August 1, 1973
Page 27207
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF1973 – CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 502) to authorize appropriations for the construction of certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, and for other purposes.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine, who was a tough, able, and fair negotiator in the conference for the Senate majority position.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this conference report on authorizations for the Federal-aid highway program which is now before the Senate is the result of a most difficult negotiation on the part of your conferees. The agreement is not as progressive or far-reaching legislation as passed by the Senate, nor is it as restrictive, narrowly focused or expensive as the bill passed by the House.
The conference agreement was made difficult by diametrically different views on the issue of flexibility in use of highway trust funds. Senator HOWARD BAKER of Tennessee and I proposed, and the Senate adopted, an amendment to permit cities to utilize urban trust funds for the most appropriate, locally determined transportation use. The House bill continued the existing law of prohibition on diversion of highway trust funds for public transportation projects.
The conference agreement provides for flexibility in the use of urban system highway trust funds in fiscal year 1976. In fiscal year 1975 up to $200 million of urban system highway funds can be used for the acquisition of buses and in 1974 the old rules would apply.
Mr. President, the conferences report on the Federal-Aid Highway Act establishes the principle of flexibility.
Even though significant funding authority for the urban mass transportation program is provided, there is no assurance that these funds will be committed. The Administrator may still refuse to enter into contracts to commit these funds.
Other key provisions of the Senate bill which would have required early consideration of alternative transportation modes and public participation in those decisions which would have permitted emergency funding of transportation alternatives in urban areas with critical air quality problems, and which would have permitted the transfer of disputed urban interstate funds to other transportation purposes in urban areas were deleted from the conference agreement at the insistence of the House.
Mr. President, we have not charted the new course proposed by the Senate bill, but the conference agreement signals a change in direction.
The Senate conferees spent many days and evenings negotiating with the other body on this legislation. I can assure my colleagues that every effort was made to retain the Senate position intact, especially the Muskie-Baker amendment. The chairman of the Senate conferees,
Senator LLOYD BENTSEN and the chairman of the Public Works Committee, Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH joined with Senators BAKER, BUCKLEY, STAFFORD, and myself in a committee effort to maintain the Senate position. Senator BENTSEN and Senator RANDOLPH deserve the plaudits of their colleagues for this effort in behalf of a position which they disapproved in the Senate. The fact that we prevailed at all in providing flexibility in the third year of this new authorization is a credit to the efforts in behalf of the Senate which Senator BENTSEN and Senator RANDOLPH made.
Mr. President, I am going to support the conference report. In less than 2 fiscal years we will be able to embark on a new era of urban transportation options.
In fiscal year 1975, the fiscal year for which the budget is presently being prepared, there will be $200 million in highway trust funds for acquisition of buses. That $200 million will be absolutely essential to communities with air pollution, congestion, noise, and other transportation problems which require immediate solutions.
By 1976, urban areas, because of the action of this Congress, will have the opportunity to utilize their share of highway trust funds for vital urban transportation needs.
By 1976, when this program will require new congressional action, we in the Congress will have a better understanding of the real transportation needs of America's cities and the demand these needs will make on the urban system portion of the trust fund.
In the interim, we will have had an opportunity to review the highway trust fund in order to consider making transportation generally rather than highways alone a national commitment.
Mr. President, it is important to note that this legislation will provide a new source of funds for urban mass transportation immediately. Not only does the bill authorize $3 billion for the Federal urban mass transportation program but also advance contract authority is provided for communities which choose to construct public transportation systems rather than highways.
Under the provisions of the conference agreement, any community which elects not to use its fiscal year 1974 urban system funds for highways may obtain an equal amount of Treasury funds – through contract authority – for public transportation purposes. While this is not assured funding as provided in 1976 pursuant to the Muskie-Baker amendment, it will provide a significant opportunity to test the will of this administration to commit Federal dollars to immediate transportation needs.
Communities throughout the country are aware of the need to provide alternative transportation procedures in order to meet Federal air quality control plans. These plans cannot be implemented without a massive commitment of Federal dollars. It is incumbent upon this administration to see that funds, equal to amounts frozen in the Trust Fund, are committed as rapidly and as effectively as possible to achieve the goals set forth in the Clean Air Act to reduce the hazards which air pollution poses to so many of our people.
As I said at the time the Senate acted on these amendments to the Federal-Aid Highway Act, we are beginning to reshape and redirect transportation policies and priorities. It is a modest beginning. We have commenced an effort to diversify and make more flexible the uses of the Nation's limited transportation funds. We must now examine in the years ahead how to do a better job to assure adequate transportation for all America.
Mr. President, I wish to commend the distinguished Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) and the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Public Works, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), for their outstanding leadership and commitment to the Senate positions during one of the most frustrating conferences it has been my pleasure to be involved in during my 15 years in the Senate.
The Muskie-Baker amendment, so-called, was the chief point of difference between the Senate and House conferees. The views of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from West Virginia on this issue are very clear in the RECORD of the Senate. The majority of us represented the Senate point of view. However, let me say that the Senate point of view would not have had the impact it did on the final report of the conference had it not been for the contributions of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from West Virginia.
There is often a lot of criticism on the floor of the Senate to the effect that Senate conferees do not undertake to fight for the Senate position as ardently as they should. I can think of no better example of the leadership taken in this matter, and the manner in which Senate conferees should act, than that to which I have referred. I compliment the two Senators and publicly express my appreciation for their support and hard work.
They will address themselves to the details of the conference report, as they should. I simply rise to give my support to them in part as repayment for the support they gave me in our effort to reach a compromise in the conference.