Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We agree to the amendments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That account has been severly tested. We will look closely to see if we can put together the package that the Senator from Ohio is recommending. I do send up a note of caution as we look at it. We have been warned that we could face a RIF, reduction in force, at DOT at the levels currently in the bill for administrative expenses. The chairman and I have been very careful to try to make sure that the dollars we expend are those that are most effective in providing transportation facilities, helping the Coast Guard, helping FAA, and we have been all along trying to reduce the administrative side, the travel side, all of those things. We are both staunch supporters of the Coast Guard with our coastal States and in deep appreciation for what the Coast Guard has done. The drug interdiction mission I talked about earlier today, and I am prepared on this side to accept the DeWine-Graham amendment, but I have to know that the chairman and I are going to take a fresh look at DOT's administrative costs in conference.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio presents, I think, very effectively the case for continuing the efforts that we have had in the past--some quite successful--to intercept the drug trafficking, and to make sure that we do not let down our guard, and to maintain the facilities and personnel that we need to do it. The thing I am concerned about--and I commend the Senator from Ohio for bringing this to our attention; we will be looking at this over the next period of time--the offset for this amendment, if I am not mistaken, is proposed to come out of the administrative costs at DOT; am I correct in that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. The Committee intends this funding to be available for either of these purposes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate knowing of the Senator from New Mexico's interest in the Northern new Mexico Park and Ride.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It becomes a matter of Members' choice; you either finish it late or you finish it early. I am not dismissing the importance of anybody's amendment, but now is the time to do it. If it is not important enough to get over here and do it, I think we will try to expedite things, if the majority leader and minority leader agree, to get to a third reading. We have a couple of things we can do. We should do them. We are now looking at the possibility of clearing some. So until then, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand that the majority leader, the leadership has agreed we are going to finish this bill tonight?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, while we have leadership on the floor, we have heard the list. That is now confined. I think we ought to get on with the business of getting it done. We could wrap this bill up in short order. There is a full agenda. The majority leader holds out a plum at the end of the ladder. The plum swings a week from Friday. This helps reach that goal. I ask my colleagues if they want to get out of here on Friday--I know most of them would like to stay, but you will have to put up with us in getting out early.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And Gramm on drugs.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, Senator Bingaman, I am aware of the funding commitments from the local governments and Los Alamos Lab for the Northern New Mexico Park and Ride.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is our intent; that is the facility that should do the job. portland light rail funding

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it is always interesting, to me anyway, that when we get to something like transportation and we start talking about the numbers and how much we are able to spend on highways and aviation, on buses, and rail, whatever we do, we still fall short on this country's needs for investment in infrastructure. There isn't a Senator here who doesn't come to Senator Shelby or me during the time of the negotiations looking for more opportunities to invest in infrastructure. They want to get rid of the potholes, get rid of the obsolete bridges, update our system. I know I speak for the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Shelby, with whom I have the pleasure and opportunity to work--Senator Shelby and I have known each other for some time. He is a man with specific opinions on things. I could be described as a ``pussycat''--I don't think so. But we have our differences out on the table, and we work to resolve them. There is one thing in this relationship, and that is mutual respect. I want to say today that Senator Shelby has not only exhibited patience but also a genuine interest in resolving issues, getting rid of the problems, and getting on with the task. Between us, I think we have a pretty good piece of legislation. For me, one of the greatest challenges that we faced in developing this bill was finding the funds for Amtrak. Senator Shelby, as is his wont, spoke out about his views on Amtrak. But he has respect for others' views--for those people who see Amtrak as an integral part of the transportation system in this country, an essential part of the system. While he is concerned about the amount of subsidy that Amtrak is getting from the Federal Government, it is also bidding its way towards self-sufficiency. Until we have the proper kind of equipment that attracts riders, that can make the trip--and the trips are made in faster times, particularly in the Northeast section, where in just the few States that Amtrak goes through with probably 100 million people, it is a significant part of the population in the country. Yes, it requires subsidy, but so does aviation. We go beyond the ticket tax, which is significant. What we are saying to the people who ride in aviation is you pay a tax for this. We don't really say that in similar terms with Amtrak. You pay a heavy tax when you fly. The system is totally built by the taxpayer and local interests when it comes to aviation. If Amtrak didn't operate, I would like to point out that we would need 7,500 new flights a year on 757s to make up for the numbers of people who are carried on Amtrak. We were able to fashion a compromise which was in this bill reported unanimously by the Appropriations Committee on July 14. It includes $555 million for Amtrak for the coming year, and as the chairman noted, there is over $1 billion worth of funding; some of that in operating expenses; some of that in capital expense, but it is $66 million less than the level requested by the administration. Now, we are on the verge--1999 is the year--of getting high-speed rail equipment in the Northeast corridor. And for the benefit of those who are listening not familiar with it, the Northeast corridor is that corridor of traffic between Washington here in the South, and Boston on the northern run, with New York and Newark as the intermediate points along the way. Well, if we can get that ride down--and I think that we can--to less than 2\1/2\ hours, I can tell you, Mr. President, I have been out at the airport many times to take a flight that was advertised to be 40 and 45 minutes, and it has taken 3 hours. It is not because the airplane is so slow. It is that it's so crowded we can't get off the ground. And sometimes I find when I land in the Newark area we have to wait 30, 40 minutes to get to a gate. We are straining at the seams. And if anybody rides the highways of America they know there is plenty of congestion. I don't care what State it is, you will find a place in those States where highway congestion is unbearable, the air is foul, and we are consuming far more fuel than we ought to because we are building a further dependence on the countries outside our shores that produce it. And so this investment in Amtrak is one that is going to be made to get us to be able to take delivery on the high-speed equipment which is due next year, 1999. I thank Senator Stevens, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the full committee, as well as, again, Senator Shelby, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, for helping us to find an acceptable funding level for Amtrak, and I also thank them for their patience throughout the process. The Transportation Subcommittee faced a real daunting challenge in constructing a bill that kept faith with the promises included in the recently enacted Transportation Equity Act. That is the transportation program for the next half dozen years for the 21st century. It is a beginning into the 21st century, and with our infrastructure investment, as modest as it is, I can't say that it is one of America's proudest achievements because we are woefully underfunded, but it is a good start in the 21st century and I am looking forward to building on that. The TEA 21, as it is referred to in acronym fashion, law authorized substantial increases in our surface transportation programs, and this appropriations bill includes a historic 15-percent increase for funding for the Federal Highway Administration, and an 11-percent increase in funding for the Federal Transit Administration. Separate from these well-deserved increases in the surface transportation area, the bill seeks to meet, to the best of our ability, the needs of the FAA. You heard me just reciting the fact that crowding in the air is not an insignificant factor. If you want to fly into the New York area, or you want to fly into the Chicago area, the significant metropolitan hubs across our country, you have to share that space, and if the weather turns foul you wait forever. We could upgrade the system. There are other countries that have systems where takeoffs and landings are done at zero visibility. It is done mechanically. The pilot has to be there, but that airplane can touch down safely when you can't see the ground. I know I have been in a couple of flights like that, and it is always a shock when you don't see something and you feel that hard ground beneath you. That is what we ought to be doing. We have to invest more in all of our transportation modes and aviation as well. The Coast Guard is one incredible agency. We ask so much of the Coast Guard. We not only have them out doing drug interdiction, which is a very popular part of their agenda, but if one looks at the marine system that we have in our country, the development of boating, fishing, the whole recreational aspect of marine life is there because the Coast Guard manages it. They put out the buoy markers. I know sometimes I get lost out there, so I can tell you that they are there. It is not that they have moved. It is that I haven't been able to find them properly. It is an incredible system. And on top of that, they do pollution patrol; they do a patrol to try to intercept illegal immigrants who want to get to this great country of ours and are willing to risk their lives to do it, sometimes in tire tubes out in the ocean. The Coast Guard is there to provide interdiction, but also humanitarian service as well. And when it comes to rescues at sea, boy, there is nobody better than the Coast Guard. They know how to do it, and they are called on by everybody on every occasion. We just saw a ship fire, the Carnival Cruise Line ship in Florida. The ones I saw right there on the spot were the Coast Guard. They are always there. They need constant investment. I know one of the complaints in some of the northern areas is they don't have enough icebreaking equipment, for instance. We get it sometimes from the Defense Department. So, when you put all these needs together, it is not an easy challenge. I say, once again, Chairman Shelby and his staff, Wally Burnett, Reid Cavnar and Joyce Rose, do a terrific job, as well as the people on my staff, Peter Rogoff and Liz O'Donoghue--I mentioned before Peter Neffenger--and Carole Geagley, for the job the staff has done. The staff has worked very hard. I don't think it is realized outside that by no means are these 9 to 5 jobs. Yes, they are. I am sorry. They are 9 at night to 5 the next morning. That is the kind of jobs they are. We give them time off to sleep, go home, meet their families, say hello to their newborns, get breakfast--the work requirement is beyond comprehension, in many cases. But it gets done, and I am proud of what we did this year. Mr. President, as Members are aware, and the chairman brought it up, the bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee contains an extremely controversial rider. It is something regarding Project Labor agreements. The provision effectively wanted to stop labor-management agreements that have served successfully for years to hold down construction costs and improve working conditions. Imagine--on those occasions, which are too few, where management and labor shake hands across the table, no longer could they say, ``These are the conditions we are going to be working under. This is what you can expect from us, and this is what you can expect from us; we are going to bridge our differences now, before this job starts. We are going to decide on things like pay scales and work schedules and health care--all of those things. We are going to decide together on the schedule that we want to meet. We want to be proud of this job when it is finished.'' The chairman of the Appropriations Committee used a reference. He said in the Alaskan pipeline they had an agreement that saved billions of dollars, because everybody understood exactly what their responsibilities were and there was no room for work stoppages or things of that nature. It is a system that works. Why some people felt it was time to stop it, I don't understand. But I respect the differences that we have here. The issue was discussed at length during full committee markup of the bill. As Senator Shelby noted, Chairman Stevens asked us to defer this until we get to the floor and get this bill out there so Senators can see it and understand what we are doing. We did just that, and the result is we have a compromise that Senator Stevens sought to develop that would allow the bill to move forward and gain the President's signature. Senator Shelby and others involved, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, and I, agreed this was a consensus with which we could live. I am delighted that took place so we did not have to wrangle over it. We want to get this bill in place so when the new year starts, October 1, we are ready to go with the new spending levels and new programs. Once we have concluded our opening remarks, we are going to adopt the managers' amendment that encompasses a compromise on this issue, so all parties are agreed they will live with it. I thank my colleagues for their efforts in reaching this compromise. In closing, I want to express my view that the most important funding in this bill is not for any individual project or any individual State. The most important funding in the annual transportation appropriations bill is the taxpayers' dollars that we commit to maintaining safety throughout our national transportation network. Safety in the skies--we know we are crowded, we know we are busy, and we know there is a terrific strain on the staff who maintain the aviation system, the controllers, those in the towers and those in the service routes along the way. They do a terrific job. One need only look at the accident record, the number of people. Senator Shelby mentioned there are 600 million travelers a year. Look at that and thank the Lord, look at the accident record. You will see one of the nearly perfect systems that one could imagine operating in our skies with all that volume. We want the same thing on our roads. We want to reduce drunk, careless driving. We would like to even reduce road rage. I don't know how we do it. Sometimes we get into rage here, but we should be able to do that. Safety on our waterways--again, the Coast Guard is there marking out routes. It is just a terrific facility that we have. So, safety is the No. 1 priority of my agenda. It is the No. 1 priority for the Secretary of Transportation, Secretary Slater, and for the President of the United States. He talks about it a lot. And Senator Shelby indicated he is interested in safety. I am hoping one day we will be able to shore up our .08 blood alcohol level bill. We passed a bill that goes part of the way, but we have to go further in order to make it complete. The worst thing that can happen to a family is to lose a youngster, a young person, to an automobile accident when we try so hard to bring them up, to raise them and encourage them, and then have somebody get in a car where someone has been drinking too much and end their life. We are focused on safety. We are going to do that. I cannot overemphasize the responsibility that every Senator has in ensuring our transportation laws protect the safety of our traveling public to the maximum extent possible. The fate of the traveling public is truly in our hands each and every day. During the up and coming debate we are going to discuss a number of amendments that are critically important to the safety of our constituents. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague. We are ready to consider amendments and start with the managers' amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am obviously pleased that the Senate has now turned to the consideration of the transportation appropriations bill. It has been some time in coming. And action on the transportation bill has been delayed for several weeks while the committee sought to resolve some of the challenges that arise when there are vital interests needs to be met with too few resources to meet them. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent that Peter Rogoff, a member of my staff, be permitted privileges of the floor during the consideration of this bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I might, I knew we constructed a good bill. I didn't realize it was this good. But the fact of the matter is I guess we covered everybody's requests fully. But we should wait to see if any of our colleagues want to come down to the floor and commend us for it. Otherwise, I think we are seriously ready to go. I am feeling a little light-headed because we haven't heard a lot of criticism. But the bill is here. If there are people who want to amend it in any way, let them come down now or forever hold their peace, or something.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, Mr. Dan Alpert, be given floor privileges during the pendency of the transportation appropriations bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State for his help with this matter. I appreciate his cooperation and I commend him for all of his hard work on this legislation. I know that it is difficult to accommodate the various requests from colleagues, and I think he and his excellent staff do it with grace and understanding. I also want to thank Senator Hollings, the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, it is always a pleasure to work with him and his fine staff. The video cameras that will be funded under this provision will help the police document evidence which will assist prosecutors and also protect the innocent. With these cameras in place, people who are pulled over will think twice before acting violently toward the police. Additionally, the cameras will ensure that the troopers are following proper procedures when they make traffic stops. In my home State of New Jersey, we must find ways to help resolve disputes and ease tensions between the police and the public they are sworn to protect. These cameras are an important step forward. Again, I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for their help in securing this critical funding. organization for international economic and cooperation

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to confirm my understanding of a provision that will be included in the manager's amendment to the Commerce, Justice and State appropriation bill. I had proposed an amendment that would provide $1 million to equip New Jersey State Police vehicles with video cameras. It is my understanding, and I want to confirm this with Mr. Gregg, the distinguished Floor Manager of this legislation, that these funds will be made available by reallocating $1 million to the COPS Program. That $1 million would then be directed to the New Jersey State Police for video cameras in its vehicles, in the same manner that COPS Technology Program funds are directed to various programs on page 61 of the Committee Report to this legislation, e.g., $935,000 for the Missoula County, MT, mobile data terminals. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is it also the understanding of the Senator that he will support the $1 million for the New Jersey State Police in a Conference Committee with the House?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Manager's Amendment includes $800,000 to hire additional assistant U.S. attorneys and investigators in Camden County, New Jersey. This amendment builds on an initiative that was originally proposed by Senator Specter. At his request, the bill provides $1.5 million to hire additional assistant U.S. attorneys and investigators in Philadelphia to enforce federal laws designed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. I appreciate Senator Specter's effort. I think that additional law enforcement funding will help stop the gun carnage on our streets. My amendment would expand this effort into Camden, which neighbors Philadelphia. I want to ensure that the crackdown in Philadelphia does not simply push gun criminals into Camden. Clearly, a cooperative effort will provide a more comprehensive solution for the entire region. I want to thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for their help with this amendment.