White House Conference on Balanced National Growth and Economic Development Remarks at the Closing Session of the Conference.

The first thing I would like to do is to thank and to congratulate Chairman Jay Rockefeller and Juanita Kreps, Senator Jennings Randolph, representing the Congress, the leaders of the discussion groups, and all of the 500 participants who have earned unanimous congratulations and accolades from everyone who has expressed an opinion to me about this Conference.

It's an easy thing to have a conference concerning planning, growth, economic development, and have it be either so controversial that its purposes are lost, or so sterile that its function comes to no avail. You've avoided that.

I stand here as President of the greatest country on Earth, with a background in meetings of this kind. It's been an integral part of my life, beginning at the local level of government, going up to the White House.

My first responsibility was to be the chairman and the organizer of an eight county planning and development group in deep southwest Georgia, at that time the West Central Georgia Planning Commission. I dealt with those rural counties and with 30 small towns, the largest of which was about 12,000, the smallest of which was less than a hundred.

They were almost as diverse in nature and in need, in motivation or spirit, as the wide range represented here. And to give them a chance to communicate and to deal with common problems and to finally discern the mutuality of purpose was an inspiration to me.

We later organized the Georgian Planning Association. I was the first president of it, when I didn't hold public office, and I learned then throughout my own State how deeply committed people were to the need for dealing with change. Change has come to the South and the many parts of our Nation with a confrontation, reluctance, fear, but then an acknowledgement of the inevitability of it and a realization of the benefits to be derived from it.

I decided to run for Governor, and my first act was to organize what I called Goals for Georgia. We had meetings throughout the State, open meetings whereby citizens could come and register their complaints against the State government, their frustrations and their animosities, their disappointments and their hopes and dreams and suggestions, some of which were quite beneficial. And we put together in a clear and concise book what Georgia hoped to accomplish in the future—5, 10, 15, sometimes even 25 years. And almost every decision I made in my 4: years as Governor was predicated on and derived from those specific and coordinated plans, without regimentation, but with a degree of consistency.

I was a chairman of the Coastal Plains Regional Commission, a Federal commission under the Commerce Department. I was chairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission. I was chairman of the Southern Regional Education Board, an organizer and the chairman of a long meeting during which we derived a report called "The Future of the South."

So, I've been involved in this kind of discussion from the grassroots up to the White House, and I've seen the potentialities of it, the benefits of it to me, and particularly the benefits of those who meet here as leaders in your own right.

I know the dangers of leadership. My wife went to a meeting the other day of a group responsible for the future of the District of Columbia, nongovernmental in nature. Brock Adams was the speaker, and he described the potential achievement of someone who dealt with things like metropolitan transit systems and housing programs. He said they're like the achievement was a one-car funeral. [Laughter]

Well, this can be the rewards of failure, but there is also a tremendous reward of searching for a better way of life.

This has been a conference brought together through a good process that began when Congress passed a law and has evolved over months and months of careful preparation, 150 meetings or so in all 50 States, where people brought their ideas to you and then eventually you brought them here to us. Local governments, State governments, the Federal Government—as President I represent all those constituencies. And I've had a chance to see the inevitable conflicts among them.

The thing that concerns me most is the isolation of governmental processes and dealing with laws, the administration of them, from the human realities of failure. My wife, Rosalynn, my son Chip, and other members of my family will be dealing directly with the extra governmental efforts to keep me constantly aware of human problems in the most personal sense.

This process here has been interesting, because I've noticed, as you've made your report, an attempt to define the relationship between the local and State and Federal governments. As you know, the original constitutional processes derived from the States themselves the power that the present Federal Government has, as changed by law and custom, as interpreted by the courts. But the fact is that the original founders of our Nation saw very clearly that the first evidence of problems derived from changing times would be discerned not here in Washington, but at the local and State levels of government. And that's the way it has been.

Environmental conflicts with economic growth were first evident in the local communities when citizens complained about filthy water and air not good to breathe and a fouled landscape. And local officials tried to deal with this in town halls and county courthouses, and eventually the pattern spread until it reached the State governments. And in a fumbling, sometimes mistaken way, but in a well-meaning way, environmental laws were fashioned State by State, and then it became obvious that when one State had strict environmental laws and an additional State had weak environmental laws, that industry began to go to the State with the weak laws. And problems there were exacerbated even further. And eventually the Federal Government had to provide some kind of uniformity and guideline so that on a nationwide basis, environmental laws could be fair and fruitful and equitable.

This is a pattern that has always prevailed. It prevailed with civil rights. It prevailed with no-fault automobile insurance and many other things where the local people detect a problem, deal with it as best they can. And eventually, if the problem is so severe or so widespread, the Federal Government gets involved. And then the administration of the laws passed in Washington goes back down, quite often administered with insensitivity because there's not a close, working, constant relationship at the different levels of government and with our private citizens.

It's easy to cast blame. It's cowardly to cast blame. It's fruitless to cast blame from the private sector to government, or vice versa, from local to national government, or vice versa, because a conference like this demonstrates vividly that we share not only the problems but the responsibility for their resolution. And it's good to point out that it can be a part of our democratic process to work in harmony.

The facts are almost overwhelming in their complexity, and quite often facts dispute one another, and to discern the truth is not easy. And to correlate the close, sometimes microscopic, observation of a problem which is quite accurate in a person's life or a community's life with a need for fairness and uniformity on a nationwide or international basis is a difficult process indeed. And that's what you can offer to me here, because coming from all 50 States and the territories, commonwealths of our country, you can bring in your long, I'm sure tedious, but interesting and exciting discussions an awareness of the common ground on which we can resolve our problems.

My own background and education is in science, in engineering, where there's a constant search for change, for improvement, for what is absolutely required to look years into the future to see the meaning of the discovery of atomic power, its use for destruction, its use for the benefit of human beings. These kinds of consequences of present action are not easy to predict, but it's important that we try. And the same thing happens in government.

Quite often government acts late, only as a response to crisis, only after human suffering has become widespread, when an early detection of a problem and a close working relationship might very well let government at all levels act to prevent crises. It is not nearly so dramatic, there are not nearly so many headlines, but the accomplishments therein are gratifying indeed.

I appreciated very much the reports that were made to me verbally and very briefly, and we will study throughout our own administration, and I'm sure the Congress will do the same, the detailed reports, the debates on both sides of issues, the conclusions that you've reached, the recommendations that you make. I want to be sure that this is a continuing process.

I listened very carefully to Dean Ylvisaker, who talked about local economics, local economy, interdependence, and the involvement of both business and the nonprofit institutions. This is where I've seen a real need for my wife to serve—she's eager to do it—with constant access to me, without the constraints of government responsibilities, a real knowledge of this country, having lived in Hawaii, having lived in New York, Connecticut, Virginia, having lived in California and Georgia, and now here, having traveled in all the States. Our family has a personal knowledge of our country, and I want to tap that ability and make sure that I as President, and she as a member of the family, exemplify how the private sector of our country, both profit and nonprofit, can be welded together with government.

Most of the initiative for solving a deteriorating neighborhood must come from the people who live there, or who are directly concerned about the quality of life there. The local government, the State government can move in to help with better police protection, garbage collection, water supplies, education. The Federal Government with its major programs, giving their authority as much as possible to local people, can provide the finances and the guidance that's needed. This is very important.

Miss Dixon pointed out the human aspect of inadequate planning and unbalanced economic growth and perhaps an insensitive government.

We had a major achievement last year with an increase of more than 4 million Americans who found jobs, a net increase over a million—the highest proportion of Americans employed in the history of our country. We've never seen that kind of improvement since the Second World War. But we still have 30, 35, 40 percent unemployment among our young black males.

And now, the need for us to focus attention on basic civil rights, basic human rights, in providing an escape from a wasted life should press very heavily on all of us. It's a devastating concept to me that a young person, 16, 17, 18 years old, could spend the first few years of an adult life excluded from a fruitful part in society, with a growing sense of personal failure and alienation, a deepening sense of frustration and anger. And the responsibility rests on people like us who have been blessed with social prominence, political, economic responsibilities, and of blessings of a highly materialistic life.

We've not yet been successful in correlating a highly expensive, sometimes very effective education training program with a need for the graduates to serve.

We've seen a shift from rural areas into urban areas, from urban areas into suburban areas; now a growing concern about the deteriorating central cities, a trend to move back toward the rural and Sunbelt areas. But in all that process, certain people in our society, partially of course because of deliberate or callous discrimination—constantly suffering.

Charlotte Williams discovered and discussed the very serious question of budgets, wherein priorities are set and goals are defined. I noticed that there was a great deal of applause when there was a mention of any of the reporters that we shift the financial burden to Washington and shift responsibility away from Washington. [Laughter] And I didn't hear any applause on the other side. But we're all in it together. You're part of the Federal Government, too.

But I know that the decisions made on the delineation of those responsibilities are made here in Washington. And I listened with great care to that recommendation.

Ed Bishop, whom I've known for a long time, talked about geography, of growth, the need for freedom, which is one of the most precious possessions of our society-the right of people themselves to make a decision where they want to live and the inevitability of trends that we don't discern and can't control, and the inadvisability of the Federal Government trying to discipline a society based on individual free choice.

Competition between States, competition between communities, competition within the business and professional community is not bad. It's part of a free enterprise system. It's part of a democracy. But in that competition, again the human factor can never be forgotten.

Phyllis Lanphere, who did a good job, I thought, with her new southern accent- [laughter] —pointed out the need for us to understand future growth and economic development, because with the evolution of new technologies, a shift away from manufacturing toward an increased employment in providing human services, a change from one part of the country to another, in different forms and rates of growth, a comprehension of those future trends is very important to us all.

We live in a time of impending crisis, when almost unlimited national and natural resources are being observed and understood as limited. And how to accommodate that change is going to be a challenge to us all.

And finally, Chancellor Norton pointed out the need for streamlining government to make it more efficient, more effective, better organized, more easily understood regulations, uniformity of standards. This is a goal that we've espoused with great fervor in our administration. And I've had the chancellors of universities and the presidents in, and I've said, "You give me a list of all the reports and forms that have to be filled out for HEW and the ones you think can be made not at all, the monthly reports that might be made annually, the five-page reports that might be limited to five lines. Be specific about it, and we'll change it."

I told the same thing to the representatives of the American Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Businessmen, the State School Superintendents, to be specific in their recommendation for specific improvements, and we'll do it.

We set a goal last year for cutting down paperwork. In HEW alone, not even counting the other agencies of Government, they exceeded the goal by 50 percent. We've set new goals this year. So, we are trying.

The Congress has given me authority to reorganize the Federal Government, and we are trying. And we need your help, and we need your support. And I notice with care the word "decentralization." And I agree completely with that concept.

Let me say in closing that your work will not be in vain. There have been too many reports compiled by well-meaning and competent conferees and planners which have never been read nor used. We are determined that the work that you've done this week will bear rich fruits.

Juanita Kreps, all my Cabinet, the White House staff, I'm sure the Congress appreciates what you have done. And I believe that as a result of your work, we'll have an even greater nation, bound closer together, with a much more effective potential in life for the people about whom we all care so deeply—those that are not here this morning but whom we try with increasing dedication to represent well.

Thank you very much.