October 1,1979
Page 26977
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. I will be very brief.
Senator MELCHER's amendment would require spending higher than the levels authorized in the Amtrak bill which was only signed into law last week. It would increase Federal outlays $100 million above the levels assumed in the second budget resolution — even before we can go to conference with the House on the budget. It would, effectively, undo everything the Senate has struggled to do all year — as we have tried to find some way to make our passenger rail system operate more efficiently. Mr. President, I cannot support the Melcher amendment for those reasons.
When the Senate agreed to the second concurrent resolution on the budget, on September 19, we made what — in my view — was the wise and proper choice. We decided we had to come to grips with inflation, that to do so we were going to have to control Federal spending, and we adopted a plan which will lead to declining deficits and a balanced budget in fiscal 1981. We even decided we could trim spending, in legislation on which we had already acted.
There are those who will point out, Mr. President, that the budget is not a line item document. They will say it is inappropriate to try to enforce the Budget Committee's assumptions about the level of funding for any specific program — including Amtrak.
Let me point out, on the other hand, Mr. President, the difficulty of holding the line on the budget, if we do not raise the question of funding levels for individual programs. Funding for Amtrak falls in the transportation function — function 400 — in the budget. The resolution already assumes a $250 million rescission in the highway trust fund in function 400, making the total amounts assumed for all transportation programs extremely tight. If one were to fund Amtrak at a level above the budget assumption, presumably something else would have to be cut below our assumptions — or the deficit would increase. From where are those cuts going to come?
We will face this basic issue time and again this year. Everyone who wants to see a particular program or priority funded at higher levels will make the case that the budget is not binding on a line item basis — that it is "OK" to go over for this or that — and that we will make it up somewhere else.
We have endorsed a tight fiscal policy. As I said before, I think we are on the right track. I am not prepared to support anything which I believe has the potential to "bust the budget."
I urge my colleagues to reaffirm the decisions we made earlier. The Amtrak question has been before us, and we have settled it. Let us not reopen it. Let us stand by the decisions we have made to control Federal spending. I urge the rejection of the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I heartily support the position taken by Senator BELLMON and Senator CANNON. I am opposed to the Melcher amendment for three fundamental reasons.
May I emphasize what Senator BELLMON has said: the Senate, after extensive debate, adopted the second concurrent budget resolution. We have not yet gone to conference with the House. We increased the spending for defense in that resolution, and increased the deficit to over $31 billion. This amendment, if adopted, would further increase that deficit.
Mr. President, the Senate has debated this matter of Amtrak routes extensively.The Senate just agreed to the conference report on the Amtrak authorizing bill on September 24. The House approved it on September 26. The President signed the authorizing bill into law just this last Saturday.
The Melcher amendment is inconsistent with the new authorizing statute, which both the House and the Senate worked so hard to produce, and it is inconsistent in some specific ways which ought to create concern for Members of the Senate.
For example, it proposes to change the criteria just established when the President signed the law on Saturday from 150 passengers per train mile to 29 passengers per train mile, and from 7 cents avoidable loss per passenger mile to 25 cents avoidable loss per passenger mile.
In other words, Mr. President, the amendment proposes to preserve trains where the taxpayer subsidy is 25 cents per passenger per mile traveled. Surely that is an extravagant use of Federal funds, when we compare that number to the total fare charged by other modes.
Airlines, for example, charged 8.5 cents per passenger mile in 1978 and made a profit. Intercity buses charged about 6 cents per passenger mile. But this amendment would use Federal funds to pay 25 cents for Amtrak passengers per passenger mile.
Mr. President, surely at a time when within weeks we have come to understand the constraints on the Federal budget which have imposed sacrifices on such programs as school lunches — and the Senate voted to reduce the school lunch programs for non-needy students — and the constraints that force us to accept some restraint on the veterans' programs on the very same day, this is no time to be breaching a policy which was signed into law last Saturday, to spend Federal funds for the purposes I have outlined in my statement.
Mr. President, may I also make the point that as we go to the budget conference with the House of Representatives, the House-passed budget resolution assumes even more restraint for Amtrak than does the Senate resolution. So we cannot, in the budget resolution, make room for this $60 million to $80 million that is being talked of here, because the House number is lower. If the Senate should adopt this amendment and it should become law, we would then have to squeeze other programs or ask Senator LONG to raise more revenues through tax legislation to cover this additional spending.
Mr. President, I hope that we are learning that budget discipline requires restraint. It requires that we devote scarce resources to the highest priority needs.
With respect to Amtrak, that policy has been carefully worked out by Senator CANNON and Senator LONG in the Commerce Committee, has been carefully worked out in both houses, carefully worked out in conference, and the President has signed the result into law. This is no time to do that work over again and come up with the wrong design.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. In view of the problem some of us are going to have in some committees, may I refer to one problem we have in the Finance Committee? That budget resolution, as passed by the Senate, puts us under the burden of trying to come up with $1.4 billion worth of savings in social welfare areas. To try to meet that sort of objective, even though I voted to try to keep revenue sharing intact, it looks to me as though the Senate is going to be compelled to vote for something to cut revenue sharing, particularly at the State level. We shall have to vote for things like that.
We are going to have to vote, and bring to the Senate, proposals to cut back in social welfare spending involving things like disability, things like hospitalization, in areas involving social security. We would rather not do that, but we are going to have to recommend things like that to the Senate and come in here and participate with this thing if we are going to reach the objective of that budget resolution.
We have already started doing that, I say to the Senator, in the Finance Committee. We voted to send something out here that would cost some money; we are trying to find some ways to offset that and make a net revenue gain for the budget. We do not enjoy that kind of thing. It is much better for the majority to vote to do something for the needy or for sick people than it is to vote for something to take something away from somebody else. We have to think in terms of those priorities and we are doing it in the Finance Committee right now.
What does it make the Senate look like, after having voted by a 2-to-1 margin that we are not going to freeze this Amtrak system, having mustered the political courage to tell our constituents, yes, we are going to cut back on it. Here we are, already lost $3 billion on Amtrak:
We have been losing $40 million a year. Here we are losing hundreds of millions of dollars, trying to get this thing under control and make some savings. The administration brought to us, and this Senator supported, a resolution to discontinue nine trains, including the Crescent Limited. I was pleased to support that position and fight for it even when it was discontinuing the Crescent Limited, which terminates at New Orleans.
We are asking everybody to do their part. By the time we got through, in order to sell this to the House and come to terms with Senators with problems, we only discontinued five trains and the ones who lose the most in terms of service seem to come in at the bottom end.
How can we, in good conscience, ask committees to make the kind of savings that the Finance Committee is being asked to make on important social problems, if having agreed by a 2-to-1 margin that we ought to discontinue some of these trains, then when time runs out, we tremble at the very thought that some constituent might be unhappy saying, oh, no, we shall have to discontinue none at all.
Here is one example I gave the Senate sometime back. It costs about $5 to buy a bus ticket from Chicago to Milwaukee. The last estimate I heard is that we are losing $32 to get somebody to take the train from Chicago to Milwaukee. How can the bus people compete? We are losing $32 to keep somebody from buying a $5 bus ticket.
That is not affected by this. They can still enjoy a $32 loss with the Government subsidizing trips from.Chicago to Milwaukee, as close as those two cities are.
The question is, are we going to do anything, just anything? Or when the time comes and we are put to it, will somebody say, oh, no, just a minute, do not discontinue that train? Maybe it is someone on the train crew or maybe it is one of those people who have used it and prefers not to go by air, not to go by bus, or by car. In any event, if we cannot do anything in this area, how are we going to meet the objectives that we set out for ourselves when the Senate so courageously voted to say, we ought to balance that budget? How can we do that when we cannot even make economies onthis?
Mr. MUSKIE. I could not agree with the Senator more. The Senator has mentioned the $1.4 billion we have asked the Committee on Finance to save. In all, we have asked all committees to save $3.6 billion. The effect of this amendment would be to add $60 to $80 million to that amount of additional savings that would have to be found in other programs.
The Senate, of course, has the prerogative of doing that if. we can get the House to agree. But I do not see how we are going to get them to agree in the budget resolution, because the House has put even more restrictive discipline on Amtrak than the Senate has.
Mr. LONG. Is this not the key, I ask the Senator: If we are serious at all about even staying within the budget resolution that we have voted, or if we were serious at all when we voted on that debt limit bill some months ago to say we are going to balance the budget, we are going to have to vote to do things like this. Otherwise, we are just kidding the people and kidding ourselves that we are going to balance the budget or give the people of this country a run for their money when we cannot even do the things we have already agreed to.
Mr. STONE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to my colleague from Florida.
Mr. STONE. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, last week, the Senate came very close to adopting a principle which I recommended during debate on the Amtrak authorization bill. That principle is this: No train should be dropped from the Amtrak system that has better passenger or loss statistics than a train being kept.
There are trains in the system approved by the Congress that are projected to do worse in one or both of the criteria set by the Congress than a number of the trains slated for discontinuance. The Cardinal has a larger loss per passenger mile, based on fiscal year 1980 projections, and a lower projected passenger mile to train mile ratio than the Floridian, but it will be retained. The Shenandoah, a short haul route, will also be saved, even though it does not meet the less stringent criteria set out for short haul routes, and its projected loss per passenger mile is nearly twice that of the Floridian.
If we talk about the New York-to-Florida trains, the unfair treatment is even more blatant. The Champion and the Silver Meteor separately, taken on their own merits, have higher passenger mile to train mile ratios than the Crescent, the Sunset Limited, the Palmetto, the Empire Builder, the Panama Limited, the Inter-American, the Pioneer, and the Cardinal — all long distance trains being kept by one strategy or another in the DOT plan as amended by the authorization bill.
I do not have a breakdown of all the avoidable loss per passenger mile statistics, but I feel confident that if both of these trains were kept, their loss statistics would be much lower than. many of the trains being kept in the system. I would like to point out that last March the projected loss per passenger mile for all three Florida trains was 4.3 cents. Of the trains in jeopardy at one time or another since the DOT plan was released, only the Palmetto had a lower loss figure.All the trains mentioned above had higher projected losses.
Mr. President, what do these trains have to do to receive fair treatment? That is all we are asking for — to have these trains treated on an equal basis with other trains in the system. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Melcher amendment.
Mr. President, I am in support of the Melcher amendment.
Mr. MELCHER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I am prepared to yield the floor unless the Senator from Montana wants to ask a question.
Mr. MELCHER. No; I am about to propound a question.
Is the Senator aware that Amtrak has determined now, in the latest figure, a 34-percent increase in revenue in August of 1979 as compared to August of 1978?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not have the August figures, I say to the Senator.
Mr. MELCHER. I say that it is sometimes difficult to get up-to-date information out of Amtrak, but that is the case.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator saying that that increase is attributable to increased business on the lines he proposes to restore?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes; I am saying that, I respond to the Senator. I point out that one of the lines we proposed to restore is the Champion, which will go from New York to St. Petersburg, which ranks higher than the Crescent. It ranks right up in the top.
Mr. MUSKIE. Near the top in what respect?
Mr. MELCHER. In respect to passenger miles to train miles, in respect to increase in ridership.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, increase in ridership is a separate figure. If we start out with 10 passengers and add 5, that is a 50-percent increase, but it still falls far short of the 150 passengers per train mile that the bill signed into law last Saturday sets as the standard.
Mr. MELCHER. I ask the Senator, is he aware that that bill has as one of the requirements the quadrant system? The quadrant system limits the number of trains in a quadrant; therefore, under that system, some of the trains that are used the most, in the ratio used in Amtrak's criteria — that is, passenger miles to train miles — would be eliminated.
The point of our amendment is to add back trains, some of which are right at the top, but all of which are not at the bottom and are higher than trains kept in on a basis the very criteria which Amtrak uses.
Mr. MUSKIE. I gather what the Senator is referring to is the so-called addition of trains to achieve a regional balance.
I was not supportive of that. It seems to me the criteria written into the law last Saturday ought to be applied uniformly.
But in the interests of reaching an acceptable compromise, I gather, of course, I am not on the Commerce Committee, some trains were added in the way of a compromise, in the name of regional balance.
The fact that was done, to me, is an unfortunate result. That being the case, I would not like to see that unfortunate precedent built upon, to add other trains.
I am concerned with the viability of the system.
I will say to the Senator, in all frankness, we do not have passenger rail service in my part of the country at all. Our people have to travel by bus or private automobile if they drive at all. We have not had passenger rail service since 1956 and I doubt very much we will ever get it unless and until the case can be made that the passenger will support it.
I think if we are to make mass transportation work in this country, if we get public support for it, and if we are going to be able to justify Treasury support for it, that the case has got to be made on the viability of the proposed route in terms of the willingness of passengers to use it.
I do not think the country will sustain, at a time of budgetary constraint such as we face, the kinds of deficits generated, in large part, by lines that cannot meet the standard or come close to it.
I understand the Senator's frustration. I felt it for 23 years in my part of the country. We have not got passenger rail service, period, and we are even losing rail service for freight, which puts our region of the country at a competitive disadvantage.
I make that point not because I want to drag down other regions, but because I want to emphasize the point that, in order to get rail lines established, we have got to have an economic justification for it.
Mr. MELCHER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MELCHER. I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
The point I am trying to make is that whether or not we like the quadrant system, this regional balance, that is what was passed here, and in order to make some sense out of it, using the criteria uniformly, this amendment does that to retain additional trains.
But the part about the money, we very honestly say that Amtrak tells us we could project an additional $60 million cost.
But I must say, and I say this knowing how uncertain it is for Amtrak to project what the revenue is when it has been increasing, they are doing it on their old figures.
But based on their increased ridership, and these trains do show increased ridership, the revenues are up. It may well be that instead of costing $60 million, it will cost $30 million or $20 million. We do not know. But we are being honest.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator saying he has economic data to support the conclusion that, if his amendment passes, the result would be an increase in revenues that would reduce the projected deficit to $30 from the $60 to $80 million I mentioned.
Mr. MELCHER. We do not know exactly how much, and I am being very honest about it. We cannot tell how much. But 34-percent increase in revenue for Amtrak—
Mr. MUSKIE. That is overall.
Mr. MELCHER. I understand that.
Mr. MUSKIE. That does not mean lines that are so unproductive that, in fact, the Senate and House voted to drop them, that those lines will produce another $30 million in revenue next year. That does not make any sense.
Mr. MELCHER. The Senator has been so kind to yield to me, I will repeat what I said before.
One of the five trains that runs daily that has near the highest PM/TM — passenger miles per train miles — exceeded only by five, under their criteria, is going to be dropped.
There are others in here that do not rate that high, but they rate well from the bottom.
So what I am saying is that these are part of the ones showing the increased ridership. Therefore, the increased revenue—
Mr. MUSKIE. What I am trying to get out of the—
Mr. MELCHER. I have to honestly answer that based on 34-percent ridership increase, from August of 1979, over—
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the overall Amtrak system.
Mr. MELCHER. That is right. Some of the trains have accounted for that, that we are going to retain.
I cannot give a specific dollar amount, but instead of $60 million it may be much lower.
Mr. MUSKIE. I could argue that if Amtrak would extend its system to Portland, Maine, that we could guarantee them 29 passengers per train mile, and that is the standard the Senator's amendment would apply.
If he can argue that we are to retain the railroad because they could meet the 29 passengers per train mile standard, why should we not add mileage wherever the case can be made that that standard can be met?
Mr. MELCHER. That is not what I have in mind.
Mr. MUSKIE. So we can expand the system across the country, including unproductive lines and increasing the deficits, not only of Amtrak, but of the Treasury, generally.
Mr. MELCHER. Due to the complexity of our Amtrak criteria, that 29 is there. But it does not apply to the trains we are asking be reinstated. The ones to be reinstated are 75, 102, 103, and 140.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is that not in the amendment?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes; but I am stating an explanation to the Senator, that due to the complexity of the Amtrak criteria, we are using that as a baseline—
Mr. MUSKIE. Baseline just made law of 150.
Mr. MELCHER. That is true. But what we are saying is that using their baseline, all these trains we are reinstating — I will repeat — they are 75, 102, 103, 140,and 179.
Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator is saying is that, because those trains do not look good against a standard of 150, his amendment offers a standard of 29, which then puts all these lines above the standard and looking good.
I mean, that is an interesting way to make a case, but it still does not establish the economic justification, as far as I can see.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.