[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 23 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S1547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor, along with the 
Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, to talk about something that we 
think is very important--transportation, which, of course, is what we 
are into now. We are talking about ISTEA. As you know, much of the 
Federal tax

[[Page S1546]]

that goes into the transportation arrangement goes for highways, but a 
good deal also goes for mass transit transportation. That is what we 
will be entering into soon.
  Historically, the distribution of funds under the Federal transit 
program has been focused on just a few States. As a matter of fact, 
eight States receive about 60 percent of the program funds. At the same 
time, of course, there is an emerging growth and need in rural areas 
for services to the poor, services to the elderly, and services to the 
disabled. So we have prepared and have introduced and will talk about, 
as we go forward, the Transit Modernization Act, which will tend to 
make some modifications in the distribution of these transit funds 
which, by the way, have not been significantly modified since 1982. It 
will make a relatively small change, but you will see as we talk about 
our States that a relatively small change will make a terrific impact 
on those States that have not, basically, been the ones receiving the 
money. At the same time, those that have the greatest needs in transit 
will still be substantial recipients of these funds.
  We have agreed, I think, to an additional $5 billion that will go 
into these areas of mass transit over the next 5 years. The good news, 
of course, is to ensure that all of the country benefits, not just a 
few in favored States, and that all will receive some kind of a 
meaningful share of increases to respond to what, as in almost all 
instances, has been a long, unmet need of public transportation.
  Even in my State with relatively small towns, we still have the 
elderly who need transportation, and we have the disabled who need 
transportation. So we have needs as well. Wyoming receives about $1 
million to $2 million annually out of the transit funding. Out of the 
total funding, frankly, that rounds out to zero; $1 million out of $5 
billion does not even show up on the board. We get back about 11 or 12 
cents for every dollar that is contributed to this fund from Wyoming 
people who buy and pay the Federal gas tax; 11 to 12 cents is returned 
to Wyoming. Unfortunately, that, as you might imagine, falls 
substantially below our needs and does not fill our needs.
  Wyoming transit offers more than 1.2 million rides per year, and it 
costs them from $1 million to $2 million annually to provide services. 
Our needs for the elderly and the disabled, the buses, the van pools, 
and replacements total over $12 million annually.
  Further, we have had in Wyoming--and we are proud of it--one of the 
most successful activities of moving people off welfare into jobs. So 
our demands for public transit are growing.
  The problem with the current transit program is not limited to the 
rural West. It also includes States like Michigan, North Carolina, 
Indiana, Mississippi and Kentucky. All have transit needs that are not 
being met. Currently, eight States receive 60 percent of the total 
funding, despite the growth of needs in rural areas. The transit 
program has not been updated since 1982. The program has not changed 
much, but the country and the needs of the country have. Growth areas, 
rural areas, and small communities are beginning to more and more have 
a need for public transit. Under the supposedly need-based system, 
these needs have not been met.
  As I said earlier, an agreement has been reached to increase transit 
funding by $5 billion over the next 5 years. That is good. These funds 
are paid in for that purpose. We will offset this, and this offset will 
be there for our amendment. Therefore, each State will benefit 
meaningfully from this. Instead of receiving 11 percent of what we pay 
in, hopefully we will receive some more.
  We want to do this as a result of the opportunity created by the hard 
work of Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes, the chairman and ranking member 
of the Banking Committee. In this system, it is my belief that 
everybody wins.
  There are several amendments that have been filed, of course, that 
would change it. Some affect new starts; some would provide 80 or 90 
percent allocation. Another way to achieve it is what we think is a 
modest amendment that Senator Johnson and I have drafted.
  It will help States meet their transit challenges, but it will be a 
fair distribution. It will create a minimum guarantee that will 
increase each State's share of the transit program up to 70 percent of 
the State's contribution or a maximum of $12 million a year.
  Under this amendment, the vast majority of America's cities and small 
communities will receive more transit funds, and they will go on, of 
course, for years as they seek to reach that 70 percent level. It is 
important to note that this equitable distribution will be accomplished 
without substantially harming those systems currently receiving the 
bulk of the money.
  All States which are currently substantial donees under the program 
will remain substantial donees. And 93 percent of the funding will 
continue to be distributed under the current formula. So we are talking 
about a redistribution of less than 7 percent of the additional funds 
that come there.
  I hope we are able to take advantage of the growth in transit funding 
to allow all States to share in the Transit Modernization Act, as it is 
a protransit amendment, by allowing all States to benefit, creating 
stronger support for the program, and will benefit 30 to 35 States 
annually, including all the cities and small communities in those 
States.
  It will establish equity in the transit system by utilizing the 
growth of the transit funding. However, all States that are currently 
substantial donees will remain substantial donees. And that is not the 
case under any of the other amendments. So we believe this is a fair 
distribution. We believe it is one that recognizes needs. It is one 
that continues to support the needs of the donee States.
  Mr. President, I yield to my friend from South Dakota for his 
comments with respect to this joint amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for 
yielding time to me and also for his very constructive contribution 
towards working on a fair and equitable amendment to the transit 
provisions in the ISTEA II legislation that the Senate is considering.
  There is an understanding that an agreement has been reached which 
will allow for an additional $5 billion to be directed toward the 
transit needs of this country nationwide over the coming 5 years.
  I am supportive of this. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, 
I certainly will do all I can to find offsets that will be necessary to 
make this funding a reality. But I think this funding for transit does 
afford each of our States an opportunity, a unique opportunity, for a 
win-win circumstance whereby the States that traditionally have drawn 
significant funds from transit will continue to have that kind of draw 
and, in fact, will have their transit needs enhanced, but those of us 
from States that tend to be rural or more recent population growth 
areas will also find some of our transportation needs also met.
  Currently, as the Senator from Wyoming has noted, eight States 
receive about 60 percent of all the transit funds in the country. The 
formula has not really been changed significantly since 1982, and there 
has been no opportunity during that time to allow for modest growth in 
transit programs in States and cities which historically have not 
received adequate funding to meet their public transportation needs.
  There will be spending offsets, as noted, that will make this $5 
billion enhancement possible. It is important, obviously, that this 
initiative go forth in the context of a balanced Federal budget. I 
think we all share that across party lines. There is uniform support 
for that. But in order to reach these offsets, there also is no doubt 
that all 50 States will have to participate in providing some 
reductions in their programs to make this transit money available. It 
is all the more equitable, then, that all 50 States should at least, to 
some modest degree, share in the increase in transit funds.
  The States that currently are donor States--my home State of South 
Dakota is a donor; that is, we contribute much more to transit than we 
receive back--will remain donor States. I understand that. I accept 
that. There are other equities where my home State

[[Page S1547]]

does better. The same would be said for the State of the Senator from 
Wyoming. His State will remain a donor State. Those States that are 
beneficiaries, that receive more than they pay in, will continue to 
receive more than they pay in. The amendment that Senator Thomas and I 
have put together would not change that fundamental reality.
  But what we do feel is that this is an opportunity, when there is 
this very significant growth in the overall pot of money available for 
transit, that 7 percent of the total pot be subject to some 
redistribution to recognize the contemporary realities that we now 
face.
  In order to address some of the concerns that have been raised with 
Senator Thomas and with me and with our staffs, we have made some 
changes.
  First, there will be no transferability provision in our amendment, 
so that the money which would be shifted to States that are currently 
being underfunded for their transit needs will not be allowed to then 
be shifted into highway construction or bridge repair or nontransit 
needs.

  There was some concern that this amendment was somehow a raid on 
transit funds for nontransit purposes. We want to make sure--make 
absolutely certain--that all of our colleagues understand that that is 
not the case, that the 7 percent component of the transit funds that 
would be redistributed would be strictly for transit needs.
  Secondly, it was expressed that there is some concern about whether a 
shifting of this 7 percent portion of the funds would somehow 
jeopardize donor States, what are called new-start funds. And I have 
heard some concern expressed. The fact is that under our amendment, no 
State which gains under the pending amendment will have their new-start 
funding cut next year. Under this amendment, we pay for the changes by 
making modest reductions from the donee States but not from attacking 
the new-start funds.
  Thirdly, the question has been raised whether this is need based or 
not, whether 30 to 35 States that would benefit by this have transit 
needs. Admittedly, the needs that we have in many of our areas where 
there are fast growing suburban areas, whether it is fast growing new 
younger cities or whether it is in rural areas, are different than the 
needs that our colleagues from New York or Chicago might have, but they 
are very great needs nonetheless.
  In my home State of South Dakota, we have a tremendous reliance on 
our rural transit needs, particularly for seniors to make it to health 
visits, for groceries, to get to congregate meal sites. All of these 
things, given the dispersal of the population, the very rural nature of 
the State, makes transit all the more critical. And it is critical, as 
well, in our Indian reservation areas. I have nine in my State where 
the need for access to quality nutrition, education, and medical care 
would be enormously enhanced by the availability of at least some 
minimal rural transit assistance.
  Currently, over 30 percent of our 206 vehicles providing rural 
transit in our State are 10 years old or older; 70 percent are 5 years 
old or older. We have had, in the course of the State, local, and 
Federal partnership to make rural transit a reality, a continuing 
hardship where some of our counties now, in fact, are terminating their 
transit programs. We cannot afford to see this kind of retreat, this 
kind of neglect, for rural transit needs in my State.
  So I think that anyone who takes a close look at our amendment will 
recognize the very modest nature of the amendment, that it is only 7 
percent of a total pot, a vastly growing pot of money, that would be 
subject to some modest change of redistribution to meet the 
contemporary transit needs; that, in fact, the overwhelming share of 
States would benefit by this redistribution; and it would not incur a 
significant reduction really in the States that currently have the 
traditional great benefit from the transit programs.
  So, again, this is a modest step, but I think it is a modest step in 
the right direction, one that will contribute greater equity, one that 
will contribute to the creation of what is truly a national transit 
strategy. And I think every one of our colleagues who come from the 
traditional large recipient States will recognize that a national 
commitment to transit assistance will be all the stronger if, in fact, 
more than eight States benefit but that all 50 States benefit to a 
greater degree than is currently the case.

  So, again, I thank my colleague, Senator Thomas from Wyoming, for his 
work on this in our effort to craft a reasonable and a balanced and a 
modest change, but one that nonetheless ought to be of great help to 
the large majority of States as we debate the transit amendment and the 
infusion of new money into the transit provisions of the ISTEA II 
legislation.
  So, with that, I encourage my colleagues to be very supportive of 
this and to examine the language of our amendment carefully.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We are in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to 
speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________