CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
May 28, 1968
Page 15226
THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET ANALYSIS OF SECTION 204 OF THE DEMONSTRATION CITIES AND METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1966
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 provides that all applications for Federal assistance for certain physical development projects be accomplished by the comments of an areawide planning agency.
Since its enactment section 204 has been the subject of widespread controversy and criticism which led to the so-called Cramer amendment to the Independent Offices Appropriations Act last year. The Cramer amendment prohibited the Department of Housing and Urban Development from spending any money to implement section 204.
As a result of this amendment the Bureau of the Budget assumed responsibility for implementing section 204. On April 2, 1968, the Bureau issued an analysis of its experience with section 204. This analysis was developed from reports of the agencies administering programs covered by section 204 and reports of areawide agencies.
Mr. President, I commend the Bureau of the Budget for its effective and successful handling of section 204. I am encouraged to learn that this review process is stimulating rational and comprehensive areawide planning throughout the country. It is my hope that the Senate will act to delete the Cramer amendment this year and will insist on this position on conference.
I ask unanimous consent to have the Bureau of the Budget analysis, "Section 204: The First 6 Months" reprinted in the RECORD at this point in the hope that it will counteract the misinformation which has been spread about the program.
There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SECTION 204 -- THE FIRST 6 MONTHS
1. BACKGROUND
Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 provided that after June 30, 1967 all applications for Federal assistance to certain types of public works activities in metropolitan areas would have to be accompanied by the comments of an areawide planning agency respecting the relationship of a proposed project to the comprehensively planned development of the area. Pursuant to Section 204, Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-82, providing guidelines for the application of the requirement, was issued April 11. 1967.
The Circular assigned to the Department of Housing and Urban Development responsibility for general administrative oversight of the requirement. This involved identification of the areawide agency in each metropolitan area, making any modification or extensions to Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas for the purposes of Section 204, and evaluating the application of the requirement. A rider on the HUD 1968 appropriations act (the so-called "Cramer amendment") prohibited HUD from spending administrative funds for such purposes. Consequently, the Bureau of the Budget assumed the oversight function and issued a revised Circular No. A-82 December 18, 1967.
In the revised Circular, agencies were asked to report on the volume of projects handled under 204, their disposition, problems encountered, and general evaluation. In sending out the revised Circular to the areawide agencies, the Bureau requested that they supply parallel information.
2. AGENCY REPORTS
The volume of activity reported was highly variable among the eight agencies having programs covered by Section 204. This appears to have been for several reasons:
a. Appropriations for a great many of the covered programs were not enacted until late 1967. Therefore, there was, in many cases, a heavy run of applications before the effective date of Section 204 (July 1) with a slowdown until money again became available.
b. The Cramer amendment to the HUD appropriations bill, introduced in June, prior to the effective date of the requirement, sowed considerable confusion everywhere as to whether the requirement was, in fact, in effect.
c. For programs where review by comprehensive metropolitan planning agencies was already required by statute or administratively, the new requirement posed no problem. Apparently, for agencies without this experience, it has been a problem to get administratively geared up to it, a problem very much exacerbated by the confusion attendant upon the Cramer amendment.
Agency field people in particular were under the impression that the effect of the Cramer amendment was to kill the Section 204 requirement.
Nevertheless, reports were received from six agencies covering some 22 programs for 1,342 projects. Partly because of reasons stated above and partly because of internal organizational changes, HEW is unable to supply information respecting its programs which were covered by the requirement. Insofar as it was possible to break down projects by function, it appears that 30% were for water, sewer, or waste treatment facilities projects; 22% were for highway projects; 19% were for open space and recreation projects; 10% were for urban planning projects; 9% were for airport projects; 7% were for public works planning projects (some of which would be for projects of the types listed above);13 % were scattered among mass transit, land and water conservation and development, and public facility loan projects (some of which would include projects of the types listed above).
Broken down by agency
HUD programs accounted for 47% of the 1342 projects reported;
DOT programs accounted for 31% of the 1342 projects reported;
Interior programs accounted for 17% of the 1342 projects reported;
USDA programs accounted for 4% of the 1342 projects reported.
The remaining one percent were distributed between EDA and DOD each of which has only one covered program.
Of this array of 1342 projects which were submitted to areawide agencies for review, only 47 were transmitted to the Federal agency bearing critical comments. The vast majority of critical comments, as might be expected, were made in connection with water and sewer (17) and highway (15) projects. Of these projects 33 were modified pursuant to the critical comments; only two applications were approved despite the criticism. Action on the remaining 12 was pending at the time reports were submitted.
3. FEDERAL AGENCY EXPERIENCE
The reaction of Federal agencies to the section 204 requirements was that it presents no particular or major problem and, in many cases, is quite useful. The metropolitan planning agencies established only recently, in response to the requirement, are generally not at a point in developing a planning competence where their comments are more than perfunctory or superficial. At least, however, they have not occasioned delay or disruption of project development. Established areawide agencies that have a developed competence have been, according to Federal agency reports, positively useful and constructive in the quality of their comments. State agencies designated by Governors to perform review functions in areas where there were no areawide agencies appear not to have been able to comment constructively, as a general rule.
Such problems as were reported by Federal agencies centered about uncertainties as to the extent of coverage of the requirement -- particularly as to what is a "project" within the meaning of Section 204. For instance, FAA reports that it was necessary to limit applications submitted for review to new airports, new runways or extensions to runways in order that projects having no external impact not be subjected to unnecessary redtape. FAA did not specify what was meant by the latter, but we may surmise that "projects" such as runway resurfacing, terminal rehabilitation, etc. might fall into this category.
The Bureau has noted that the regulations promulgated by agencies for such of their programs as are covered by Section 204 have frequently not clearly identified what kinds of projects are or are not covered. In the case of some programs, quite clearly whole classes of projects would not be covered. For instance, the HUD public facility loan program may provide assistance for nearly all of the type projects specified under 204: airports, hospitals, water and sewer facilities, etc.
However, PFL loans may be made for court houses, fire stations, public markets and similar public works which are not subject to Section 204 review. In other programs, the problem is one of degree, as in the FAA example. It would be useful, then, if agencies would differentiate insofar as possible between activities which do or do not fall within the scope of the 204 requirement.
Several agencies noted that the 204 review process was facilitated and productive to the extent that applicants made contact and consulted with the areawide agency very early in the project planning or application preparation stage. Some areawide agencies have encouraged applicants to develop plans and programs covering series of projects. If the plans and programs are favorably reviewed, projects developed pursuant to them can then be "approved" (i.e., favorably reviewed) with little or no further study.
In sum, agency experience with the Section 204 requirement is mixed. At worst, however, it presents little problem; at best, it can prevent costly mistakes or suggest project improvements. There is still some confusion, but agencies familiar with the review process see substantial actual or potential benefits to program administration.
4. REPORTS OF AREAWIDE AGENCIES
As noted above, areawide agencies were requested to supply similar information on their experience with the Section 204 requirement. Of the approximately 200 areawide agencies covering the 231 (now 233) standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's), 73 (covering 98 SMSA's) responded to the Bureau request. They reported receiving 1020 projects for review.
When it is realized that the 73 areawide agencies covered 9 of the 10 largest SMSA's and 18 of the 28 SMSA's with over 1,000,000 people, and included two-thirds of the metropolitan population of the country, it is apparent that implementation of the Section 204 requirement was even less thorough than indicated by the Federal agency reports. Of the 73 agencies: 7 reported that no application had been submitted to them for review; 14 reported 1 or 2 applications; 8 reported 3 to 5; 18 reported 6 to 10; 11 reported 11 to 20; 3 reported 21 to 30; 12 reported over 30.
We can only speculate on the experience of the remaining areawide agencies (roughly 125 in number covering about the same number of SMSA's). However, if the average number of applications submitted for review (of a total of 1020 reported) to those reporting was about 14. and Federal agencies report a total of 1342, this would leave the 100 odd agencies not reporting with an average of barely 2.5 projects submitted for review. Since such large metropolitan areas as Philadelphia, Cleveland, Houston, Cincinnati, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Atlanta, et al., were among those not reporting we can assume a large number of these 125 had nothing to report.
The projects reported break down by function not too consistently with that reported by Federal agencies -- of the 920 projects specified by function, 211 or 23% were water, sewer, or waste treatment projects; 241 or 26% were highway projects; 242 or 26% were open space or outdoor recreation projects; 126 or 14% were miscellaneous urban or public works planning facilities projects; 58 or 6% were airport projects.
The remaining 5% was distributed among hospital, mass transit, library, and land and water conservation projects. As reported, an agency breakdown is not possible.
5. AREAWIDE AGENCY EVALUATION
Generally, respondent areawide agencies reported that the Section 204 requirement has stimulated considerable interest in Interlocal cooperation and has facilitated coordination of metropolitan planning. Agencies appear to have tried not to be obstructive and have often presented their review function as a service to applicants for Federal assistance. Of the 1020 applications reported as being submitted for review, only 38 were returned with critical comments. However, where pre-application consultation occurred, adjustments frequently were made by the prospective applicant which averted adverse comment by the areawide agency.
That the requirement has stimulated metropolitan planning cannot be gainsaid. When HUD surveyed the field to identify qualified areawide agencies prior to the effective date of the requirement, they could discover no qualified agency in 62 SMSA's Today there are only 27 SMSA's in which there is no locally established areawide agency and areawide review is conducted by agencies (usually State planning agencies) designated by the Governors. In several other areas, establishment of an areawide agency is expected momentarily. The problem in 7 of the remaining areas is exacerbated because they lie in more than one State, making the creation of an areawide agency more complicated.
There are a number of areawide agencies (25) that do not cover the whole of an SMSA; and about the same number which include adjoining areas which are not part of the SMSA. Fourteen areas include more than one SMSA, the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Tri-State area covering 10 SMSA's, the San Francisco Bay area 4, and the Los Angeles, Southeastern Wisconsin. and Cleveland areas 3 each. In total. 182 areawide agencies cover all or a part of 203 SMSA's.
6. PROBLEMS REPORTED BY AREAWIDE AGENCIES
Problems, actual and potential, cited variously by the areawide agencies fall under the following headings:
(a) Costs of review
Except for some of the larger areas, this has been more a potential than an actual problem. However, to do a competent review of a complicated project may take several man-days. At present, the HUD 701 program recognizes this as a legitimate cost of comprehensive planning and provides a prorata share of that cost. As volume increases, there will be a growing demand on 701 funds. Perhaps other broadly gauged planning assistance programs (BPR comprehensive urban transportation planning, PHS comprehensive areawide health planning) could adopt a policy similar to HUD's, covering their appropriate areas of concern, to relieve some of the drain on 701.
(b) Awareness of requirement
While many areawide agencies try hard to publicize the requirement, not all Federal agencies have been active in creating awareness of it among their clienteles or, in fact, in assuring its implementation. An associated shortcoming is lack of clarity in various Federal agency procedures as to what needs to be submitted -- i.e., what types of projects and appropriate data and information. This causes delays in review as areawide agencies seek further necessary information.
(c) Timing
Ideally -- and there are few obstacles in the way of achieving this ideal -- an applicant should consult with the areawide agency at an early stage in project planning, so that by the time the application is ready for submittal to the Federal agency, areawide agency review is, in effect, a fait accompli. However, when the areawide agency is presented with a fully prepared application on a project about which it has no foreknowledge, the applicant -- and often the Federal agency -- has a deep commitment and will resist suggestions, however well reasoned and constructive, that involve making changes in the project.
(d) Feedback
The areawide agency, once having made its comments, frequently has no way of knowing what action has been taken by the Federal agency on the project. However, since a project having been noted as having a regional significance will affect the status of regional planning and development, it is important that the areawide agency be promptly apprised of the disposition of the application -- particularly when its comments have suggested modifications in the proposed project. Some HUD regional offices have developed procedures for keeping the areawide agencies so informed, but this does not appear to be a general practice.
(e) Planning progress
A number of areawide agencies ascribed a major problem to their own lack of capability for adequately evaluating proposed projects. This is generally the case where the agency and/or its planning program is relatively new and undeveloped. However, this is a problem that will be corrected over time, given availability of planning assistance funds.
7. OTHER PROBLEMS
A problem that may become increasingly evident -- at least in some program areas -- has to do with the geographic size of the area covered. In some western areas the SMSA includes vast areas well beyond the reach of foreseeable urbanization around the metropolitan center. Because Section 204 is aimed basically at trying to secure orderly growth and development around the metropolitan center, it has been suggested to areawide agencies that they might want to delimit the area within which they will review projects to that encompassing the projected "foreseeable" (20 year) growth. This would permit them to husband their own review resources and save substantial redtape for Federal and State agencies. The inclination of the areawide agencies has been to reject the suggestion. However, recognizing the problem, some at least have proposed that either proposed systems or annual programs be reviewed rather than individual projects. In this way, an applicant would need only notify the areawide agency that a project which was part of an approved system or program was being undertaken. This appears to provide a partial solution.
Nevertheless, the tendency of many areawide agencies is to increase their geographic scope of coverage. While the Bureau has not permitted Section 204 to be used to blackjack jurisdictions outside of SMSA's to become members of areawide agencies, generally it has agreed to broaden the definition of a metropolitan area to include jurisdictions who are or wish to become members and who are willing to have their projects reviewed under Section 204. This extension, however, presents problems -- so far only apparent in connection with highways -- where a program involves numerous small projects outside of the urbanizing area.
Finally, with the increasing regionalization of States by Governors for planning and administrative purposes, we may expect to find SMSA's encompassed within larger State regions. At this point Bureau Circular No. A-82 may find itself in an awkward confrontation with Bureau Circular No. A-80 which provides that planning and development areas designated under Federal programs be coterminous, unless there is very good reason otherwise, with State established areas.
In a related problem area, there was some negative reaction from areawide agencies when certain planning assistance programs were dropped from coverage under the revised Circular No. A-82.
These were rather broad planning programs, generally not leading -- at least directly -- to the construction of specific public works projects. It was pointed out that it was applications for planning assistance, not plans, that were being reviewed and, as such, offered little, if anything, of substantive relevance to the purposes of Section 204 upon which comment might be made. Attention of areawide agencies has been directed to Bureau Circular No. A-80 which is directly concerned with coordination of planning processes and activities -- as opposed A-82 and Section 204 that are concerned basically with the coordination of specific public works projects with areawide development planning. A-80 represents a useful adjunct to A-82, but the Federal agencies need to be pushed to issue procedures to implement it for a broader range of programs than are now covered in agency program procedures.
8. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Generally speaking, the Section 204 requirement has been implemented with fewer problems that might have been expected,. considering (1) the limited time between the passage of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (11/ 3/66) and the effective date (7/1/67); (2) the confusion caused by the "Cramer amendment"; (3) the unfamiliarity of the metropolitan review process; (4) the large number of SMSA's with no areawide agency. Some Federal programs are now only getting geared up to implement the requirement, and for some few metropolitan areas, implementation by the areawide agency is nominal at best. Yet the requirement now has become widely known and, by and large, accepted as a fact of life in most metropolitan areas, and 1968 should see its further institutionalization.
The following recommendations will help to speed and regularize this process:
(a) Federal agencies should examine closely those programs covered by Section 204 and identify as closely as possible:
(1) Classes of projects which are and are not covered (e.g., public works under the HUD PFL program or Title II of the EDA basic legislation may or may not fall under the classifications listed under Section 204(a) ); and
(2) Under classes of projects, types of projects which should or should not be required to be reviewed. (These might include research and technical studies, training. data-gathering, and other projects which do not involve actual construction. Or, where construction is involved, those component projects of a covered public works project which do not affect the regional impact of the facility -- engineering or design details, materials specifications, repair and maintenance projects -- should not have to come under review).
(b) Federal agencies should publicize the Section 204 requirement among their clienteles.
(c) Federal agencies should urge their clienteles whose applications will be reviewed under Section 204 to consult with areawide agencies as early as possible in the project planning and application preparation process.
(d) Federal agencies should develop procedures for informing areawide agencies of actions taken on applications pursuant to areawide agency review -- particularly on projects on which the areawide agency has commented adversely or suggested modifications.
(e) Areawide agencies should develop procedures
(1) for pre-identifying projects which because of distance from or geographic relationship to the
urbanizing metropolitan center are likely to have little, if any, impact on orderly urban development, and
(2) for expediting review of projects within the urban area which because of scale, location, or type have little or no regional significance. With respect to projects outside of the urbanizing area significant geographic relationships may be variable. For instance, major waste disposal facilities at considerable distance from the urbanizing area may be critical for the orderly development of that area; rural or small town water supply projects at the same distance may not. Procedures for notification of projects outside of certain perimeters with option to call for review of such projects where potential impact may be suspected might serve to lighten the burden of review on areawide agency and applicants alike.
STATUS OF AREAWIDE PLANNING AGENCIES UNDER SECTION 204 OF THE DEMONSTRATION CITIES AND METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1966, APRIL 15, 1968
Excluding the three metropolitan areas of Puerto Rico for which planning is done by the Puerto Rico Planning Board which does all planning for the island:
There are 230 SMSA's, 26 of which extend into two States and 4 of which extend into three.
There are 202 metropolitan areas for which reviews are made under Section 204 of which 36 cover less than a SMSA; 152 cover at least one but less than two SMSA's; 9 cover at least two but less than three SMSA's; 3 cover at least three but less than four SMSA's; 1 covers 4 SMSA's (Los Angeles Areas; and 1 covers 10 SMSA's (New York Tri-State Area). 9 of these areas extend into two States and 7 into three States.
There are 206 areawide agencies, 11 of which extend into two States and 5 of which extend into three.
27 SMSA's, lying wholly or in part in 19 States,. have no locally established areawide agencies and Section 204 review is performed by agencies designated by the Governor (or Governors) of the States (or States) in which they lie. Of these 5 are two-State areas and 2 are three-State areas.
PORTLAND, MAINE, ADMINISTRATOR VIEWS MODEL CITIES
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, earlier this year Robert F. Hawkins, administrator of the Portland, Maine, model cities program delivered a fine speech before the Institute on Changing Concepts in Social Welfare at the University of Maine. Entitled: "Model Cities: An Overview and Some issues," this speech highlights the issues and innovations of the model cities program from the local point of view.
Because Mr. Hawkins presents an unusually comprehensive review of the model cities program, which has relevance beyond Portland, I ask unanimous consent to have his speech reprinted in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MODEL CITIES: AN OVERVIEW AND SOME ISSUES (Address by Robert R. Hawkins, Model Cities Program Administrator. Institute on Changing Concepts in Social Welfare. University of Maine in Portland. Luther Bonney Hall. February 17. 1968. Sponsored by Child and Family Services, United Community Services, University of Maine in Portland, Diocesan Bureau of Human Relations Services, State of Maine, Department of Health and Welfare)
Ladies and Gentlemen: Let me say, first of all, that in looking towards the Model Cities Program and the task we have ahead of us, I am very grateful to the sponsors of this Institute and to its Planning Committee for their agreeing to use Model Cities as a point of discussion in talking about changing concepts of social welfare. This dialogue is very important to our work in Portland, Maine.
Let me say secondly that I can't stand here before you today and tell you what Model Cities is going to do for Portland, Maine, how it's going to succeed or even if it will succeed; but I can share Professor Steinman's remark before lunch, that we have a great deal to hope for in the Model Cities Program. I base my hope on what I see happening in the Model Cities Program; how I see in it a changed way of doing business -- trying to learn from past mistakes in urban programs.
Now let me take some time to give you a feeling for the Model Cities Program in concept and some of these changes which underlie its approach to the problems in Portland, Maine and in other cities in the United States. I would talk first of all about the changes in program strategy or program approach. I think the first and most important one is the fact that in Model Cities we are going to try to achieve a systematic consideration of all of the conditions affecting the people of our model neighborhood, we are calling Portland West. We are going to use the systems analysis techniques and type of thinking that have been developed in recent years in private industry. Each of you received with the announcement of this Institute a flow chart that the Arthur D. Little Co. prepared. That flow chart depicted the system which exists in our slum neighborhoods including Portland West. If we're going to do something about changing that system we've got to develop an equally systematic approach.
This approach is significantly in contrast with previous programs which have been federally aided and which have approached individual problems and worked on a project basis with separate administration and separate funding. We found that these did not succeed. You can't isolate a single problem, attack it, and go away thinking that you've done your job. We're finding with such popular programs as Head Start and with such relatively large programs as Public Housing that the individual good which each program might have achieved is quickly overcome and overwhelmed by the other environmental conditions in our problem neighborhoods.
I think the other thing we realize when we look at all of these conditions as a system is that it is a very stable type of problem. A problem which isn't going to go away if we ignore it. I think that is one of the reasons why the Model Cities Program was developed. Now let me take one minute to list for you the problems we have identified in Portland West. They are really quite obvious and the listing is not terribly innovative. These are what we found in our application to the federal government last spring:
First, insufficient and inadequate housing. We indicated, for instance, that the housing supply in Portland West has been dwindling for the past twenty years and that even so, today 2756 of the occupied housing is substandard.
The second problem identified was low family and personal income. We noted, for instance. that 181 of the people in the city of Portland live in poverty by the Office of Economic Opportunity standards and this is caused in many ways by problems of inadequate support, problems of inadequate employment or underemployment.
We identify thirdly, the problem of insufficient educational opportunities. We noted that 1637 of the adults of Portland West have less than an eighth grade education.
We noted that there is a limited scope of health services as our fourth major problem. Two of the statistics were that the tuberculosis rate and the infant mortality rate were twice the city average.
And the fifth general problem we identified was the limited scope of general social services in our neighborhood resulting in many problems but one in particular was the 1000 juvenile crimes committed in our clty each year.
Well those are the broad labels we have put on the problem categories and we could spend an entire day discussing the scope of the problems and the many interrelationships between the failures of different parts of that system. But the important point is that we are looking at all of these at one time in a coordinated, coherent. systematic way and that's very unique about Model Cities.
The second change in our program approach is that to achieve such an ambitious goal as approaching all of these problems at once, we've obviously got to mobilize all resources imaginable. This is not just a City of Portland program -- though we will be formally in control. It is not just a federally aided program. We are going to require federal monies from all of its departments. We are also going to require state assistance from existing programs and perhaps new state resources. But especially we are going to need the so-called private resources -- which agencies such as those represented here today control, both voluntary agencies and private profit agencies such as private industry. And these are going to have to be mobilized and combined in an intelligent way which still respects the autonomy of the individual agency. We are going to have put these resources together not just in one big jug but we're going to have to talk about management, about systems for controlling our output, about developing a team spirit, about developing intercommunication between our different team partners.
Model Cities then has to mean a systematic consideration of all conditions in the neighborhood and secondly a systematic application of all resources we can muster. Now, a resource which we treat separately as a third and final unique part of our program strategy, is significant involvement of individual citizens in our neighborhood. While the Portland City Council is going to have the final and formal control of the activities of line departments and the allocation of Model Cities money, meaningful opportunities will be developed for the residents of the neighborhood to influence that program which could significantly affect their daily lives. We are now designing and grappling with new techniques and new ways of achieving that goal and making that a firm reality in our program. Not just because these programs could affect the people, but because the people control significant resources. They have the knowledge of the problem, the perspective and emotional view of the problems and the resources which they control which they can put into themselves, into their own properties, into their own neighborhoods and finally the moral support which they can give to our efforts.
I see, then, three significant ways in which Model Cities represents a change in program approach: Consideration of all of the conditions, mobilization of all of the resources, and the significant involvement of the citizens of the United States.
Now in addition to the program approach, there are some other very important ways in which Model Cities represents a change and one of these is the change in federal-local relationships.
We have heard a lot about creative federalism but I think Model Cities is the first concrete example of what that might mean in practice. It means, for instance, first of all that we will have in fact local determination, of the program elements. Mr. Goldman, last night at the UCS dinner, said that the federal government has thrown down a challenge to local government, to innovate, to design, to adapt the resources available to the unique and peculiar problems and values of Portland, Maine. And this is a very significant change in Model Cities -- whether we can meet that challenge.
The second change in our federal-local relationships concerns the review process by which we request funds from the federal government. Not only have they agreed to try to cut red tape and speed up the process but more importantly it will not be a question of us in Portland, Maine working with their guidelines -- their written instructions -- trying to figure out what the devil they meant and trying to put together a thick document which we can mail out to Washington, which will get ignored for several weeks and then we'll get a yes-no-maybe decision on it.
Instead, now when we have a problem and or we think there is a federal program which applies to that problem, we call the administering federal agency and they will come here or work with us over the telephone in designing and adapting the federal legislation to the problems of Portland. So when the application is finally submitted we will know what their reaction to it is and will be able to move much more quickly. Now this is not the federal government telling us how to run our program but this is federal technical assistance on a professional level helping us to design a better program, helping us to innovate in our approach to the problems of Portland. Maine.
And finally the changes in the federal-local relationship are in the area of financing, in the amount of money which the federal government is going to provide. Because through Model Cities, the federal government is committed to a recognition of the financial limitations of the cities in this country and towards coming up with some real money to make the program succeed. Model Cities is going to involve a great deal of coordination and team work and systems approach but it’s got to represent some more money too.
Changes then are part of Model Cities, not only on program approach, not only in our federal-local relationships, but it should mean changes here in Portland, Maine in our Model Neighborhood. If we succeed we are going to see changes physically. We are going to see much more important changes though with the people in the neighborhood: in their skills and their outlook and what they achieve for themselves and the extent to which they attain the personal goals they set for themselves and for their families.
And it should be change on a larger scale and a faster rate than we have seen before. Another important part of Model Cities then is not to repeat the mistakes of previous federally aided programs which have dragged on far too long. Our timetable calls for us to complete our planning, to design our basic approach between now and October 30 of this year. And then from there we'll have five short years to get the job substantially completed, to make a substantial impact.
Now, I think it's fair to say that where that change is going to be rapid or dramatic in our neighborhood (and I think that there is need for rapid and dramatic change) it's going to tear at the neighborhood, it's going to tear at the people in the neighborhood, and it's going to be painful and upsetting. But I think it is also true that where that change is slow, where programs are delayed, where resources are inadequate, that change is going to be too slow and it's going to be frustrating. That frustration is going to be a very powerful force. This question was discussed this morning of what happens when expectations exceed the pace of progress. I think we're going to see that happen in Portland too. Because no matter how we change it's going to be too fast for some and it's going to be too slow for others. May I say, we may have a peaceful revolution here in Model Cities; but I certainly don't think it's going to be a painless revolution.
In summary, then, these are the essential things I can see in the concept of Model Cities, the changes in our program approach, the changes in our relationship with the federal government, and the immediate impact these changes are going to mean in our cities. Now, all of these changes in turn are going to require that we acquire or develop new techniques of operating, new vocabularies for discussing, and new concepts for decision making. Especially new concepts in the area of social welfare programs, society's responsibilities to individuals, and individual social duties. This is really the theme of our meeting today. Let me, therefore, outline some of the unresolved areas, some of the specific issues I see ahead of us here in Portland, Maine.
1. I think first of all of the question "Where are we going with Model Cities?" We talk about creating Model Neighborhoods. And when we talk about it we talk about what's wrong with that neighborhood now. But do we really know what is right? Do we really know where we are going? I suggest that essentially we do not. I think the first issue to ask is "Should we proceed without knowing, really, where we are going?" How can we proceed intelligently, or logically without knowing where we are headed? On the other hand, how can we afford to wait? How can we afford to procrastinate, to engage in academic discussion of where we're going when the problem is so urgent? I think that is the first kind of issue we have got to resolve in our mind very quickly in the weeks ahead.
2. But then come back to the question, where do we seem to be headed? What kind of goals are implied when we talk about a model neighborhood? I think that's an issue we've got to keep before us and talk about some more. I noted this morning some thoughts were expressed about the dignity of individuals, about opportunities for personal development for individuals. I thought we talked this morning about guaranteeing some kind of minimums for human existence, minimums in terms of incomes, health and education and housing, etc. I think we talked this morning about something called competency to manage one's own affairs. I think all of these have something to do with that concept of where are we going, what is a model neighborhood. But I think a lot has to be done here to round out this issue.
3. The third issue I see and I did not see it discussed this morning was the question of
our growing interdependence upon one another. What with instant communications, rapid transportation and massive popular discussion through mass media, the opportunities for getting in each other’s way are increasing significantly all the time. I think this growing social and economic interdependence of individuals is having powerful impact on our concepts of social welfare and will have powerful impact on how we design our Model Cities Program here in Portland. We need to do a lot of work coming up with new concepts to answer this issue.
We need to talk about how we measure interdependence and the units we use to express our concepts. How do we evaluate it? I can only think of two ways to get at that -- one is this concept of urbanization, we use so glibly. I think we should explore what that means, really. Another example is our crime rate and how our present concepts of social deviance lead us to moan about how the crime rate is constantly increasing. But we always express the rate in terms of crimes per hundred thousand persons or something similar. I think we've got to think about what's happening to our crime rate in terms of units of social interaction, if you will, units of increasing interdependence. I don't know the answer, I raise that example as an illustration of how we should bring this interdependence into our thinking. I think also we should question how our tolerance of social deviance is based on the amount of social interaction as we become a more closely packed society.
4. Another, I think separate, issue but related to this question of interdependence, is how our changing society is effecting our individual autonomy as persons and as corporations. When we say this morning that a possible social goal is an ability to manage one's own affairs, how close does that come to the questions of controlling one's own destiny; making personal decisions about what one wants to achieve? How is this related to the increasing interdependence we face?
In the area of private property rights, for example, what does the increasing interdependence mean? What is the impact on these property rights which are being constantly and increasingly infringed upon? What will be the effect on our profit system of motivation and our concepts of the competitive models with this increasing interdependence and on our emerging concepts of social welfare which I think conflict in many ways with that competitive model. How's our increasing interdependence going to affect the so-called private organizations in terms of how they deliver public spirited services? I am thinking here again of the United Fund Agencies represented here and the other voluntary agencies. How is this loss of individual autonomy going to effect the welfare of public service employees -- from government employees like garbage collectors, so much in the news, to other public service employees like private medical physicians? What concept of social welfare do we need to develop to express these effects of interdependence and our reaction to them as they relate to Portland, Maine and our Portland Model Cities Program?
5. I think another separate issue which is very much in our thinking is the counterveiling emphasis on individual rights and private rights and privacy. And I think that's a laudable increase in emphasis. But what do individual rights mean in terms of opportunities for another person? And how is our system of adjudicating between competing rights going to adjust to the changes in our society and our changing concept of social welfare?
6. And then, I would identify another issue which I think we are going to have to face in Model Cities on a different level: How all of these other issues and other emerging concepts are going to come about. What is the process of debate and discussion and decision-making going to be like?
Where has our changing society left the individual person and his individual concepts, his individual opinions, his individual values on social welfare? We in the Model Cities Program are trying to devise mechanisms for just such kind of citizen participation, of citizen involvement in the discussion of what is a model neighborhood, of what are our new concepts of social welfare. And I think this is an issue all by itself, on a separate plane.
We talked this morning about the federal congress and what strange forces resulted in a Social Security Amendment we dislike. We talked today about the absence of the City Council here today and what puts them in that position. I think the decision-making process then is a very important and very separate issue we should face in Model Cities.
7. And then, finally, given that we have some mechanism for involving our present adult citizens in the discussion of these changing concepts, how effectively will our educational system pass on these changes in concepts to our children? We talk in Model Cities about innovating and building a new community school system. How are we going to train the children in this school system -- not only to develop concepts to deal with the world around them today, but especially a world in which the only constant appears to be change itself.
That, then, is my overview of the Model Cities Program in terms of the very significant changes in program approach and way of doing things which it presents and the hope it holds out for us because it's going to do things differently. And those are the issues which I see when I think about the Model Cities Program.
Now in most of the sixty-three Model Cities that have been selected by the Federal Government I am certain we are going to see really exciting positive effects of changing concepts of social welfare. I think we in this room face the challenge. Will Portland be one of those successful cities? Will those programs be uniquely adapted to the needs and personal values and concepts of the people of our model neighborhood? The answer, I believe, will be Yes only if a meaningful discussion of these issues begins here today in the panel discussions we are about to go into and continues and is carried on throughout our community in the months ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may suggest the absence of a quorum without the time being charged to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the floor may be yielded to the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], and that the time consumed by his remarks be charged to neither side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield?
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Will the Senator indicate how much time he wishes to use?
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Ten minutes; but I do not expect to take that long.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if the Senator from Virginia is agreeable, that his time be limited not to exceed 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, during the colloquy yesterday between the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND] and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], I had been called out of the Chamber for a telephone call when that discussion took place. But I note in the RECORD this morning that in replying to a query of the Senator from Florida in regard to new towns and new communities which have grown up in the Washington metropolitan area, the Senator from Alabama noted that he knew of only two such communities in this area, one being Columbia in Maryland the other Reston in Virginia.
Mr. President, those are two fine new communities which are being developed. I merely wish to correct the RECORD, Mr. President, to this extent: that the largest of such communities in the Washington metropolitan area was not mentioned in the discussion yesterday, and I think it is well to have the RECORD show that Sterling Park, in Loudoun County, is the largest of all of the new communities in the Washington area.
Sterling Park now has 6,100 inhabitants. It is proposed that when all the land is utilized in a few years it will be a community of 25,000; but even now, it is the largest of all these new cities or new communities in the area immediately adjacent to Washington.
I visited Sterling Park last Saturday, and participated in the dedication of a new community building there. The residents of that community are very fine people. They have developed a splendid community spirit. They have taken an active part in the affairs of Loudoun County.
Loudoun County, incidentally, is adjacent to Fairfax County, and is a rapidly growing area of our State.
Loudoun County goes to the top of Blue Ridge Mountain, where it joins with Clarke County on the west.
I notice that the Presiding Officer of the Senate today is the distinguished Senator from North Dakota (Mr. BURDICK in the chair). I know that he has property on Blue Ridge Mountain, and we are very proud that he does have a parcel of land in the State of Virginia. His land may be in Loudoun County, although quite possibly it could be in Clarke, because the dividing line is at the top of the mountain.
I merely wanted to say these few words, Mr. President, to make the RECORD clear that more than two large new self-contained communities have been established, one being Columbia in Maryland, another being Reston, and a third being Sterling Park.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I am very glad that the Senator has brought this matter forward for the RECORD. He will note that I stated that I knew of only the two, one at Reston and one at Columbia. I am very glad to know about Sterling Park. I certainly was not intending to neglect it or slight it.
I was trying to argue the point that two communities were now a reality, and that they did need help, in the form of a supplementary grant, as provided in this bill, to aid in developing water and sewer systems.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I know that the Senator from Alabama did not intend to slight Sterling Park. That is why I invited his attention to it, because I know of his keen interest in all such communities and all such projects as this, and I wanted to invite his attention and the attention of the Senate to the fact that Sterling Park, now with 6,100 residents, is the largest of such communities in this area.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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.
Who yields time? The Senator from Delaware is recognized.