Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Kit Bond. I am pleased to cosponsor this measure. This amendment will help address the devastating effects of the 100-year ice storm which tore through the north country of New York and the Northeast this past January. The amendment will provide $260 million in community development block grant (CDBG) funds to State Governments for recovery efforts in federally-declared disaster areas. The CDBG program has the advantage of providing states and localities with a great degree of flexibility in meeting local needs and can be used in the emergency context to fund home repairs, debris removal and the restoration of electrical power to low and moderate income families. Mr. President, the six counties in New York which were declared federal disaster areas--Franklin, St. Lawrence, Essex, Clinton, Lewis, and Jefferson--comprise a 7,000 square mile area. This represents an area roughly the size of Massachusetts. Tens of thousands of homes in this area suffered structural damage from ice, severe winds and subsequent flooding. Families were displaced and electricity to over 400,000 people was cut off. The entire high voltage transmission system for this area was wiped out and replaced in a three-week period. This amendment will provide much-needed relief for New York homeowners and ratepayers. This assistance is vital to repair storm- related damage to the homes of the families of the north country. Unfortunately, assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loan programs have not met all the needs of affected families. These funds will help homeowners repair damaged roofs, plumbing and heating systems. In addition, this amendment will also help to address the massive costs associated with the near-total devastation of the region's electric power system. During the storm, nearly 10,000 utility poles were destroyed--many literally snapped in half. Repair crews worked 16- to 18-hour shifts--often in sub-zero conditions in the dead of night-- removing downed utility lines, fallen trees and debris, removing destroyed poles from the frozen ground and drilling holes for new poles. Line crews and tree-cutting crews were brought in from other regions of New York State, as well as from Pennsylvania, Vermont, Connecticut, Michigan, Virginia, and North Carolina. These crews replaced hundreds of miles of electrical cable, 150 two-pole 90-foot-tall transmission towers and over 2,000 transformers. The equipment and materials for this undertaking had to be brought in from as far away as Oregon, Florida, Georgia, and Nevada. Mr. President, without this funding, the costs incurred by this massive restoration effort could be passed on to the utility ratepayers of New York. New York currently has one of the highest electric rates in the nation--some 40% higher than the national average. The hard- working families of the north country who have bravely endured the ice storm should not have to suffer additional increases in their utility bills. Mr. President, I commend Senator Bond for including language in this amendment which will ensure that these funds are allocated in a fair and cost-effective manner. Specifically, the amendment provides that funds should be dedicated to states based on unmet needs which have been identified by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). By providing a role to the Director of FEMA, the amendment will help ensure a fair distribution of funds. FEMA has made an excellent start in identifying unmet needs which have not been addressed by other federal disaster assistance programs. The February 1998 FEMA Report, ``A Blueprint for Action,'' clearly identifies the principal unmet needs of New York and the Northeast region resulting from the ice storm. Under the terms of the amendment, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will take into account the costs associated with these unmet needs in making allocation decisions. The amendment effectively addresses concerns which have been raised regarding HUD's past distribution of emergency CDBG funds. Under some previous allocations, large states have fared poorly. Specifically, HUD has at times used a ratio which unfairly penalized states with larger gross products. This amendment effectively addresses those concerns and makes clear that funding allocations are to be based on needs which cannot be addressed through other federal disaster programs. In addition, I support Senator Bond's inclusion of a requirement for a State match of public or private funds. This provision is consistent with other federal disaster programs and will help leverage additional resources for disaster recovery efforts. This matching requirement will also give States an added incentive to ensure that funds are used in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Mr. President, this amendment is a necessary and vital step to help the families of the north country recover from the devastation caused by the ice storm. These funds will bring much-needed relief to a region which has suffered terrible loss from this natural disaster. Once again, let me thank Senator Bond for offering this important measure and providing assistance to the people of New York. In particular, I thank Senator Snowe for her efforts on behalf of the Northeast States affected by the ice storm. Also, my friend Senator Moynihan deserves praise for his efforts on behalf of the people of the north country. He has helped ensure that their voice has been heard here today. Finally, I would like to thank Senator Ted Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his diligence in bringing this amendment up for consideration by the Senate. I urge its immediate adoption. funding increase Mr. President, at this point I would like to engage my good friend Senator Bond, the Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding the amendment to provide critically needed funding to the emergency CDBG program. I appreciate your efforts to increase the funding provided by this amendment from $200 to $260 million. As the Senator is aware, this additional funding is vital to ensuring that the States in the Northeast which were devastated by the ice storm receive adequate funding to speed this recovery. Unfortunately, while both the Small Business Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have contributed significant resources to homeowners in the region--the funds provided have been insufficient to address the full impact of the storm. For instance, while FEMA's Individual and Family Grant Program has helped hundreds of families, thousands of other families--including low-income and elderly persons--have been unable to access the program because of FEMA's daunting application procedures. Together with the 25-percent matching requirement which was included in the amendment this funding increase will help the areas affected by the ice storm get back on their feet.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator and appreciate his willingness to address our concerns.

Mr. D'AMATO

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

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent that I be given up to 2 minutes to submit an amendment, that has been agreed to by both sides, on behalf of Senator Moynihan, Senator Leahy, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins and myself, with respect to the disaster bill and ask that the pending amendment be set aside for that purpose.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I did not intend to speak to this particular amendment because I have an amendment that is sponsored by Senator Moynihan, Senator Jeffords, Senator Leahy, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins and I believe has been accepted by both sides. But I think it is rather germane because it seems to me that in times of crisis our Nation sets aside its differences and we come to the aid of our neighbors. I do not say that because you had a disaster in the State of Washington, we are not going to be there to help you. That is what happened, and this country came forward together and made available emergency aid, some several billions of dollars. Then we had floods along the rivers. Those rivers were not in New York, but they were in the United States of America, and my State is part of this country. I think that our citizens would have been very upset with this Senator and my colleague if we had voted against providing aid to those who had their farms wiped out, their homes wiped out, their lives disrupted. What are we doing? I mean, what in the world are we saying here? Are we saying, really, that you should cut the National Institutes of Health by half a percent to provide emergency relief? For whom? For our citizens. My gosh, we have sent troops all over the world to help out others. Are we really seriously saying that we should not make available disaster relief to our citizens without this clap trap of finding it under a budget cap next year? If it is an emergency, by gosh, the American citizens expect us to rally to our neighbors and to our friends and stop this parliamentary nonsense. That is what this is. I want to tell you something. We should move to table this now. I am not going to do it because that is the chairman's spot. It is his responsibility. We have some important business to get done here. I have an amendment that I am going to offer to help the dairy farmers of New York and the people of New York who are devastated--hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage, thousands and thousands of manhours lost. Thousands of homes were ravaged as a result of the ice storm when people's power went out for 2 or 3 weeks, and when they came back to their homes, they found them flooded because the pipes had burst. Now, we have to get to the business of the people and do it here and now and not get into this business of saying we are going to offset next year's expenditures. They have to rebuild those homes, and these are people of modest incomes. Are we really going to say here and now, oh, no, we are not going to do that unless we cut low-income assistance programs next year or unless we are going to cut--what program? Tell me. Tell me. What happens if you have a $10 billion disaster? Next year someplace we are going to start offsetting it? Let's get to the business of the people. This isn't the business of the people. This is playing games. I would like to be able to offer my amendment, and I would like to move to set aside the pending business. I am going to withhold. New Yorkers have been devastated to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I just think what is being done absolutely puts us in a light that is irresponsible. If we want to make cuts and say that there are programs here that are not of an emergency nature, I will vote on them. If you want to build bicycle trails--I was here when that was put up, and I voted against bicycle trails--and if you want to build igloos someplace and say that is a disaster when it is not, I am going to vote against it. By gosh, let us not simply say that all of the emergency relief should be treated as a nondisaster. That is not being fair to our colleagues. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, if I might----

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, in response to the 100-year ice storm which hit the Northeast area of the country, and to address the unmet needs of our dairy farmers, I offer this amendment with my colleagues, Senator Moynihan, Senator Jeffords, Senator Leahy, Senator Snowe, and Senator Collins, to reimburse dairy farmers for up to $10 million for their milk losses. Our amendment covers two types of dairy losses: first, the losses that farmers experienced by having to dump their milk because it either could not be shipped to market or it could not be processed properly; and, second, the losses they will see through decreased milk production over the next few months. In addition, this amendment will allocate $4 million to provide relief to the dairy farmers who have had a cow die because of the storm. Our amendment, along with the provisions of this bill, will help prevent a lot of dairy farmers who have had thousands of dollars of losses from going out of business. When disaster strikes, America responds. The damage, adversity, and loss experienced in the North Country and in New England deserves the attention and assistance of our Government. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, as well as the two ranking members, Senator Byrd and Senator Bumpers, for their support. In times of crisis, our Nation sets aside its differences and our own troubles in order to help-out those who are truly in need. Beginning on January 5, 1998, six counties in the northernmost part of New York State were ravaged by a fierce winter storm that covered the area in a three-inch blanket of ice. On January 10th, President Clinton declared the region a Federal disaster area. This storm caused tremendous damage to homes, farms, roads and infrastructure throughout this area of northern New York--which we call the North Country. Tragically, the effects of this storm led to nine deaths in New York. This ice storm damaged thousands of utility poles, brought down countless miles of power lines and left several hundred thousand people in the dark for up to three weeks. The loss of power in this region had a particularly difficult impact on North Country dairy farmers. As some of my colleagues know, dairy cows must be milked at least twice a day, every day. Modern farms use electric milking machines to do this task and then transfer the milk to cooling tanks until it is picked up and taken to an area processing plant. With no power, farmers did their best to try and milk their cows. For those who had generators and were able to milk their cows, they had to then store the milk. Unfortunately, for a number of dairy farmers, the lack of power to cool the storage tanks made their milk unfit for consumption. Farmers also faced the possibility that the milk truck could not reach the farm because icy road conditions, downed trees or downed utility poles made it impossible. As these circumstances piled up, individual dairy farmers across the entire Northeast region were forced to dump their milk incurring thousands of dollars of losses along the way. Farmers also have had to worry about mastitis. Mastitis is an inflammation of a cow's udder which can take hold in a cow when it is not milked regularly. This inflammation can reduce milk production and cause a cow to become sick, requiring treatment with antibiotics. When a cow is being treated with antibiotics, that cow's milk cannot be used. When a cow gets out of its milking cycle, there is nothing that can be done to make up for that lost production. That milk, and that income, is lost forever. Overall, dairy production losses may likely add up to millions of dollars for dairy farmers in the North Country and northern New England. Dairy farmers already run their operations on very tight margins-- even a slight decrease in production can cost thousands of dollars and be the deciding factor in determining whether a farmer stays in business or not. That is why I am offering this amendment--to help provide a measure of relief for New York and New England dairy farmers. With the passage of this amendment, I believe we will help meet the needs of our dairy farmers as they continue to recover from the effects of this storm. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in offering this amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-sponsor of this concurrent resolution on the Kosovo crisis introduced by my distinguished colleague, Senator Nickles. I want to thank Senator Nickles for taking the lead in introducing this resolution on the critical issue of Kosovo. Many of us in the Senate already know something about Kosovo. If the international community doesn't stop Slobodan Milosevic's police and paramilitary from using force and violence to terrorize and drive out members of the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo, the American people will come to know Kosovo all too well. The bottom line regarding Kosovo, reflected in this resolution, is that the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade continues to deal with the ethnic Albanian majority with guns, knives, and clubs instead of political dialogue. Not having had his fill in Bosnia, Milosevic's regime seems prepared not only to repress the Albanian majority of Kosovo, to harass them, or to discriminate against them because they are not Serbs. Now, he has begun to slaughter them. In recent weeks, Serbian security forces have taken the offensive in Kosovo, allegedly going after those Albanians responsible for terrorist acts. In so doing, at least 70 people have been killed--men, women and children--in some villages of central Kosovo. Last week, soon after U.S. envoy Bob Gelbard left the region, the bodies of 50 people were removed from the local morgue and bulldozed into a mass grave, without consulting families and in violation of basic human decency. This could well have been an effort to literally bury the evidence of war crimes, because the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague has expressed interest and the families have called for investigation by an international team of forensic experts. These killings threaten far worse crimes, including ethnic cleansing on a scale similar to that in Bosnia. This would pose not only a threat to regional peace, but would be a slap in the face for every state and every person who has worked for peace in the Balkans and justice for victims of past ethnic cleansing. What is the purpose of this recent violence? Is it to defend Serbian interests from Albanian separatists? No. The purpose is to build hatred, nationalism and tensions in order to maintain and enhance the power of the Milosevic regime. Milosevic will crack down on his fellow Serbs, whom he claims to defend, if they threaten his rule. While Kosovar Albanians may want to be independent from Serbia, that fact cannot justify massive, criminal repression. While some Kosovar Albanians may be willing to engage in violence to achieve independence, that fact cannot justfy brutal attacks on innocent people. And while Serbia may want to keep Kosovo, Serbia can only lose Kosovo through these bloody, indiscriminate attacks on the Albanian population. The international community must respond to the violence in Kosovo, and this resolution makes some solid suggestions. Nothing is more important than getting an international presence on the ground in Kosovo now, to help deter further human rights violations and to report those that are taking place. While the resolution calls for the International Red Cross to come into Kosovo, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I also want the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE, to be allowed to send in a mission. The OSCE had a presence in Kosovo in 1992 and 1993, and it must be allowed to return. Milosevic must face consequences for his policies. Freezing funds belonging to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia is only a first step, if the Contact Group's terms are not met. Resolve is the only thing Milosevic understands, and resolve is what we must show. For the violence to stop, Milosevic must be made to believe the so- called Christmas warning issued by President Bush and repeated by President Clinton. Milosevic was warned that we will not let him turn Kosovo into a new battle zone. United States leadership is called for to bring all of the members of the Contact Group into agreement with this strong position. Then, we must stand together and drive the message home. Finally, and critically important, is the resolution's call for unconditional talks to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Kosovo and to provide for the exercise of the legitimate civil and political rights of all persons in Kosovo. Clearly, the current situation is untenable. Once violence is halted, the situation is still not stable. The Serbian oppression of the Kosovar Albanian majority is intolerable, and events have gone too far to expect that the people will accept it. This means that progress must be made toward a genuine political solution to the crisis. This cannot be done in a one-sided fashion. The recent Serbian offer of talks was not serious, and was rejected by the Kosovar Albanian leadership. Milosevic must come to the table seriously, without preconditions. That is the path to peace and stability in Kosovo, and the United States must do all it can to push the parties down that path. If Kosovo explodes, and it must not be allowed to, it could easily set off a chain reaction leading to wider conflict in the Balkans. For moral and strategic reasons, we cannot let that happen. The stakes are too high, and they involve real, vital United States national interests. The Nickles resolution and its provisions is the right place to start, and I call upon all of my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the Committee on Banking--all of the members. They have been particularly helpful and have made, I think, tremendous contributions to allow us to arrive at this point. The Budget Committee, especially Senator Domenici and Senator Lautenberg--without their help we could not have come to this point. And I thank the leadership of the Senate that has given us the opportunity to work in a collaborative manner and has been supportive. I also note, for the Record, and to the chagrin of some, there were some who said, ``Oh, the Senate and its leadership don't care about mass transportation, that if you look at the numbers of States that use it or are dependent on those as opposed to those who are not, then those needs will be neglected.'' I think that maybe even some colleagues, for whatever reason--some colleagues in the Congress--may have hoped that to be the case. But, once again, I think the common good, and recognizing how we have to deal and must deal with each other, overrode the parochialism that sometimes rears its head. I could not be more grateful and thankful for the leadership that has been provided on both sides of the aisle by Senator Daschle, and the minority side, and by Senator Lott on the majority side. I say that my staff, particularly Peggy Kuhn, Joe Mondello, Jr., Loretta Garrison, under the able leadership of Howard Menell, staff director, have been Herculean and have been totally dedicated to bringing us to this point. Again, I am deeply appreciative of them. I am also appreciative of the professionalism of the minority staff. They have been absolutely outstanding. No one could have asked for better cooperation from the minority staff. Sometimes I think they felt that they worked for me or sometimes I felt that I worked for them. More often Senators, I think, are accountable--people do not realize-- to our staff to a great degree. But I thank them. I thank them for their patience and for their persistence and for their working long and enduring hours. They have made, hopefully, the amendment that will be considered a reality. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:40 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote on the pending transit amendment No. 1931, as amended, to S. 1173, the highway bill. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the amendment.

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have an amendment I will offer on behalf of Senator Nickles, which would permit basically his mass transit funds to be used as it related to the funding of Amtrak activities in his State. I know of no opposition. Amendment No. 1943 to Amendment No. 1931 (Purpose: To permit States to use assistance provided under the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund for capital improvements to, and operating support for, intercity passenger rail service)

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

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, one of the great problems that we have today is that as more communities grasp the realities of the access to move people, particularly in our urban centers with great densities of traffic, and come to the Federal Transit Administration with their proposals to construct people movers to areas that are alternatively utilizing mass transit, there are some programs that are started that shouldn't be started, for a variety of reasons. In some cases, the technical know-how and capabilities that should be there, in terms of studying and getting them ready, just are not. So the Senator says one of the criteria is the technical capabilities to construct the project. You can come in with a wonderful project, but it is ``pie in the sky;'' it is not possible. And what is taking place is that new starts are being considered, undertaken, lots of money is being laid out by the Federal Government, and engineering studies and what-not are taking place, engineering costs are being racked up, and there is very little likelihood of people ever being able to move. In other words, no transportation project is really going to get underway. So I commend the Senator for saying let us take a look and see if this really is real; is it going to work? Obviously, the needs should be tied to the numbers of people that can and should be moved in these new start projects. Again, it is nice to have one in every community. But what is the logic and sense of spending x hundreds of millions of dollars if the numbers of people who would be moved on a daily basis are negligible--if there is no demand? So the Senator sets this as a criterion. And the third and probably most important is the degree of local financial commitment to the project; i.e, overmatch. There are those who are attempting to build these projects and think they can do it simply with Federal funds. That is not the case. We look for matching funds. And those communities that recognize the need as such, so they are willing to not only contribute what the minimum contribution from the local community is but overmatch it, put in more, certainly they should have, where funding is available, the ability to draw down those funds faster so those projects can be built. Right now I think it would be fair to say that we probably have too many projects that have been given a green light but there is no hope of them moving forward because some of these criteria the Senator has put forth are not met. So this is prudence, in saying, let's do that which can be done. I commend the Senator, and I support his amendment.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. D'AMATO

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

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Tuesday, March 10, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. for a business meeting and markup. Agenda items will include: markup of S. 981, the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998; and markup of S. 1364, the Federal Reports Elimination Act.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, 1998, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine the current Federal Crop Insurance Program and consider improvements to the system.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 10, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. on the nominations of Orson Swindle and Mozelle Thompson--FTC, Robert J. Shapiro--Under Secretary of Commerce, John C. Horsey--Associate Deputy Secretary of DOT, Christy Carpenter--Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly. So now I have to say to my colleague that that would appear unfair, and I think there is something to be said for recognizing a basic situation that should not continue as we have new growth throughout the regions of our country. I think the Senator's State is one that goes right to that. There is tremendous growth in the Denver area and other areas where heretofore mass transit was never looked upon as a necessity, or something that was on the minds of people. Now, moving college students or senior citizens or others from the suburban region into the business districts, back and forth, becomes important, whether it be by way of bus, light rail, et cetera. That is why the committee attempted to deal with this, and I commend the Senator for a balanced presentation of his amendment, because he took time out to recognize that the committee attempted to deal with this by making available those funds over and above the previously allocated level, $760 million annually, available to the communities that heretofore have not shared in that. It may be that in that distribution of funds the Senator from Colorado could differ with us, because what we have done is recognize that these systems that are in existence need continual refurbishment, and there are billions of dollars being poured in from the State and local governments. Indeed, my State allocates at least 50 cents for every 50 cents that comes from Washington. It matches it. Indeed, in many projects it overmatches, it puts much more than that in because they have allocated, by way of the transit box and local revenues, these funds. It becomes so critical. I might say, and I am giving an approximation, 30 percent of all mass transit riders nationwide are in New York. We draw down considerably less in the way of all of the transit dollars. We do not overdraw in terms of the numbers of people moved, nor do we put in the application of local tax dollars that go into these systems. In a minute I am going to give you the exact number. We have the lowest subsidy in the Nation per rider; that is 34 cents. If we are going to take a nationwide average, it is 64 cents per rider. I just say this so we get a balance. Why do we need a balance? Because if we are going to get into the situation of saying 11 cities draw 80-plus percent, or 90 percent of the funds, we have to look at what are the numbers of people being moved and what is the percentage in terms of people being moved and their contribution and moneys coming back from the Federal Government. I do not have the number yet but I think it will be an interesting one, and I should have it. We are looking to get it--in terms of how many people are being moved. And I would venture to say that we are probably moving more than two- thirds of the Nation's mass transit riders in those 11 communities. Now, having said that, those are more than communities, they are regions--regions--because when we talk about New York, it is servicing Connecticut, it is servicing New Jersey, as well as all New Yorkers. When you talk about the transit system of Chicago, for example, it takes in a huge expanse. It is not just the 3-and-a half-plus million people in Chicago, but all of the outlying areas--that is, regions. So I think we have to think about this. And if you take the Philadelphia transit system, again, people from Delaware, people from New Jersey, as well as the Pennsylvania region come in. In no way am I attempting to diminish the Senator's argument--or not even argument but presentation--to say, look, as it relates to the newer funds, we want those over and above what have been traditionally put forth, and an opportunity to have a more significant sharing of the revenues. The Senator did point out that in this bill, for the first time, we have provided that--maybe not to the Senator's standards or to that which you would think would be fair, but we have provided that new-starts funds over $1 billion, above what we have provided, will be shared on a 50-50 basis, recognizing that these 11 areas that now serve--I will get that number; but let us use a number--at least 70 percent of the Nation's transit riders. And I think that is a number that is fairly accurate. They will continue to have a need to modernize. They will continue to have a need to make the kinds of improvements that are so desperately necessary. Some of these transit systems are 100 years old. So, consequently, if we do not provide additional revenues to these starts, we are going to have great difficulties in the maintaining of these older systems. So while my colleague makes a good point--and I notice the Senator from Minnesota is here, Senator Grams; and I know he is working with you on this--while there is every reason to logically say, you have to provide for our needs, we started to do this. I take great pride in that. And our bill prior to your coming to the floor and prior to our markup last year, we did provide for a fairer, better allocation. It may be that it is not enough. But let me simply say this to my colleague, that it would be, in this Senator's opinion, unacceptable--and this is important because it goes to the heart of where I am coming from--it would be absolutely unacceptable to say to 70 percent of the mass transit riders, to the communities that carry 70 percent of the mass transit riders, that as it relates to additional funds, you cannot have any more. Now, just as it would be unreasonable for us to cling to the old formula, it would be unreasonable to say, as it relates to additional funds, you cannot have any. What I am saying to my friends and colleagues, to both of you, is, please, let us sit down, and make your presentations, because I do not argue against the thrust of what you are going to say, that you want some of these resources, and see if we cannot work on a system that will do fairness to your position and yet recognize the necessity of having an increasing dollar allocation to these old systems that are moving tens and tens of millions of people and do need these additional funds. That is where this Senator is coming from, not coming from, ``It has got to be my way or this way.'' But let us look at it in that way. If we can, I believe we would have the ability to serve the needs of our own communities. I recognize that. There is no one who fights harder and sometimes has been accused of parochialism for the people of his State than I, so I recognize when my colleagues have that interest and good intent for their States. But let us see if we cannot do it in that manner, where we really do the best we can with the limited resources. And I am very willing to sit down and talk to them.

Mr. D'AMATO. I want the Senator to know that I absolutely understand the equity and the justice which the Senator seeks. There is no denying it, under the old formula as it related to rail modernization, fixed rail modernization, that those communities that heretofore did not have a system would not have moneys allocated to them. That is why we attempted to structure--and this gets a little complex, but I think the Senator knows this, and probably even to a far greater degree than the Senator from New York. I commend the Senator from Colorado for a thoughtful approach to dealing with this inequity. What the Senator is saying to these 11 cities is: Look, you have been drawing down, traditionally, X dollars. Let the program operate that way and let those additional funds over and above be allocated to the other areas of the country which have not been drawing those funds. That is the essence of the Senator's amendment. Is that a fair characterization?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I congratulate again both Senators who 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.