[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1677-S1680]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1931

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment this afternoon 
to talk about the pending highway bill and particularly the transit 
provisions in that bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Senator D'Amato and Senator 
Sarbanes for their work on this initiative. The bill they brought to 
the Banking

[[Page S1678]]

Committee adds immensely to the act we are debating. It provides a 
critical component to the overall transportation in America, and that 
component is mass transit. This bill that Senator Sarbanes and Senator 
D'Amato have worked so hard on would provide $5 billion, which, over 
the next 6 years, would accumulate and provide sufficient funding for 
mass transit throughout the United States.
  The legislation recognizes that in many regions of the country, 
particularly the Northeast where I come from, mass transit is one of 
the critical elements of our transportation policy. We do not have the 
space to build more roads. We also are in a congested area of the 
country in which environmental factors are so critical. Without mass 
transit we cannot deal with transportation problems, environmental 
problems, and also the basic needs of the people of my State and my 
region to be productive citizens.
  This is particularly the case when we are talking about reforms we 
have just undertaken with respect to the welfare system, moving 
Americans from welfare to work. For many of these Americans, literally, 
their path to the work site is through mass transit, through buses, 
through subways. Without these vehicles, without these mechanisms, they 
cannot become effective participants in our work force. Transit is 
particularly important to my State of Rhode Island.
  Just this morning I had an opportunity to meet with our director of 
the Rhode Island Transit Authority, Dr. Beverly Scott. She is doing a 
remarkable job. She impressed upon me again the important role that 
transit plays in my State. Ridership is up in Rhode Island. We are one 
of the few States in the country with a statewide system, one system 
serving the entire State. Last year 19.5 million bus passengers used 
our rider services. In addition, we had over 450,000 paratransit 
riders. These are small jitneys that move around the State, many times 
serving disabled Americans who cannot use the traditional buses that we 
still have in our fleet. Indeed, 18 percent of the riders of mass 
transit in Rhode Island are seniors or disabled Americans. These are 
individuals who cannot avail themselves of the highways through their 
own vehicles in many cases. They depend upon transit. They depend upon 
our role here in Washington to adequately fund mass transit throughout 
America.
  We also have, because of our mass transit investments in Rhode 
Island, done some remarkable things with respect to the environment. It 
is estimated that the buses of the Rhode Island Public Transit 
Authority over the past several years have kept about 1.2 million 
pounds of pollution from entering our system. In doing so, they have 
allowed us to keep pace, at least, with the demands for a cleaner 
environment up in Rhode Island. We have to do more, but without mass 
transit we would be in a much more perilous situation.
  There are those who are arguing with respect to transit that we 
should move away from traditional formulations of transit policy and 
start talking about minimum allocations, State by State, which, in 
effect, would reward certain parts of the country that do not have the 
history and, indeed I would argue, the strong need for transit 
services, as we do in the Northeast or in other parts, the older urban 
parts of America. I think this approach would be wrong. This bill we 
are considering in effect shapes national transportation policy. As 
Senators in the National Assembly, we have to recognize our national 
responsibilities. One responsibility is to continue to support those 
systems that are so essential to my region of the country, so essential 
historically.
  I was thinking, as I spoke to Dr. Scott, my director of public 
transportation, that his family goes way back in transit. My 
grandfather, James J. Monahan, worked for the United Electric Railway 
System, which was the local transit system. In fact, he started around 
the turn of the century. Before there were electric railroads, there 
were horse-drawn rail cars, and he was working on those. We have seen, 
in my section of the country, this reliance upon transportation for 
years. We must maintain appropriate funding.
  I hope we can do that because I think, if we would try to arbitrarily 
distort the funding for transit, if we would suddenly yield, not to 
sensible national transportation policy but simply regional interests, 
we could undercut something which is very essential, not only to my 
region but also to the Nation. If we do not have good transit in the 
Northeast and other parts of the country, we will not make our 
environmental targets, we will not be able to continue to develop a 
strong economy, we will not be able to ensure that all of our citizens 
have access to the job sites, we will not be able, in short, to do what 
we all want to do--provide for a transportation system that serves all 
of America.
  I should point out, too, that in this debate we have seen changes 
impacting, through the highway formulas, adversely on many parts of the 
country. Those parts of the country are most dependent on transit. The 
idea of reformulating highway policy, which many of us have approached 
with some sense of cooperation because of our view of the national 
economy and the national needs, to turn around now and inject strident 
regionalism into the transit formula would, I think, be a mistake. We 
cannot, I think, in our position, bear to see some of these changes in 
the highway position without the confidence that transit funding will 
be maintained on a reasonable basis and that we will continue to 
develop and support good transit throughout this country but 
particularly in those areas that historically have relied upon it.
  Mr. President, I hope we could summon not only the wisdom and courage 
to support this bill coming from the Banking Committee but also to 
oppose those proposals which would impose a minimum allocation on the 
States. We have to recognize and support transit as it exists today and 
develop new starts, for which there is plenty of funding in the 
proposal that Senator D'Amato is bringing to the floor to do that. But 
we cannot, I think, impose some arbitrary constraints on the transit 
formulation which so far has served us very well.
  I hope we can support this amendment from the Banking Committee, 
oppose the amendment that would distort it dramatically, and in doing 
so contribute, along with our highway provisions, to sound and very 
important national transportation policy.

  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me first say I tremendously 
appreciate the work and the contribution and the support the Senator 
from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, has given to the committee in bringing 
this amendment to this point. He has been constructive. He has been 
helpful. I particularly appreciate his efforts as they relate to that 
part of the program that concentrates primarily on attempting to meet 
the needs of those people who are trying to get off welfare. We are 
talking about the people who want to help themselves. He has been a 
leader in this area. Indeed, we have provided more funds and 
specifically targeted them to getting transportation for people who 
otherwise cannot get to work.
  Later, I believe a number of our colleagues will be coming to the 
floor. I am going to ask those who might be listening and/or their 
staffs, to please, if they have amendments, come on down. Let's deal 
with them. I believe the Senators from Pennsylvania have an amendment 
that maybe a great number of colleagues would be willing to support. I 
know Senator Reed would probably be one of the prime sponsors, in terms 
of enhancing that program, and that is programs to help people to get 
to work to get off the welfare rolls. So that is a plea I make to them.
  At this point, I would like to recognize the outstanding work of 
Senators Allard and Grams in relationship to making, I think, an 
important contribution to this bill in seeking great balance. I believe 
the distinguished Senator from Colorado has an amendment he would like 
to offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                Amendment No. 1940 To Amendment No. 1931

     (Purpose: To make an amendment with respect to fixed guideway 
                             modernization)

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment 1940, 
the Gramm-Allard amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S1679]]


       The Senator from Colorado, [Mr. Allard], for himself and 
     Mr. Grams, proposes an amendment numbered 1940 to amendment 
     No. 1931.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 68, line 21, strike ``The next'' and all that 
     follows through ``(7)'' on page 70, line 1.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman of the Banking 
Committee for his willingness to work with both Senator Grams and 
myself. I think we had a very productive floor debate this morning 
about the transit needs of the different sectors of this Nation. I 
think Senator D'Amato has certainly showed his statesmanship this 
morning in recognition of the transit needs of the more rapidly growing 
regions of this Nation, much of which is occurring in the Western 
United States as well as in the Southern States. States like Colorado 
are experiencing extraordinary growth, and our citizens are certainly 
anxious to have a fair return on transit dollars. As the chairman 
knows, Senator Grams and I have filed and discussed an amendment that 
addresses new dollars that will flow into the New Starts and Fixed 
Guideway Modernization Programs.
  The chairman has agreed to accept some of the fixed guideway language 
that was included in our amendment. He has offered to work with us 
further in the conference committee. I now submit the revised language 
and urge its acceptance. I thank again Chairman D'Amato for his 
willingness to ensure high-growth areas that are experiencing problems 
of congestion and air quality nonattainment shall be recipients of 
Federal dollars for New Start projects. In addition, we will continue 
to work with him on the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program to see 
whether some of the high-growth cities can be eligible for funding on 
an accelerated basis. I thank the chairman.
  Mr D'AMATO. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also thank Chairman D'Amato for working 
with Senator Allard and myself in recognizing that growing mass transit 
moneys should be more fairly and equitably distributed to the new 
systems in our country, including Minneapolis and St. Paul.
  I represent Minnesota, a State that is growing, and growing in areas 
where rising populations are basically dictating the needs to resolve 
traffic congestion through new-start mass transit options. I thank the 
chairman for his commitment to work with Senator Allard and me in the 
conference and again to make the Fixed Guideway Program more equitable 
to the new system. I thank the chairman for his acceptance of our fixed 
guideway language in this amendment and for his commitment to work with 
us to maintain this language in conference, because it is important 
that a greater portion of the new funding above the current levels, 
currently $760 million in 1997, go to these new systems. These are the 
systems, as we have noted, that are growing the most and growing fast.
  I also thank him for this agreement to work with us in conference to 
help us establish some very significant funding for new starts. I also 
thank Senator Allard for all his work with us on this as well. I thank 
the Chairman very much for his help and cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me say I am deeply appreciative of 
the work of my colleagues, Senator Allard and Senator Grams, and for 
their patience, for their diligence in working on behalf of their 
constituents and, more importantly, recognizing the need for balance, 
the need to meet the needs of the high-growth cities in the United 
States, which they represent, but also recognizing the needs of the 
older cities, the older transportation hubs, that also need to continue 
to get adequate funding.
  In addition, I am looking forward to working with my colleagues 
towards addressing the growing needs for mass transit in growing cities 
such as Minneapolis/St. Paul and Denver. They have unique problems. The 
problems of attaining the clean air standards certainly are not those 
just found in the cities of Boston or New York or Philadelphia. Indeed, 
in areas that we may not have ever considered, these are problems. They 
are. Cities like these must receive an equitable portion of the New 
Start funds so they may begin to implement mass transit as a solution 
of their problems of traffic congestion and air quality. Again, I 
commend them, and I am committed to working with my colleagues on this 
issue and on the issues of eligibility for funds under the fixed 
guideway formula.
  Might I also say, I thank again, in all of this, my colleague and 
friend, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, 
for working to achieve this balance.
  Mr. President, I ask acceptance of the amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I just say, I think this is an instance 
of trying to work through, in a practical and pragmatic way, points 
that are being made, which the chairman has indicated he is quite 
prepared to do. So I am prepared to go along and accept the amendment 
in an effort in part to move this legislation forward and also to 
indicate that we are trying to be reasonable here. We want to get 
accomplished a result without departing from the basic structure of 
ISTEA in some significant way. I think what has been talked about here 
sort of puts us on that path. So I support accepting the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment No. 1940 is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1940) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I urge those Members who have amendments 
to come to the floor so that we can work on their amendments. This 
could have been one of the most contentious amendments and, indeed, 
started out on the very basis that almost no one saw a resolve of it. 
We can work through these amendments because we are willing to meet and 
speak to those who want to be heard. But they cannot be heard if they 
do not come to the floor.
  I have asked that my colleagues from Pennsylvania, who have a unique 
amendment, one that attempts to help accelerate people from welfare 
into productive jobs, and helps them get to work, come on down and 
offer their amendment, because at some point in time we are going to 
move to close this. If they want to object, I am going to ask that they 
be here to object personally.
  So I do not think that this bill is completed, by any stretch of the 
imagination, but I think we would like to move on it rather than put us 
in a quorum call and wait. So again, I can only suggest, come on down, 
offer your amendments, or at least have your staffs meet with our 
staffs so we can discuss a resolve of this so we can get this important 
legislation passed.
  Mr. President, having nothing further in the way of any kind of 
productive suggestions at this point in time, I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. 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. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment being 
offered by Senator Specter, myself, and Senator Moseley-Braun to the 
transportation bill before us, the mass transit section.
  Over the past several years, when I was in the House and then here in 
the Senate, on the issue of welfare reform, one of the great concerns I 
had with putting time limits on welfare and requiring work was the 
ability of people, particularly in the inner city, urban areas, to be 
able to find job opportunities. We know that the urban core is not a 
job center and a lot of urban poor neighborhoods are not economically

[[Page S1680]]

well off in the form of job creation. So people who live in these poor 
urban areas have to have some sort of transportation access to get to 
the jobs. It has worked in the past fairly well when from the urban 
neighborhoods outside the center of town--in many cases where the job 
centers were--people could hop on transportation, a bus, rail, 
whatever, and go into the downtown area for jobs. That had worked well 
in the tourism industry, hotel/motel, et cetera. A lot of those jobs 
are not particularly high skilled because a lot of the urban poor don't 
have a lot of job skills starting out.
  The problem with the current economy is that, in many cities, 
Philadelphia being one of them, the job creation boom is not taking 
place in the inner city; it's taking place in suburban corridors. In 
the case of Philadelphia, it is taking place in what's called the Route 
202 corridor. In fact, we are not an anomaly. Two-thirds of all new 
jobs are being created in the suburbs. So you have a very odd situation 
happening. You have the dramatic increase in jobs; in fact, there is 
very low unemployment in most areas of the country. But there is still 
chronically high unemployment in the inner cities and, as a result of 
the new job creation happening in the suburbs, no transportation link 
for people in the urban neighborhoods out to the suburbs. Now, they can 
get to maybe a train station in the suburbs, or a bus station, as the 
bus that went into town for the commute comes back out of town. But 
they can't get from that station to their job, which may be in an 
industrial park somewhere. So that creates a real problem for the 
suburban business because the suburban business--and I have talked to a 
lot of suburban manufacturers who tell me they cannot find workers to 
get to their job sites.
  Yet, we have a great pool of workers in the inner city. So what 
Senator Specter and Senator Moseley-Braun and I have sponsored is an 
authorization of $100 million to be used to encourage and develop 
reverse commutes. It's a very flexible program. It's a program that 
says the money is designated by the Secretary, and the Secretary can 
accept bids from a variety of different regional organizations. The 
transit organizations, different communities, a whole variety of 
entities can apply, which will create a tremendous amount of, I 
believe, and a very positive competition for these dollars and will 
require innovative plans to get people to the workplace. I believe if 
we are going to follow through with our commitment of requiring work--
and we are reaching that time now with the bill--and stating that there 
is a 5-year time limit on benefits where people are going to exhaust 
that 5-year period of time and they are going to lose their cash 
benefit--and if there is no opportunity for a job in their own 
neighborhood or there is no opportunity for a job within transit 
distance, then we are, in a sense, locking these people into a 
desperate situation.
  I don't think that was the intention of the U.S. Senate. It certainly 
wasn't my intention. So I believe that at least one of the keys to 
unlocking that situation is to create the opportunity to get out to the 
suburbs, to get out to where the job growth is occurring, and to 
provide a transportation network in the area of a reverse commute to do 
that.
  I hope that we will get strong bipartisan support for this 
initiative. This is something that is essential if we are going to 
follow through. I speak specifically to the Members on this side of the 
aisle, many of whom are not big fans of mass transit. But mass transit 
is the lifeblood for millions of people who live in urban America. 
Millions of people could not go to work; they can't own cars; they 
don't have the money; they can't afford it in many of the neighborhoods 
because of insurance rates and everything else, not just the cost of 
the car. Mass transit is the only way for these people to get to work, 
and it is essential for us to provide the link. Particularly in the 
time that we are going to be forcing people off the welfare rolls, it 
is essential for us to provide the link for those people to get to the 
job site. We are doing the right thing with welfare reform. We have 
done the right thing. But now we need to follow up and make sure that 
those people who want to work, who have in many cases worked hard to 
get the skills to get into the job market, now have the access to take 
those jobs.
  So I thank my colleagues, Senator Specter, Senator Moseley-Braun, and 
others who are supportive of this amendment. As I said, I hope that we 
can get very strong bipartisan support for this amendment to be added 
to the mass transit title. If we do not, then I think we are going to 
see a lot of big city mayors and a lot of activists descend upon 
Washington in a couple of years when that 5-year time limit is up, and 
they are going to say, ``You are telling us to cut these people off and 
there are no jobs where they live, no jobs within commuting distance of 
where they live, and we can't do it.'' Welfare reform will have failed. 
We can't let the transportation issue be the reason for that failure. 
This money will create incentives for businesses and other people in 
the suburbs and the city to create a network that doesn't exist now. 
Once that network is created, then I think we can begin to see, and, in 
many cases, employers will begin to see, the profitability of having 
this network in place. I think this money will go a long, long way in 
inspiring and instituting these kinds of plans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________