[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.
____________________