Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1450 (Purpose: To clarify eligibility of a Luzerne County, Pennsylvania rail freight acquisition and improvement project for certain federal transportation funds)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we accept this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask that the time on the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia be yielded in its entirety, and that 10 minutes of that be transferred to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my understanding is that time remaining on the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia is 20 minutes equally divided. What is the time remaining on the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this amendment is offered on behalf of myself, as well as Senator McConnell. As I am sure my colleagues know, many of us are very pleased with the progress on this bill. It is a vital step in developing a national transportation strategy. It makes important gains in reducing some of the regulatory burden in our States, something we are all interested in doing. But there is one item here in this bill which concerns me regarding tolls. The amendment I am offering today is very simple. It seeks to maintain current law which prohibits States from converting toll-free interstate highways into toll roads. Let me explain why this is needed. Current law says States cannot put tolls on an interstate highway unless it was built without using Federal funds. Current law also allows States a little more flexibility on noninterstate highways. They can impose tolls on those roads, but only if it is done in conjunction with major repair or reconstruction. The theory is you should get something for your money. Unfortunately, the language in the bill removes both of these restrictions. The bill would allow States to place tolls on any Federal highway, including the interstate highway system, regardless of whether or not the road is undergoing repair work. I think that is a mistake. My amendment strikes this language from the bill. States planning major repairs to interstate highways can still place a toll on that road and use the revenue to pay for the repairs. That makes sense. Once a State pays for the repairs using tolls, further toll revenues can be used for other transportation purposes. My amendment would prevent States from using toll roads as cash cows; that is, putting tolls on the road just to generate revenue. Drivers already pay a pretty steep gasoline tax in most States, and combined with the Federal-State portion it gets pretty high. I do not think we need yet another tax on top of that. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that letters supporting the amendment from the American Trucking Association, the Highway Users Federation, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator again go through the list?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 1437

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to the Senators from Delaware in support of this amendment. It has a lot of surface appeal. But I think, in the interest of disclosure, in the interest of common sense, it is important for Senators to think through a lot of other ramifications that have not all been discussed. If one thinks a little more deeply about this, I think one will realize maybe this is not a good idea after all. Several points. First of all, this is essentially an amendment to rob Peter to pay Paul. We are going to rob our highway funds to spend money on Amtrak. I do not know if that is something we want to do. Frankly, I do not know if it is something that the Governors really want to do, the State legislatures really want to do. I would guess that most Governors, most State legislatures would rather have what they have today, a current, dedicated highway account to decide how to allocate the highway dollars among the States and not have to decide, of the dollars they get, how much is going to go for highway and how much is going to go for Amtrak. Rather, it would be better to have a separate, dedicated Amtrak account separate from a separate, dedicated highway account. I have an idea how we can accomplish that, which I think is a much better idea to meet our Amtrak needs than the idea that is contained in this amendment. It is also important to know that there are tremendous road and bridge needs in our country. About $212 billion are necessary to get our highways up to grade. There are a lot of highways in America. There are a lot of potholes and roads that are just in bad shape and not up to standards, up to snuff. The Federal Highway Administration estimates a total of about $212 billion of unmet highway needs. Then there are the bridge unmet needs. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that is about $78 billion, about $78 billion of bridge disrepair, that is, bridges that just are in bad shape in our country. For example, if you take the State of Arkansas--I am going down some States alphabetically--37 percent of the bridges in the State of Arkansas are deficient. Let us go down to Georgia. Twenty-one percent of the bridges in Georgia are deficient, that is, either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient, as estimated by the Federal Highway Administration. In the State of Iowa, 31 percent are deficient. In the State of Louisiana, 40 percent are deficient. In the State of Michigan, 35 percent are deficient. In the State of Nebraska, 38 percent are deficient. In the State of South Dakota, 31 percent are deficient. Let us look at Delaware. In the State of Delaware, 25 percent of the bridges in Delaware are deficient, that is, either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. In the State of New Jersey, Mr. President, that figure is 47 percent. The averages, as we go down this list are around a high of 66 percent. That is the State of New York. The lowest I see on this list is 11 percent for Arizona. But the average is about 30 percent, 40 percent. So I wonder if we want to take money away from bridge construction and repair, in the way of highway construction and repair, and spend it on Amtrak? I just do not think we want to do that, particularly if there is a better way to accommodate the needs of Amtrak. Another problem. Highway planning takes years. Anyone who has spent any time talking with the State highway departments, essentially to determine which roads to construct, which repairs are to be put in place and which bridges are to be repaired, knows that it takes time. It takes about 5 years. You have to go through the environmental impact statements and public hearings. You have to have rights-of-way hearings, what is the right- of-way going to be for a certain road, even for bridge construction. It takes a long, long time. There is a backlog of highway projects in most States. Basically, it is because the needs are so great and the dollars are so few. That puts a lot more pressure on planning and proper planning of highway projects, whether it is roads or bridges, or whatever it might be. And it means if they are not done right, they are litigated, lawsuits are filed, because the EIS process is not fully complied with. I am just saying, Mr. President, if we have this already fairly convoluted process determining which highway projects are to be pursued in each State, then layered on top of that the possibility that all of that is going to be disrupted because we are going to divert some money, perhaps, in a State to Amtrak, it is going to be chaos and difficult to plan. It is hard enough to plan for a project, hard enough for people to know if they are going to get their highway project. This is going to make it that much more uncertain, that much more complex, and that much more difficult. Basically, we are doing people in our States quite a disservice, if there is a better alternative--I think that is a pretty important point to make--if there is an alternative to deal with Amtrak. Another problem with the amendment is, basically, as I understand the amendment, it says that a State, according to its own discretion, can divert some of the highway money it gets to pay for Amtrak. I am not sure it is going to work. Why might it not work? The problem is this: There is a provision in the proposed amendment which provides for interstate Amtrak compacts, but that is all voluntary. Let us take the northern-tier States, the State of Washington, then Amtrak's route follows Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, over to Minnesota, down to Illinois, and into Chicago. We have Amtrak problems. Amtrak service has been reduced from 7-day service to 4-day service. We would love to have full 7-day service of Amtrak in Montana along the northern tier, just as I am sure other States that face reduced service would like to be restored to full service, even better service. Let us say we in Montana say, ``You bet; this amendment is the law. We are going to, even though we don't like it, make the Hobson's choice of diverting some money away from highways,'' and believe me, we have great unmet highway needs in Montana. Let us say we make the Hobson's choice and we painfully, after much gnashing of teeth in our State between those who want to ride Amtrak and those who want to meet highway needs, make some decision to divert away from highways to Amtrak. What is that expenditure going to be? Is that going to be a capital expenditure? Are we building better roadbeds? Are we going to pay money to hire more conductors and other personnel? Let us say we do it. We are going to have Amtrak. It is going to work. Suppose folks in Montana want to go someplace; they want to go to the Pacific coast, they want to see the ocean, or go in the other direction to Minneapolis and Chicago. Let us say the adjoining State does not do anything. [[Page S 8767]] If North Dakota, in its wisdom, or Idaho, in its wisdom, or Washington, in its wisdom, say, ``Well, we're not going to divert any money,'' what is going to happen? We have this spruced up service in Montana, we go rushing off to the border, and what happens? Is the train going to stop as we wait for the 2 or 3 more days because Idaho only has alternate day service, or do we have to get off our train in Montana--we have a superliner going through Montana which zips along at 150 miles an hour. We get to that old border and the train stops. Everybody gets off the train and gets on a little dinky, bumping-along Idaho train on Amtrak to get over to Washington. I do not know, but I do think the probability of all States agreeing on a capital expenditure program or all States agreeing to spend money for operating expenses, whatever it is, is probably zero. It is probably zero. So, as a practical matter, I do not think this is going to work. It sort of sounds good on the surface: Oh, we are going to divert money for Amtrak. It may turn into an intercity rail program only within the State. We have a mass transit program for that that will not turn into an interstate national Amtrak system. It will not work. It just will not work. I think we probably should not spend our time, frankly, adopting something which, as I said, just will not work. Another point. There is some, not a lot, of support for a Federal gasoline tax--some, not a lot. People do not like paying gasoline taxes, but they are willing to pay a little bit because they know that that money, the gasoline tax, is going to go to the highway trust fund, and from the highway trust fund, it is going to be spent on highways. It is true, we are not simon pure here. Some of the highway trust fund money now goes to related purposes. Some goes to bike ways, some goes to safety programs, highway safety and related programs, and even some of it goes to mass transit. But, still, Mr. President, I do not know that we want to further dilute the purpose of the gasoline tax. There are a lot of people in our country who pay gasoline taxes for highways. They do not want to pay gasoline taxes for Amtrak. If we are going to work on public confidence in Government, we will to do better if we keep the purpose for which money is raised directly related to the person who is paying the money--user fees, if you will. I just think it is very worrisome if we go down the road and start raising gasoline taxes, as I said, and spending it for other purposes. What might be a better idea? Let me suggest one. This gets a little complicated, but bear with me. The long and the short of it is, under the law today, about--in fact exactly--2\1/2\ cents of the Federal gasoline tax goes to the highway trust fund; 2\1/2\ cents of the current gasoline tax and diesel tax goes to the highway trust fund. In 1996, just a year from now, that 2\1/2\ cents that currently goes to the highway trust fund will go for a different purpose. Two cents of it goes to the highway trust fund and one-half cent goes to the transit trust fund. I am suggesting that we take that half cent, which in 1996 is scheduled to go to the transit trust fund, and instead dedicate it to Amtrak, about $600 million. The beauty of that, Mr. President, is it takes nothing away from mass transit. The mass transit trust fund account today is already at a $5 billion surplus. Currently, out of the gasoline tax, about one-half cent goes to the transit trust fund. I am suggesting we keep the same amount that is now going to the transit trust fund--as I said, it is a $5 billion surplus; it is already paying for mass transit. The one-half cent I am talking about does not now go to the transit trust fund; not yet. It is scheduled to go to the transit trust fund in 1996. I am suggesting we take that one-half cent and spend it on Amtrak. Is it new taxes we have to raise? None whatsoever. But it is one-half cent available to spend on Amtrak. That raises $600 million.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1451 (Purpose: To provide States with innovative financing options for projects with dedicated revenue sources)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have no objection on this side.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator's responses. I think that, to be totally candid, this is an amendment which is well meaning and well intended. But has not been thought through enough. It opens up horrendous difficulties. No. 1, it is an impossible burden to place on the doctor, nurse, or provider to determine the portion of total injuries, which is often very difficult to do. For instance, there may be a massive head injury and not much other injury to the body or maybe massive injuries to other parts of the body. It may be a head injury, and it may be a head injury that is causing the huge medical bills or it may not. It is very difficult for a doctor or nurse to determine and answer that question. Second, Mr. President, it is the incredible paperwork that it will cause. This is a horrendously complex issue. I think the answer that the Senator from Texas said, ``It is up to the States,'' the way this is written, ``to the extent the injury is attributable to that person's failing to wear a motorcycle helmet,'' does not seem to give a lot of discretion to the States. If it gives discretion to the States, the Senator is making our argument. This is States rights. Let us give discretion to the States and give discretion for what makes sense for them in their own States. And to the private property point. As I read this amendment, it does not appear to give the State discretion to limit it to injury to persons without a helmet on public roads. As I read this amendment, it says, ``To the extent that the injury is attributable to that person's failure to wear a motorcycle helmet.'' And that is just another problem I see with this amendment. But if we are going to go down this road and limit Federal dollars, we might as well say, ``OK, States, why not? We are going to limit your Federal dollars if you don't pass handgun legislation outlawing the use of handguns.'' We all know that handguns cause some deaths in this country. Many emergency rooms in hospitals around this country see patients because of gunshot wounds. Does the Senator from Texas think we should apply the same logic to legislation of that kind? What about passive smoke? Some people think that more people get cancer because they breathe passive smoke. Are we to say there should be no public funds to States if they did not pass legislation restricting public accommodations for passive smoke? There is no end to this. I know this is a well-meaning amendment, but I think it is very complex. I think it would be wise for us, Mr. President, to summarily vote it down.

Mr. BAUCUS. No, no. As I read the amendment, it says in the last words in the last few lines ``to the extent that the injury is attributable to that person's failure to wear a motorcycle helmet.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It reminds me of something a very famous journalist, H.L. Mencken, once said. He said for every complicated problem, if there is a simple solution, it is usually wrong. This is a very simple solution, but I think it raises a lot of important questions. I would like to ask if the Senator from Texas might respond to some of these questions. As I understand it, this amendment deals with the treatment of States that do not have a helmet law. For those States, that do not have a helmet law, that State could not use Federal Medicaid funds to pay for unhelmeted riders injured in motorcycle accidents. Is that correct?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of debate. I think we are pretty close to a vote. I do not think there is anybody on this floor who is not worried about highway safety, or about deaths of motorcycle riders from head injuries. But that is not the issue. The issue we are deciding here is, who should make these decisions? Should it be the U.S. Federal Government by way of the U.S. Congress that should decide whether people should wear helmets? Or should it be State legislatures, the Governor, and the people in their own jurisdiction? I think the time has come, Mr. President, where it is important to gain public confidence in Government. I think a lot of people today feel alienated from Government. They feel Government is too distant, too remote, maybe arrogant and heavyhanded. I do not think there is much doubt about that. That is a more prevalent feeling in America today than in the last 10 to 15 years. Why has that happened? There are a lot of reasons. One reason is because the world is much more complex. The cold war is over, which caused a certain anxiety in this country. A lot of people are concerned about their jobs, and there are a whole host of reasons why people tend to be a little bit alienated from and inclined not to believe their Government is doing what should be done. This amendment is one opportunity for us to address a small part of that. We can give the decision making ability on helmets to the States. Let the people decide for themselves whether they want to live free or die. Let people decide whether they want to wear a helmet. Let people decide, according to the State legislatures, what they want to do. They will debate this issue and come to a reasonable conclusion. Some of us may not agree with that conclusion, and some of us may agree with that conclusion. Different States will reach different conclusions. But at least the people at home in the States we represent will be a little closer to the decision that is made. We are not going to solve all of our country's problems today--not even a large portion of our country's problems. We have to take each step at a time. Today we are faced with a very small step, but important step. Let people in our own States decide for themselves whether there should be a helmet law. It is that simple. The issue is not whether we are concerned about safety on the highways. That is not the issue. The issue is not whether--with all due respect to my good friend from Colorado--there is a greater incidence of bike fatalities with persons who do not wear helmets compared with those who do. We should not be debating that issue today. The issue is: Who should decide, the Congress or the States? I believe it is an issue for the States themselves to decide. I am glad the Senator from Maine is offering this amendment. I think it is an opportunity for people in our States to get a little closer to the decisions that are made, and maybe in a small way help restore a little bit of confidence they have now in Government generally. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster, Jr. to be Surgeon General of the United States. I do so because Dr. Foster fulfills the two conditions I consistently apply when deciding whether to support a particular nominee's confirmation: First, is this nominee ethical with a professional record of integrity; and second, does this nominee possess the proper professional qualifications and background for his or her particular position? My conclusion is that Dr. Foster fulfills both criteria. He is first a man of high integrity and ethics; and second has demonstrated a lifetime record of professional accomplishment, commitment, and scholarship to the field of medicine, and in particular, gynecology and obstetrics. Throughout the years I have applied these two criteria consistently and even-handedly, even when a nominee's own personal ideology has at times differed from my own. I do so again today. Dr. Foster is a classic obstetrician-gynecologist of the highest order. He is not an abortion doctor. In fact, throughout his medical practice and career, Dr. Foster has promoted abstinence as the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. His practice has focused on delivering healthy babies and educating young people about proper family planning so that unwanted pregnancies and abortions can be avoided. Dr. Foster has demonstrated particular commitment and compassion to both rural and inner-city America and the unique health care-related problems these two areas face. I respect the concerns of those who oppose Dr. Foster. Yet I also believe it is fair and appropriate to give this nominee the benefit of the doubt. Years ago, there was another Surgeon General nominee that attracted more than his fair share of criticism, although most of that criticism came from the left. That was, of course, Dr. C. Everett Koop. Dr. Koop went on to prove his detractors wrong. He went on to serve the Reagan administration with great class and distinction. And I would urge Dr. Foster to look toward Dr. Koop as a role model. If he does that, I am convinced he will be a great Surgeon General. In sum, over the last four decades Dr. Foster has proven to be a respected scholar, an accomplished researcher, a practicing physician, and an esteemed medical school dean. I believe that a person of Dr. Foster's professional background should be confirmed.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might also remind the Senator that there is no time agreement. So I think the Senator is fully protected. [[Page S 8791]]

Mr. BAUCUS. That is the list.

Mr. BAUCUS. And the managers?

Mr. BAUCUS. Sarbanes?

Mr. BAUCUS. Two Boxer amendments?