June 23, 1977
Page 20549
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate now has before it S. 208, the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1977. This is a major mass transit bill, authorizing over $5.6 billion in future spending, and I am certain the Senate will want to know how passage of the bill could impact on the fiscal 1978 and future Federal budgets.
As I mentioned, S. 208 provides total authorizations of over $5.6 billion. The bulk of this, $4.8 billion, represents future year authorizations for UMTA's capital grant program. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office indicates that it likely will not be necessary to appropriate any of this until fiscal 1980. The reason is that there still is approximately $3.9 billion in contract authority available from funds provided by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 and the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974. This remaining contract authority must be fully utilized before there will be any need to appropriate from the $4.8 billion capital grant authorization contained in S. 208.
Of the remaining $0.8 billion in authorizations, $0.5 billion represent a ceiling authorization for miscellaneous UMTA research and administrative expenses for the next 3 years. These expenses are already authorized under current law, but not at any specific amount. The remaining $0.3 billion provide additional authorizations for UMTA's formula grant and rail commuter subsidy programs. These funds would be expected to be appropriated during fiscal 1978 through fiscal 1980.
The portion earmarked for fiscal 1978 is $60 million.
Obviously, enactment of S. 208 would have minimal impact in the fiscal year immediately ahead of us. In fact, enactment of the bill as reported, and full funding of its new fiscal 1978 authorization, would result in additional fiscal 1978 budget impacts of only $60 million in budget authority and $85 million in outlays. These impacts would fall in function 400, the Commerce and Transportation category of the budget.
The fiscal 1978 first budget resolution includes targets of $20 billion in budget authority and $19.4 billion in outlays for Commerce and Transportation. Given the outlook for spending in this budget function, I believe it is safe to conclude that funding of S. 208's minimal new authorizations for fiscal 1978 would not result in any excessive pressure on the fiscal 1978 first budget resolution targets.
Mr. President, as I mentioned, the great bulk of the authorizations in S. 208, $4.8 billion, is intended to permit future year appropriations for UMTA's capital grant program. What the bill therefore does, is to provide some assurance to the Nation's cities that the UMTA capital grant program is going to continue into the long range future. I agree with the authorizing committee that the cities need long term assurance in order to plan effectively for their future transportation needs.
Having said this, however, I feel I should remind the Senate that unlike the Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 which provided contract authority, the bill before us provides authorizations for appropriations. Therefore enactment of the bill we are considering today will result in new budget authority and outlays only to the extent provided in appropriation acts.
Further, as I indicated earlier, the great bulk of these appropriations will be for UMTA's capital grant program and will not be needed until fiscal 1980 and beyond.
This means that although it may pass S. 208 today, the Senate will not be forfeiting its opportunity to control the level of funding of the capital grant program through future budget resolutions and appropriations bills. This is fortunate, I feel, for it appears that there are a number of important questions concerning the capital grant program which need to be resolved.
The questions to which I refer go to the issue of what type of mass transit project financed with Federal assistance can best and most economically solve the cities' transportation related problems. S. 208, as I understand it, proposes an authorization level sufficient to allow a heavy emphasis on major fixed rail projects, including the construction of costly new fixed rail systems and major extensions of existing rail systems in a few selected cities. This is the most expensive type of capital project.
On the other hand, there seems to be a growing number of people — including President Carter, in a much publicized note to Transportation Secretary Adams — who believes the cities' transportation objectives can be adequately served by more emphasis on bus purchases, preferential bus lanes, priority access highways, minor rail system improvements, and similar projects which have as their basic objective improving the productivity of the existing transportation network. These types of capital projects cost much less than major fixed rail projects, and in consequence would involve much less budget impact, both for the Federal Government and for the cities.
Fortunately, we are not required today to choose among these alternative mass transit investment strategies. S. 208 provides sufficient authorizations for the discretionary capital grant program that either a high or low cost capital project strategy can be adopted. Hopefully, we will know much more about alternative mass transit strategies and their comparative costs and benefits before the appropriations committee is required to recommend levels of funding for this legislation.
As a final comment, I would add only that I feel it is unfortunate that the Senate is being asked today to take a position on the long range authorization future of the capital grant program, when it appears there is no necessity for, or prospect of enacting, legislation this year. The questions surrounding the cost and effectiveness of alternative capital grant strategies are sufficiently important that the Senate could profitably use additional time to acquire better information for making legislative decisions on this important program. And there is such time available — if we were to choose to use it.
As I pointed out earlier, no new authorization for appropriations is needed for the capital grant program for fiscal 1978, and likely will not be necessary until fiscal 1980. In addition, the House authorizing committee has indicated it has no intention to report legislation this year. The administration has stated that it does not intend to submit its proposal until early next year, and also has said that it believes enactment of legislation this year is premature and unnecessary. I note further that the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator PROXMIRE, has filed dissenting views on S. 208 in which he agrees with the administration on these points. I am sorry the Banking Committee chose not to accept the counsel of its chairman.
Mr. President, I believe the major capital grant program provisions of S. 208 should be held over until next year. However, enactment of S. 208 would not necessarily commit the Congress to any specific capital grant strategy. Rather, it would provide an authorization level that gives the Appropriations Committee the flexibility to fund whatever specific types and mix of capital grants finally are determined to be most appropriate. For this reason, although I would prefer to have another year to study the issue, I have decided to vote in favor of S. 208. I encourage my colleagues to do likewise.