Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am a cosponsor. My name was crossed off because they were not able to get in touch with me, but I want to be sure that I am listed. I did ask that my name be included. I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is also clear on this side. We commend the Senator from New Mexico for offering it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment is cleared. It asks for a study that seems quite appropriate to see what has happened with fares in less populated areas. This side accepts it.

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I want to support the Harkin amendment. This amendment has been passed by the Senate in the past. Its provision was included in the original subcommittee bill because the language had been cleared by the majority and the minority leadership of the Labor, Health and Human Resources Committee. There was an objection raised. An objection was raised by other Senators on the provision. And then it was dropped by the full committee. So, Mr. President, simply, this provision provides for fairness for pilots that fly for U.S. carriers but does so between points that are outside the United States. The amendment extends the same collective bargaining rights that apply to the pilots that fly for U.S. carriers between domestic and foreign airports to pilots that fly for U.S. carriers from point to point outside the United States. They ought to be included. I support the Senator's amendment.

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

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, before I discuss my view of the bill that is before the Senate, I want to take a moment to thank Chairman Hatfield for the considerable work he has put into this bill. This was tough. The entire Transportation Subcommittee recognizes that we are fortunate to have Senator Hatfield as our new subcommittee chairman. Over the last several months, he has demonstrated a unique ability to provide balance to the discussion and to arrive at a consensus. I am not totally satisfied with the outcome of the bill, and I believe that the chairman shares my views. Our concern raises principally because the resources are lacking to confirm our belief of what ought to be invested in the transportation infrastructure in this country. We had several hearings, a thorough and complete set. The legislation before the Senate clearly demonstrates Senator Hatfield's leadership in putting this delicately balanced bill together. It probably fails to satisfy almost everyone, and the reason that the bill will fail to please is due to the inadequacy of resources. That is a pure and simple fact. I support H.R. 2002, the fiscal year 1996 Transportation appropriations bill. I do it, however, with obvious reluctance. My reluctance has nothing to do with the chairman's product or any single provision in the bill. Again, I cannot emphasize it too often, it is attributable entirely to the shrinking size of the bill itself. It contains $1 billion less than we spent in 1995. Madam President, for the last 8 years, I stood before the Senate as chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, and though I miss that role, I am nevertheless pleased to continue as the ranking member on the Transportation Subcommittee. I stood here and argued for an increase in balanced spending for transportation, and I make no apologies, none, for supporting spending that invests in our Nation's infrastructure, spending that boosts our efficiency, our competitiveness, and our productivity. My view is no different than that of dozens of economists across the philosophical spectrum. While many things have changed here in Washington over the years, my views on transportation spending have not; neither have those of the dozens of economists that I refer to, who believe that investments in infrastructure pay off in so many areas in our society. Infrastructure investment promotes efficiency. It can promote a better quality of life as we travel from work to home, home to recreation, or home to shopping or vacation. It affects us, obviously, in those ways. The amenities of life are considerably improved. It also affects very directly our environmental condition. Nothing fouls the air more than the proliferation of automobiles, trucks, and machines that produce toxic chemicals into our air. We ought not to have to deal with this in an advanced society like ours. By providing a balanced transportation network, we could avoid much of that grief and much of those problems. We are short of resources. The bill before the Senate cuts our national investment in transportation by $1 billion. I continue to believe that cuts of this magnitude undermine our prosperity ultimately and harm the traveling public. When I spoke in opposition to the budget resolution that passed the Senate, I did so as a member of the Budget Committee. What I had in mind when I voted in opposition were moments like these. We all support spending cuts that are prudent and well reasoned and in the national economic interest. But the budget resolution does not allow selectivity. It requires us to adopt slash-and-destroy tactics. A $1 billion cut in transportation demonstrates that fact. Look at the questions raised by this bill, at the needs it does not address, at the problems it will cause. While air traffic continues to rise, we find ourselves required to cut the FAA's operating budget more than $150 million below the President's request. While our Nation's cities are struggling to clean the air, minimize congestion, we slash mass transit operating subsidies, cuts that will increase fares, decrease service, and push more commuters out on the highways in their cars. After Amtrak has already gone through a painful series of service cuts and has reluctantly accepted a 23-percent cut in operating subsidies, we are now required to cut them even deeper and trigger yet another round of service reductions. I think that is ridiculous, for the United States, the leading economic power in the world, to have a railroad system that frankly compares to that in some of the developing countries. This Nation of ours is about 50th in per capita spending on infrastructure investments, and we rank way behind the countries that have the leading transportation systems, like France, like Germany, like Japan. I find it an intolerable condition. By the way, so do most, if not all, of our colleagues in this Chamber and I believe on the other side of the Capitol as well. And, we see it by the requests that come in--to me, and I know to Chairman Hatfield--by the dozens, from Members of the Senate who had specific projects that they wanted to be either initiated or continue. These were not in the tradition of what is commonly called bacon, or pork--whatever piece of the pig one chooses. The fact of the matter is, these requests were often very, very significant in terms of development of easier traffic routes and a more efficient economy in the region. There again, I hear it from almost all the Senators here--perhaps Senator Hatfield has heard more because he is now the chairman. But when I was chairman, I would get requests from virtually every State in this country, certainly every region. Here we have this incredible aviation system of ours. It handles millions of passenger miles each day. It works superbly. It is safe. But it is late, often. It is insufficient to meet the demands. As a consequence, we see the kind of pricing that I think could be lowered if we could expand the system to accommodate the growth. When our Nation's air traffic controllers are working under incredibly stressful conditions, we are going to penalize them further. We are going to require a reduction in their annual take-home pay by 2.5 percent. It does not sound like a good idea, but we are forced into that position because of the inability to fund the needs for FAA. We are making these cuts not because they represent solid policy choices; we are making them because the budget resolution gives us no choice. Certainly, the Appropriations Committee is not to blame for these cuts. The chairman has done the best that he could, and I consider it a privilege and a honor to work with him. It is the best he could do. We are from different parties and different regions of the country, but we share a common interest in investments in transportation infrastructure. The chairman has done the best he could under the insufficient funding that is available to us. As chairman of this subcommittee for the last 8 years, even when times were better and more funding was available, I decried the budgets at those times because they were insufficient to keep up with the growth and demands of our Nation. Now, as the resources are reduced substantially--and, yes, I would like to see us balance the budget, but I would not like to see it at a pace that is perilous to the economic well-being of this country, nor would I like to see it in such a way that it deprives us of the opportunity to be the competitive nation that we ought to be. I fought for larger investments in transportation infrastructure. It pained me to see the list of obsolete bridges that exist all over the country--a lot in my own State of New Jersey, the most densely populated State in the country, with very dense traffic. It pained me to see the inadequate roadways being ever more worn down by excessive traffic. I found it very difficult to accept the kind of intercity rail service and transit service that we see around our country when, again, we are the most prosperous nation in the world. We have made mistakes, yes. But the fact is, we have the ability to finance these things. We have an aviation system straining to meet schedules and service requirements because we, once again, are not making adequate investments. Be that as it may, we are guided, as I said earlier, by the budget resolution, not by our desires nor our beliefs in what ought to be taking place. This bill, as passed by the House of Representatives, included some substantial increases, especially in the areas of highway and airport grants and paid for those increases with severe cuts in mass transit and Amtrak. The Senate bill before us, however, is almost $400 million in outlays below the House bill. As a result, those programs that are treated most generously in the Senate are often frozen. Everything else has been cut. It is my hope that when this bill reaches conference, our subcommittee allocation will rise to the level that is approved by the House and we will have more money to work with. At that time I hope we can address some of the most severe funding cuts in the bill. Some of the most problematic provisions that I find in our bill include this provision I discussed, to cut the pay of our air traffic controllers. I know the incentive pay program, which is cut in this bill, was initially designed as a one-time initiative to bring the structure back. It was just after the illegal strike that took place, and it was designed to strengthen and fill the personnel requirements that we needed. But now, this is many years later, it is a basic element in every air traffic controller's compensation plan. So it is my hope, when we get to conference and can add more funding to the FAA operations, we will be able to avoid a pay cut for our air traffic controllers. They work hard; they earn their money. We want their nerves to be good and calm, and we want them to be able focus on their job. I am equally concerned with language in the bill which exempts the FAA system from many civil service rules and the language requiring workers on workers' comp to retire, saying to them, ``You have to quit now because you are deriving benefits from workers' compensation.'' It is without, I think, an understanding that these people may be able to get back to work in the not-too-distant future and would probably like to have their positions back if they are able. There is no question, no question in my mind at all, that we need serious reform at the FAA. But true reform has to be comprehensive. I hope and I know that the chairman of the Commerce Committee, with me, will move forward with appropriate comprehensive reform legislation so that we do not need to take this kind of action in the final appropriations bill. I know that, if Senator Hatfield was in a better position to provide more funding in the FAA's budget request, he would not be proposing some of these ideas in the appropriations bill. But he was forced to take an action, as they say, to balance the books. Finally, I am concerned with the formula change in transit operating assistance. Simply put, the Federal Government has been the partner in the transit systems around the country and has provided some measure of funding. We find it in New Jersey, and I know we find it in States around the country. But this program is being cut now by 44 percent, which means that unless the States can come up with, or the local communities, or the metropolitan trading area authorities can come up with more money, fares are going to go up significantly. This program is being cut 44 percent, the largest single cut of any major formula program in the bill. And make no mistake about it, the cuts will mean transit service reductions. People are going to have to pay more to get to work, to get to shopping, and to get around the community. So this is going to be painful when these increases finally arrive at home. The formula has been changed, so that larger urban systems will have disproportionately larger cuts than the more rural, smaller systems. And it makes the problem even worse in many of the cities, including the cities in my State. I know many people view this provision as a way to spare some of these transit agencies that are most dependent on Federal assistance. However, this provision can also be viewed as rewarding the very municipalities that have made the least local funding commitment to transit. I hope that this formula change will be reviewed or done away with during the conference committee action on the bill. Despite all these reservations, Madam President, I once again commend my colleague and friend and chairman for his hard work on this bill. He has done an extraordinary job with the resources available. I thank him for the cooperative spirit and fair-mindedness that he has always maintained throughout the process. I also want to thank the staff people who have been so helpful--on the chairman's side Pat McCann, Anne Miano, and Joyce Rose, people who were part of my staff when I was chairman. They have continued to do the work just as faithfully and just as expertly without any glitches as a result of the party change there, people who are committed to the assignment of transportation appropriations. And they do it well. And I thank my own staff person, Peter Rogoff, for his continued assistance and his personal growth on the job; he has taken over more responsibility and has done more than well. As the chairman has already noted, the bill before us is at its ceiling both in budget authority and outlays. So any amendments that are offered will have to be fully offset in both budget authority and outlays. I want to join the chairman in our hope that any of those who have amendments will come to the floor as soon as possible so that we can continue progress on the bill. Privilege of the Floor Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Joanne Horne, a congressional fellow with the Transportation Subcommittee, be granted privileges of the floor during the debate on this legislation.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have no objection.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is cleared on this side, Mr. President. I urge the adoption of the amendment. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2333

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We support the amendment on this side as well, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you. No campaign is successful without a good army. The Senator from California is not only one of the best scouts but one of the strongest fighters, as well, in military terminology. Mr. President, I close my remarks with just one little tale about what happens in the migratory seasons with birds as they pass through New Jersey, and the people that flock out there, along with the birds, at 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning to be ready to see the species traveling north to south and vice versa, depending on the season. What a thrill. They hear a bunch of adults yelling, ``Here it is,'' and they identify this remote species of a bird we have not seen in 20 years, and everybody is thrilled about it, and it reaches all the local newspapers. Maybe it is because we are such a crowded State that we in many ways are more protective of the species than, sometimes, perhaps, people who have such an abundance of them within their State. Mr. President, I hope that we will adopt this amendment without any fuss or bother. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is always a pleasure to yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the offset that permits us to add $4.5 million comes from a decrease in funding for the Bureau of Mines Now, I want to say this: The Bureau is one of the few agencies in the bill that received the President's full request. The House bill, on the other hand, eliminates the Bureau. I want to say this, particularly in the presence of my distinguished colleague and friend from West Virginia: This amendment does not eliminate the Bureau. I would not support that. I believe that the Bureau conducts important research on mine and worker safety. There has been no stronger advocate on concerns for miner health and well-being than the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, we have struck a balance with some small adjustments here and there. It is a positive mood on behalf of our ecology, and frankly on the human race. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment. As I look at past history and think of what it costs us overall when mistakes are made in protecting the environment, mistakes like the Exxon Valdez spill, that cost over $1 billion, and numerous other oil spills that have almost decimated the ecology in a particular area, when we look here and we see that we are funding protection of endangered species with a $59 million appropriation, and that only because we are able to add $4.5 million--compared, by the way, to $69 million last year; a very significant decrease, about 15 percent if my arithmetic serves me--a budget request for the Endangered Species Act was $77.5 million. We are off almost 20 percent from there. These are huge cuts. Mr. President, when I think of something like the Endangered Species Act, I cannot help but think of my grandchildren's faces and how delighted my children were when we would go on a trip into the mountains. We did a lot of travel and we would see a deer, or even small animals like a raccoon, or to see the larger animals like the trip we were able to take in which we saw lions, baboons, and elephants. It almost would bring tears to their eyes when we discussed what might happen to these species if they were left unprotected. We see it happening all over the world. In America, where we value our ecology, where we value the inhabitants of our Earth, we ought not to be talking about how we stop the process, but rather how we encourage the process of protection. When we look at the return of the bald eagle, it excites all of us. I have been to Alaska--one of the most beautiful places certainly in our country--to see the bald eagle recover from the days of earlier times when the species kept reducing. There are bald eagle pairs now seen in New Jersey, the most crowded State in the country. It is a thrill to see them. In New Jersey now, sometimes some of it gets some of the neighborhood people disturbed, but we have sightings that confirm that there are at least 200 black bear and possibly up to as many as 600 in the State of New Jersey. This is a group of animals that was almost totally gone. It is not good if they chew in your garbage and things of that nature, but when you ask the little kids whether they like the pictures of the black bear and so forth, they thrill to the opportunity.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise because I am actively supporting the amendment of the Senator from Nevada. I would like to take a few minutes to outline my reasons for doing so and to thank, in particular, Senator Reid from Nevada, for his leadership on this amendment. I want to note that his battle has been a relatively long one, and fairly detailed, to protect the species that mean so much to all of us. It is not simply one bird, one fish, one insect of sorts, one shrub, or one plant; this problem of endangered species, long ignored, will endanger the well-being of the human race. So I commend him and, of course, the distinguished chairman of the environmental committee, Senator Chafee. I also thank our perennial leader, with or without titles, for his distinguished service in the U.S. Senate for so many years, someone who always reminds us about our responsibilities, sometimes not often enough, to get the people's work done. And, of course, that is Senator Byrd from West Virginia, whom I have had the pleasure and opportunity to work with on so many things during his chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, during his ranking standing on the Appropriations Committee, always with a guiding hand, and someone whose counsel and advice I treasure. I thank them all because this means a great deal to me. I am delighted that there is a compromise of sorts that does lend more funding to the Endangered Species Act. I cosponsored this amendment. The bill, as it is written, includes drastic cuts in the endangered species program. And if those cuts are left to stand as they are, it would provoke rather than solve problems in the administration of the program. The cuts that are still there, despite the fact that we have been able to add $4.5 million to the program, will reduce the flexibility of the Department of the Interior to work cooperatively with landowners in complying with the Endangered Species Act and slow rather than speed the recovery of the species. It is obvious that I support the Endangered Species Act, and I do so because it has worked successfully in many instances. Enacted over two decades ago, the Endangered Species Act was a bold attempt to halt the dangerous disappearance of an increasing number of species. The act does more than preserve species; it protects the human race, and it protects people by conserving the biological resources upon which we so much depend. The act, as it stands, is not perfect, and the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, is actively working to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. Thusly, I think some of the actions being taken which preempt that legislation are precipitous in nature. And while we hope to address many of the faults that exist, we are still working to preserve the positive aspects of the act during the reauthorization process. Mr. President, this bill would reduce funding for those activities that are considered to be the most positive aspects of the act. Over the last 2 months, the Environment and Public Works Committee has held five hearings on reauthorization. In those hearings, we have heard many different points of view--from those who want the program to be totally voluntary, to those who feel the program does not go far enough. However, most people support the conservation of threatened or endangered species, and most testify that the key to protecting threatened or endangered species is to provide incentives for private property owners to help them do the right thing. Mr. President, last week, the Keystone Center, a conference group, issued its final report on ``Incentives for Private Landowners to Protect Endangered Species,'' so titled. This report documents the consensus proposal of a diverse group of people involved in the review of the act. They agreed that ``it would be highly desirable to further the goal of conserving endangered species through greater voluntary participation and the involvement of the private sector and by providing positive incentives that reward landowners for taking action to protect or conserve endangered or threatened species and their habitat.'' Now, we ought to take these recommendations to heart and ensure that private landowners and local governments do not alone bear the brunt of the cost of recovery. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not state my firm opposition to bill language that implements a moratorium on listing and designation of critical habitat. This moratorium, in my view, is damaging and harmful. Our endangered species will continue to be threatened and maybe even totally terminated. The costs of recovery will continue to mount. And the Fish and Wildlife Service will find itself paralyzed to effect any improvements in the administration of this act. Last April, the Senate imposed a similar moratorium on listings while we considered the defense supplemental bill. While I opposed this provision, I understood that it would be in effect until the end of this fiscal year, September 30, 1995. Now, Mr. President, we see the moratorium extended for yet another year or until reauthorization. Now, I am pleased that the committee agreed to limit it for 1 additional year, but I must say that I strongly disagree with the moratorium notion altogether. However, this amendment does not touch the moratorium on listing and designation of critical habitat. Let me make it clear: It does not remove the moratorium. The amendment simply increases the funding for prelisting activities--a little preventive medicine; consultation, which allows cooperation with landowners; and recovery programs to remove species from the list. Nothing more and nothing less. Over the past few days, I received letters from organizations that are concerned with the slash in funding of the Endangered Species Act programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the Western Urban Water Coalition, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, a joint letter from six religious organizations, a resolution from the Western States Land Commissioners Association all in support of increases in ESA funding. It is quite a diverse group.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment which would restore a minimal amount of funding to our Nation's cultural endowments and the Institute of Museum Services. I am a cosponsor of this amendment. I proudly stand here in support of the NEA, the NEH, and the IMS. The cuts in this bill which devastate the endowments will have serious implications on our local theaters, arts classrooms and on the creative voice of our Nation. Let us not kid ourselves. These cuts are not a result of fiscal restraint. The cost of maintaining the NEA amounts to 65 cents a person. A few days ago, we in the Senate defeated an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill that would have eliminated the $7 billion increase over the budget request. Seven billion dollars. Some may say that we need these funds to boost readiness. Mr. President, some may not know that the Department of Defense spends more money on military bands than we appropriate for the NEA. In fiscal year 1995, the Department was appropriated $179.5 million. That is over $10 million more than was appropriated for the NEA in fiscal year 1995, and almost twice as much as is appropriated for the NEA in this bill. Opponents of the NEA, NEH, and the IMS contend that Government should not fund the arts. Perhaps the entities should be privatized. Mr. President, military bands play for free, with no private cost share. On the other hand, every Endowment dollar attracts $11 for the arts from State, regional and local arts agencies, foundations, corporations, businesses, and individuals. Now, I am not against military bands. But to claim that the NEA receives too much money while the military receives almost twice as much for military bands reflects skewed priorities. I am a longtime supporter of the Endowments. I fully believe that the arts and humanities reflect and shape what we are as a nation. It is not just the Lincoln Centers, the New Jersey Performing Arts Centers, the McCarter Theaters--it is a schoolchild's first exposure to creativity when he or she writes a poem or a story or draws a picture in class. It is their enchantment at hearing their first opera on a fifth grade field trip. It is their joy in performing in their grade school play or their high school production. It is the joy of millions who see productions from the smallest community theaters to Broadway, from the church pageant to the Mark Taper Forum in LA; from the band that plays in the local municipal Fourth of July parade to the Tyrone Guthrie Playhouse in Minneapolis. It is how America is represented to the rest of the world. It is how America reaches the rest of the world. These are our Shakespeares, our Maya Angelous, our Mary Cassats, our Dizzy Gillespies and Count Basies and Lionel Hamptons; our Whitney Houstons, and our Jane Alexanders whose achievements will never enlighten and enchant and allow generations to dream if we eliminate the funding. In the name of budget cutting we will be killing off a vital part of what we are. What we spend on the arts now is minuscule compared to the return. the arts are our past, our present, and our future. They are our collective memory and our collective dream. Mr. President, I have heard from hundreds of New Jerseyans on the NEA and the NEH. The level of support for the NEA and NEH is overwhelming. Let me relay to the Senate selections from a few of those letters: I am an eleven year old music student. My father has told me that throughout history, almost all civilized governments have supported the arts. I feel it would be a tragedy for this country, the greatest in human history, to abandon the arts, and allow much beauty to wither away. * * * * * How can we contemplate eliminating these cultural necessities while still pretending to be a great, mature nation? The more we cut, the more careful we must be in order not to lose what is valuable. Wholesale slash-and-burn is no substitute for intelligent government. * * * * * One of the reasons I love living in New Jersey is indeed for the easy availability of the arts here. For a country that prides itself on freedom of speech and a diversity of points of view, it is only fitting that the nation as a whole would act as an arts patron. This is hardly a novel idea--the other industrialized nations subsidize their arts and artists at far higher rates than we do. * * * * * Please don't let the NEA die. Let our elected leaders help to leave a legacy to future generations. Help these generations become the enlightened, enriched citizens of tomorrow. Mr. President, my constituents say it better than I do. Support this meager increase in funding for the NEA, the NEH, and the IMS. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like, if we can, to amend that unanimous-consent agreement that was just propounded by asking further under unanimous consent that the 10 minutes that may be available for debate be equally divided.