[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.
____________________