To the Congress of the United States: Today, in this fifth report to the Congress on the State of the Union, I want to discuss the quality of life in our cities and towns and set forth new directions for community development in America. Not long ago we became accustomed to the constant rhetorical drumbeat of the "crisis of our cities." Problems were multiplying so rapidly for our larger urban areas that some observers said our cities were doomed as centers of culture, of commerce, and of constructive change. Many of these problems still persist, but I believe we have made sufficient progress in recent years that fears of doom are no longer justified. What is needed today is calm reflection upon the nature of modern community life in the United States, a reassessment of the manner in which we are trying to solve our remaining problems, and a firm resolve to get on with the task. America's communities are as diverse as our people themselves. They vary tremendously in size from massive cities to medium-sized urban and suburban areas, to small towns and rural communities. Just as importantly, each of our communities has built up strong individual characteristics over the years, shaped by region, climate, economic influences, ethnic origins and local culture. Of course, communities do share common needs and concerns. People in every community want adequate housing, transportation, and jobs, a clean environment, good health, education, recreation facilities, security from crime and fear, and other essential services. But local priorities differ; the intensity and order of local needs vary. Clearly, no single, rigid scheme, imposed by the Federal Government from Washington, is capable of meeting the changing and varied needs of this diverse and dynamic Nation. There is no "best" way, no magic, universal cure-all, that can be dispensed from hundreds or thousands of miles away. What is good for New York City is not necessarily good for Chicago, or San Francisco, much less for smaller communities with entirely different economies, traditions and populations. Too often in the past we have fallen into the trap of letting Washington make the final decisions for St. Louis, Detroit, Miami and our other cities. Sometimes the decisions were right, and programs have succeeded. Too often they were wrong, and we are still paying the price. The time has come to recognize the errors of past Federal efforts to support community development and to move swiftly to correct them. The results of past errors form a disturbing catalogue: --They have distorted local priorities. --They have spawned a massive glut of red tape. --They have created an adversary climate between local communities and Washington which has often led to waste, delay and mutual frustration. --They have contributed to a lack of confidence among our people in the ability of both local and national governments to solve problems and get results. --They have led to the creation of too many complex and often competing Federal programs. --Perhaps worst of all, they have undercut the will and the ability of local and State governments to take the initiative to mobilize their own energies and those of their citizens. The Federal policy that will work best in the last third of this century is not one that tries to force all of our communities into a single restrictive mold. The Federal policy that will work best is one that helps people and their leaders in each community meet their own needs in the way they think best. It is this policy which binds together the many aspects of our community development programs. THE BETTER COMMUNITIES ACT In the near future, I will submit to the Congress the Better Communities Act to provide revenue sharing for community development. Beginning July 1, 1974, this act would provide $2.3 billion a year to communities to be spent as they desire to meet their community development needs. In the interim period before the legislation becomes effective, funds already available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development will be used to maintain and support community development. The Better Communities Act is intended to replace inflexible and fragmented categorical grant-in-aid programs, and to reduce the excessive Federal control that has been so frustrating to local governments. Rather than focusing and concentrating resources in a coordinated assault on a set of problems, the categorical system scatters these resources, and diminishes their impact upon the most needy. Excessive Federal influence also limits the variety and diversity of development programs. Local officials should be able to focus their time, their resources and their talents on meeting local needs and producing results, instead of trying to please Washington with an endless torrent of paperwork. I first proposed such legislation in 1971, and although the Congress failed to enact it, significant support was expressed in both the Senate and the House. Since that time, members of my Administration have been consulting with Congressional leaders, mayors, Governors, other local officials and their representatives. Many constructive suggestions have been received and will be incorporated in my new legislative proposal. As a result, I believe the Better Communities Act will represent our best hope for the future of community development and will deserve rapid approval by the Congress. Among the most significant features of the Better Communities Act are these: ---Hold-Harmless Provision: The flow of money to cities and urban counties is to be based on a formula reflecting community needs, as determined by objective standards. In the years immediately following enactment, funds would be used to assure that no city receives less money for community development than it has received under the categorical grant programs. --Assistance for Smaller Communities: Funding is also to be provided for our smaller communities, recognizing the vital importance of small towns and rural communities to the future of the Nation. --The Role of State Government: State governments have always played an important part in meeting the community development needs of their communities. The Act will recognize this role. --Local Decision Making: While each of the activities now supported by categorical grants may be continued, it would be up to local leaders to determine how that money will be spent. --Minimizing Red Tape: Recipients would be required to show the Federal Government only that they are complying with Federal statutes in the way they are spending their revenue sharing money. --Elimination of Matching: Shared revenues would not have to be matched by local funds. --Protection for Minorities: Under no circumstances could funds provided under the Better Communities Act be used for purposes that would violate the civil rights of any person. A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT One of the most serious deficiencies in the effort of the Federal Government to assist in community development has been the fragmentation and scattering of Federal programs among a variety of departments and agencies. All too often State or local officials seeking help for a particular project must shuttle back and forth from one Federal office to another, wasting precious time and resources in a bureaucratic wild goose chase. In order to coordinate our community development activities more effectively, I proposed nearly two years ago that we create a Department of Community Development which would pull under one roof various programs now in the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Agriculture, and other agencies. After extensive hearings on this proposal, the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives reached this conclusion: "The Department of Community Development will be a constructive center in the Federal Government for assistance to communities, large and small. It will facilitate rational planning, orderly growth, and the effective employment of resources to build viable communities throughout the United States. It will help to strengthen the physical and institutional bases for cooperative action by Federal, State and local governments." This Administration fully agrees, of course, and will continue to work with the Congress for the prompt creation of a Department of Community Development. In the interim, I recently appointed a Presidential Counsellor on Community Development who will coordinate community development programs and policies in the executive branch. But only when the Congress approves the basic departmental reorganization proposed by the Administration can our efforts to eliminate waste, confusion and duplication, and to promote community betterment more efficiently, be fully effective. THE RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENTS ACT For nearly 20 years, the Federal Government has provided assistance to State and local governments in order to strengthen their planning and management capabilities. This aid, provided under the Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program, has always been helpful, but the program itself has several major flaws. It has tended, for instance, to stress one aspect of public administration--planning--without adequately recognizing other essential features such as budgeting, management, personnel administration, and information-gathering. Planning has often been irrelevant to the problems and the actual decisions. State and local governments have also found it difficult to coordinate their planning because of the fragmented way in which funds have been sent from Washington. This Administration proposed new planning and management legislation to the 92nd Congress, but it was not approved. In the meantime, we took what steps we could to improve the existing program. Some progress has been made, but corrective legislation is still needed. I shall therefore propose that the 93rd Congress enact a new Responsive Governments Act. I shall also propose that we provide $110 million for this act in fiscal year 1974--almost one-fifth of the entire amount that has been spent under the present law in the last two decades. This Responsive Governments Act would assist State and local governments in meeting several important goals: --Developing reliable information on their problems and opportunities; --Developing and analyzing alternative policies and programs; --Managing the programs; --And evaluating the results, so that appropriate adjustments can be made. The ability to plan and manage is vital to effective government. It will be even more important to State and local governments as they are freed from the restraints of narrow categorical Federal programs and must decide how to spend revenue sharing funds. Thus the Responsive Governments Act is a vitally necessary companion piece to the Better Communities Act. HOUSING This Administration is firmly committed to the goal first set forth for America in the 1949 Housing Act: "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family." While we believe that some of our housing programs have failed and should be replaced, we should never waiver in our commitment. During the past four years, the Federal Government has provided housing assistance to an additional 1.5 million American families of low and moderate income. This represents more housing assistance than the total provided by the Federal Government during the entire 34-year history of our national housing program preceding this Administration. In addition, a healthy, vigorous, private housing industry has provided 6 million new unsubsidized units of housing for Americans in the last four years. Housing starts for each of the last three years have reached record high levels--levels, in fact, that are more than double the average for the preceding 21 years. Most importantly, the percentage of Americans living in substandard housing has dropped dramatically from 46 percent in 1940 to 37 percent in 1950 to 18 percent in 1960 to 8 percent in 1970. Americans today are better housed than ever before in our history. At the same time, however, there has been mounting evidence of basic defects in some of our housing programs. It is now clear that all too frequently the needy have not been the primary beneficiaries of these programs; that the programs have been riddled with inequities; and that the cost for each unit of subsidized housing produced under these programs has been too high. In short, we shall be making far more progress than we have been and we should now move to place our housing policies on a much firmer foundation. That is why we suspended new activity under Federal subsidized housing programs effective January 5th of this year. I would emphasize, however, that commitments that were made under these programs prior to their suspension will be honored. This will mean that approximately 300,000 units of new subsidized housing will be started in 1973. In pursuing our goal of decent homes for all Americans, we know that better means are needed--that the old and wasteful programs, programs which have already obligated the taxpayer to payments of between $63 billion and $95 billion during the next 40 years, are not the answer. One of my highest domestic priorities this year will be the development of new policies that will provide aid to genuinely needy families and eliminate waste. A major housing study is now underway within the Government, under the direction of my Counsellor for Community Development. Within the next six months, I intend to submit to the Congress my policy recommendations in this field, based upon the results of that study. TRANSPORTATION To thrive, a community must provide for the efficient movement of its people and its products. Yet in recent years, the growing separation of the city from its suburbs and changing employment patterns have made transportation more of a community problem than a community asset. To improve community development we must meet the challenge of transportation planning and provide more flexible means for communities to meet their transportation needs. Without better transportation, our communities will either stagnate or choke. Four years ago we initiated programs to renew and redirect our transportation systems. We took action to expand the capacity of our airways, to preserve and improve intercity rail passenger service, to continue the Nation's highway program with greater emphasis on safety, and to bring needed progress to our surface public transportation. The Federal commitment has been substantial: --The enlarged Airport Development Aid Program established under the Airport-Airways Development Act of 1970 has quadrupled Federal assistance to airports to $295 million per year. --Under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 we have begun to rejuvenate rail service as part of a balanced transportation system. --From 1970 through 1974 we will have invested some $23 billion in highways. In 1972 alone we committed $3.3 billion to the Interstate system, which is now 80 percent complete. In that same year, $870 million was designated for primary and secondary roads. Equally important, we have emphasized safety on our highways, both in their design and use. --We have progressively increased the levels of Federal funding for transportation research, development, and demonstration projects. This support focuses on new transportation technology. It is designed to encourage private industry to join aggressively in the search for better transportation. --Concurrent with our programs to improve transportation between our cities, we have undertaken programs to develop free flowing corridors for people and commerce within our cities. --Since 1970, when I proposed and the Congress passed the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act, we have committed more than 2 billion Federal dollars to preserve and upgrade public transportation. Nationally, urban public transportation has become a billion-dollar-a-year Federal program. --Over the past four years, Federal dollars have helped 60 American cities to help those who depend on public systems for transportation to jobs, hospitals, shops and recreational centers. Now we must deal even more aggressively with community development challenges in transportation by building on the strong foundations we have laid. Nothing can do more to lift the face of our cities, and the spirit of our city dwellers, than truly adequate systems of modern transportation. With the best highway system in the world, and with 75 percent of our people owning and operating automobiles, we have more transportation assets per capita than any other people on earth. Yet the commuter who uses a two ton vehicle to transport only himself to and from work each day is not making the most efficient use of our transportation system and is himself contributing to our transportation and environmental problems. Good public transportation is essential not only to assure adequate transportation for all citizens, but to forward the common goal of less congested, cleaner and safer communities. As I pointed out a few weeks ago in my message on the environment and natural resources, effective mass transit systems that relieve urban congestion will also reduce pollution and the waste of our limited energy resources. As we build such systems, we must be aware of the two special challenges in coordinating the needs of the inner city and the suburb and in alleviating potential disruptions which new transportation systems can bring to neighborhood life. To further these efforts I again continue to urge Congress to permit a portion of the Highway Trust Fund to be used in a more flexible fashion, thus allowing mass transit capital investments where communities so desire. I recommend that the Congress authorize the expenditure by State and local governments of $3.65 billion over the next three years from the Highway Trust Fund for urban transportation needs, including capital improvements for bus and rapid rail systems. I also recommend continuing the rural highway program at the $1 billion a year level, and providing ample resources to advance the Interstate system as it approaches its 1980 funding completion date. This legislation can meet old needs while at the same time addressing new ones. Some communities now feel unduly obligated to spend Federal monies on controversial Interstate highway segments in urban areas. I urge the Congress to allow States and localities to transfer such funds to the construction of other Federal-aid highways and mass transit capital improvements. In this way, we can help resolve controversies which have slowed work on a number of Interstate links in urban areas. It is very important to recognize that this proposal does not represent an arbitrary Federal shift of funds from highways to transit. What it does stress is the right of local governments to choose the best solutions for their urban transportation problems. This year, in a companion measure to our Federal Highway Bill, I am also proposing that funding for mass transit capital grants be increased by $3 billion, bringing the obligational authority for the mass transit program to $6.1 billion. This provision would maintain a forward looking mass transit program through at least 1977- I am also asking the Congress to amend the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act, increasing the Federal share for urban mass transit capital grant assistance programs to 70 percent and thereby achieving parity with Federal aid for urban and rural road building projects. RURAL DEVELOPMENT Community Development is sometimes thought of primarily in terms of urban areas. However, as this Administration has often pointed out--and will continue to emphasize--no element of our national well-being is more important than the health and vitality of our rural communities. Thus, in pursuing a policy of balanced development for our community life, we must always keep the needs of rural America clearly in sight. Twice in the last two years, I have recommended legislation which would provide new revenues for rural development. Under my latest proposal, loans and guarantees would have been made for projects selected and prepared by the States. While the 92nd Congress did not enact either of these proposals, it did enact the Rural Development Act of 1972, establishing additional lending authority for rural needs. Like the Administration's proposals, this lending authority provides for insured loans and guaranteed loans which allow maximum participation of the private sector. Several new programs are proposed to be funded under the Rural Development Act. One is a $200 million loan program to assist communities with a population of less than 50,000 in developing commercial and industrial facilities. A previously existing loan program has been increased by $100 million--to a total of $445 million-and, under the new law, can now be used to construct a wide variety of essential community facilities. In addition, grants and other programs under the act will be funded at a level of $33 million. This Administration will implement the Rural Development Act in a manner consistent with the revenue sharing concept, allowing major project selections and priority decisions to be made by the State and local governments whenever possible. It is our intent, after fully evaluating the effectiveness of this approach, to seek whatever additional legislation may be needed. DISASTER ASSISTANCE To a community suffering the ravages of a natural disaster, nothing is more important than prompt and effective relief assistance. As our population grows and spreads, each storm, earthquake, drought or freeze affects larger numbers of people. During the past four years, we have tried to reduce personal injury, deaths, and property damage by emphasizing adequate preventive measures. During the same period, however, I have had to declare i I I major disasters in 39 States and three Territories. This past year alone set a tragic record for major disaster activity, as I had to declare 48 major disasters--43 caused by storms and floodings. There were a number of especially devastating disaster emergencies in this period: the flooding in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia; flash flood in Rapid City, South Dakota; and, of course, Tropical Storm Agnes which rampaged through the eastern United States. Agues alone caused 118 deaths and some $3 billion in property damage. Until now, disaster relief efforts have involved a number of different agencies and have been coordinated by the Executive Office of the President. The experience of the past few years has demonstrated that: --We are not doing nearly enough to prepare in advance for disasters. --States, local governments and private individuals should assume a larger role in preparing for disasters, and in relieving the damage after they have occurred. --Responsibility for relief is presently too fragmented among too many authorities. --At the Federal level, disaster relief should be managed by a single agency. I intend to make 1973 a turning point in the quality of governmental response to natural disasters. To achieve this goal, I have already proposed Reorganization Plan Number i of 1973, which is now before the Congress. It calls for the delegation of all responsibility for coordinating disaster relief to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who is also my Counsellor for Community Development. This transfer of operations would take place at the beginning of the new fiscal year and would be carried out in such a way that the effective relations which now exist with State disaster officials would in no way be harmed, while a new sense of unity and mobility at the Federal level would be fostered. If the Congress enacts my proposal for a new Department of Community Development, that new department would be responsible for directing all Federal disaster activities, including those of several other agencies which perform disaster roles. In addition to the improvements I have proposed in Reorganization Plan Number 1, I will shortly submit a new Disaster Assistance Act to the Congress. This new act is designed to improve the delivery of Federal assistance, to provide a more equitable basis for financing individual property losses, and to forge a more balanced partnership for meeting disasters head-on--a partnership not only among governments at all levels but also between governments and private citizens. Under these proposals, each level of government would accept responsibility for those things it can do best. While the Federal Government would continue to assist with financing, State and local governments would have far more latitude and responsibility in the use of those funds. They would also be encouraged to assert stronger leadership in efforts to minimize the damage of future disasters. For homeowners, farmers and businessmen who have suffered disaster losses, the Federal Government would continue to provide direct assistance. I will also recommend to the Congress an expansion of the national flood insurance program to allow participation by more communities in flood-prone areas and to increase the limits of coverage. CONCLUSION As reflected by the proposals set forth here, I believe that we must strike out on broad, new paths of community development in America. During the last few years, we have taken genuine, measurable strides toward better communities. All of this is good; it is not good enough. It is clear that we can and should be accomplishing more in the field of community development. There are too many programs that have been tried and found wanting. There are too many programs that strengthen the bureaucracy in Washington but sap the strength of our State and local governments. People today want to have a real say in the way their communities are run. They want to feel that, once again, they can play a significant role in shaping the kind of world their children will inherit. And they expect their institutions to respond to their needs and aspirations. That feeling will never flourish if the Federal Government, however vast its financial resources and however good its intentions, tries to direct the pattern of our lives. That feeling cannot be manufactured in Washington, it must come from within. But the Federal Government can and should eliminate some of the barriers that have impeded the development of that feeling by returning resources and initiatives to the people and their locally elected leaders. It is in that spirit that I urge the 93rd Congress to give favorable consideration to my proposals for community development. RICHARD NIXON 
The White House, 
March 8, 1973.
To the Congress of the United States: Today, in this fifth report to the Congress on the State of the Union, I want to discuss the quality of life in our cities and towns and set forth new directions for community development in America. Not long ago we became accustomed to the constant rhetorical drumbeat of the "crisis of our cities." Problems were multiplying so rapidly for our larger urban areas that some observers said our cities were doomed as centers of culture, of commerce, and of constructive change. Many of these problems still persist, but I believe we have made sufficient progress in recent years that fears of doom are no longer justified. What is needed today is calm reflection upon the nature of modern community life in the United States, a reassessment of the manner in which we are trying to solve our remaining problems, and a firm resolve to get on with the task. America's communities are as diverse as our people themselves. They vary tremendously in size from massive cities to medium-sized urban and suburban areas, to small towns and rural communities. Just as importantly, each of our communities has built up strong individual characteristics over the years, shaped by region, climate, economic influences, ethnic origins and local culture. Of course, communities do share common needs and concerns. People in every community want adequate housing, transportation, and jobs, a clean environment, good health, education, recreation facilities, security from crime and fear, and other essential services. But local priorities differ; the intensity and order of local needs vary. Clearly, no single, rigid scheme, imposed by the Federal Government from Washington, is capable of meeting the changing and varied needs of this diverse and dynamic Nation. There is no "best" way, no magic, universal cure-all, that can be dispensed from hundreds or thousands of miles away. What is good for New York City is not necessarily good for Chicago, or San Francisco, much less for smaller communities with entirely different economies, traditions and populations. Too often in the past we have fallen into the trap of letting Washington make the final decisions for St. Louis, Detroit, Miami and our other cities. Sometimes the decisions were right, and programs have succeeded. Too often they were wrong, and we are still paying the price. The time has come to recognize the errors of past Federal efforts to support community development and to move swiftly to correct them. The results of past errors form a disturbing catalogue: --They have distorted local priorities. --They have spawned a massive glut of red tape. --They have created an adversary climate between local communities and Washington which has often led to waste, delay and mutual frustration. --They have contributed to a lack of confidence among our people in the ability of both local and national governments to solve problems and get results. --They have led to the creation of too many complex and often competing Federal programs. --Perhaps worst of all, they have undercut the will and the ability of local and State governments to take the initiative to mobilize their own energies and those of their citizens. The Federal policy that will work best in the last third of this century is not one that tries to force all of our communities into a single restrictive mold. The Federal policy that will work best is one that helps people and their leaders in each community meet their own needs in the way they think best. It is this policy which binds together the many aspects of our community development programs. THE BETTER COMMUNITIES ACT In the near future, I will submit to the Congress the Better Communities Act to provide revenue sharing for community development. Beginning July 1, 1974, this act would provide $2.3 billion a year to communities to be spent as they desire to meet their community development needs. In the interim period before the legislation becomes effective, funds already available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development will be used to maintain and support community development. The Better Communities Act is intended to replace inflexible and fragmented categorical grant-in-aid programs, and to reduce the excessive Federal control that has been so frustrating to local governments. Rather than focusing and concentrating resources in a coordinated assault on a set of problems, the categorical system scatters these resources, and diminishes their impact upon the most needy. Excessive Federal influence also limits the variety and diversity of development programs. Local officials should be able to focus their time, their resources and their talents on meeting local needs and producing results, instead of trying to please Washington with an endless torrent of paperwork. I first proposed such legislation in 1971, and although the Congress failed to enact it, significant support was expressed in both the Senate and the House. Since that time, members of my Administration have been consulting with Congressional leaders, mayors, Governors, other local officials and their representatives. Many constructive suggestions have been received and will be incorporated in my new legislative proposal. As a result, I believe the Better Communities Act will represent our best hope for the future of community development and will deserve rapid approval by the Congress. Among the most significant features of the Better Communities Act are these: ---Hold-Harmless Provision: The flow of money to cities and urban counties is to be based on a formula reflecting community needs, as determined by objective standards. In the years immediately following enactment, funds would be used to assure that no city receives less money for community development than it has received under the categorical grant programs. --Assistance for Smaller Communities: Funding is also to be provided for our smaller communities, recognizing the vital importance of small towns and rural communities to the future of the Nation. --The Role of State Government: State governments have always played an important part in meeting the community development needs of their communities. The Act will recognize this role. --Local Decision Making: While each of the activities now supported by categorical grants may be continued, it would be up to local leaders to determine how that money will be spent. --Minimizing Red Tape: Recipients would be required to show the Federal Government only that they are complying with Federal statutes in the way they are spending their revenue sharing money. --Elimination of Matching: Shared revenues would not have to be matched by local funds. --Protection for Minorities: Under no circumstances could funds provided under the Better Communities Act be used for purposes that would violate the civil rights of any person. A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT One of the most serious deficiencies in the effort of the Federal Government to assist in community development has been the fragmentation and scattering of Federal programs among a variety of departments and agencies. All too often State or local officials seeking help for a particular project must shuttle back and forth from one Federal office to another, wasting precious time and resources in a bureaucratic wild goose chase. In order to coordinate our community development activities more effectively, I proposed nearly two years ago that we create a Department of Community Development which would pull under one roof various programs now in the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Agriculture, and other agencies. After extensive hearings on this proposal, the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives reached this conclusion: "The Department of Community Development will be a constructive center in the Federal Government for assistance to communities, large and small. It will facilitate rational planning, orderly growth, and the effective employment of resources to build viable communities throughout the United States. It will help to strengthen the physical and institutional bases for cooperative action by Federal, State and local governments." This Administration fully agrees, of course, and will continue to work with the Congress for the prompt creation of a Department of Community Development. In the interim, I recently appointed a Presidential Counsellor on Community Development who will coordinate community development programs and policies in the executive branch. But only when the Congress approves the basic departmental reorganization proposed by the Administration can our efforts to eliminate waste, confusion and duplication, and to promote community betterment more efficiently, be fully effective. THE RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENTS ACT For nearly 20 years, the Federal Government has provided assistance to State and local governments in order to strengthen their planning and management capabilities. This aid, provided under the Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program, has always been helpful, but the program itself has several major flaws. It has tended, for instance, to stress one aspect of public administration--planning--without adequately recognizing other essential features such as budgeting, management, personnel administration, and information-gathering. Planning has often been irrelevant to the problems and the actual decisions. State and local governments have also found it difficult to coordinate their planning because of the fragmented way in which funds have been sent from Washington. This Administration proposed new planning and management legislation to the 92nd Congress, but it was not approved. In the meantime, we took what steps we could to improve the existing program. Some progress has been made, but corrective legislation is still needed. I shall therefore propose that the 93rd Congress enact a new Responsive Governments Act. I shall also propose that we provide $110 million for this act in fiscal year 1974--almost one-fifth of the entire amount that has been spent under the present law in the last two decades. This Responsive Governments Act would assist State and local governments in meeting several important goals: --Developing reliable information on their problems and opportunities; --Developing and analyzing alternative policies and programs; --Managing the programs; --And evaluating the results, so that appropriate adjustments can be made. The ability to plan and manage is vital to effective government. It will be even more important to State and local governments as they are freed from the restraints of narrow categorical Federal programs and must decide how to spend revenue sharing funds. Thus the Responsive Governments Act is a vitally necessary companion piece to the Better Communities Act. HOUSING This Administration is firmly committed to the goal first set forth for America in the 1949 Housing Act: "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family." While we believe that some of our housing programs have failed and should be replaced, we should never waiver in our commitment. During the past four years, the Federal Government has provided housing assistance to an additional 1.5 million American families of low and moderate income. This represents more housing assistance than the total provided by the Federal Government during the entire 34-year history of our national housing program preceding this Administration. In addition, a healthy, vigorous, private housing industry has provided 6 million new unsubsidized units of housing for Americans in the last four years. Housing starts for each of the last three years have reached record high levels--levels, in fact, that are more than double the average for the preceding 21 years. Most importantly, the percentage of Americans living in substandard housing has dropped dramatically from 46 percent in 1940 to 37 percent in 1950 to 18 percent in 1960 to 8 percent in 1970. Americans today are better housed than ever before in our history. At the same time, however, there has been mounting evidence of basic defects in some of our housing programs. It is now clear that all too frequently the needy have not been the primary beneficiaries of these programs; that the programs have been riddled with inequities; and that the cost for each unit of subsidized housing produced under these programs has been too high. In short, we shall be making far more progress than we have been and we should now move to place our housing policies on a much firmer foundation. That is why we suspended new activity under Federal subsidized housing programs effective January 5th of this year. I would emphasize, however, that commitments that were made under these programs prior to their suspension will be honored. This will mean that approximately 300,000 units of new subsidized housing will be started in 1973. In pursuing our goal of decent homes for all Americans, we know that better means are needed--that the old and wasteful programs, programs which have already obligated the taxpayer to payments of between $63 billion and $95 billion during the next 40 years, are not the answer. One of my highest domestic priorities this year will be the development of new policies that will provide aid to genuinely needy families and eliminate waste. A major housing study is now underway within the Government, under the direction of my Counsellor for Community Development. Within the next six months, I intend to submit to the Congress my policy recommendations in this field, based upon the results of that study. TRANSPORTATION To thrive, a community must provide for the efficient movement of its people and its products. Yet in recent years, the growing separation of the city from its suburbs and changing employment patterns have made transportation more of a community problem than a community asset. To improve community development we must meet the challenge of transportation planning and provide more flexible means for communities to meet their transportation needs. Without better transportation, our communities will either stagnate or choke. Four years ago we initiated programs to renew and redirect our transportation systems. We took action to expand the capacity of our airways, to preserve and improve intercity rail passenger service, to continue the Nation's highway program with greater emphasis on safety, and to bring needed progress to our surface public transportation. The Federal commitment has been substantial: --The enlarged Airport Development Aid Program established under the Airport-Airways Development Act of 1970 has quadrupled Federal assistance to airports to $295 million per year. --Under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 we have begun to rejuvenate rail service as part of a balanced transportation system. --From 1970 through 1974 we will have invested some $23 billion in highways. In 1972 alone we committed $3.3 billion to the Interstate system, which is now 80 percent complete. In that same year, $870 million was designated for primary and secondary roads. Equally important, we have emphasized safety on our highways, both in their design and use. --We have progressively increased the levels of Federal funding for transportation research, development, and demonstration projects. This support focuses on new transportation technology. It is designed to encourage private industry to join aggressively in the search for better transportation. --Concurrent with our programs to improve transportation between our cities, we have undertaken programs to develop free flowing corridors for people and commerce within our cities. --Since 1970, when I proposed and the Congress passed the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act, we have committed more than 2 billion Federal dollars to preserve and upgrade public transportation. Nationally, urban public transportation has become a billion-dollar-a-year Federal program. --Over the past four years, Federal dollars have helped 60 American cities to help those who depend on public systems for transportation to jobs, hospitals, shops and recreational centers. Now we must deal even more aggressively with community development challenges in transportation by building on the strong foundations we have laid. Nothing can do more to lift the face of our cities, and the spirit of our city dwellers, than truly adequate systems of modern transportation. With the best highway system in the world, and with 75 percent of our people owning and operating automobiles, we have more transportation assets per capita than any other people on earth. Yet the commuter who uses a two ton vehicle to transport only himself to and from work each day is not making the most efficient use of our transportation system and is himself contributing to our transportation and environmental problems. Good public transportation is essential not only to assure adequate transportation for all citizens, but to forward the common goal of less congested, cleaner and safer communities. As I pointed out a few weeks ago in my message on the environment and natural resources, effective mass transit systems that relieve urban congestion will also reduce pollution and the waste of our limited energy resources. As we build such systems, we must be aware of the two special challenges in coordinating the needs of the inner city and the suburb and in alleviating potential disruptions which new transportation systems can bring to neighborhood life. To further these efforts I again continue to urge Congress to permit a portion of the Highway Trust Fund to be used in a more flexible fashion, thus allowing mass transit capital investments where communities so desire. I recommend that the Congress authorize the expenditure by State and local governments of $3.65 billion over the next three years from the Highway Trust Fund for urban transportation needs, including capital improvements for bus and rapid rail systems. I also recommend continuing the rural highway program at the $1 billion a year level, and providing ample resources to advance the Interstate system as it approaches its 1980 funding completion date. This legislation can meet old needs while at the same time addressing new ones. Some communities now feel unduly obligated to spend Federal monies on controversial Interstate highway segments in urban areas. I urge the Congress to allow States and localities to transfer such funds to the construction of other Federal-aid highways and mass transit capital improvements. In this way, we can help resolve controversies which have slowed work on a number of Interstate links in urban areas. It is very important to recognize that this proposal does not represent an arbitrary Federal shift of funds from highways to transit. What it does stress is the right of local governments to choose the best solutions for their urban transportation problems. This year, in a companion measure to our Federal Highway Bill, I am also proposing that funding for mass transit capital grants be increased by $3 billion, bringing the obligational authority for the mass transit program to $6.1 billion. This provision would maintain a forward looking mass transit program through at least 1977- I am also asking the Congress to amend the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act, increasing the Federal share for urban mass transit capital grant assistance programs to 70 percent and thereby achieving parity with Federal aid for urban and rural road building projects. RURAL DEVELOPMENT Community Development is sometimes thought of primarily in terms of urban areas. However, as this Administration has often pointed out--and will continue to emphasize--no element of our national well-being is more important than the health and vitality of our rural communities. Thus, in pursuing a policy of balanced development for our community life, we must always keep the needs of rural America clearly in sight. Twice in the last two years, I have recommended legislation which would provide new revenues for rural development. Under my latest proposal, loans and guarantees would have been made for projects selected and prepared by the States. While the 92nd Congress did not enact either of these proposals, it did enact the Rural Development Act of 1972, establishing additional lending authority for rural needs. Like the Administration's proposals, this lending authority provides for insured loans and guaranteed loans which allow maximum participation of the private sector. Several new programs are proposed to be funded under the Rural Development Act. One is a $200 million loan program to assist communities with a population of less than 50,000 in developing commercial and industrial facilities. A previously existing loan program has been increased by $100 million--to a total of $445 million-and, under the new law, can now be used to construct a wide variety of essential community facilities. In addition, grants and other programs under the act will be funded at a level of $33 million. This Administration will implement the Rural Development Act in a manner consistent with the revenue sharing concept, allowing major project selections and priority decisions to be made by the State and local governments whenever possible. It is our intent, after fully evaluating the effectiveness of this approach, to seek whatever additional legislation may be needed. DISASTER ASSISTANCE To a community suffering the ravages of a natural disaster, nothing is more important than prompt and effective relief assistance. As our population grows and spreads, each storm, earthquake, drought or freeze affects larger numbers of people. During the past four years, we have tried to reduce personal injury, deaths, and property damage by emphasizing adequate preventive measures. During the same period, however, I have had to declare i I I major disasters in 39 States and three Territories. This past year alone set a tragic record for major disaster activity, as I had to declare 48 major disasters--43 caused by storms and floodings. There were a number of especially devastating disaster emergencies in this period: the flooding in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia; flash flood in Rapid City, South Dakota; and, of course, Tropical Storm Agnes which rampaged through the eastern United States. Agues alone caused 118 deaths and some $3 billion in property damage. Until now, disaster relief efforts have involved a number of different agencies and have been coordinated by the Executive Office of the President. The experience of the past few years has demonstrated that: --We are not doing nearly enough to prepare in advance for disasters. --States, local governments and private individuals should assume a larger role in preparing for disasters, and in relieving the damage after they have occurred. --Responsibility for relief is presently too fragmented among too many authorities. --At the Federal level, disaster relief should be managed by a single agency. I intend to make 1973 a turning point in the quality of governmental response to natural disasters. To achieve this goal, I have already proposed Reorganization Plan Number i of 1973, which is now before the Congress. It calls for the delegation of all responsibility for coordinating disaster relief to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who is also my Counsellor for Community Development. This transfer of operations would take place at the beginning of the new fiscal year and would be carried out in such a way that the effective relations which now exist with State disaster officials would in no way be harmed, while a new sense of unity and mobility at the Federal level would be fostered. If the Congress enacts my proposal for a new Department of Community Development, that new department would be responsible for directing all Federal disaster activities, including those of several other agencies which perform disaster roles. In addition to the improvements I have proposed in Reorganization Plan Number 1, I will shortly submit a new Disaster Assistance Act to the Congress. This new act is designed to improve the delivery of Federal assistance, to provide a more equitable basis for financing individual property losses, and to forge a more balanced partnership for meeting disasters head-on--a partnership not only among governments at all levels but also between governments and private citizens. Under these proposals, each level of government would accept responsibility for those things it can do best. While the Federal Government would continue to assist with financing, State and local governments would have far more latitude and responsibility in the use of those funds. They would also be encouraged to assert stronger leadership in efforts to minimize the damage of future disasters. For homeowners, farmers and businessmen who have suffered disaster losses, the Federal Government would continue to provide direct assistance. I will also recommend to the Congress an expansion of the national flood insurance program to allow participation by more communities in flood-prone areas and to increase the limits of coverage. CONCLUSION As reflected by the proposals set forth here, I believe that we must strike out on broad, new paths of community development in America. During the last few years, we have taken genuine, measurable strides toward better communities. All of this is good; it is not good enough. It is clear that we can and should be accomplishing more in the field of community development. There are too many programs that have been tried and found wanting. There are too many programs that strengthen the bureaucracy in Washington but sap the strength of our State and local governments. People today want to have a real say in the way their communities are run. They want to feel that, once again, they can play a significant role in shaping the kind of world their children will inherit. And they expect their institutions to respond to their needs and aspirations. That feeling will never flourish if the Federal Government, however vast its financial resources and however good its intentions, tries to direct the pattern of our lives. That feeling cannot be manufactured in Washington, it must come from within. But the Federal Government can and should eliminate some of the barriers that have impeded the development of that feeling by returning resources and initiatives to the people and their locally elected leaders. It is in that spirit that I urge the 93rd Congress to give favorable consideration to my proposals for community development. RICHARD NIXON The White House, March 8, 1973.
to the congress of the united states today in this fifth report to the congress on the state of the union i want to discuss the quality of life in our cities and towns and set forth new directions for community development in america not long ago we became accustomed to the constant rhetorical drumbeat of the crisis of our cities problems were multiplying so rapidly for our larger urban areas that some observers said our cities were doomed as centers of culture of commerce and of constructive change many of these problems still persist but i believe we have made sufficient progress in recent years that fears of doom are no longer justified what is needed today is calm reflection upon the nature of modern community life in the united states a reassessment of the manner in which we are trying to solve our remaining problems and a firm resolve to get on with the task america communities are as diverse as our people themselves they vary tremendously in size from massive cities to urban and suburban areas to small towns and rural communities just as importantly each of our communities has built up strong individual characteristics over the years shaped by region climate economic influences ethnic origins and local culture of course communities do share common needs and concerns people in every community want adequate housing transportation and jobs a clean environment good health education recreation facilities security from crime and fear and other essential services but local priorities differ the intensity and order of local needs vary clearly no single rigid scheme imposed by the federal government from washington is capable of meeting the changing and varied needs of this diverse and dynamic nation there is no best way no magic universal that can be dispensed from hundreds or thousands of miles away what is good for new york city is not necessarily good for chicago or san francisco much less for smaller communities with entirely different economies traditions and populations too often in the past we have fallen into the trap of letting washington make the final decisions for louis detroit miami and our other cities sometimes the decisions were right and programs have succeeded too often they were wrong and we are still paying the price the time has come to recognize the errors of past federal efforts to support community development and to move swiftly to correct them the results of past errors form a disturbing catalogue they have distorted local priorities they have spawned a massive glut of red tape they have created an adversary climate between local communities and washington which has often led to waste delay and mutual frustration they have contributed to a lack of confidence among our people in the ability of both local and national governments to solve problems and get results they have led to the creation of too many complex and often competing federal programs perhaps worst of all they have undercut the will and the ability of local and state governments to take the initiative to mobilize their own energies and those of their citizens the federal policy that will work best in the last third of this century is not one that tries to force all of our communities into a single restrictive mold the federal policy that will work best is one that helps people and their leaders in each community meet their own needs in the way they think best it is this policy which binds together the many aspects of our community development programs the better communities act in the near future i will submit to the congress the better communities act to provide revenue sharing for community development beginning july 1 1974 this act would provide billion a year to communities to be spent as they desire to meet their community development needs in the interim period before the legislation becomes effective funds already available to the department of housing and urban development will be used to maintain and support community development the better communities act is intended to replace inflexible and fragmented categorical programs and to reduce the excessive federal control that has been so frustrating to local governments rather than focusing and concentrating resources in a coordinated assault on a set of problems the categorical system scatters these resources and diminishes their impact upon the most needy excessive federal influence also limits the variety and diversity of development programs local officials should be able to focus their time their resources and their talents on meeting local needs and producing results instead of trying to please washington with an endless torrent of paperwork i first proposed such legislation in 1971 and although the congress failed to enact it significant support was expressed in both the senate and the house since that time members of my administration have been consulting with congressional leaders mayors governors other local officials and their representatives many constructive suggestions have been received and will be incorporated in my new legislative proposal as a result i believe the better communities act will represent our best hope for the future of community development and will deserve rapid approval by the congress among the most significant features of the better communities act are these provision the flow of money to cities and urban counties is to be based on a formula reflecting community needs as determined by objective standards in the years immediately following enactment funds would be used to assure that no city receives less money for community development than it has received under the categorical grant programs assistance for smaller communities funding is also to be provided for our smaller communities recognizing the vital importance of small towns and rural communities to the future of the nation the role of state government state governments have always played an important part in meeting the community development needs of their communities the act will recognize this role local decision making while each of the activities now supported by categorical grants may be continued it would be up to local leaders to determine how that money will be spent minimizing red tape recipients would be required to show the federal government only that they are complying with federal statutes in the way they are spending their revenue sharing money elimination of matching shared revenues would not have to be matched by local funds protection for minorities under no circumstances could funds provided under the better communities act be used for purposes that would violate the civil rights of any person a department of community development one of the most serious deficiencies in the effort of the federal government to assist in community development has been the fragmentation and scattering of federal programs among a variety of departments and agencies all too often state or local officials seeking help for a particular project must shuttle back and forth from one federal office to another wasting precious time and resources in a bureaucratic wild goose chase in order to coordinate our community development activities more effectively i proposed nearly two years ago that we create a department of community development which would pull under one roof various programs now in the departments of housing and urban development transportation agriculture and other agencies after extensive hearings on this proposal the committee on government operations of the house of representatives reached this conclusion the department of community development will be a constructive center in the federal government for assistance to communities large and small it will facilitate rational planning orderly growth and the effective employment of resources to build viable communities throughout the united states it will help to strengthen the physical and institutional bases for cooperative action by federal state and local governments this administration fully agrees of course and will continue to work with the congress for the prompt creation of a department of community development in the interim i recently appointed a presidential counsellor on community development who will coordinate community development programs and policies in the executive branch but only when the congress approves the basic departmental reorganization proposed by the administration can our efforts to eliminate waste confusion and duplication and to promote community betterment more efficiently be fully effective the responsive governments act for nearly 20 years the federal government has provided assistance to state and local governments in order to strengthen their planning and management capabilities this aid provided under the comprehensive planning assistance program has always been helpful but the program itself has several major flaws it has tended for instance to stress one aspect of public administration planning without adequately recognizing other essential features such as budgeting management personnel administration and planning has often been irrelevant to the problems and the actual decisions state and local governments have also found it difficult to coordinate their planning because of the fragmented way in which funds have been sent from washington this administration proposed new planning and management legislation to the 92nd congress but it was not approved in the meantime we took what steps we could to improve the existing program some progress has been made but corrective legislation is still needed i shall therefore propose that the 93rd congress enact a new responsive governments act i shall also propose that we provide 110 million for this act in fiscal year 1974 almost of the entire amount that has been spent under the present law in the last two decades this responsive governments act would assist state and local governments in meeting several important goals developing reliable information on their problems and opportunities developing and analyzing alternative policies and programs managing the programs and evaluating the results so that appropriate adjustments can be made the ability to plan and manage is vital to effective government it will be even more important to state and local governments as they are freed from the restraints of narrow categorical federal programs and must decide how to spend revenue sharing funds thus the responsive governments act is a vitally necessary companion piece to the better communities act housing this administration is firmly committed to the goal first set forth for america in the 1949 housing act a decent home and a suitable living environment for every american family while we believe that some of our housing programs have failed and should be replaced we should never waiver in our commitment during the past four years the federal government has provided housing assistance to an additional million american families of low and moderate income this represents more housing assistance than the total provided by the federal government during the entire history of our national housing program preceding this administration in addition a healthy vigorous private housing industry has provided 6 million new unsubsidized units of housing for americans in the last four years housing starts for each of the last three years have reached record high levels levels in fact that are more than double the average for the preceding 21 years most importantly the percentage of americans living in substandard housing has dropped dramatically from 46 percent in 1940 to 37 percent in 1950 to 18 percent in 1960 to 8 percent in 1970 americans today are better housed than ever before in our history at the same time however there has been mounting evidence of basic defects in some of our housing programs it is now clear that all too frequently the needy have not been the primary beneficiaries of these programs that the programs have been riddled with inequities and that the cost for each unit of subsidized housing produced under these programs has been too high in short we shall be making far more progress than we have been and we should now move to place our housing policies on a much firmer foundation that is why we suspended new activity under federal subsidized housing programs effective january 5th of this year i would emphasize however that commitments that were made under these programs prior to their suspension will be honored this will mean that approximately units of new subsidized housing will be started in 1973 in pursuing our goal of decent homes for all americans we know that better means are needed that the old and wasteful programs programs which have already obligated the taxpayer to payments of between 63 billion and 95 billion during the next 40 years are not the answer one of my highest domestic priorities this year will be the development of new policies that will provide aid to genuinely needy families and eliminate waste a major housing study is now underway within the government under the direction of my counsellor for community development within the next six months i intend to submit to the congress my policy recommendations in this field based upon the results of that study transportation to thrive a community must provide for the efficient movement of its people and its products yet in recent years the growing separation of the city from its suburbs and changing employment patterns have made transportation more of a community problem than a community asset to improve community development we must meet the challenge of transportation planning and provide more flexible means for communities to meet their transportation needs without better transportation our communities will either stagnate or choke four years ago we initiated programs to renew and redirect our transportation systems we took action to expand the capacity of our airways to preserve and improve intercity rail passenger service to continue the nation highway program with greater emphasis on safety and to bring needed progress to our surface public transportation the federal commitment has been substantial the enlarged airport development aid program established under the development act of 1970 has quadrupled federal assistance to airports to 295 million per year under the rail passenger service act of 1970 we have begun to rejuvenate rail service as part of a balanced transportation system from 1970 through 1974 we will have invested some 23 billion in highways in 1972 alone we committed billion to the interstate system which is now 80 percent complete in that same year 870 million was designated for primary and secondary roads equally important we have emphasized safety on our highways both in their design and use we have progressively increased the levels of federal funding for transportation research development and demonstration projects this support focuses on new transportation technology it is designed to encourage private industry to join aggressively in the search for better transportation concurrent with our programs to improve transportation between our cities we have undertaken programs to develop free flowing corridors for people and commerce within our cities since 1970 when i proposed and the congress passed the urban mass transportation assistance act we have committed more than 2 billion federal dollars to preserve and upgrade public transportation nationally urban public transportation has become a federal program over the past four years federal dollars have helped 60 american cities to help those who depend on public systems for transportation to jobs hospitals shops and recreational centers now we must deal even more aggressively with community development challenges in transportation by building on the strong foundations we have laid nothing can do more to lift the face of our cities and the spirit of our city dwellers than truly adequate systems of modern transportation with the best highway system in the world and with 75 percent of our people owning and operating automobiles we have more transportation assets per capita than any other people on earth yet the commuter who uses a two ton vehicle to transport only himself to and from work each day is not making the most efficient use of our transportation system and is himself contributing to our transportation and environmental problems good public transportation is essential not only to assure adequate transportation for all citizens but to forward the common goal of less congested cleaner and safer communities as i pointed out a few weeks ago in my message on the environment and natural resources effective mass transit systems that relieve urban congestion will also reduce pollution and the waste of our limited energy resources as we build such systems we must be aware of the two special challenges in coordinating the needs of the inner city and the suburb and in alleviating potential disruptions which new transportation systems can bring to neighborhood life to further these efforts i again continue to urge congress to permit a portion of the highway trust fund to be used in a more flexible fashion thus allowing mass transit capital investments where communities so desire i recommend that the congress authorize the expenditure by state and local governments of billion over the next three years from the highway trust fund for urban transportation needs including capital improvements for bus and rapid rail systems i also recommend continuing the rural highway program at the 1 billion a year level and providing ample resources to advance the interstate system as it approaches its 1980 funding completion date this legislation can meet old needs while at the same time addressing new ones some communities now feel unduly obligated to spend federal monies on controversial interstate highway segments in urban areas i urge the congress to allow states and localities to transfer such funds to the construction of other highways and mass transit capital improvements in this way we can help resolve controversies which have slowed work on a number of interstate links in urban areas it is very important to recognize that this proposal does not represent an arbitrary federal shift of funds from highways to transit what it does stress is the right of local governments to choose the best solutions for their urban transportation problems this year in a companion measure to our federal highway bill i am also proposing that funding for mass transit capital grants be increased by 3 billion bringing the obligational authority for the mass transit program to billion this provision would maintain a forward looking mass transit program through at least i am also asking the congress to amend the urban mass transportation assistance act increasing the federal share for urban mass transit capital grant assistance programs to 70 percent and thereby achieving parity with federal aid for urban and rural road building projects rural development community development is sometimes thought of primarily in terms of urban areas however as this administration has often pointed out and will continue to emphasize no element of our national is more important than the health and vitality of our rural communities thus in pursuing a policy of balanced development for our community life we must always keep the needs of rural america clearly in sight twice in the last two years i have recommended legislation which would provide new revenues for rural development under my latest proposal loans and guarantees would have been made for projects selected and prepared by the states while the 92nd congress did not enact either of these proposals it did enact the rural development act of 1972 establishing additional lending authority for rural needs like the administration proposals this lending authority provides for insured loans and guaranteed loans which allow maximum participation of the private sector several new programs are proposed to be funded under the rural development act one is a 200 million loan program to assist communities with a population of less than in developing commercial and industrial facilities a previously existing loan program has been increased by 100 million to a total of 445 under the new law can now be used to construct a wide variety of essential community facilities in addition grants and other programs under the act will be funded at a level of 33 million this administration will implement the rural development act in a manner consistent with the revenue sharing concept allowing major project selections and priority decisions to be made by the state and local governments whenever possible it is our intent after fully evaluating the effectiveness of this approach to seek whatever additional legislation may be needed disaster assistance to a community suffering the ravages of a natural disaster nothing is more important than prompt and effective relief assistance as our population grows and spreads each storm earthquake drought or freeze affects larger numbers of people during the past four years we have tried to reduce personal injury deaths and property damage by emphasizing adequate preventive measures during the same period however i have had to declare i i i major disasters in 39 states and three territories this past year alone set a tragic record for major disaster activity as i had to declare 48 major disasters 43 caused by storms and floodings there were a number of especially devastating disaster emergencies in this period the flooding in buffalo creek west virginia flash flood in rapid city south dakota and of course tropical storm agnes which rampaged through the eastern united states agues alone caused 118 deaths and some 3 billion in property damage until now disaster relief efforts have involved a number of different agencies and have been coordinated by the executive office of the president the experience of the past few years has demonstrated that we are not doing nearly enough to prepare in advance for disasters states local governments and private individuals should assume a larger role in preparing for disasters and in relieving the damage after they have occurred responsibility for relief is presently too fragmented among too many authorities at the federal level disaster relief should be managed by a single agency i intend to make 1973 a turning point in the quality of governmental response to natural disasters to achieve this goal i have already proposed reorganization plan number i of 1973 which is now before the congress it calls for the delegation of all responsibility for coordinating disaster relief to the secretary of housing and urban development who is also my counsellor for community development this transfer of operations would take place at the beginning of the new fiscal year and would be carried out in such a way that the effective relations which now exist with state disaster officials would in no way be harmed while a new sense of unity and mobility at the federal level would be fostered if the congress enacts my proposal for a new department of community development that new department would be responsible for directing all federal disaster activities including those of several other agencies which perform disaster roles in addition to the improvements i have proposed in reorganization plan number 1 i will shortly submit a new disaster assistance act to the congress this new act is designed to improve the delivery of federal assistance to provide a more equitable basis for financing individual property losses and to forge a more balanced partnership for meeting disasters a partnership not only among governments at all levels but also between governments and private citizens under these proposals each level of government would accept responsibility for those things it can do best while the federal government would continue to assist with financing state and local governments would have far more latitude and responsibility in the use of those funds they would also be encouraged to assert stronger leadership in efforts to minimize the damage of future disasters for homeowners farmers and businessmen who have suffered disaster losses the federal government would continue to provide direct assistance i will also recommend to the congress an expansion of the national flood insurance program to allow participation by more communities in areas and to increase the limits of coverage conclusion as reflected by the proposals set forth here i believe that we must strike out on broad new paths of community development in america during the last few years we have taken genuine measurable strides toward better communities all of this is good it is not good enough it is clear that we can and should be accomplishing more in the field of community development there are too many programs that have been tried and found wanting there are too many programs that strengthen the bureaucracy in washington but sap the strength of our state and local governments people today want to have a real say in the way their communities are run they want to feel that once again they can play a significant role in shaping the kind of world their children will inherit and they expect their institutions to respond to their needs and aspirations that feeling will never flourish if the federal government however vast its financial resources and however good its intentions tries to direct the pattern of our lives that feeling can not be manufactured in washington it must come from within but the federal government can and should eliminate some of the barriers that have impeded the development of that feeling by returning resources and initiatives to the people and their locally elected leaders it is in that spirit that i urge the 93rd congress to give favorable consideration to my proposals for community development richard nixon the white house march 8 1973
congress united states today fifth report congress state union want discuss quality life cities towns set forth new directions community development america long ago became accustomed constant rhetorical drumbeat crisis cities problems multiplying rapidly larger urban areas observers said cities doomed centers culture commerce constructive change many problems still persist believe made sufficient progress recent years fears doom longer justified needed today calm reflection upon nature modern community life united states reassessment manner trying solve remaining problems firm resolve get task america communities diverse people vary tremendously size massive cities urban suburban areas small towns rural communities importantly communities built strong individual characteristics years shaped region climate economic influences ethnic origins local culture course communities share common needs concerns people every community want adequate housing transportation jobs clean environment good health education recreation facilities security crime fear essential services local priorities differ intensity order local needs vary clearly single rigid scheme imposed federal government washington capable meeting changing varied needs diverse dynamic nation best way magic universal dispensed hundreds thousands miles away good new york city necessarily good chicago san francisco much less smaller communities entirely different economies traditions populations often past fallen trap letting washington make final decisions louis detroit miami cities sometimes decisions right programs succeeded often wrong still paying price time come recognize errors past federal efforts support community development move swiftly correct results past errors form disturbing catalogue distorted local priorities spawned massive glut red tape created adversary climate local communities washington often led waste delay mutual frustration contributed lack confidence among people ability local national governments solve problems get results led creation many complex often competing federal programs perhaps worst undercut ability local state governments take initiative mobilize energies citizens federal policy work best last third century one tries force communities single restrictive mold federal policy work best one helps people leaders community meet needs way think best policy binds together many aspects community development programs better communities act near future submit congress better communities act provide revenue sharing community development beginning july 1 1974 act would provide billion year communities spent desire meet community development needs interim period legislation becomes effective funds already available department housing urban development used maintain support community development better communities act intended replace inflexible fragmented categorical programs reduce excessive federal control frustrating local governments rather focusing concentrating resources coordinated assault set problems categorical system scatters resources diminishes impact upon needy excessive federal influence also limits variety diversity development programs local officials able focus time resources talents meeting local needs producing results instead trying please washington endless torrent paperwork first proposed legislation 1971 although congress failed enact significant support expressed senate house since time members administration consulting congressional leaders mayors governors local officials representatives many constructive suggestions received incorporated new legislative proposal result believe better communities act represent best hope future community development deserve rapid approval congress among significant features better communities act provision flow money cities urban counties based formula reflecting community needs determined objective standards years immediately following enactment funds would used assure city receives less money community development received categorical grant programs assistance smaller communities funding also provided smaller communities recognizing vital importance small towns rural communities future nation role state government state governments always played important part meeting community development needs communities act recognize role local decision making activities supported categorical grants may continued would local leaders determine money spent minimizing red tape recipients would required show federal government complying federal statutes way spending revenue sharing money elimination matching shared revenues would matched local funds protection minorities circumstances could funds provided better communities act used purposes would violate civil rights person department community development one serious deficiencies effort federal government assist community development fragmentation scattering federal programs among variety departments agencies often state local officials seeking help particular project must shuttle back forth one federal office another wasting precious time resources bureaucratic wild goose chase order coordinate community development activities effectively proposed nearly two years ago create department community development would pull one roof various programs departments housing urban development transportation agriculture agencies extensive hearings proposal committee government operations house representatives reached conclusion department community development constructive center federal government assistance communities large small facilitate rational planning orderly growth effective employment resources build viable communities throughout united states help strengthen physical institutional bases cooperative action federal state local governments administration fully agrees course continue work congress prompt creation department community development interim recently appointed presidential counsellor community development coordinate community development programs policies executive branch congress approves basic departmental reorganization proposed administration efforts eliminate waste confusion duplication promote community betterment efficiently fully effective responsive governments act nearly 20 years federal government provided assistance state local governments order strengthen planning management capabilities aid provided comprehensive planning assistance program always helpful program several major flaws tended instance stress one aspect public administration planning without adequately recognizing essential features budgeting management personnel administration planning often irrelevant problems actual decisions state local governments also found difficult coordinate planning fragmented way funds sent washington administration proposed new planning management legislation 92nd congress approved meantime took steps could improve existing program progress made corrective legislation still needed shall therefore propose 93rd congress enact new responsive governments act shall also propose provide 110 million act fiscal year 1974 almost entire amount spent present law last two decades responsive governments act would assist state local governments meeting several important goals developing reliable information problems opportunities developing analyzing alternative policies programs managing programs evaluating results appropriate adjustments made ability plan manage vital effective government even important state local governments freed restraints narrow categorical federal programs must decide spend revenue sharing funds thus responsive governments act vitally necessary companion piece better communities act housing administration firmly committed goal first set forth america 1949 housing act decent home suitable living environment every american family believe housing programs failed replaced never waiver commitment past four years federal government provided housing assistance additional million american families low moderate income represents housing assistance total provided federal government entire history national housing program preceding administration addition healthy vigorous private housing industry provided 6 million new unsubsidized units housing americans last four years housing starts last three years reached record high levels levels fact double average preceding 21 years importantly percentage americans living substandard housing dropped dramatically 46 percent 1940 37 percent 1950 18 percent 1960 8 percent 1970 americans today better housed ever history time however mounting evidence basic defects housing programs clear frequently needy primary beneficiaries programs programs riddled inequities cost unit subsidized housing produced programs high short shall making far progress move place housing policies much firmer foundation suspended new activity federal subsidized housing programs effective january 5th year would emphasize however commitments made programs prior suspension honored mean approximately units new subsidized housing started 1973 pursuing goal decent homes americans know better means needed old wasteful programs programs already obligated taxpayer payments 63 billion 95 billion next 40 years answer one highest domestic priorities year development new policies provide aid genuinely needy families eliminate waste major housing study underway within government direction counsellor community development within next six months intend submit congress policy recommendations field based upon results study transportation thrive community must provide efficient movement people products yet recent years growing separation city suburbs changing employment patterns made transportation community problem community asset improve community development must meet challenge transportation planning provide flexible means communities meet transportation needs without better transportation communities either stagnate choke four years ago initiated programs renew redirect transportation systems took action expand capacity airways preserve improve intercity rail passenger service continue nation highway program greater emphasis safety bring needed progress surface public transportation federal commitment substantial enlarged airport development aid program established development act 1970 quadrupled federal assistance airports 295 million per year rail passenger service act 1970 begun rejuvenate rail service part balanced transportation system 1970 1974 invested 23 billion highways 1972 alone committed billion interstate system 80 percent complete year 870 million designated primary secondary roads equally important emphasized safety highways design use progressively increased levels federal funding transportation research development demonstration projects support focuses new transportation technology designed encourage private industry join aggressively search better transportation concurrent programs improve transportation cities undertaken programs develop free flowing corridors people commerce within cities since 1970 proposed congress passed urban mass transportation assistance act committed 2 billion federal dollars preserve upgrade public transportation nationally urban public transportation become federal program past four years federal dollars helped 60 american cities help depend public systems transportation jobs hospitals shops recreational centers must deal even aggressively community development challenges transportation building strong foundations laid nothing lift face cities spirit city dwellers truly adequate systems modern transportation best highway system world 75 percent people owning operating automobiles transportation assets per capita people earth yet commuter uses two ton vehicle transport work day making efficient use transportation system contributing transportation environmental problems good public transportation essential assure adequate transportation citizens forward common goal less congested cleaner safer communities pointed weeks ago message environment natural resources effective mass transit systems relieve urban congestion also reduce pollution waste limited energy resources build systems must aware two special challenges coordinating needs inner city suburb alleviating potential disruptions new transportation systems bring neighborhood life efforts continue urge congress permit portion highway trust fund used flexible fashion thus allowing mass transit capital investments communities desire recommend congress authorize expenditure state local governments billion next three years highway trust fund urban transportation needs including capital improvements bus rapid rail systems also recommend continuing rural highway program 1 billion year level providing ample resources advance interstate system approaches 1980 funding completion date legislation meet old needs time addressing new ones communities feel unduly obligated spend federal monies controversial interstate highway segments urban areas urge congress allow states localities transfer funds construction highways mass transit capital improvements way help resolve controversies slowed work number interstate links urban areas important recognize proposal represent arbitrary federal shift funds highways transit stress right local governments choose best solutions urban transportation problems year companion measure federal highway bill also proposing funding mass transit capital grants increased 3 billion bringing obligational authority mass transit program billion provision would maintain forward looking mass transit program least also asking congress amend urban mass transportation assistance act increasing federal share urban mass transit capital grant assistance programs 70 percent thereby achieving parity federal aid urban rural road building projects rural development community development sometimes thought primarily terms urban areas however administration often pointed continue emphasize element national important health vitality rural communities thus pursuing policy balanced development community life must always keep needs rural america clearly sight twice last two years recommended legislation would provide new revenues rural development latest proposal loans guarantees would made projects selected prepared states 92nd congress enact either proposals enact rural development act 1972 establishing additional lending authority rural needs like administration proposals lending authority provides insured loans guaranteed loans allow maximum participation private sector several new programs proposed funded rural development act one 200 million loan program assist communities population less developing commercial industrial facilities previously existing loan program increased 100 million total 445 new law used construct wide variety essential community facilities addition grants programs act funded level 33 million administration implement rural development act manner consistent revenue sharing concept allowing major project selections priority decisions made state local governments whenever possible intent fully evaluating effectiveness approach seek whatever additional legislation may needed disaster assistance community suffering ravages natural disaster nothing important prompt effective relief assistance population grows spreads storm earthquake drought freeze affects larger numbers people past four years tried reduce personal injury deaths property damage emphasizing adequate preventive measures period however declare major disasters 39 states three territories past year alone set tragic record major disaster activity declare 48 major disasters 43 caused storms floodings number especially devastating disaster emergencies period flooding buffalo creek west virginia flash flood rapid city south dakota course tropical storm agnes rampaged eastern united states agues alone caused 118 deaths 3 billion property damage disaster relief efforts involved number different agencies coordinated executive office president experience past years demonstrated nearly enough prepare advance disasters states local governments private individuals assume larger role preparing disasters relieving damage occurred responsibility relief presently fragmented among many authorities federal level disaster relief managed single agency intend make 1973 turning point quality governmental response natural disasters achieve goal already proposed reorganization plan number 1973 congress calls delegation responsibility coordinating disaster relief secretary housing urban development also counsellor community development transfer operations would take place beginning new fiscal year would carried way effective relations exist state disaster officials would way harmed new sense unity mobility federal level would fostered congress enacts proposal new department community development new department would responsible directing federal disaster activities including several agencies perform disaster roles addition improvements proposed reorganization plan number 1 shortly submit new disaster assistance act congress new act designed improve delivery federal assistance provide equitable basis financing individual property losses forge balanced partnership meeting disasters partnership among governments levels also governments private citizens proposals level government would accept responsibility things best federal government would continue assist financing state local governments would far latitude responsibility use funds would also encouraged assert stronger leadership efforts minimize damage future disasters homeowners farmers businessmen suffered disaster losses federal government would continue provide direct assistance also recommend congress expansion national flood insurance program allow participation communities areas increase limits coverage conclusion reflected proposals set forth believe must strike broad new paths community development america last years taken genuine measurable strides toward better communities good good enough clear accomplishing field community development many programs tried found wanting many programs strengthen bureaucracy washington sap strength state local governments people today want real say way communities run want feel play significant role shaping kind world children inherit expect institutions respond needs aspirations feeling never flourish federal government however vast financial resources however good intentions tries direct pattern lives feeling manufactured washington must come within federal government eliminate barriers impeded development feeling returning resources initiatives people locally elected leaders spirit urge 93rd congress give favorable consideration proposals community development richard nixon white house march 8 1973
congress unite state today fifth report congress state union want discus quality life city towns set forth new direction community development america long ago become accustomed constant rhetorical drumbeat crisis city problem multiply rapidly large urban area observer say city doom center culture commerce constructive change many problem still persist believe make sufficient progress recent year fear doom longer justify need today calm reflection upon nature modern community life united state reassessment manner try solve remain problem firm resolve get task america community diverse people vary tremendously size massive city urban suburban area small town rural community importantly community build strong individual characteristic year shape region climate economic influence ethnic origin local culture course community share common need concern people every community want adequate housing transportation job clean environment good health education recreation facility security crime fear essential service local priority differ intensity order local need vary clearly single rigid scheme impose federal government washington capable meeting change vary need diverse dynamic nation best way magic universal dispense hundred thousand mile away good new york city necessarily good chicago san francisco much less small community entirely different economy tradition population often past fall trap let washington make final decision louis detroit miami city sometimes decision right program succeed often wrong still pay price time come recognize error past federal effort support community development move swiftly correct result past error form disturb catalogue distort local priority spawn massive glut red tape create adversary climate local community washington often lead waste delay mutual frustration contribute lack confidence among people ability local national government solve problem get result lead creation many complex often compete federal program perhaps worst undercut ability local state government take initiative mobilize energy citizens federal policy work best last third century one try force community single restrictive mold federal policy work best one help people leader community meet needs way think best policy bind together many aspect community development program better community act near future submit congress good community act provide revenue share community development begin july 1 1974 act would provide billion year community spend desire meet community development need interim period legislation become effective fund already available department housing urban development use maintain support community development good community act intended replace inflexible fragmented categorical program reduce excessive federal control frustrate local government rather focus concentrate resource coordinate assault set problem categorical system scatter resource diminishes impact upon needy excessive federal influence also limit variety diversity development program local official able focus time resource talent meet local need produce result instead try please washington endless torrent paperwork first propose legislation 1971 although congress fail enact significant support express senate house since time member administration consult congressional leader mayor governor local official representative many constructive suggestion receive incorporated new legislative proposal result believe good community act represent best hope future community development deserve rapid approval congress among significant feature good community act provision flow money city urban county base formula reflect community need determine objective standard year immediately follow enactment fund would use assure city receives less money community development receive categorical grant program assistance small community fund also provide small community recognize vital importance small town rural community future nation role state government state government always play important part meeting community development need community act recognize role local decision making activity support categorical grant may continue would local leader determine money spend minimize red tape recipient would require show federal government comply federal statute way spending revenue share money elimination match share revenue would match local fund protection minority circumstance could fund provide good community act used purpose would violate civil right person department community development one serious deficiency effort federal government assist community development fragmentation scatter federal program among variety department agency often state local official seek help particular project must shuttle back forth one federal office another waste precious time resource bureaucratic wild goose chase order coordinate community development activity effectively propose nearly two year ago create department community development would pull one roof various program department housing urban development transportation agriculture agency extensive hearing proposal committee government operation house representative reach conclusion department community development constructive center federal government assistance community large small facilitate rational plan orderly growth effective employment resource build viable community throughout united state help strengthen physical institutional base cooperative action federal state local government administration fully agree course continue work congress prompt creation department community development interim recently appoint presidential counsellor community development coordinate community development program policy executive branch congress approve basic departmental reorganization propose administration effort eliminate waste confusion duplication promote community betterment efficiently fully effective responsive government act nearly 20 year federal government provide assistance state local government order strengthen plan management capability aid provide comprehensive planning assistance program always helpful program several major flaw tend instance stress one aspect public administration planning without adequately recognize essential feature budget management personnel administration plan often irrelevant problem actual decision state local government also find difficult coordinate planning fragment way fund send washington administration propose new plan management legislation 92nd congress approve meantime take step could improve exist program progress make corrective legislation still need shall therefore propose 93rd congress enact new responsive government act shall also propose provide 110 million act fiscal year 1974 almost entire amount spend present law last two decade responsive government act would assist state local government meet several important goal develop reliable information problem opportunities develop analyze alternative policy program manage program evaluate result appropriate adjustment make ability plan manage vital effective government even important state local government free restraint narrow categorical federal program must decide spend revenue share fund thus responsive government act vitally necessary companion piece good community act housing administration firmly commit goal first set forth america 1949 housing act decent home suitable living environment every american family believe housing program fail replace never waiver commitment past four year federal government provide housing assistance additional million american family low moderate income represent housing assistance total provide federal government entire history national housing program precede administration addition healthy vigorous private housing industry provide 6 million new unsubsidized unit housing american last four year housing start last three year reach record high level level fact double average precede 21 year importantly percentage american live substandard housing drop dramatically 46 percent 1940 37 percent 1950 18 percent 1960 8 percent 1970 american today well house ever history time however mount evidence basic defect housing program clear frequently needy primary beneficiary program program riddle inequity cost unit subsidize housing produce program high short shall make far progress move place housing policy much firm foundation suspend new activity federal subsidize housing program effective january 5th year would emphasize however commitment make program prior suspension honor mean approximately unit new subsidized housing start 1973 pursue goal decent home american know good mean need old wasteful program program already obligate taxpayer payment 63 billion 95 billion next 40 year answer one high domestic priority year development new policy provide aid genuinely needy family eliminate waste major housing study underway within government direction counsellor community development within next six month intend submit congress policy recommendation field base upon result study transportation thrive community must provide efficient movement people product yet recent year grow separation city suburbs change employment pattern make transportation community problem community asset improve community development must meet challenge transportation planning provide flexible mean community meet transportation need without good transportation community either stagnate choke four year ago initiate program renew redirect transportation system take action expand capacity airways preserve improve intercity rail passenger service continue nation highway program great emphasis safety bring need progress surface public transportation federal commitment substantial enlarge airport development aid program establish development act 1970 quadruple federal assistance airports 295 million per year rail passenger service act 1970 begin rejuvenate rail service part balance transportation system 1970 1974 invest 23 billion highway 1972 alone commit billion interstate system 80 percent complete year 870 million designate primary secondary road equally important emphasize safety highway design use progressively increased level federal funding transportation research development demonstration project support focus new transportation technology design encourage private industry join aggressively search good transportation concurrent program improve transportation city undertaken program develop free flow corridor people commerce within city since 1970 propose congress pass urban mass transportation assistance act commit 2 billion federal dollar preserve upgrade public transportation nationally urban public transportation become federal program past four year federal dollar help 60 american city help depend public system transportation job hospital shop recreational center must deal even aggressively community development challenge transportation building strong foundation lay nothing lift face city spirit city dweller truly adequate system modern transportation best highway system world 75 percent people own operating automobile transportation asset per caput people earth yet commuter us two ton vehicle transport work day make efficient use transportation system contribute transportation environmental problem good public transportation essential assure adequate transportation citizen forward common goal less congested cleaner safer community point week ago message environment natural resource effective mass transit system relieve urban congestion also reduce pollution waste limit energy resource build system must aware two special challenge coordinate needs inner city suburb alleviate potential disruption new transportation system bring neighborhood life effort continue urge congress permit portion highway trust fund use flexible fashion thus allow mass transit capital investment community desire recommend congress authorize expenditure state local government billion next three year highway trust fund urban transportation need include capital improvement bus rapid rail system also recommend continue rural highway program 1 billion year level provide ample resource advance interstate system approach 1980 funding completion date legislation meet old need time address new one community feel unduly obligated spend federal monies controversial interstate highway segment urban area urge congress allow state locality transfer fund construction highways mass transit capital improvement way help resolve controversy slow work number interstate link urban area important recognize proposal represent arbitrary federal shift fund highways transit stress right local government choose best solution urban transportation problem year companion measure federal highway bill also propose fund mass transit capital grant increase 3 billion bring obligational authority mass transit program billion provision would maintain forward look mass transit program least also ask congress amend urban mass transportation assistance act increase federal share urban mass transit capital grant assistance program 70 percent thereby achieve parity federal aid urban rural road building project rural development community development sometimes think primarily term urban area however administration often point continue emphasize element national important health vitality rural community thus pursue policy balance development community life must always keep need rural america clearly sight twice last two year recommend legislation would provide new revenue rural development late proposal loan guarantee would make project select prepared state 92nd congress enact either proposal enact rural development act 1972 establish additional lending authority rural need like administration proposal lend authority provide insured loan guarantee loan allow maximum participation private sector several new program propose funded rural development act one 200 million loan program assist community population less develop commercial industrial facility previously exist loan program increase 100 million total 445 new law use construct wide variety essential community facility addition grant program act funded level 33 million administration implement rural development act manner consistent revenue share concept allow major project selection priority decision make state local government whenever possible intent fully evaluate effectiveness approach seek whatever additional legislation may need disaster assistance community suffer ravage natural disaster nothing important prompt effective relief assistance population grow spread storm earthquake drought freeze affect large number people past four year try reduce personal injury death property damage emphasize adequate preventive measure period however declare major disaster 39 state three territory past year alone set tragic record major disaster activity declare 48 major disaster 43 cause storm flooding number especially devastating disaster emergency period flood buffalo creek west virginia flash flood rapid city south dakota course tropical storm agnes rampage eastern united state agues alone cause 118 death 3 billion property damage disaster relief effort involve number different agency coordinate executive office president experience past year demonstrate nearly enough prepare advance disaster state local government private individual assume large role prepare disaster relieve damage occur responsibility relief presently fragment among many authority federal level disaster relief manage single agency intend make 1973 turn point quality governmental response natural disaster achieve goal already propose reorganization plan number 1973 congress call delegation responsibility coordinate disaster relief secretary housing urban development also counsellor community development transfer operation would take place begin new fiscal year would carry way effective relation exist state disaster official would way harm new sense unity mobility federal level would foster congress enacts proposal new department community development new department would responsible direct federal disaster activity include several agency perform disaster role addition improvement propose reorganization plan number 1 shortly submit new disaster assistance act congress new act design improve delivery federal assistance provide equitable basis finance individual property loss forge balance partnership meeting disaster partnership among government level also government private citizen proposal level government would accept responsibility thing best federal government would continue assist financing state local government would far latitude responsibility use fund would also encourage assert strong leadership effort minimize damage future disaster homeowner farmer businessmen suffer disaster loss federal government would continue provide direct assistance also recommend congress expansion national flood insurance program allow participation community area increase limit coverage conclusion reflect proposal set forth believe must strike broad new path community development america last year take genuine measurable stride toward good community good good enough clear accomplish field community development many program try find want many program strengthen bureaucracy washington sap strength state local government people today want real say way community run want feel play significant role shape kind world child inherit expect institution respond needs aspiration feel never flourish federal government however vast financial resource however good intention try direct pattern live feel manufacture washington must come within federal government eliminate barrier impede development feeling return resource initiatives people locally elect leader spirit urge 93rd congress give favorable consideration proposal community development richard nixon white house march 8 1973