Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in recent years, as Amtrak has been required to reduce service and, in some cases, eliminate service to several States, I have noticed that some of the loudest complaints have come from some of our States in the West and in the Midwest. I appreciate the fact the Senator from North Dakota had comments to make in favor of Amtrak service. A lot of people are complaining that we have reduced or eliminated Amtrak service. Well, they just don't have the income, and when you think of what it takes to put this system in shape, it is de minimis compared to the service that is being offered. We can dress it up in various terms: high-income people ride the train. See what it looks like and see people getting on there with tattered luggage and not able to figure out another way to get there. It is easy to stand on a high horse and criticize those who ride Amtrak. Try it; you may like it. The fact of the matter is, while Amtrak's funding levels, as contained in this bill, are higher than the House-passed level, they still remain far lower than the level requested by the administration. The Senator from Arizona wants to take the funding down by almost $400 million, when we worked like the devil, skimped and saved and moved and changed to try and get a balanced funding bill, a balanced transportation bill. And the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], worked very hard to do that. So, Mr. President, the House Appropriations Committee made a calculated judgment to extract the vast majority of its transportation cuts from Amtrak's budget. I do not agree with those priorities, and neither does the chairman of the committee itself. The one thing that we ought to be aware of is that if we eliminate Amtrak, we eliminate a serious asset that this country of ours requires. We are the only country in the world, the only country of the more developed countries in the world that does not recognize that you have to invest and you have to subsidize its national passenger rail system. Get on the TGV in France or get on the bullet trains in Japan; the Government pays an awful lot more on a proportionate basis than we are willing to put in Amtrak at our most generous moments. Mr. President, I yield for a minute or so to my friend from Delaware who has asked to be heard.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator makes a good point. The clerk did not fully read the amendment by our request. I wonder if we could just have a reminder about what is an item to item 1 and 2, where it starts----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think the Senator from North Dakota makes a very good case. Despite the fact that I come from one of the most active transportation centers of the country, New Jersey, and we are the most densely populated State, we need access to aviation and so forth. I agree that the problems that have developed since deregulation have not always been things that we anticipated. I talked with the Secretary of Transportation, and I made the point that the distinguished Senator from North Dakota made so eloquently just now on the floor. He tells me--and I am sure this is nothing new to the Senator from North Dakota--about the fact that United Airlines has agreed with the cooperative baggage arrangements and cooperative ticketing, though code sharing has not yet become part of the picture. Unfortunately, in the deregulated mode, the contracts are between airlines. But I am assured that the Secretary will be looking at the anticompetitive situation of small rural airports around the country, whether jet service is available and why it is discontinued. I have that commitment to him. I pass that on to the Senator from North Dakota, so he has a basis for review as time goes by. We continue to subsidize essential air service in the hope that we will be of some help. Meanwhile, I think the Senator has a good point. We accept his amendment from this side. I assume that the other side also is agreeable.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, to lend some further impetus to the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, I would plead with my colleagues on the Democratic side to get down here if you want to do business. I think it is a very poor reflection on what has to be done to set the stage for transportation investments in the year beginning October 1, a chance to establish the fact that things are happening, that we are responding to the need for transportation investment. For us to stand here while little, if anything, takes place, I think, reflects very poorly on the commitment to getting the job done. I urge my colleagues, as we heard from Senator Hatfield, to come on down, present your amendments, present the argument, and see if you can win the case. If the amendments are important, then I fail to see that there is no urgency to getting them down here, get them on the floor, and let us discuss them. This is the transportation bill. We are talking about billions of dollars. We are talking about safety. We are talking about the way our Nation competes with other countries. We are talking about quality of air. We are talking about the consumption of fuel. We are talking about so many things here in this bill, and to permit it to languish while we sit here kind of staring at one another is, I think, unacceptable. So I hope that we can encourage leadership on both sides, and the Senators on both sides, to get with it, get done, get going so we can get on to the next piece of business, or the next pieces of business which are very important. With that, I note the absence of interest and the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Hatfield, for his ever constructive work and comments. This may be the last bill on transportation that Senator Hatfield will manage. Long after his actions as a Senator, as a leader in the Senate, and as someone whom we all admire and respect, I hope we will continue our friendship and contact, but I will say a little bit more about that in a couple moments, if I may. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3675, the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal 1997. The bill, as we know, was reported unanimously by the Appropriations Committee on Thursday, July 18. It would be my hope we could get a similarly unanimous vote for Senate passage of the bill. Given the overall funding limitations that we face in this year's appropriations process, I think the bill before us does an excellent job in distributing scarce resources among the Nation's critical transportation needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this moment that Michael Brennan, a legislative fellow from the Department of Transportation who works with us, be granted privileges of the floor during the Senate consideration of H.R. 3675 and the conference report that will accompany this bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this transportation bill comes before the Senate and before the Congress at a very sensitive moment in our discussions and deliberations here. The image of TWA Flight 800 is fresh in our mind. We all now grieve with those who lost loved ones, horrified at the shock that families, in some cases, lost two or three members of the family. One man lost his wife and two children. We can hardly comprehend the pain and the anguish that must go with something like that. What an odd coincidence that at the moment we are considering how much money we spend on transportation, including safety in the air and safety in other modes of transportation, we face a time when, again, we wish that we could have done more, if it was possible, to prevent something like that. I think it is important as we consider what the investment is going to be in transportation infrastructure in our society we not lose sight of what took place on that fateful day when TWA 800 went down. But we also cannot easily forget the ValuJet crash, the problem with the Delta Air Lines airplane as it was taking off and the mother and child were killed even though the airplane never got into the air; the engine disintegrated and tore into the fuselage. We, unfortunately, can recall an accident in New Jersey and an accident in Maryland on the rails when Amtrak, in the Maryland instance, and, in New Jersey, the New Jersey Transit Co. lost people as a result of a crash. We are all too familiar with what happens on our highways each day in each State; that when we invest in transportation, it is not simply another way to spend money; that it has a real life- and-death effect on the way people move between work and home or recreation and home or shopping and home; and that when we look at what happens with our air quality--and everybody is concerned about what we leave to future generations--we try to improve it the best way we can. And the significant way to do that is through effective investments in transportation. For the knowledge of the body--and I think everyone is aware of it, but I remind you even though it may be redundant--the United States, among the most advanced nations in the world, spends the least as a percentage of GDP on transportation infrastructure. When we look at the per capita spending in the United States on transportation infrastructure spending, we are the equivalent of some of the more primitive or more backward nations of the world, those on the African Continent, poor, poverty-stricken nations. I hope this year we recognize this is one area in which we cannot afford to skimp. This is an excellent bill considering the appropriations we had to work with. It is a much more balanced approach than the House-passed bill. The bill does an excellent job of addressing to the maximum degree possible--and I emphasize the maximum degree possible--the priorities of all Members as well as the priorities of the administration. It is a testament to Chairman Hatfield's cooperative effort that there is not even a hint of a veto overshadowing this bill. The administration has seen that the chairman has worked almost magic in terms of getting the appropriate balance with resources still too little, in my view. For the Federal Aviation Administration, the bill includes additional funds requested by the administration to address the specific problems associated with the transportation of hazardous materials. These materials have been implicated as the possible cause of the recent tragic ValuJet crash. Moreover, as we await answers to the many questions surrounding the tragedy on TWA flight 800, I think it is important to point out that the bill before us fully funds the administration's requested increase for civil aviation security. For the Coast Guard, the bill comes close to fully funding the Commandant's request for operations and acquisition. The Coast Guard has implemented its own well-designed streamlining plan to reduce costs, and I am pleased that they will not be required to endure further reductions as part of this bill. We depend on the Coast Guard to be ever ready and at their post in the event of all kinds of national contingencies, whether it is for emergency response to marine accidents and oilspills, search and rescue, national security, or, as we have seen most recently, the collection of evidence and debris from the TWA tragedy. We depend on the Coast Guard to be ready to serve on a moment's notice. I was in East Moriches, Long Island, a week ago Saturday shortly after the crash occurred, and I couldn't have been more proud of the Coast Guard, who was there as quickly as possible. I flew with the helicopter pilot who was the first Coast Guard pilot on the scene. He said when the sea was still burning, it looked like an inferno. And I saw the loyalty, despite the terrible stress, and the commitment of each of them, their having counseling and review of their own emotions, because in each case, they see themselves and they see their own families. The Coast Guard is a fantastic branch of service, Mr. President. Again, I do not want to leave out the NTSB and the FBI and the Navy and the others who are working so diligently to try to provide the answers that we hope will come soon. But a branch of service like the Coast Guard often does not get the credit that it deserves as we give them ever-more assignments. As one coastal State Senator, I assure you that they have served us well over last year, over the many years in the past. Within the Federal Highway Administration, the Appropriations Committee has been able to find sufficient resources to allow full funding for prior-year highway projects. The bill before us provides an overall increase in the obligation ceiling for highway formula funds. Within the Federal Transit Administration, the bill before us achieves a new high in the funding of transit discretionary capital grants, and while the bill freezes operations assistance at the fiscal 1996 level, it provides an increase for transit formula capital assistance. I am especially pleased with the committee's recommendations for the Federal Railroad Administration. The House-passed bill singled out Amtrak for some truly destructive funding cuts. The bill before us takes a much more balanced approach, and it provides full funding for the President's request for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program and the special one-time appropriations for new high-speed train assists. The bill also provides an increase for Amtrak's capital account, permitting them to invest in capital equipment, in trackage, in signs, in electrification. The only way Amtrak can hope to become self- sufficient is if it has adequate funds to invest in its deteriorating capital plant. The bill before us makes a sizable investment toward that goal. While there are some questions raised about Amtrak and its service in the highly populated Northeast Corridor, I remind our colleagues that were it not for Amtrak, and if we want to provide the same level of transportation facility to those who travel between Boston, New York, and Washington, we need something like 10,000 DC-9's a year to pick up that slack. Imagine, 10,000 extra airplane flights a year over our skies with all the noise and all the congestion and everything else. So, once again, the funds that we are investing are funds that have a significant effect on the quality of life of our citizens. Mr. President, it is with some pain that I must make note of the fact--and I have made note of the fact--that this will be the last appropriations bill that Senator Hatfield will manage in his capacity as subcommittee chairman. In many ways, I hope it is the last and hope that it will get to the President and get signed and we don't have to do this one over again. We shouldn't have to. But as always, his openness and fair mindedness has brought an ability to get things through the maze and bring it to this point and we hope soon to the President's desk. In his 2 years as chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Hatfield has certainly distinguished himself as an informed and wise policymaker in the transportation arena. I have always admired his leadership, and I will always treasure his friendship. Mr. President, it is obvious there is only one person I would rather see as chairman of that subcommittee than Senator Hatfield. I will not go any further. Just a joke. Once again, I commend this bill to all my colleagues, and I hope that they will work with us to support the passage of the bill and that it does not become a forum for other discussions. It is late in the year; it is late in the week. We will soon be departing this place for other activities back home, and it would be too bad if this bill became a forum for debate that is unrelated particularly to transportation matters. With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself so much time as I will use between now and the 13 minutes plus. Mr. President, I indicate my strong opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. It almost sounds like a vendetta. Talk about $18 billion worth of spending on Amtrak--my gosh, we spend over $8 billion a year on aviation; we spend over $20 billion a year on highways. Amtrak is the only serious railroad opportunity we have for passengers, and it has continued to prove its merit and its worth as time has gone by. Amtrak's farebox comes closer to its revenues than any other major passenger rail service in the world. It is ridiculous for the United States of America not to have a significant passenger rail service. Just look at what would happen in the Northeast corridor where it is believed that we service almost 100 million people. The Northeast corridor would need 10,000 full DC-9's a year to carry the traffic. Well, perhaps that's not true. Maybe we could push them onto the highways. We could put some 11 million people in their cars and tell them to drive between New York and Washington or Boston and Washington or Boston and New York or Boston and New Haven or Boston and Hartford or Boston and Providence. Get in your cars, use more gas, take up more time, that will mean more congestion, more foul air. That is what the alternative is. I have never seen anything so shortsighted in my life, but the speech sounds good--throw out statistics that have no merit in fact. One says we allocate by State, as I saw the chart displayed by the Senator from Arizona, at which time when I had a question, he refused to answer it. That is his privilege. He had the floor, and he is right, he did have the floor. But there is also something around here called common courtesy. But we pass on that these days. Mr. President, I have a letter in hand from no fewer than 19 of the Nation's Governors, both Republican and Democratic Governors, urging adequate capital funding for Amtrak. Among the Governors that have urged the committee to provide adequate capital funding of Amtrak are several who are mentioned as the potential Vice President to the nominee--the likely nominee--of the Republican Party: Gov. Tom Ridge from the State of Pennsylvania; my own Governor, very popular, very thoughtful, very well thought of, Gov. Christine Todd Whitman; Governor Pataki of New York; Governor Weld of Massachusetts; and Governor Rowland of Connecticut. I dare say, probably six Vice Presidential candidates there. I ask unanimous consent that this letter sent to Senator Hatfield and myself from 19 of the Nation's Governors be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The other side has?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How many?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If we can modify that, and that is that there be no second-degree amendments prior to a motion to table.

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