September 12, 1972
Page 30215
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN HIGHWAYS – AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 15I2
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for myself and the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), an amendment to S. 3939, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972. Our amendment would permit use of urban system funds – that is, the $800 million authorized to be appropriated to metropolitan areas in fiscal year 1974 and in fiscal year 1975 – to be used for mass rail transportation, as well as for public transportation systems other than rail as now authorized in existing law and in the Public Works Committee bill, S. 3939.
We have asked the members of the Committee on Public Works and the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs who considered this matter and voted for the amendment to join as cosponsors. Because the 1972 Highway Act could come up later this week or early next week, we thought the amendment should be printed and available to the Senate. We know other Members are interested and may also wish to cosponsor the proposal.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD the statement I prepared for the hearing of the Banking Committee last Thursday, and the text of Secretary Volpe's prepared statement at that hearing.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN SHERMAN COOPER
Mr. Chairman, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972, S. 3939, as reported by the Public Works Committee is a constructive highway bill which contains important new provisions for meeting the transportation needs of large urban areas while maintaining a fair and balanced program for rural and smaller urban areas.
For example, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 created the Urban System, a separate road program for urban areas of 50,000 or more, authorized at $100,000,000 for each of two years.
The 1972 Committee bill authorizes an eight-fold increase in urban funds to $800,000,000 annually. The 1970 Act also permitted, for the first time, use of the Highway Trust Fund for projects related to highway public transportation, including construction of preferential or exclusive bus lanes, bus shelters and loading areas, and fringe parking. The Senate bill, S. 3939, specifies that at least $300,000,000 must be used for public transportation projects, which, for the first time, may include purchase of buses. Third, our bill requires apportionment of urban system construction and planning funds to each urbanized area on a proportional population basis. Thus, urbanized areas are assured of funding levels from year to year, and will be able to develop more rational long-range transportation programs. Finally, Section 111 would allow a city to use funds originally scheduled for construction of an urban Interstate route to provide other means – including public transportation – to accommodate inter- and intra-urban travel.
I support the Committee bill, and it was reported unanimously by our committee. It was referred to this Committee for its consideration of the use of the Highway Trust Fund for the purchase of buses, as this relates to urban mass transportation. Briefly, I thought it would be appropriate for me to appear before you today because I had proposed – with Senator Muskie – a further step, that the urban highway system funds be made available for mass transportation, including rail. I will give my reasons:
As I stated in my individual views, which are included in the report on S. 3939 by the Public Works Committee, I believe urbanized areas should be given flexibility to use Urban Highway System funds for transportation modes other than highways.
In the 1970 highway act, the Public Works Committees and the Congress added to Title 23 U.S.C. a new section 142, to encourage the development, improvement, and use of public mass transportation systems within urbanized areas so as to increase the traffic capacity of the Federal-aid systems, limited however to systems operating motor vehicles on highways, "other than on rails". The section specifically authorized the Federal share of construction costs, from the Highway Trust Fund, for exclusive or preferential bus lanes, bus passenger loading areas and facilities, and transportation corridor parking facilities to serve bus and other public mass transportation passengers. In recent years amendments have been presented in the Senate from time to time, supported by an increasing body of opinion, to go further and permit use of the Trust Fund for urban mass transit.
At the opening of this session of Congress, I joined in sponsoring the Public Works bill S. 3037 introduced by Senator Weicker, then a member of the Committee, which would have removed from Section 142 the limitation on the use of the Trust Fund for mass transportation systems "other than rail", so as to provide metropolitan areas with greater flexibility in the use of federal funds for urban transportation systems, and enhance their ability to establish priorities and balance interlocking modes of transportation. Earlier this year, the Administration proposed that urban highway and mass transportation needs be met from a "Single Urban Fund," with revenues continued as at present from highway user taxes deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. The Administration deserves great credit for this construction recommendation, and I consider that Secretary Volpe made a vital contribution by his timely decision going to this central issue.
I introduced the Administration bill, S. 3590, which also called for a reduction in the number of categorical programs and a lower level of expenditures than S. 3939. I think it is recognized now that the Single Urban Fund failed to attract widespread support primarily because it proposed to transfer financing of the Urban Mass Transportation Act from general fund appropriations to the Trust Fund, which would have become the source of Federal financing for both the highway and mass transit programs. Decisions on continued authorizations and appropriations for UMTA is properly the concern of this and other Committees. However, I believe it both appropriate and necessary for the Congress to say that Highway Trust Funds allocated to urbanized areas may now be used to supplement mass transportation funds, and that providing such flexibility is in fact the best hope for reducing traffic congestion and maintaining the usefulness of urban highway systems.
In the executive Session of the Public Works Committee, Senator Muskie offered an amendment to permit the use of Interstate highway funds within urbanized areas for alternative transportation modes. I offered as a substitute an amendment to section 142 of Title 23, United States Code, permitting the use of Urban Highway System funds for public transportation system construction and equipment without the prohibition against rail transit. This proposal would allow urbanized areas to use their portions of the $800 million each year, authorized by S. 3939 for the Urban System, for such transportation modes as they determine necessary to meet the needs of their people. Senator Muskie joined in my motion and the decision of the committee was very close.
The "Cooper-Muskie amendment" was first adopted by a vote of 8 to 7, and later reversed.
I am proud that the Administration supports the amendment I offered in the Public Works Committee and intend to offer in the Senate – which I know is of interest also to members of this Committee.
In urban areas different transportation modes are closely related. In order to achieve the most effective overall transportation system, officials need at any given time some flexibility in determining their immediate funding priorities for each mode. It is for this reason that my amendment was directed to the use by city officials and metropolitan transportation agencies of the Urban System funds assigned to metropolitan areas from the Trust Fund.
But to propose, as the Committee may be asked to consider, that primary and secondary highway funds could also be used for subways, would confront State Highway Departments or Governors with the very sort of conflict we are hoping to resolve. That is, it would pit the demands of high-density metropolitan areas for subways in central cities against the interests of rural roads and inter-city routes, with both needs competing for the same funds.
The Public Works Committee bill assigns $800,000,000 – a large increase – to the expanded urban system; if enacted, Congress would have made a judgment as to the funding level for urban system needs in the next two years. If the State's primary and secondary funds are also proposed for urban mass transit, however, it would seem to me to destroy the urban-rural balance the Public Works Committee has tried to strike in this bill, and the Congress would fail to provide guidance as to the proper division of Highway Trust funds for urban and for other needs.
I do not hold that the Highway Trust Fund as presently constituted can or should be the sole source of financing for both mass transit and highways. I think it clear that subway systems represent huge capital expenditures in a relatively small number of high-density metropolitan centers, and that the funds made available by this and future Highway Acts cannot possibly provide the primary Federal financing for them. But I think the time has come to resolve this issue and to enable cities to better manage their capital expenditures for these closely related transportation modes.
I emphasize my belief that the entire Senate Committee on Public Works, under the leadership of its Chairman, Senator Randolph, fully supports continued strong Federal support of urban mass transportation. Concern was expressed in our discussions that support of mass transit from the Highway Trust Fund – either for purchase of buses as in the Committee bill, or to include rail as in the Cooper-Muskie amendment – could lead to a decrease in appropriations from the general fund for urban mass transit. The committee bill itself declares that any Highway Trust funds should supplement and must not displace funds authorized and available for the Urban Mass Transportation Act. It is for this reason that I consider referral of the bill to this Committee appropriate and very useful; I would hope your committee may take steps to assure that authorizations, appropriations, and commitments for the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 will not be reduced and I hope that Secretary Volpe may address this point.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate very much the time you have allowed me for this statement. I would be glad to answer any questions I can, and if I may, I should like to remain to hear the testimony of the Secretary.
HIGHWAY TRUST FUNDS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT of JOHN A. VOLPE, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you regarding the public transportation provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972 (S. 3939), which has been referred to your Committee from the Committee on Public Works.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I am here to discuss with you some of the fundamental issues affecting transportation primarily in our urban areas. In the last several years we have taken many significant steps together. In 1969, the Administration proposed, and through the instrumental support of this Committee, the Congress enacted the far-reaching Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1970. Subsequently, we discussed the concept of a single transportation trust fund, and the Administration proposed Special Transportation Revenue Sharing and the Highway and Mass Transportation Act of 1972 which contained the Single Urban Fund proposal. Underlying all these proposals, and confirmed by our analytical studies, especially the 1970 Statement on National Transportation Policy and the 1972 National Transportation Report, were two recurring objectives. First, current Federal-aid programs should be made more flexible to permit State and local governments to determine their transportation priorities and to use Federal funds accordingly. Second, the greatest transportation needs exist in our major urban areas.
At this time, we have an opportunity to address these points head on and to take a truly fundamental step forward and enact a landmark piece of transportation legislation.
I am pleased that the bill reported by the Public Works Committee (S. 3939) incorporates several of the Administration's recommendations. However, we do not feel that the bill now meets the critical need to achieve efficient urban mobility through balanced transportation brought about by real flexibility of modal choices.
There are a number of features of the bill which are most undesirable from the Administration's standpoint. However, since they are primarily in areas not of immediate concern to this Committee, I plan today to concentrate on those features which are critical to this Committee's interests and an efficient urban transportation system. To this end, I will be requesting that this Committee prepare a report on S. 3939 in which you endorse certain amendments proposed by Senators Cooper and Muskie. These amendments will (1) allow rail transit projects as well as bus purchases to be funded out of the Highway Trust Fund; and (2) set the Federal share for public transportation projects at the same level as provided for all highway projects, other than the Interstate, namely 70 percent. Second, I recommend as part of the total program that you subsequently amend the Urban Mass Transportation Act to provide $3 billion in additional contract authority to sustain this program through 1977 and raise the Federal share from 66⅔ percent to 70 percent. While the Administration continues to believe strongly in the Single Urban Fund concept which we recommended to the Congress, we also recognize that there are more than one means to reach the ultimate objective which I believe we share in common – a balanced urban and rural transportation system with flexibility for local choice.
When the Department proposed its Federal-Aid Highway and Mass Transportation Act of 1972, we recognize the urgency of the transportation problem in our urban centers and the lack of a single simple solution. We felt the first objective must be to increase the flexibility that State and local governments have in determining how Federal transportation dollars would be used in metropolitan areas. It is essential that the officials responsible for local transportation be freed from the compulsion to simply build highways based on the old principle of "use it or lose it".
Our other principal objective was to provide an assured pattern of program growth for both highway and mass transit projects in our metropolitan areas. We felt the appropriate mechanism to satisfy these objectives was the creation of a new urban transportation program, which we referred to as the Single Urban Fund. Under that proposal the Highway Trust Fund would have become the sole source of Federal financing for both highway and mass transit programs.
As I previously indicated to you, Mr. Chairman, in an exchange of correspondence, the fact that the Department was not requesting the additional authorizations for capital grants under the Urban Mass Transportation Act by no means indicated a lack of commitment by the Administration for funding mass transportation programs. We were awaiting congressional action on our Single Urban Fund proposal. Now that we have an indication of the apparent unwillingness of the Congress to adopt our Single Urban Fund in total, we are recommending that the Urban Mass Transportation Act be amended to provide an additional $3 billion in contract authority to sustain the program through fiscal year 1977. We feel that this funding will satisfy our objective of assuring the continued progress and the guaranty of financing for the urban mass transportation program.
As I have indicated, the other major objective of our original proposal was to provide for flexibility which would enable local officials to best satisfy their transportation needs. The Public Works Committee has taken a positive step in this direction by its proposed amendments to section 142 of title 23, which are presently contained in section 128 of S. 3939. These proposed amendments would authorize the use of all Federal-aid highway funds apportioned to a State for use within urban areas and in certain rural areas for the financing of highway public transportation projects, which would include exclusive bus lanes, traffic control devices, passenger loading areas and facilities and the purchase of buses. By these amendments to section 142 the Public Works committee has proposed, for the first time, that Highway Trust Fund monies be made available for the purchase of buses both in urban and rural areas. However, it is important that this proposal be broadened further if we are to provide meaningful alternatives to our local officials. Amendments to section 142 should provide that funds authorized for the Federal-aid urban system be available for the acquisition and construction of rail transit facilities and equipment, as well as the highway public transportation projects currently contained in S. 3939. This approach was suggested in the Public Works Committee by Senator Cooper, and with the support of Senator Muskie it gained the vote of seven of the fifteen members of that Committee. The so-called Cooper-Muskie amendment would allow urbanized areas to use their share of the $800 million authorization for the Federal-aid urban highway system for whatever urban transportation capital projects they deem necessary to meet the needs of their communities.
Some communities might choose to use their entire allotment for mass transportation; others all for highway construction; and some would obviously provide for both mass transit and highway projects. In any case, the important point is that each community would have the flexibility to program funds to meet its identified transportation priorities. The option will be theirs.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration fully supports the Cooper-Muskie amendment and recommends that this Committee join in support of such a proposal when it is offered as an amendment on the Senate floor. At this time, let me assure this Committee that utilizing Highway Trust funds for urban mass transportation projects will in no way diminish the current responsibilities of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. If the proposed amendments to Section 142 are enacted, mass transportation projects selected locally for funding under that section will be referred to UMTA for administrative and program review and supervision. In a real sense, their current responsibilities will be increased. For these reasons, I strongly urge this Committee to endorse this amendment in its report on S. 3939.
In addition, we feel that section 142 should be modified in another important respect. S. 3939 presently provides for 100 percent Federal financing of bus purchases from the Highway Trust Fund. Our experience gained from Federal grant programs shows that provision for 100 percent Federal financing is most undesirable. The lack of some degree of local contribution detracts from the responsibility and accountability which ordinarily is applied to investments of local revenues. In addition, our objective in supporting a broadened urban transportation program is to provide for complete flexibility of transportation choices by local officials and not to create a bias of one mode over another. A provision of 100 percent Federal financing for buses would create such a bias and should be avoided. We believe there should be a parity between transportation projects eligible for financing under this section, and we believe that the appropriate Federal share of the cost of such projects should be the same whether it be a highway project or a transit project. We understand that Senator Cooper will include such a provision in his amendment to section 142, and we strongly urge that this Committee also support this position in its report.
Further, to provide the parity between transportation projects we recommend that the maximum allowable Federal share of transit projects funded under the UMTA program be raised to 70 percent, which is the Federal share for non-Interstate highway projects. The additional funding for the UMTA program, together with the amendments to section 142 proposed by Senators Cooper and Muskie, would provide a total transportation package well designed and adequately funded to meet our urban transportation needs while at the same time being fully cognizant and supportive of our rural road programs. I am hopeful that this total transportation package will have the full support and backing of this Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that this Committee will take the actions we have requested to advance the Administration's revised urban transportation program.
In summary, we seek your support on two counts. First, we wish you to support amendments to Section 142 which will be offered on the Senate floor to provide meaningful flexibility of modal choices for our metropolitan centers by allowing local officials to determine the proper balance of highway, rail, and bus transit best suited for their needs. In developing this balance, it will not create a new bias by favoring the selection of the bus mode through the imbalance of 100 percent Federal funding.
Second, we wish you to act favorably upon our recommendation for a $3 billion authorization for additional contract authority for UMTA with the ceiling on the Federal share for such projects being raised to 70 percent from the present 66⅔ percent.
Enactment of a proposal along these lines will be the culmination of our mutual efforts to meet our urban transportation needs. The new resources coming from the Highway Trust Fund, together with true flexibility for local officials to design their own programs, as well as the assurances to State and local governments and the transit industry that we are committed to the continuation of a vital UMTA program, will be the most purposeful steps we can take. By this action we will do much to relieve the traffic congestion of our cities, to preserve our environment and energy sources, and to provide a balanced transportation system for the movement of people and goods which is so essential for the quality of life in our cities.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me express my hope that the positions I put before you today can gain the enthusiastic support of this entire Committee. Need for improved and efficient public transportation for our urban areas is recognized as a must by all concerned citizens. I know that this Committee recognizes this need, and I am hopeful that we will be working together to meet it. It is my hope that we can go forward together in 1972 in the same spirit that we shared in 1970 in enacting that year's landmark urban mass transportation legislation.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. At this time I will be happy to answer any questions you or members of the Committee may have.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
September 12, 1972.
DEAR SENATOR: The Committee on Public Works, on which we serve, has reported the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972, S. 3939, which was then referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. That Committee has now made its recommendations to the Senate, and the bill could be taken up in the Senate late this week or early next week.
The highway bill contains important new provisions for meeting the transportation needs of metropolitan areas; while maintaining a fair and balanced highway program for rural and smaller urban areas. For example, it authorizes an eight-fold increase – to $800 million dollars annually – in funds for the Urban System established by the 1970 Highway Act. The 1970 Act also authorized use of the highway Trust Fund for highway public transportation, including the construction of bus lanes; the Committee bill extends this public transportation authority to include the purchase of buses. However, existing Section 142 of title 23 U.S.C., and the Committee bill, restrict use of the Trust Funds to public mass transportation systems "other than on rails."
In the Committee on Public Works, we offered an amendment with respect to the Urban System to remove that restriction excluding rail mass transit so as to allow city officials and metropolitan transportation agencies to use their portions of the $800 million Urban System funds for such transportation modes as they determine necessary to meet the needs of their people.
The decision of the Public Works Committee was very close. The "Cooper-Muskie" amendment was first adopted by a vote of 8-7, later reversed. We announced our intention to offer the amendment in the Senate.
When the bill was referred to the Banking Committee – which held a hearing September 7 on the provisions of the bill relating, to urban mass transportation – the "Cooper-Muskie" amendment received the full support of the Administration through the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Volpe, who strongly urged its adoption. We are glad that the testimony of other groups heard by that Committee also supported the amendment. The Senate Banking Committee, by a vote of 10-0, has now recommended to the Senate adoption of the "Cooper-Muskie" amendment.
We consider it appropriate and necessary for the Congress to say that highway trust funds allocated to urban areas may now be used to supplement mass transportation funds and that providing such flexibility is perhaps the best hope for reducing traffic congestion and maintaining the usefulness of urban highway systems. We believe the time has come to resolve this issue, and to enable cities to better manage their capital expenditures for these closely related transportation modes.
We emphasize that our amendment is directed solely to the Urban System funds, and would not change the effect of the Committee bill with respect to primary, secondary and Interstate funds which would continue to be available for highways as under the Committee bill (including public highway transportation such as the construction of bus lanes and purchase of buses). The amendment would not permit the diversion of rural road or inter-city highway funds for subways.
We believe it would protect the continued use of the Highway Trust Fund for these purposes by helping to meet the legitimate needs of metropolitan areas which if not met could lead to demands to abolish the Highway Trust Fund.
The purpose of this letter is to invite your support of the amendment we will offer in the Senate. Our views are contained in Senate Report No. 92-1081 between pages 53-63. The report of the Committee on Banking. Housing and Urban Affairs, No. 92-1103, also discusses the amendment as a recommendation of that Committee, beginning on page 5, including the text of the amendment.
If you would like additional information, you may wish to have your staff be in touch with Mr. Guard, ext, 5-7854, or Mr. Billings, ext. 5-7859, of our respective staffs.
With kind regards, we are sincerely yours,
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.