October 14, 1972
Page 36350
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter dated October 12, 1972, from the Secretary of Transportation, indicating that for the most part there is sufficient remaining contract authority in the various categories of highway programs to carry the total program along at its current level pending congressional action early in the next session, together with a statement.
There being no objection, the letter and the statement were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE SECRETARY of TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, D.C.,
October 12, 1972.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR COOPER: Per your request we have reviewed the consequences of having no Federal-aid highway legislation enacted during this session of Congress. Quite frankly my first preference is to have a highway bill this year along the lines suggested in my letter of October 10 to the Conference Committee. However, if agreement cannot be reached on a bill along the lines suggested in my letter, our review indicates that if Congress acts with dispatch upon its return next year; and takes 'one' additional action discussed below, there would be no adverse impact to the overall highway program. For the most part there is sufficient remaining contract authority in the various categories of highway programs to carry the total program along at its current level, pending Congressional action early in the next session.
Funding problems in a few individual States during this interim period could be eased if the 1974 Interstate authorization, which is already available under the 1970 Federal-Aid Highway Act, were apportioned to the States by the end of this calendar year. The only action required to enable the Department to make this apportionment is for the Congress to enact simple legislation to permit the use of the 1972 interstate cost estimate as the basis for the apportionment. The result of this legislative action would be to insure that every State would be able to carry out its highway program at the full funding level anticipated in the President's 1973 budget.
It is, of course, essential that Congress act with dispatch upon its return next session to enact highway legislation so that the 1973 highway program can be carried out as planned.
If you wish to review in more detail the highway funding situation for the various States, my staff is prepared to meet with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
JOHN A. VOLPE.
STATEMENT OF SENATORS COOPER, MUSKIE, BOGGS, BUCKLEY, BROOKE, PROXMIRE
We have failed to reach agreement on legislation to reform and extend the Federal Aid Highway Program for two years.
When it appeared that agreement might not be reached, the Senate Conferees, by unanimous vote, proposed to the House Conferees the following program to maintain the Federal Aid Highway Program:
1. Authorization of the Interstate System for two years;
2. One-year authorization for every other existing Federal-aid construction program, including primary and secondary roads, rural and urban, public domain and others;
3. All provisions identical in both the Senate and House bills;
4. Title III of the Senate bill, authorizing $3 billion mass transit appropriations from the general fund, plus operating expenses.
The clearly stated purpose of the proposal by the Senate Conferees was to maintain and continue the Federal Aid to Highway programs. It did not change in any way the present use of Highway Trust Funds. It would enable the Committees and the Congress to act next year on the issues dividing the conferees. Principally, these are use by metropolitan areas of highway trust funds apportioned only for the urban system, for alternative transportation modes, including rail transit, if such areas so determined (Cooper-Muskie Amendment); and authorization in the House bill of a new system of up to 10,000 miles of "priority primary" highways, estimated at minimum to cost $10 billion, on which the Senate Committee had not held hearings and the Senate had never considered.
The House Conferees rejected the Senate proposal.
We regret that the House rejected not only the Senate bill, but repeatedly the above proposals by the Senate Conferees to continue the Federal-Aid Highway programs.
The House bill, unlike the Senate bill, did not provide for the use of urban system funds for alternative transportation modes, including rail rapid transit in urbanized areas. The House bill, unlike the Senate bill, did not provide for allocation of urban system funds by population, thus assuring amounts for each urbanized area. And, the House bill, unlike the Senate bill, did not provide for the use and control of urban highway funds by metropolitan area transportation agencies established by State law.
We believe these features of the Senate bill are essential elements to a balanced transportation system in this country. Continuation of present practices will result in continued decay in urban. life, and increased deterioration of the environment. We believe that city officials and the people they represent are entitled to choose the best use of their limited transportation resources.
We emphasize again that the bill approved by the Senate – and the proposal of the Senate Conferees – would not diminish in any way funds apportioned to primary, secondary or any other Federal-Aid Highway programs.
The new Congress will again address the Federal-Aid Highway Program. The new Congress will again have an opportunity to determine how urban transportation needs may best be met. We are certain that members of the Congress committed to a balanced transportation program in the United states can and will act expeditiously next year.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I have a personal affection for my colleague from Kentucky, who, through our nearly 14 years together on the Senate Public Works Committee, has addressed himself to the problems of transportation in a very effective way, although we have sometimes disagreed. We have disagreed in connection with the conference and what was done there.
I do not want to continue the comments. We have presented our statements. I do join with the Senator from Kentucky in saying I hope that the members of the Senate will read very carefully, because they are not in the Chamber at this hour, what has been said as a result of this collapse of the conference.
I only add this: I think that in doing what even Senator COOPER would expect me to do, I must reiterate that both bills called for 2-year programs, as he will remember. The House Parliamentarian indicated, and so reported to the conference, that any change of the 2-year period would be subject to a point of order in the House of Representatives. That is a factual statement, for whatever it is worth. Again I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I appreciate as always his participation and his attention to the duties of the conference.