[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10777-S10794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        1997--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I understand the conference report on 
the Transportation Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee is now 
before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move that the Senate adopt the conference report.
  Mr. President, I withhold making that motion at this time.
  Mr. President, we are here to present the conference report, myself 
and Senator Frank Lautenberg, representing the State of New Jersey and 
the ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee. We have enjoyed a marvelous working 
relationship, and I take another opportunity to thank Senator 
Lautenberg for his fine support. His contribution has been great. We 
have had not only a wonderful working relationship, but we enjoy a deep 
personal friendship as well, by which I am blessed.

[[Page S10778]]

  Also, at this time I would like to comment that Anne Miano of my 
staff took on this role as being the chief clerk of the Transportation 
Subcommittee really kind of in the winding down days of the Senate, 
showing her great capacity to move into the No. 1 slot upon the 
retirement of Pat McCann, who had held that position for many years. I 
thank her especially for her efficiency and her quick comprehension of 
all the details which she now has performed so well as the chief clerk 
for the majority on this subcommittee.
  Peter Rogoff is also a very fundamental part of our operation. As I 
have said frequently and I say again, Mr. President, the relationship 
that exists between the minority and the majority--and I have been in 
both--is that we hardly know a distinction, at the staff level 
especially, and he has filled in, provided me with information as well 
as Senator Lautenberg. We have no distinctions of partisanship, no 
labels that separate us. It is a marvelous kind of collaborative effort 
that Peter Rogoff and Anne Miano now--and before Pat McCann--enjoy.
  We have now concluded our conference for the fiscal year 1997 
Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill, 
H.R. 3675. In total, this conference report contains $12 billion in new 
budget authority for transportation programs and projects and $35 
billion in outlays.
  The conference report includes funds to continue the vital air 
traffic control operations for the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
search and rescue activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as many 
other critical functions of the department. In addition, it will 
provide billions of dollars for needed infrastructure projects across 
the Nation.
  I am particularly pleased to point out that this report includes $150 
million for State infrastructure banks programs. This program will 
permit interested States to use innovative financing to stretch their 
transportation dollars and maximize the Federal investment in 
transportation. Ten States are already in the program and this 
appropriation will allow even more States to participate. I believe 
that the SIB's Program will become increasingly important in the years 
ahead as States work to find modern financing tools to help improve 
their State's transportation networks.

  The Essential Air Service has been funded at $25.9 million, the 
Senate-passed level for this Program. I have heard from many Senators 
in support of the EAS Program. They have told me that without the EAS 
program, people in communities dependent on EAS service would find 
themselves isolated and be forced to drive long distances to reach 
their destinations. I am pleased that we were able to increase the 
funds for this program, which had received only $10 million in the 
House-passed bill. In other words, we are now more than 2\1/2\ times 
that House figure.
  The conference report includes an increase for FAA operations of 
$254.3 million above the fiscal year 1996 level. This 5-percent 
increase will support the hiring of 500 new air traffic controllers, 
367 new aviation safety inspectors, and other regulatory oversight 
personnel. It also provides a 9-percent increase in funding for field 
maintenance of air traffic equipment.
  In light of the recent TWA flight 800 tragedy, the conferees have 
fully funded the administration's request of $36.055 million for 
aviation security technology. This amount includes $27.4 million for 
research and development into new devices to detect explosives and 
weapons, and $1.3 million to harden aircraft against the effects of 
explosives. We have fully funded the administration's request for 
operational security by providing $71.9 million to fund about 780 
security personnel.
  The conferees included $13 million for FAA research, engineering, and 
development in order to improve aviation safety in hazardous weather. 
This amount is about $6.6 million above the administration's request 
for weather research and will enable FAA to place a higher priority on 
aviation weather safety research.
  The conference report contains $1.46 billion for grants for the 
Airport Improvement Program [AIP]. This is an increase of $10 million 
above the fiscal year 1996 level and $110 million above the 
administration's request. I believe that these grants are very 
important for airports around the Nation and will do much to improve 
the quality of aviation service for the public.
  I would also like to underscore that we have provided an obligation 
limitation of $18 billion for grants to States from the highway trust 
fund. This amount is $450 million above the fiscal year 1996 level for 
the Federal-aid highway program. We have rejected the administration's 
request to make some previously exempt highway programs part of the 
overall obligation ceiling and rescind $300 million of previously 
authorized ISTEA projects. The conferees were not able to include an 
amendment that was adopted on the Senate floor to address the impact of 
the reporting of excise tax data on the allocation of Federal-aid 
highway funds. This issue and other related issues will be taken up 
during next year's debate on reauthorizing the ISTEA Program.
  A total of $760.45 million is provided for all Amtrak accounts--
including the Northeast corridor--an increase of $10.45 million above 
the fiscal year 1996 level. This appropriation includes $115 million 
for the Northeast corridor, a freeze at the current level. It also 
includes $80 million in high-speed rail funds for Amtrak, as well as 
$342 million for operations, the amount requested by the 
administration. Amtrak capital is funded at $223.45 million, which is 
close to the fiscal year 1996 level of $230 million.
  The conferees were mindful of Amtrak's need for more funds and added 
$38 million to the Transportation Subcommittee's conference allocation 
in order to increase Amtrak's capital account. Amtrak's long-term 
problems require legislative solutions that cannot be addressed by the 
Appropriations Committee on this bill. The conference report includes 
language assuring States where Amtrak has announced service cuts that 
they may use their CMAQ--Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
Improvement Program--funds to preserve rail service.
  In addition, this conference report contains $1.9 billion for 
discretionary transit capital grants. This includes $380 million for 
bus-related projects, $760 million for new starts, and $760 million for 
fixed guideway modernization. The conferees also added $97 million to 
transit formula capital grants, and agreed to the Senate-passed level 
of $2.149 billion--this program includes $400 million in operating aid.
  Transit helps to provide affordable, efficient, and reliable 
transportation to get people to work, school, and to reach needed 
services. Moreover, transit funds help to improve air quality, mitigate 
highway congestion, and provide expanded mobility for elderly and 
disabled persons.
  I believe that the funds contained in this conference report will 
assist States in making their transportation systems more efficient. 
They also will enhance transportation safety throughout the Nation.
  Mr. President, I could go on at considerable length in identifying 
many of these accounts. I think these that I have identified very 
clearly indicate what the committee's priorities have been, both from 
our creating the Senate bill, as well as our defense of that Senate 
action in the conference with the House of Representatives. I want to 
say, we have had excellent support from the House of Representatives in 
our conference. It was a very efficient conference. It did not drag on 
forever. I believe we had over 170 amendments that we had to deal with 
in conference. As I recall, at the staff level the staff had resolved 
over 153 of them. Then, as the principals got together prior to the 
formal conference, we resolved further. This was, I would say, a 
harmonious, effective, cooperative conference experience.
  So, I really do not think we have any unresolved, vital, important 
issues. We have not been able to get the level of funding we would like 
for many of these important issues, but nevertheless I think we have 
covered the basic priorities of the administration, of the Senate, and 
of the House of Representatives.
  In closing, I want to say I do not believe we can overemphasize the 
important and vital need of addressing our national infrastructure, 
whether it be by water, by highway, by rail, by air, by all the modes 
we have employed in transportation. Urban centers are in deep need of 
further assistance in the infrastructure to maintain the viability of 
urban centers. And rural areas,

[[Page S10779]]

which figure so much into our overall economy, have to have, certainly, 
consideration as well in their special needs.
  I always like to repeat a factor, here, that I think sometimes we 
forget. A lot of people think the infrastructure is sort of a local 
matter, a local interest, a local priority. Let us not forget, when the 
great President, and the great general, Dwight Eisenhower, out in 
Topeka, KS, in his administration, launched the Interstate Highway 
System, he launched it as an Interstate Defense Highway System. He said 
such a tying together by a complex infrastructure of transportation was 
as vital to our national security as were the armaments in our arsenal.
  He also said that about his Education Defense Act, relating to moneys 
for education, for health, for housing, for a productive economy.
  So, I hope we will see this, not as individual States, individual 
communities, as important as that is, but also as a national interest 
of high priority for the security of the Nation.
  Again, it was not only President Eisenhower who gave us that lesson, 
but we have been reminded frequently by the Senator from West Virginia 
[Mr. Byrd] of the importance of maintaining our commitment to the 
infrastructure, as I have sat on everything from a summit with the 
White House settling certain budget problems, as well as having heard 
his admonitions on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor at this 
time.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? I do not believe Senator Lautenberg 
has spoken yet, but I want to respond to something the distinguished 
Senator from Oregon said.
  Daniel Webster, in his reply to Hayne, in 1830, January 26, was 
critical of Hayne for asking a question as to why he, the Senator from 
South Carolina, should support a canal of importance to the State of 
Ohio.
  And Webster said that we who represent the people of New England do 
not limit our patriotic feeling to geographical limits such as ``rivers 
and mountains, and lines of latitude, beyond which public improvements 
do not benefit us.''
  But, he said, ``I look upon a road over the Alleghanies''--and that 
struck me as being pretty significant. Daniel Webster, speaking of a 
road across the Alleghenies, or ``a canal round the falls of the Ohio, 
or a . . . railway from the Atlantic to the western waters'' saw these 
as being ``an object large and extensive enough to be . . . for the 
common benefit.'' If he were to question such things, said Webster, 
since they are of sufficient import to be ``for the common benefit,'' 
he would not be willing to face his constituents in New England.
  So, long before our time, Webster and Clay--Clay was an advocate of 
the great American system which dealt with the banks, with tariffs, and 
with public investments in highways and canals and railroads, so these 
were early advocates of infrastructure. They looked at the importance 
and benefits that would accrue to the Nation, not just to a locality or 
community or a State. I wish that some of those critics who criticize 
what they call pork, which is really infrastructure, will go back and 
read the speeches of those great Senators--Clay and Webster.

  Perhaps those of today will get a new understanding and light upon 
these very important subjects, and 10, 15, 20 years from today, people 
are going to look at the crumbling infrastructure and wonder where we 
have been.
  When God went to the Garden of Eden looking for Adam in the cool of 
the evening, Adam hid from God. God said, ``Adam, where art thou? Adam, 
where art thou?'' And one day our constituents will say, ``Where were 
you? Where were you when you failed to build infrastructure for the 
future?''
  I have a statement commending the chairman and ranking member, but I 
will withhold my statement until Members have had an opportunity to 
respond. I just could not resist recalling the words of Webster when he 
spoke of the significance of building for the future, building 
highways, canals and railroads. I shall remember Mark Hatfield as one 
who thought and believed the same way as Daniel Webster. I thank the 
Senator.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. 
His eloquence is always very commending. But I couldn't help but 
reflect when he goes back to Daniel Webster, that this bill has been 
crafted across this aisle, between Democrats and Republicans. But if we 
lived in that period of time, I am convinced all three of us would have 
been Whigs, because we have to attribute to the Whig Party, even though 
we sort of fluff it off as an insignificant part of our great history, 
that it was the Whig Party that held fast in the words of Daniel 
Webster and Henry Clay and others that building a national 
infrastructure was of the utmost priority. It was the Democrats who 
took issue with them on that subject, and is an interesting way of how 
our political labels and our political philosophies tend to evolve and 
flow. But I have no doubt that on this issue, the three of us would 
have been of one party.

  Mr. BYRD. We're Whigs at heart. We're Whigs at heart.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield to my colleague at this time for his opening 
remarks.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, obviously, as the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Transportation of Appropriations, I strongly 
support H.R. 3675, the Transportation appropriations bill for this 
coming fiscal year. The conference report was filed by the 
Transportation appropriations conference on September 16, just a couple 
of days ago. But this bill is marked by more than just dollar amounts 
or designated programs. This bill exhibits the extraordinary leadership 
of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the very distinguished former 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee--two gentlemen who have left, 
to use the expression, a mark on this body that will endure far beyond 
the lives of anybody within earshot of our voices.
  It has been a real privilege for me to work with these gentlemen. I 
came here at a rather mature status in life. I spent 30 years in the 
corporate world before coming to the U.S. Senate. But one of the great 
delights of serving here is to have the occasional respite from the 
tensions and the differences that are so prominent in this body of ours 
when we hear from people like Senator Mark Hatfield or Senator Robert 
Byrd, who bring not only experience but wisdom to our deliberations.
  Frankly, Mr. President, I have to tell you that I worry about the 
U.S. Senate. I worry about our governance and our congressional 
responsibilities when we lose contact with someone like Mark Hatfield, 
who has chosen to retire, and many other fine colleagues who have also 
chosen to make this their last year in the U.S. Senate.
  I find it to be a very depressing prospect, because so much 
experience and so much knowledge will leave the floor of this U.S. 
Senate, and I hope those of us who are left to carry on for however 
long that is, can learn from the examples set by Senator Mark Hatfield 
and by Senator Robert Byrd.
  Senator Byrd is going to stay with us and he is going to keep 
working, thank the Lord for that. But this bill is uniquely marked by 
the fact that it is the last transportation bill that Senator Mark 
Hatfield is going to manage. His is a very special legacy. He will be 
remembered for his spirit, his integrity, for his character, for his 
intelligence, and for his friendship. I will sorely miss him. I don't 
want this to turn into a eulogy, Mr. President, but I couldn't let this 
bill be considered without noting the unique contribution made to our 
country in these transportation programs by Senator Hatfield.
  Given the funding limitations we face in this year's appropriations 
process, I think this conference agreement does a very good job. It 
addresses numerous and sometimes competing transportation needs 
throughout the country.
  There is no question that the conference agreement before us 
represents a much more balanced approach than did the House-passed 
bill. The conference agreement goes a long way toward addressing the 
priorities of Members. Moreover, the conference agreement also 
addresses many of the priorities of the administration.

[[Page S10780]]

  As such, the President has indicated that he will sign this bill when 
he receives it. I almost want to say ``hallelujah,'' because it gives 
us added reason to get it over there.
  As is the case with all appropriations conferences, I cannot say that 
the Senate position ruled the day on all contentious matters addressed 
by the conferees. Indeed, I am disappointed with several individual 
issues contained in the conference report. However, by no means is it 
the fault of our distinguished chairman. After hours of tough 
negotiation, matters were necessarily resolved in a fashion that would 
ensure the passage of the separate and independent transportation bill, 
again, that will gain the President's signature and avoid getting 
caught up in the quagmire of a continuing resolution.
  One result that I find to be exceedingly disappointing is the action 
by the conferees in rejecting an amendment that I offered to ensure 
that no State endures a cut in its annual highway funding from the huge 
Federal-Aid Highway Program.
  The conference agreement before us calls for the overall obligation 
ceiling for the major highway formula program for the Nation to 
increase to a record-high level of $18 billion. This level is a full 
$450 million higher than the current year's level, $450 million higher 
than the House-passed level, and $350 million higher than the original 
Senate-passed bill.
  I have always--and again I join with the other Whigs here--I have 
always supported increased infrastructure spending, especially in the 
highway area. I was shocked, however, to find that under formulas 
contained in the authorizing law, ISTEA, 28 States--28--will actually 
receive less money from the highway program in 1997 than they did in 
1996. I want to restate that. At the same time as we are going to be 
providing an unprecedented increase in the highway formula program, a 
larger increase than was granted in either the House or Senate bill, a 
majority of the States will actually endure a cut in their highway 
obligation ceiling below the current year's level.
  This situation stems from the formulas contained in ISTEA, Mr. 
President. It is a formula already established. However, I do feel 
that, when we provide historic funding increases to the program, States 
should at least be held harmless--they should be guaranteed at least 
what they received for the preceding year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table be printed in the 
Record which displays each State's highway obligation ceiling at the 
current funding level opposite the level they can expect to receive in 
fiscal year 1997.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED FY 1997 OBLIGATION LIMITATION                             
                                             [Dollars in thousands]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year                        Dollar loss/
                             State                               1996 actual   Conference  Percent      gain    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................      270,610      329,746      122       59,136 
Alaska.........................................................      203,994      182,075       89      (21,919)
Arizona........................................................      196,433      244,013      124       47,580 
Arkansas.......................................................      175,359      205,117      117       29,758 
California.....................................................    1,406,489    1,528,545      109      122,056 
Colorado.......................................................      199,342      198,171       99       (1,171)
Connecticut....................................................      353,689      316,202       89      (37,487)
Delaware.......................................................       77,484       69,282       89       (8,202)
Dist. of Col...................................................       78,920       73,582       93       (5,338)
Florida........................................................      598,880      711,991      119      113,111 
Georgia........................................................      403,493      526,148      130      122,655 
Hawaii.........................................................      121,729      108,983       90      (12,746)
Idaho..........................................................      105,691       98,510       93       (7,181)
Illinois.......................................................      660,503      589,620       89      (70,883)
Indiana........................................................      341,554      390,495      114       48,941 
Iowa...........................................................      197,960      177,316       90      (20,644)
Kansas.........................................................      205,052      183,204       89      (21,848)
Kentucky.......................................................      225,745      286,319      127       60,574 
Louisiana......................................................      235,699      265,287      113       29,588 
Maine..........................................................       91,559       84,182       82       (7,377)
Maryland.......................................................      265,587      262,322       99       (3,265)
Massachusetts..................................................      690,634      617,631       89      (73,103)
Michigan.......................................................      467,061      491,589      105       24,528 
Minnesota......................................................      252,289      219,855       87      (32,434)
Mississipi.....................................................      183,481      203,112      111       19,631 
Missouri.......................................................      356,657      402,267      113       45,610 
Montana........................................................      154,849      133,659       86      (21,190)
Nebraska.......................................................      139,084      124,262       89      (14,822)
Nevada.........................................................      104,575      105,029      100          454 
New Hampshire..................................................       85,554       76,434       89       (9,120)
New Jersey.....................................................      478,929      434,884       91      (44,045)
New Mexico.....................................................      169,082      149,360       88      (19,722)
New York.......................................................    1,044,890      933,790       89     (111,100)
North Carolina.................................................      399,218      446,693      112       47,475 
North Dakota...................................................      102,064       91,086       89      (10,978)
Ohio...........................................................      594,508      575,591       97      (18,917)
Oklahoma.......................................................      227,795      258,883      114       31,088 
Oregon.........................................................      202,782      204,437      101        1,655 
Pennsylvania...................................................      660,889      671,171      102       10,282 
Rhode Island...................................................       85,850       71,582       83      (14,268)
South Carolina.................................................      211,129      263,985      125       52,856 
South Dakota...................................................      111,380       99,417       89      (11,963)
Tennessee......................................................      325,654      371,667      114       46,013 
Texas..........................................................      984,970    1,167,763      119      182,793 
Utah...........................................................      125,684      121,489       97       (4,195)
Vermont........................................................       78,511       70,155       89       (8,356)
Virginia.......................................................      341,432      393,580      115       52,148 
Washington.....................................................      324,150      291,059       90      (33,091)
West Virginia..................................................      158,810      141,509       89      (17,301)
Wisconsin......................................................      291,760      296,896      102        5,136 
Wyoming........................................................      111,281       99,388       89      (11,893)
Puerto Rico....................................................       76,122       73,648       97       (2,474)
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.................................................   15,956,846   16,432,881  .......  ............
Administration.................................................      529,843      521,119  .......  ............
Federal lands..................................................      416,000      426,000  .......  ............
Reserve........................................................      647,311      620,000  .......  ............
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................................   17,550,000   18,000,000  .......  ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. As I earlier stated, I offered an amendment in the 
conference on this bill to implement a hold-harmless provision to 
ensure that, as we added a half billion dollars to the National Highway 
Program, no State would be cut below the current year's level. 
Unfortunately, my amendment was not accepted, and we are where we are.
  Mr. President, this is a scenario that will serve as the backdrop as 
we attempt to reauthorize ISTEA in the next congressional session. More 
than half the States will actually see their highway funding cut as we 
appropriate--a historic funding increase to the National Highway 
Program. As we approach ISTEA reauthorization, I hope and expect that 
all Members will focus on these formula issues and work to restore 
fairness to the highway program so all States will benefit when we add 
substantial sums to the program.
  Mr. President, Amtrak funding is a favorite subject of mine; it is a 
favorite subject, I know, of the chairman of the Finance Committee and 
of our other colleagues who recognize the value of having Amtrak, the 
national passenger rail service, improved, maintained and available. 
When it comes to Amtrak funding, the conference agreement is a vast 
improvement over the House-passed bill.
  I am grateful to my many Senate colleagues who joined us to try to 
get an adjustment. I am disappointed, however, that the funding for 
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor Improvement Program--that is the corridor 
that runs from Washington up through Boston --will be funded at $115 
million, which is well below the President's request.
  Mr. President, the key to Amtrak's future is the expeditious 
completion of the major infrastructure improvements that have begun in 
the Northeast corridor. If these things are forced to drag out, costs 
go up, changes come in, and as we all know, sometimes even political 
influences begin to change the course of events.
  Amtrak's own studies indicate that all--and I emphasize all--of the 
increased revenue that Amtrak can hope to capture in the near-term will 
come from the Northeast corridor. That is where the traffic is, the 
largest share of the population that is served by the railroad.
  In recent months we have heard the usual arguments from Members of 
Congress that Amtrak must become self-sufficient. Now many of the 
Members who have advocated substantial cuts in the railroad's operating 
subsidy are bemoaning the fact that they are going to lose Amtrak 
service. The conference agreement before us, they should be aware, cuts 
Amtrak's operating account some $50 million below Amtrak's request.
  Some of these Members are now trying to find a way to restore service 
to their constituents. I know that Amtrak service is valuable wherever 
it exists, but funding cuts cannot be inflicted without pain. The 
solution is improving Amtrak's revenue wherever possible.
  I have long believed, Mr. President, that we should have a 
financially healthy and adequately capitalized national railroad that 
serves as many areas of the country as possible. I want to support 
Members' efforts to maintain service throughout the country, but I also 
believe that my colleagues need to recognize that the key to Amtrak's 
self-sufficiency, the key to Amtrak having enough revenue to operate 
these lines throughout the Midwest and the Far West, is adequate 
funding for Amtrak's Northeast corridor. That is where the revenue 
opportunities lie. That is where the investment has to be made in order 
to generate the revenue to feed these less productive, less revenue-
producing parts of the system.
  Amtrak's president, Tom Downs, recently testified at the Senate 
Commerce Committee. He explained that, were it not for the recent 
positive financial performance of the Northeast corridor, the trains 
now slated for termination in the next few months would have been 
terminated several months ago.
  The corridor carries half of all Amtrak riders, and generates well 
over

[[Page S10781]]

half of Amtrak's passenger-related revenues. As I stated during the 
conference on the transportation bill, I expect to seek increased 
funding for the Northeast corridor on any legislative vehicle seeks to 
provide funding to Amtrak to maintain service on the lines currently 
slated for termination.

  Finally, I want to point out where this bill sits in regard to the 
funding stream for the airport and airways trust fund. As many Members 
know, the tax-writing committees extended the ticket tax, which 
finances the aviation trust fund, only through December of this year. 
Once again, come the beginning of the year, the ticket tax will expire, 
leaving the trust fund without an adequate revenue stream.
  The conference agreement before us assumes obligations from the 
aviation trust fund totaling $5.1 billion in fiscal year 1997. I am 
told by the FAA that, with the termination of the ticket tax this 
coming December, the trust fund will be between $400 and $500 million 
short in financing the FAA's 1997 appropriation.
  I want everybody to think about that, that while there are 
substantial funds in there right now, they are drawn down at a rate of 
half a billion dollars a month. With the expiration of the ticket tax, 
the FAA will literally run out of money absent any further action of 
the tax-writing committees. The agency will either be required to cease 
making airport grants, terminate certain procurements, terminate some 
research projects, or slow down expenditures in critical operating 
areas, such as controller training and safety inspections.
  Mr. President, these shenanigans with the aviation trust fund must 
come to a stop. It is not fair to the employees of the FAA, not fair to 
the airports, not fair to the traveling public. So I want to add my 
voice to those of Senator McCain, Senator Ford, Senator Dorgan, and 
others who are insisting that some action be taken before the end of 
this session to make sure that the ticket tax is extended beyond the 
end of the year. I feel that it is critical to point out that no 
Senator has been more diligent in advocating appropriate action by the 
authorizing and tax-writing committees than our distinguished chairman 
of the full committee and subcommittee, Senator Hatfield.
  The conference agreement on the transportation bill was truly a 
bipartisan effort. Throughout the process, Chairman Hatfield exhibited 
his customary openness, fair-mindedness, and delicate hand. He was, 
once again, the conductor of the orchestra, trying to make rhythm and 
good sound out of the cacophony that prevails at times during these 
conferences.
  In those 2 years as chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, once 
again, Senator Hatfield has left his mark. He is an informed, wise, 
just policymaker in the transportation arena. He believes deeply in the 
infrastructure investment that our country has to make. I agree with 
him. I admire his leadership and will always treasure his friendship.
  The Senator from Oregon mentioned President Eisenhower and his 
creation of the highway system in 1952. My graduation certificate from 
my Columbia diploma carries President Eisenhower's signature because he 
was then president of Columbia. I served under his leadership in World 
War II. I do not think he knew I existed. I knew he existed because he 
came through my area one time and we scraped and cleaned and made sure 
everything looked right. I did join him here, but I came a long time 
later. It was a pleasure to have him lead our country.
  Once again, Mr. President, I voice my support for the conference 
agreement, and thank Senator Hatfield for his courtesy throughout his 
tenure as chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the 
Transportation Subcommittee. I also want to note the excellent job done 
by staff, by Peter Rogoff on my side, Anne Miano on the other side, 
Mike Brennan, and those staff people who worked throughout the process. 
We had a retirement take place in the middle of this bill, and Anne 
jumped into the fray, as did Peter. We are grateful to them for superb 
and loyal service.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to express my thanks to the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee for his dedicated work throughout the 
year in this body, his work on the Appropriations Committee, where he 
has always stood as a solid rock in the interest of the economy, in the 
interest of improving our country's infrastructure, and where he has 
been a dedicated servant of his State.
  This will be the last appropriations bill he will manage on the floor 
of the Senate. I say to him I shall not forget him in the coming years. 
I shall remember him as one who demonstrated supreme courage, high 
integrity and steadfast patriotism always. I also should think of him 
as one who could very well have sat during the deliberations of the 
Constitutional Convention, which operated behind closed doors during 
those days, from May into September, and which, 209 years ago 
yesterday, completed its work.
  Benjamin Franklin, according to a story, which may or may not have 
been apocryphal, said in response to a lady's question after the 
Convention had finished its work--the lady's question was, ``Dr. 
Franklin, what have you given us?'' And his answer, according to the 
story, was, ``A republic, madam, if you can keep it.'' He did not say, 
``A democracy.'' He said, ``A republic, madam, if you can keep it.''
  I think of that, and Senator Hatfield as someone who could very well 
have graced the membership of that Convention, along with Benjamin 
Franklin, Elbridge Gerry, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George 
Washington, who presided over the Convention.
  So it was on yesterday, 209 years ago, that that conference completed 
its work. It was a gamble. Those who wrote the Constitution did not 
know, of course, what the future would be, how their work would be 
accepted, or how long they would be in the minds of their countrymen.
  Mark Hatfield is one who has stood steadfast in the defense of that 
Constitution. I remember him for many things. I will thank him again 
and again for the inspiration he has provided to me and to others in 
this body.
  While I did sign the conference report to accompany this bill, the 
Record will note that I excepted myself as to the disposition of 
amendment No. 150, to which the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, 
Mr. Lautenberg, has referred. This amendment pertained to the Baucus 
amendment and the overall issues surrounding the distribution of 
Federal aid highway funds for the coming fiscal year. I was 
disappointed that the Senate receded to the House regarding the Baucus 
amendment, since it sought to correct an error made by the Treasury 
Department in calculating highway gas tax revenues.
  The result of the insistence in the House conferees in not correcting 
the error is that my State of West Virginia will see $6 million less in 
Federal aid highway funding than it would have received had this 
genuine mistake been corrected.
  Moreover, I am especially disappointed that the conferees did not 
accept Senator Lautenberg's amendment which would have ensured that no 
State would see a cut in Federal aid highway funding below the 1996 
level. Members should take note of the fact that the conferees on the 
transportation bill increased the Federal aid highway formula 
obligation ceiling to a historically high level of $18 billion.
  Now, I have been an advocate for increased infrastructure spending in 
our Nation especially in the area of highways. Normally, I would be 
here to praise the conferees' work in finding more money for highways 
than was contained in either the House or Senate bill. But a thorough 
review of the impact of the existing highway formulas on this program 
shows, as Senator Lautenberg has just stated, that only 22 States will 
enjoy any increase at all in highway formula funding next year. Those 
States will see very sizable increases of up to 25 percent, while a 
majority of States--28 in number--will see their funding cut below the 
current year's level, by anywhere from 1 percent to 17 percent. All of 
this takes place as the overall obligation ceiling for highways is 
increased 2.6 percent. I cannot support a policy of this kind, which 
directs all the increased funds for the highway program to 22 States 
and indeed reallocates funds from those other States to give more money 
to the

[[Page S10782]]

22 States. The problem that gives rise to this situation is embedded in 
the formulas pertaining to the highway program as contained in ISTEA.

  I, perhaps, ought to do as Demosthenes did, speak with pebbles in my 
mouth, so that I can better be heard above the sound of the ``waves of 
the sea.''
  I fully expect these issues to be revisited thoroughly during the 
upcoming reauthorization of that bill. Careful review of the 
distribution of highway obligation authority for next year indicates 
that the two States that will lose a larger percentage than any others 
are Rhode Island and Montana--precisely the two States represented by 
our chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. As such, I am confident that Senators Chafee and Baucus will 
take a hard look at these formula issues and rectify this problem as we 
reauthorize ISTEA next year--and I hope that my voice is better by 
then. I apologize to the Senators for such a weak voice today. I am 
imposing on other Senators who are straining to hear me, I am sure. But 
I intend to work with the Senators to rectify this and other problems 
in connection with next year's ISTEA reauthorization.
  Let me make clear that my upset concerning the disposition of this 
item should not be viewed as a reflection on the efforts made by the 
chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee and the chairman of the 
full committee, Senator Hatfield, nor on the very capable ranking 
member, Senator Lautenberg. Senator Hatfield has been very attentive to 
my transportation concerns throughout this year's process. He has been 
a most able and conscientious steward of the transportation budget of 
the Nation. I appreciate his efforts, as well as those of Senator 
Lautenberg, who has been an excellent chairman in the past and an 
equally excellent ranking member. I appreciate not only their efforts, 
but that of all the conferees on this very important transportation 
measure.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to join my 
distinguished colleague from New Jersey in the very kind and gracious 
remarks he made about the chairman, the distinguished senior Senator 
from Oregon. Like him, it has been my pleasure to join with him from 
time to time. I have often sought his counsel. He is a leader, he is a 
doer, he has brought great wisdom to the Senate, and we will be poorer 
as an institution without him.
  I say to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, as I was 
listening to his remarks and I looked at these two Senators--one from 
West Virginia and one from Oregon--it seemed to me one of the best 
reasons to be against a two-term limitation, because of the expertise, 
knowledge, and good judgment they bring to this institution. We are 
indeed all richer for it.
  I must rise to express my disappointment in the funding levels for 
Amtrak in the fiscal year 1997 Department of Transportation conference 
report. While the House-Senate conference committee did not reduce 
Amtrak funding as drastically as the House originally proposed, I am, 
as I already stated, very disappointed that Amtrak will not receive the 
full funding contained in the Senate-passed bill.
  Frankly, we would not have done as well if it hadn't been for the 
Senate conferees. I do want to express my great appreciation to Senator 
Hatfield and Senator Lautenberg for their leadership, for their efforts 
on behalf of Amtrak, and I say that the fight is not over.
  Mr. President, I believe the appropriation numbers for Amtrak are, 
frankly, shortsighted and do not help the Nation's transportation 
needs. Our goal is for Amtrak to be self-sufficient, and we cannot 
achieve that goal without adequate funding for capital improvements. 
How can Amtrak be expected to provide better service and attract more 
riders without the needed funding to modernize?
  Now, as you know, twice this year, the Senate has voted in support of 
providing Amtrak the capital funds needed to preserve innercity 
passenger rail as a critical component of our country's transportation 
network. On May 23, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution supporting the creation of a capital trust fund for 
Amtrak. On July 30, the Senate resoundingly defeated--82-17--an attempt 
to cut fiscal year 1997 appropriations for Amtrak expenses to a level 
which would have crippled passenger rail services. But those votes of 
confidence from the Senate cannot balance Amtrak's books. Financial 
investment in the system by Congress is critical. Recently, Amtrak 
announced that fiscal year 1997 included cost-cutting and revenue-
enhancing initiatives, designed to keep Amtrak on a course of reducing 
its dependence on Federal operating grants.
  Amtrak is committed to the goal of totally eliminating its dependence 
on Federal operating grants by the year 2002. But it cannot do this 
without a strong source of capital funding. As my colleagues are well 
aware, I have been working to provide a dedicated source of capital 
funding for Amtrak to avoid just this sort of annual appropriation 
crisis, in which Amtrak's viability hangs by a thread.
  My staff and Senator Robert Byrd's staff have been meeting in an 
effort to craft a proposal that would take 4.3 cents per gallon fuel 
tax to the highway trust fund, with one-half cent of that tax going to 
Amtrak for 5 years. The legislation would provide a total of $2.8 
billion for Amtrak over the next 5 years. Under this proposal, for the 
first time ever, Amtrak would have a dedicated source of funding. New 
revenue for capital improvements would allow Amtrak to purchase new 
locomotives, to operate more efficiently, and to attract new 
passengers.
  As my good friend, the Senator from New Jersey, pointed out, there 
must be Northeast corridor improvement if we are going to increase the 
number of passengers that utilize the system and thereby increase the 
revenue available to help make the railroad system self-supporting.
  As a Nation I believe that we must take steps now to make sure that 
passenger rail service remains a viable means of transportation into 
the next century. The current funding levels for Amtrak will not allow 
this to happen.
  I might add that the conference report does include my earlier 
proposal to allow States to use remaining dollars for Amtrak, and I 
believe this is a wise move.
  In closing, I want to again restate my disappointment in this 
conference report but urge my colleagues to support Senator 
Lautenberg's and other efforts to boost Amtrak's funding for next year 
through an omnibus appropriations bill.
  In addition, I also ask that my colleagues continue to support my 
efforts to give Amtrak a secure funding source for capital improvements 
to avoid just this sort of appropriations crisis.
  In closing, I once more thank my distinguished chairman and ranking 
member for their efforts in this regard, and for that I am indeed 
grateful.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for 
his kind personal remarks. I also thank him for focusing again on this 
vital part of our national transportation system, Amtrak.
  I have to say to the Senator that I can't disagree with a word he 
said vis-a-vis the importance of Amtrak not only to the East and 
Northeast corridor specifically but throughout the whole Nation. I have 
to say that we lost a leg of that Amtrak due to cutbacks and reductions 
from Portland to Boise, the Pioneer. It was a hard pill to swallow. 
That affected my constituency very directly. We lost a number of other 
legs to the Amtrak.
  But, Mr. President, I have to come back to some fundamentals here in 
which we operate, and to say not only have we at the Senate level--we 
came into the conference with $872 million for Amtrak. That is all the 
funding relating to Amtrak; and had to deal with the House of 
Representatives with $542 million. We came out with $760 million which 
is still $10 million more than the level of 1996.
  When I say we have to look at the context in which we in the 
Appropriations Committee operate, we have to go back to the budget 
resolution. We have to go back to the proposition that there are those 
who think we can balance the budget by only an 18 percent

[[Page S10783]]

baseline; namely, the nondefense discretionary programs.
  Mr. President, I want to say--now from my perspective--that we will 
never balance the budget on that kind of a baseline. But we exempt all 
entitlements, we exempt all mandated spending programs, we exempt the 
military, or the defense programs, and then we come down to 18 percent 
which is the nondefense discretionary part of the budget. We say we are 
going to balance the budget on that. With the expansion of these 
others, particularly the entitlement programs, by the year 2011 or 
2015--wherever you want to light on with these economic projections--we 
will not have a penny of money left for nondefense programs and 
challenging even defense programs because they will all be swallowed up 
by the entitlements. But, oh, we get so nervous any time we talk about 
touching those entitlements. When I say ``entitlements,'' I mean 
including Social Security. You can say, ``Well, Hatfield, it is easy 
for you to say that. You are on your way out. You do not have to face 
the consequences.'' I want you to know that I voted in 1986 for an 
across-the-board freeze on all entitlements. I had a reelection 
campaign facing me in 1990.

  Nevertheless, that is not the important part of it. I am making the 
point simply that we cut $22 billion off of Federal spending levels, 
and it was all in nondefense discretionary.
  A lot of people talk about reducing the size of Government. It is 
easy to talk that. But let me tell you. It has been the appropriators 
that have been really at the business of reducing the size of 
Government, but with, of course, the assistance of the Budget 
Committee, and many other committees as well. But I am saying we are 
the executioners. And we have been put into a situation, as I have said 
before, of performing surgery without the benefit of anesthetics. We 
have to face up to these. And we shoulder the burden.
  So I say that we are going to have to begin to really put this into 
context when we are dealing with the lesser amount for Amtrak--or the 
lesser amount for some other favorite program, or worthy program such 
as Amtrak--that what the appropriators ended up doing was the command 
of the reductions made by the body. And that command took place in many 
different forms--not just the Budget Committee or the budget 
resolution. I am happy to say that we have raised the level for Amtrak. 
Maybe it is a very small amount. But many other accounts went down 10 
percent, or 15 percent, or 20 percent. Amtrak went up a fraction. But, 
nevertheless, we had what you might call a freeze level of Amtrak.
  I want to say, too, at this point that I am very, very impressed with 
Tom Downs. I am a staunch supporter of Tom Downs. He has been given a 
tremendous task of administering Amtrak, and he has not been given the 
tools really to do the job or to fulfill the mission which has been set 
for Amtrak. The Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, made that very clear--
about Amtrak ultimately becoming self-supporting.
  So, Mr. President, I join with the critics of this appropriations 
bill. But all I can say is we have done our very best under limited 
conditions of not only dollars but policies that surround us.
  Senator Byrd brought up the Baucus amendment. I have to say again 
that my State was not affected that much one way or the other. But when 
you get into rewriting formulas, it is very, very difficult to do that 
without the support or the acquiescence of the authorizing committees. 
I have to say that we dropped that. We receded to the House because the 
information we had was the House authorizing committee would not 
consent to those formula changes proposed by the Baucus amendment. The 
House operates under perhaps more structure than the Senate. Being a 
much larger body it is incumbent that they do operate that way. I am 
not being critical. But the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Appropriations Committee brings in a statement of 
the chairman of the House authorizing committee that he will in no way 
acquiesce for the appropriators to take this kind of action, that sort 
of freezes in the appropriators on the House side more so than it does 
with us because we are a smaller body and we operate a little more 
informally, and we communicate quickly maybe even on the floor while we 
are debating an authorization action that is being offered on an 
appropriations bill as a rider. Not so the House.
  So I think there we were really in a situation where we needed a 
bill. We wanted a bill. We have a bill now that I am convinced the 
administration will sign, and we can have one less bill in the 
continuing resolution that we are going to face this next week. My 
friends, it is going to be a very, very difficult continuing resolution 
even with fewer bills but it certainly would be more complex with more 
bills.

  So I am only here to say that we have done our very best under the 
circumstances. So it is not just a decision rendered by Senator 
Lautenberg and myself as leaders of this appropriations subcommittee. 
Much of the problem we are facing here responding to critics has been 
imposed by the body, by the Congress, through the budget resolution 
process, and by their orders to exclude military spending--exclude the 
programs of entitlements from this commitment we have to balance the 
budget by the year 2002 and the reductions have to take place in 
Government spending. I just want to put it in that context.

  One last thing I want to do here today before I yield the floor. I 
was negligent a moment ago because I did mention Anne Miano and Peter 
Rogoff on their contributions as staff people. I did forget Joyce Rose 
because, like many people in this institution who quietly operate at 
staff level, in the background, we sometimes forget them, and I 
apologize for that. I cannot really say I have forgotten her because it 
was merely an oversight. She has been an integral part of our operation 
by which we have been able to bring this bill to the floor, and I am 
very grateful.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Hatfield, for his support of Oklahoma City's proposal to 
construct a rail trolley system in the downtown area, which includes 
the acquisition of additional buses and bus routes connecting various 
parts of the city to the downtown circulator. The transportation system 
is an integral component of the city's $285 million locally funded 
Metropolitan Area Projects [MAPS] Program. MAPS, funded through a 5-
year, 1-cent city sales tax, is an aggressive project which includes 
the construction of an indoor sports arena, a professional baseball 
park, renovations of convention and civic centers, and construction of 
a canal system in downtown Oklahoma City. Federal funding for the 
transportation system is the only Federal assistance included in the 
MAPS program.
  The conference report for fiscal year 1997 transportation 
appropriations includes $2 million for the Oklahoma City project. It is 
my understanding the committee supports the city's proposal to acquire 
equipment with these funds, such as buses and bus stops, which will be 
an integral component of the downtown transportation system. The 
Federal funds provided in this bill for this purpose will be matched 
with local funds.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I applaud the city's effort and support its proposal to 
proceed in the manner outlined by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the conference report 
to the Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1997.
  I commend both the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Chairman Hatfield, and the chairman of the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Congressman Wolf, for 
bringing us a balanced bill considering current budget constraints.
  The conference report provides $12.6 billion in budget authority and 
$12.3 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of the Department of 
Transportation, including Federal-aid highway, mass transit, aviation, 
and maritime activities.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
the bill totals $36.1 billion in outlays.
  The subcommittee is essentially at 602(b) allocation in both budget 
authority and outlays.
  While I am pleased with many aspects of the bill, I must object to 
the

[[Page S10784]]

manner in which the conference dealt with the Baucus amendment. The 
Senate had unanimously agreed to this important amendment during floor 
consideration of H.R. 3675.
  The rejection of the Baucus amendment will directly lead to 31 States 
losing 1997 highway funding. New Mexico will lose $20 million when 
compared to 1996--a reduction of 12 percent.
  This reduction is totally unacceptable and I will be working with my 
colleagues over the next few weeks to address this critical issue 
before the end of this congressional session.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the final bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT     
               [Fiscal year 1997, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................  .........         37
  H.R. 3675, conference report....................  .........  .........
  Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal defense discretionary..............  .........         37
                                                   =====================
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................  .........     23,748
  H.R. 3675, conference report....................     11,991     11,668
  Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal nondefense discretionary...........     11,991     35,416
                                                   =====================
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................  .........  .........
  H.R. 3675, conference report....................  .........  .........
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget.........................................  .........  .........
    Resolution assumptions........................        605        602
                                                   ---------------------
    Subtotal mandatory............................        605        602
                                                   =====================
      Adjusted bill total.........................     12,596     36,055
                                                   =====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary...........................  .........         37
  Nondefense discretionary........................     12,050     35,416
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................        605        602
                                                   ---------------------
      Total allocation............................     12,655     36,055
                                                   =====================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
  Defense discretionary...........................  .........  .........
  Nondefense discretionary........................        -59  .........
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Total allocation............................        -59  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                

                        hood river, oregon buses

  Mr. HATFIELD. The bus and bus facilities distribution table included 
in the statement of managers accompanying the conference report--House 
Report 104-785--directs funds to Hood River, OR, for buses. However, it 
has lately been brought to my attention that these funds can best be 
used for intermodal purposes. I ask my colleague if he will agree that 
the notation ``buses'' should be interpreted by the Federal Transit 
Administration to include an intermodal project at Hood River?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. It is my understanding that this interpretation 
is acceptable to the conferees.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator. This interpretation will enable 
Hood River to make the best use of these funds according to local 
priorities.


                       Amtrak Privatization Study

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conference report on 
H.R. 3675, the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
appropriations bill for FY 1997, incorporated the Amtrak Privatization 
Study that was included in the Senate report.
  As my colleagues know, within 1 year, the Federal Railroad 
Administration is to conduct a study of reforms and specific 
privatization options that I believe hold the potential to revitalizing 
intercity passenger rail service in the United States. As the sponsor 
of the Senate report language, I want to emphasize that this is a very 
important undertaking. Congress has failed to enact much-needed reforms 
in liability and other areas during this Congress, and Amtrak is facing 
numerous financial difficulties. Accordingly, Amtrak announced its 
intention last month to cut back routes as a means of reducing its 
current operating deficit. In my view, Congress must not sit by and 
watch Amtrak wither away.
  The language included in the ``Statement of Managers'' refers to the 
Senate initiative, which permits the Federal Railroad Administration's 
study to include the recommendations of the Discovery Institute Inquiry 
on Passenger Rail Privatization of October 1995. As many may know, 
representatives from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA, have 
already done substantial work on passenger rail privatization. In fact, 
I recently met with Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, 
who indicated that the Discovery Institute intends to give this matter 
high priority. Already, Discovery has scripted plans to form a high-
level Public-Private Council, which would assist in the study process, 
analyze various options, and make recommendations to the Federal 
Railroad Administrator for the final report, which is to be transmitted 
to Congress by August 1, 1997. Because of its continued enthusiasm 
regarding this issue, I would hope that the Discovery Institute is 
allowed to play a significant role in the Federal Railroad 
Administration study following its commencement later this year.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Let me thank the Senator from Washington for his 
thoughts on this matter. I was pleased to work with Senator Gorton on 
this issue because I recognize the importance of passenger rail in the 
Pacific Northwest, and I agree with his comments.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to commend the leadership of my 
colleagues from Oregon and New Jersey, Senators Hatfield and 
Lautenberg, for their key role in bringing this Transportation 
appropriations bill to this point, which should take it to a White 
House signature.
  No bill is ever all that we might like it to be, of course, and this 
bill is not an exception. Among its disappointments is the fact it does 
not reverse the troubling course of this Congress towards disinvestment 
in critical areas of our infrastructure such as passenger rail. Amtrak 
continues to be underfunded; this bill contains $565 million for Amtrak 
in fiscal year 1997. This number is simply not sufficient for Amtrak to 
function effectively and to meet the intercity passenger rail needs of 
our Nation's rail passengers. We continue, for ideological and other 
reasons, to insist on inadequately funding Amtrak. The results are 
already apparent. The difficult cuts in Amtrak service with which we 
now struggle in central and western Massachusetts and other areas of 
the country are a direct result of this course. Ironically, as Amtrak 
is beginning to cut service and eliminate routes, Senators who often 
oppose Amtrak funding suddenly emerged at a hearing last week as strong 
proponents of intercity passenger rail service. I hope these Senators 
will join me next year as I continue to fight for increased funding for 
Amtrak and to ensure that we have a sufficiently capitalized intercity 
passenger rail system.
  In addition, the conference report appropriates only $115 million for 
the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project. This is another example of 
the Congress failing to respond to important needs of its citizens. The 
Northeast corridor is where the greatest proportion of Amtrak's 
passengers are, and NECIP, therefore, represents the key to Amtrak's 
future. We cannot continue to attract riders if we do not furnish them 
with a first class mode of transportation. Those Members who seek to 
see Amtrak ``whither on the vine,'' in the words of the Speaker of the 
House, are attempting to achieve this goal by short-funding NECIP. I 
will continue to fight in the future for sufficient funding of this 
important project.
  Before I depart this topic, I want to express my sincere gratitude to 
Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, who continues to be one of the best 
friends that Amtrak has in the Congress. I know that the Senator from 
New Jersey did all he could to maximize funding for Amtrak in the 
coming year, and I look forward to working with my friend next year as 
we continue to fight for Amtrak and our Nation's rail passengers.
  Senator Lautenberg also sought through this bill to ameliorate the 
effects of a formula alteration affecting highway funding under the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--or ISTEA. His efforts 
would have been helpful to Massachusetts and 27 other States who are 
losers under that alteration. I regret his proposal for a temporary 
hold harmless was rejected. The result is that this important funding 
distribution issue will have to be confronted next year when ISTEA 
reauthorization legislation is considered.

[[Page S10785]]

  As much as I wish the conference report could have provided more 
adequately for Amtrak and provided the hold harmless for highway 
funding, I still deeply appreciate the work of Chairman Hatfield and 
Senator Lautenberg with respect to many other provisions in this bill. 
This bill makes extremely important commitments to Massachusetts on 
several projects which form the backbone of intracity and commuter rail 
traffic in my State, and in these very tight fiscal times, such 
commitments are all the more important.
  This bill continues the Federal Government's commitment to the 
rebuilding of Worcester's historic Union Station, the hub of 
transportation in that city and, indeed, for all of central 
Massachusetts. It continues the Federal Government's commitment to the 
further development of the Gallagher Terminal in Lowell, which has 
become one of the Nation's most successful intermodal facilities, and a 
pivot point for commuter traffic among and between the Merrimack 
Valley, southern New Hampshire, and greater Boston.
  This bill makes a critical initial commitment to the creation of a 
true intermodal facility at Springfield's Union Station, which, like 
Worcester's, will become the focal point for expanded transit in its 
area--which is the Pioneer Valley. And this bill makes a similar 
commitment to Cape Cod, which will create a new intermodal center in 
Hyannis to help the Cape address its need to provide alternative 
transportation in a region often choked with cars.
  Finally, this bill continues the government's commitment to the South 
Boston Piers Transitway Project, on which the city of Boston has rested 
so much hope and expectation for a renaissance along its waterfront.
  On another matter, with regard to the Coast Guard budget, I would 
like to bring attention to the fact that this is the 7th year in a row 
where the Congress has failed to appropriate for the Coast Guard the 
amount sought in the President's budget. I am pleased that we came 
closer than we have the past 6 years, but we still failed to meet the 
mark. I find this action very troubling when the Coast Guard has been 
one of the star performers in the administration's efforts to reduce 
the size of Government and eliminate all excess waste from the budget. 
Just this past year, the Coast Guard executed, very successfully I 
might add, a very aggressive internal streamlining effort without 
commensurate reductions in any of the services that it provides to the 
American public. The Coast Guard continues to do more with less.
  With the renewed focus on the war on drugs, the Coast Guard will be 
one of the lead agencies in our effort to stop drugs from entering our 
country and ultimately ending up in the hands of people--even 
children--in our neighborhoods and schools, yet no additional resources 
are being provided for this purpose, so the Coast Guard will have to 
absorb the cost of executing this renewed effort. If we want the Coast 
Guard to continue to provide the services that many Americans have come 
to take for granted, we must not continue to shoulder it with greater 
responsibilities and more missions without adequate resources to do the 
job.
  We must be vigilant in our obligation to the men and women of our 
Nation's oldest continuous seagoing service, and the world's premier 
maritime experts and guardians of the sea. We must ensure that they 
have what they need to do the job, and to remain ``Semper Paratus'' 
(always ready).
  This bill bears the mark of Chairman Hatfield's thoughtful 
leadership, which we will so sorely miss in the next Senate, and of the 
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, 
on whose knowledge and leadership on transportation issues I and many 
of my colleagues have come to depend.
  We in Massachusetts owe Senator Lautenberg a continuing debt of 
gratitude, not only for the work he has done in this Congress under 
very difficult conditions, but for the work he has done for so many 
years past. Senator Lautenberg understands the needs and priorities of 
our State and all the Northeastern States, and he understands them 
almost instinctively. He has been our champion for a fair and equitable 
approach to Federal transportation policy that supports the economies 
and the public convenience of every area of this country, including the 
kind of enormously complex urban areas that we both represent. I want 
to thank him, once again, for his help with these important matters. It 
also is fitting that I say thanks to his staff, Peter Rogoff, who 
consistently has been helpful and accessible to me and my staff. In 
fact, it is a pleasure to deal with all the staff for this 
subcommittee, who epitomize the professionalism that enables this 
institution to get its work done for the American people.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when we passed the fiscal year 1997 
Transportation appropriations bill in this Chamber, it passed with an 
important amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, Senator 
Baucus. The Baucus amendment would have corrected an accounting error 
made by the Treasury Department with regard to the State distribution 
formula for highway trust fund obligation authority.
  When the Transportation appropriations bill went to conference, the 
conferees refused to accept the Baucus amendment, which would have 
empowered the Federal Highway Administration to remedy this error and 
would have given Congress the time needed to adjust this formulaic 
distribution issue next year when we consider ISTEA's reauthorization.
  The bottom line result in this conference report is that 28 States 
are losing money for general road repair, construction, maintenance, 
and service in a year in which the overall obligation ceiling for these 
expenditures is rising to its highest level in history. This conference 
report increases overall highway spending authority to $18 billion, a 
full $450 million higher than the current year's level. Thus, in a year 
in which we are pumping half a billion dollars into this program, 28 
States are getting hit with reductions, some of which are very serious.
  In contrast, there are some big winners because of this accounting 
error. Texas is receiving a $183 million increase, which is about 19 
percent greater than last year. Arizona, which also borders New Mexico, 
is receiving a 24 percent increase; and California is receiving a 9 
percent increase. Clearly, in a year in which we are raising the level 
of expenditures for highways, some States will naturally see an 
increase in spending authority. But I do not feel that there is any 
justification for the serious cuts that many States are now facing 
because of this conference report.
  My own State of New Mexico received approximately $169 million from 
the Federal Highway Administration during the last fiscal year. New 
Mexico would have received roughly the same level of spending authority 
if the conference report had followed the Senate bill recommendation. 
But as we can now see, New Mexico is getting a real decrease of about 
12 percent, amounting to a $20 million reduction from last year's 
levels. New Mexico's total obligation limitation from Federal Highway 
Administration funds is $149 million. I can't accept this.

  I had intended to support this year's Transportation Appropriations 
Conference Report. I was pleased that the Albuquerque, NM-based Urban/
Rural Intelligent Corridor Application [URICA] project had been funded 
at a level of $2 million. The Alliance for Transportation Research, a 
consortia of Sandia National Laboratory, the city of Albuquerque, Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, and the University of New Mexico, has been 
at the forefront of many important innovative transportation 
initiatives. New Mexico has been well-positioned in advanced efforts in 
transportation system problem solving.
  The goal of this URICA project is to implement a system that helps 
integrate the transportation needs of physically challenged citizens 
with fixed transportation systems in both rural and urban regions.
  This conference report also encourages cities and regions in the 
United States to consult with Los Alamos National Laboratory on the 
problem of transportation and air emissions. Los Alamos has also worked 
within the New Mexico-based Alliance for Transportation Research to tie 
together technologies from this important national laboratory with air 
quality monitoring programs and remediation efforts.

[[Page S10786]]

  This report also provided ongoing essential air service funding, 
which is critically important to three regions in my State which are 
Clovis, Alamogordo, and Silver City.
  And I also endorse the $1 million appropriation included in this bill 
that would be provided to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California 
for increased Mexican border law enforcement activities.
  I did want to support this conference report, but unfortunately, 
without much warning and little fanfare, 28 States will be seeing less 
highway funding authority next year while 22 States will be reaping 
increases, some of which are very large increases.
  Mr. President, I regret that I must vote against this Transportation 
Appropriations Conference Report, and if asked by the President about 
my opposition, I will recommend that he veto this legislation from the 
Congress. We were not sent here to protect and defend the results of 
accounting errors. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference 
result as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that the criticisms 
I am about to make are in no way directed at the chairman of the full 
committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee. I think they 
share my views on these issues. I am under no illusions; the chairman 
said earlier that the Senate had straitjacketed the committee in many 
ways and the House had stiffed the committee in other ways, that what 
we were able to do here on the Senate side in conference was not made 
extremely difficult. I understand that.
  I rise today to point out what I believe to be some serious flaws in 
this legislation. This Transportation appropriations bill, I am sorry 
to say, is unacceptable.
  I do not want to mislead my colleagues. I am not sure there was a 
request for a time agreement, but I indicated to floor staff if there 
was I would object, and to be completely blunt with my two colleagues, 
I have never engaged in a filibuster in my 23 years, almost 24 years in 
the Senate, and I am, quite frankly, weighing as I speak and my staff 
talks whether or not there would be any utility in my doing that.
  The chairman makes a very important point relative to the continuing 
resolution. My fear and concern is that even were I successful in 
keeping this bill from passing, the continuing resolution would, in 
effect, include the numbers that, in fact, are the ones that disturb me 
the most about the bill.
  So to the extent that I do not want to mess up their schedules and be 
straightforward with them, which is what I am going to do, I would just 
suggest they stay tuned for another few minutes. I will, quite frankly, 
make that judgment and determine whether to do what I have never done 
before, to engage in what we say is extended debate.
  Let me direct my comments this afternoon to what I think are the most 
serious flaws in this legislation.
  First, I think this appropriations bill badly fumbles the task of 
putting our Nation's passenger rail service, Amtrak, on its feet, 
earning operating income and ending its operating subsidies. I want to 
remind you that is the goal we all signed on to--we, the Congress. We 
said that our goal is, in the Senate and the House, that Amtrak will be 
able to operate without subsidies by the year 2002, or, put another 
way, we are not going to help them after that.
  Implicit in setting that goal--and I remember how reluctant some of 
us were to agree to that goal because there is no other major passenger 
rail service in the world that does not have some government subsidy, 
none that I am aware of. It always surprises me; my friends in my home 
State, my friends in the Senate will be somewhere on business or 
pleasure that takes them to another country, and they will come back 
and they will talk about, gosh, I was on that bullet train in Japan, 
or, gosh, I was on the train in Germany, or, gosh, I was on that train 
in Sweden. It is remarkable. They are clean and they are fast and they 
are on time. Why can't we have that here?
  The reason we do not have it is we do not support the passenger rail 
service like they do in other countries. Now, there are a lot of 
reasons we do not do that, not the least of which is our industries, 
like the cement industry, like the blacktop industry, the trucking 
industry, see rail as a threat. They do not see it as an adjunct to the 
economic growth and vitality of the Nation. They see it as a threat.
  So we have had incredible difficulty doing what other countries have 
done, and that is to look at transportation as a whole, not look at 
transportation as airplanes and highways but looking at the entire 
component of what constitutes transportation--passenger transportation 
and freight transportation in this country.
  I know Senator Lautenberg has labored mightily, and I mean that 
literally, to try to convince people--along with Senator Moynihan, 
before he went over to the Finance Committee--that we have to look at 
transportation in a different way than we have up to now, thinking only 
in terms of highways.
  There is a lot of money in it, and for the life of me I cannot 
understand why the highway interests in this country, which we support 
by hundreds of millions of dollars--it is not as if we are against 
highways if you are for mass transit or you are for mass transit 
passenger service. They have fought tooth and nail anything that spends 
any of our highway trust fund moneys or any moneys for anything other 
than laying concrete and blacktop.
  Now, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that in 
certain parts of our country we cannot lay much more concrete and 
blacktop. In the Northeast corridor, from Richmond up to Boston, there 
is not a whole lot more land available to accommodate the increased 
traffic patterns.
  What do we do, make I-95 20 lanes wide? By the way, you think I am 
joking. In some places, I-95 is already 10 lanes wide. Where are we 
going to accommodate this extra movement of people when Amtrak is no 
longer available in our corridor? And also, what happens when, as we 
repeatedly see happening, there is a constant cutback in Amtrak into 
rural areas and into States in the Midwest and the Northwest that 
profited very much from the access to Amtrak?
  It is a funny thing, it seems, that old expression of ``the more 
things change, the more they remain the same.'' I used to be a county 
councilman in 1970 in our State's largest county before I was elected 
to the Senate. I was a big booster in the late 1960's and 1970 when I 
was a council person, for mass transportation, because it was obvious 
at that time the county I lived in, was the fastest growing county in 
America. As a matter of fact, ``Candid Camera,'' Allen Funt's ``Candid 
Camera,'' did a whole program on taking the four-lane highway that 
connected Pennsylvania and Delaware at the Pennsylvania-Delaware border 
at the northern part of the county and on the Pennsylvania side as they 
crossed into Delaware put up a giant sign with the permission of the 
highway department: ``Sorry, Delaware Closed Today,'' and people were 
actually stopping. People actually stopped. It was a ``Candid Camera'' 
stunt.
  So, in the midst of all of that, some of us, myself in particular, 
started to turn toward trying to deal with mass transit, a minor thing. 
We are talking about 450,000 people in the county. It is not like we 
are talking about--there are 10 counties in New Jersey bigger than that 
and there are probably 20 cities bigger than that. And so we are not 
talking about a vast number of people in relative terms in relation to 
other places.
  I found something interesting. This is the part about ``the more 
things change, the more they remain the same.'' I would be told that 
the bus service--we had no rail service--the bus service we have, that 
is, servicing the community, is losing money. And so when it starts to 
lose money, what we do is we go out and cut out a route. Let us assume 
for the sake of discussion there were 50 bus routes, and the system is 
losing money. They say, well, we have to cut some expenditures here, 
and so we are going to cut out two routes.
  Now, assume it had 50 routes and 100,000 people getting on the bus. 
If you cut out two routes, you would think that you would have, then, a 
commensurate reduction in the amount of ridership. But that is not how 
it works. When you cut out two routes, twice as

[[Page S10787]]

many people who rode those routes stopped taking the bus because the 
choices are diminished, not just the people who rode that one route. 
What happens is, it has a geometric impact. As you cut a piece in terms 
of your operation, what you do is you cut a much larger piece in terms 
of ridership. That is how it works.
  So, here we are. In the name of saving Amtrak, we put Amtrak's 
leadership in a position of having to make significant operational cuts 
in service. So, when they cut the train that goes through Montana to 
the State of Washington, what do they do? They cut alternatives, so 
that means fewer people ride the train in Illinois as well. It means 
fewer people ride the train in Indiana. It increases in geometrical 
proportion to the cut that is made.
  It also has a very serious political impact. Then the Senators from 
Montana or the Senators from other States that got cut say, ``What 
interest do I have in funding this Amtrak thing, it does not service my 
State anymore?'' And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
  There was one place, one section in the National Passenger Rail 
Service System that, if we improved it, could make money, money enough 
to, in turn, through Amtrak, subsidize other Amtrak routes so that you 
would be able to, without coming back to the Government or the 
taxpayers, say, OK, we can keep that train going through Montana 
because Amtrak management says we make a surplus in the trains that run 
from Boston to Washington. That was part of the whole deal we made 
here. We said, OK, we will run the risk of having this whole passenger 
rail service go belly up by the year 2000 by committing not to have any 
more subsidies. But we need to do some things in the interim to put the 
system in a position to be able to make it.
  So what did we do? In this legislation we went out and we slashed, by 
a significant amount, the amount of money that would be available to 
further modernize the corridor, as they call it, between New York and 
Boston.
  What has happened is that Amtrak is an electrified system. What has 
happened, once you get above New York City--actually in New Haven, CT--
you have to switch the trains you use. The tracks are old and some of 
the bridges need to be repaired and some of the curves have to be 
straightened out, et cetera, because it is not electrified. So we made 
a deal. We said, OK, we are going to electrify the whole system so it 
is unified all the way along that megalopolis, and we said we are going 
to bring in modern high-speed trains that allow us to compete, in fact, 
with air transportation and road transportation between Boston and 
Washington. We even picked out the trains we were going to purchase. 
And because the projections were that ridership would be up because we 
had improved the number and type of trains that were being used, so 
that we would generate enough capital, and we would generate enough 
money to operate as well as maintain the system. And we would have 
money left over to go out and continue the train in Texas which is 
being cut, continue the train in Louisiana which is being cut, in 
Montana, et cetera, so we could build the system.
  By the way, obviously, I am sure some are sitting there, willing and 
ready, and I do not blame them, to make the ad hominem argument, which 
is: Obviously, Joe Biden wants this because it affects the Northeast 
corridor where he lives. It affects his State employment, affects his 
State's economy, it affects the whole region.
  That is true. But look beyond that. Notwithstanding the fact that it 
positively affects my State and the Northeast corridor, it is the only 
salvation for the rest of the system. We can duplicate that process 
over time on the west coast. So we can have the capability of similarly 
moving people rapidly, with high speed, on the west coast. We do not 
need quite as much improvement because you do not have to electrify the 
system, and so on and so forth.

  What have we done? We have done what we used to do in the county 
council days. In order to save money, allegedly, we will, by this 
legislation, force Amtrak to make further cuts, further reducing 
Amtrak's capability to meet the goal which we all set and insist that 
they be able to meet by the year 2002. We are guaranteeing, unless we 
get a supplemental or defeat this or change the number that is in this, 
we are guaranteeing that Amtrak cannot meet the goal.
  It is a little bit like saying to someone you are coaching on the 
track team who has great potential:
  Look, I will tell you what we are going to do. You do not have much 
money. You have to pay me my salary, and I know you don't have enough 
money to have me train you, and you have 9-second capability in the 
hundred meter, which is world class. But I will tell you, in order to 
save money, you have to wear old Keds sneakers. You cannot wear shoes 
that, in fact, are the kind that are light, lightweight, modern and 
functional. By the way, we cannot afford starting blocks. So I am going 
to continue to coach you if you can break the record. But, in order for 
you to get me as a coach, what you have to do is we have to cut out 
these frills--the frills meaning your shoes and the starting blocks--
guaranteeing you will never get out of the blocks in order to keep me 
as your coach, because you never get to the number, you can never get 
to the speed, you can never get to the time I am going to be satisfied 
with in order to be able to continue to coach you.
  So why start the process in the first place? That is kind of where we 
are now. I mean, the idea that the rail connection between Boston, 
Washington, and New York, will basically have to be put on hold--by the 
way, we need to up the authorization in this bill for the Northeast 
corridor to be able to keep Amtrak on track, which is about $17 million 
in outlays, I believe that is the number, to be spent next year to 
continue to complete the project.
  I know my colleagues understand all this Senate jargon, congressional 
jargon, but the bottom line is, unless the number is higher, we do not 
have $17 million to do what needs to be done to keep the Northeast 
corridor project on time and be able to get us in a position where we 
can buy those train sets and where we can in fact begin to generate the 
revenue you need in order to meet the objective of being free of 
subsidies by the year 2002.
  Let me point out one other thing that has been pointed out repeatedly 
by Senator Lautenberg. If you deal with this fairly and you measure 
``the Government subsidies,'' both in direct expenditures and in tax 
expenditures that go for highways, that go for the airlines and go for 
mass transit, Amtrak gets subsidized less.
  For example, all you may not realize, when you pay for your plane 
ticket, the Government subsidizes an air traffic controller that makes 
sure you can land or not land, it subsidizes the building of that 
airport and runway, it subsidizes that control tower. The airline does 
not pay for that. They pay part of it, but they do not pay anywhere 
near the cost of it. It is a significant subsidy.
  So all the airlines are out there touting that this is a subsidy to--
I should not say that--touting this is a subsidy to Amtrak, ``Why 
should we pay to subsidize a person's ticket, a woman who wants to get 
on a train in Gainesville, FL, and go to Raleigh, NC? Why should we do 
that?"
  I ask the reciprocal question: Why should we do that for someone 
getting on an airplane? The subsidy is greater for the airline industry 
than it is for the passenger rail service, and the same way with 
highways. We have a highway trust fund that pays for the laying of the 
concrete and the putting up of the barriers, et cetera, but it does not 
pay for all those cops that are out there, it does not pay for all 
those maintenance crews, it does not pay for the accidents when they 
occur, it does not pay for a lot of things. So we subsidize beyond--
beyond--what we, in fact, collect in the gasoline tax for the highway 
system.
  Why is it we apply a different standard when we are talking about the 
``subsidies for passenger rail service?'' I will tell you why. Because 
there are a lot of people who make a lot of money and have a lot of 
influence down here who, in fact--and they are good people--who, in 
fact, make the concrete that gets poured on the highways. If you are 
going to spend money on a railroad, you are not pouring concrete on a 
highway. That is how they view it.
  A lot of people out there make an awful lot of money in the trucking 
industry. I suggest to you all that you

[[Page S10788]]

walk down the corridor connecting the House and the Senate Chambers, 
and there are political cartoons that are on display, historical 
cartoons on display--I believe it is on the first floor--that show 
cartoons from the days of the turn of the century. Some of them you 
will remember from your grade school and high school civic books where 
they have the pictures of the bloated Senators, like blimps, 
representing the big mega interests, the oil cartels and the railroad 
interests and the rest.
  This is an ongoing fight. This is money; this is power. This is a big 
deal to a lot of different people. They do not think of the national 
interest. What they are thinking of--and it is human nature--is their 
own particular selfish interests.
  Look, how many railroads at the turn of the century were happy to see 
automobiles come into existence, and then trucks? They did everything 
in the world to keep trucks and highways from being built, because they 
knew if you were able to put this stuff on the back of a truck and cart 
it down the highway, then they did not have the cargo going on top of a 
rail car where they were charging a fee to send it to folks. The folks 
who owned the railroads did not want that, and here we have come full 
circle. The folks who pour the concrete, the folks who make the 
blacktop, the folks who put up the reflectors on the highways do not 
want rail passenger service. They don't want it, because they view it 
as somehow that will affect how many more highways they build.
  In a sense, it will. If we, in fact, have Amtrak go belly up in the 
Northeast corridor, we are going to have to build other lanes of I-95--
not figuratively, literally--we are going to have to build more lanes, 
unless you want to get on 95 and go bumper to bumper from Washington to 
New York, or maybe you do not want to go to New York anymore, but that 
is what it is going to take. You will have to do that.
  You will have a few people make a whole lot of money, but you sure 
won't help the environment. You are going to pollute the environment 
more. You sure won't help in terms of safety, and you sure won't help 
in terms of public policy, and I do not know why we cannot get that 
through to people, why that doesn't resonate.

  I realize we have a love affair with the automobile. I have a love 
affair with my automobile. I have a 1967 Corvette I had restored. Next 
to my kids--maybe my dog comes next--I love it. So I have a love affair 
with my car, too, but that does not mean I also cannot be rational in 
how I am going to approach what are the environmental and 
transportation needs for this country.
  So what happens here? What happens here is that we are in a 
circumstance where--and I have not even mentioned yet the cuts to the 
28 States that are small States in highway trust fund moneys. You have 
tens of millions of people going through my little old State of 
Delaware on I-95, and you just got our transportation money, highway 
money, too. You give us a nice double whammy here. I mean ``you'' in an 
editorial sense. The appropriations bill makes sure that we diminish 
the prospects of Amtrak, which is critically important to my region, 
and I think to the Nation. By the way, you are going to force us to 
have to build more highways, and then you turn around and say, ``By the 
way, we're not going to give you as much in highways.'' We are going to 
get less money this year with a $400 million increase in expenditures 
than we did last year with a highway bill that was $400 million less. 
Talk about sharing in the wealth. There is a lot of wealth to be 
shared, but the small States, 28 States, are not sharing this.
  Without belaboring the point about the highways, it is not long ago 
the Senate passed its version of the Transportation appropriations 
bill. Under the leadership of Senators Lautenberg and Hatfield, that 
bill provided funding for Amtrak's capital function and important 
Northeast corridor improvement projects at appropriated levels. Some of 
my colleagues may recall, and I know that I do, that my good friend, 
Senator McCain from Arizona, offered an amendment to return to the 
completely inadequate funding levels that Amtrak had in the House 
version of the bill, which is what we are closer to now in this 
version. Specifically, his amendment would have cut the Northeast 
corridor funding to zero from $200 million in the Senate bill and would 
have cut overall capital spending in half from $250 million in the 
Senate bill down to $120 million.
  Mr. President, we had what I would like to think was a pretty good 
exchange of views on the role of passenger rail in our Nation's 
transportation system and how our Federal system of Government 
allocates the many benefits and burdens shared by the citizens of all 
50 States.
  Senator McCain's proposal in the end was defeated by 82 to 17--82 to 
17--and that was an overwhelming endorsement of the funding levels 
provided for Amtrak by the Senate in its version of the bill. But 
despite the best efforts of Senator Lautenberg, this conference report 
was a giant step backward toward the wholly inadequate numbers of the 
House bill, which is what Senator McCain was pushing.
  The bill before us today is not just a step backward, it is a step on 
a very slippery slope toward the demise of our country's passenger rail 
system. Under the mistaken assumption that a penny cut from Amtrak's 
investment functions somehow is a penny saved, this bill actually 
offers us the formula for failure, as I referenced earlier, by cutting 
important investment functions.
  Mr. President, the legislation actually reduces the efficiency of the 
remaining dollars spent on Amtrak. Good business practice that Congress 
has demanded of Amtrak requires investment in equipment and services 
that will increase ridership, increase revenues and increase Amtrak's 
ability to become self-sufficient when it comes to its operating 
expenditures.
  Amtrak has undertaken just such an investment program, and the 
Northeast corridor improvement project is a major portion of it. By 
straightening out the right-of-ways, by strengthening bridges and 
overpasses, by extending electrification along the route between Boston 
and Washington, this project is going to make possible the inauguration 
of the most modern, high-speed rail connections along one of the 
country's most populous transportation corridors--and be able to be 
transferred, I might add, as well to the west coast.
  All over the globe other advanced economies and some not so advanced 
are also providing such services to their citizens. This country is 
finally approaching the standard set elsewhere for clean air, fuel 
efficiency, and convenient passenger rail service that can take some of 
the load off the rest of our overburdened transportation system.
  Mr. President, I wonder if anyone really thinks that the answers to 
our transportation problems lie in more asphalt, lie in more concrete, 
increasing our dependency on an already overloaded highway system in 
significant sectors of the country? If the improvements to Amtrak's 
Northeast corridor were fully funded and completed, it would remove 
325,000 drivers from the crowded I-95 corridor--325,000. That does not 
even raise the issue of, if it goes under, how many people will it add 
to that corridor.
  Herein lies the problem. Highway guys do not like that, to pull a 
third of a million people off I-95. Your maintenance is down, you do 
not have to pour as much concrete, you do not have to expand as much, 
though the air would be cleaner, there will be fewer accidents, there 
will be less overall cost to the economy, and there will be greater 
comfort and efficiency. That is what it is about.
  Are we prepared to undertake the construction of more expensive 
airports? My friend from New Jersey and I are bordering States. One of 
the things they are trying to figure out in South Jersey and Northern 
Delaware is, as the Philadelphia airport continues to get overcrowded, 
what relief airports are we going to build? Where are we going to build 
other airports? How congested can the air get in a Delaware valley that 
is 10 million people? Think of what it is for my colleague from New 
Jersey in the northern part of his State where there is probably closer 
to 15 million. I do not know what the number is, but it is bigger than 
the Delaware valley.
  Where do you go? How many airplanes can you circle? Come with me on a 
Friday night, sit out in my yard,

[[Page S10789]]

which is just 22 miles from the Philadelphia airport. It looks like 
fireflies lined up as far as the eye can see, wasting fuel, wasting 
time, increasing dangers, because there is not enough space to be able 
to land all those planes at one time.
  So what are we going to do? Are we going to build more airports? Let 
me tell you, that will cost you more than building more Amtrak 
capability. What it also does--concrete guys are happy. There is an 
awful lot of concrete in those airports, an awful lot of concrete.
  So I just do not understand where people think this is going to go. I 
do not know where they think our traffic and control systems--how many 
more flights can they take, especially now? If you live in the middle 
of Montana or the middle of Nebraska or the middle of other parts of 
other big States, yeah, there is all kinds of room for this; there are 
not many people, but all kinds of room for more airports. But they do 
not need the airports there. They need the airports where we are.
  So what you are saying to us on the west coast and the east coast and 
the congested areas is, you are saying, ``OK. Pick your poison, 
Biden.'' We either are going to congest the airways or we are going to 
congest the highways. We are going to increase the safety risk. Which 
do you want? I say, you are giving me a Hobson's choice. It is a false 
choice.
  Have those systems in place, improve them--they will probably have to 
be expanded anyway--but give us also another alternative, a clean 
alternative, an economical alternative, in relative terms. Allow us to 
have rail transportation which will benefit the whole country.

  As the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee understands, and as Senator Lautenberg 
likes to remind us, annual ridership on Amtrak's Northeast corridor 
alone is equivalent to 7,500 fully loaded 757 jets. I did not know that 
number until he raised it. But think of that. Just the passengers in 
the Northeast corridor. Understand, the passengers in the Northeast 
corridor are going, in the Northeast, to either Washington, Baltimore, 
Wilmington, Philadelphia, Trenton, Camden, et cetera.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator would yield.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be glad to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I was going to remind him as we discuss this and ask 
if he was aware of the fact we would be loading the skies with some 
1,500 more flights a week--that is typically in a 5-day week--where the 
delays now are unbearable, even when the sun shines bright.
  Mr. BIDEN. That is right.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Plus the fact that I want to know whether the Senator 
was aware that if we had to relocate or substantially expand the Logan 
Airport, which would be required in the Boston area absent substantial 
Amtrak improvements, the cost to the taxpayer would be several billion 
dollars.
  Mr. BIDEN. With a ``B,'' billion.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Hardly compares with a few hundred million dollars 
spent to get Amtrak's Northeast corridor up to shape where we could 
produce a surplus revenue cash flow that would not have us here with 
the beggar cup waiting every year to try to get a few dollars.
  I want to say to the Senator that the case you make is so clear. I 
hope that some of our colleagues who come from distant places are able 
to see the connection. It is just like the Army Corps of Engineers. If 
they are not financed to take care of the problems out West, then they 
are not available nor would they be available in the East. This is a 
national thing, even though its presence is principally in the heaviest 
populated area of our country.
  When it comes to services that are headquartered here, like the FAA--
one does not say, ``Well, wait a second. Don't put more money in the 
FAA safety research office in Washington, because we are out in 
Colorado or New Mexico or someplace''? They say, ``No. Keep on 
investing because we all benefit from such investments.'' Would the 
Senator agree?
  Mr. BIDEN. I would agree fully. The Senator from New Jersey, since he 
has been here--I am not being solicitous here--has been a leader on a 
number of issues, but two in particular, on environmental issues, and 
on this issue of transportation.
  That image, of which is literally true, of 7,500 fully loaded 757's 
is something I hope everybody kind of keeps in their minds. But put it 
another way. I ask my colleagues from other States that do not have the 
same congestion problems, OK, Amtrak goes belly up. Who do you think is 
going to come after your highway money? Who do you think is coming 
after your highway money then? Do you think we are going to sit around 
and say, OK, we are just going to go to gridlock in the East? We are 
just not going to do anything? We are going to have a new battle. So 
the money you think you are benefiting from by not spending on Amtrak 
and putting more money in the highways in States that do not have 
Amtrak because we are not competing for as many of those dollars with 
you, we will have to if it changes.
  What formula will you be able to draft that in fact will not justify 
our getting the significantly larger amount of the highway trust fund 
moneys? We are talking about a third of the Nation's population. This 
is a big deal. We are not asking for anything that we are not entitled 
to, that does not make good public policy, that is not in the national 
interest, and that is not anything any other mode of transportation is 
not already getting.
  But, again, keep that image in mind. I just see it now, folks, those 
7,500 fully loaded 757's bouncing around annually beyond what we have 
now. Try to get home from National Airport when you are going home for 
the weekend to whatever State you are from.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. What do you think would happen if there was a bad 
weather day along the way? The economy of the country would grind to a 
halt because we are inextricably linked with our other sections of the 
country in our business, the stock market, you name it. What might 
happen when those 7,500 airplane trips try to deal with a snowstorm in 
the East, or tornadoes or hurricanes, whatever else is the latest in 
the mode of weather disasters?
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator makes a good point. He and I ride Amtrak a 
lot. When I leave my house in the morning, I commute every day. I have 
clean hands here; I have a naked self-interest. I ride Amtrak every 
day, OK, and have been doing it for 24 years. As my mother says, ``When 
you are hung by your thumbs long enough, you get used to it.'' I have 
been riding a long time.
  Literally one of my rituals, I say to my friend from New Jersey, as I 
shave, I turn on the weather channel, because if airports are socked 
in, I will not get a seat on Amtrak. I better get to the station early. 
The converse of that is true. What happens if there is no place to go? 
Right now Amtrak ridership increases exponentially when there is bad 
weather because the airports are not flying, the airlines are not 
flying, or they are so delayed the business people and others cannot 
count on them.
  The funding levels in this bill that delay the upgrade are adding to 
the cost of air pollution, wasted time in traffic, airport delays, 
highway and airport maintenance costs, and safety problems. Even more 
foolishly, Mr. President, by indefinitely delaying the completion of 
the Northeast corridor improvements, this bill will indefinitely delay 
the day when new high-speed transit--already ordered, already funded in 
the same legislation--will be able to go into full operation. Not only 
is this a pointless waste of the new equipment, but a false economy.
  By postponing the day when full high-speed rail service becomes 
available between Boston and Washington, this bill means Amtrak will 
lose indefinitely the ability to generate profits, precisely the goals 
we have been told and we have told Amtrak they must, in fact, meet.
  Once lost, these profits will never be made up. Every year without 
profits is another year Amtrak routes suffer and go further in the red 
ink, another year in which Amtrak will need operating subsidies from 
the Congress. Instead of committing to the investment now that will 
start generating this income, that could support other less profitable 
routes, this legislation guarantees that Amtrak will remain hobbled. So 
the consequence and impact will be that

[[Page S10790]]

train that our friends from Texas--and I compliment them on their 
effort--are trying to maintain going into Texas will be lost, that 
train that the Governor of Montana wants to get back in Montana will 
not be able to be routed because it cannot sustain itself.
  It is like the business of setting up electric and telephone service. 
It is not as profitable to run a line 8 miles down a road to a farm to 
light a farmhouse and a barn as it is to run a line a mile and a half 
into a neighborhood that has 450 homes. So what happens? The people who 
live in the 450-home neighborhood end up subsidizing the person who 
lives out there on the farm. That is what we are about as a Nation. 
That is why, for example, we subsidize water in the West. My mother 
pays her taxes and I pay my taxes in the East so that somebody else's 
mother can have a glass of water in Arizona or in southern California 
or in many of the Rocky Mountain area States that are fed by the 
Colorado River, and the billions of dollars we have spent on dams.
  I do not complain about that. That is not a complaint. It is an 
observation. That is what we are supposed to do. We are one Nation. We 
are one Nation and different areas of the Nation have different needs. 
If the taxpayer of the United States stops subsidizing, or never 
subsidized in the first place, what was done to the Colorado River, 
there would not be 32 million people in California.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am about to do something I have been warned is unwise, 
and that is to enter into debate and ask questions without knowing in 
advance what my position will be. I do this in the hope I might learn 
something, but I realize I might get caught. It is with some 
trepidation I do this.
  I say to the Senator from Delaware, first, in the spirit of full 
disclosure, I am sure he does not know this. I would plead guilty. I am 
the lobbyist in the Nixon administration who was responsible for 
convincing the Congress to create Amtrak in the first place. I worked 
as a head lobbyist for John Volpe of the Department of Transportation. 
My final assignment in the Nixon administration was to convince the 
Congress to create Amtrak. In the process of convincing the Congress, I 
remember saying to the appropriate chairmen of the appropriate 
committees that Congress only has to subsidize Amtrak for a few years, 
that within 3 and certainly no more than 4, Amtrak would become a 
profitmaking corporation, stand alone, based on the projections that 
were then being made for the use of train service.

  Then political reality set in after the bill was passed. The blessed 
Harley Staggers, late chairman of the House Commerce Committee, made it 
very clear that nothing would proceed unless a train servicing all of 
the junior colleges in West Virginia was kept on. Indeed, the senior 
Senator from Montana, who was then the majority leader, made it clear 
that nothing would pass the Senate unless a train to Yellowstone in 
Montana was kept on.
  Now, my question is this, Mr. President. I recognize fully that 
passenger transportation in the Eastern corridor--we abbreviate and say 
Boston to Washington--is a very intelligent use of the rails. I 
question, however, from personal experience, all of the rest of 
Amtrak's route structure. I ask the Senator from Delaware if he has any 
sense of whether or not trains are being kept on for those parts of the 
country where they have nostalgic value but not the kind of practical 
value that he has described in his own commute, daily, from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to answer my colleague's 
question. Let me first say to him that one of the reasons why he is so 
well-respected in this institution, and he is on both sides of the 
aisle, is because he has such intellectual integrity and he is so 
straightforward. I assure you, my answers to this or other questions 
will not attempt to nor could they in any way cause you trepidation.
  I must admit I did not know that the Senator was with Secretary Volpe 
at the time. It is just one more reason I admire you.
  You did the right thing. Maybe the projections were not what they 
should have been. The Senator is correct. What happened was a number of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle--and Members of the House--who had 
some significant power said, we want you to run a train into a section 
of the country or a section of my State where we could not justify the 
cost that it would entail to run the train relative to the number of 
people it serviced. That actually happened.
  What also happened was, we came along over the years and we finally 
told Amtrak that they, in fact, had to make some significant cuts, 
particularly the last 3 years. So they went out and they went after all 
those nonprofitable routes. I will not say with certainty because I 
cannot say, I do not know, to the best of my knowledge, but all of the 
most egregiously costly routes that were maintained are gone now--gone, 
in the last 3 years. I cannot say to him I know that every route that 
continues to exist is fully justified if you use a cost-benefit ratio 
in terms of the number of people riding it versus the cost of 
maintaining the service.
  Let me add one other point. I think the problem is not merely that 
one person gets on the train when you need 15 people to meet the cost 
of running the train. What we should do, and what we did in part with 
the landmark highway bill that we passed several years ago, the so-
called ISTEA, we did what should have been done but did not quite take 
it far enough. We should have said to the State of West Virginia, or 
the State of Delaware, Montana or Utah, we should have said what ISTEA 
started. That is, we should say we have the transportation moneys, most 
of which are generated by the highway trust fund. Now, you in your 
State should be able to, after you meet the minimum-plus of your 
highway needs, you should be able to take some of your highway trust 
fund moneys if you choose, Governor, and State legislator, and you 
should be able to take that and say to Amtrak in West Virginia, ``Look, 
it may be nostalgic, but it is important to us, and we are willing to 
put up our money to you, Amtrak, so that you, Amtrak, nationally, don't 
have to swallow the loss of maintaining a train that goes to every 
junior college,'' or whatever the example you gave was.

  That should be a decision that the State should be able to make. Now, 
that State may say, ``Look, we want to be able to connect those junior 
colleges. It is cheaper for us to add a lane of blacktop connecting 
those,'' or, ``We want to put on a bus that is maintained by the West 
Virginia Department of Transportation,'' or whatever. And so the one 
piece that I don't think my colleague from Utah could have envisioned 
back in 1970, or thereabouts, was that you had to look at the whole 
transportation component. I think you did the right thing back then. 
But what we did not do about this and a lot of other things, like we 
just did on welfare--we have to give States more flexibility to be able 
to use their funds. What we do now is straitjacket them.
  Senator Roth and I have been pushing three things. In your State, 
Senator, you have, in addition to your State highway--I know you know 
this much better than I do, and I am not being solicitous. But for the 
purpose of people understanding our dialog here--your State, your 
Governor, your legislature gets, figuratively and literally speaking, a 
check for highways. Now, you get it in two or three different ways, 
sometimes, under the new highway bill. You get one that comes for 
interstate, you get one that comes--and then you get one for rural 
transportation. There is a section of the highway trust fund, the 
highway bill, the so-called ISTEA bill, that says if you don't want to 
build a highway to connect Provo to some small little town, then you 
can take some--only a small portion--of your highway trust fund money 
going to your State and you can buy buses--and this goes from the 
ridiculous to the sublime--or you can build bicycle paths or walking 
paths, but you can take some of those highway moneys.
  But you are not allowed to take any of that money for inner-city rail 
transportation. It may be that you want to connect to Las Vegas, NV, to 
Salt Lake City because a lot of people go that route. That is a long 
way, by eastern standards, but not so long by western standards. You 
may say, instead of us building a highway to have the economic benefit 
that we anticipate--although I suspect that many in Salt

[[Page S10791]]

Lake would not want to be connected to Las Vegas, but I don't know.
  Assuming that was the decision. Then it seems to me that you should 
be able to say, and the Governor of the State of Nevada should be able 
to say, ``We want to take these highway trust funds and build a rail, 
and we want to have a train run this way. It is better for us, less 
damage to our environment,'' or whatever. You may say, ``No, we want to 
build a highway.''
  So what the missing link here is, and what we are fighting so hard 
for is to get basically three things that will put Amtrak in the 
circumstance where they can be as you asserted in 1970 they would be in 
3 years. Let me tick them off and I will stop and I will be happy to 
hear what my friend has to say.
  One is to say, look, there are certain basic capital improvements 
that are needed in areas where we know there is a need, where we know 
there is a ridership, where we know there is the market to get this 
thing up to the point where it is running a surplus. No. 1. That 
relates to the Northeast corridor expansion--that is, electrifying and 
straightening out the old routes, et cetera, and buying these train 
sets. By the way, these train sets are also available for the west 
coast because there is a growing need, and the Governors in the States 
of Washington, Oregon, and California say they see how it would be 
profitable for them to have it available. So that is one thing we do.
  The second thing we have to do, it seems to me, is say that in order 
to deal with this transportation component in the areas where we know 
the need exists, we should take one-half cent of a highway trust fund, 
which is now about 18 or 19 cents for a gasoline tax--take one-half 
cent and dedicate it to a trust fund for intercity rail service. That 
would generate $600 million a year, one-half cent. Then we would be out 
of the business of us having to depend on direct appropriations. And by 
every estimate, that would maintain the entirety of Amtrak's national 
capital needs per year.

  The third thing we should do, in my humble opinion, is we should not 
keep unprofitable routes on, making Amtrak have to swallow the cost of 
that. We know why it works that way--in order to get votes. You have to 
get 51 votes here for anything to happen. So we should say to the 
States, if you want Amtrak, where it is not profitable for them to send 
a train, pay them, just like you pay to build a highway, like you pay 
to build an airport, or for anything else. Here is how you can do that. 
We are going to allow you--you, the State--to have the flexibility of 
the funds that are available, one small portion of the funds you get, 
instead of building another highway. I am oversimplifying it--it costs 
$200,000 a year to run this train through Montana to the ski resorts, 
which you say generates--I think $30 million, the Governor said, a 
year. Now, Amtrak can make on its own $100,000 of the $200,000. You 
have to come up with the rest.
  Make a choice, Montana legislature, make a choice. Do you want to 
build an extra route or highway into Sun Valley, or do you want a train 
to continue to run? If you don't want to do it, fine, you don't have to 
do it. Amtrak shuts down that train. But it's flexibility, and it seems 
to me it is consistent with a rational national transportation policy. 
We are then not telling the people of Utah that they have to spend 
money to build rail systems out there that they don't want, where, 
environmentally, practically, politically, substantively, it makes more 
sense to build a highway. Conversely, we are saying to Amtrak, you no 
longer have to carry the burden of training the system to maintain 
systems that don't meet the economic imperative of breaking even. And 
so that is what this whole game plan was supposed to be.
  My complaint about this bill is, I say to my friend from Utah, before 
I yield to him, is that they have taken one of the legs out of that 
three-legged stool--the only way Amtrak is going to make it. It is a 
catch-22 situation. I think the Senator may have gone with some of us 
over to the Library of Congress the other night where Joseph Heller, 
the author of ``Catch-22,'' was one of the readers. And Trent Lott, the 
majority leader, read a passage from a great book series that they are 
doing. It was quite an interesting event. I hadn't read ``Catch-22'' 
since college. Hearing Heller get up there and read a passage of 
``Catch-22,'' and watching him laugh at his own passages, was kind of 
infectious. But this is kind of a catch-22 for Amtrak. We need your 
vote. We need the vote from the Senators from Texas and the Senators 
from Montana and the Senators from Arkansas. But if you don't have a 
train going into your State, then you say--and I am not being 
critical--you say, well, why should I vote for this? Why should I vote 
for this? So what Amtrak has done up until now is they have been caught 
in that catch-22. They know if they don't keep the train going--I will 
pick somebody deceased, Harley Staggers--if we don't keep the train 
going for Harley Staggers into his district in West Virginia, they 
ain't going to get the money. They are not going to get enough votes to 
get it passed.
  So we blame Amtrak for continuing to run on unprofitable routes. But 
Amtrak management sits there and says, ``I know if I don't run that 
train, we don't get to run them anywhere.'' And so the bottom line, for 
me, is that this particular bill takes out one of the three pieces of 
the equation that are needed to make the assertion of the Senator from 
Utah in 1970, in fact, true. I think the three things that need to be 
done--and I will not repeat them--are things that meet the test of 
equity, fairness, national interest, and parochial needs, without the 
Federal Government demanding any State do anything they do not want to 
do.

  I would be happy--I see my friend--to yield to him.
  (Mr. THOMAS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend from Delaware.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment with the understanding that my 
friend retains the floor.
  First, let me share a bit of history that I am sure my friend from 
Delaware will find instructive in this. What the Senator from Delaware 
has described was, in fact, in the original legislation where we had 
the opportunity to say to the Governor, ``If you want this to continue 
in your State, you have to pay x amount.'' And that is how we got rid 
of a lot of the trackage.
  I remember one New England Governor, whose State will remain 
nameless, who complained bitterly that certain trains had to stay. We 
realized that quickly it was a matter of State pride. And we ran the 
numbers. We sat down with him, and said, ``Governor, for the amount of 
money you have to pay you could afford to pick up every one of the 
passengers that get on this train at his or her home in a limousine and 
drive them to any location in the United States cheaper than you could 
keep this train.'' When he looked at it, he said, ``You mean the 
average boarding of that train is 3 per day?'' We said, ``Yes. You are 
trying to hang onto this train as a matter of State pride. That is what 
it is.''
  That is how we got rid of a very large chunk of the original 
passenger network. And that is what led us to believe in 1970 that we 
could, in fact, rationalize this network to the point where it would 
perhaps become profitable. But a number of things happened in the 
meantime. I have had people say to me that the airplane has destroyed 
passenger services in the United States--rail passenger service--as 
people prefer to take the airplane. That is not true. It was the 
Interstate Highway System that destroyed the rail passenger service in 
this country. Something like 98 percent of intercity trips in this 
country are still done on the Interstate Highway System. When we built 
the Interstate Highway System we sounded the death knell for rail 
passenger service except in congested corridors like Washington to 
Boston where it is just as fast to take the train as it would be to 
fly.
  I had an office in New York as well as an office in Washington when I 
was in private business. I found that I could get to downtown New York 
just as fast on a metroliner as I could by taking the plane to 
LaGuardia and then fighting the traffic with a taxicab.
  So I assure the Senator from Delaware that I am in favor of doing 
what I can to see to it that intelligent rail passenger service 
continues in the heavily congested corridors, primarily the Northeast 
corridor.
  So all I would say to my friend is that I was unaware of the details 
of this bill until I heard him speaking. I will now examine it. I 
assure him that

[[Page S10792]]

my vote will not be based on whether or not there is a train running 
through Utah but on what makes good national policy sense. That does 
not mean that I will vote with the Senator. That just means that I will 
look at the issue in the way I would not have had I not heard him speak 
on it.
  I will make one comment on the discussion he has had with respect to 
the National Highway Trust Fund. Again, during my years in the 
Department of Transportation, I was getting intimately acquainted with 
the National Highway Trust Fund. And one of the other programs that I 
was responsible for convincing the Congress to pass in that same period 
was the airport and airways trust fund. We naively believed when we got 
that bill through both Houses of Congress and down to President Nixon's 
desk that we had solved the funding crisis for the FAA for perpetuity. 
Now there is a trust fund set up to be funded by ticket revenues and 
takeoff and landing charges at the various airports that would see to 
it that the FAA never need compete with any other agency for Federal 
funds. It had its own trust fund and its own source of funding.
  Well, Mr. President, then came along the unified budget. I do not 
know which President it was that did it. I am afraid if I checked it 
that I would discover that it was probably a Republican. But the fact 
is that the highway trust fund always runs a surplus. The funds are 
subjected to appropriations, and the money to build our highway 
infrastructure is always constrained by political decisions made on 
this floor and at the other end of the Capitol. And the people who run 
the Federal Highway Administration can no longer, as it was envisioned 
that they would when President Eisenhower worked to create it, depend 
on a steady source of income for their fund. Neither can the people who 
run the FAA depend on a steady source of funds because their fund is 
always overfunded and Presidents always dip into that fund. Now they 
say they do not dip into the fund. They use the mechanisms of the 
unified budget to underappropriate from the fund so the money in paper 
is still there but in fact it is never spent.

  I say to the Senator that, if he created a trust fund for rail, he 
would discover that subsequent Presidents would do the same thing to 
that trust fund that they have done to the highway trust fund and the 
airport and airways trust fund, and every other fund. They would render 
it, frankly, a dead letter.
  If we were to spend the amount of money--to conclude this on the 
airport and airways trust fund--on the airport and airways trust fund 
actually on airports and airways right up to the full amount that comes 
into the trust fund every year, we wouldn't have the current problems 
that we have.
  Not to delay the debate, but my friend enjoys a good anecdote. So I 
will leave him with this as I leave the floor.
  In a discussion about computer systems and their vulnerability to 
hackers getting into computer systems and having access to information 
that they do not have, the expert who was running that discussion said, 
``All parts of the Government are vulnerable. The hackers can get into 
anything--the Pentagon, the Social Security files, anything--with one 
exception; and, that is the FAA computer system running our air traffic 
control system. The reason it is not vulnerable to a hacker is that it 
is so obsolete and so ancient that no amount of modern computer 
activity can get into that.''
  So I share that with my friend and indicate to him that a trust fund 
might not be the answer to his problem. I assure the Senator that I 
will now look at this bill in a new light.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I realize I still have the floor. A number 
of people want to speak. Before my colleague leaves the floor, let me 
say that one of the things that I know he has knowledge about is how so 
much has changed in the last 30 years. And that is that we had plenty 
of room to expand with airports in certain areas. We do not have that 
same flexibility now. We had the ability to expand the highways in 
certain areas. We do not have that now. He may be right that this trust 
fund might in fact meet the same fate that he suggested the others had. 
But the bottom line is that I am a lot better off with this than I am 
with any other alternative that I can think of. I think that is fair. I 
thank him. I know he sincerely means it when he says he will listen. 
And I thank him very much for that. I thank my friend from Oregon. He 
indicated that he might have a question. I yield for a question.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for 
yielding.
  I want to discuss briefly the Amtrak issue with him, and in effect 
pose the question that I am having to wrestle with at home, and your 
sense of how you handle it. I have been both as a Member of the House 
and in the Senate a member of the Commerce Committee a very strong 
supporter of Amtrak. I think that it is important to have a national 
rail program. It is important policy for our country. I have been in 
support of the Senator from Delaware. In fact, I remember, as the 
Senator from Delaware does, your Governor, our former colleague. He 
called me a bit ago in terms of the funding formula that we all wanted. 
And I was in strong support of it at that time because I think it is 
important that the east coast of the United States have good rail 
service. But I tell my friend that because of what I have seen with 
Amtrak in the last few months in terms of their handling of the 
Pioneer, which is a run that serves rural Oregon--it also serves Idaho 
and Wyoming, and the rural west--that it leaves me very troubled.
  I want to just take a quick minute and tell the Senator my concern.
  My concern is that the new philosophy in terms of Amtrak is 
essentially to tell people I represent in rural eastern Oregon you are 
supposed to put up your hard-earned tax dollars today to support the 
development of all these runs on the east coast of the United States, 
in densely populated areas, and then maybe if those runs are 
exceptionally profitable we will come back and one day have rural 
Oregon get served with Amtrak service. My constituents are very 
exasperated by this.
  I had a community forum in Hermiston, OR, on this, and Amtrak 
officials came. Now, this is not the Senator from Oregon. These are 
Amtrak officials. And they told the community: We have given you lousy 
service. In fact, people don't even know when the train is going to 
show up. That is kind of the joke. There has been absolutely no 
promotion, and there has been absolutely no investment in 
infrastructure.
  Now, what our communities have said--and I think this is a reasonable 
proposition--is that what they would like to have is 1 year to get the 
State governments out in the West and local governments and the Federal 
Government together to try to come up with a new cost-effective 
strategy to keep that Pioneer serving rural Oregon open. They did not 
say the Federal Government is supposed to write out a check today for 
everything. They said give us a year in order to try to have a new 
partnership that acknowledges what the Senator from Delaware has 
correctly said, which is that times really have changed. We understand 
that. And so, give our communities and our staffs 1 year to try to come 
up with a new plan, and the Amtrak officials, who very much like this 
Senator to vote for their budget covering east coast lines, will not 
give our part of the country, rural Oregon, a 1-year deferral to try to 
work it out.
  I would just close this by asking my friend from Delaware, if the 
Senator were in front of a community meeting in rural Oregon where 
those folks are being asked to support the lines in the East and they 
are being told after Amtrak admits that there has not been any service, 
there has not been any promotion, there has not been any investment, 
that they still cannot have a year for self-help to come back. What 
would the Senator tell those folks in that community? I say this out of 
friendship to the Senator and as one who voted for the Senator's 
request.
  Mr. BIDEN. I understand. Mr. President, let me respond by saying that 
that is an incredibly difficult position for the Senator from Oregon to 
be placed in.
  What I would try to do is explain to my constituency in eastern 
Oregon what the facts are. I would point out to them that the Amtrak 
officials who went back from that meeting and met with the Amtrak board 
said, you know, we should keep this going for another year to give them 
a chance to work

[[Page S10793]]

this out, and were met with a response that said, if we do not cut 10 
more routes and cut out another $1.5 million or $2.6 million, whatever 
the number may be, Mr. Wolf, the chairman of the committee over on the 
House side, is going to cut everything out, because he is going to turn 
to us and say that Amtrak is doing what the Senator from Utah has said. 
Amtrak is continuing to put money into a line that costs money. And we 
have run out of runway. We, the Amtrak management, have run out of 
runway.
  Then I would say to them that Amtrak's inability to give you another 
year is not related to what they really want to do. The truth of the 
matter is, Amtrak knows that their ultimate future lies in a national 
rail system--not a Northeast rail system, but a national rail system--
and the reason it does is that we are going to, over the next 30 years, 
have increases in population and shifts in population around this 
country that cannot be accommodated merely by building more airports 
and highways. So for every day that we grow older as a country, the 
necessity for extending rail as a mode of transportation increases 
exponentially.
  Then I would say to them that we had a problem back in 1934 and 1935 
and 1936 when all those Eastern Senators and their constituency said, 
why in God's name are we paying to build those dams out there in the 
West? Why are we doing that? I do not understand that. I am taking my 
hard-earned tax dollars to build a dam on the Columbia River, or on the 
whatever river, and I do not know eastern Oregon well enough to cite a 
specific dam, if it does affect eastern Oregon. And I would say what 
happened then was somebody stood up and said, look, this is in the 
national interest.

  Now, if we spend the billions of dollars to build those dams out 
West, if we spend the billions of dollars to do those things, what we 
will eventually do is our economy will grow in the East as well. We 
will benefit, but you are not going to see it for a day, a week, a 
year, 10 years, a decade. It may take several decades for that to be 
seen. And that is the hardest thing to convince any constituency that 
understandably is aggrieved and understandably has need for a service 
and has money being taken out of their pockets for something they do 
not see develop quickly.
  The last thing I would say to them is that those who are pushing the 
hardest to continue to fund Amtrak are the people who support you the 
most, who are the people who are saying, we should give you a year and 
we should give you more than that, we should give you flexibility to be 
able to work out compacts with the other States in the region in order 
to be able to use other moneys that are available to you to keep the 
Pioneer running.
  However, I do not in any way suggest that it is an easy sell. We are 
a nation, whether we are in the East, West, South or North, that is 
very much accustomed to and seeks an instant answer to a larger 
problem. My experience has not been in eastern Oregon, although I have 
been there once at a major political event, but my experience has been 
that when one explains in honest terms to your constituency the overall 
benefit that will accrue to them, in fact, sometimes they are willing 
to forbear them not having movement immediately.
  But I certainly appreciate the Senator's problem. Let me tell you 
something that happened to me recently. I will not mention the Senator. 
I got a call from the president of Amtrak saying, ``I don't know what 
to do. One of the States that we need help from is telling us that they 
want to keep their particular train going in their State. These two 
Senators have said basically, if you don't continue to keep this train 
moving, we are not going to be willing to vote for the things that need 
to be done,'' whether it was the half-cent gas tax, whether it was the 
use of rural funds, or whether it was the direct funding. And, he says, 
``Then I got a call from a major political figure who holds significant 
office beyond Senator here in this body, saying, if you continue to 
fund that train which is not making money, I will not be willing to 
support Amtrak's long-term needs.''

  It is really a catch-22 circumstance. That is why I wish we could all 
basically say time out, time out for a couple of years.
  Let us explain two things. Unless you get the Northeast corridor up 
and running with the new train sets, you have no section of the system 
that is going to be generating a profit. Unless you provide more 
flexibility to the States to be able to kick in and work in compacts--
you helped me in the compact amendment we had last year.
  Mr. WYDEN. Right.
  Mr. BIDEN. With no compacts, we are not going to be able to run 
certain lines. And unless we provide an alternative source of revenue 
for capital investment, we are not going to be able to maintain the 
system.
  So why don't we look at transportation needs as a whole? That is why 
this is so debilitating. I will yield the floor----
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield just one second more? I will be 
very brief.
  Mr. BIDEN. Surely.
  Mr. WYDEN. The Senator's case would be logical, in many respects, to 
my constituents, if my constituents were not acknowledging there does 
need to be change. The Senator mentioned the dams in Bonneville. We are 
now reinventing Bonneville. We have all our Governors out, trying to 
set about to adopt practices that relate to the next century.
  The same is true in the Amtrak area. But what would not make sense to 
my constituents is to say, ``Look, we are going to slam the door on 
you. We are not going to give you the chance to try to change, to have 
local communities do more, to have States do more, to be cost 
effective. We are just going to shut the door on you and, instead, 
adopt what sounds almost like supply-side transportation policy, which 
is have the east coast of the United States make lots of money on their 
runs and presumably some day some of it may trickle down.''
  I know the Senator does not intend that, but I want him to understand 
I intend to work closely with him. I am a supporter of Amtrak and 
supporter of a national rail system. But it is getting harder and 
harder to explain to folks in rural Oregon how they are supposed to 
wait, they are supposed to be cut off, when they are committed to 
change. The citizens of my region are saying, ``You bet, it is 
different now than it was 30 years ago, and we are not being given the 
chance to change.''
  Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend from Oregon, I truly do understand 
that. At the beginning of my comments, which started some time ago, I 
started off by saying that the more things change the more they remain 
the same. I cited my experience as a county councilman dealing with bus 
service in our most populous county. Some of my friends said it had to 
be totally self-sufficient. So the bus service was put in the position 
of having to cut routes that were not, in fact, profitable. As they cut 
routes that were not profitable, exponentially ridership dropped off. 
The more they cut one route, twice as many riders dropped off because 
fewer options were available because of transit changes.
  Once you start down that road, you are headed for the demise of the 
system. What I am saying to the Senator is that this is only one of the 
three pieces of effort we have to have underway. I am suggesting that 
I, personally, and I suspect everyone who supports Amtrak, understands 
and appreciates that it is in everybody's best interests if eastern 
Oregon has access, if eastern Oregon has the Pioneer. The more you 
invest, the more ridership you generate. But I think we put an 
artificial timeframe on Amtrak and a standard, a bar, so high they 
cannot possibly meet it.

  I see my colleagues are standing on the floor here. Before I yield to 
the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, I would like 
to acknowledge, because he asked for a couple of minutes and I will let 
the ranking member conclude when that should occur, but the man who, in 
fact, wrote the book about the megalopolis, I mean literally, not 
figuratively, literally, literally the guy who wrote the book is the 
senior Senator from Rhode Island. I say to my friend from New Jersey--
he asked whether or not at some point, shortly, we would be willing to 
yield him 2 minutes. But I will yield the floor and let the chairman 
make the decision.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask recognition from the Chair.

[[Page S10794]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy, in a moment, to yield to whomever 
the Chair recognizes. But we are getting lots of inquiries because I 
know that there is a request to have a rollcall vote. That has not yet 
been propounded. In fairness to our colleagues who have work to do, as 
everyone here on the floor has, we started this debate shortly after 2 
o'clock this afternoon, and I think in fairness it would be a good idea 
if I could ask the Senator from Delaware how long the Senator from 
Delaware thinks the debate might go? I wonder if the Senator from 
Delaware would answer that question?
  If the Senator from Delaware could answer the question as to how much 
longer he needs? Obviously, he has as much time as he requires. There 
is a request for a rollcall vote I know.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in response to my friend's question, and in 
response to his counsel, I will seek no more time. I, frankly, was 
going to attempt a filibuster on this bill but I think--I am not being 
facetious when I say this--the wisdom of the chairman is correct. I 
probably would end up no better off, even if I succeed, in terms of 
what would come out of a continuing resolution.
  But I will tell the chairman, although I am not going to pursue any 
strategy other than voting ``no'' on this legislation and on a 
continuing resolution, I am hoping to convince some of our colleagues, 
notwithstanding the fact we will have passed this legislation today, 
and I expect it will pass, that we get a supplemental to, in fact, give 
us an opportunity to work out things we are working out with the 
Senator from Oregon. But I do not seek recognition beyond voting 
``yes'' or ``no'' when the time comes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. President, I 
wonder if I might yield to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, 
and I ask unanimous consent I be able to yield up to 3 minutes or 4 
minutes, as the Senator needs, and still retain the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, my purpose for rising was to congratulate 
and thank the Senator from Delaware for underlining this point. Those 
of us living on the east coast in the corridor have it as part of our 
lives. It has been in my own life. I know what it means to many 
millions of people.
  The book to which he referred, which was written about 30 years ago 
on this subject, is still pretty well current, because in this 30 years 
so little progress has truly been made. I look forward to the day, 
while I may not be here, but I look forward to the day in the not too 
distant future where we will have high-speed railroads, really high 
speeds, as our friends in Europe have, speeding around the country to 
the different cities of our great land.
  In this regard, I am struck by the number of States that are 
traversed by the high-speed railroad. And, from a political viewpoint 
for both parties, about a fifth of the electoral votes in the United 
States are traversed by the high-speed railroad. I hope that will help 
spur on support.
  I have some regrets about retiring myself. I look forward to visiting 
Washington in the years to come on a high-speed railroad.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, by agreement with our colleagues on 
the Republican side, I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If there is no 
further debate, the question is on agreeing to the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 3675, the Transportation appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1997. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Gregg] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Reid
     Roth
     Smith
     Specter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Gregg
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________