March 14, 1973
Page 7937
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate once again accept this amendment. I withhold the remainder of my time.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I reserve my time to answer the questions of the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to the address of the distinguished Senator from Maine. I have sympathy for the needs of the large cities when it comes to solving their worsening transportation problems. We must all recognize that many large cities simply cannot solve their problem by building more highways. They must turn to rail transit systems if people are to be moved efficiently, without bigger traffic jams and even more air pollution.
My State, however, is a rural state. We have no large cities. We need highways.
Representing Idaho, I would like to support the Senator's amendment, but first I need an answer to the determinative question, where my state is concerned. If this amendment is agreed to, would the amendment diminish, in any degree, the amount of money that Idaho would get for building highways, below the amount authorized in the bill, as reported by the committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not in any way.
Mr. CHURCH. Do I understand that Idaho would not lose a single cent for highway construction, if the Senator's amendment is adapted?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is absolutely correct. May I say that my State is in the same situation as his except I do not think we have cities as large as even the State of Idaho, so there is no likelihood that the State of Maine will turn to rail transit under the provisions of this bill. As my people understand it, just as they do not want their transportation policy dictated by people of urban America, neither do they want to dictate to the people of urban America how their highway transportation funds shall be used.
Mr. CHURCH. The principle behind the Senator's amendment, then, is the salutary principle that people at the local level should be entitled to decide far themselves how to best solve their own transportation problems?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has cited it with precision.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a longer statement covering the point raised by the distinguished Senator from Idaho, as well as a fact sheet relating to the amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENT
The Amendment I propose will in no way result in any decrease in highway funds allocated to rural areas or any increase to highway funds allocated to urban areas. My amendment in no way affects any of the allocation formulas under the bill. All my Amendment does is add the option of rail systems to the options for which urban funds and urban funds alone may be used.
If my Amendment is alleged to threaten a decrease in rural funds, then the Committee bill has the same fault, for the Committee bill creates the allocation formulas under which these funds will be distributed. But that is not the case. The Committee bill ably drafted under the leadership of Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Bentsen and full Committee Chairman, Mr. Randolph will not result in any loss of funds to rural areas because of the assistance it provides for urban areas. And because the Committee bill does not result in that decrease of funds to rural areas, my Amendment cannot.
IS THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND REALLY SACRED?
In 1971, the last year for which information is available, revenue came to the trust fund from eight tax sources. Six of these eight taxes were on the books prior to 1956 contributing money to the general treasury and financing all varieties of federal activities. During the 25 years preceding 1957, when the Trust Fund began functioning, more than 30 billion in 1971 dollars were generated by these taxes for the general treasury. Only two new taxes – the tread rubber tax enacted in 1956 and the parts and accessories tax enacted in 1966 – have contributed solely to the Trust Fund since their inception.
In 1971, those six pre-existing tax sources accounted for 98% of the total tax revenues committed to the Trust Fund ($5.426 billion, out of $5.541 billion). The two new taxes accounted for merely 2% of the total ($115 million out of $5.541 billion). (Note: the remaining $184 million contributed to the Trust Fund came from interests on investments.)
To pretend that the very legitimacy or viability of these pre-existing taxes depends on their expenditure for concrete and asphalt is more an ex post rationalization than a meaningful guide to what we decide in 1973.
Neither the Trust Fund nor the federal highway program is financed only from highway-related tax revenues. Governmental units at the city, county, state and federal levels contributed $4.2 billion from general revenue sources for highway purposes in FY 1972. A large share of these outlays were for the maintenance of federally-funded highways. Many of these revenues came from non-highway users such as the aged, the poor, and others, who rely primarily on mass transit.
Non-highway users help to build and maintain highways, and they contribute to the Trust Fund.
Much of the $4.2 billion from general revenue sources which is used for highway maintenance comes from the aged, the poor, and others who rely mainly on mass transit. And general taxpayers, whether or not they are Federal highway users, absorb still another substantial indirect highway cost as a result of erosion of the tax base due to highway preemption of taxable land.
There are now almost 4 million miles of road in the United States which consume about 35,000 square miles (an area equal to the size of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island combined).
Mass transit riders have contributed more than $100 million to the Highway Trust Fund since 1957. This amounts to 10% of the entire Federal contribution for mass transit prior to FY 1973.
Even some highway users don't get a fair return from the Trust Fund – especially if they live in the cities. Urban areas account for more than half of all Federal gas tax revenues, yet less than 10% of Federal-aid mileage is found in urban areas. Also, all highway users, whether or not they travel on federally funded roads, pay a flat 4 cents per gallon gas tax that goes to the Highway Trust Fund.