February 1, 1973
Page 2977
By Mr. MUSKIE (for himself, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BROOKE, Mr. CASE, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. HART, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. HATHAWAY, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. Moss, Mr. PASTORE, Mr. PELL, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. TUNNEY, and Mr. WEICKER)
S. 738. A bill to establish and support State inspection programs for auto emission control systems. Referred to the Committee on Public Works.
By Mr. MUSKIE (for himself, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BROOKE, Mr. CASE, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. HART, Mr. HATHAWAY, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. Moss, Mr. PASTORE, Mr. PELL, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. TUNNEY, and Mr. WEICKER)
S. 739. A bill to allow use of highway funds for any transportation improvements necessary to avoid air pollution dangerous to public health, and to prohibit highway projects which may create air pollution dangerous to public health. Referred to the Committee on Public Works.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on January 18, I announced my intention to introduce three bills designed to improve the flexibility with which the highway program and money from the highway trust fund can be used to reduce traffic congestion in urban areas, aid in controlling air pollution, and begin to reduce the heavy demands of private automobiles for scarce petroleum resources.
I am introducing these three proposals, and I hope that they will receive the kind of attention which a New York Times editorial of January 27 suggested. "Before gas masks and gas rationing become the order of the day," said the Times:
It is time for Congress and the Department of Transportation to draw up the plans and take the action to meet a rapidly developing emergency.
My first proposal is similar to the amendment which Senator COOPER and I proposed last year to allow urban areas the option of using their highway system funds for public transportation. It authorizes $1 billion a year for this purpose. This year, Senator HOWARD BAKER of Tennessee has joined with me in offering this as an amendment to S. 502, the committee bill. Also, Senators BIDEN, BROOKE, BUCKLEY, CASE, CRANSTON, HART, HATFIELD, HATHAWAY, HUMPHREY, JAVITS, PASTORE, PELL, PROXMIRE, RIBICOFF, STEVENSON, and TUNNEY have agreed to cosponsor this amendment.
The second proposal is a separate bill which adds to the Highway Safety Act a requirement that States establish programs to inspect the auto emission control system of each vehicle. This inspection program would be supported from the Highway Trust Fund. Senators BIDEN, BROOKE, CASE, CRANSTON, HART, HATFIELD, HATHAWAY, JAVITS, KENNEDY, MOSS, PASTORE, PELL, RIBICOFF, TUNNEY, and WEICKER have joined as cosponsors of this important legislation.
The third proposal is a bill to allow the Secretary of Transportation to direct up to 10 percent of each year's Highway Trust Fund revenues to emergency programs to provide or improve alternative transportation systems in urban areas which are forced, by air quality regulations, to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles. It also authorizes transfer of funds from highway building programs in those urban areas with dangerously high air pollution levels to other transportation system improvement efforts. Finally, it prohibits approval of any new highway construction projects which may cause air pollution to exceed levels considered safe for public health. Cosponsors include Senators BIDEN, BROOKE, CASE, CRANSTON, HART, HATHAWAY, JAVITS, KENNEDY, MOSS, PASTORE, PELL, RIBICOFF, TUNNEY, and WEICKER.
I ask that the New York Times editorial to which I have referred and texts of the three proposals appear at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMING UP FOR AIR
One of the fiercest battles in the last Congress ended in a stalemate. The Senate voted to open up the sacrosanct Highway Trust Fund to permit the use of $800-million a year for mass transit.
Since the fund currently has annual revenue of $5.8 billion, that was hardly a huge diversion from the normal flow of money for highways. Even so, the House Public Works Committee and the highway lobby refused to yield a cent. As a result, Congress failed to renew the Federal Highway Act.
In the new Congress, lines are already forming for another struggle on this issue. Mass transit advocates are seeking a greater share of money from the fund than the Senate approved last year.
Senator Muskie of Maine, for example, has introduced a bill to allot $1 billion a year for buses, subways and commuter railroads. As they have in the past, critics of the highway program point out that major highways in cities and suburbs often disrupt neighborhoods, invade parks, obliterate historical landmarks, and usually intensify the traffic congestion that they are designed to relieve.
But the Environmental Protection Agency's plan for gasoline rationing in the Los Angeles basin to cut automobile traffic sufficiently to meet Federal clean air standards provides dramatic force to these familiar arguments. Los Angeles suffers the worst smogs, but it is not alone. There are 28 cities in 18 states which, according to E.P.A., will be unable by 1977 to meet Federal air quality standards primarily because of their reliance on private automobiles for their basic transportation. Under those circumstances, an improved transit system – either buses, subways or a radically new technology – becomes not merely a desirable alternative but an imperative necessity.
For that reason, Senator Muskie has introduced a bill to provide emergency help. It would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to use up to 10 per cent of Highway Trust Fund revenues for programs to improve or develop transportation systems in those 28 cities. Since subways are enormously expensive to construct, and commuter railroads are expensive to renovate, this additional sum or $580 million would not turn the problem around in the near future, but it would make possible a faster start. Combined with even a modest shift of commuters from private automobiles to buses, it could diminish the danger.
Before gas masks and gas rationing become the order of the day, it is time for Congress and the Department of Transportation to draw up the plans and take the action to meet a rapidly developing emergency.
AMENDMENT No. 4
On page 4, lines 19 and 20, strike out "$650,000,000" at each place it appears and insert in lieu thereof at each place "$1,050,000,000".
On page 32, line 14, strike out all through line 10 on page 35 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"SEC. 130. (a) Section 142 of title 23, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "'§142. Public transportation–
"'(a) To encourage the development, improvement, and use of public mass transportation systems for the transportation of passengers within urbanized areas, so as to increase the efficiency of the Federal-aid system, sums apportioned in accordance with paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of section 104 of this title shall be available to finance the Federal share of the cost of construction of and acquisition of facilities and equipment for public mass transportation projects. For purposes of this section the term "public mass transportation" means ground transportation which provides general or special service (excluding school bus, charter, or sightseeing service) to the public on a regular and continuing basis, and includes activities designed to coordinate such service with other transportation. Projects which may be financed under this subsection shall include, but not be limited to, exclusive or preferential bus lanes, highway traffic control devices, passenger loading areas and facilities, including shelters, fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities to serve bus, rail, and other public mass transportation passengers, construction of fixed rail facilities, and for the purchase of passenger equipment, including rolling stock for fixed rail."
"'(b) To encourage the development, improvement, and use of public transportation systems for the transportation of passengers in such urban areas and rural areas as may be designated by the State and approved by the Secretary on the basis of local transportation need, so as to increase the traffic capacity of the Federal-aid system, sums apportioned in accordance with paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5) of subsection (b) of section 104 of this title shall be available to finance the Federal share of the costs of projects within their respective systems, for the construction of exclusive or preferential bus lanes, highway traffic control devices, passenger loading areas and facilities, including shelters, fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities to serve bus and other public transportation passengers, and for the purchase of passenger equipment other than rolling stock for fixed rail.
"'(c) The establishment of routes and schedules of such public mass transportation systems in urbanized areas shall be based upon a continuing comprehensive transportation planning process carried on in accordance with section 134 of title 23, United States Code.
"'(d) For all purposes of this title, a project authorized by subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be deemed to be a highway project, and the Federal share payable on account of such project shall be that provided in section 120 of this title.
"'(e) No project authorized by this section shall be approved unless the Secretary of Transportation is satisfied that public mass transportation systems will have adequate capability to utilize fully the proposed project and to maintain and operate properly any equipment acquired under this section.
"'(f) No equipment which is acquired with financial assistance provided by this section shall be available for use in charter, leased, sightseeing, or other service in any area other than the area for which it was acquired.
"'(g) In the acquisition of equipment pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Secretary shall require that such equipment meet the standards prescribed by the Administrator of the Environment Protection Agency under section 202 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and shall authorize, wherever practicable, that such equipment meet the special criteria for low-emission vehicles set forth in section 212 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
"'(h) The Secretary shall assure that the provisions of subsection (a) of section 16 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, relating to planning and design of mass transportation facilities to meet special needs of the elderly and the handicapped (as defined in subsection (d) thereof) shall apply in carrying out the provisions of this section.
"'(i) Funds available for expenditure to carry out the purposes of this section shall be supplementary to and not in substitution for funds authorized and available for obligation pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.
"'(j) The provisions of chapters 1, 3, and 5 of title 23 of the United States Code shall apply in carrying out the provisions of this section except with respect to projects within urban areas as to which the Secretary determines the provisions of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, are more appropriately applicable..
"'(k) No sums apportioned in accordance with paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of section 104 of this title shall be transferred and utilized on any other Federal-aid system than that authorized by subsection (d) of section 103 of this title.
"(b) The table of contents of chapter 1 of title 23 of the United States Code is amended by striking
"'142. Urban highway public transportation.' and inserting in lieu thereof: "'142. Public Transportation.'."
S.738
A bill to establish and support state inspection programs for auto emission control systems
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Chapter 4 of Title 23, United States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
"SEC. 405. Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs.
"(a) After January 1, 1975, the Secretary shall not approve a state highway safety program under section 402 of this Act unless he determines that the state has established a program, certified as adequate by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to inspect the auto emission control systems of motor vehicles which have been sold in accordance with certifications granted under the provisions of Section 206 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), which inspection programs shall include:
"(1) An examination of the emission control system of each motor vehicle licensed to operate in the state, on at least an annual basis, to assure that the emission control system is operating properly, and
"(2) As soon as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has announced the existence of an in-use motor vehicle emission control inspection system in accordance with the provisions of section 207(b) of the Clean Air Act, a test of the operation of the emission control system of each motor vehicle licensed to operate in the state, on at least an annual basis, to assure that emissions of that vehicle do not exceed limits required by regulations published in accordance with section 202 of the Clean Air Act.
"(b) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section shall be used to aid the states in establishing and operating emission control system inspection centers and shall be available to pay up to 75 percentum of the cost to the state of establishing and maintaining such centers, provided, however, that Federal share of the cost of establishing and maintaining such centers may be increased to 90 percentum of the cost to the state where such centers are also used for inspection programs relating to safety, as prescribed in standards published in accordance with section 402 of this Act.
"(c) Sums authorized to be appropriated in accordance with subsection (d) shall be apportioned among the states in the ratio in which the population of each state bears to the total population of all the states, as determined by the latest available Federal census; provided, however, that the annual apportionment of each state shall not be less than one-half of one percentum of the total apportionment.
"(d) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for implementation of this section, out of the Highway Trust Fund, $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974 and $400,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975. Sums appropriated in accordance with this subsection shall remain available until expended.
"(e) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall publish regulations for implementation of
the inspection programs required by this section."
SEC. 2. The table of contents of chapter 4 of title 23 of the United States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof:
"405. Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs"
S. 739
A bill to allow use of highway funds for any transportation improvements necessary to avoid air pollution dangerous to public health, and to prohibit highway projects which may create air pollution dangerous to public health
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. Subsection (f) of Section 103 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding "(1)" immediately following "(f)" and by adding a new paragraph to read as follows:
"(2) (A) The Secretary, upon the joint request of a State Governor and the local governments concerned, shall withdraw his approval for any route or portion thereof designated or selected in accordance with the provisions of subsections (b), (c), or (e) of this section and within an urbanized area where he determines that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has certified or otherwise stated that the air quality region which contains such urbanized area will fail to achieve, by July 1, 1975, levels of air quality necessary for attainment of the primary ambient air quality standard specified for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons) in accordance with Section 109 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.).
"(B) Amounts apportioned to a State for projects on routes or portions thereof for which approval has been withdrawn in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall be transferred to and added to the amounts apportioned to such State under paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of section 104 of title 23, United States Code for the account of the urbanized area from which the withdrawal of the routes or portions thereof was made.".
SEC. 2. Subsection (a) of section 104 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding "(1)" immediately following "(a)" and by adding a new paragraph to read as follows:
"(2) (A) Whenever an apportionment is made of the sums authorized to be appropriated for expenditure upon the Federal-aid systems, the Secretary shall deduct a sum in such amount not to exceed 10 per centum of all sums so authorized, as the Secretary deems necessary to provide emergency assistance for transportation system improvements in those air quality regions within a state which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has certified or otherwise stated will fail to achieve, by July 1, 1975, levels of air quality necessary for attainment of the primary ambient air quality standard specified for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons) in accordance with section 109 of the Clean Air Act.
“(B) Amounts made available to a state in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be transferred to and added to the amounts apportioned to such State under paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of section 104 of title 23, United States Code, for the account of the urbanized area within the air quality region designated by the Secretary to receive the emergency assistance.
SEC. 3. Section 105 of title 23, United States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection to read as follows:
"(h) The Secretary shall not approve any project in accordance with the provisions
of this section where he receives a statement from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency that such project may result in a failure to attain any primary ambient air quality standard specified in accordance with section 109 of the Clean Air Act."
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I would like to make a brief statement in support of the amendment proposed by the senior Senator from Maine which would allow urban areas to use urban highway funds to supplement other funds available for capital expenditures on public transportation systems.
This amendment is substantially the same as Cooper-Muskie amendment which was adopted by the Senate during action on the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1972 during the last session of Congress. I am sure that this cause will never be more ably championed than by Senator JOHN SHERMAN COOPER during the extensive committee, floor and conference consideration of that measure. I ask unanimous consent that a portion of his individual views contained in the Senate Public Works Committee Report of the 1972 act be inserted at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAKER. During the last Congress the proponents of the utilization of the Highway Trust Fund to finance the construction of fixed rail transit systems in urban areas were met with the criticism that the proposal would put in jeopardy the completion of existing highway programs, especially the interstate system which is still several years from completion. This criticism is unfounded. There is not a Member of this body who has any greater dedication to the rapid completion of the interstate system than I do. But the Muskie amendment, and the Cooper- Muskie amendment before it, would not divert to public transportation even one penny of funds allocated to the interstate program, to any other rural road program or intercity program.
The proposal would permit urban governments, which have become disenchanted with continued highway building as a response to urban transportation needs, to commit funds coming to them for their urban highway system established by section 103(d) of the Highway Act to the construction of alternate modes of transportation. In this way our cities would be allowed to respond with maximum flexibility to their peculiar needs without fear of forfeiting their share of the highway trust fund. With the high cost of construction of urban public transportation systems and the financial plight of most urban governments, all modes of transportation must compete equally for available funds or critical policy decisions regarding the urban environment may never be made. The time has come for an objective appraisal of transportation problems in the Nation's fast growing urban areas.
I would make briefly two further points with regard to the amendment proposed by Senator MUSKIE. I feel it is imperative that State governments retain ultimate control over the coordination of transportation systems throughout their State.
The basic mechanism of the Highway Act provides the State final approval authority over all highway projects financed out of the Highway Trust Fund. This authority would apply also, I am advised, to development of public transportation systems under the amendment. It should be made clear that this final approval authority may be exercised by the State to prevent use of urban highway funds for the construction of public transportation systems only where the proposed diversion would directly interfere with development of nonurban highway programs.
Responsibility for planning and development of urban systems must devolve to a greater degree to urban governments.
There is one other point that I would make in explaining my support for this proposed amendment. The highway trust fund is founded upon the proposition that those using the highway system by special use taxes pay for the construction and improvement of the system.
While I do not believe that the pay-as-you-go concept must tie our hands in applying the fund to the development of badly needed alternate modes of transportation, I do not believe either that we can afford to scrap the concept so basic to the funding method. I strongly feel that we must establish a mechanism whereby transit systems supported by funds from the highway trust fund will contribute to the fund in turn.
I realize that at the outset the contributions of these systems could nowhere approach the levels needed from the fund. But I can foresee the day when mass transportation in our metropolitan areas, if efficiently administered, will enjoy such wide use as to be capable of making a substantial contribution.
This is a complex and difficult proposition. For that reason I intend to propose an amendment to the Highway Act commissioning a study by the Department of Transportation of revenue mechanisms, rates, and the impact of various alternatives. I believe that with such an approach mass transit systems can become a viable partner in this Nation's transportation network.
EXCERPT FROM INDIVIDUAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF MR. COOPER – PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1972
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION
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.
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 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 the Committee bill 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 Committee and intend to offer in the Senate, in substantially the form I am asking be printed at the close of these views – and which I know is of interest to a number of other Senators.
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. Both the Committee bill, which provides Federal funds for the purchase of buses, and my amendment, are in no way designed to permit the reduction or displacement of Federal financing for urban mass transportation. 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. The possibilities for improvement include especially the development of personal rapid transit (known at D.O.T. as "people movers") for which the design choice of rail, or rubber tire on concrete guideways, should be primarily an engineering and economic decision rather than a statutory policy determination.