[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 66 (Monday, May 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4677-S4682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. 
        Grassley, and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 763. A bill to amend the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 to require a 
local educational agency that receives funds under the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expel a student determined to be in 
possession of an illegal drug, or illegal drug paraphernalia, on school 
property, in addition to expelling a student determined to be in 
possession of a gun; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                         EDUCATION LEGISLATION

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have just presented a bill to the clerk, 
S. 763, the goal of which is to strike a decisive blow in the war 
against drugs by protecting America's schoolchildren from the scourge 
of drugs in their classrooms.
  Before anyone says, ``Here we go again,'' I counsel all to consider 
the differences between this bill and anything which was enacted 
before.
  Incidentally, I am honored to be joined in the sponsorship of this 
measure by several distinguished Senators--Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Ashcroft, 
Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Sessions.
  Specifically, this legislation will require each school accepting 
Federal education funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 to adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding illegal drugs 
and illegal drug paraphernalia in schools. Zero tolerance means what it 
sounds like. It requires the expulsion, for not less than 1 year, of 
any student who possesses this contraband at school. This will send a 
clear message to students, parents, and teachers: Drugs and schools do 
not mix.
  Illegal drug use is, in my judgment, the most insidious and 
destructive influence in our country today. Its cost to society, in 
terms of crime and wasted lives, is enormous. Just think of the 
innocent babies born already addicted

[[Page S4678]]

to drugs; think of the families destroyed because fathers, mothers, or 
children care more about where they will get their next fix than they 
do their loved ones; think of the neighborhoods that have been 
devastated by swaggering drug dealers peddling poison. These terrible 
things are going on right in the shadow of this Capitol in which the 
U.S. Senate operates.
  Mr. President, Americans have heard these tragic stories so often 
that some citizens have questioned the wisdom of waging war against 
drugs. Last fall, California and Arizona voters took the unprecedented 
step of legalizing the so-called medicinal use of drugs, such as 
marijuana, heroin, and LSD, and in an outrageous decision reported 
recently, a Federal judge in San Francisco, Judge Fern Smith, ruled 
that the Federal Government cannot impose sanctions on doctors who 
recommend marijuana to their patients, despite the fact that such use 
remains illegal under Federal law.
  Is it not time to say enough is enough? Is it not time to go all out 
in the drug war? Mr. President, the answers to these questions are 
obvious: It is time and we must do it. It is time to take every 
possible step to reverse this retreat from responsibility, and 
eliminating drugs from America's classrooms is the imperative, 
inescapable first step.
  Anybody wondering if this bill is needed should take a look at the 
results of the latest ``Monitoring the Future'' [MTF] study of drug use 
among America's 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-graders and ``The National 
Household Survey on Drug Abuse'' study which measures drug use among 
the general population. Both studies dramatically confirm what many of 
us have known: We have lost ground in the war against drugs over the 
past 4 years. Most disturbing is the shocking increase in illicit drug 
use by our school-age children.
  The findings in the ``Monitoring the Future'' study are eye-opening: 
50 percent of 12th-graders have used illicit drugs during their 
lifetime; about 25 percent have used drugs during the past 30 days; 
almost one-third of 8th-graders have used illegal drugs during their 
lifetime; with about 15 percent of 8th-graders using it in the last 30 
days. Marijuana use among 8th- and 10th-graders almost tripled from 
1992 to 1996, while 5 percent of 12th-grade marijuana users are daily 
users.
  But perhaps the most distressing finding is that the youngest 
students surveyed, our 8th-graders, report the highest rate of heroin 
use. Moreover, the percentage of actual drug use may be even greater 
than reported, because the MTF does not survey school dropouts. 
Instead, it relies solely on student self-reporting.
  Similarly, ``The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse'' found 
startling increases in drug use among teenagers over the last 4 years. 
For example, the survey found that teen cocaine use increased 166 
percent in 1 year, 1994-95; teen use of LSD and other hallucinogens 
skyrocketed 183 percent from 1992 to 1995; and the use of marijuana 
among teenagers soared 141 percent over the same period.
  So, Mr. President, it is no coincidence that drug use among our 
children has skyrocketed. Drug dealers deliberately target our young 
people to be both consumers and distributors of illicit drugs because 
our children are our most precious and vulnerable resource. As a 
result, students report that drugs are now the No. 1 problem they face, 
far outdistancing any other concern. That, by the way, was the finding 
of a recent survey conducted by the Center on Addiction and Substance 
Abuse at Columbia University. And what an alarming conclusion it was, 
that it is our students who are on the front lines of the war against 
drugs.
  Today, students of all ages have immediate access to a wide variety 
of drugs that are cheaper and more powerful than those of the past. 
According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 69 percent of 
17-year-olds report going to schools where students keep, use, and sell 
drugs. Here in the Nation's Capital authorities have closed unsafe 
schools for fire code violations, yet thousands of children still 
attend drug-infested schools. Billions of dollars spent on schools will 
accomplish little, Mr. President, if we do not first ensure that our 
children are safe there.
  The relationship between violence and drug use is clear. The most 
recent national Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education [PRIDE] 
survey found that students who carried guns to school were 20 times 
more likely to use cocaine than those who did not bring a gun to 
school. Gang members were 12 times more likely to use cocaine, and 
students who threaten others were 6 times more likely to be coke users.
  The findings of a recent Department of Education report prepared by 
the Research Triangle Institute, in my home State of North Carolina, 
confirmed the findings of the PRIDE study. The Research Triangle 
Institute, found--and I quote--``[t]he use of drugs was related to 
violent behavior in schools. A much larger percentage of current users 
of alcohol and/or other drugs (32 percent of them) reported being 
involved in school fights as the aggressors than did current nonusers 
(14 percent of those students) or students who had never tried drugs (6 
percent).''
  Mr. President, that report went on to say that 37 percent of the 
students reported that they are afraid of attacks at school while 29 
percent said they feared attacks when traveling to and from school. 
And, sadly, we must acknowledge that those fears are too often 
justifiable.
  According to the North Carolina Center for the Prevention of School 
Violence, over 8,100 incidents of school violence were reported in 
North Carolina during the last full school year. Possession of a 
controlled substance, possession of a weapon other than a firearm, and 
assault on a school employee together accounted for 85 percent of those 
incidents. That study concluded: ``[t]he high number of reported weapon 
possessions may be reflective of student concern for their own safety, 
even in schools, since the most often cited reason for carrying weapons 
* * * is `protection'.''
  Parents and Government have a duty to do everything we can to protect 
children from the ravages of illegal drugs and the crimes spawned by 
the drug trade. Up until now--I think we ought to be frank with each 
other and acknowledge that we have failed miserably. It is not enough 
to prohibit students from taking guns to school if we do not address 
the reasons why they do so.
  Mr. President, Congress addressed the issue of school violence in 
1994 with the passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act, which required 
States to adopt a law mandating the expulsion of any student who brings 
a gun to school.
  During debate on that bill, it was argued that we should state, as a 
matter of policy, that children should not bring guns to school. In my 
opinion, the Senate should also state, as a matter of policy, that 
drugs have no place in school. That is why I am offering today S. 763, 
a bill which I believe to be a logical and commonsense extension of the 
1994 law.

  Like that act, the bill sponsored by myself and several other 
Senators conditions the receipt of Federal education dollars, that is 
to say, Federal funds, on a State's adoption of a policy requiring the 
expulsion, for not less than one year, of any student who brings 
illegal drugs to school. Now, like the Gun-Free Schools Act, this bill 
does not create a new criminal offense, but it does require schools to 
refer violators to proper law enforcement authorities.
  Both the 1994 act and the bill I am introducing today are flexible. 
Each bill allows the chief administrative officer of a school district 
to grant an exemption on a case-by-case basis, and permits, but does 
not require, school districts to establish alternative education 
facilities for violators.
  So I think the policy is firm, yet fair. The drug trade and the 
violence associated with it have no place in America's classrooms. 
Schools should provide an environment that is conducive to learning and 
supportive of the vast majority of students who are in school to learn. 
Children and teachers alike deserve a school free of the fear and 
violence caused by drugs.
  Mr. President, on the issue of drugs, many speeches have been made 
citing respected authorities and a lot of impressive statistics as I 
have done today. However, nothing any Senator has said on this floor 
speaks quite as eloquently of our responsibilities as the statement of 
one of the students

[[Page S4679]]

involved in the Research Triangle Institute study who said--and get 
this, I say to the Chair and other Senators--this student said, ``I 
don't like how dangerous it is at this school. I just wish the teachers 
and the rest of the school staff would have better control over their 
students and keep kids like me safe.''
  Isn't it time for us to give the teachers and school administrators 
the support they need to remove violence and drug offenders from our 
schools? I think the answer to that is obvious.
  Therefore, Mr. President, the removal of drugs and violence from our 
schools surely are goals that everybody agrees with. The President, 
during his State of the Union Address, said that ``we must continue to 
promote order and discipline'' in America's schools by, as he put it, 
``remov[ing] disruptive students from the classroom, and hav[ing] zero 
tolerance for guns and drugs in school.''
  Obviously, I think the President was right on that one. I do not 
always agree with him, but you can't get any clearer than that. I 
commend him for that statement, and I hope he will support this effort 
by several of us who are concerned about the safety of our youngsters. 
I believe that working together, we can eliminate illegal drugs and 
illegal drug paraphernalia from America's classrooms.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the complete text of the 
aforementioned bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 763

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SAFE SCHOOLS.

       (a) Amendments.--Part F of title XIV of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8921 et seq.) is 
     amended to read as follows:

               ``PART F--ILLEGAL DRUG AND GUN POSSESSION

     ``SEC. 14601. DRUG-FREE AND GUN-FREE REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the `Safe 
     Schools Act of 1997'.
       ``(b) Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State receiving Federal funds under 
     this Act shall have in effect a State law requiring local 
     educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not 
     less than one year a student who is determined--
       ``(A) to be in possession of an illegal drug, or illegal 
     drug paraphernalia, on school property under the jurisdiction 
     of, or on a vehicle operated by an employee or agent of, a 
     local educational agency in that State; or
       ``(B) to have brought a weapon to a school under the 
     jurisdiction of a local educational agency in that State,

     except that such State law shall allow the chief 
     administering officer of such local educational agency to 
     modify such expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-
     case basis.
       ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to prevent a State from allowing a local 
     educational agency that has expelled a student from such a 
     student's regular school setting from providing educational 
     services to such student in an alternative setting.
       ``(3) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the 
     term `weapon' means a firearm as such term is defined in 
     section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(c) Special Rule.--The provisions of this section shall 
     be construed in a manner consistent with the Individuals With 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
       ``(d) Report to State.--Each local educational agency 
     requesting assistance from the State educational agency that 
     is to be provided from funds made available to the State 
     under this Act shall provide to the State, in the application 
     requesting such assistance--
       ``(1) an assurance that such local educational agency is in 
     compliance with the State law required by subsection (b); and
       ``(2) a description of the circumstances surrounding any 
     expulsions imposed under the State law required by subsection 
     (b), including--
       ``(A) the name of the school concerned;
       ``(B) the number of students expelled from such school; and
       ``(C) the type of illegal drugs, illegal drug 
     paraphernalia, or weapons concerned.
       ``(e) Reporting.--Each State shall report the information 
     described in subsection (d) to the Secretary on an annual 
     basis.
       ``(f) Report to Congress.--Two years after the date of 
     enactment of the Safe Schools Act of 1997, the Secretary 
     shall report to Congress with respect to any State that is 
     not in compliance with the requirements of this part.

     ``SEC. 14602. POLICY REGARDING CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 
                   REFERRAL.

       ``(a) In General.--No funds shall be made available under 
     this Act to any local educational agency unless such agency 
     has a policy requiring referral to the criminal justice or 
     juvenile delinquency system of any student who is in 
     possession of an illegal drug, or illegal drug paraphernalia, 
     on school property under the jurisdiction of, or on a vehicle 
     operated by an employee or agent of, such agency, or who 
     brings a firearm or weapon to a school served by such agency.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the 
     terms `firearm' and `school' have the same meaning given to 
     such terms by section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 14603. DATA AND POLICY DISSEMINATION UNDER IDEA.

       ``The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) widely disseminate the policy of the Department in 
     effect on the date of enactment of the Safe Schools Act of 
     1997 with respect to disciplining children with disabilities;
       ``(2) collect data on the incidence of children with 
     disabilities (as such term is defined in section 602(a)(1) of 
     the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1401(a)(1))) possessing illegal drugs, or illegal drug 
     paraphernalia, on school property under the jurisdiction of, 
     or on a vehicle operated by an employee or agent of, a local 
     educational agency, engaging in life threatening behavior at 
     school, or bringing weapons to schools; and
       ``(3) submit a report to Congress not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of the Safe Schools Act of 1997 
     analyzing the strengths and problems with the current 
     approaches regarding disciplining children with disabilities.

     ``SEC. 14604. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Illegal drug.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `illegal drug' means a 
     controlled substance, as defined in section 102(6) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), the possession 
     of which is unlawful under such Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 
     or the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     951 et seq.).
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `illegal drug' does not mean a 
     controlled substance used pursuant to a valid prescription or 
     as authorized by law.
       ``(2) Illegal drug paraphernalia.--The term `illegal drug 
     paraphernalia' means drug paraphernalia, as defined in 
     section 422 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 863), 
     except that the first sentence of section 422(d) of such Act 
     shall be applied by inserting `or under the Controlled 
     Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.)' 
     before the period.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act take effect 6 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I urge my fellow Members of the Senate 
to support the legislation being introduced today by my distinguished 
colleague from North Carolina, Senator Helms--the Safe Schools Act of 
1997.
  Urgent calls for more and more Federal money for schools to pay for 
everything from school construction to Internet access are misplaced. I 
would argue they are misplaced in any case, because decisions about how 
a school district should allocate its resources are better left at the 
local and State level. But they are certainly misplaced without a 
primary commitment to reducing school violence.
  Students cannot learn effectively unless they feel safe. It was hard 
enough to learn in the days when I was in school with the normal 
distractions--the occasional spitball or gum-smacking student. Now some 
students worry about whether they will even survive to graduate from 
high school.
  My colleagues have noted the results of several studies which confirm 
the very strong correlation between school violence and illegal drug 
use. And we already know the cost illegal drugs have exacted in terms 
of ruined lives and the breakdown of families. Yet in the past year we 
have seen two States, California and Arizona, pass laws to legalize the 
so-called medicinal use of drugs like marijuana, heroin, and LSD. That 
is why I introduced the Drug Use Prevention Act to impose strict 
penalties on doctors who prescribe marijuana. As my colleague has 
noted, a San Francisco Federal judge has recently overruled such 
penalties. But that particular debate is far from over yet.
  Many Americans have concluded that the ground lost in recent years in 
the war on drugs is not recoverable, that the war is lost. I disagree. 
Too much is at stake to simply surrender the fight, especially when it 
comes to providing a safe environment for students in public schools. 
At the very least, schools should not receive Federal funds unless they 
refuse to tolerate the presence of drugs as well as firearms on school 
property.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Lautenberg):


[[Page S4680]]


  S. 764. A bill to reauthorize the mass transit programs of the 
Federal Government; to the Committee on Finance.


                THE MASS TRANSIT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation that would reauthorize and expand upon existing Federal 
mass transit programs. My legislation, the Mass Transit Amendments Act 
of 1997, is intended to lay the groundwork for the Senate's 
consideration of mass transit legislation in the context of 
reauthorizing the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
[ISTEA]. Substantial increases in Federal spending on mass transit are 
warranted, notwithstanding current budget constraints, because a 
greater commitment to public transportation is in the national 
interest. I would note, however, that this legislation is an 
authorization bill which does not increase the deficit; funds 
authorized to be spent out of the mass transit account of the highway 
trust fund would still be subject to the annual appropriations process, 
which is subject to the discretionary spending caps set in the budget 
resolution and the 602(b) allocation process.
  Transit should not be viewed as a partisan issue or a regional issue. 
This bill recognizes the valuable role transit plays in reducing our 
energy dependence, protecting our environment, reducing gridlock, and 
providing access to jobs, schools, and health care facilities for 
millions of Americans in urban and rural areas throughout the Nation. 
In particular, I urge my colleagues to review my proposed reverse 
commute pilot program, which would authorize $250 million annually in 
new grants targeted at improving access to employment for residents in 
economically distressed urban areas and rural communities.
  This bill is intended to encourage the Banking Committee, led by 
Chairman Alfonse D'Amato and Senator Paul Sarbanes, to report to the 
Senate legislation which will preserve much of the ISTEA transit 
program but at increased funding levels which reflect the importance of 
mass transit to our economy, quality of life, and environment. I look 
forward to working with Senator D'Amato, Senator Sarbanes, and others 
on the Banking Committee and Appropriations Committee who want to 
improve the Nation's transit systems through the ISTEA reauthorization 
process.
  This legislation takes into account the transit industry consensus 
proposal put forth by the American Public Transit Association (APTA), 
which represents transit systems, large and small, in all 50 States. I 
am pleased to note that APTA's new president is Bill Millar, whom I had 
the pleasure of working with for a number of years when he was the 
executive director of the Port Authority of Allegheny County.

  In preparation for the ISTEA reauthorization process and the annual 
appropriations process, I have met with many individuals in an effort 
to learn more about the needs of transit systems, the towns and cities 
in which they operate, and the riders they are trying to serve. In 
recent months, I have discussed strategies to increase transit funding 
with Gov. Tom Ridge, Senator Rick Santorum, and Chairman Bud Shuster. 
In addition, I have visited with Jack Leary, the general manager of the 
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Mayor Tom 
McGroarty of Wilkes-Barre, and representatives of the Pennsylvania 
Public Transportation Association. I have also met with transit system 
officials during my regular visits to Pennsylvania's 67 counties.
  I am particularly pleased to be introducing this bill with my 
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, who has 
joined with me regularly to increase support for public transportation, 
such as when we unsuccessfully offered an amendment to the fiscal year 
1996 Transportation appropriations bill to restore $40 million in 
Federal operating assistance. Both Senator Santorum and Gov. Tom Ridge 
recognize the vital role mass transit plays in Pennsylvania and have 
worked with me to maximize the Federal resources available to urban and 
rural transit systems in our State.
  I am also pleased that Senator Frank Lautenberg has joined in this 
bipartisan effort. For two years, Senator Lautenberg has joined me in 
co-chairing an informal Senate transit coalition, which has served as 
an information clearinghouse for Senate transit supporters and their 
staffs and which will play an even greater role, I hope, during the 
reauthorization process.
  For some time, I have addressed an ongoing threat to our Nation's 
security and prosperity, a threat with dual roots--in the precarious 
Middle East and right here at home. As I stated in a speech on the 
Senate floor on January 30, 1997, I am very concerned by our nation's 
increased reliance on potentially unstable foreign sources of oil and 
believe it is critical that during the 105th Congress, we focus on 
increasing energy conservation.

  I have been troubled that United States imports of foreign oil 
continue to increase from the current 50-percent level, with 20 percent 
of our purchases coming from the Arab countries of the Organization of 
Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC]. According to the American 
Petroleum Institute, we import more than 9 million barrels per day, 
with a 6-percent increase in 1996 alone. This is a huge jump from the 6 
million barrels imported per day in 1973. Further, if these trends 
continue, analysts say in ten years we will look overseas for two-
thirds of our energy needs.
  In part because of the ready availability of less expensive sources 
of foreign oil, it has not been cost-effective for U.S. energy 
companies to increase domestic production. Further, the effectiveness 
of the strategic petroleum reserve has dwindled because it only holds 
an amount comparable to 75 days of foreign imports, a situation that 
was not helped by the Clinton administration's decision last year to 
sell off approximately 25 million barrels of petroleum from the reserve 
to generate revenues.
  The timing for selling our reserves was less than prudent, 
particularly considering the state of affairs in the Middle East today. 
Saudi Arabia, in particular, poses unique cause for concern. If a 
hostile nation seized Saudi oil wells, the largest reserve in the 
world, the American economy and world markets could tumble. The 
deplorable June 25, 1996, terrorist attack at the Khobar Towers 
facility in Dharhan, which resulted in the murders of 19 airmen and the 
wounding of more than 400 United States personnel, also gives cause for 
concern because there is a strong possibility of links to internal 
domestic struggles in Saudi Arabia. Pressure is mounting from 
politically activist and conservative Islamic movements to undermine 
the ruling monarchy, who are viewed by some to be too liberal and 
western. If American access to Persian Gulf oil cannot be guaranteed, 
then the United States must reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

  While reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a difficult task, we 
can achieve meaningful reductions in energy consumption by promoting 
the use of public transportation. On the significant link between 
energy consumption and our transportation infrastructure, a Department 
of Transportation study of the 50 largest urban areas in the United 
States suggests that nearly 4 billion gallons of gasoline a year are 
wasted due to traffic congestion--approximately 94 million barrels of 
oil. There is much at stake, for the annual economic loss to businesses 
in the United States caused by traffic congestion is estimated at $40 
billion by the Federal Transit Administration.
  Mass transit has developed to include traditional bus and subway 
lines, commuter rail, cable cars, monorails, water taxis, and several 
other modes of shared transportation. Public transportation is a 
lifeline for millions of Americans and deserves substantial funding for 
that reason alone. However, it deserves even greater funding when one 
considers that public transportation saves 1.5 billion gallons of fuel 
consumption annually in the United States and that each commuter who 
switches from driving alone to using public transportation saves 200 
gallons of gasoline per year, according to government and private 
studies.
  Transit also does much to protect our environment. For example, on 
May 12, I visited the site of the proposed Frankford Intermodal Center 
in Philadelphia, which will be built on the site of the existing 
Bridge-Pratt terminal. At present, the terminal serves 40,000 El 
passengers daily, translating into

[[Page S4681]]

17,600 fewer cars on the road each day and mitigating the release of 
16,500 pounds of pollutants into the city's air. The new facility is 
expected to attract new ridership, taking more cars off the streets and 
reducing pollution even further. But, without increases in transit 
capital assistance programs, projects such as the Frankford Center will 
be difficult to get off the drawing boards.
  There are ample other reasons to increase our commitment to transit 
funding. In our States, citizens and communities depend on good public 
transportation for mobility, access to jobs, environmental control, and 
economic stability. Public transportation lets the elderly visit their 
health care providers, shops, or friends. In rural areas, buses are 
essential to reduce isolation and ensure economic development. Also, 
children use public transportation to go to school. Without affordable 
mass transit, people in America's inner cities can't get to work. Under 
the welfare reform law enacted last year, there are expectations that 
most individuals receiving welfare benefits will find gainful 
employment. If they can't afford to get to work, or bus routes are cut, 
we are just making it that much harder for them to get off welfare. It 
should also be noted that millions of Americans have jobs in the 
transit industry, operating and maintaining buses and subways, 
manufacturing vehicles, and constructing new facilities.

  I am troubled that some have proposed freezing Federal transit 
spending around $4.4 billion. Transit systems depend to a great degree 
on Federal assistance in order to remain viable. A survey by my staff 
of 18 Pennsylvania transit operators shows that they receive an average 
of 26.7 percent of their total operating and capital funding from the 
Federal Transit Administration. In addition, SEPTA receives 15 percent 
of its overall funding from the Federal Government--55 percent of its 
capital funds--and the Port Authority of Allegheny County receives 32.9 
percent from FTA. Reductions in Federal operating and capital support 
cannot necessarily be made up by local sources. Further, if the systems 
must cut routes, increase fares, and let their facilities fall into 
disrepair, they will lose the critical mass of riders needed to sustain 
operation. The Department of Transportation has calculated that $13 
billion in annual transit capital spending is needed just to preserve 
current conditions--$7 billion more than current capital expenditures--
demonstrating the great need to increase, rather than freeze, Federal 
support.
  Responding to this need, my legislation includes several provisions 
to strengthen our transit systems and enable them to respond to our 
society's growing need for efficient and affordable public 
transportation.
  First, the bill reauthorizes transit programs for 5 years at a total 
of $34.4 billion through fiscal year 2002. For fiscal year 1997, total 
transit appropriations are $4.3 billion. Under my bill, the fiscal year 
1998 authorization would be $6.5 billion and this figure would be 
adjusted up for inflation through fiscal year 2002. The authorization 
is based on calculations of available gasoline tax receipts in the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund, considering past surpluses 
and the additional revenue stream that would be created by diverting a 
portion of the 4.3 cent per gallon gas tax increase from 1993 into this 
account. While the $6.5 billion figure may seem substantial to some, I 
would note that Congress enacted in ISTEA in 1991 a $7.45 billion 
authorization for fiscal year 1997 in recognition of the importance of 
investing in public transportation. We have been remiss in not meeting 
the ISTEA authorization levels. We must do better under its successor 
legislation.

  Under my proposal, discretionary capital grants for new starts, rail 
modernization, bus acquisitions, and bus facility construction would 
rise from the current $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1998. 
Formula capital grants would rise from current $2.2 billion to $3.5 
billion in fiscal year 1998, meaning more funds for urbanized areas, 
rural areas, and elderly and disabled program needs. My legislation 
also preserves operating assistance within the formula program for all 
areas, unlike pending proposals to eliminate it in fiscal year 1998.
  The bill's truth in taxation provision redistributes the 4.3 cent per 
gallon gasoline tax which is currently going to deficit reduction in 
the following manner: 0.76 cents to the mass transit account of highway 
trust fund, 0.5 cents to a new intercity passenger rail trust fund that 
would serve as a dedicated source of revenue for Amtrak and is 
identical to the legislation introduced by Senator Roth (S. 436), and 
the remaining 3.04 cents to the highway trust fund. I have long argued 
that gas tax receipts should be used for the transportation 
infrastructure purposes for which the tax was enacted and that to do 
otherwise is comparable to the crime of fraudulent conversion, which I 
used to prosecute as District Attorney in Philadelphia. When people pay 
Federal taxes at the gas station, they are under the impression that 
their funds will be used to improve highways and roads and other forms 
of transportation infrastructure. Accordingly, it is time to redirect 
the 1993 gas tax increase to its traditional purposes.

  As I noted earlier, a new proposal for a reverse commute pilot 
program is also included in my bill. In order to stimulate economic 
development and help individuals in both urban and rural areas obtain 
meaningful employment and job training, the bill authorizes a new $250 
million per year discretionary grant program for the Secretary of 
Transportation to provide funds to States, local governments, and 
transit systems for pilot projects providing access to suburban jobs 
and job training to residents of distressed urban areas with a 
population of over 50,000 and for pilot projects involving access to 
employment in rural areas as well. Funding uses could include, but are 
not limited to, grants to employers to purchase/lease a van or bus 
dedicated to shuttling employees from inner cities to suburban 
workplaces. Grants could also fund additional reverse commute bus 
routes or commuter rail operations. Such grants are intended to serve 
as seed money that will generate self-sustaining commute options for 
years to come. 954 distressed urban areas currently meet the definition 
contained in the bill.
  This program would not come at the expense of transit core formula 
and discretionary programs. The reverse commute pilot program would be 
a separate program and as a member of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee, given the importance of helping increase mobility for 
Americans seeking good jobs, I would urge my colleagues to fund it 
above and beyond the traditional formula and discretionary grant 
programs, for which there is already a great need for funds.
  My legislation also includes several technical program changes that 
will benefit transit systems of all sizes. My bill would allow the use 
of capital grants for maintenance of capital assets, such as buses, 
subways, which is currently not allowed. It would allow the smallest 
urban and rural transit systems complete flexibility between use of 
capital and operating assistance for various needs. It would also allow 
transit systems that sell capital assets--bought in part with Federal 
funds--to keep the proceeds and reinvest in new capital assets, rather 
than returning some small share of the proceeds to the Federal Transit 
Administration. This is intended to stimulate acquisitions of new 
equipment and vehicles by such systems.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to consider supporting this 
authorizing legislation, which would spend out funds accumlating in the 
mass transit account of the highway trust fund, subject to the 
appropriations process and not in a manner that increases the deficit. 
I hope that this bill will stimulate debate in the Senate on the need 
to increase our commitment to mass transit and I look forward to the 
opportunity to work with the Banking Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee in the coming months.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a brief summary of 
the bill and four letters in support of the Mass Transit Amendments Act 
of 1997 from Mr. William W. Millar, president of the American Public 
Transit Association, Mr. Armando V. Greco of the Lehigh and Northampton 
Transportation Authority, Mr. Paul Skoutelas, executive director of the 
Port Authority of Allegheny County, and Mr. Sonny Hall, international 
president of the Transport Workers Union of America.

[[Page S4682]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Summary of Mass Transit Amendments Act of 1997

       1. Reauthorizes transit programs for five years at a total 
     of $34.4 billion through FY 2002
       FY97 total transit spending: $4.3 billion appropriated 
     (FY97 authorization $7.45 billion) Proposed FY98 
     authorization: $6.5 billion (adjust up for inflation through 
     FY2002)
       Discretionary capital grants up from current $1.9 billion 
     to $2.5 billion in FY98
       Formula capital grants up from current $2.2 billion to $3.5 
     billion in FY98, meaning more funds for urbanized areas, 
     rural areas, and elderly and disabled program needs
       Preserves operating assistance within formula program for 
     all areas
       Continues funding for transit planning and research
       2. ``Truth in Taxation'' provision redistributes the 4.3 
     cent/gallon gasoline tax which is currently going to deficit 
     reduction in the following manner:
       0.76 cents to Mass Transit Account of Highway Trust Fund
       0.5 cents to a new Intercity Passenger Rail trust fund 
     (identical to Roth Amtrak bill S. 436)
       3.04 cents to Highway Trust Fund
       3. ``Reverse Commute Pilot Program''--In order to stimulate 
     economic development and help individuals in both urban and 
     rural areas obtain meaningful employment and job training, 
     the bill authorizes a new $250 million/year discretionary 
     grant program for the Secretary of Transportation to provide 
     funds to States, local governments, transit systems, and 
     private non-profit organizations for pilot projects providing 
     access to suburban jobs and job training to residents of 
     distressed urban areas with a population of over 50,000 and 
     for pilot projects involving access to employment in rural 
     areas as well. Funding uses could include, but are not 
     limited to, grants to employers to purchase/lease a van or 
     bus dedicated to shuttling employees from inner cities to 
     suburban workplaces. Grants could also fund additional 
     reverse commute bus routes or commuter rail operations. 954 
     ``distressed urban areas'' currently meet the definition 
     contained in the bill. Grants will be made where they are 
     coordinated with local transportation and human resource 
     services.
       4. Technical program changes that will benefit transit 
     systems of all sizes--
       Allows use of capital grants for maintenance of capital 
     assets (such as buses, subways) which is currently not 
     allowed.
       Allows smallest urban and rural transit systems complete 
     flexibility between use of capital and operating assistance 
     for various needs.
       Allows transit systems that sell capital assets (bought in 
     part with federal funds) to keep the proceeds and reinvest in 
     new capital assets.
       Amends list of factors to be considered by Metropolitan 
     Planning Organizations to include the transportation 
     requirements of a strategy to revitalize the Nation's inner 
     cities by creating new employment, job training, housing, 
     mobility, and other economic development given the importance 
     of helping increase mobility for Americans seeking good jobs.
                                  ____

                                                   American Public


                                          Transit Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 1997.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: On behalf of the American Public 
     Transit Association (APTA), I want to thank you for 
     introducing the Mass Transit Amendments Act of 1997, a bill 
     to reauthorize the federal transit program. APTA strongly 
     supports the Mass Transit Amendments Act of 1997. The bill 
     would build on the success of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and increase investment 
     in the nation's transit infrastructure.
       Adequate investment in the nation's transit infrastructure 
     is essential to a healthy economy; the movement of people, 
     services, and goods; access to health care, education, and 
     jobs. The Mass Transit Amendments Act would increase 
     investment in the federal transit program providing $34.4 
     billion for transit program over five years.
       Your proposal also recommends a number of substantial and 
     innovative changes to current law which we strongly support. 
     It permits a wide range of maintenance activities to be 
     funded with capital funds and grants small urbanized areas 
     the authority to use formula funding for capital or operating 
     expenses. The bill recommends the use of the 4.3 cents fuels 
     tax that now goes to deficit reduction for transportation 
     purposes, including intercity passenger rail and proposes a 
     number of changes aimed at making program delivery more 
     efficient. We are pleased to note that many of the provisions 
     of your bill are consistent with APTA's ISTEA reauthorization 
     proposal, which has been endorsed by our membership.
       The Mass Transit Amendments Act will help us address the 
     nation's transit needs, and you can count on APTA's 
     membership to support this important legislation.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                William W. Millar,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                    Port Authority


                                          of Allegheny County,

                                     Pittsburgh, PA, May 19, 1997.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: I am writing to express my strong 
     appreciation for your leadership in developing legislation to 
     reauthorize federal programs supporting public 
     transportation. The $6.5 billion annual funding level for 
     transit proposed in your legislation recognizes the need for 
     additional reinvestment and expansion in our public 
     transportation infrastructure. Your legislation also 
     recognizes the importance of continuing the strong federal-
     state-local partnership that has been so successful in 
     funding public transportation.
       Public transportation is a vital component of economic 
     development strategies in Allegheny County. The capital 
     investment programs outlined in your bill recognize this 
     important relationship. Providing access to jobs is another 
     area of fundamental importance to our economic systems. Your 
     legislation addresses this in your innovative welfare to work 
     program and in other policy initiatives. Still another 
     priority is the need for transit providers to have the 
     flexibility of using funds in accordance with the needs they 
     know best. Again, your legislation establishes this important 
     new direction in the federal program.
       On a typical weekday over 250,000 riders use Port Authority 
     to travel to and from their jobs, to shop, to worship, to go 
     to school, or to pursue other social and professional needs. 
     Public transportation provides daily mobility to the millions 
     who use it for its convenience, cost savings, and to those 
     who have no alternative means of transportation.
       We are grateful to you, your cosponsors Senator Santorum 
     and Senator Lautenberg, and your Senate colleagues who have 
     stepped forward as advocates for national transportation 
     policies fostering mobility and balanced transportation 
     alternatives. I look forward to working with you as this 
     legislation is considered in the coming months.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Paul P. Skoutelas,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                           Transport Workers Union of America,

                                     New York, NY, April 21, 1997.
     Hon Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: I am writing to congratulate you on 
     the introduction of the Mass Transit Amendments Act of 1997. 
     The Transport Workers Union strongly supports this 
     legislation because it increases the money available for mass 
     transit and preserves crucial 13(c) protections for our 
     members. We also commend you for the provisions in the bill 
     which allow use of capital grants for maintenance of capital 
     assets--an idea the TWU has supported for many years.
       The TWU is grateful that you have again stepped forward to 
     support mass transit and mass transit workers. We hope that 
     the progressive concepts in your legislation will be enacted 
     and we will do all we can to assist you in achieving that 
     result.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Sonny Hall,
     International President.
                                  ____

                                           Lehigh and Northampton,


                                     Transportation Authority,

                                                    Allentown, PA.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: For the Lehigh and Northampton 
     Transportation Authority, I extend a thank you for the time 
     you afforded us during our recent visit to Washington. Your 
     continued support for Pennsylvania public transportation is 
     very much appreciated.
       As part of the visit you shared with us the draft of the 
     Mass Transit Amendments Act of 1997 and requested comments. 
     Several items are listed below for your consideration, but I 
     must begin by noted our general concurrence and support for 
     the program changes and funding levels proposed. LANTA and 
     the PA transit industry is prepared to support your 
     legislative effort.
       The items for change are as follows:
       1. The reverse commute program should permit rural pilot 
     projects as well as urban.
       2. The population threshold for distressed urban areas 
     should be set at 50,000.
       Both of these changes are based on experiences LANTA has 
     encountered in the communities adjacent to the Lehigh Valley. 
     Access to employment is a problem found in all communities 
     without regard to size.
       Again, thank you. We look forward to working with you as 
     ISTEA moves through the reauthorization process.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Armando V. Greco,
     Executive Director.

                          ____________________