. * * * The basic postulate of this provision is that outdoor advertising is an integral part of the business and marketing function and an established segment of the national economy; as a legitimate business, it should therefore be allowed to operate where other industrial and commercial activities are conducted.
The report continued with the observation:
The committee notes the qualifying clause quoted above "which shall be consistent with the purpose of this section." The purpose of this act is to preserve and develop the recreational and esthetic values of the interstate and primary highway systems * * *. The committee is of the opinion that subsections (b) and (c) provide the Secretary with adequate authority to enforce compliance with the purpose of the act.
However, the argument was later advanced by officials of the administration, shortly before S. 2084 was brought to the Senate floor, that in the process of closing off many areas heretofore occupied by outdoor advertising, the act would tend to enhance the value of the remaining sites in industrial and commercial areas. Therefore, in order to prevent consequent clutter in these areas, the administration requested an amendment which would authorize limited controls in commercial and industrial areas, whether zoned or unzoned.
On September 15, 1965, the floor manager of the bill in the Senate [Mr. RANDOLPH] proposed the first of the administration amendments addressed to this issue. As a substitute for the committee language, the amendment read as follows:
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, signs, displays, and devices conforming to criteria determined by the States subject to concurrence by the Secretary concerning the lighting, size, number of signs, and such other requirements as may be appropriate, may be erected and maintained within six hundred and sixty feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way within areas adjacent to the interstate and primary systems which are zoned industrial or commercial under authority of State law, or which are not zoned under authority of State law but are used for industrial or commercial activities, which unzoned areas are determined by the several States subject to the approval of the Secretary.
After rather lengthy debate and considerable opposition, the senior Senator from West Virginia requested unanimous consent temporarily to withdraw the amendment, which act was later made a permanent withdrawal.
On the following day, September 16, the Senate floor manager received a copy of a letter from Secretary of Commerce, John T. Connor, to Representative JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Roads, explaining the purpose of the proposed amendment. The Secretary stated, in part:
In order to prevent an unchecked proliferation which not only results in a public eyesore but undoubtedly impedes the effectiveness of billboard advertising, reasonable standards pertaining to size, spacing, and number of billboards would be developed. * * *
It is the intention of the administration that the regulations, insofar as they are consistent with the purposes of this act, shall be helpful to the advertising industry and that, for instance, standards of size which may be adopted would be insofar as possible consistent with standard size billboards in customary use.
Viewed in the context of the events at that time, Mr. President, it is quite evident that the Senate had no intention of giving authority to the Secretary of Commerce to outlaw outdoor advertising in industrial and commercial areas, whether zoned or unzoned. In his letter to Representative KLUCZYNSKI, Secretary Connor made it equally evident that he desired no such authority and that the proposed amendment would not be so interpreted by him. With this understanding in mind, the manager of the bill in the Senate, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] introduced on September 16 a modified version of the amendment which he had withdrawn on the preceding day. The substitute amendment, which was passed by the Senate with a vote of 44 to 40, read as follows:
(e) In order to promote the reasonable 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, may be erected and maintained within six hundred and sixty feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way within areas adjacent to the interstate and primary systems 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: Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall apply to signs as defined in section 101 (c) (2).
Mr. President, there are three significant differences between the amendment finally adopted by the Senate and the earlier one which was withdrawn. And each of these changes is important in
terms of the congressional intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 with respect to the recently announced "guidelines." First, the declaration of purpose in the amendment acknowledged the legitimacy of outdoor advertising as a business enterprise in industrial and commercial areas. Second, it deleted the catchall phrase, "and such other requirements as may be appropriate," and limited control criteria to "size, lighting, and spacing." And, third, it required both the control criteria and the designation of unzoned areas to be "determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary."
I would add that this subsection was further amended by the House of Representatives, in which action the Senate concurred, to provide that the criteria of size, lighting, and spacing would be consistent with customary use. In presenting the House bill to the Senate for final action, the senior Senator from West Virginia stated:
Any regulations or criteria with respect to size, spacing, and lighting of outdoor advertising signs should, insofar as possible, be consistent with customary use in the industry. Therefore, I cannot perceive any valid objection to this particular language in the House-approved bill.
Thus, Mr. President, it is apparent from this brief summary of the genesis of subsection (d) of title I of Public Law 89-285, that both bodies of the Congress were quite deliberate in their aim to acknowledge the right of outdoor advertising to operate in commercial or industrial areas. That is not to imply that the industry should operate free of any controls. But, as the Secretary of Commerce indicated, and as the Congress affirmed, the purpose of controls would be primarily to prevent undue proliferation of signs in commercial and industrial areas and to provide for any orderly development of the industry. This is a purpose supported by a majority of the Senate, including the Senator from West Virginia and myself.
I shall not comment on the specifics of the proposed guidelines for outdoor advertising. The senior Senator from West Virginia made sufficient observations on this point in his comments on February 4. However, it does seem to me that the proposals of the Department of Commerce are at variance with the legislative intent that I have summarized. For these reasons, the Secretary may wish to consider the advisability of issuing a clarifying statement before instituting the hearings in the several States.