November 27, 1979
Page 33577
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I believe I can state very clearly in just a couple of minutes the issues involved here. The Senate has just voted by a vote of 54 to 41 against the approval of some $10 billion to be earmarked for the rehabilitation of railroads. In order to arrive at a formula that I think the Senate can and will approve, it has been suggested by a number of the sponsors of this amendment, and other Senators, that the $10 billion figure be reduced to $1 billion. The allocation formula remains the same as it did in the original amendment, except we are talking about only 10 percent as much money.
In addition to the Senators who were previously listed as sponsors of the earlier amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of the revised amendment: Senator RANDOLPH, Senator DOLE, Senator KENNEDY, Senator BAKER, and Senator NELSON.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I do not see where any further discussion is necessary. We have gone into the merits of this proposal. I believe Senators understand the issue. I hope the Senate will adopt the revised amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I favor a much larger railroad rehabilitation program than even the initial amendment called for. I think that we ought to have a very big program to rehabilitate the rails. It is my judgment that a great deal of it could be done by loan guarantees rather than by appropriation of funds. The best way to do it would be by way of the legislative committees. The Committee on Commerce, it seems to me, would have appropriate jurisdiction in this area. It is my privilege to serve on that committee, and I am chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. I would like to support the proposal to rehabilitate the railroads.
Now, the best way of doing this type of thing and how the money can be scheduled is something that should be the subject of hearings. It ought to be the subject of suggestions by the administration and all Senators in hearings, and, in due course, it ought to be a matter that the Appropriations Committee should pass on in the event that it requires appropriations.
As I have explained, before we are through with this bill, we are going to be accused of being fiscally irresponsible, unless I miss my guess, because the money that could be raised by the tax is being rapidly eaten up by suggestions of ways the money should be spent.
If some of the amendments that are recommended to us are agreed to, the expenditures will exceed the income. But in view of the fact that this has been modified from the initial suggestion of $10 billion to $1 billion, as far as I am concerned, I leave it up to the Senate to decide what they would like to do with the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BELLMON and Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, along with other Members of the Senate, I fully appreciate the need to revitalize the American rail freight system, but I question whether or not a floor amendment brought up as part of the so-called windfall profits tax bill is the way to do this. It seems to me that this is a matter of sufficient consequence that it needs the full legislative treatment and should not be dealt with here in this more or less expedient manner.
Also, Mr. President, I strongly oppose the backdoor spending that seems to be a growing tendency in Congress because we, in that way, do not have the opportunity for proper oversight.
On that basis, I strongly oppose this amendment and hope that we can, in the normal course of events, have a bill before us that will provide whatever help the Nation's railroads need.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I gather that the basic purpose of this amendment was debated on the earlier McGovern amendment that would, in fact, have reserved $10 billion for the same purposes for which the present amendment would reserve $1 billion.
Mr. President, one of the problems that I have had and that, apparently, at least 39 other Senators have had with the bill as it came from the Finance Committee was the fact that the bill, in effect, created trust funds and uncontrollable spending. This trend has afflicted budget habits in Congress for the 20 years that I have been here, to the point that our ability to serve changing future priorities is limited by the extent to which we have committed funds, committed revenues, in advance. This amendment, in my perspective, is another of the same kind of thing.
We are involved here with probably the largest tax bill we have considered in Congress in years or that we are likely to consider in the next decade or more. Before the revenues to be generated by this bill are subjected to the budget process in the full range of priorities which Congress has to consider in putting together its appropriations bills, we are already setting aside these revenues for particular projects to the disadvantage of others. I do not know how one sets priorities affecting $550 billion across the board if, one by one, as we bring up revenue measures, individual Senators are tempted to protect a single priority. What is the limit? If we set $1 billion aside for railroads with this amendment, what is to prevent Senators from running through the 17 functions of the budget and identifying particular pets to be set aside?
When I use the word, "pet," I am not denigrating the purpose or the objective of Senator McGOVERN's amendment. The need to deal effectively with our railroad problems in this country is indeed a high priority. I do not challenge that at all. Given our habits in the past, I do not question his use of this means to advance that objective. We have all done it. The whole Senate has done it. The whole Congress has done it in the past.
Mr. President, for reasons that I shall outline in greater detail later this afternoon, I think we have to call a halt to this tendency if we are to use the resources which we can project wisely, prudently and in accordance with the most sensitive response to the priority needs of this country.
I shall not belabor the point further. I understand that the issue has been debated earlier today. But I do oppose this amendment for these reasons — not because I challenge the objective or the motivations, but because I think this is the wrong way to serve that priority if we are to serve the other priorities which we are called upon to serve in the course of our budget deliberations.
Mr. ZORINSKY. Mr. President, I am wholly in support of the amendment of my colleague from South Dakota, to increase the funding for the Transportation Trust Fund in order to provide much-needed moneys for rail improvements and revitalization. There are thousands of miles of track throughout the country which have been allowed to fall into disrepair in past years, and are now inadequate to handle either the present or future needs of the railroad transportation system.
However, I think it should be pointed out that in upgrading our Nation's rail transportation system, the related safety costs for thousands of small communities could be enormous. Already small towns in my State of Nebraska are plagued by the problems caused by increased rail traffic and the incumbent hazards of insufficient grade crossings.
Scores of rural communities are dissected by major rail lines. In many cases ambulances are prevented from reaching victims or hospitals, or police are delayed in reaching the scene of a crime because a train of a 100 cars is running, or even stopped along the rail line, virtually slicing the town in two.
Greater use of those rail lines is both desirable and inevitable in future years, as higher energy costs encourage greater use of the more efficient modes of transportation, and as the demand for coal boosts rail traffic. I agree with Senator McGOVERN that funds should be devoted to aiding that process of rehabilitation and upgrading of rail lines, but we should not ignore the additional costs involved in aiding the affected communities to establish adequate grade crossings or other safety measures.
This is, Mr. President, a legitimate cost of improving our Nation's rail transit system, and a cost which should not be wholly borne by the communities involved.
It is my understanding that the funds Senator McGOVERN has proposed for rail revitalization could be used for this purpose. Before committing myself on this amendment, I would seek his reassurance that this is so.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the distinguished Senator from Nebraska that there is nothing in the language of my amendment that would prohibit the use of these funds for improvements in rail grade crossings. We must be mindful however, that this will eventually be subject to action of both the authorizing and appropriations committees. However it was my intent in offering this amendment to include funding for grade crossing improvements.
Mr. CULVER. Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was going to suggest that it be accepted on this side, but I understand there is some difference of opinion.
I appreciate the expression of both Senators BELLMON and MUSKIE and I think there is another point to be made. I think that point has been made by Senator McGOVERN and Senator CULVER. I am prepared to accept the amendment, but I understand there will be a motion to table.
Is that correct?
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, unless some others desire to debate, I move to lay the amendment on the table. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The result was announced — yeas 28, nays 67, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]