September 19, 1972
Page 31258
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate has as its principal sponsors two members of the Committee on Public Works. This proposal was placed before the committee during its consideration of S. 3939 by Senator COOPER, and strongly supported by Senator MUSKIE.
Both of these members of our committee have wide experience with transportation legislation, and both are articulate advocates of an improved, total transportation system in our country. They have made many worthwhile contributions to our highway legislation during the time they have served as members of the committee.
It is, therefore, with some regret that I must oppose them on amendment 1512, just as I opposed the substance of this amendment when it was offered to the committee in executive session.
Earlier today, there was extensive discussion of the amendment proposed by Senators KENNEDY and WEICKER. At that time I explained why we should not permit highway funds to be used for the construction of rail rapid transit systems. Although the amendment now before us is considerably narrower in scope than the one on which we voted earlier, it contains the same defects.
The needs for highways and highway related public transportation are just too great at this time to permit the dissipation of highway funds by attempting to use them for rail transit construction.
As advocates of a unified approach to meeting our transportation requirements, I am sure that my colleagues who offer this amendment are aware of the important function played by feeder bus routes in the operation of subways and other rail transit facilities. The language of S. 3939 as reported is geared to helping communities provide improved and expanded bus systems not only to supplement rail networks, but to provide the basic services in those communities where rail systems are not feasible answers to the community's transportation needs. The Federal-Aid Highway Act authorizes $800 million for urban highways during each of the next 2 years and provides that all of this money could be used for public transportation purposes, including the purchase of buses, if the States and communities to which it is allocated see fit.
This is a substantial amount of money and I emphasize that it is money that will supplement urban mass transit activities authorized by other legislation. It is not a substitute for these programs, but will help to make the total mass transit effort more responsive to our communities.
The Urban Mass Transit Administration estimates that in the next 20 years our country will need to invest $6.4 billion in the purchase of buses alone. This is considerably more than S. 3939 proposes to be spent from the highway trust fund for this purpose, and shows clearly that the program we are authorizing here is badly needed.
The highway program's involvement with public transportation was started a few years ago when we authorized experimental programs in development of preferential or exclusive bus lanes and such related facilities as fringe parking areas. These and others have become permanent parts of the highway program and their success is evidenced here in the Washington area primarily on the Shirley Highway where a demonstration program has become a permanent and integral part of the Washington area's transportation system. The mass movement of people in urban areas by buses is increasingly recognized as a key factor in solving the urban transportation crisis. More than 250 American communities have been left without any public transportation as the result of bus system closures in recent years. It is important that these and other communities receive support in providing this essential service.
The provisions of the Cooper-Muskie amendment would, if adopted, dilute our ability to tailor the highway program to respond to the transit needs of the great majority of American communities.
Mr. President, the sincerity of my colleagues who sponsor this amendment is above question. On this occasion, however, I fear that they are over-responding to one need with an answer that may compromise our ability to cope with the total problem of public mass transit. This proposal was discussed at great length in the Committee on Public Works, whose members declined to include it as a part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972. I hope that the Members of the Senate will follow this lead by taking the same action.
Mr. President, I shall take just 3 or 4 minutes to make a little statement from the standpoint of the viewpoint of the committee vote on the subject of this amendment, which was close.
Mr. President, I would be willing – I would be willing, I repeat – to accept the amendment but for the fact that the law by which highway trust funds are collected will not allow it.
I would accept the decision of the House Ways and Means Committee, and of course that of the Senate Finance Committee, to permit the broader use of these funds. As to what the law provides, I quote from the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, section 209(f) (1)–
Amounts in the trust fund shall be available for making expenditures which are attributable to Federal-aid highways.
This is the exact language in the law, Mr. President. We want to do what is possible within the framework of the law, and within that framework we have brought from our Committee on Public Works the advances proposed 4 years ago, 2 years ago, and again today.
The validity of this legal requirement was recognized when the administration submitted its legislative proposal early this year. It included a bill – I must remind Senators – to amend the Highway Revenue Act, as the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOK) could agree, so that the trust funds could be used for rail transit.
I have been very frank about this, hoping that it would help us as we come to a vote on this measure. I shall ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter dated today from WILBUR D. MILLS, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, addressed to the Honorable JOHN A. BLATNIK, chairman of the House Committee on Public Works, in which he said:
I agree completely with the observations–
Those made by Chairman BLATNIK– which you made concerning the fact that diversion of money from the highway trust fund for mass transit purposes as indicated in the amendment set forth in your letter would clearly be a violation of the provisions of section 209 of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, as amended. I agree with you completely, and I am sure, if I understand the feeling of the Members of the Committee on Ways and Means, that the majority of the committee members would agree with me that this is clearly a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and formal action would have to be taken by our committee before any such diversion could be accomplished.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
Washington, D.C.,
September 19, 1972.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: I have just received your hand-delivered letter of September 19, 1972, concerning the proposal to divert money from the Highway Trust Fund for use in mass transit.
I agree completely with the observations which you made concerning the fact that diversion of money from the Highway Trust Fund for mass transit purposes as indicated in the amendment set forth in your letter would clearly be a violation of the provisions of section 209 of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, as amended. I agree with you completely, and I am sure, if I understand the feeling of the Members of the Committee on Ways and Means, that the majority of the Committee Members would agree with me that this is clearly a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and formal action would have to be taken by our Committee before any such diversion could be accomplished.
Sincerely yours,
WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I hope that, in what I think would be its right judgment, the Senate will reject the proposed amendment. In saying that, I add something that I wish the RECORD to include: That I have very genuine respect for the Senator from Kentucky as not only a personal friend, but a valued Member of the Senate, and particularly of the Committee on Public Works. I have an equal amount of respect for the able Senator from Maine, who has given such close attention and has worked so closely in alliance with the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) on this amendment.
I repeat again that within the framework of the law, it would be wrong for us to accept such an amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, since the point has been raised by the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and by the distinguished chairman of the committee I think I should make some observations of my own.
First, let me say that we must distinguish between the question of committee jurisdiction with reference to changing the highway trust fund and the authority of Congress to change the law.
On the question of committee jurisdiction, action the Senate took earlier on the land use bill indicates that the Senate is not restrained or inhibited by a committee's assertion of jurisdiction in the enactment of legislation. The land use bill cut across the jurisdiction of at least a half dozen committees, and that did not inhibit the Senate from adopting legislation which was not referred to those committees. So committee jurisdiction is one point.
Now let us get to the question of whether or not it is for Congress to change the law, which is really what is involved: Is it legal for Congress to change the law?
First of all, with respect to the bill in the form in which it was reported from the committee: In that bill, we are in effect amending section 142 (a) of title 23 of the United States Code, which, under the committee bill, would permit portions of the funds to be spent for the purchases of buses and passenger-loading areas and bus lanes. That is in the bill. Thus, we are merely adding with our amendment another purchase, which is just as much in keeping with the overall intent of the proposed legislation.
In addition, Mr. President, the committee's proposed section 142 (c) states that the purposes authorized under (a) of section 142 shall be considered as "highway projects." That clearly would obviate any need to amend any other legislation. All we need to do is to label this a "highway project."
In fact, we have discussed this matter informally with the GAO, and it is their view, after examining the legislation, that there would be no difficulty in expending funds from the trust fund for this purpose – the Cooper-Muskie amendment purpose – were the amendment to be adopted. They state that the congressional action of adopting this amendment to the Highway Act, along with the existence of subsection (c), clearly would be sufficient to authorize funds to be expended from the trust fund.
Mr. President, in connection with the Kennedy-Weicker amendment considered earlier today by the Senate, the Comptroller General of the United States addressed a letter dated September 19, 1972, to Senator KENNEDY, and I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C.,
September 19, 1972.
Hon. EDWARD M. KENNEDY,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: You have informally requested our opinion as to whether your Amendment No. 1482, dated September 6, 1972, intended to be proposed by you and Senator Weicker to S. 3939, which, if enacted, would be cited as the "Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972," would authorize the use of the Highway Trust Fund for the acquisition and construction of rail facilities.
It is our opinion that Amendment No. 1482, if enacted, would authorize, except with respect to the Interstate System, the appropriation of Highway Trust Fund monies for the acquisition and construction of rail facilities.
Sincerely yours,
R. F. KELLER,
Deputy Comptroller General of the United States.
Mr. MUSKIE. This is the concluding paragraph:
It is our opinion that Amendment No. 1482, if enacted, would authorize, except with respect to the Interstate System, the appropriation of highway trust fund monies for the acquisition and construction of rail facilities.
Mr. President, having covered the question of the law, let me get to the question of what is a highway purpose.
The Washington Post editorial which was inserted in the RECORD earlier by Senator TUNNEY had this to say: Permitting cities to use the highway trust fund to build rails as well as roads is not an improper diversion of that fund, much less a perversion of any sacred trust. To the contrary, truly balanced transportation systems benefit highway users as much as bus riders and subway strap-hangers. Indeed, those who must use the roads – those who, for instance, have no other way to transport goods – have an especially direct interest in curbing highway congestion by offering people other ways to get from place to place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield me 4 additional minutes?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. In my judgment, a major beneficiary of a redirection of the use of urban highway funds would be such urban highway users as truckers, taxi fleets, and others who must deliver goods and services and for whom public mass transportation is not an adequate substitute. By diverting commuters and other marginal users from the highway system to improve public transportation systems, congestion will be reduced, and those who rely on highways for delivery of goods and services will do so with greater facility and economy.
Mr. President, the point is that there is a connection between congestion and other problems related to the automobile and action of this kind designed to relieve that congestion for the benefit of highway users.
I raise one other point. Automobiles get this sacred trust fund money in the form of highways.
Does that sacred trust fund pick up some of the costs generated by these highways? Has anyone ever suggested that the highway trust fund should be used to deal with the problem of urban sprawl created by the automobile? In the writing of air pollution legislation, have we tapped the trust fund to deal with the air pollution problem created by what? The automobile.
We can go down the whole list of social problems and city problems created by the automobile.
No effort has been made to tap the highway trust fund to deal with those problems.
Those who regard the fund as sacred want it both ways. They want the trust fund to be used to build more highways, to stimulate the manufacture of more automobiles, to generate more problems, and then leave the problems to the beleaguered general fund treasuries of the Federal Government, the States, and the cities, which, in addition, are urged upon us as the source of money for rail transportation. That makes no sense at all.
I say to the Senator from Kentucky, to the manager of the bill, and to the Senate that if we, the Congress of the United States, decide that relieving congestion on the highways and thereby relieving the problems of the cities is a legitimate highway purpose, that will be sufficient to legitimatize the use of the highway trust fund for that purpose.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. COOK. I say to the Senator from Maine that I agree with just about everything he has said, and I am delighted to agree with him, with one exception, and that exception is that if he wants to tap this trust fund for pollution, tap it. If he wants to do this on that basis and therefore can show that connection, which is obvious, then do so.
But it bothers me when it is said, in fact – even the fact that the bill said it in its original form, as it came here, and I am not on the Committee on Public Works – that bus lanes and facilities will be built so that one can get on and off buses, and then say in the previous law that transit systems are exempt from the tax, is to say something which is wrong.
If the Senator asks me, "If we pass this amendment, have we in fact changed the law?" I say we certainly have changed it, and it is just as good as it can be. There may be someone on the House side who will say that we have not changed the law. But obviously we have. That is our responsibility as legislators. But to say that one will do this and one will expand the funds and then to say to those who will be the recipients of the funds, "You need not contribute to the fund," then it is in reverse to say, "Because there is pollution in the air, you will not need to pay money out of the funds to solve the pollution problem." So I might say it is rather a degree of redundancy on the part of the Senator from Maine when he says that maybe the funds should be tapped by the users.
I do not consider it sacrosanct. I do not consider it sacred. I only consider that if we change the law and make it broader or make its utilization wider, then you impose the obligation on those you include within the framework so that they, too, can contribute to the fund. Then they are entitled to an equitable distribution which comes out of the fund. Therefore, if one wants to come into equity, let him come with clean hands but not file his application for a refund after he has utilized the fuels, paid the tax, and then asked the Federal Government to pay him back at the end of the year.
That is the only point I make, and I think it is a valid one.
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield?
Mr. COOPER. I will yield in a moment. Mr. President, I say with all deference to my chairman, that this question was not considered at any great length in the committee, as I recall. The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) raised the question of assessing some kind of tax on users, but it was not examined as closely as some other issues.
I have heard, Mr. President, many eloquent, rational and logical speeches in the Senate. But I believe the reply of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) was equal to any that I have heard.
His answer is founded upon the question of law, upon the question of the power of Congress to amend the law, upon the question of jurisdiction of the committee, and upon his judgment that the need for rail systems, monorail systems, and trams certainly are related to highways to a great degree in our present life. We know this. Finally, he appeals for better transportation for those who do not have cars, those who must have ways to get to work. and those who are poor. I think that his argument is one which should convince us all.
I should like also to pay my tribute to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS). I know of his leadership in the past on the urban mass transit fund. We appreciate very much his strong support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, the letter I received from Secretary Volpe and a letter and explanation of the Cooper-Muskie amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE SECRETARY of TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, D.C.,
September 18, 1972.
Hon. JOHN S. COOPER,
U.S. Senate, Washington. D.C.
DEAR SENATOR COOPER: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter requesting the Department's views on the amendments to the 1972 Highway Act which will be debated on the Senate floor this week. The first of these amendments is the one proposed by you and Senator Muskie, the passage of which we consider to be of utmost importance.
The 1972 Highway Act that the Senate has already debated goes a long way to strike a balance between the rural and urban programs. The bill currently incorporates an eight-fold increase in funding for the Federal Aid Urban System – from $100 million per year to $800 million per year – and makes these funds available directly to the local jurisdictions in our major urban areas. Furthermore, the Senate bill would allow buses to be purchased out of the Highway Trust Fund at the discretion of the recipient of these funds. The Cooper-Muskie amendment would take this one step further and would permit local units of government to use these urban transportation funds for any mass transit capital investment as well as for highway construction. It should be remembered that there will continue to be a separate mass transit capital grants program currently running at a $1 billion annual level.
While providing urban flexibility, the Cooper-Muskie amendment would not jeopardize our primary and secondary highway programs. It leaves unchanged from the Senate bill the purpose to which these primary and secondary funds can be put and continues these programs largely unchanged. This is important in the context of maintaining our critical intercity and rural highway network.
The other important amendment that will be coming up for a vote is the Kennedy-Weicker proposal which in some respects is similar to the Cooper-Muskie amendment. However, there is one major difference that is of sufficient consequence that the Administration quite frankly cannot support the Kennedy-Weicker proposal. The difference is that the Kennedy-Weicker proposal would make every non-Interstate highway program, primary and secondary as well as urban, eligible for financing rail rapid transit. Such a step could in some States lead to the diversion of primary and secondary highway funds into subway construction in our major cities – a step not conducive to a balanced transportation approach.
We think that it is essential that we strike a balance between our urban transportation needs and our rural transportation needs. It is our considered opinion that the Cooper-Muskie amendment would strike this balance. It would provide the flexibility so sorely needed in our major urban centers while at the same time insuring the continuation of our very important and very necessary primary and secondary highway programs.
In closing, let me raise one additional issue which has been a matter of concern to representatives of some predominantly rural States. I would stress that under the Cooper-Muskie amendment no State will receive less than it would have otherwise received, and that a State may still use all these funds for highway construction if it chooses.
I hope that this brief explanation of our position on these two important amendments provides you with the information you requested.
Sincerely,
JOHN A. VOLPE.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
September 13, 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 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 lines; 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 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 – numbered 1512. 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.
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.
EXPLANATION: COOPER-MUSKIE AMENDMENT No. 1512 TO S. 3939, FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1972
Listed below are the highway systems and programs for which Highway Trust Fund authorization is provided in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972.
The Cooper-Muskie amendment would not divert any of the following Highway Trust Fund authorizations. Their purpose and use would be maintained as under existing law and the Committee bill.
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year 1974 1975
Interstate --------------------- 3,250 3,250
Primary ---------------------- 950 950
Secondary ------------------- 500 500
Small urban system -------- 50 100
Urban high-density --------- 100 100
Forest highways ------------ 50 50
Public land highways------- 25 25
Parkways --------------------- 75 100
Scenic enhancement-------- 15 15
Highway beautification----- 65 65
Economic growth centers--- 50 100
Alaska assistance ------------ 20 20
Bicycle transportation------- 10 10
Highway safety:
402 programs ---------------- 300 300
403 programs ---------------- 125 125
Bridge replacement---------- 250 250
Pavement marking----------- 10 10
Emergency medical --------- 5 25
Total -------------------------- 5,851 6,020
Only one system would be affected by the Cooper-Muskie amendment – the Urban System in metropolitan areas of 50,000 population and over.
Urban system:
Fiscal year 1974 ------------------- $800
1975 --------------------- 800
S. 3939 as reported by the Committee on Public Works provides that the above Urban System funds may be used for public mass transportation other than rail (existing law)– including the purchase of buses (new). The Cooper-Muskie amendment would remove the restriction against rail.
The Cooper-Muskie amendment was first approved 8-7 in the Committee on Public Works, later reversed by 7-8 vote.
The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has recommended adoption of the Cooper-Muskie amendment by a vote of 10-0. (Report 1103).
The Cooper-Muskie amendment is strongly supported by Secretary Volpe of the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the Administration.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Kentucky yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not want to prolong this discussion needlessly. I think we have covered the issues. I rise as a point of personal privilege to pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) not just for his work on this amendment but also for his work on the Committee on Public Works generally.
The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is leaving the Senate at the end of this session, so that I will never have occasion, perhaps, in connection with any legislation that comes out of that committee, to pay my tribute to him.
We will miss him on that committee. He has adopted a broad, objective, and statesmanlike approach to so many problems.
Take this one. His State is not an urban State in the sense that others are. Yet he is concerned. At a time when many Senators, having made the decision not to run for reelection, would be coasting for the remainder of their term, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has not done that. He has plunged into this difficult and controversial area. He has done it constructively, and I just want him to know that I have enjoyed my association with him, and I shall miss him.
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield me 12 minutes?
Mr. COOPER. Start at 5 minutes and see how it works out as we go along.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MONTOYA). The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. WEICKER. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Maine for their amendment, an amendment which I believe should be adopted on behalf of the people of this country.
I think it is important to point out that neither the Senator from Maine nor the Senator from Kentucky represents a State brimming over with people. In fact, I would imagine it will probably be a lot easier for the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Maine to sit here and go along with business as usual, transportation-wise which in effect, means the building of more highways.
Thus, I want to express the appreciation of a Senator from a State which clearly has urban problems and problems of population to both my colleagues from Kentucky and Maine for being willing to stand up and speak out for a balanced transportation system.
The help and the initiative comes from a rather unusual quarter in a forum where usually we represent only our own interests.
Earlier, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) and I were confronted with a letter from the Secretary of Transportation which was used by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) to beat down the amendment of the Senators from Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Specifically the Senator referred to that section of the letter critical of the Kennedy-Weicker amendment.
I asked at the time whether, since he was using the Secretary of Transportation as support for his position it would be appropriate to also include the rest of the admonitions contained in the letter. He said he would at such time as the issue came before the Senate. It is now before the Senate. In that letter, the Secretary of Transportation states as follows–
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter requesting the Department's views on the amendments to the 1972 Highway Act which will be debated on the Senate floor this week. The first of these amendments is the one proposed by you and Senator Muskie, the passage of which we consider to be of utmost importance.
The 1972 Highway Act that the Senate has already debated goes a long way to strike a balance between the rural and urban programs. The bill currently incorporates an eight-fold increase in funding for the Federal-Aid Urban System – from $100 million per year to $800 million per year – and makes these funds available directly to the local jurisdictions in our major urban areas. Furthermore, the Senate bill would allow buses to be purchased out of the Highway Trust Fund at the discretion of the recipient of these funds. The Cooper-Muskie amendment would take this one step further and would permit local units of government to use these urban transportation funds for any mass transit capital investment as well as for highway construction. It should be remembered that there will continue to be a separate mass transit capital grants program currently running at a $1 billion annual level.
While providing urban flexibility, the Cooper-Muskie amendment would not jeopardize our primary and secondary highway programs. It leaves unchanged from the Senate bill the purpose to which these primary and secondary funds can be put and continues these programs largely unchanged. This is important in the context of maintaining our critical intercity and rural highway network.
Then he goes on to criticize the Kennedy-Weicker amendment.
Finally he says:
We think that it is essential that we strike a balance between our urban transportation needs and our rural transportation needs. It is our considered opinion that the Cooper-Muskie amendment would strike this balance. It would provide the flexibility so sorely needed in our major urban centers while at the same time insuring the continuation of our very important and very necessary primary and secondary highway programs.
Then he raises additional points at the end of the letter. So, if we are to follow the advice of the Secretary of Transportation, which advice was so instrumental in the clobbering of the Kennedy- Weicker amendment, we should now overwhelmingly pass the amendment of the Senators from Kentucky and Maine.
Now, Mr. President, the issue is raised as to the trust fund, "tapping the trust fund."
There is only one trust that I recognize. Each one of us on the floor should recognize that that is the legislative trust that was imposed on each of us in our election to this body. Otherwise why not create a range of trust funds – a trust fund for the military, a trust fund for pollution, a trust fund for agriculture, and on down the line – so that we never have to use either our imagination or creativity nor be held responsible for the consequences of our inaction.
To my way of thinking, there is no question as to what trust is important today. It is that legislative trust which is thrust upon each one of us. Yet the Congress of the United States, both the House and Senate, has managed to avoid fulfilling that trust so far as transportation is concerned by differing its power of creativity to the supposed proprieties of an artificiality known as the highway trust fund.
So I am asking that this Senate of live and warm bodies – rather than create a legal artificiality, create the transportation policies of our country. That means tackling the mobility, environmental, and safety crises of the 1970's rather than rehashing the highway shortages of 1956.
Mobility is achieved differently in different places. In 1972, for example, a new interstate highway from the center of Hartford, Conn., to its suburbs of West Hartford, Avon, Farmington, and Bloomfield makes as much sense – and I say this in all due deference to the Senator from Montana – as a subway from Billings to Kalispell, Mont. Yet that is what cities all over the United States are forced to do by virtue of the Federal Government failing to review its legislative trust in transportation for almost 20 years. Now there is a breakdown or a tapping or an erosion of a trust worthy of dismay.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, it is certainly much more so than the self-serving howls of the lobby guarding the highway trust fund.
Mr. President, a short time after the vote on the Kennedy-Weicker amendment, one of the members of my staff was going back to the Senate Office Building. The highway people traveling in the subway were gleeful over the fact that they had won so overwhelmingly. But these are the last of the highway lobbyists. No longer does the highway trust fund have all of its members. Only recently some of them said, "Let us end the highway trust fund." Henry Ford said, "Let us use the money from the highway trust fund for mass transit." The Mobil Oil Co., in a series of advertisements in the New York Times, says: "Open up the fund. We need balance, coordination, sanity."
Slowly but surely everyone in the country is moving ahead but the U.S. Senate. We have been clinging to the highway trust fund. Today the Senate can change the emphasis toward mass transportation.
Personally, I do not know why there is such stubbornness here in the matter of paying these moneys. I never grieve when good fortune is broadened in this country, only when it remains static or diminishes. As highways were needed in 1956, so they are needed today and probably will continue to be in the future, although probably not in the same form, as secondary roads take priority over the interstate system. However, they will be needed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, what is clear now, however, is that highways alone or in overwhelming proportions are a mobility, environmental and safety disaster. We are well aware on the basis of our own experiences, not from some advertisement, that though long distance travel has improved in this Nation, intermediate and short distance travel has become a nightmare of waiting and that today's traffic jams are no longer restricted to 1 and 2 days, but are expanded to 3 and 4 days.
The United States does not answer the questions, regardlesss of the legalities raised by the Members of this House. How do we answer the heat inversions caused by auto pollution that occur in increasing numbers? How do we answer the fact that businesses are being displaced every day in increasing numbers?
How do we answer the fact that the landscape is being paved over with concrete, all in the name of the God of Mobility, but still no mobility is achieved?
I think it is important that this body maintain our fiscal integrity and maintain the integrity of this program. However, much more important, I think, is that we fulfill our objectives and our objectives and loyalty are not to this highway trust fund. Our loyalties are to the people of this country and their mobility and to the fact that they can live, to the fact that they can breathe, and to the fact that they can move.
That is what I am here for, not to defend a fiction.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, does the Senator from Maine desire to speak again?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have said all I want to say on this matter. In fact, I have said about all I want to say for 1 day anyway.