[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16369-S16370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                 1996.

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on the Transportation appropriations bill. I would just like to 
take a moment to acknowledge the exceptional work of Senator Lautenberg 
and Senator Hatfield in developing this compromise approach that is now 
on the floor.
  This is a critical time for our public infrastructure investments. 
There are many of us here in the Senate who are deeply disturbed by the 
level of reduction on the investment side of the ledger, not just in 
public infrastructure, but in human beings. I am convinced we will pay 
a price for that. But measured against the overall choices that we are 
making in the Senate right now, this transportation bill, I think, has 
done its best, and Senators Hatfield and Lautenberg have done their 
best, to strike a balance between transit and passenger rail and 
highway construction programs.
  I would have liked to have seen that balance be a little bit 
different, but I still am heartened by the fact that they held onto 
important initiatives and, I might add from a parochial point of view, 
some important initiatives for New England and for Massachusetts. I 
commend them for doing that.
  I am particularly pleased that the conference report recognizes the 
significance of multimodal and fixed guideway transportation projects 
as well as the need to maintain Federal support for Amtrak and the 
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. I am concerned that operating 
subsidies for mass transit are significantly reduced and in some 
places, particularly in rural or outlying areas, we are going to see 
reductions that have a dramatic impact on low-income, disabled, and 
senior citizens' ability to be able to get to work, to get to shopping 
places, to move around the community. And while it may look OK on the 
short-term ledger of a budget, those things build community as much as 
a lot of other things that we care about. When people cannot get 
somewhere, storeowners lose, community centers lose, and the people 
lose.
  So not having a vibrant transit system is not somehow going to be 
made up, we know, by the private sector because the bottom line has 
always been that the private sector cannot make money at it. That is 
why we have the public transit in the first place.
  I must express my serious disappointment in the severe reductions in 
transit operating assistance that will likely mean a reduction of some 
$3 million for Massachusetts.
  The conference report reflects the crossroads at which Congress finds 
itself with Amtrak. Despite the many benefits of passenger rail, some 
Members do not consider investment in passenger rail an appropriate use 
of taxpayer dollars. Others--and I count myself among this group--know 
from previous experience both here and abroad that the capital-
intensive nature of passenger rail makes it unlikely to survive as a 
viable transportation mode without some form of Government support. 
Indeed, the U.S. ranks 35th among the nations of the world in per 
capita spending on passenger rail--behind such countries as Belarus, 
Botswana, and Guinea. In appropriating $635 million for Amtrak, which 
is about $160 million less than the fiscal year 1995 funding level, the 
conferees anticipate enactment of legislation to reform Amtrak. As a 
member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has reported legislation 
to restructure Amtrak so as to place it on a path toward greater fiscal 
stability and accountability, I pledge to help move this bill forward 
as soon as possible.
  My concern for passenger rail is particularly keen when it comes to 
the Northeast corridor and the need to move ahead with track work, 
upgrading maintenance facilities and completion of the electrification 
of the northern section as soon as possible. This project is vital to 
reducing congestion in the corridor, which in turn will result in 
important environmental, energy and employment benefits. The $115 
million the conference report provides for NECIP, some $85 million less 
than in fiscal year 1995, will enable work to move forward, albeit more 
slowly.
  Another area of special importance to Massachusetts is mass transit. 
I am frankly disappointed and disturbed by the significant reduction in 
funding agreed to by the conferees for mass transit operating 
assistance. From $710 million in fiscal year 1995 down to the $400 
million contained in the conference report, this severe cut in funding 
will have a devastating effect on mass transit systems, particularly in 
the Pioneer Valley, Worcester, Attleboro, and the Lawrence-Haverhill 
areas. For Pioneer Valley alone, this means a $1 million reduction, or 
a cut of more than 47 percent in Federal funds. A reduction of this 
magnitude will most certainly force the transit authorities to curtail 
service and raise fares, creating significant hardship for those who 
depend on mass transit--such as the elderly, disabled, and low-income 
riders--for basic shopping needs, and to commute to work and to school. 
It is my hope that this sharp downward trend in critical mass transit 
funding will be reversed next year.
  I am grateful to the conferees for including in their report more 
than $20 million for the south Boston Piers Transitway. The transitway 
is a critical component of the State implementation plan, and is 
anticipated to serve 22,000 daily riders. This construction project has 
stayed on schedule and on budget, and has an impressive cost-
effectiveness index of $9 to $16 per new passenger trip.
  Another important project that will receive $2 million through the 
Federal Transit Administration's bus and bus facilities account in 
fiscal year 1996 is the Worcester Intermodal Center. The center, in a 
renovated Union Station in Worcester, MA, will provide convenient 
access to commuter rail, buses, and taxis to Worcester County's 710,000 
residents.
  I have heard some concerns expressed about the provisions of the 
conference report relating to reform of the Federal Aviation 
Administration, FAA, and particularly to those sections dealing with 
the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. As a member 
of the authorizing committee that oversees the FAA, I intend to monitor 
closely the FAA's personnel reform plan to assure that the labor rights 
of FAA workers are fully protected and will keep the statement of the 
conference managers to this effect in mind as the Commerce Committee 
considers legislation to restructure the FAA.

  Another area about which I am concerned is funding for the U.S. Coast 
Guard. The Coast Guard is vital to my State of Massachusetts, with its 
hundreds of miles of coastline, harsh weather conditions, bustling 
maritime industry, hearty fishing industry, and thriving recreational 
boating population.
  Indeed, the Coast Guard is vital to the safety and well-being of 
citizens in every coastal State, and in every State with navigable 
waters. Today, over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives within the 
coastal zone, and directly benefits from the services the Coast Guard 
provides. But, indirectly, the Coast Guard, in the performance of its 
mission, protects every American. In fact, more than two-thirds of the 
total budget for the Coast Guard goes to operating expenses to protect 
public safety and the marine environment, enforce laws and treaties, 
maintain aids to navigation, prevent illegal drug trafficking and 
illegal immigration, and preserve defense readiness.
  With this high demand for services I am amazed that the Coast Guard 
would consider reducing its operations but in response to our budget 
dilemma that is exactly what it is doing. The Coast Guard is in the 
process of an internal downsizing and streamlining program which in 4 
years will reduce its size by 12 percent or 4,000 people, and cut $400 
million. However, despite these cost cutting efforts, the funding for 
the 

[[Page S16370]]

Coast Guard provided by the conference--$2.579 billion for operations 
and $362 million for acquisition, construction and improvements--is 
well below the President's requests of $2.618 billion for operations 
and $428 million for acquisition, construction, and improvements.
  The Coast Guard has always been able to do more with less, but I am 
concerned that this level of funding will be inadequate for the Coast 
Guard to continue successfully to perform important missions and 
operations. In addition, the conference report contains contradictory 
provisions concerning funding--the first provision, which I fully 
endorse, assumes that additional funding of $300 million will be 
provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Coast 
Guard operations. The second provision, which I oppose, makes available 
at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation the transfer of up 
to $60 million to the FAA budget. I do not think setting up agencies 
within a Department to battle one another for funding is a wise course.
  I am pleased to see that the conference agreement disallowed the 
closure of any Coast Guard multimission small boat stations for fiscal 
year 1996. While I recognize the necessity of the Coast Guard's 
streamlining efforts, I am worried that efforts to downsize field 
operations may unreasonably increase the threat to life, property, and 
the environment. I concur with the views expressed in the Senate 
Appropriations Committee report that cited the very real though 
intangible deterrence benefits of these stations. Combined with their 
direct benefits, I believe these outweigh the value of the management 
efficiencies and small budgetary savings that may result from their 
closure. I also agree with the conference report which stated that the 
Coast Guard's station closure methodology failed to fairly consider 
distinctions among small boat stations, such as water temperature and 
survival time. I have proposed provisions in the Coast Guard 
authorization bill that establish a more formal process for station 
closures and require the Coast Guard to take the appropriators' 
concerns into consideration while allowing the Coast Guard the 
flexibility to modify the levels of its resources as it sees fit.
  Once again, I compliment and thank the Senators from Oregon and New 
Jersey for their leadership in developing this important legislation. 
While I would have liked for it to do more in some areas, it is a 
commendable attempt to meet our Nation's transportation needs within 
the budget limits allotted to them.
  I would just like to finally publicly say I am deeply concerned, 
also, about the reductions in the Coast Guard. I know that the Coast 
Guard has accepted the Presidential directive and other directives to 
streamline and to reduce. Those reductions and that streamlining are 
good, and it is important. But I am convinced that measured against the 
extraordinary increase in Coast Guard duties and responsibilities, we 
are asking them to do more than may be possible.
  More than two-thirds of the total budget for the Coast Guard goes to 
operating expenses for public safety--the marine environment, to 
enforce laws and treaties, to maintain aids to navigation, to prevent 
illegal drug trafficking and illegal navigation, immigration, and also 
to preserve defense readiness. If you look at the increase in 
responsibility measured against the last 10 years of reduction in 
resources, once again I think we have to be very careful that we are 
not shortchanging ourselves.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________