October 18, 1972
Page 37309
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1972 – CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on S. 3939, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3939) to authorize appropriations for the construction of certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the consideration of the conference report?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report. (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of today.)
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, this matter is being called up at this time because the leadership has been informed it has been cleared on all sides, and this is the result of lengthy meetings between House and Senate conferees.
I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation of 10 minutes on the pending conference report, the time to be equally divided between the distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and the distinguished manager of the bill (Mr. RANDOLPH).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PACKWOOD. I object.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I withdraw the request.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, again, with the understanding that it is agreeable to all sides as far as the leadership is concerned, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation of 10 minutes to be equally divided between the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and the manager of the bill, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. Let us have order in the Chamber, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, for approximately 40 hours the House and Senate conferees on S. 3939 have been working to bring the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972 to our respective bodies for final passage. Late this afternoon the conferees agreed upon a measure. Eleven of the 12 Senate conferees gave approval to the conference report and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. BROOKE) abstained from voting. There was complete agreement of all conferees of the House. This is not to say that any conferees were satisfied 100-percent with the outcome of the conference. We recognize the importance of this legislation and we recognize the complexity of this measure. It is the composite thinking of men of understanding and purpose who were attempting to bring to fruition legislation that can be signed into law by the President to continue the highway program. We have also given dimension to other forms of transportation which have not only the approval of the American people but also the demand of the American people that we meet some of the unmet needs that have accumulated.
Mr. President, this bill will enable the Federal-aid highway program to continue without interruption. Authorizations for the interstate, primary, secondary, and urban highway systems are extended for 1 year. The 1-year authorization is a departure from our traditional practice. It was agreed on after extensive discussion to assure that the Senate and House of Representatives would address themselves to the highway program early next year. It is the desire of the conferees to consider highway matters in 1973 so that both Houses of the Congress can review several provisions of the Senate and House bills that were of great controversy in the conference.
Operating under the time constraints of a Congress preparing to adjourn for the year, we were unable to agree on these items, and we were unable to give them the deliberation needed to reach an accord.
The conference report is, however, more than just a simple extension of the existing highway program. Provisions of the two bills that were identical or substantively alike were included, as were those on which there was no disagreement. The result is a bill that makes important improvements in our highway and mass transit programs.
Authorizations for primary, secondary, and urban highways are substantially increased, reflecting the recognition by both Houses of the urgent need to accelerate the development and rebuilding of these vital traffic arteries. The highway safety program is modified to make it more effective in reducing the deaths and injuries on our roads, and increased funding is authorized. The bill continues and refines the highway beautification program designed to remove blight from our roadsides.
A major feature of this bill is the inclusion of greatly expanded authorizations for urban mass transit construction grants and for operating subsidies badly needed by many of our country's financially pressed transportation systems. These authorizations are from general fund appropriations and were adopted virtually as they passed the Senate.
One of the principal items of controversy on which we could not agree was the concept of funding any type of urban public transportation activities through the Highway Trust Fund. This concept was embodied in the Cooper-Muskie amendment adopted by the Senate which would have given urban areas the choice of using urban highway funds for either highways or public transportation. Such an approach was totally unacceptable to the House conferees. At the same time, Senate conferees were opposed to the inclusion of a House provision to create a new highway system known as the priority primary system, a 10,000-mile network of express roads which we had not considered and on which we had no information.
These were the major items on which the conferees could not concur, and they are sure to be among those which will receive searching inquiry during the first session of the 93d Congress.
Mr. President, this conference was a difficult one, but it was carried out by men dedicated to the improvement of transportation of all types. It was carried out by men who are aware of their responsibilities and are determined to meet them. It appeared last Saturday that we would fail to produce a bill. But after considering the situation and recognizing that the highway program could not be allowed to come to a halt, I reconvened the conference this morning. I am glad to report that on this occasion we succeeded.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for two questions? I know time is limited, and I shall not be long. But on two issues that concern me, we might clarify the record.
One is with respect to the Cooper-Muskie amendment. We were unable to persuade the House conferees to accept the Senate provision.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. We undertook, therefore, to extend the ABCD system just 1 year so that we could have another crack at this provision next year.
The House was adamant on two matters for much of the conference. Finally, today, we were able to get the House to agree to the 1-year extension, which gives us a crack at this issue next year. Is that correct?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. The next question is this: With respect to the priority primary system the language of the conference report, I think, indicates that it is the intent of the conferees to establish this system. From my point of view, what is indicated is not an authorization of this system, but simply an intent that the Congress take it under consideration next year, and that the system cannot be established without action by the Congress. Is that correct?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct: a study, then action.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.