[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1682-S1687]
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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the D'Amato amendment 
No. 1931.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside for consideration of an amendment I am about to 
submit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, may I suggest to the Senator, if he could 
offer it, it would be appropriate to offer the amendment that I believe 
the Senator intends to offer as it relates to providing for 
transportation needs of those who are seeking jobs outside of the inner 
cities. I think it is a well-crafted amendment and one that the Senator 
has worked on and has spoken to, and one that Senator Santorum has 
worked on and spoken to, and one that Senator Carol Moseley-Braun has 
worked on and spoken to. We are willing to entertain that and support 
it. It would be added as an amendment to the existing amendment.


                Amendment No. 1941 to Amendment No. 1931

     (Purpose: To make reverse commute project grants eligible for 
            assistance under the job access grants program)

  Mr. SPECTER. In that event, I send this amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself, 
     Mr. Santorum, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1941 to amendment No. 1931.

  Mr. SPECTER. 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 55, strike line 12, and insert the following:

     ``SEC.   14. JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS.''

       On page 56, line 13, strike ``and''.
       On page 56, line 18, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 56, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(9) many residents of cities and rural areas would like 
     to take advantage of mass transit to gain access to suburban 
     employment opportunities.''
       Beginning on page 57, strike line 9 and all that follows 
     through page 58, line 4, and insert the following:
       ``(2) Eligible project and related terms.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible project' means and 
     access to jobs project or a reverse commute project.
       ``(B) Access to jobs project.--The term `access to jobs 
     project' means a project relating to the development of 
     transportation services designed to transport welfare 
     recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from 
     jobs and activities related to their employment, including--
       ``(i) capital projects and to finance operating costs of 
     equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance 
     items related to providing access to jobs under this section;
       ``(ii) promoting the use of transit by workers with 
     nontraditional work schedules;
       ``(iii) promoting the use by appropriate agencies of 
     transit vouchers for welfare recipients and eligible low-
     income individuals under specific terms and conditions 
     developed by the Secretary; and
       ``(iv) promoting the use of employer-provided 
     transportation including the transit pass benefit program 
     under subsections (a) and (f) of section 132 of title 26.
       ``(C) Reverse commute project.--The term `reverse commute 
     project' means a project related to the development of 
     transportation services designed to transport residents of 
     urban areas, urbanized areas, and areas other than urbanized 
     areas to suburban employment opportunities, including any 
     project to--
       ``(i) subsidize the costs associated with adding reverse 
     commute bus, train, or van routes, or service from urban 
     areas, urbanized areas, and areas other than urbanized areas, 
     to suburban workplaces;
       ``(ii) subsidize the purchase or lease by a private 
     employer, nonprofit organization, or public agency of a van 
     or bus dedicated to shuttling employees from their residences 
     to a suburban workplace;
       ``(iii) otherwise facilitate the provision of mass 
     transportation services to suburban employment opportunities 
     to residents of urban areas, urbanized areas, and areas other 
     than urbanized areas.''
       On page 59, line 20, insert ``access to jobs grants and 
     reverse commute'' before ``grants''.
       On page 60, line 15, insert ``in the case of an applicant 
     seeking assistance to finance an access to jobs project,'' 
     after ``(2)''.
       On page 61, line 7, insert ``in the case of an applicant 
     seeking assistance to finance an access to jobs project,'' 
     before ``presents''.
       On page 61, line 13, strike ``and''.
       On page 61, line 16, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 61, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(8) in the case of an applicant seeking assistance to 
     finance a reverse commute project, the need for additional 
     services identified in a regional transportation plan to 
     transport individuals to suburban employment opportunities, 
     and the extent to which the proposed services will address 
     those needs.''
       On page 62, strike lines 13 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) Coordination.--Each application for a grant under 
     this section shall reflect coordination with and the approval 
     of affected transit grant recipients. The eligible access to 
     jobs projects financed must be part of a coordinated public 
     transit-human services transportation planning process.''
       On page 64, strike lines 1 through 4 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section, to remain available until 
     expended, $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003, of which--
       ``(A) $150,000,000 in each fiscal year shall be used for 
     grants for access to jobs projects; and
       ``(B) $100,000,000 in each fiscal year shall be used for 
     grants for reverse commute projects.''
       On page 8, line 16, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$250,000,000''.
       On page 11, line 16, strike ``, except'' and all that 
     follows through line 20 and insert a period.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment works on reverse commute 
projects, which are designed to enable people to come from the inner 
city where there are no jobs available and to go to the suburbs where 
jobs are available. This is, in part, the reverse commute pilot project 
introduced by my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, and myself 
along with Senator Lautenberg in the ``Mass Transit Amendments Act,'' 
S. 764. We think it is appropriate to include it on the ISTEA 
legislation at this time.
  This program essentially responds to the growing need to provide 
access to suburban employment opportunities for residents of cities and 
rural areas who wish to continue living in their city or rural town and 
need mass transit to get to the jobs. This amendment will also increase 
from $100 million to $150 million the access-to-jobs, welfare-to-work 
provision already in ISTEA under the Banking Committee bill as 
introduced by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Moseley-
Braun. My amendment establishes a new $100 million annual authorization 
for reverse commute grants, bringing the total access-to-jobs/reverse 
commute program to $250 million annually.
  A week ago yesterday I visited a reverse commute project, the 
Schuylkill Valley Metro project, envisioned by SEPTA and BARTA. This 
rail line would run from the inner city of Philadelphia to Reading, 
through Montgomery County, through Philadelphia County, and into Berks 
County. It is an excellent illustration of what is necessary in order 
to take people from the

[[Page S1683]]

inner city where people need jobs out to the suburbs where the jobs are 
available.
  This is a very abbreviated statement of a complex bill, but one which 
I think is designed to meet a very, very pressing need, especially in 
an era where we are moving away from welfare, to take people who have 
been on the welfare rolls in the inner cities and provide them with job 
opportunities in the suburbs.
  If I might yield to the distinguished chairman, there is an addendum 
to the bill which I have added at the chairman's request which he said 
he would comment on briefly.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, we have maintained in this, as it relates 
to the construction of a ferry, the same worker protection language 
that heretofore has existed in mass transportation. I would like to 
call that to the attention of the Chair.
  I thank the Senator for his initiative in this most important 
opportunity to get people off of the welfare rolls and see to it that 
they do have access to the jobs that are increasingly growing in number 
in the suburbs.
  I ask I be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. 
I commend Senator Santorum and Senator Specter for their work on this 
and, of course, the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato, 
and the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, for their work on this issue 
in that committee.
  This amendment will improve the job access grants that are contained 
in the bill, in the underlying legislation.
  Last September, when the Banking Committee--of which I am a member--
considered the mass transit component of ISTEA reauthorization, I was 
successful in adding to the bill a $600 million grant program to help 
welfare recipients and low-income individuals to get to work. I thank 
again the Chairman, Senator D'Amato, as well as Senator Sarbanes and 
the others who helped make that possible.
  The amendment that my colleagues from Pennsylvania and I are offering 
today expands and improves the job access provisions in the Banking 
Committee's bill. The amendment more than doubles the amount of funding 
available for the program--from $100 million per year to $250 million 
per year.
  The amendment increases from $100 million to $150 million the amount 
available every year for access to jobs grants--monies designed to 
address the fact that, in too many cases, in both urban and rural 
areas, welfare recipients and low-income individuals are isolated from 
the jobs they want and need.
  The amendment adds an additional $100 million per year for a new 
reverse commute program, designed to provide seed money to local 
communities to shuttle employees who live in central cities, or in 
outlying rural areas, into jobs located in the suburbs.
  Two-thirds of all new jobs are being created in the suburbs. Many 
suburban communities report severe labor shortages because they cannot 
find enough workers looking for entry-level jobs. Public transportation 
systems, however, are often not designed to move people from either 
inner cities or rural areas to job opportunities in the suburbs. This 
amendment will help communities implement new transit systems designed 
to transport people of all income levels from their homes in cities and 
rural areas to jobs in rapidly-growing suburban communities.
  Mr. President, I would like to talk for a moment about the access to 
jobs portion of this amendment. I am very pleased that I have been able 
to work with my colleagues from Pennsylvania, as well as with the 
leadership of the committee, to increase the amount of funding 
available for that program.
  Last year, Congress enacted legislation to move people from welfare 
to work, the welfare-to-work legislation that was so much a point of 
discussion a year ago. The bill imposed time limits and other 
restrictions that will result in the termination of benefits for an 
estimated two million people by the year 2002. One of the greatest 
obstacles many of these current welfare recipients face in getting jobs 
is literally getting to the jobs. Welfare recipients and low-income 
individuals often live, almost by definition, in impoverished 
communities devoid of job opportunities. I pointed out that in a single 
census tract near the public housing developments in Chicago, there is 
less than 1 percent, according to the census, less than 1 percent 
employment in that entire census tract. Clearly, people have to get to 
where the jobs are. Mr. President, 94 percent of welfare recipients do 
not have cars. Low-wage earners often do not have cars. They are 
dependent on public transportation to get to areas with jobs. If the 
public transit is inadequate, the jobs become inaccessible. People 
cannot move from welfare to work if the people on welfare can't get to 
the work.
  In many communities with high concentrations of welfare recipients 
and low-wage earners, new jobs are practically non-existent. Three-
quarters of welfare recipients live in central cities or rural areas, 
and as I already noted, two-thirds of all new jobs are created in 
suburbs. So clearly we have to resolve this disconnect to allow people 
to get from welfare to work, and this program goes a long way in that 
direction.
  In Cleveland, a study found that inner city residents can only reach 
between eight and 15 percent of job openings in a reasonable time using 
public transportation. Even if central city residents were willing to 
commute for two hours and 40 minutes every day, they would still have 
access to less than half of the entry-level jobs in the Cleveland area. 
A separate study of 43 large metropolitan areas revealed that 
communities with the longest job commute times had the highest rates of 
unemployment. So the ability to have access to employment is directly 
correlated with the ability of people to hold employment.
  In Boston, there are public transit stations within one-half mile of 
99 percent of the city's welfare recipients. Only 43 percent of 
employers, however, are within one-half mile of transit lines.
  Studies of Baltimore and Atlanta have demonstrated the same trend. 
While the jobs are in the suburbs, the people looking for the jobs are 
not.
  In rural areas, the same problems exist. The Community Transportation 
Association of America has found that 40 percent of all rural counties 
have no public transportation whatsoever. When transit is present, it 
often does not operate at night or on weekends--times when many low-
wage or entry-level jobs are performed.
  By filling the gaps in transit services, we can give people the 
chance to get to the jobs they seek. In Chicago, an innovative Suburban 
Job Links program is doing just that. Buses carry workers from the 
Pilsen neighborhood on the near southwest side of the City to their 
jobs at Avon Products in north-suburban Morton Grove. Hundreds of city 
residents are carried on buses and vans to places like a UPS facility 
in southwest-suburban Hodgkins.
  The amendment we are offering today will help to broaden this program 
and help other communities replicate its success and test new 
approaches to solving this problem. The amendment also preserves the 
important funding ratio between urban, small urban, and rural areas. 
Sixty percent of funds will be awarded to projects in large cities, 20 
percent to projects in small cities, and 20 percent to projects in 
rural areas.
  Again, I thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania and the leadership of 
the Banking Committee for their work on this important initiative.
  Mr. President, I would like at this point to take advantage of the 
time to speak to the minimum allocation amendment. I do not know 
whether or not there is action to be taken on this amendment?
  Mr. D'AMATO. If I might suggest to the Senator, I believe that we are 
very close to resolving the minimum allocation amendment as initially 
proposed and that we are very close to coming to a settlement in which 
additional resources will be provided to the rural States and rural 
communities without a disfigurement, so to speak, of the basis of mass 
transit funding, the formulas which provide for most, or the highest 
number of people being moved on the basis of need. So I recommend at 
this time, knowing the Senator is a

[[Page S1684]]

great, great supporter of mass transit but has sought balance, that we 
proceed to dispose of this legislation. And I think within a matter of 
minutes we will be able to go forward with a compromise.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, if we might 
have final action on the amendment? Senator Santorum and I have 
commitments on a major shipbuilding project on the House side. So if we 
could conclude the debate on the amendment without the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois losing her right to the floor, it would be 
appreciated.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank my colleague. I am happy to defer going 
further with any comments on the minimum allocation until we can take 
action on this amendment.
  I commend the Senator from New York for his work on the minimum 
allocation issue because, of course, maintaining the balance of which 
he speaks is a very, very important thing to this entire bill. So I 
will defer, without losing my right to the floor, until the Senate has 
acted on this amendment. I defer and yield for that purpose.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question 
occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 1941.
  The amendment (No. 1941) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1931

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I would like at the outset to congratulate the Senator from New York 
for his work on this minimum allocation issue because it really goes to 
the heart of this legislation and it is a very, very important issue.
  But I will take the time at this point to speak to the proposal that 
we have seen in the hopes that the Senator from New York is as 
successful as he has been on these issues overall and can get this 
matter resolved through the legislative compromise.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Let me, if I might, say I think we are very close to 
arriving at a compromise. I want to pay particular tribute to a new 
colleague of ours, although he is not new to the legislative process. I 
think he has demonstrated the kind of leadership that makes it a great 
pleasure for me to chair the Banking Committee. I am talking about 
Senator Johnson, who initially came forward and said our rural States 
are not getting sufficient funding to meet our needs. And, indeed, the 
compromise we are forging is one in which there can and still will be 
room for them, in the future, to come forward and ask for more.
  We are addressing an imbalance that has existed over a number of 
years. He has been joined in that effort by Senator Thomas of Wyoming. 
And, again, the two have carried this in a manner that makes doing the 
business of the people something that we can be proud of. We did not, 
nor did it ever reach the business of trying to see who had more votes, 
who had more muscle; but, rather, how, with limited resources, could we 
do the business of the people to the best of our ability.
  We need more money for this bill to be able to meet all the transit 
needs of this country. We do not have it. So I applaud both of my 
colleagues for bringing us to a point where I believe we can enact 
legislation that begins to address their concerns. It does not fully 
address them, but it begins to move the process in the right direction, 
and yet recognizes the tremendous needs that those in the urban States 
still have.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I simply want to concur with Chairman 
D'Amato and to express my gratitude to him for his willingness to work 
with Senator Thomas and with me and with others who are very concerned 
about transit needs in rural areas, to recognize that there are very 
great and very real needs there. Yet there is a finite amount of money, 
and there are great needs as well in our urban areas. I thank him for 
having been willing to work with us to recognize that Chicago and New 
York are major urban areas that will indeed benefit by a significant 
new infusion of transit money but that, by massaging the budget 
carefully and coming up with a compromise that does not change the 
underlying formula system, it still provides a significant infusion of 
resources for our rural areas.
  I am very encouraged that we can arrive at a win-win situation. So I 
commend Chairman D'Amato. I also thank my colleague from my neighboring 
State of Wyoming, Senator Thomas, for his leadership and his very hard 
work on trying to devise an approach to this that will work.
  So I say to my colleague and my very good friend from Illinois that I 
think we are at a point now where we will be able to move on with a 
transit amendment that will be of enormous benefit to the State of 
Illinois, that will not change the formula, but will be able to do some 
more positive things for those of us in rural areas, including the 
rural areas in Illinois. I know that my colleague has great concern for 
those areas, as well, in her own State. So we will all, I think, 
benefit by this compromise.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank my colleague for his gracious remarks. He 
is exactly right.
  We have an expression at home that says, ``Just outside of Chicago 
there's a place called `Illinois.' '' Much of my State is rural. And, 
of course, I share the concern that we provide for transit and 
transportation in rural areas as well as the urban ones.
  I am delighted that an agreement has been reached in this regard that 
will maintain the balance for transit and highway funding in this 
legislation. That balance, I think, represents the best national 
interests, the interests in getting people moved from place to place, 
getting people to where the jobs are and making certain that we do not 
unduly jeopardize commerce, jeopardize the environment, jeopardize our 
ability to provide for the movement of large numbers of people by our 
disrupting of the formula between mass transit and highway funding in 
this ISTEA legislation.
  So, again, I commend my colleague and commend the members of the 
committee who have worked on this issue. I am very, very pleased that 
we have worked this out, because in its previous incarnation, the 
minimum allocation proposal would have been disastrous for mass 
transportation and I think would have mitigated against the national 
interest in moving people from place to place and protecting the 
environment and in aiding commercial activity in the country. If it has 
been resolved in ways as has been suggested here this afternoon, then I 
think that is the best of all possible worlds.
  Mr. President, Rudolf Julius Emmanuel Clausius was a 19th century 
German physicist famous for saying, ``The entropy of the universe tends 
to a maximum.'' What he meant was, that if left to its own designs, the 
universe will continue to expand and progress away from its origin of a 
singular, focused point, toward a state of increasing disorder.
  If Mr. Clausius were alive and here today, he might well say, ``The 
entropy of the Senate tends to a maximum.'' We sometimes have an 
uncanny ability to take a perfectly good Federal program that targets a 
national need and dilute it to the point where it is barely 
recognizable as a program designed to address a specific purpose. The 
amendment before us today--the amendment to establish a so-called 
``minimum allocation'' for mass transit funds--would do exactly that. 
It would increase the entropy of the transit program to the point where 
the program would no longer serve its intended purpose.
  This amendment represents a digression from the path we were on last 
week. Last week was a good week for those of us who support investing 
in our Nation's infrastructure. First, an agreement was reached 
providing an additional $25.8 billion for highway improvements and 
construction. Second, an agreement was reached to distribute those 
funds in a more equitable manner than the rest of the highway funds 
being allocated under the ISTEA reauthorization bill. Third, an 
agreement was reached providing an additional $5

[[Page S1685]]

billion in mass transit funding, increasing from $36 billion to $41 
billion the amount of funding transit will receive over the next 6 
years.
  I am a builder by inclination. I believe one of the most economically 
productive activities in which the Federal Government can and should 
engage is infrastructure investment. Those of us who share that view 
welcomed last week's developments.
  This week, the Senate appears to have digressed. The amendment we are 
considering today would take the heart out of the Federal transit 
program--a program upon which millions of commuters rely every single 
day to get to work, a program that relieves congestion in cities and 
suburbs, a program that provides mobility for millions of elderly 
Americans who can no longer safely drive, a program that allows 
millions of disabled Americans, to get to work, to access medical care, 
grocery stores, and other essential services, a program that improves 
the quality of the air we breathe, a program that boosts economic 
activity in our urban centers, a program that is vital to our cities, 
critical to our suburban and rural communities, and that ought to be a 
priority as we formulate our national, intermodal surface 
transportation policy.
  We are now considering an amendment which forgets all that, which 
forgets about the importance of transit to commuters, to the elderly 
and disabled, to our environment, and to our economy. It is an 
amendment that forgoes national policy in favor of parochial pork. It 
is an amendment that turns a program targeted toward specific needs 
into a diluted formula allocation of funds to states without regard to 
needs of communities. It is a cynical ploy by States without mass 
transit to grab money from States that do. The so-called ``minimum 
allocation'' for transit amendment will indeed marginalize our national 
interest in providing efficient transportation for millions of 
Americans.

  Mr. President, mass transit is a critical part of our national 
intermodal transportation system. People depend on transit to get to 
work. More than half of all transit trips are for work purposes. 
Transit helps the environment. Without public transit there would be 5 
million more cars on the roads and 27,000 more lane miles of roads. The 
degradation of the air from such a massive infusion of pollution is 
incalculable. Transit is a great economic investment. The net economic 
return on public expenditures for public transportation is four or five 
to one. When mass transit improvements are made, land values go up, 
commercial development increases, and jobs are created. Without 
transit, congestion alone would cost the private sector economy $15 
billion annually.
  Mass transit is particularly important to States like Illinois. 
Chicago is the fifth-most congested area in the country. Congestion and 
bottlenecks sap the region's economic productivity by $2.8 billion 
every year. Without transit, congestion in Chicago would likely be 
unbearable, and without continued investments in the area's aging 
transit systems, the cost to the local and regional economy will grow.
  Three-fourths of the Chicago Transit Authority's elevated 
structures--used by 400,000 passengers every single day--are more than 
80 years old. METRA, which carries 270,000 riders a day into and out of 
the city, uses 300 bridges that are at least 80 years old, and 52 of 
those are listed in ``critical'' condition. The Regional Transportation 
Authority of Northeastern Illinois--which carries 1.8 million riders 
every single workday--estimates it needs $3 billion over the next 5 
years just to bring Chicago-area transit systems up to ``a state of 
good repair'' and to control operating costs.
  The Chicago Transit Authority, which operates the Nation's second 
largest public transportation system, needs $336 million in Federal 
funds to rehabilitate the Douglas branch of the Blue Line, which serves 
Chicago's near west side. The line was originally opened for service 
more than 100 years ago. Every weekday, more than 13,000 riders use the 
line, which feeds right into the heart of downtown Chicago and into 
west-side manufacturing districts. Shutting down this line because 
funds are not available to repair it would be a disaster for the area.
  The CTA also seeks funds to expand the capacity of the Ravenswood 
line. In order to run longer trains on the tracks, the station 
platforms will have to be lengthened and improvements made to various 
parts of the track system. This project will cost several hundred 
million dollars.
  METRA--which is the country's second largest commuter rail system and 
which serves an area as large as the State of Connecticut, with a 
population base of over 7.5 million people--seeks more than $300 
million to expand capacity. Recent studies indicate that the Chicago 
area will experience a 25 percent population growth by 2020, and 
employment will grow by 37 percent over the same period. Expanded and 
improved transit service will be essential if the region's 
transportation system is to absorb that level of growth.
  In southern Illinois, outside of St. Louis, Federal funds are needed 
to continue extending the new MetroLink system all the way to the new 
Mid-America Airport.
  The current program structure is designed to help meet these needs. 
It targets resources based on need. Through the transit formula 
programs, Federal funding ensures the continued maintenance, operation, 
and improvement of our Nation's existing transit systems. Through the 
discretionary capital programs, Federal funding assists in the 
development and expansion of new transit systems, whether bus or rail, 
whether urban or rural.
  The current program is a strong Federal-local partnership. Funds are 
allocated directly to local authorities, or to state authorities based 
on local needs, using factors such as population, transit ridership, 
and the size of existing transit systems.
  The so-called ``minimum allocation'' amendment would destroy that 
program structure. It would result in resources not being targeted 
toward needs, decrease the cost-efficiency of building and operating 
mass transit systems, and cripple the ability of Federal funds to 
leverage State and local resources.
  The amendment distorts the intent and direction of the Federal 
transit program by basing transit funding on gasoline consumption. By 
so doing, the amendment creates an illogical and perverse dynamic: a 
state that invested in transit and used Federal transit funds to 
improve service would, in future years, see its share of transit funds 
decline, because transit riders do not consume gasoline. There is no 
precedent for such an impossible incentive system--a system that 
withholds Federal funds from States that spend them most effectively.
  I want to make sure that every member of the Senate understands the 
irrational nature of this amendment. Consider what would happen in the 
State of North Carolina. I know that the Raleigh-Durham area seeks 
funding to build a new commuter rail system. The minimum allocation 
amendment would make their task harder for two reasons. First, it would 
reduce the amount of Federal funding available to build new transit 
systems, making it less likely that the Raleigh-Durham area would 
receive enough federal assistance to build the system on a cost-
effective schedule. Second, if the system were to be built, the amount 
of Federal funding the Raleigh-Durham transit agency would receive to 
support the system would slowly decline over time. That is because the 
commuter rail system would take cars off the road. If it worked, as 
most transit systems do, it would reduce gasoline consumption in the 
area. Since transit funding would be based on gasoline consumption, 
North Carolina would receive less and less transit funding, even as the 
Raleigh-Durham system grew older and required more capital investments 
to keep it running. Eventually, the system would deteriorate, people 
would stop riding the trains, and the considerable capital investments 
made by the taxpayers to set up the system would go to waste.
  That is the incentive system this amendment establishes. It makes 
absolutely no sense. The fact is, States like Illinois receive a 
proportionally large share of mass transit funding today because we 
have a proportionally large share of mass transit riders. People take 
almost 540 million trips every year on Chicago-area transit systems 
alone.
  Mr. President, supporters of the minimum allocation amendment seem to

[[Page S1686]]

have lost sight of the national objective and purpose of the transit 
program. It is not a program designed to spread money around to every 
State in equal proportion. It is designed to address real needs that 
affect our entire nation.
  I do not doubt claims that rural areas have tremendous transit needs. 
In fact, it is a disturbing fact that 40 percent of all rural counties 
in America have absolutely no public transit whatsoever. Where transit 
does exist in rural areas, it often does not operate on weekends or 
late into the night--times when many low-income individuals count on 
transit to get to jobs. Rural areas do have transit needs, and I 
support increases in the transit program in order to help expand access 
to public transportation in rural areas. Destroying the transit program 
in order to funnel more money to rural areas, however, is not the way 
to achieve those objectives.
  Supporters of the minimum allocation amendment complain that drivers 
in their States pay taxes on the gasoline they consume, that those 
revenues are deposited into the Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
Trust Fund, and that their State does not receive its fair share of 
those revenues.
  The reason we have a national government, Mr. President, is ``to form 
a more perfect Union.'' To that end, we have established a variety of 
programs designed to address national needs. The transit program is one 
of those programs. Our Nation's metropolitan areas rely on transit 
systems. They could not exist without them.
  Our cities are among the Nation's most important assets. Visitors to 
and residents of our urban centers enjoy access to unlimited 
entertainment, myriad cultural activities, and unrivaled educational 
and economic opportunities. And 26 million leisure travelers visit 
Chicago each year in order to sample the city's 7,000 restaurants, 100 
theaters, and 250 museums and art galleries; to stroll in its 552 
parks; and to view some of the world's most unusual and interesting 
architecture. Cities like Chicago play a crucial role in the life of 
the Nation, adding immensely to its wealth and its quality of life.
  Our major cities would not be as enjoyable, livable, and attractive 
as they are in the absence of their mass transit systems. Without 
transit, congestion in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, 
Baltimore, and Cleveland would bring those cities to a halt. The air 
quality in Manhattan would deteriorate rapidly. Our cities need viable 
transit systems, and this is precisely why we have a national transit 
program. It fulfills a critical need and repays the investment many 
times over.
  There are a lot of Federal programs that are designed to meet 
national needs and which do not benefit my state of Illinois at all, if 
you only look at them through the limited prism of only where the 
dollars are actually spent. Illinois receives almost no funding under 
the Federal lands highway program, for example, even though Illinois 
residents pay their fair share of gas taxes into the Highway Trust 
Fund, from which monies are drawn to pay for the Federal lands highway 
program. That is because Illinois has almost no Federal lands. Illinois 
receives almost no funding from the Bureau of Land Management, because 
Illinois has no lands under its control. Illinois receives almost no 
funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Bureau of Reclamation, 
either--because the needs those programs are designed to address are 
not found in Illinois.
  Mr. President, those are the consequences of having a national 
government. That is the price we pay for having ``a more perfect 
Union.'' We all contribute to national goals and objectives, even if 
those priorities are not found in our own backyards. If the objective 
of a national government were to return Federal tax revenues to their 
States of origin, Illinois would probably not do too badly. But that is 
not the purpose of our national government.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote against this 
destructive amendment. The transit program is not a highway program. 
Highway programs have long been battlegrounds for convoluted formulas 
that allocate funds to political power-centers. Witness this year's 
shift of Federal highway funds from the northeast to the south--a 
reflection of the shift in power in the Senate.
  The transit program is different. It is not a Federal-State program. 
It is a Federal-local partnership. It has never been a mere political 
battleground for more funds. The program has been carefully designed to 
target needs, and it works. Nothing would destroy the transit program 
more quickly than the enactment of this amendment.
  I urge every one of my colleagues to consider the national policy 
implications of their vote, prove the German physicist Mr. Clausius 
wrong, and vote against this bad idea.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise to thank the chairman for his cooperation in moving towards a 
solution to a problem that I think has real meaning. I have been 
involved in this highway transportation bill for some time, being a 
member of the subcommittee. So we are down now, I think, to coming to 
closure. I am so pleased with that.
  So I thank the chairman for his cooperation and his willingness to 
work on it. Certainly, I thank my friend from South Dakota for working 
on this as well. I think it points out the diversity of this country. 
We do have different needs in different places, and it is very 
difficult sometimes to find the formula, the Federal formula, that 
treats fairly all of the States that are involved.


                Amendment No. 1942 to Amendment No. 1931

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], for himself and Mr. 
     Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 1942 to amendment No. 
     1931.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 10, line 24, and page 11, lines 1 through 7, strike 
     ``$500,000,000'' each time it appears and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$470,000,000.''
       On page 12, lines 3 though 7 strike ``$100,000,000'' each 
     time it appears and insert in lieu thereof ``$80,000,000.''
       On page 13, lines 19 though 23 strike ``$50,000,000'' each 
     time it appears and insert in lieu thereof ``$100,000,000.''

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I urge adopting the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. We are prepared to accept this amendment. It strikes a 
balance. It provides $250 million more for those rural communities that 
are at populations of under 50,000. It can be accomplished within the 
framework of the budget. We believe, as a result of the reconfiguration 
of the distribution of the $5 billion, that it will be done in such a 
way as to maximize the dollars that have been provided by the Budget 
Committee, the budget authority and the outlays, and that it will not 
do violence to the agreement.
  It reduces the new starts by $150 million from $2.5 billion to $2.35 
billion. It reduces those dollars that would go to the discretionary 
bus program from $500 million to $400 million and then adds $250 
million to the rural formula program, so that my colleagues who 
represent rural America will be producing, under this bill, $500 
million--a half a billion dollars--over and above what the committee 
had initially reported out.
  Mr. President, I believe it is a good compromise, and I can be 
totally supportive of it. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1942) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. 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 congratulate again both Senators who

[[Page S1687]]

worked and built a broad-based coalition and yet recognized that this 
really is an equity that we seek throughout this country. It is not 
always easy and not always easy to obtain. But I thank them for their 
cooperation.
  Mr. President, I know of no other Senator who seeks the floor, but 
let me say this before I suggest the absence a quorum. We have now, as 
far as I can see, disposed of all of the outstanding amendments that I 
have been made aware of up until this point.
  If Senators do have amendments that they wish to offer, I hope they 
will do so. I believe the leader is going to seek a unanimous consent 
to put out over the hotline to get a time certain to vote. We have made 
great progress. Again, I urge my colleagues to have their staffs meet 
with our staffs or come to the floor to take up any question they might 
have so that we can resolve these issues and continue the progress that 
we have made on this bill.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is not my intent in any way to interrupt the 
consideration of this bill. I say to the managers if someone comes to 
the floor with an amendment, if they will give me a signal, I will 
promptly relinquish the floor.

                          ____________________