Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

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. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. privilege of the floor

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

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, we have no objection and support the amendment.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this makes no changes in the allocations of the appropriations, but it empowers the State transportation people to make decisions as to how they will allocate the mass transit dollars that come to them. If they wish to use them with respect to their Amtrak facilities, that is their right. I support the amendment.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I believe we have reached a point where I am not aware of any other outstanding amendments. I think there may be two Senators who, for whatever reason, would object, apparently, to us calling for a vote. But it would be the intention, otherwise, of the leadership to dispose of this amendment by at least 5:45, is what I've been given to understand. I don't know what my colleagues might object to or what part of the bill they might want to debate. It would seem reasonable to me that if they do have objection, they should come to the floor and state it. Let's have a vote on it or an attempt to deal with whatever they feel is an inequity. We might lose, we might win, or they may get their way, or they may not. But the business of the people, I believe, would best be served by resolving this. I just have no idea at this time as to what their objections might be. So even if I were in a position to remedy the deficiencies--and I am not saying this is a perfect bill; it is far from perfect, and it could be second-guessed by many. But I am not in a position, nor is the ranking member or Senator Reed, who is standing in for Senator Sarbanes, at this point to even offer any type of solution or compromise if we are kept in the dark. Now, I don't see any useful purpose in that. So I ask that our respective sides reach out to our colleagues through their staffs to ascertain from them whether they can inform us as to what procedure they would recommend we undertake. If it is to stop the entire bill, then it would seem to me that the leadership should be advised so that they can proceed accordingly. Any Member has the right to lodge his or her objection and to take to the floor and, indeed, make their views known, offer their amendments, or prolong debate. I guess that is a nice way for saying ``enter into a filibuster.'' I respect that. I have, on occasion, resorted to that myself. Now, having said that, I came down to the floor and took the floor and raised my objection. So when we have reduced a bill to a point where all of the Senators, except one or two, have agreed that we should go forward, it seems to me that in fairness to the body we should have some kind of an explanation and set about a course of action to determine how we can deal with it. That would not be my prerogative; that would be the prerogative of the majority and minority leaders. They might decide to file for cloture, or they might decide to undertake another activity, or they might even be able, as I would think, to mediate successfully a cessation of the objections from our colleagues. But I want the Record to note that we have done as much as we can. We are here. We are ready. This bill is ready, and, as far as I am concerned and to the best I can determine, this amendment is ready to be acted on. Forty-one plus billion dollars would be spent over the next 5 years on a combination of activities--rural, urban, suburban, new starts, new buses, improvement of existing facilities, extension of some --a whole combination. Even at this eleventh-and-a-half hour, there are some very worthy amendments that we have taken dealing with the disabled and giving communities the ability to buy vehicles and put them in a capital program that they might not qualify for, giving additional flexibility to States to use some of these funds. So I think it is a well-balanced approach to transportation. I hope my colleagues will give us an opportunity to conduct the business of the people as it should. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and maybe we can get our two colleagues to come down and resolve their differences.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have one unanimous consent request, and it is technical in nature. I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 1931 to change all references to the ``Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997'' in the amendment to the ``Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998''-- that is very technical in nature, again because we waited 6 months--and change all references to the ``Federal Transit Act of 1997'' in the amendment to the ``Federal Transit Act of 1998.''

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 move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, there is an outstanding issue between the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Banking Committee involving university transportation centers. Apparently, there are conflicting provisions in our bills. I thank my friend and colleague, who has done such an outstanding job, the senior Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his patience. I am committed to working with the chairman to resolve this situation together. I thank him for allowing us to proceed. I believe we will be able to work this out, and I pledge to work with him. He has always demonstrated a willingness to accommodate the needs of his colleagues, and I am looking forward to being able to do it in this case as well. Mr. President, let me say that I am deeply grateful for the tremendous leadership and contribution that the senior Senator from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, has contributed, both himself personally and with a great and talented staff, to bring us to this point. I do not know how many people really thought that within this day we would be able to come to a point where we are in a position of passing this part of the Surface Transportation Act overwhelmingly. Without his patience, without his leadership, without his constant support, both during the negotiations for attempting to achieve the additional funding, $9.8 billion over and above the previous ISTEA allocations, we could never have been in a position to accommodate the legitimate interest and needs of so many of our colleagues. Again, while we might have differences because we do represent different regions, different configurations of the population where different needs may exist, while not everyone is happy, I am certain that there are those in the mass transit industry who think we need more. Understand, this is not a pie that continues to expand. There are constraints and we have to draw from that which we are allocated. On the basis of both working to achieve a greater allocation and working to achieve a fair distribution, no one has done more than my good friend, the Senator from Maryland. For that I am deeply, deeply appreciative. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

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. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

Mr. D'AMATO. What is the pending business?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me say I am deeply appreciative of the work of my colleagues, Senator Allard and Senator Grams, and for their patience, for their diligence in working on behalf of their constituents and, more importantly, recognizing the need for balance, the need to meet the needs of the high-growth cities in the United States, which they represent, but also recognizing the needs of the older cities, the older transportation hubs, that also need to continue to get adequate funding. In addition, I am looking forward to working with my colleagues towards addressing the growing needs for mass transit in growing cities such as Minneapolis/St. Paul and Denver. They have unique problems. The problems of attaining the clean air standards certainly are not those just found in the cities of Boston or New York or Philadelphia. Indeed, in areas that we may not have ever considered, these are problems. They are. Cities like these must receive an equitable portion of the New Start funds so they may begin to implement mass transit as a solution of their problems of traffic congestion and air quality. Again, I commend them, and I am committed to working with my colleagues on this issue and on the issues of eligibility for funds under the fixed guideway formula. Might I also say, I thank again, in all of this, my colleague and friend, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, for working to achieve this balance. Mr. President, I ask acceptance of the amendment. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

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. 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. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, for recognizing what we as a committee and our staffs have attempted to do in coming up with a bill that does not nearly meet the needs of all of our constituents because there are spending limitations. We are going to have a tough time. I can tell the Chair that we have a minimum of $15 billion-plus worth of requests for new starts. And I think if you were to look at them, you could probably--and I am not attempting to rank them; that is not my job. There is a procedure which does that, and I think they should be ranked, but as it relates to cost-benefit, numbers of people moved--I know when you look at the city of Denver, where my colleague comes from, there is no doubt that the program being advanced by the city and metropolitan region will be probably one of the highest ranked. But they are going to have to earn that ranking. But you can't have that kind of development and not believe that it's not going to be there. Demonstrated need is the key. In fairness to my colleague, I don't want to imply that he is arguing for any change on that. I am simply saying that when we look at the numbers of applications that will be coming in, I have to tell you that there will not be nearly enough resources to do them all. I hope that, in the fullness of time, we will be able to get a better allocation for mass transit generally. I think we are being very, very myopic as it relates to the manner in which we are allocating resources nationwide. It is easy to put money in and justify for highways. It has a very strong base of support. That is undeniable. But something that is even more important, or equally as important, is when we look at our major urban centers throughout this country, we are going to begin to find in those fast-developing areas in the South and far West, as people migrate, you are going to have incredible problems, whether it be in Atlanta, Denver, Memphis, et cetera. As these areas build and develop, we are going to want to be able to move these people. Unless we provide the resources, it's not going to happen. So we have had a rather unbalanced--I think the last time we provided any moneys was in the legislation that I authored, and I had a tremendous battle, back in 1982. It authorized 1 penny out of the nickel to be set aside from gasoline for mass transit. Let me say this to you. If it sounds like I am self-aggrandizing, I don't mean to. But, thank God, we were able to get those moneys set aside. I have heard more people complaining about that. What a myopic view. Where would some of the systems in their States be? They have come on rather recently, and they have applications for more, and I am talking about large States that have to move large numbers of people. Their representatives are complaining about that 1 penny set-aside. Well, what would you have then in terms of any type of new start or mass transportation? We would not be having this debate and we would not be having a mass transit bill. Some people say, oh, we don't care, we don't need it, we don't want it. That is a rather narrow-minded point of view. So I have to say, thank God, we are at this point where at least we have limited resources that have been provided as a result of the 1 penny set-aside as opposed to no resources that we would have. We would not have any. So maybe we are lucky that the Senator, at this point in time, can come to the floor and say, ``Listen, we want a better allocation on that.'' I don't fault him for that. I think he has real merit in his position of saying, ``There is this need, so can't we do better?'' I say to the Senator that I want to try to do better under these. I hope we can come to the floor some day, sooner rather than later, because the expressed, absolute need--by the way, we save lives. When you get people out of the automobiles in congested areas where sometimes they are stuck 30 minutes when coming through a bridge or tunnel, whatever, and put them on a modern system that moves them back and forth, you take out tons and tons of pollution. We have one project that we are looking at in terms of removing 1 million trucks a year off of the roads between New York and New Jersey. It is a tunnel project. It is not part of this bill. They estimate that we will be able, as a result of this one tunnel, to save in the New York City region 3,000 lives annually--3,000 people who otherwise would be dying. That is not to talk about the incredible hospital costs that go into it, the hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of asthmatics, et cetera. That is just one little project. We are talking about another one for moving 100,000 people a day who now have to make a cross-town transfer. They come into New York City on one side of the city and then have to transfer and go all the way over to the other side to get to their job, and then come all the way over again. They are talking about eliminating 12,000 taxicab rides a day. They are talking about saving $900 a year for 100,000 people who have to pay then to go back and forth. In terms of hours, it's about an hour a day for each one of these 100,000 people. So the man-hours can be saved. The pollution that would result will be cut down, and the quality of life will be enhanced. These are the kinds of things that can and should be available to us. There is an underlying problem in this bill--a big one: we don't provide sufficient resources. We can't, unfortunately. There are the budget constraints. So, I think we all have to recognize that there has to be a little give and take on this thing. This is not going to be good for us if we have to make changes in terms of a parochial sense to take less. I think the Senator from Maryland stated it well. We get back a smaller percentage as it relates to the highway that we received previously. But we had to recognize that there are expanding areas and they need some money. I am willing to recognize that here. But I need some help in arriving at that, because there is an underlying deficiency. I might say to those colleagues who are going to say we need more, then help us and support us when it comes to providing additional resources for all of mass transit, so that we can see that rural America and urban America are not in conflict and we can make those needs. Right now, our job becomes impossible to meet all of the needs, due to the lack of resources. That is a fact. And were it not for the incredible work of the Budget Committee, and particularly Senator Domenici, in finding available resources, we would not even be at this point, and the inequity and problems would be even greater. So I thank my colleague, Senator Sarbanes. Again, I want to commend the Senator from Colorado for coming forth in a way, hopefully, that will provide additional resources to the people not only in this region but in like regions throughout the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

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.