[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 115 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                HIGH SPEED RAIL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1994

  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4867) to authorize appropriations for high-speed rail 
transportation, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4867

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``High-Speed Rail Development 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) high-speed rail offers safe and efficient 
     transportation in certain densely traveled corridors linking 
     major metropolitan areas in the United States;
       (2) high-speed rail may have environmental advantages over 
     certain other forms of intercity transportation;
       (3) Amtrak's Metroliner service between Washington, 
     District of Columbia, and New York, New York, the United 
     States premiere high-speed rail service, has shown that 
     Americans will use high-speed rail when that transportation 
     option is available;
       (4) new high-speed rail service should not receive Federal 
     subsidies for operating and maintenance expenses;
       (5) State and local governments should take the prime 
     responsibility for the development and implementation of 
     high-speed rail service;
       (6) the private sector should participate in funding the 
     development of high-speed rail systems;
       (7) in some intercity corridors, Federal planning 
     assistance may be required to supplement the funding 
     commitments of State and local governments and the private 
     sector to ensure the adequate planning, including reasonable 
     estimates of the costs and benefits, of high-speed rail 
     systems;
       (8) improvement of existing technologies can facilitate the 
     development of high-speed rail systems in the United States; 
     and
       (9) Federal assistance is required for the improvement, 
     adoption, and integration of developed technologies for 
     commercial application in high-speed rail service in the 
     United States.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL HIGH-SPEED RAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Amendments.--(1) Part D of subtitle V of title 49, 
     United States Code, is redesignated as part E, chapter 261 of 
     such title is redesignated as chapter 281, and sections 26101 
     and 26102 of such title are redesignated as sections 28101 
     and 28102.
       (2) Subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after part C the following new part:

                       ``PART D--HIGH-SPEED RAIL

               ``CHAPTER 261--HIGH-SPEED RAIL ASSISTANCE

``Sec.
``26101. Corridor planning.
``26102. High-speed rail technology improvements.
``26103. Safety regulations.
``26104. Authorization of appropriations.
``26105. Definitions.

     ``SEC. 26101. CORRIDOR PLANNING.

       ``(a) Corridor Planning Assistance.--(1) The Secretary may 
     provide under this section financial assistance to a public 
     agency or group of public agencies for corridor planning for 
     up to 50 percent of the publicly funded costs associated with 
     eligible activities.
       ``(2) No less than 20 percent of the publicly funded costs 
     associated with eligible activities shall come from State and 
     local sources, not including funds from any Federal program.
       ``(b) Eligible Activities.--(1) A corridor planning 
     activity is eligible for financial assistance under 
     subsection (a) if the Secretary determines it to be necessary 
     to establish appropriate engineering, operational, financial, 
     environmental, or socioeconomic projections preliminary to 
     implementation of specific high-speed rail improvements. 
     Eligible corridor planning activities include--
       ``(A) environmental assessments;
       ``(B) feasibility studies emphasizing commercial technology 
     improvements or applications;
       ``(C) economic analyses, including ridership, revenue, and 
     operating expense forecasting;
       ``(D) assessing the impact on rail employment of developing 
     high-speed rail corridors;
       ``(E) assessing community economic impacts;
       ``(F) coordination with State and metropolitan area 
     transportation planning and corridor planning with other 
     States;
       ``(G) operational planning;
       ``(H) route selection analyses and purchase of rights-of-
     way for proposed high-speed rail service;
       ``(I) preliminary engineering and design;
       ``(J) identification of specific improvements to a 
     corridor, including electrification, line straightening and 
     other right-of-way improvements, bridge rehabilitation and 
     replacement, use of advanced locomotives and rolling stock, 
     ticketing, coordination with other modes of transportation, 
     parking and other means of passenger access, track, signal, 
     station, and other capital work, and use of intermodal 
     terminals;
       ``(K) preparation of financing plans and prospectuses; and
       ``(L) creation of public/private partnerships.
       ``(2) No financial assistance shall be provided under this 
     section for corridor planning with respect to the main line 
     of the Northeast Corridor, between Washington, District of 
     Columbia, and Boston, Massachusetts.
       ``(c) Criteria for Determining Financial Assistance.--
     Selection by the Secretary of recipients of financial 
     assistance under this section shall be based on such criteria 
     as the Secretary considers appropriate, including--
       ``(1) the relationship of the corridor to the Secretary's 
     national high-speed ground transportation policy;
       ``(2) the extent to which the proposed planning focuses on 
     systems which will achieve sustained speeds of 125 mph or 
     greater;
       ``(3) the integration of the corridor into metropolitan 
     area and statewide transportation planning;
       ``(4) the potential interconnection of the corridor with 
     other parts of the Nation's transportation system, including 
     the interconnection with other countries;
       ``(5) the anticipated effect of the high-speed rail service 
     on the congestion of other modes of transportation;
       ``(6) whether the work to be funded will aid the efforts of 
     State and local governments to comply with the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
       ``(7) the past and proposed financial commitments and other 
     support of State and local governments and the private sector 
     to the proposed high-speed rail program, including the 
     acquisition of rolling stock;
       ``(8) the estimated level of ridership;
       ``(9) the estimated capital cost of corridor improvements, 
     including the cost of closing, improving, or separating 
     highway-rail grade crossings;
       ``(10) rail transportation employment impacts;
       ``(11) community economic impacts;
       ``(12) the extent to which the projected revenues of the 
     high-speed rail service, along with any financial commitments 
     of State or local governments and the private sector, are 
     expected to cover capital costs and operating and maintenance 
     expenses;
       ``(13) whether a specific route has been selected, specific 
     improvements identified, and capacity studies completed; and
       ``(14) whether the corridor has been designated as a high-
     speed rail corridor by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 26102. HIGH-SPEED RAIL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS.

       ``(a) Authority.--The Secretary may undertake activities 
     for the improvement, adaptation, and integration of developed 
     technologies for commercial application in high-speed rail 
     service in the United States.
       ``(b) Eligible Recipients.--In carrying out activities 
     authorized by subsection (a), the Secretary may provide 
     financial assistance to any United States private business, 
     educational institution located in the United States, State 
     or local government or public authority, or agency of the 
     Federal Government.
       ``(c) Consultation With Other Agencies.--In carrying out 
     activities authorized by subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     consult with such other governmental agencies as may be 
     necessary concerning the availability of appropriate 
     technologies for commercial application in high-speed rail 
     service in the United States.

     ``SEC. 26103. SAFETY REGULATIONS.

       ``The Secretary shall promulgate such safety regulations as 
     may be necessary for high-speed rail.

     ``SEC. 26104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Fiscal Year 1995.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary $29,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1995, for carrying out sections 26101 and 26102.
       ``(b) Fiscal Year 1996.--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary $40,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1996, for carrying out section 26101.
       ``(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, for carrying out 
     section 26102.
       ``(c) Fiscal Year 1997.--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary $45,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1997, for carrying out section 26101.
       ``(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, for carrying out 
     section 26102.
       ``(d) Funds to Remain Available.--Funds made available 
     under this section shall remain available until expended.

     ``SEC. 26105. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this chapter--
       ``(1) the term `financial assistance' includes grants, 
     contracts, and cooperative agreements;
       ``(2) the term `high-speed rail' has the meaning given such 
     term under section 511(n) of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976;
       ``(3) the term `publicly funded costs' means the costs 
     funded after April 29, 1993, by Federal, State, and local 
     governments;
       ``(4) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of 
     Transportation;
       ``(5) the term `State' means any of the several States, the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any 
     other territory or possession of the United States; and
       ``(6) the term `United States private business' means a 
     business entity organized under the laws of the United 
     States, or of a State, and conducting substantial business 
     operations in the United States.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) The table of chapters of 
     subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the items relating to part D and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:

                       ``PART D--HIGH-SPEED RAIL

``261. HIGH-SPEED RAIL ASSISTANCE.............................26101....

                        ``PART E--MISCELLANEOUS

``281. LAW ENFORCEMENT.....................................28101''.....

       (2) The table of sections of chapter 281 of title 49, 
     United States Code, as such chapter is redesignated by 
     subsection (a)(1) of this section, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``26101'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``28101''; and
       (B) by striking ``26102'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``28102''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Schenk] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk].
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SCHENK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)


                             general leave

  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.R. 4867, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4867, the High-
Speed Rail Development Act of 1994.
  I introduced this bill on August 1 with the most distinguished 
chairman of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Swift].
  Mr. Speaker, high-speed rail is an idea whose time has arrived. H.R. 
4867 represents the first commitment in the history of this great 
Nation to the development and implementation of a high-speed rail 
transportation network.
  As any schoolchild studying American history can tell us, this 
country was shaped and built by its rail systems. However, over the 
decades, we have largely abandoned rail for autos, trucks, and 
airplanes. Decades have passed and we have begun to realize that our 
skies are becoming congested and our highways have become rivers of 
slow-moving red lights. Meanwhile, the booming economies of Europe and 
Asia were investing in, of all things, rail. No, not the trains of our 
nostalgia but new, high-tech, high-speed equipment zooming along 
cleanly, safely, quietly, and efficiently at speeds of over 125 and 150 
miles per hour.
  In this country, across the spectrum, transportation experts, public 
officials, and average citizens were beginning to think about and talk 
about high-speed rail for the United States. In the early 1980's, I was 
California's Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing. At 
that time I started to learn about the potential of high-speed rail. We 
were just breaking ground for our then newest and most expensive 
freeway, the Century Freeway. In 1980 dollars it was to cost $100 
million a mile for 17 miles. For those who always stopped the 
discussion about high-speed rail at the dollar amounts involved, we now 
had some comparisons.
  At the start of the Clinton administration and this 103d Congress, 
some old and new hands came together to provide the first real steps 
needed to bring about high-speed rail in this Nation. Long-time 
supporters such as our distinguished and esteemed full committee 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and our 
distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Swift], joined with newcomers such as me, with the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], with our 
subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], and 
with our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], and we 
began to work on this issue.

  The administration, especially Secretary of Transportation Pena, also 
gave us strong support. In April of last year, the adminstration's 
original high-speed rail proposal was introduced. That legislation, 
H.R, 1919, was reported out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in 
late July. Meanwhile, we were visited here in Washington and across the 
country by the tilt train of Sweden and the ice train of Germany, two 
high-speed rail marvels.
  Unfortunately, following our full committee markup, it became very 
clear that we could not provide the funding levels specified in that 
bill. There were also other problems.
  For the past several months, we on the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce have worked with the Department of Transportation and the 
Federal Railroad Administration to resolve the funding and other issues 
and to forge a consensus bill that reflects the realities of a tight 
budget. H.R. 4867 is the product of those efforts. This is a very 
different bill from the one originally reported out.
  Our ultimate goal is the construction of a safe, fast, efficient, and 
environmentally sound high-speed rail transportation system. H.R. 4867 
establishes the policy framework and takes the first steps toward 
achieving that goal. It authorizes total appropriations of $29 million 
in fiscal year 1995, $70 million in fiscal year 1996, and $85 million 
in fiscal year 1997 for two primary purposes.
  It is important to underscore again that these dollar amounts are 
vastly different than the original $1.8 billion in H.R. 1919.

                              {time}  1310

  Section 26101 of the bill specifics criteria for Federal assistance 
to States for purposes of corridor planning.
  In 1992, the Department of Transportation identified five high 
priority, high-speed rail corridors, including from my hometown of San 
Diego to Los Angeles, and San Francisco and Sacramento via the San 
Joaquin Valley. In addition to the five corridors specified, the 
existing New York State high-speed corridor is also eligible for 
Federal assistance.
  Under H.R. 4867 the Federal Government can provide up to 50 percent 
in matching funds to States for a variety of corridor activities, 
including environmental assessments, economic analysis, feasibility 
studies, preliminary engineering and the acquisitions of rights of way.
  Section 26102 authorizes the Secretary to provide funding for the 
adaptation and integration of developed technologies for commercial 
application in this country. This type of commitment to technology 
development is long overdue. High-speed innovations such as maglev and 
the tilt train are U.S. technologies that have been commercialized 
and applied overseas.

  It is my hope that this bill will jump-start the efforts of private 
industry and help create thousands of jobs in our country. For States 
and localities such as my own home State of California, high-speed rail 
can be one of the most important modes of transporting people and goods 
into the future. So today it is a special, indeed a momentous occasion 
for me, and I feel privileged to offer H.R. 4687.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my most heartfelt appreciation to 
both Chairman Dingell and Chairman Swift for moving with me on this 
issue and for providing me the privilege of offering the bill today. 
They and their outstanding staffs have been extremely generous. In 
particular I want to commend Chairman Swift for his tireless leadership 
on these issues. He is an inspiration to us all and his pending 
retirement is this body's loss. I also want to thank and commend our 
ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], and our 
subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], for 
their support, efforts, and cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support approval of this legislation to 
advance the development of high-speed rail passenger service in the 
United States. This bill is a modest first step in a long-term process: 
It is aimed at assisting State and local governments with the costs of 
pre-construction activities such as planning, environmental 
assessments, and refinement of developed technologies for use in high-
speed rail corridors.
  Although I had hoped for broader legislation in this area, H.R. 4867 
will help lay the foundation for actual construction of the various 
infrastructure improvements needed for future high-speed rail passenger 
service.

  I want to commend Chairman Dingell, Subcommittee Chairman Swift, and 
the subcommittee's ranking member, Mike Oxley, for their work on this 
legislation.
  We in California are particularly conscious of the benefits of high-
speed rail as part of our overall transportation strategy. It is 
energy-efficient, environmentally benign, and it helps alleviate 
traffic congestion and meet our Clean Air Act air quality standards.
  We know that the Nation's freight railroads will be key players in 
the ultimate operation of high-speed rail passenger service, because 
they own most of the rights-of-way which will have to be used for high-
speed corridors. In California, we have so far been successful in 
obtaining the cooperation of the freight carriers in making rights--of-
way available for our conventional passenger and commuter service. As 
we move on to high-speed rail, it is quite clear that suitable 
liability arrangements will have to be made to assure access to needed 
facilities. I believe that this is an area where the Department of 
Transportation can perform a vital service in its planning processes-
both under current law and under this legislation. DOT can help to 
suggest approaches to addressing the liability problem as part of the 
planning and other pre-construction preparations provided for in this 
bill.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our 
distinguished full committee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Mr. Swift, for his leadership 
regarding this legislation. I also want to thank the ranking Republican 
member of the Committee, Mr. Moorhead, and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Oxley, for their help and support. Finally, I want to 
offer special thanks to the author of this legislation, Ms. Schenk, and 
to Mr. Upton.
  H.R. 4867 is not the same bill the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
passed last year. Due to budget constraints, this legislation has been 
scaled back significantly.
  Given available resources, this is the best we can do at this time. 
H.R. 4867 is a corridor planning and technology development bill which 
authorizes activities to assist in the implementation of steel-wheel 
high-speed rail transportation. It focuses on practical and efficient 
use of limited resources.
  High-speed rail transportation is a field of great potential public 
benefit. It is recognized increasingly as an economically viable and 
socially acceptable solution to problems facing many intercity 
corridors. Changes need to be made in our transportation priorities by 
encouraging interested State and local governments to facilitate the 
development of needed high-speed rail corridors.
  Although H.R. 4867 contains no construction or corridor 
implementation, it does contain important provisions to provide the 
framework for future high-speed rail corridors. It allows the Secretary 
of Transportation to provide financial assistance to States or public 
agencies for eligible high-speed rail corridor planning activities. It 
also allows the Secretary to provide financial assistance for developed 
technology improvements to assist in the implementation of high-speed 
rail service in the United States.
  H.R. 4867 is a modest step forward in the development of steel-wheel 
high-speed rail activities, but it is at least a step in the right 
direction.
  I would like to thank FRA and DOT for their help and guidance in 
crafting this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4867.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4867, the High-Speed Rail Development 
Act of 1994, has been a long time in the making. It is the second piece 
of high-speed rail legislation that has been considered by the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce in this Congress. Last year, the 
committee passed very ambitious legislation which would have provided 
substantial funding for high-speed rail corridor implementation and 
technology development. Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, we 
were unable to proceed with that piece of legislation. However, the 
importance of high-speed rail and its potential role in our Nation's 
transportation system should not be ignored. The fact that rail 
passenger transportation is cost-effective, energy efficient, and 
environmentally friendly are just a few of the reasons why Congress 
should encourage States to include high-speed rail as part of their 
transportation mix.
  H.R. 4867 authorizes preconstruction activities through appropriate 
Federal financing assistance for corridor planning activities and 
technology improvements. In providing financial assistance, the bill 
requires the Secretary of Transportation to consider a broad range of 
criteria including whether the corridor has been designated as a high-
speed rail corridor. The legislation sends an important message that 
the Federal Government is going to be a partner with the States that 
desire to include high-speed rail in their transportation program. And 
that message will be welcomed in many States, including my own State of 
Washington, which has committed significant State resources for its 
rail passenger program.
  I would like to commend the author of the legislation, Congresswoman 
Lynn Schenk, who has been an ardent supporter and tremendous advocate 
for high-speed rail. Additionally, the leadership of Chairman Dingell 
and the efforts of the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Congressman Mike Oxley, allowed 
for the expeditious consideration of this legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to support the High-Speed Rail Development Act of 1994.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I rise in opposition to this 
bill. We have not been able to make our passenger rail system in this 
country work after 50 years of desperately trying to get it to work and 
still it does not work. It continually requires a subsidy. The from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and I come to the floor and debate every year on 
whether or not we ought to privatize the Amtrak system, and so far I 
have not prevailed in that.
  But to throw $184 million at this kind of a concept when we are 
losing money like crazy just does not make any senses to me. The 
reality is in America no one wants to ride the train. I will not say no 
one. Some people do, particularly in the eastern corridor. Here the 
trains are used, but by and large across the country people do not want 
to ride the train. Why do not we accept that? In fact, even small 
percentages do in foreign countries where they consider it a great 
success.
  We cannot make it work now, so we are throwing this money after 
somebody's idea, after a theoretical concept that we ought to make it 
work. I just do not think that is correct.
  Yes, this is a scaled down version. This is not the $140 million in 
fiscal 1994 to $355 million in fiscal 1998 that was proposed by the 
committee last year. This is only $184 million.

  Let us look at what we get for the $184 million. We get some 
planning. We do not get 1 mile of rail. We do not get a single car, we 
do not get a station. We get some planning for a high-speed rail system 
in this country that we do not even have a very good concept of whether 
we need it or want it.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would defeat this measure, save the 
$184 million.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our extraordinary full 
committee chairman for his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Ms. Cantwell], with thanks for her hard work on this particular bill 
in an area that I think our speaker will particularly appreciate.
  (Ms. CANTWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill.
  Let me begin by commending Chairman Dingell and Chairman Swift for 
their tireless efforts to improve and upgrade rail transportation in 
this country and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk] for her 
hard work over many months in the development of this legislation. This 
legislation moves us one step closer to implementation of a high-speed 
rail system.
  The development of a nationwide high-speed rail network is a critical 
component of our work to create an integrated and efficient national 
transportation systems.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to specifically highlight the positive 
impact that the development of a high-speed rail system should have on 
jobs and the work force. The report accompanying this bill:

       * * * directs the Secretary of Transportation to work 
     closely with other governmental agencies to maximize the use 
     of domestic workers in the implementation of developed high-
     speed rail technologies. The Committee believes that 
     development of a high-speed rail technologies offers 
     increased opportunities for U.S. manufacturers workers.

  I believe that the committee is correct. We have talented, skilled 
workers around this country who are ready and able to be partners with 
the government and industry in the development and manufacture of high 
speed transportation. We need not look any further than our domestic 
workforce to develop, build and maintain high-speed rail.
  Today, the House can take an important step toward making a high-
speed rail network a reality in this country. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues in Congress and in the administration to implement 
this legislation and keep our work force on track with the development 
of high-speed rail.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4867, the High-
Speed Rail Development Act of 1994 and commend my colleague, Ms. Schenk 
of California, for her hard work on this important piece of 
legislation.
  This bill would allow the Federal Government to fund up to 50 percent 
of the costs of corridor planning and other pre-construction 
activities, thus allowing States to proceed forward on important high-
speed rail planning initiatives. Such planning is crucial if our Nation 
is to proceed forward into the 21st century. Many of our Nation's 
transportation corridors are in need of updated technology to insure 
economic growth, ease of travel, and a better standard of living.
  As a Representative from New York I support high-speed rail 
initiatives as well as rail technology such as maglev. I believe that 
both of these projects can and should proceed forward in the hopes of 
providing New York as well as the rest of the Nation with a 
transportation corridor that is second to none.
  Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues, including those from New 
York to support this important legislation as well as maglev 
opportunities.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4867, a bill 
to move forward the process of selecting and planning high-speed rail 
corridors around the United States. This legislation is structured to 
assist State and local governments in planning and other pre-
construction activities at eventual construction of high-speed rail 
rights-of-way. It provides for a matching program under which the 
Federal Government will assist the State and local governments in 
funding planning, feasibility studies, and the refinement of already 
developed technologies for use in high-speed rail passenger service.
  One of these developed technologies that may well prove crucial to 
high-speed rail in corridors of lower population density is high-speed 
non-electric locomotives, such as those powered by turbine. Amtrak has 
utilized first-generation locomotives of this type on certain routes 
outside the Northeast corridor, and improved versions hold the promise 
of allowing true high-speed operation on other routes where 
construction of a complete overhead electrical catenary system is not 
cost-effective. Under H.R. 4867, DOT is authorized to assist in the 
funding of improvement and adaptation of developed technologies for 
high-speed rail use, and turbine-powered high-speed locomotives should 
clearly be considered as one of these key technologies.
  I want to commend Chairman Dingell, subcommittee Chairman Swift, and 
our committee's ranking member, Mr. Moorhead, for their diligent work 
in moving this legislation forward. The bill is only a first step 
toward future rail service, but it is at least a beginning. We know 
that high-speed rail service must be part of any balanced national 
transportation policy.
  One of the concerns that I raised with regard to the much more 
elaborate predecessor bill, H.R. 1919, and with respect to this bill as 
well, is the problem of the tort liability exposure of freight 
railroads who make their rights-of-way and facilities available for 
high-speed passenger service. This is a serious obstacle to actually 
getting high-speed trains up and running. The bill we are considering 
today is limited to planning and pre-construction activities, and so 
does not contain any direct solution to the liability problem. But any 
sound planning process must recognize the liability issue and deal with 
it.

  To that end, I want to stress the importance of the Department of 
Transportation's focusing on the liability problem even in the planning 
phase of high-speed rail. Under section 1036(c) of the Intermodel 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--known as ISTEA--DOT is required 
to complete a commercial feasibility study of high-speed rail by mid-
1995. That law already lists availability of rights-of-way as one of 
the key issues DOT is supposed to address. I want to emphasize that 
dealing with the liability issue is an essential prerequisite to 
obtaining the use of any right-of-way, and therefore should be 
prominently featured in the DOT study, and in DOT's policy when it 
implements H.R. 4867.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Traficant). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk] that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4867, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________