[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13813-H13841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              AMTRAK REFORM AND PRIVATIZATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 284 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 284

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1788) to reform the statutes relating to 
     Amtrak, to authorize appropriations for Amtrak, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in 
     the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part 1 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute, as modified, shall be considered by title rather 
     than by section. The first section and each title shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, are 
     waived. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order to 
     consider the amendment printed in part 2 of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. That amendment may be offered only by the 
     chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure or his designee, shall be considered as read, 
     may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, 
     shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment. During further consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 284 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 1788, the Amtrak Reform and 
Revitalization Act of 1995. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate 
divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
now printed in the bill, as modified by the amendment printed in part 1 
of the report of the Committee on Rules.
  All points of order are waived against consideration of the bill and 
against the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified.
  The rule allows for the consideration of the manager's amendment 
printed in part 2 of the report which is not subject to amendment or 
division of the question and is debatable for 10 minutes equally 
divided between the proponent and an opponent.
  All points of order are waived against the amendment and, if adopted, 
the amendment is considered as part of the base text for further 
amendment purpose.
  The Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record prior to consideration may be given priority in recognition, and 
the rules provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, Amtrak is an integral part of this country's intermodal 
transportation system, providing safe, efficient, affordable travel to 
millions of Americans to many places across the country.
  However, according to the GAO, Amtrak's financial and operating 
condition have declined in recent years, 

[[Page H13814]]
which threatens Amtrak's future ability to continue to provide its 
current services and will seriously impede any plans for expansion.
  This is of particular concern to me. Back in the early seventies, 
when Amtrak was created, I pursued the implementation of the Amtrak 
route from Washington, DC, to Roanoke, VA, continuing to Bristol, 
Knoxville, and Chattanooga and on to Atlanta. At that time, Amtrak told 
me they planned to get started on such a route in a year. They did not 
say which year. But I hope that year is just around the corner.
  You know, it was pointed out in the Committee on Rules in my colloquy 
there that this extension of the Amtrak to Bristol, TN, and on to 
Knoxville would be through my district. But I want to inform the House 
Members that the railroad was in existence through that area before I 
was born. So it is not a personal request. It is for the benefit of the 
people.
  The reforms provided in this bill will allow Amtrak to become 
financially secure as a private corporation by removing Federal 
requirements which have interfered with its ability to act as a private 
entity. Hopefully, these reforms will enable Amtrak to expand its 
services to include a route through Tennessee, along with other needed 
routes across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. It will allow all Members to offer 
any relevant amendments, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule 
and the bill.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                            [As of November 29, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 55                 65
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                 20                 24
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  9                 11
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 84                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                            [As of November 29, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            

[[Page H13815]]
                                                                                                                
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Resolution......  A: 223-182 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 229-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for yielding me the 
customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people in the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts rely on Amtrak. It is the foundation of our 
transportation system.
  The Northeast corridor which travels from Washington to Boston, 
carries over 100 million passengers a year. It is the most traveled 
route in the country.
  But, despite our heritage, despite our Federal commitment to 
passenger rail service. We still have one of the most outdated rail 
systems in the world.
  I believe we have a long way to go before our railroads are where 
they should be. But this bill is a start.
  As my colleague from Tennessee said. The rule we are considering 
today is open. It will allow Members to offer any germane amendments 
for as long as they like.
  The bill is also a good start.
  It will allow rail employees their collective bargaining rights, and 
enable us to make long overdue improvements to our national passenger 
rail system.
  I urge my colleagues to support this open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Lipinski].
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 1788, the Amtrak Reform 
and Privatization Act of 1995. The open rule is appropriate for the 
compromise legislation that will be considered today.
  I plan to support the rule and urge its adoption.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the rule is a fine rule, and I am not speaking 
on the rule but I want to speak about an issue that is in the bill.
  It is with regard to Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project. Let 
me quote from prior years of the Committee on Appropriations reports: 
In fiscal year 1994 we stated the committee is concerned over the 
reports of architectural extravagance in this project, including a 
sweeping parabolic arch rising 120 feet into the air. Given the austere 
budget situation facing this country, it is extremely doubtful that 
taxpayers should contribute to such a project.
  In fiscal year 1995 the House recommended no funding, because we were 
in a tight budgetary process. The New York Times has recently quoted 
State and city officials as saying because of the fiscal problems being 
experienced by the State and city there is a big question whether or 
not they will be able to contribute their share of the renovation. So 
we know the commitment is soft.
  This year, in the appropriations bill, 1996, the House did not 
provide any funds for this project. The decision was agreed to by the 
conference committee. That decision was agreed to by this body only a 
few weeks ago.
  However, to address some of the concerns of the project, the 
conferees provided Amtrak the option to use up to $20 million of its 
limited Federal dollars to support emergency lifesaving repairs at the 
existing Penn Station. Now, this thing is beginning to spread out in 
other ways, and maybe there is an end run to put more money in this 
project than anyone thought was going to be in the project.
  I think, and there may be a Hefley amendment offered today, and if it 
is, I will talk more about it, I think if the Hefley amendment is 
offered, it ought to be adopted, but I am concerned that everything 
that the proponents of Penn Station wanted for safety we said we would 
address and take care of the problems because I did not want anyone to 
go to Penn Station and be involved in a fire and die or something like 
that.
  There now seems to be a method to go around and get additional money 
and different money. I am asking the inspector general of the 
Department of Transportation to investigate this, to look into it. I am 
also looking today, with a letter to the GAO, asking the GAO to 
investigate and look into it.

                              {time}  1100

  After we get the information, we can make a decision. But based on 
where I am today and what I have seen is taking place, and I think this 
is one of the frustrations that the American people are beginning to 
have with this whole process, authorizing, appropriation, what you are 
doing, slipping these things in, going around. I personally am of the 
opinion, based on the information that I now know, that the Hefley 
amendment, if it is offered today, should be adopted.
  Second, I, for one, would not put one red cent, one penny, one 
nickel, one dime, one more dollar, into this project. I do not want to 
say specifically, but I think maybe Amtrak has been involved in some 
activity up here on Capitol Hill, lobbying and doing some things of 
which we are not quite sure.
  Let me tell the Members, we are going to scrutinize this. I think the 
Members ought to be worried. This may be, I am not sure, but it may be 
kind of the bait and switch and move things around, and Penn Station 
has been limited whereby we have given money for all the safety 
projects. Now we see things coming that I think maybe this Congress, if 
it really knew all the facts, may not be doing what it is in the 
process of doing. I will speak on this issue if the Hefley amendment 
comes up.
  Since fiscal year 1994, the House Appropriations Committee has 
strongly opposed the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project and 
recommended not to provide funds for this project. Let me quote from 
prior years' Appropriations Committee reports:
  In fiscal year 1994, we stated ``the Committee is concerned over 
reports of architectural extravagance in this project, including a 
sweeping parabolic arch rising 120 feet into the air. Given the austere 
budget situation facing this country, it is extremely doubtful that 
taxpayers should contribute to such a project.''

[[Page H13816]]

  In fiscal year 1995, the House recommended no funding for this 
project because ``in such tight budgetary times, a project of this 
uncertainty and magnitude is not justified.'' Furthermore, although the 
administration intends to fence the Federal funds until a binding 
commitment is signed for the non-Federal funds, at present the only 
commitment is a memorandum of agreement which does not legally bind any 
of the non-Federal parties.
  The New York Times has recently quoted State and city officials as 
saying that because of the fiscal problems being experienced by the 
State and city of New York, there is a big question of whether or not 
they will even be able to contribute their share of the renovation 
funds. So we know the commitment is soft.
  This year, in the appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, the House 
did not provide funds for this project, a decision agreed to by the 
conference committee. That decision was agreed to by this body only a 
few weeks ago. However, to address some of the concerns of the 
project's supporters, the conferees provided Amtrak the option to use 
up to $20 million of its limited Federal dollars to support emergency 
life safety repairs at the existing Penn Station.
  However, now the National Highway System Act authorizes both the 
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project and the engineering, design, 
and construction of a major renovation to the James A. Farley Post 
Office Building to enable its use as an Amtrak station and retail 
shopping center. In addition, the same bill provides $26,200,000 in 
direct funding for this project.
  Not only is this project controversial and unnecessary, its 11th-hour 
inclusion in an unrelated bill violates the normal protocol for 
conference reports. Because of time constraints and the desire to free 
up billions in highway funds to States, there was very little time for 
Members to review the conference report.
  In fact, in the rush this conference report was passed in this body 
on a Saturday without even a vote. This project was not included in the 
original version of either Chamber's bill. The addition of this project 
was improper, I believe, because this bill was for the Federal Highway 
System. It should not have included authorization or funding for the 
renovation of a train station and development of retail shops at 
Federal expense.
  Let me mention one other concern I have about the Farley Building 
project. The funding in the NHS bill for this project and the Amtrak 
reauthorization bill even allows the Federal Government to provide more 
than our share of the project's cost. Even project supporters say the 
Federal Government should provide no more than $100 million for this 
project. The NHS bill brings the total amount up to $77,700,000, and 
the Amtrak bill authorizes an additional $30,000,000 over the next 3 
years, which would bring the Federal share to $107,700,000.
  As chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I was 
extremely upset to see these provisions. I had worked long and hard to 
strike a deal with the Senate, and particular with Senator Moynihan, to 
limit how taxpayer dollars could be spent on the Pennsylvania Station 
redevelopment project. The sections in the National Highway System bill 
obliterate congressional intent for this project and does an end-run 
around the appropriations process.
  Today, I am sending letters to the General Accounting Office and the 
Department of Transportation inspector general requesting each of them 
to analyze the need for such a project, and the existing financial 
arrangements. If these reports come back next year and support the 
project, we will certainly look at it again. We owe the project that 
much, and I will continue to work with the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, the New York delegation, Amtrak, and others 
to address the legitimate transportation needs of passengers in New 
York City. But from what we know now, this is the wrong approach at the 
wrong time, and too expensive for the Federal Government to bear.
  In summary, what the National Highway System bill has done is 
authorized and provided direct funding for the building of what its 
supporters advertise as an architectural wonder and a new retail 
shopping area in New York City. Slipped in an unrelated bill in the 
dead of night, and going around the appropriations process. This was 
little more than a Thanksgiving gift to the city of New York, and it is 
a real turkey--with all the trimmings. The gentleman from Colorado's 
amendment would assure that, in these tight budgetary times, taxpayers 
all across the country do not see their gasoline taxes going to pay for 
a new train station and to build new shopping spaces in New York City.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant], defender of the American work force.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a little amendment on this bill. One of the 
problems we have that it seems to work out, it seems that Amtrak buys 
an awful lot of manufactured track line, and that it seems to end up 
buying its track line, most of it, from overseas in Europe. The reason 
for it is we make excellent track line, it is even of superior quality; 
but the U.S. manufacturers say the limited specifications under Amtrak 
have almost prohibited them from becoming a part of this procurement 
process.
  So my amendment does not compel anybody to do anything, it is not 
protectionist, it does not shackle anybody. What it does is it creates 
an outreach program that says that Amtrak shall sit down with American 
manufacturers of track work to discuss the specification process and to 
see how that specification process in all fairness can be tailored to 
give American track work manufacturers a better opportunity of getting 
some of these contracts.
  I find it highly unusual where we are really almost bankrupt in this 
country, but we would have a procurement specification in a situation 
like Amtrak that would force most of the sales and purchases of track 
coming from Europe. That does not make good sense. It is a modest 
amendment. It makes a lot of sense.
  In addition to that, my amendment would also require Amtrak to report 
back to Congress within 2 years of enactment on the progress it is 
making in awarding such contracts to American firms, so with that it is 
not a protectionist amendment. From what I understand, the chairman is 
going to accept it. I appreciate the time from the distinguished 
chairman. It is great to have him back here, full time, working on 
behalf of us and all of us.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule. I yield back 
the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to House Resolution 
284 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1788.

                              {time}  1104


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1788) to reform the statutes relating to Amtrak, to authorize 
appropriations for Amtrak, and for other purposes, with Mr. Allard in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation to make 
fundamental changes to Amtrak. This legislation represents months of 
hard work by our chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, the 
gentlewoman from New York, Susan Molinari. It has also benefited from 
constructive bipartisan contributions on both our subcommittee and full 
committee level from the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  Amtrak has been sick and is sick, and much of the illness has been 
Government inflicted. The GAO has confirmed that Amtrak cannot survive, 
even with indefinite funding, if it remains subject to all the legal 
mandates that Congress has piled onto Amtrak over the years. One good 
indicator is the average age of the fleet, which is now 22 years.
  Right now Amtrak is a patient on artificial life support. Through 
some painful one-time austerity measures, it has managed to get through 
this past 

[[Page H13817]]
fiscal year, but its future is very doubtful unless it can be 
fundamentally restructured in the way it does business. Normally, a 
corporation can turn itself around by simply getting labor and 
management together to implement a sound strategy, but in Amtrak's 
case, this decision has been effectively taken out of the company's 
hands because of the incredible array of Federal laws that hamstring 
Amtrak at every turn.

  Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize, I have confidence, great 
confidence, in Amtrak's management. I think Tom Downs, the president, 
is doing an outstanding job, and I think the management team that he 
has assembled is very competent and capable. However, they are bound to 
failure unless we give them the flexibility that is provided in this 
legislation that is before us today to give them the opportunity to 
streamline and modernize and reform Amtrak.
  For example, Amtrak is presently forbidden by law from utilizing 
maintenance and service centers from other railroads and other 
suppliers no matter how much money they can save. I know, for example, 
the freight rail industry has many modern maintenance facilities that 
are not operated at full capacity, operated by very capable labor 
people, union rail labor people. If Amtrak were freed of legal 
restrictions and could negotiate for the best price on maintenance, 
both sides would win. Amtrak would save the cost of replacing its 
decrepit maintenance facilities and with the private sector dollars, 
private sector railroads would bring in additional business for 
themselves. This is exactly the kind of mutual benefits these reforms 
can bring. This is exactly the kind of footing that we should put 
Amtrak on today.
  Any kind of fundamental change is uncomfortable for a company and its 
workers. It is true of any company, including Amtrak. But this bill 
makes collective bargaining the central feature of changes in matters 
affecting Amtrak employees, something the current law did not do. The 
bill provides for an accelerated bargaining process of about 6 months, 
during which labor and management would fashion new contracts dealing 
with severance matters and with procedures for contracting out work. 
This is the proper approach to take so that we do not micromanage 
Amtrak from the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud of the work that the committee has done 
on a bipartisan basis. I strongly urge Members to support the passage 
of this bill. I do not agree with everything that is in this bill, but 
it is a compromise. It is a legitimate compromise. We need to maintain 
the delicate balance that is in this bill. For that reason, I strongly 
support the passage of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for me to offer the Traficant amendment to title I at any point 
during consideration of this bill under the 5-minute rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1788, the Amtrak Reform and 
Privatization Act of 1995, which our chairman has already so ably 
described, despite his obvious hoarseness of voice, and unusual 
hoarseness of voice. I hope he recovers soon.
  I want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster], for the splendid job of managing this legislation through a 
very rocky time of overcoming some very complex questions, and the 
gentlewoman from New York, the chairman of the subcommittee, along with 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], our ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Railroads for most of this year, and our current 
ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]. Clearly it 
was the gentleman from Illinois who bore the burden of the day 
throughout these many months of negotiation to bring this legislation 
to its present point.
  I really compliment the gentleman from Illinois for his persistence 
for bringing all the parties together, plumbing the depths of these 
issues, and ultimately bringing us to a point where we could have this 
bill under consideration on the floor today with these issues largely 
resolved, because America does need a comprehensive passenger 
transportation system, one that is truly intermodal, that respects the 
contributions that each mode of transportation brings to our national 
picture: highways that give us universal access to anywhere in America; 
airlines that offer rapid service to any part of this country where 
surface transportation might take many hours or even days or weeks; 
water ferries that play a crucial role in areas like Puget Sound and 
Alaska where people live on islands, and places that are difficult to 
access except by water.
  We rely mostly on these modes for our passenger transportation, but 
they are not without their limitations. For example, virtually every 
other mode of transportation uses enormous amounts of energy. That 
consumption of energy has adverse environmental impact. Or, for many 
people, owning a car or taking a plane is too expensive. In some 
transportation corridors we already have five highway lanes in each 
direction, and those lanes are seriously congested. I was astonished 
myself to be visiting my brother in San Diego and driving up toward Los 
Angeles with an endless wall-to-wall, as far as the eye could see and 
as wide as the eye can look in either direction, headlights on one side 
and red lights on the other side, jammed with people traveling, 
congested, late at night. It is impractical in those areas to build 
more highways.

  Our air service in many parts of this country moves through air 
corridors that equally are congested. It is extremely difficult to 
overcome the environmental objections or to raise the money necessary 
to build new airports or even, in some cases, to build new runways at 
existing airports.
  Enter Amtrak. Enter passenger rail, a crucial role where other modes 
face their greatest limitations, especially in our high density 
transportation corridors, like New York to Washington, Chicago to 
Detroit, San Diego to Los Angeles. That is where Amtrak provides the 
relief and serves as a pressure relief valve for pressures that 
otherwise would jam our highways and our Airways unconscionably.
  Think of Logan Airport in Boston, seriously congested. Forty percent 
of the traffic in and out of Logan is trips to New York City. It would 
be extremely difficult to find the land, clear the environmental 
hurdles to build a new airport in the Boston metropolitan area, 
certainly at least until tilt rotor technology is perfected and 
commercialized, and we can build vertiports that take up land about the 
size of this Chamber. We are not there yet, and we are not there for 
another 20 years.
  Think of Denver, CO. Denver was thought at the time to be a 
relatively simple case, build a new airport on an empty prairie space, 
and yet cost overruns, delays, complications, difficulties, and then 
the resulting increased cost to airlines in landing fees for this new 
$5-plus billion airport. How much more difficult would it be in the 
congested suburbs of the District which my friend, the gentleman from 
Chicago, represents, to build a new airport? Unthinkable.
  So for much smaller amounts of money and with a much smaller 
environmental impact, we can have passenger rail service. We can, in 
fact, on existing lines with some improvements improve those lines to 
accommodate high-speed rail travel that would allow people now crowding 
our highways and our airways to move quickly and comfortably by rail, 
as they do in France. I would just like to take the example.
  During my years as a student at the College of Europe in Belgium, I 
traveled in 1957 from Paris to southeastern France, Lyons, the second 
largest city, in 4\1/2\ hours on an old steam-powered locomotive.

                              {time}  1115

  Fifteen years later, I traveled the same route, same rail route, now 
with a diesel locomotive, 4\1/2\ hours.
  In 1989, as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, with a bipartisan 
delegation, we traveled that same route on a high-speed train in 2 
hours and 1 minute; 2 hours and 1 minute, traveling 186 miles an hour.

[[Page H13818]]

  Now, in 1980, 2 million people took the train from Paris to Lyons; a 
million flew. Now, 5 million people take the train from Paris to Lyons, 
and only 5,000 fly that same route. That is dramatic. The French, of 
course, have expanded high-speed rail service, so now they have 225-
mile-an-hour speed trains traveling in many routes throughout France 
and in Spain and from Spain to France.
  We ought to be able to do the same thing in America. We ought to keep 
Amtrak alive, and we ought to keep it competitive and public, and we 
ought to support rail transportation, our passenger rail transportation 
system now so that, in the future, we can at least do as much as our 
European allies have done, at least as much as the Japanese have done 
in their country with high-speed trains.
  Mr. Chairman, if you live in towns like Staples, MN, in the western 
part of my State, or in Meridian, MI, Amtrak is the only public 
transportation available. For people that do not drive and who do not 
own a car, as my father never owned a car, and he said, if you cannot 
walk there or take a train or take a bus, you do not deserve to go 
there. That was the way of transportation.
  We ought to recognize the savings in economics, we ought to recognize 
the savings to our environment and support Amtrak, maintain this base 
so that we have something to build on as the need for a modern, high-
speed rail transportation system becomes more evident or as such a 
system is thrust upon us by some future energy crisis, when we will 
find ourselves all on the Nation's highways, sitting there behind our 
wheels, run out of gas, grasping our steering wheels and wondering how 
are we going to get where we want to go. Then we will say, why did 
somebody not have the wisdom to protect passenger rail service?
  The enterprise we are about today in this legislation will preserve 
that base, maintain our passenger rail system network and allow us to 
build upon it for the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I now ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my 
time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] for 
him to control for our side.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Allard). Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], the 
distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee, and for her to control 
that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this carefully crafted 
bipartisan legislation to reform Amtrak. I want to commend our 
committee chairman, Mr. Shuster, our ranking member, Mr. Oberstar, and 
the current and prior subcommittee ranking members, Mr. Wise and Mr. 
Lipinski, for their hard work on this bill.
  H.R. 1788 reflects the first top-to-bottom reexamination of Amtrak 
since it began operating in 1971. When our committee began considering 
Amtrak reform early this year, we heard from the General Accounting 
Office on Amtrak's current condition and its prospects. The bottom line 
of the GAO report was that, even with status quo funding levels, Amtrak 
could not maintain its current operations.
  This state of affairs reflects Amtrak's shortage of capital and its 
high costs, which are aggravated by restrictions imposed at almost 
every turn by Federal law. Numerous details of Amtrak's operations are 
dictated by statute--which routes to operate and where, what kinds of 
services may be contracted out, formulas for reimbursement of expenses, 
and even where Amtrak must locate its corporate headquarters. This kind 
of micromanagement has virtually eliminated the value of the 
congressional decision in 1970 to make Amtrak a corporation--not a 
government agency. Amtrak has been prevented from running its 
operations on a business-like basis. Instead of making operational 
decisions based on market opportunities and cost savings, Amtrak has 
been forced to perform various tasks the hard way--because the law 
required Amtrak to do it just that way.
  Let me give just one example. GAO reported that Amtrak's principal 
maintenance facilities are totally outdated and in bad repair: the main 
one was built in the 1890's. The cost of replacing these facilities on 
an in-house basis is almost $300 million. Yet Amtrak is presently 
forbidden by Federal law to have any work other than food service 
performed by outside contractors. This means that Amtrak is arbitrarily 
prevented from utilizing other railroads and suppliers to avoid this 
$300 million capital requirement.
  This bill gives Amtrak a fresh start. The company is placed in full 
control of its own assets, and is allowed to deploy its resources where 
the opportunities are the most promising. The restrictive Federal laws 
that dictated Amtrak's labor benefits and practices are replaced 
through an accelerated collective-bargaining process between labor and 
management. New opportunities for Amtrak to engage in individual or 
multistate cooperative arrangements through interstate compacts are 
encouraged. Most important Amtrak is given the benefit of private 
sector business expertise in two ways--first, through the appointment 
of a reform board of directors, and second, through a Temporary Rail 
Advisory Council of business experts who will help Amtrak develop its 
strategy for the future.
  These far-reaching reforms are absolutely essential if Amtrak is to 
survive in an era of limited Federal resources. The funding provisions 
of this bill conform exactly to the budget resolution recently approved 
by the Congress. We recognize that Amtrak must reduce its dependence on 
Federal funding, and the best way to accomplish that is to free Amtrak 
to operate on the basis of sound business principles--not Government 
mandates. This bill is not only the best way to maintain intercity rail 
passenger service, but it also is the best way to get maximum value for 
the taxpayer's dollar. I urge all Members to support its passage.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise], the present ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Railroads.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I appreciate all that he has done.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1788, the Amtrak Reform and 
Privatization Act of 1995. I commend Chairman Shuster, Chairwoman 
Molinari, and ranking Democratic member Jim Oberstar and thank them and 
our former ranking Democratic member on the Subcommittee on Railroads, 
Bill Lipinski, for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize the crucial role that Amtrak 
plays in the Nation's intermodal transportation system. My State, like 
many other rural States, has many communities that do not have access 
to good air service but that do have access to Amtrak service. Amtrak 
provides a lifeline for many small towns in America.
  Moreover, Amtrak provides relatively low-cost, fuel-efficient service 
to our Nation's most crowded and congested highways and airport 
corridors, providing travel options to our Nation's youth, elderly, and 
others who cannot drive or fly. It also provides a stress-free way to 
see many scenic parts of our beautiful country.
  Although this bill had a rocky start, including two aborted markups, 
since then there has been a good deal of hard work and many difficult 
compromises on various issues, which now enables me to support this 
final product.
  This bill will allow Amtrak to reduce its costs of operation and get 
by on a smaller Federal subsidy, thus placing less of a burden on the 
American taxpayer. While I am concerned about some of the increased 
burdens the bill places on the States by ending the basic system 
concept--a fixed network of routes that Amtrak is required to serve--
and encouraging Amtrak to negotiate with the States on subsidies that 
will maintain rail service through those States, I am satisfied that 
the bill is a reasonable compromise and that it is needed to keep 
Amtrak moving ahead.

[[Page H13819]]

  Also, I was initially concerned that the Amtrak employees might not 
be treated equitably in the bill. However, after some changes were made 
to the bill, a reasonable compromise was reached which ends both 
statutory 6-years labor protection and prohibitions on contracting out 
and turns these issues over to Amtrak and the unions to negotiate under 
an accelerated 254-day Railway Labor Act process.
  Additionally, the bill limits Amtrak's liability for punitive and 
noneconomic damages, and allows Amtrak to indemnify freight railroads 
for their liability, so that Amtrak can operate on the freight 
railroads' right-of-way at a lower cost.
  Again, the bill will enable Amtrak to downsize and control its costs, 
while ensuring the fair treatment of Amtrak's employees if there is a 
loss of jobs. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1788 will help preserve Amtrak for 
years to come. I support this bill and urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement], successor of Davey Crockett, Andrew Jackson, 
and Sam Houston.
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those wonderful 
comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1788, the Amtrak 
Reform and Privatization Act of 1995. I want to first commend Chairman 
Bud Shuster and ranking member, Jim Oberstar, for crafting a bill that 
will ensure the future of Amtrak into the 21st century.
  The future of passenger rail service in this country--a service used 
by 22 million travelers nationwide--depends on our ability to force 
powerful partnerships between Amtrak and States, cities, and its 
passengers. H.R. 1788 strengthens those partnerships while phasing out 
the Federal operating subsidy for Amtrak. At the same time, H.R. 1788 
gives Amtrak the opportunity to operate like any other private 
business.
  Significant reforms are embodied in H.R. 1788 that remove 
longstanding mandates from the law. For example, the bill will allow 
Amtrak to run routes where they make economic, rather than political 
sense. Current law hamper's Amtrak's ability to shape its route 
structure and schedules. H.R. 1788 provides Amtrak with the flexibility 
to respond quickly to consumer demand and to make timely service 
adjustments.
  H.R. 1788 also includes carefully crafted language to allow Amtrak 
and its employees to collectively bargain over key issues involving 
contracting out and worker protections. This provision, which is 
supported by the labor unions, will provide greater flexibility to 
management to improve Amtrak's economic performance.
  The bill includes my amendment adopted by the Subcommittee on 
Railroads which ensures that Amtrak audits its book by a certified 
public accountant. We are all concerned about Amtrak's financial 
situation.
  We in Congress cannot do our job of overseeing Amtrak unless we have 
some assurance that the financial numbers coming out of Amtrak have 
been audited and are reliable. The amendment ensures that these 
financial numbers have been audited and fairly reflect Amtrak's 
financial condition.
  In closing I just want to say this is an excellent bill which 
deserves unanimous support on both sides of the aisle.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1788, the Amtrak reform bill.
  Mr. Chairman, during my tenure as the ranking Democrat on the 
Railroads Subcommittee in the first 10 months of the 104th Congress, I 
worked with the members of the subcommittee to assure a future for 
passenger railroads in this Nation. As we worked toward this goal, we 
have been all too aware of the importance of the railroad in the 
history of this country and the role of the U.S. Government in the 
development of the railroad.
  The transcontinental railroad, with its golden spike driven into the 
ground in 1869, was a product of Government involvement and Government 
financing. As the transcontinental railroad was conceptualized in the 
19th century, the costs were tremendous, and the prospects for recovery 
of those costs were far into the future. With populations in Missouri, 
California, and nowhere in between, no private sector business would 
have dared attempt such a project. It was up to the Federal Government 
to make the investment for the future.

  The same thinking led to the birth of the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation--Amtrak--a century later. Saddled with a common carrier 
obligation to provide intercity passenger rail services the freight 
railroads were struggling. Eliminating the significant losses on 
passenger service was viewed as essential to keeping the freight 
railroad system financially sound. Today, the freight railroad industry 
in the United States is stronger than ever. While Amtrak will never see 
the kinds of profits the freights have, I continue to believe there is 
a place for Amtrak in our national transportation system.
  The mandate of Amtrak is to provide modern, cost-efficient, and 
energy-efficient intercity rail transportation between crowded urban 
areas and other areas of the United States. In creating Amtrak, 
Congress recognized the significance of passenger rail service as a 
component of an efficient, integrated national transportation system. 
It is in our national interest to have efficient, accessible passenger 
rail transportation in the United States.
  During 1994, a total of 55 million passengers depended on Amtrak to 
provide reliable rail passenger service. Twenty-two million of these 
passengers traveled on Amtrak nationwide. Amtrak connects many urban 
areas in the United States, serving 68 of the 75 largest metropolitan 
areas. In addition, Amtrak provides a vital link to the 62 million 
Americans who live in small towns and rural areas. Amtrak serves 33 
communities which have no air service, 18 communities which have no bus 
service, and 9 communities which have neither.
  As congestion increases on our Nation's roadways and airport runways, 
we should look to rail to alleviate the problem. Amtrak provides an 
invaluable alternative in heavily urbanized regions that have crowded 
highways and airports.
  The benefits of passenger rail transportation--congestion 
alleviation, safety, energy-efficiency, environmental soundness and the 
other benefits--make a strong case for inclusion of passenger rail in 
our national transportation system and as a funding priority. Some 
argue that if Amtrak cannot be self-supporting, it should not be 
continued. For the long term, this may indeed be true. However, we must 
consider the historical Federal role in the development of other modes 
of transportation. Investment in passenger rail now will provide a 
substantial return in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, this compromise legislation removes Amtrak from much of 
the congressional micromanagement that it has faced since its 
establishment, and makes it more like every other business in America. 
Passenger rail service can have a future in the United States if the 
American people support it. Since Amtrak restructured and announced 
route eliminations and adjustments late last year, Governors across the 
country have come forward with funding to continue the service that is 
needed in their States.
  We are working toward an Amtrak which operates without a Federal 
operating subsidy, which provides quality service, and which is 
financially stable. Yet we also know that no intercity rail passenger 
service anywhere in the world operates without some degree of public 
sector financial support. As its operating subsidy decreases in the 
next few years, we have encouraged Amtrak to look for innovative 
approaches to financing in partnership with States and localities that 
rely on passenger rail service.
  When Congress passed ISTEA in 1991, we moved toward a multimodal 
transportation system in which each mode complemented the other. 
Railroads do not serve every area and may not be the best form of 
transportation for every American. Yet in our national transportation 
system, every mode, including rail, highway and air, should be well 
represented. Used together, the various modes assure a transportation 
system which will exceed our needs into the 21st century.
  As a child in Chicago, I used to watch as the Burlington Zephyr 
passed by my 

[[Page H13820]]
house en route to California. That was the way people traveled years 
ago, and it is the way many continue to travel today. Amtrak will never 
be the answer for every American traveler. However, it can be one of 
America's travel options for many years to come.
  Mr. Chairman, if I were to design my dream Amtrak legislation, this 
would not be it. But this bill is a real compromise that comes as a 
result of very hard work by individuals on both sides. I want to 
commend Chairman Shuster and Chairwoman Molinari for the manner in 
which they have worked with us to build legislation we can all support. 
Although this bill is not what any of us would have predicted or 
desired when we began hearings on Amtrak in February, it is a true 
compromise product which protects the interests of Amtrak management 
and labor. I also want to thank the new ranking member of the full 
committee, my good friend Jim Oberstar, and the new ranking member of 
the Railroads Subcommittee, Bob Wise, for their involvement on this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as a result of blood, sweat, tears, and the willingness 
of all parties to compromise, this is a bill we can all support. I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the full committee, and the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for the excellent work they have done in crafting this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act is truly a 
bipartisan compromise, and it will enable Amtrak to be a sustainable 
and hopefully profitable private enterprise. Tough decisions were made 
to ensure that Amtrak will have the needed tools to succeed on a 
declining Federal subsidy while continuing to reduce its operating loss 
each year. Compromise between labor and management was essential and it 
was achieved. This legislation goes a long way toward treating Amtrak 
as a business by changing the necessary provisions in Federal law to 
accomplish this aim.
  An amendment may be offered today which seeks to accelerate the 
reduction in Amtrak's Federal subsidy. The House should oppose any 
attempts to weaken the structure which has been carefully laid out in 
the bill before us. Amtrak is still burdened with many federally 
mandated expenditures which greatly affect its operating budget. These 
Federal mandates inhibit Amtrak's ability to transition to a private 
enterprise. To accelerate the reduction in its Federal subsidy without 
taking into account these federally mandated obligations would be a 
major mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, let us pass the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act 
without further delay. The result will be significant reform to Amtrak, 
while ensuring the people in the towns and cities across America a 
strong and viable passenger train service.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, again, as every other Speaker has done today, 
let me congratulate Chairman Shuster and Chairman Molinari for the fine 
work they have done. The legislation in front of us today takes an 
important step forward in trying to allow Amtrak to stand on its feet 
and begins to integrate some of the privatization principles I so 
strongly believe in.
  But let me also say that I had some narrow political interest in this 
case, as someone who represents the State of Wisconsin. Last year, as 
my colleagues know, Amtrak decided to cut about 24 percent of its 
budget in order to deal with a severe financial crisis, and as part of 
that decisionmaking process they made the informed decision to close 
down the line between Milwaukee and Chicago.
  I think, given Amtrak's financial constraints, they should have the 
ability in the future to make other decisions, especially about cross-
country routes which frankly cannot be justified by anybody, except for 
political expediency for Members who want to make sure they continue to 
get train service to their districts even if Amtrak takes a financial 
bath on it.
  When Amtrak decided to pull out of the Milwaukee and Chicago route, 
we found, much to our delight, that a half dozen firms stepped forward, 
private firms, to say, ``We would be delighted to run this, because we 
think we could make money on doing it and also provide passenger 
service between the largest cities in Wisconsin and Illinois,'' and 
there are six trains a day that go back and forth.

  But we were astonished, as the Governor's office was astonished, to 
learn that under the current Amtrak laws Amtrak does not have the 
ability to allow private companies to use those tracks. In fact, the 
State of Wisconsin did not have the opportunity and legally was 
forbidden to contract out with the private train service to provide 
that passenger transfer every day between Milwaukee and Chicago.
  Today, we find ourselves in a situation were we have been able to 
keep Amtrak service in place until next July, but it has been done with 
chewing gum sticking together money from the State and from the Federal 
Government and from passenger service.
  This provision today will allow, we think, one of those private 
companies to step forward and work out an arrangement between the State 
of Wisconsin and the State of Illinois to provide private passenger 
service between Chicago and Milwaukee. It will allow similar innovative 
experiments to take place, for example in Missouri, where the Kansas 
City to St. Louis route has been abandoned with nobody to step forward 
and run train service there, as well.
  There is also frankly tucked into this bill another important 
provision which will allow Amtrak, currently prohibited from 
contracting out work outside of food and beverage service, to begin to 
look at private sector vendors to do that. If they can provide service 
on airplanes and they can provide service at stadiums, they clearly can 
provide service to Amtrak and the passengers on trains as well.
  It is interesting to go back and look. That is from one of those 
private Wisconsin firms interested in providing service between 
Milwaukee and Chicago who said, ``In our efforts to privatize the 
Hiawatha service between Milwaukee and Chicago, we have viewed the 
subcontracting provision as an obstacle that could eventually be 
overcome with protracted legal expenses and time. Removing the 
restrictions by statute ends this debate and saves potential private 
passenger rail providers, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, considerable time 
and money.''
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] 
and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] for the fine work they 
have done on this legislation, and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
as we begin to track Amtrak into the next century and begin to crack 
the door to allow the eventual privatization of Amtrak, which I and 
many of my colleagues completely agree with.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1788, the 
Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act. I would like to commend 
Representative Molinari and Chairman Shuster, who have worked hard on 
this legislation and who have made a commitment to supporting and 
protecting the future of Amtrak. Amtrak is important to our national 
infrastructure and transportation needs. The people of Delaware and 
their neighbors on the east coast depend on Amtrak for business and 
personal transportation.
  The Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act makes much needed reforms to 
Amtrak. Amtrak's current problems are due to the fact that Amtrak has 
been operating like a Government agency, not like a private business. 
H.R. 1788 allows Amtrak to eliminate unprofitable routes and focus on 
the profitable ones. Moreover, this legislation ends the practice of 
awarding 6 years of severance pay to employees who lose their jobs 
because a route is discontinued, and allows Amtrak to contract out 
work, like other private entities. These provisions will give Amtrak's 
management the much needed flexibility it desires to operate more 
successfully. Further, the bill authorizes the necessary funds for the 
next 3 years to aid Amtrak in the transition from a publicly funded 
entity to a privately controlled business.
  I am most familiar with the Northeast corridor and Amtrak facilities 
in Delaware. The Northeast corridor, which includes my commute from 
Delaware to D.C., is the most heavily traveled Amtrak route, and is the 
key mode of transportation for thousands of people on the east coast. 
The line extends from Washington to Boston with the heaviest service 

[[Page H13821]]
density from Washington to New York. The Amtrak Reform and 
Privatization Act replaces the current method of cost-sharing 
agreements between Amtrak and other operators on the Northeast corridor 
with one which allows Amtrak to negotiate terms with these operators. 
This will allow Amtrak to recoup shared capital costs that are not 
addressed under the current system.
  I believe this Nation needs passenger rail service. The Northeast 
part of our country certainly needs it. I believe the Amtrak Reform and 
Privatization Act will help provide cost-effective rail service to 
Americans without placing an undue burden on the Federal Government 
and, more importantly, the taxpayers.
  Again, I applaud the leadership of Representative Molinari and 
Chairman Shuster, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in opposition to H.R. 
1788. Amtrak provides an especially important long-distance 
transportation alternative for sparsely settled States such as Nebraska 
and others in the northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain West. This 
Member supports the continuation of Amtrak and believes that long-
distance train service should maintain its role in the Nation's overall 
transportation strategy. Unfortunately, this bill facilitates the 
elimination of routes and increases the likelihood that long-distance 
rail service will be impaired or eliminated in many areas, especially 
sparsely settled States.
  This Member does not want to see passenger train service confined 
only to high-density corridors. If Federal subsidies are provided to 
Amtrak, then it should continue to serve as a truly national system. 
Federal subsidies from taxpayers from throughout the Nation for a 
limited, regional system would not be justified.
  Although H.R. 1788 contains some positive reforms, this member is 
concerned that it will hasten the demise of long-distance routes. Mr. 
Chairman, for that reason this Member must oppose the legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as a chairman of the Budget 
Committee working group on physical capital, I rise to support H.R. 
1788. Our Budget Committee recommended we make major cuts in 
transportation subsidies. Our inefficient rail programs have been 
losing money hand over fist for dozens of years. It is time to stop 
throwing good money after bad. Ultimately, we will phase out operating 
subsidies for mass transit.
  Amtrak railroad has been losing tons of tax dollars--so we need to 
phase out operating and capital subsidies. And to give Amtrak a chance 
to make it on its own, we get rid of the thicket of regulations that 
keep Amtrak from being more competitive.


                               background

  In 1970, the Congress created Amtrak as a for-profit corporation to 
provide nationwide intercity passenger rail service. Amtrak was 
expected to help alleviate the overcrowding of airports and highways, 
and to offer the public a convenient and efficient transportation 
alternative.
  Like all major national intercity rail services in the world, Amtrak 
operates at a loss, and it has always needed Government funding. In 
1995, Amtrak received nearly $1 billion in operating subsidies from the 
Federal Government. Amtrak's financial and operating conditions have 
declined steadily since 1990.


                          financial condition

  From 1991 to 1994, revenues were $600 million lower than expected, 
while expenses were higher than planned. In the same time period, 
passenger, revenues have fallen 14 percent in real terms. Amtrak's 
revenues and subsidies did not cover operating expenses, and Amtrak 
also deferred maintenance on train equipment. It also reduced staffing 
levels and some services.
  Even with the proposed route downsizing and other savings 
initiatives, Amtrak expects that operating expenses will exceed the sum 
of operating revenues and the Federal subsidy by $1.3 billion from 1996 
through 2000. Plus, Amtrak will still need over $4 billion for capital 
investments. Unmet capital needs in the Northeast Corridor alone now 
total $2.5 billion.
  To cope with funding shortages, in the late 1980's Amtrak started 
reducing train car maintenance. By the end of 1993, costly heavy 
overhauls where overdue for 40 percent of its nearly 1,900 cars. Amtrak 
also deferred renovating and modernizing its outdated maintenance 
facilities, contributing to its spiralling costs of inefficiency.
  In the immediate future, Amtrak will face new negotiations with its 
labor force, the costs of which presently represents 52 percent of 
Amtrak's operating costs. Also, Amtrak faces certain cost increases for 
track leases, which will be renegotiated in 1996 for the first time 
since their agreement in 1971. H.R. 1788 helps Amtrak to survive.


                             privatization

  None of Amtrak's routes--even those in the Northeast Corridor--are 
profitable when capital costs are taken into account. Revenue in the 
Northeast Corridor cover 65 percent of the costs on the routes, 
compared to about 50 percent for routes elsewhere.
  Amtrak's fastest growing sources of revenues is contracts to operate 
local commuter rail systems. These contracts generated over $270 
million in 1994. Over the long term, Amtrak believes that high-speed 
rail service will increase ridership and revenues. High-speed service 
is now limited to track between DC and NYC, with extension to Boston 
underway. Amtrak has a 45 percent market share between DC and NYC. 
Private sector efforts to sponsor high-speed rail without substantial 
Government funding have been unsuccessful.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people have had enough of big 
bureaucracies and increased taxes for handouts. By saving billions of 
dollars out of the physicial capital budget, we help put our Nation on 
the path to a balanced budget. H.R. 1788 is a modest but necessary 
beginning.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, my good friend and noted railroad expert Ray 
Chambers put it correctly. It is entirely possible to have healthy 
passenger rail service again in America. Congress would like it, and 
the American public would like it. But Amtrak today is fatally 
dependent on Federal operating subsidies.
  This bill is the big first step toward allowing Amtrak to be self-
sufficient. It makes many concessions that allow passenger rail service 
to flourish.
  For years, passenger rail transportation has been weighted down with 
rules, regulations, and politics. Amtrak's board is controlled by the 
Federal Government. Many of the routes Amtrak travels have been 
designated right here by Members of Congress. Because of the long-
distance trains that are politically designated, schedules to connect 
to these long-distance trains are driven by necessity rather than 
passenger demand. Under the legislation, Amtrak would decide the merits 
of various routes according to commercial potential, not arbitrary 
statutory preference. What a novel idea. Supply and demand.
  This legislation allows Amtrak to climb out of another hole. The 
tremendous weight of Labor restrictions. Although I would have like to 
have seen the committee go much further, there are several provisions 
in the legislation that enable Amtrak to crawl out from under the Labor 
rock and begin to function competitively and efficiently.
  A Seattle-based think tank, Discovery Institute, has taken a close 
look at Amtrak and its problems. They have devised a six-step approach 
that takes a reasonable approach toward creating self-sufficient, 
private, and competitive Amtrak. Their plan is forward thinking and 
deserves a close look.
  There is already strong congressional support for a plan such as the 
Discovery Institute and other plans that offer privatization, self-
sufficiency, and competition. With public support, these ideas could be 
instituted in a matter of a few years. Until the 1950's, the American 
train system was the best in the world. The airplane did not kill 
passenger rail service, Government and Labor's rules, regulations, and 
demands did. We in Congress have the ability to make passenger rail in 
the United States a success.
  This bill is the necessary first step toward that goal.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in 
strong support of H.R. 1788 as it was reported from committee.
  As a member of the Railroad Subcommittee and the full Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, I can assure you that the 
authorization levels included in our bill are necessary for Amtrak 
reform.
  Let me be clear, our bill puts Amtrak on a glide path to zero Federal 
subsidies.
  Our bill conforms to the House budget resolution which eliminates 
Federal spending on Amtrak by the year 2002.
  Our committee made substantial reforms to Amtrak that will make it 
operate like a private company and survive without Government 
subsidies.
  Our bill makes some tough changes to Amtrak, and it will require 
major sacrifices by Amtrak and its employees.
  These reforms will be difficult, but they are essential if Amtrak is 
going to survive into the next century.
  For example, our bill eliminates Amtrak's mandated route system.
  Amtrak will now be able to open routes that are profitable and close 
routes that lose money.
  Under current law, Amtrak can't eliminate some routes without 
congressional approval. That's ridiculous.
  Our bill also eliminates several labor provisions in law and 
transfers them to a collective bargaining process.
  The labor unions strongly support these reforms and agree that Amtrak 
will save millions of dollars as a result.
  But make no mistake. Amtrak will not experience significant savings 
for a few years.
  It will take time for Amtrak to shut down money losing routes and 
contract out unprofitable operations.

[[Page H13822]]

  As a result, Amtrak will need Federal subsidies for the next few 
years.
  The Hefley amendment cuts Amtrak's budget immediately. Each year 
Amtrak's budget would be cut an additional 20 percent.
  Now this may sound like a good idea, but the result will be the death 
of Amtrak.
  Amtrak cannot survive the proposed cuts in the gentleman's amendment.
  If Amtrak's subsidies are cut before the reforms are made, Amtrak 
will be forced to cut service on all of its routes.
  Amtrak simply cannot afford to cut its revenue operations. This would 
only exacerbate Amtrak's financial problems and lead it to bankruptcy.
  This amendment would devastate Amtrak.
  You do not have to vote for this amendment to cut Federal subsidies 
for Amtrak.
  Our bill already does that. Our bill makes the reforms needed to get 
Amtrak off Federal subsidies entirely.
  If you want to save Federal dollars and save Amtrak, vote against 
this amendment.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and 
support H.R. 1788. Thank you.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part 1 of 
House Report 104-370, shall be considered by title as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment. The first section and each title are 
considered read.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in part 2 of the report, if offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] or his designee. That 
amendment shall be considered read, may amend portions of the bill not 
yet read for amendment, is not subject to amendment, and is not subject 
to a demand for division of the question. Debate on the amendment is 
limited to 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent of the amendment.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill as then perfected will be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Amtrak Reform and 
     Privatization Act of 1995''.


                    amendment offered by mr. shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster: Page 33, line 14, insert 
     ``, and with respect only to the facilities it jointly uses 
     with Amtrak, a commuter authority,'' before ``shall not be''.
       Page 33, line 18, insert ``For stations jointly used by 
     Amtrak and a commuter authority, this subsection shall not 
     affect the allocation of costs between Amtrak and the 
     commuter authority relating to accessibility improvements.'' 
     after ``January 1, 1998.''.
       Page 36, after line 21, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 617. MAGNETIC LEVITATION TRACK MATERIALS.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall transfer to the State 
     of Florida, pursuant to a grant or cooperative agreement, 
     title to aluminum reaction rail, power rail base, and other 
     related materials (originally used in connection with the 
     Prototype Air Cushion Vehicle Program between 1973 and 1976) 
     located at the Transportation Technology Center near Pueblo, 
     Colorado, for use by the State of Florida to construct a 
     magnetic levitation track in connection with a project or 
     projects being undertaken by American Maglev Technology, 
     Inc., to demonstrate magnetic levitation technology in the 
     United States. If the materials are not used for such 
     construction within 3 years after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, title to such materials shall revert to the 
     United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a bipartisan amendment which has the support of both sides of 
the aisle. The first part of the amendment gives Amtrak 1 additional 
year to comply with the station modification deadlines imposed by the 
Americans With Disabilities Act.
  Amtrak has an ongoing program to make stations accessible, but is not 
able to meet the 1997 deadline. This provision covers both Amtrak-only 
stations and stations which Amtrak shares with commuter rail operators.
  The second part of the amendment directs the Department of 
Transportation to transfer title to the State of Florida for some 
leftover aluminum materials used in magnetic levitation research in the 
1970's. The materials are now stored in Pueblo, CO. This provision 
merely confirms what the Department of Transportation was directed to 
do in the House report on the National Highway System. It involves no 
expense to the Department of Transportation.
  I would ask for its support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes on our side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's 
amendment which simply clarifies, first, that where a commuter railroad 
shares a facility with Amtrak, the two railroads are subject to the 
same compliance date under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the 
second deals with the request by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] 
to transfer property that the Federal Railroad Administration has at 
its test center in Pueblo, CO, to the State of Florida for use by the 
State.
  The Federal Railroad Administration does not need this test equipment 
any further. The State of Florida wishes to do so. There is a reversion 
clause that if the State does not use this equipment, it can be 
returned to the Federal Railroad Administration.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I simply want to say that I stand in support of the manager's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the manager's amendment. It has two 
components.
  Section 610 of H.R. 1788 allows Amtrak to delay compliance with 
certain provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, but does not 
afford the same benefit to commuter railroads which share stations with 
Amtrak. Without this provision, commuter rail authorities could bear 
the entire cost of making stations accessible to people with 
disabilities when the stations are renovated. The amendment assures 
that commuter railroads are given the same treatment as Amtrak and are 
not penalized in any way.
  The second element of the manager's amendment requires the Federal 
Railroad Administration to transfer some unused magnetic levitation 
test track equipment to the State of Florida. Since Florida needs the 
equipment and the FRA doesn't this move makes sense. In the event 
Florida is unable to use the equipment, it will be returned to the FRA.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as 
amended, be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified, as amended, is as follows:

[[Page H13823]]

                      TITLE I--PROCUREMENT REFORMS

     SEC. 101. CONTRACTING OUT.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 24312(b) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Contracting Out.--(1) When Amtrak contracts out work 
     normally performed by an employee in a bargaining unit 
     covered by a contract between a labor organization and 
     Amtrak, Amtrak is encouraged to use other rail carriers for 
     performing such work.
       ``(2)(A) Amtrak may not enter into a contract for the 
     operation of trains with any entity other than a State or 
     State authority.
       ``(B) If Amtrak enters into a contract as described in 
     subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) such contract shall not relieve Amtrak of any 
     obligation in connection with the use of facilities of 
     another entity for the operation covered by such contract; 
     and
       ``(ii) such operation shall be subject to any operating or 
     safety restrictions and conditions required by the agreement 
     providing for the use of such facilities.
       ``(C) This paragraph shall not restrict Amtrak's authority 
     to enter into contracts for access to or use of tracks or 
     facilities for the operation of trains.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect 254 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. CONTRACTING PRACTICES.

       (a) Below-Cost Competition.--Section 24305(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Below-Cost Competition.--(1) Amtrak shall not submit 
     any bid for the performance of services under a contract for 
     an amount less than the cost to Amtrak of performing such 
     services, with respect to any activity other than the 
     provision of intercity rail passenger transportation, 
     commuter rail passenger transportation, or mail or express 
     transportation. For purposes of this subsection, the cost to 
     Amtrak of performing services shall be determined using 
     generally accepted accounting principles for contracting.
       ``(2) Any aggrieved individual may commence a civil action 
     for violation of paragraph (1). The United States district 
     courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount 
     in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce 
     paragraph (1). The court, in issuing any final order in any 
     action brought pursuant to this paragraph, may award bid 
     preparation costs, anticipated profits, and litigation costs, 
     including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees, to any 
     prevailing or substantially prevailing party. The court may, 
     if a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is 
     sought, require the filing of a bond or equivalent security 
     in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(3) This subsection shall cease to be effective on the 
     expiration of a fiscal year during which no Federal operating 
     assistance is provided to Amtrak.''.
       (b) Through Service in Conjunction With Intercity Bus 
     Operations.--(1) Section 24305(a) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), Amtrak 
     may enter into a contract with a motor carrier of passengers 
     for the intercity transportation of passengers by motor 
     carrier over regular routes only--
       ``(i) if the motor carrier is not a public recipient of 
     governmental assistance, as such term is defined in section 
     10922(d)(1)(F)(i) of this title, other than a recipient of 
     funds under section 18 of the Federal Transit Act;
       ``(ii) for passengers who have had prior movement by rail 
     or will have subsequent movement by rail; and
       ``(iii) if the buses, when used in the provision of such 
     transportation, are used exclusively for the transportation 
     of passengers described in clause (ii).
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to transportation 
     funded predominantly by a State or local government, or to 
     ticket selling agreements.''.
       (2) Section 24305(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Congress encourages Amtrak and motor common carriers 
     of passengers to use the authority conferred in section 
     11342(a) of this title for the purpose of providing improved 
     service to the public and economy of operation.''.

     SEC. 103. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

       Section 24301(e) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``Section 552 of title 5, this part,'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``This part''.
                     TITLE II--OPERATIONAL REFORMS

     SEC. 201. BASIC SYSTEM.

       (a) Operation of Basic System.--Section 24701 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and the item relating thereto in the 
     table of sections of chapter 247 of such title, are repealed.
       (b) Improving Rail Passenger Transportation.--Section 24702 
     of title 49, United States Code, and the item relating 
     thereto in the table of sections of chapter 247 of such 
     title, are repealed.
       (c) Discontinuance.--Section 24706 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``90 days'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``180 days'';
       (B) by striking ``a discontinuance under section 24704 or 
     24707(a) or (b) of this title'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``discontinuing service over a route''; and
       (C) by inserting ``or assume'' after ``agree to share'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``section 24704 or 
     24707(a) or (b) of this title'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``paragraph (1)''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (b).
       (d) Cost and Performance Review.--Section 24707 of title 
     49, United States Code, and the item relating thereto in the 
     table of sections of chapter 247 of such title, are repealed.
       (e) Special Commuter Transportation.--Section 24708 of 
     title 49, United States Code, and the item relating thereto 
     in the table of sections of chapter 247 of such title, are 
     repealed.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 24312(a)(1) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``, 24701(a),''.

     SEC. 202. MAIL, EXPRESS, AND AUTO-FERRY TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 24306 of title 49, United States Code, 
     and the item relating thereto in the table of sections of 
     chapter 243 of such title, are repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 24301 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(o) Nonapplication of Certain Other Laws.--State and 
     local laws and regulations that impair the provision of mail, 
     express, and auto-ferry transportation do not apply to Amtrak 
     or a rail carrier providing mail, express, or auto-ferry 
     transportation.''.

     SEC. 203. ROUTE AND SERVICE CRITERIA.

       Section 24703 of title 49, United States Code, and the item 
     relating thereto in the table of sections of chapter 247 of 
     such title, are repealed.

     SEC. 204. ADDITIONAL QUALIFYING ROUTES.

       Section 24705 of title 49, United States Code, and the item 
     relating thereto in the table of sections of chapter 247 of 
     such title, are repealed.

     SEC. 205. TRANSPORTATION REQUESTED BY STATES, AUTHORITIES, 
                   AND OTHER PERSONS.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 24704 of title 49, United States Code, 
     and the item relating thereto in the table of sections of 
     chapter 247 of such title, are repealed.
       (b) Existing Agreements.--Amtrak shall not, after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, be required to provide 
     transportation services pursuant to an agreement entered into 
     before such date of enactment under the section repealed by 
     subsection (a) of this section.
       (c) State, Regional, and Local Cooperation.--Section 
     24101(c)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``, separately or in combination,'' after ``and the 
     private sector''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 24312(a)(1) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 
     24704(b)(2)''.

     SEC. 206. AMTRAK COMMUTER.

       (a) Repeal of Chapter 245.--Chapter 245 of title 49, United 
     States Code, and the item relating thereto in the table of 
     chapters of subtitle V of such title, are repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 24301(f) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Tax Exemption for Certain Commuter Authorities.--A 
     commuter authority that was eligible to make a contract with 
     Amtrak Commuter to provide commuter rail passenger 
     transportation but which decided to provide its own rail 
     passenger transportation beginning January 1, 1983, is 
     exempt, effective October 1, 1981, from paying a tax or fee 
     to the same extent Amtrak is exempt.''.
       (2) Subsection (a) of this section shall not affect any 
     trackage rights held by Amtrak or the Consolidated Rail 
     Corporation.

     SEC. 207. COMMUTER COST SHARING ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR.

       (a) Determination of Compensation.--Section 24904 of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b);
       (3) in subsection (b), as so redesignated by paragraph (2) 
     of this subsection--
       (A) by striking ``Transportation Over Certain Rights of Way 
     and Facilities'' in the subsection head and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Freight Transportation'';
       (B) by inserting ``relating to rail freight 
     transportation'' after ``subsection (a)(6) of this section'' 
     in paragraph (1); and
       (C) by inserting ``to an agreement described in paragraph 
     (1)'' after ``If the parties'' in paragraph (2); and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (b), as so redesignated 
     by paragraph (2) of this subsection, the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Binding Arbitration for Commuter Disputes.--(1) If 
     the parties to an agreement described in subsection (a)(6) 
     relating to commuter rail passenger transportation cannot 
     agree to the terms of such agreement, such parties shall 
     submit the issues in dispute to binding arbitration.
       ``(2) The parties to a dispute described in paragraph (1) 
     may agree to use the Interstate Commerce Commission to 
     arbitrate such dispute, and if requested the Interstate 
     Commerce Commission shall perform such function.''.
       (b) Privatization.--Section 24101(d) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Minimizing Government Subsidies.--To carry out this 
     part, Amtrak is encouraged to make agreements with the 
     private sector and undertake initiatives that are consistent 
     with good business judgment, that produce income to minimize 
     Government subsidies, and that promote the potential 
     privatization of Amtrak's operations.''.

     SEC. 208. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS.

       Section 24315 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), by inserting ``financial or'' after 
     ``Comptroller General may conduct''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

[[Page H13824]]

       ``(h) Access to Records and Accounts.--A State shall have 
     access to Amtrak's records, accounts, and other necessary 
     documents used to determine the amount of any payment to 
     Amtrak required of the State.''.
                TITLE III--COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REFORMS

     SEC. 301. RAILWAY LABOR ACT PROCEDURES.

       (a) Notices.--(1) Notwithstanding any arrangement in effect 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act, notices under 
     section 6 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 156) with 
     respect to all issues relating to--
       (A) employee protective arrangements and severance 
     benefits, including all provisions of Appendix C-2 to the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation Agreement, signed 
     July 5, 1973; and
       (B) contracting out by Amtrak of work normally performed by 
     an employee in a bargaining unit covered by a contract 
     between Amtrak and a labor organization representing Amtrak 
     employees,

     applicable to employees of Amtrak shall be deemed served and 
     effective on the date which is 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. Amtrak, and each affected labor 
     organization representing Amtrak employees, shall promptly 
     supply specific information and proposals with respect to 
     each such notice. This subsection shall not apply to issues 
     relating to provisions defining the scope or classification 
     of work performed by an Amtrak employee.
       (2) In the case of provisions of a collective bargaining 
     agreement with respect to which a moratorium is in effect 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, paragraph 
     (1) shall take effect on the expiration of such moratorium. 
     For purposes of the application of paragraph (1) to such 
     provisions, notices shall be deemed served and effective on 
     the date of such expiration.
       (b) National Mediation Board Efforts.--Except as provided 
     in subsection (c), the National Mediation Board shall 
     complete all efforts, with respect to each dispute described 
     in subsection (a), under section 5 of the Railway Labor Act 
     (45 U.S.C. 155) not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Railway Labor Act Arbitration.--The parties to any 
     dispute described in subsection (a) may agree to submit the 
     dispute to arbitration under section 7 of the Railway Labor 
     Act (45 U.S.C. 157), and any award resulting therefrom shall 
     be retroactive to the date which is 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Dispute Resolution.--(1) With respect to any dispute 
     described in subsection (a) which--
       (A) is unresolved as of the date which is 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) is not submitted to arbitration as described in 
     subsection (c),

     Amtrak and the labor organization parties to such dispute 
     shall, within 187 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, each select an individual from the entire roster of 
     arbitrators maintained by the National Mediation Board. 
     Within 194 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the individuals selected under the preceding sentence shall 
     jointly select an individual from such roster to make 
     recommendations with respect to such dispute under this 
     subsection.
       (2) No individual shall be selected under paragraph (1) who 
     is pecuniarily or otherwise interested in any organization of 
     employees or any railroad. Nothing in this subsection shall 
     preclude an individual from being selected for more than 1 
     dispute described in subsection (a).
       (3) The compensation of individuals selected under 
     paragraph (1) shall be fixed by the National Mediation Board. 
     The second paragraph of section 10 of the Railway Labor Act 
     shall apply to the expenses of such individuals as if such 
     individuals were members of a board created under such 
     section 10.
       (4) If the parties to a dispute described in subsection (a) 
     fail to reach agreement within 224 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the individual selected under 
     paragraph (1) with respect to such dispute shall make 
     recommendations to the parties proposing contract terms to 
     resolve the dispute.
       (5) If the parties to a dispute described in subsection (a) 
     fail to reach agreement, no change shall be made by either of 
     the parties in the conditions out of which the dispute arose 
     for 30 days after recommendations are made under paragraph 
     (4).
       (6) Section 10 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 160) 
     shall not apply to a dispute described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 302. SERVICE DISCONTINUANCE.

       (a) Repeal.--(1) Section 24706(c) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is repealed.
       (2)(A) Any provision of a contract, entered into before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act between Amtrak and a labor 
     organization representing Amtrak employees, relating to--
       (i) employee protective arrangements and severance 
     benefits, including all provisions of Appendix C-2 to the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation Agreement, signed 
     July 5, 1973; or
       (ii) contracting out by Amtrak of work normally performed 
     by an employee in a bargaining unit covered by a contract 
     between Amtrak and a labor organization representing Amtrak 
     employees,

     applicable to employees of Amtrak is extinguished. This 
     paragraph shall not apply to provisions defining the scope or 
     classification of work performed by an Amtrak employee.
       (B) In the case of provisions of a collective bargaining 
     agreement with respect to which a moratorium is in effect 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     subparagraph (A) shall take effect 164 days after the date of 
     the expiration of such moratorium.
       (3) Section 1172(c) of title 11, United States Code, shall 
     not apply to Amtrak and its employees.
       (4) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall take 
     effect 254 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Intercity Passenger Service Employees.--Section 1165(a) 
     of the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 (45 U.S.C. 1113(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``After January 1, 1983'';
       (2) by striking ``Amtrak, Amtrak Commuter, and Conrail'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Amtrak and Conrail'';
       (3) by striking ``Such agreement shall ensure'' and all 
     that follows through ``submitted to binding arbitration.''; 
     and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     agreement, or arrangement, with respect to employees in any 
     class or craft in train or engine service, Conrail shall have 
     the right to furlough one such employee for each employee in 
     train or engine service who moves from Amtrak to Conrail in 
     excess of the cumulative number of such employees who move 
     from Conrail to Amtrak. Conrail shall not be obligated to 
     fill any position governed by an agreement concerning crew 
     consist, attrition arrangements, reserve boards, or reserve 
     engine service positions, where an increase in positions is 
     the result of the return of an Amtrak employee pursuant to an 
     agreement entered into under paragraph (1). Conrail's 
     collective bargaining agreements with organizations 
     representing its train and engine service employees shall be 
     deemed to have been amended to conform to this paragraph. Any 
     dispute or controversy with respect to the interpretation, 
     application, or enforcement of this paragraph which has not 
     been resolved within 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this paragraph may be submitted by either party to an 
     adjustment board for a final and binding decision under 
     section 3 of the Railway Labor Act.''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 11347 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``sections 24307(c), 
     24312, and'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section''.
                  TITLE IV--USE OF RAILROAD FACILITIES

     SEC. 401. LIABILITY LIMITATION.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 281 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 28103. Limitations on rail passenger transportation 
       liability

       ``(a) Limitations.--(1) Notwithstanding any other statutory 
     or common law or public policy, or the nature of the conduct 
     giving rise to damages or liability, in a claim for personal 
     injury, death, or damage to property arising from or in 
     connection with the provision of rail passenger 
     transportation, or from or in connection with any rail 
     passenger transportation operations over or rail passenger 
     transportation use of right-of-way or facilities owned, 
     leased, or maintained by any high-speed railroad authority or 
     operator, any commuter authority or operator, any rail 
     carrier, or any State--
       ``(A) punitive damages shall not exceed the greater of--
       ``(i) $250,000; or
       ``(ii) three times the amount of economic loss; and
       ``(B) noneconomic damages awarded to any claimant for each 
     accident or incident shall not exceed the claimant's economic 
     loss, if any, by more than $250,000.
       ``(2) If, in any case wherein death was caused, the law of 
     the place where the act or omission complained of occurred 
     provides, or has been construed to provide, for damages only 
     punitive in nature, the claimant may recover in a claim 
     limited by this subsection for economic and noneconomic 
     damages and punitive damages, subject to paragraph (1)(A) and 
     (B).
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `actual damages' means damages awarded to 
     pay for economic loss;
       ``(B) the term `claim' means a claim made, directly or 
     indirectly--
       ``(i) against Amtrak, any high-speed railroad authority or 
     operator, any commuter authority or operator, any rail 
     carrier, or any State; or
       ``(ii) against an officer, employee, affiliate engaged in 
     railroad operations, or agent, of Amtrak, any high-speed 
     railroad authority or operator, any commuter authority or 
     operator, any rail carrier, or any State;
       ``(C) the term `economic loss' means any pecuniary loss 
     resulting from harm, including the loss of earnings, medical 
     expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death, 
     burial costs, loss of business or employment opportunities, 
     and any other form of pecuniary loss allowed under applicable 
     State law or under paragraph (2) of this subsection;
       ``(D) the term `noneconomic damages' means damages other 
     than punitive damages or actual damages; and
       ``(E) the term `punitive damages' means damages awarded 
     against any person or entity to punish or deter such person 
     or entity, or others, from engaging in similar behavior in 
     the future.
       ``(b) Indemnification Obligations.--Obligations of any 
     party, however arising, including obligations arising under 
     leases or contracts or pursuant to orders of an 
     administrative agency, to indemnify against damages or 
     liability for personal injury, death, or damage to property 
     described in subsection (a), incurred after the date of the 
     enactment of the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act of 1995, 
     shall be enforceable, notwithstanding any other statutory or 
     common law or public policy, or the nature of the conduct 
     giving rise to the damages or liability.
       ``(c) Effect on Other Laws.--This section shall not affect 
     the damages that may be recovered under the Act of April 27, 
     1908 (45 U.S.C. 51 et seq.; popularly known as the `Federal 
     Employers' Liability Act') or under any workers compensation 
     act.
       ``(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `rail carrier' includes a person 

[[Page H13825]]
     providing excursion, scenic, or museum train service, and an owner or 
     operator of a privately owned rail passenger car.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 
     281 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``28103. Limitations on rail passenger transportation liability.''.
                       TITLE V--FINANCIAL REFORMS

     SEC. 501. FINANCIAL POWERS.

       (a) Capitalization.--(1) Section 24304 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 24304. Employee stock ownership plans

       ``In issuing stock pursuant to applicable corporate law, 
     Amtrak is encouraged to include employee stock ownership 
     plans.''.
       (2) The item relating to section 24304 of title 49, United 
     States Code, in the table of sections of chapter 243 of such 
     title is amended to read as follows:

``24304. Employee stock ownership plans.''.

       (b) Redemption of Common Stock.--(1) Amtrak shall, within 2 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, redeem 
     all common stock previously issued, for the fair market value 
     of such stock.
       (2) Section 28103 of title 49, United States Code, shall 
     not apply to any rail carrier holding common stock of Amtrak 
     after the expiration of 2 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Amtrak shall redeem any such common stock held after 
     the expiration of the 2-month period described in paragraph 
     (1), using procedures set forth in section 24311(a) and (b).
       (c) Elimination of Liquidation Preference and Voting Rights 
     of Preferred Stock.--(1)(A) Preferred stock of Amtrak held by 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall confer no liquidation 
     preference.
       (B) Subparagraph (A) shall take effect 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2)(A) Preferred stock of Amtrak held by the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall confer no voting rights.
       (B) Subparagraph (A) shall take effect 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Note and Mortgage.--(1) Section 24907 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and the item relating thereto in the 
     table of sections of chapter 249 of such title, are repealed.
       (2) The United States hereby relinquishes all rights held 
     in connection with any note obtained or mortgage made under 
     such section 24907, or in connection with the note, security 
     agreement, and terms and conditions related thereto entered 
     into with Amtrak dated October 5, 1983.
       (3) No amount shall be includible in Amtrak's gross income 
     for Federal tax purposes as a result of the application of 
     this subsection or subsection (c).
       (e) Status and Applicable Laws.--(1) Section 24301(a)(3) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, and 
     shall not be subject to title 31, United States Code'' after 
     ``United States Government''.
       (2) Section 9101(2) of title 31, United States Code, 
     relating to Government corporations, is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (A) and redesignating subparagraphs (B) through 
     (M) as subparagraphs (A) through (L), respectively.

     SEC. 502. DISBURSEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

       Section 24104(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Administration of Appropriations.--Federal operating 
     assistance funds appropriated to Amtrak shall be provided to 
     Amtrak upon appropriation when requested by Amtrak.

     SEC. 503. BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 24302 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 24302. Board of Directors

       ``(a) Emergency Reform Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment and duties.--The Emergency Reform Board 
     described in paragraph (2) shall assume the responsibilities 
     of the Board of Directors of Amtrak 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act of 
     1995, or as soon thereafter as such Board is sufficiently 
     constituted to function as a board of directors under 
     applicable corporate law. Such Board shall adopt new bylaws, 
     including procedures for the selection of members of the 
     Board of Directors under subsection (c) which provide for 
     employee representation.
       ``(2) Membership.--(A) The Emergency Reform Board shall 
     consist of 7 members appointed by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate.
       ``(B) In selecting individuals for nominations for 
     appointments to the Emergency Reform Board, the President 
     should consult with--
       ``(i) the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     concerning the appointment of two members;
       ``(ii) the minority leader of the House of Representatives 
     concerning the appointment of one member;
       ``(iii) the majority leader of the Senate concerning the 
     appointment of two members; and
       ``(iv) the minority leader of the Senate concerning the 
     appointment of one member.
       ``(C) Appointments under subparagraph (A) shall be made 
     from among individuals who--
       ``(i) have technical qualification, professional standing, 
     and demonstrated expertise in the fields of intercity common 
     carrier transportation and corporate management; and
       ``(ii) are not employees of Amtrak, employees of the United 
     States, or representatives of rail labor or rail management.
       ``(b) Director General.--If the Emergency Reform Board 
     described in subsection (a)(2) is not sufficiently 
     constituted to function as a board of directors under 
     applicable corporate law before the expiration of 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of the Amtrak Reform and 
     Privatization Act of 1995, the special court established 
     under section 209(b) of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act 
     of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 719(b)) shall appoint a Director General, 
     who shall exercise all powers of the Board of Directors of 
     Amtrak until the Emergency Reform Board assumes such powers.
       ``(c) Board of Directors.--Four years after the 
     establishment of the Emergency Reform Board under subsection 
     (a), a Board of Directors shall be selected pursuant to 
     bylaws adopted by the Emergency Reform Board, and the 
     Emergency Reform Board shall be dissolved.''.
       (b) Effect on Authorizations.--If the Emergency Reform 
     Board has not assumed the responsibilities of the Board of 
     Directors of Amtrak before March 15, 1996, all provisions 
     authorizing appropriations under the amendments made by 
     section 701 of this Act for a fiscal year after fiscal year 
     1996 shall cease to be effective.

     SEC. 504. REPORTS AND AUDITS.

       Section 24315 of title 49, United States Code, as amended 
     by section 208 of this Act, is further amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) and (c);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), 
     and (h) as subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), 
     respectively; and
       (3) in subsection (d), as so redesignated by paragraph (2) 
     of this section, by striking ``(d) or (e)'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``(b) or (c)''.

     SEC. 505. OFFICERS' PAY.

       Section 24303(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``The preceding sentence shall cease to 
     be effective on the expiration of a fiscal year during which 
     no Federal operating assistance is provided to Amtrak.'' 
     after ``with comparable responsibility.''.

     SEC. 506. EXEMPTION FROM TAXES.

       Section 24301(l)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, and any passenger or other customer of 
     Amtrak or such subsidiary,'' after ``subsidiary of Amtrak'';
       (2) by striking ``or fee imposed'' and all that follows 
     through ``levied on it'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``, 
     fee, head charge, or other charge, imposed or levied by a 
     State, political subdivision, or local taxing authority, 
     directly or indirectly on Amtrak or on persons traveling in 
     intercity rail passenger transportation or on mail or express 
     transportation provided by Amtrak or a rail carrier 
     subsidiary of Amtrak, or on the carriage of such persons, 
     mail, or express, or on the sale of any such transportation, 
     or on the gross receipts derived therefrom''; and
       (3) by amending the last sentence thereof to read as 
     follows: ``In the case of a tax or fee that Amtrak was 
     required to pay as of September 10, 1982, Amtrak is not 
     exempt from such tax or fee if it was assessed before April 
     1, 1995.''.
                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 601. TEMPORARY RAIL ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       (a) Appointment.--Within 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a Temporary Rail Advisory Council (in 
     this section referred to as the ``Council'') shall be 
     appointed under this section.
       (b) Duties.--The Council shall--
       (1) evaluate Amtrak's performance;
       (2) prepare an analysis and critique of Amtrak's business 
     plan;
       (3) suggest strategies for further cost containment and 
     productivity improvements, including strategies with the 
     potential for further reduction in Federal operating 
     subsidies and the eventual partial or complete privatization 
     of Amtrak's operations; and
       (4) recommend appropriate methods for adoption of uniform 
     cost and accounting procedures throughout the Amtrak system, 
     based on generally accepted accounting principles.
       (c) Membership.--(1) The Council shall consist of 7 members 
     appointed as follows:
       (A) Two individuals to be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (B) One individual to be appointed by the minority leader 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (C) Two individuals to be appointed by the majority leader 
     of the Senate.
       (D) One individual to be appointed by the minority leader 
     of the Senate.
       (E) One individual to be appointed by the President.
       (2) Appointments under paragraph (1) shall be made from 
     among individuals who--
       (A) have technical qualification, professional standing, 
     and demonstrated expertise in the fields of transportation 
     and corporate management; and
       (B) are not employees of Amtrak, employees of the United 
     States, or representatives of rail labor or rail management.
       (3) Within 40 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, a majority of the members of the Council shall elect a 
     chairman from among such members.
       (d) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Council shall 
     serve without pay, but shall receive travel expenses, 
     including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with 
     sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Administrative Support.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall provide to the Council such 
     administrative support as the Council requires to carry out 
     this section.
       (f) Access to Information.--Amtrak shall make available to 
     the Council all information the Council requires to carry out 
     this section. The Council shall establish appropriate 
     procedures to ensure against the public disclosure of any 
     information obtained under this subsection which is a trade 
     secret or commercial or financial information that is 
     privileged or confidential.
       (g) Reports.--(1) Within 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Council shall transmit to the 
     Amtrak board of directors 

[[Page H13826]]
     and the Congress an interim report on its findings and recommendations.
       (2) Within 270 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Council shall transmit to the Amtrak board of 
     directors and the Congress a final report on its findings and 
     recommendations.
       (h) Status.--The Council shall not be subject to the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) or section 552 
     of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
     Freedom of Information Act).

     SEC. 602. PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS.

       Section 24301(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence;
       (2) by striking ``of the District of Columbia'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``of the State in which its 
     principal office and place of business is located''; and
       (3) by inserting ``For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `State' includes the District of Columbia. 
     Notwithstanding section 3 of the District of Columbia 
     Business Corporation Act, Amtrak, if its principal office and 
     place of business is located in the District of Columbia, 
     shall be considered organized under the provisions of such 
     Act.'' after ``in a civil action.''.

     SEC. 603. STATUS AND APPLICABLE LAWS.

       Section 24301 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``rail carrier under 
     section 10102'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``railroad 
     carrier under section 20102(2) and chapters 261 and 281''; 
     and
       (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Application of Subtitle IV.--Subtitle IV of this 
     title shall not apply to Amtrak, except for sections 11303, 
     11342(a), 11504(a) and (d), and 11707. Notwithstanding the 
     preceding sentence, Amtrak shall continue to be considered an 
     employer under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, the 
     Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Railroad 
     Retirement Tax Act.''.

     SEC. 604. WASTE DISPOSAL.

       Section 24301(m)(1)(A) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``1996'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``2001''.

     SEC. 605. ASSISTANCE FOR UPGRADING FACILITIES.

       Section 24310 of title 49, United States Code, and the item 
     relating thereto in the table of sections of chapter 243 of 
     such title, are repealed.

     SEC. 606. RAIL SAFETY SYSTEM PROGRAM.

       Section 24313 of title 49, United States Code, and the item 
     relating thereto in the table of sections of chapter 243 of 
     such title, are repealed.

     SEC. 607. DEMONSTRATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 24314 of title 49, United States Code, and the item 
     relating thereto in the table of sections of chapter 243 of 
     such title, are repealed.

     SEC. 608. PROGRAM MASTER PLAN FOR BOSTON-NEW YORK MAIN LINE.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 24903 of title 49, United States Code, 
     and the item relating thereto in the table of sections of 
     chapter 249 of such title, are repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 24902(a)(1)(A) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``and 40 
     minutes''.

     SEC. 609. BOSTON-NEW HAVEN ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT.

       Section 24902(f) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Improvements under''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Amtrak shall design and construct the electrification 
     system between Boston, Massachusetts, and New Haven, 
     Connecticut, to accommodate the installation of a third 
     mainline track between Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode 
     Island, to be used for double-stack freight service to and 
     from the Port of Davisville. Amtrak shall also make clearance 
     improvements on the existing main line tracks to permit 
     double stack service on this line, if funds to defray the 
     costs of clearance improvements beyond Amtrak's own 
     requirements for electrified passenger service are provided 
     by public or private entities other than Amtrak. Wherever 
     practicable, Amtrak shall use portal structures and realign 
     existing tracks on undergrade and overgrade bridges to 
     minimize the width of the right-of-way required to add the 
     third track. Amtrak shall take such other steps as may be 
     required to coordinate and facilitate design and construction 
     work. The Secretary of Transportation may provide appropriate 
     support to Amtrak for carrying out this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 610. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990.

       (a) Application to Amtrak.--Amtrak shall not be subject to 
     any requirement under section 242(a)(1) and (3) and (e)(2) of 
     the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12162(a)(1) and (3) and (e)(2)) until January 1, 1998.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 24307 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).

     SEC. 611. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 24102 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (11);
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (6), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6), as so redesignated by 
     paragraph (2) of this section, the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) `rail passenger transportation' means the interstate, 
     intrastate, or international transportation of passengers by 
     rail;'';
       (4) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated by paragraph (2) 
     of this section, by inserting ``, including a unit of State 
     or local government,'' after ``means a person''; and
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (9) and (10) as paragraphs 
     (8) and (9), respectively.

     SEC. 612. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR COST DISPUTE.

       Section 1163 of the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 (45 
     U.S.C. 1111) is repealed.

     SEC. 613. INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978 AMENDMENT.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 8G(a)(2) of the Inspector General 
     Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking 
     ``Amtrak,''.
       (b) Amtrak Not Federal Entity.--Amtrak shall not be 
     considered a Federal entity for purposes of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978.

     SEC. 614. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION.

       Section 4023 of the Conrail Privatization Act (45 U.S.C. 
     1323), and the item relating thereto in the table of contents 
     of such Act, are repealed.

     SEC. 615. INTERSTATE RAIL COMPACTS.

       (a) Consent to Compacts.--Congress grants consent to States 
     with an interest in a specific form, route, or corridor of 
     intercity passenger rail service (including high speed rail 
     service) to enter into interstate compacts to promote the 
     provision of the service, including--
       (1) retaining an existing service or commencing a new 
     service;
       (2) assembling rights-of-way; and
       (3) performing capital improvements, including--
       (A) the construction and rehabilitation of maintenance 
     facilities and intermodal passenger facilities;
       (B) the purchase of locomotives; and
       (C) operational improvements, including communications, 
     signals, and other systems.
       (b) Financing.--An interstate compact established by States 
     under subsection (a) may provide that, in order to carry out 
     the compact, the States may--
       (1) accept contributions from a unit of State or local 
     government or a person;
       (2) use any Federal or State funds made available for 
     intercity passenger rail service (except funds made available 
     for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation);
       (3) on such terms and conditions as the States consider 
     advisable--
       (A) borrow money on a short-term basis and issue notes for 
     the borrowing; and
       (B) issue bonds; and
       (4) obtain financing by other means permitted under Federal 
     or State law.

     SEC. 616. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 10362(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking paragraph (5) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (6) through (8) as paragraphs (5) through (7), 
     respectively.
               TITLE VII--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 701. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 24104(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Transportation--
       ``(1) $772,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
       ``(2) $712,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(3) $712,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(4) $712,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       ``(5) $403,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,

     for the benefit of Amtrak for capital expenditures under 
     chapters 243 and 247 of this title, operating expenses, and 
     payments described in subsection (c)(1)(A) through (C).''.
       (b) Additional Authorizations.--Section 24104(b) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Additional Authorizations.--(1) In addition to 
     amounts appropriated under subsection (a), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation--
       ``(A) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
       ``(B) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(C) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(D) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       ``(E) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,

     for the benefit of Amtrak to make capital expenditures under 
     chapter 249 of this title.
       ``(2) In addition to amounts appropriated under subsection 
     (a), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     of Transportation--
       ``(A) $21,500,000 for fiscal year 1995;
       ``(B) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(C) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(D) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       ``(E) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,

     for the benefit of Amtrak to be used for engineering, design, 
     and construction activities to enable the James A. Farley 
     Post Office in New York, New York, to be used as a train 
     station and commercial center and for necessary improvements 
     and redevelopment of the existing Pennsylvania Station and 
     associated service building in New York, New York.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 24909 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and the item relating thereto in the 
     table of sections of chapter 249 of such title, are repealed.
       (d) Guarantee of Obligations.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation--
       (1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       (3) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       (4) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,

     for guaranteeing obligations of Amtrak under section 511 of 
     the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 
     (45 U.S.C. 831).
       (e) Conditions for Guarantee of Obligations.--Section 
     511(i) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform 
     Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 831(i)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:

[[Page H13827]]

       ``(4) The Secretary shall not require, as a condition for 
     guarantee of an obligation under this section, that all 
     preexisting secured obligations of an obligor be subordinated 
     to the rights of the Secretary in the event of a default.''.


                    amendment offered by mr. clement

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Clement: Page 36, after line 21, 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 617. RAILROAD LOAN GUARANTEES.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--Section 101(a) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) continuation of service on, or preservation of, light 
     density lines that are necessary to continued employment and 
     community well-being throughout the United States;''.
       (b) Maximum Rate of Interest.--Section 511(f) of the 
     Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 
     U.S.C. 831(f)) is amended by striking ``shall not exceed an 
     annual percentage rate which the Secretary determines to be 
     reasonable, taking into consideration the prevailing interest 
     rates for similar obligations in the private market,'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``shall not exceed the annual 
     percentage rate charged equivalent to the cost of money to 
     the United States.''.
       (c) Minimum Repayment Period and Prepayment Penalties.--
     Section 511(g)(2) of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 831(g)(2)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) payment of the obligation is required by its terms to 
     be made not less than 15 years nor more than 25 years from 
     the date of its execution, with no penalty imposed for 
     prepayment after 5 years;''.
       (d) Determination of Repayability.--Section 511(g)(5) of 
     the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 
     (45 U.S.C. 831(g)(5) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) either the loan can reasonably be repaid by the 
     applicant or the loan is collateralized at no more than the 
     current value of assets being financed under this section to 
     provide protection to the United States;''.

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I introduced 
legislation with my good friend and colleague, Speaker Bachus, to amend 
the section 511 Railroad Loan Guarantee Program and make it more 
accessible for small carriers. This legislation enjoys strong 
bipartisan support from Members both in committee and in the whole 
House.
  The section 511 Loan Guarantee Program is tremendously important to 
the 530 small railroads that operate in every State and provide access 
to the Nation's major rail network for thousands of shippers. 
Authorized since 1976, this loan program provides a source of long-term 
capital for infrastructure and equipment.
  However, in recent times funds have not been available for investment 
in regional and short line infrastructure projects at the very time 
these companies have taken over 35,000 miles of failing railroad lines. 
And more lines will be headed for abandonment as the major railroads 
merge and consolidate their operations.
  Regional and shortline railroads are businesses operating on lines 
that otherwise would have been abandoned. Many of these lines had been 
undermaintained for decades. Furthermore, most commercial banks do not 
understand railroading and are leery of rail loans. Track and 
infrastructure loans to maintain and upgrade 30-year assets are made 
available only at high interest rates and short payback periods. These 
terms are not viable for these small businesses.
  In addition, acquisition of a line by the railroad often requires 
high-cost, short-term debt which drains internally generated cash which 
could otherwise be devoted for rehabilitation. This has created a 
credit crunch throughout the regional and short line industry. A 1993 
report to Congress from the Federal Railroad Administration stated that 
there is a $440 million shortfall in routine maintenance funding for 
class II and class III freight railroads that cannot be generated by 
internal cash or borrowed on acceptable terms. There is clearly a 
demonstrated need for the section 511 program.
  The amendment proposed by myself and Congressman Spencer Bachus would 
make several modest, some may even say technical, changes to the 
section 511 program to make it more compatible with the needs of small 
railroads and for its use in the commercial banking sector. 
Specifically, the amendment would set the interest for guaranteed 
railroad loans at the Federal Treasury rate and establish a minimum 
repayment period of 15 years. The amendment also allows the asset being 
financed to be used as collateral for the loan.
  These changes are necessary to allow small railroads to complete 
larger, multiyear track and bridge projects. More importantly, in this 
new era of fiscal consciousness, these changes to the section 511 
railroad loan guarantees program have a negligible budget impact. The 
program is already permanently authorized at $1 billion, of which 
approximately $980 million is currently available for commitment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help an important segment of our 
transportation system. The amendment is supported by the Regional 
Railroads of America, the American Short Line Railroad Association, and 
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 
I urge the adoption of the Clement-Bachus amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It makes the loan guarantee 
program more user-friendly. We support it on this side and urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good 
friend from Tennessee, Bob Clement.
  Mr. Clement's amendment is based on legislation he has introduced, 
H.R. 2205, the Rail Infrastructure Preservation Act of 1995. I am an 
original cosponsor of this legislation, and I fully support Mr. 
Clement's effort to include the relevant portions of that bill in the 
Amtrak reauthorization.
  H.R. 1788 authorizes $50 million annually for loan guarantees under 
the program created by section 511 loan guarantee program. Although the 
section 511 loan program has been used principally to support 
rehabilitation of branch lines in rural areas, the bill expands the 
program for use on Amtrak's infrastructure. I strongly support 
inclusion of this provision in this legislation.
  Mr. Clement's amendment amends section 511 to make it easier for 
borrowers to qualify for loans. It clarifies the program's purposes to 
favor continuation of service on or preservation of light density rail 
lines. It reduces the interest rate for guaranteed railroad loans to 
the Treasury bond interest rate. It establishes a 15-year repayment 
period for the loan, but allow prepayment without penalty after 5 
years. Finally, the amendment enables the Secretary of Transportation 
to waive collateral requirements if he thinks repayment is likely.
  This amendment will remove arbitrary barriers currently preventing 
the most effective use of the program. It takes a good program and 
makes it better. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I, too, rise in support of the Clement amendment.
  The problem that it addresses is that of rehabilitation of branch 
lines in rural areas, and it addresses that problem in a very 
reasonable, responsible, thoughtful way by providing financing 
mechanisms that would make it possible through loan guarantee programs 
to lower the interest rate and provide a penalty-free prepayment period 
after 5 years, empower the Secretary of Transportation to waive 
collateral requirements. Those are financial impediments to investment 
in those branch lines that are so important to service in rural areas.
  Believe me, I know. I have got a rural district, and we need this 
kind of service, and I think the amendment comes too late for most of 
my district. Those branch lines were abandoned a long time ago. Had we 
had such language 20 years ago, many small towns in the 8th District of 
Minnesota and elsewhere in the State of Minnesota would still be 
competitive economically because they would have branch line rail 
service.
  I commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. I commend the 
gentleman from Illinois for working it 

[[Page H13828]]
out, and I appreciate the support of the chairman of our committee on 
this amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the Clement-
Bachus amendment.
  Mr. Oberstar talked about rural help. This will also help urban 
areas.
  In San Diego, for example, the 511 program will help us revise a 
railroad that will go from the port of San Diego to connect up with the 
national rail system to the east coast. It will completely transform 
the economy of San Diego if we were able to revive this line under the 
program that 511 authorizes.
  So, Mr. Chairman, both sides, this amendment is important. It will 
help the economy of the United States in many, many areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the proposal put forward 
by Congressman Clement to amend the 511 Loan Guarantee Program. I 
commend Congressman Clement for his initiative. In my view this program 
is essential to the continuation of service on light density Rail lines 
that are necessary to continued employment and community well-being 
throughout the United States.
  This is an area of great interest to me. As the House may recall, 
together with my colleague, Congressman Cooley and Congressman Ray 
LaHood, I engaged in a colloquy with the chairman of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee to support this basic policy.
  This is an excellent proposal to help support the critical rail 
infrastructure of this country. The directly competitive truck and 
barge industries receive great funding windfalls from transportation 
infrastructure investment. Critical regional and shortline railroads 
have no access to similar funds. Reactivation of the 511 program will 
insure the reconstruction and repair of a significant portion of 
America's rail infrastructure which is operated by regional and 
shortline railroads.
  The 511 Loan Guarantee Program has been authorized since 1976. In the 
1970's and 1908's it was primarily used to assist large financially 
troubled railroads. The Clement amendment will help meet the 
infrastructure needs of small railroads. In recent times, funds have 
not been available for investment in regional and shortline 
infrastructure at the very time these companies have taken over 35,000 
miles of failing railroad line. Most of these lines were headed for 
abandonment by the large railroads.
  An example of such a small railroad can be found in my own district. 
In 1984, a Texas firm which operates shortline railroads, established 
the San Diego & Imperial Valley Railroad, which provides freight 
service over a central line at night when the municipal trolleys are 
not operating. This small railroad has provided good service and been 
profitable.
  Unfortunately, in 1976, major sections of the track were destroyed on 
the Desert Line which connects the San Diego & Imperial Valley to the 
National Railroad System. It has long been a major objective of the San 
Diego Association of Governments to reconnect the railroad to the 
National Rail Network in the Imperial Valley. This will have major 
benefits for shippers in the San Diego area and will provide relief for 
the transit lines which currently carry both freight and passengers 
into Los Angeles. Even though the track itself is owned by the transit 
district, management of the San Diego & Imperial Valley Railroad has 
informed us that they will finance the reconnection if section 511 loan 
guarantees are made available.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support Congressman Clement's 
amendment that will allow the small regional and shortline railroads, 
such as the San Diego and Imperial Valley, to maintain their 
infrastructure needs and continue to provide essential freight service.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Let me simply say this: We have all seen branch lines and spur lines 
across this country, and a lot of those lines, to us, look like two 
iron rails with a lot of weeds in the middle, and sometimes you even 
think that they are abandoned. But about once a week or once a day a 
train will go down that track, and it will haul two or three box-cars 
or haul a tank car or a hopper car, and it is always headed for a 
factory or to a grain elevator. We may say, ``What is the use of saving 
these lines that are used only once or twice a week or once a day? Why 
don't we just let them die?''
  What we have to understand is when we let those lines die, we kill 
jobs. We kill jobs in rural America. We may have a branch line that 
runs 100 miles and serves seven or eight grain elevators. When that 
line dies, not only do we lose three or four jobs on that railroad but 
we also lose those jobs at the grain elevators and we lose those 
farmers' opportunities to get their grain, to sell their grain, to have 
that grain go overseas and contribute to a trade surplus, not a trade 
deficit like we have today.

                              {time}  1200

  I have a factory in my district that employs 14 people. Once every 10 
days, two tank cars are delivered to that factory. The railroad loses 
about $2,000 every month supplying that factory, but that factory makes 
a $40,000 a week payroll to that community. So we have to in certain 
cases not only protect those lines, not for the railroad jobs, but for 
the factory jobs, because that is also the largest employer in a small 
town in my district.
  So this bill is absolutely critical. If you vote against this 
amendment, then you are voting against small business and you are 
voting against some large businesses in some very small towns. You are 
going to kill some small towns. You are going to kill some factories. 
This is as good an amendment as you will see on the floor of this 
House, and I urge its passage.
  I also say one day, if this bill is defeated, the entire bill, we are 
going to lose another opportunity. Today in Paris, France, 1,500 trains 
will leave Paris, France, delivering passengers. Amtrak has about 200 
trains a day. France is the size of Texas. We do not have much of a 
passenger system left in this country.
  In Japan, 20 percent of the people that travel today will travel on 
trains. Here, less than 1 percent will travel by train. When we talk 
about future generations, we owe it to future generations to work out 
not only this short-term solution to preserving passenger rail 
transportation, but also a long term solution.
  The Japanese, the Germans, the British, and the French, they all have 
excellent train travel. 15, 20, 25 percent of their citizens take 
advantage of that on either a daily or a weekly basis. We can do the 
same. We can compete, and, in doing so, we can end the gridlock on our 
highways and the dangerous situation we have in our skies today.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman on his vision 
of transportation and his understanding of the interrelationships of 
short line rail service and small town economics. That is what we are 
talking about. The gentleman painted it in very graphic terms. Also his 
larger vision of high speed rail service, which I addressed in my 
opening remarks on the bill today.
  I just want to compliment the gentleman and associate myself with his 
observations.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, we are going to spend much less than $1 
billion each year over the next few years on passenger rail travel. The 
Germans today are building one 86-mile rail corridor at the cost of 
$5.7 billion. They are putting people to work building for the future.
  If this bill goes down, we lose our dream of having a good 
transportation system in this country. We can put people to work, we 
can build on that dream, or we can turn our backs on viable 
transportation in this country. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill 
and on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. TRAFICANT

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by [Mr. Traficant]: Page 5, after line 
     14, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 104. TRACK WORK.

       (a) Outreach Program.--Amtrak shall, within one year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, establish an outreach 
     program through which it will work with track 

[[Page H13829]]
     work manufacturers in the United States to increase the likelihood that 
     such manufacturers will be able to meet Amtrak's 
     specifications for track work. The program shall include 
     engineering assistance for the manufacturers and dialogue 
     between Amtrak and the manufacturers to ensure that Amtrak's 
     specifications match the capabilities of the manufacturers.
       (b) Annual Report.--Amtrak shall annually report to the 
     Congress on progress made under subsection (a), including a 
     statement of the percentage of Amtrak's track work contracts 
     that are awarded to manufacturers in the United States.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment deals with an 
issue where the track that is being purchased, new track, much of it is 
being purchased from Europe. One of the reasons that Amtrak is buying 
most of its track from Europe is because their limited specifications 
have made it almost impossible for American manufacturers to bid 
competitively in this arena.
  The Traficant amendment basically says that Amtrak and the American 
manufacturers shall get together, sit down, talk about these 
specifications, see how they can be in fact worked out, and see how 
engineering assistance and some engineering advice could be granted to 
the American manufacturers of trackwork so they would have an 
opportunity to make it and get some of that business.
  Finally, it calls for a report to the Congress within 2 years after 
the date of enactment of this bill on the progress they are making, 
including a statement on the percentage of America's trackwork 
contracts that are awarded to American manufacturers.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent amendment. We support 
it on this side and urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The 
gentleman from Ohio really is justifiably known in this Congress as Mr. 
Buy-American, and he constantly raises the consciousness of this body 
to the needs of protecting the American workplace against unfair 
practices from our foreign competitors. The instance in which the 
gentleman addresses us today is one such example of unfair competition 
from abroad.
  The Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight during the years 
when the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and I were working 
together on those matters, held hearings on the Buy American Act as it 
applied to rail, intracity rail transit systems, Corps of Engineers, 
and the highway program. We found that the Federal Highway 
Administration was 100 percent in compliance with the Buy American Act. 
All the steel going into our highways was American steel. The Corps of 
Engineers was about 90 percent. We brought them into compliance. 
Horrible was the Urban Mass Transit Administration, overlooking, 
turning the other way, not enforcing the existing law. As a result, we 
have lost capacity which has flown overseas, and foreign manufacturers 
have now changed the standards which American manufacturers invented 
and created, and now they cannot compete because they cannot comply.
  The gentleman's amendment will put us back on track toward compliance 
and toward competitiveness again. I compliment the gentleman for 
raising this issue and bringing this amendment to us. I support the 
amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to compliment 
the ranking member for all the work he has done before Members like 
myself got here. The gentleman deserves a lot of credit for most of 
these initiatives.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio, 
``Mr. Buy American,'' for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  There may be no one in this body who is as strong a supporter of 
American workers as Mr. ``Buy American.'' I have consistently supported 
the gentleman's efforts on this issue, and today is no exception.
  Although Amtrak is already covered by a buy-American provision, 
because the so-called trackwork used by Amtrak is not produced in the 
United States, Amtrak is permitted to buy from a foreign manufacturer. 
Trackwork for freight railroads is manufactured in the United States, 
but these manufacturers do not presently build trackwork of the quality 
standards required for Amtrak's passenger trains.
  This amendment requires that Amtrak and the American manufacturers 
work together to find ways to increase the ability of the manufacturers 
to meet Amtrak's specifications for trackwork. Amtrak will report back 
to Congress within 2 years on its progress.
  Both Amtrak and the American trackwork manufacturers want Amtrak's 
trackwork to be procured from American firms. This amendment will 
enable them to work toward that goal.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a well-reasoned buy-American amendment. I 
commend Mr. Traficant for his leadership and urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I also would like to compliment him on his performance 
yesterday on the sports talk show that I watched on television. The 
gentleman is not only an outstanding legislator, but he also happens to 
be one of the most knowledgeable people that we have here in Congress--
not only football, which he played at the University of Pittsburgh, but 
also on baseball, basketball, and just about any other sport one can 
think of.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to once again 
support the gentleman's amendment. It is a good amendment to a very 
good bill.
  We are moving in the right direction with respect to Amtrak. I hope 
all of our colleagues are paying attention, because if they have not 
had personal experience with Amtrak, I encourage them to do so. It is 
more efficient, it is cleaner, it is doing a magnificent job, it saves 
energy, and it is energy efficient, and, boy, is that not refreshing 
these days, and it is environmentally clean. We should support Amtrak 
for all the right reasons. So I am glad to have a good amendment to a 
good bill for a worthy cause.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good bill and will help Amtrak to 
become more business-like, cut costs, and become less dependent on 
Federal subsidies. In preparing for the reauthorization of Amtrak we 
listened to numerous expert public witnesses, Amtrak, and others 
associated with transportation. From these discussions it became clear 
that without significant cost-cutting reforms, Amtrak would not survive 
as a national system. This bill does bring about real reform for Amtrak 
in a number of key areas. More important, however, it gives Amtrak the 
tools it needs to become less dependent on direct Federal subsidies.
  There are many of us on the committee who have Amtrak in their 
districts and know how vital that service is to the communities. When 
Amtrak came before the Railroad Subcommittee in February to testify, 
the corporation was faced with a huge deficit. Over the past 12 months, 
Amtrak has cut routes, has reduced frequencies on other routes, and has 
cut back its staff. Amtrak's efforts have led to significant cost 
savings and closed a significant shortfall in the past fiscal year.
  As of the end of the fiscal year, passenger revenues are up, the work 
force has been pared down, and on-time and safety performance continues 
to improve. In the business plan put forth by Amtrak at the beginning 
of the fiscal year, the corporation projected a bottom-line improvement 
of $174 million. But the improvement exceeded expectations--Amtrak 
improved the bottom line by $193 million. The internal reforms being 
implemented and the aggressive business strategy being pursued at 
Amtrak are showing success.
  Today we will take legislative actions to allow Amtrak to manage 
their system free from inefficient structures and legislatively imposed 
impediments. These next few years will be pivotal in determining 
Amtrak's future, and it is my desire to help Amtrak adhere to, and 
succeed at, the plan for self-sufficiency. Enactment of this bill is a 
significant step down that path, and I hope you will support it. 

[[Page H13830]]

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I say if Amtrak does not restate their 
service to my valley, there is going to be hell in the Congress over 
the next several years. I ask for an affirmative vote.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 1788, and I want to particularly congratulate the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for producing this excellent bill. It would 
be a disgrace for our Nation not to have a national passenger railroad. 
If Congress does not pass this legislation, that is precisely what will 
happen.
  In my home State of New Jersey, the gridlock on our highways and 
congestion at our airports would be enormous if Amtrak were to shut 
down. Anyone who doubts this fact should take a ride on the most 
heavily traveled roadway in all of the world, the New Jersey Turnpike, 
or try to catch a flight out of Newark Airport, one of the busiest 
airports in the Nation. Without the option to take the train, millions 
of travelers would be forced to drive or fly. As New Jersey's highways 
and airports are already operating at or near capacity, the delays and 
congestion would simply be intolerable.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a reasonable compromise that gives 
Amtrak a fighting chance to become financially self-sufficient. Without 
this bill, Amtrak goes out of business. I urge my colleagues to keep 
the trains running by supporting this legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise in support of 
H.R. 1788, the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act. I want to commend 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], the subcommittee chairman, 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking minority 
member, and others in the committee for their fine work on this piece 
of legislation.
  Earlier this year I had introduced H.R. 832, the Amtrak Flexibility 
Act of 1995, which would have repealed the current statutory 
requirement that Amtrak pay every employee on a discontinued route 
severance pay equal to 1 year of full pay for every year of service up 
to 6 years maximum service. This bill repeals that requirement and does 
allow Amtrak to renegotiate its labor agreements.
  The committee members and the Amtrak officials and union 
representatives have all worked on this particular section of the bill, 
and while no side is totally happy, they all agree that this is a good 
compromise. I support that compromise.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that Amtrak has suffered a 
decline in ridership over the last several years and, as a result of 
that, their operating costs as a percentage of their total revenues 
have gone up, which has made it very difficult for them to make a 
profit. Hopefully with this legislation, Amtrak can reform itself, it 
can discontinue those routes that are uneconomic and maintain those 
routes that are, and there will be Amtrak passenger service in the 
parts of the country that support it.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, in support of 
the bill, and again want to thank the leadership for this.
  The bill revises a number of existing laws to enable the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation [Amtrak] to operate less like a 
Government agency and more like a profitable business;
  It eliminates restrictions on contracting out many services, and 
allows Amtrak to renegotiate labor agreements with its unions; and
  It lifts the burdensome requirement that Amtrak continue operating 
the entire system of routes it inherited in 1971.
  Part of Amtrak's current quagmire is a result of their statutory 
severence package, which this legislation finally deals with. This 
bill, H.R. 1788, permits management to renegotiate labor agreements 
without having a mandated 6-year provision in place.
  H.R. 832, The Amtrak Flexibility Act of 1995, would have repealed the 
current statutory requirement that Amtrak pay every employee on a 
discontinued route severance equal to 1 year of full pay for every year 
worked for Amtrak up to a 6-year maximum, which the majority of 
employees quality for. H.R. 1788 achieves many of the goals addressed 
in my bill.
  These labor protection requirements are relics of a bygone era. This 
statute was mandated to protect rail workers moving to the public 
sector when Amtrak was created in 1971. Only 35 of those original 
employees still work for Amtrak. Today, Amtrak employs 24,000 people. 
This legislation will permit Amtrak management to make the necessary 
reforms, so they have a chance to become profitable.
  The State of Texas--according to Amtrak's own figures, their Texas 
ridership plummeted from 299,083 in 1993 to 202,412 in 1994. That's a 
loss of 32 percent. At the same time, Amtrak has only lost 13 of its 
161 Texas employees. Additionally, non-payroll Amtrak spending has 
increased in Texas from $5.3 million to $8.5 million--an increase of 60 
percent. This bill will permit Amtrak reduce unneeded routes in Texas 
while saving taxpayer's dollars.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


             amendment offered by mrs. collins of illinois

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Collins of Illinois: In Section 
     401, strike lines 9 through 12 on page 18.

  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering 
today corrects a highly discriminatory provision of H.R. 1788 which 
caps the amount of noneconomic damages that a victim of a railroad 
accident may recover at $250,000 above the level of economic damages. 
This provision pertains not only to a claim against Amtrak, but would 
also apply to a claim against any railroad, subway system, or any other 
defendant, so long as the accident involved passenger rail operations. 
This is wrong, it is nonsensical, it is simply unfair.
  My amendment would strike this provision from the bill and I urge its 
adoption.
  Although not as highly publicized as airplane crashes, train 
accidents are occurring in alarming numbers every year. According to 
the latest Federal Railroad Administration statistics, there were 
21,730 total train accidents in 1993 resulting in 1,279 deaths and 
19,121 injuries. Many of these train accidents involved the provision 
of rail passenger transportation services. In fact, about 8.5 times 
more people died in accidents involving Amtrak in 1993 than died in all 
U.S. scheduled commercial airline accidents. A cap on noneconomic 
damages could exacerbate the situation without resulting in any 
significant cost savings.
  The noneconomic damages in this bill would unfairly impact the most 
seriously injured accident victims; create an arbitrary and inflexible 
limit on recovery of pain and suffering damages regardless of the 
underlying circumstances of each case, that is, loss of eyesight is 
worth a maximum of $250,000 above economic damages and so is loss of 
eyesight combined with loss of hearing; and discriminate against women, 
the young, the elderly, and others who may not have large economic 
losses.
  Here's how the cap would work: Recall that five children died, and 
many others were injured recently when a train smashed into a schoolbus 
at a grade crossing in Fox River Grove, IL. The noneconomic damages cap 
in this bill could limit the recovery of those children and their 
families to a paltry sum. Because the typical child does not suffer 
lost wages or other economic damages, even the most catastrophically 
injured children could be limited to just $250,000 if they cannot show 
economic harm.
  Congress should be focusing on the critical need for improved rail 
safety in the United States, not hindering the ability of our legal 
system to fairly compensate accident victims and to hold negligent rail 
passenger transportation providers fully accountable.

[[Page H13831]]


                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
must strongly oppose my friend's amendment. The liability limitations 
reflect the seriousness of a long series of negotiations so we could 
bring this bill to the floor with support on both sides, as well as 
with Amtrak and the freight railroads.
  Limitations on liability from passenger rail accidents are absolutely 
necessary because the current arrangement unfairly requires the freight 
railroads, which are not forced to ask Amtrak to operate over their 
property by law, to assume the potentially ruinous financial risk of a 
passenger rail accident.
  Current Amtrak payments of approximately $80 million to the freight 
railroads for the use of their right of way do not come close to 
covering the potential risk posed by a passenger rail accident. In 
Chase, MD, for example, in which 16 people were killed, Conrail settled 
out of court for approximately $130 million.
  Limitations on liability in domestic passenger transportation are 
common. There is a statutory limitation which was enacted last year for 
the Virginia Railway Express Commuter Service. In addition, there are 
liability limitations for aviation and some transit operations.
  Let me emphasize, Mr. Chairman, without a reliable fix for liability 
which is in this bill and which the gentlewoman's amendment would 
strike, the freight railroads are unlikely to permit any passenger rail 
operators other than Amtrak to use their right of way. Amtrak's current 
operating agreements with the freight railroads expire in April 1996.
  If Congress does not settle the liability dispute now, the successor 
agency to the ICC, which has no expertise in this area whatsoever, will 
be forced to resolve this important issue. If the liability reform in 
this bill is stricken, it puts in jeopardy the entire success of the 
bill in the long run, so I strongly urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, admittedly we had not had time in advance, before 
consideration of the bill, to examine this issue. It has been raised 
just prior to coming to floor consideration of the bill. But on the 
merits, on just an analysis of the limitation in the bill, it strikes 
me that the bill limits noneconomic damages in the following way.
  If a person of some means suffers lost income of, say, $1 million, 
that person can collect the $1 million plus up to $1,250,000 for pain 
and suffering, whatever that person can prove in court. On the other 
hand, if a child is injured in an accident, say from a family of lesser 
means, that child would have no lost income. The child's noneconomic 
damages, that is, those for pain and suffering, would be limited to 
$250,000.
  On the one hand, why would you allow a person of substantial means, a 
wealthy person, to collect $1 million plus $1,250,500 and limit a child 
to $250,000? Why, on the other hand, would you tie pain and suffering 
to economic damages? They have no relationship one to the other. Most 
of those matters anyhow are covered by the insurance that the railroads 
cover. Of course, they are going to have an increase, should they have 
a rash of accidents, an increase in their insurance costs, but that is 
a separate matter.
  It just strikes me that in dealing with problems of Amtrak, that we 
should not go beyond and get into tort law limitations. There is an 
element of fairness that we ought to address and that the gentlewoman's 
amendment certainly does address.
  Furthermore, the bill does protect freight railroads by requiring--
they expect agreements of Amtrak to indemnify the railroads for damages 
for Amtrak passenger operation injuries. So I think there is plenty of 
protection in this legislation for the freight railroads, but it is the 
passenger that comes up short. Regrettably, this is an issue we did not 
sufficiently address prior to coming to the House floor. It is now 
being addressed, and I think it should be. I think the gentlewoman's 
amendment should pass.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to this amendment strenuously. This 
amendment would subject Amtrak and the freight railroads providing 
infrastructure to Amtrak to unlimited noneconomic damages. This would 
effectively destroy a carefully crafted reform bill that addresses the 
current unworkable liability situation on Amtrak.
  The cap that this amendment would eliminate is parallel to the one 
that the House approved in certain situations, such as medical 
malpractice, under the recent product liability bill. The key fact to 
keep in mind about liability reform the Amtrak is that it is the 
taxpayer who has to pay for excessive liability awards. Amtrak's 
liability either hits Amtrak directly or hits the freight railroad who 
furnished the track. Either way, the costs get passed back to the 
taxpayer, because Amtrak pays access charges to the freight railroads. 
Those charges necessarily include liability as a so-called incremental 
cost.
  So be very clear about this. Under this amendment, the taxpayers of 
the United States who helped to finance Amtrak would have their fees 
increased in order to pay for this.
  Remember also, this is not a voluntary service by the freight 
railroads, Amtrak, its access to their tracks by Federal law, whether 
the freight railroad wants to or not. This is in stark contrast to 
companies who sell a product or a service voluntarily.
  So, in closing, let me just advise the Members here that we are 
talking about passing these costs on to the Amtrak riders and to the 
taxpayers in general who subsidize Amtrak service, and that this is a 
double penalty on freight railroads who, by Federal statute, have been 
allowed to service Amtrak.
  We may in future years, if we are lifting this cap, have to rethink 
the Federal obligation to mandate services upon the freight railroads, 
because it seems to me that we cannot penalize in two situations, which 
is precisely what this does.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for the collins amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinios [Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out just a few weeks ago on 
November 2, a toddler stroller got struck in the train door in the 
Greenwich Village subway station in New York; and however, you know, 
Esmae Pender was able to snatch Anthony, her 9-month-old son from the 
stroller seconds before the train pulled out of the station, and he 
escaped injury. However, this lady's incident occurred just 1 week 
after the November 25 accident in which a child was pulled from beneath 
a stroller caught in doors between a subway stop at Fifth Avenue subway 
station. My amendment would have enabled the parents of that little 
child to in fact have more than the economic damages of $250,000 that 
we are talking about here. I think it is a fair thing to do. I thank 
the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I would like to say that this particular issue has been 
debated, discussed, negotiated upon to a great extent since we first 
started hearings on the Amtrak legislation. The language that exists in 
the bill at the present time from my perspective is a considerable 
improvement over what was in the bill originally.
  By the same token, it has always been my position that I seriously 
question tort reform being involved in this Amtrak reform legislation. 
I also think that it is to a great degree really a matter of fairness. 
As I mentioned earlier, since the start of the Amtrak deliberation we 
have gone over this issue and gone over it and gone over it, and 
perhaps even though we were unaware of this amendment coming to the 
floor today until very recently, something like 5 minutes after we 
started a debate on the rule for this bill, I am happy that it has come 
to the floor.
  I do support it, and I believe that it is only fitting and proper 
that in a democracy, that ultimately the Representatives of the people 
in total have an opportunity to vote on this particular, to vote on 
this particular issue. It should not be restricted simply to the 
members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  So even though I know we have debated it forever, this is another 
opportunity for us to debate it, but more importantly, for the other 
Members of the 

[[Page H13832]]
House of Representatives to have their opporutnity to vote ``yes'' or 
``no'' on this type of amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Really, if we 
want to run a passenger railroad in this country and we want it to be 
affordable and accessible, we really have to make these reforms. I 
appreciate the gentlewoman's concern about award of economic damages 
for those that are harmed, but you have to create a balance. That is 
what this legislation does, is try to get us to a position where we can 
have an affordable railroad.
  If you will look at the two areas of concern, some labor reform, we 
have labor laws that go back to dozens and dozens of years ago that 
need adjustment, and we also have liability reform, which increased the 
costs and inability to run a railroad.

                              {time}  1230

  I asked the founder of Autotrain, which started out as a private 
enterprise, what factor contributed to their demise. They were running 
very well, running a profit privately; and he said, it was the 
liability question. They suffered several accidents, and liability 
brought that private enterprise down, and Government has had to take it 
over.
  So if we want to continue employment, if we want to continue 
opportunity, we have to strike a balance, and liability reform is one 
of those. This House overwhelmingly passed liability reform, and the 
chairman of the committee has cited other instances where we, in fact, 
have liability reform in public transit. So there is a precedent for 
this.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the original examples of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] that she gave regarding near 
accidents on the New York City subway system.
  I would just like to point out that New York State has already and 
historically established limitations on liability for commuter 
operations, specifically because of the point that I raised, that in 
those instances if there was an unlimited cap, it is not the so-called 
Government who pays, it is the New York City subway rider or the 
taxpayer who has to pay that liability. So many, many States, including 
New York State, have actually taken the lead in what we are trying to 
do for Amtrak right now.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to 
comment in closing that we tried to reach a compromise and a balance 
here, a balance between the rights of individuals and the ability of 
this country and this Government and Amtrak to operate. We have taken 
over this. We are trying to do our best to get Amtrak back on track, 
and we think that some of these reforms are both reasonable and needed, 
and I do oppose the amendment.
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MASCARA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that on 
November 15, 1995, just a week or so ago, a 65-car CSX freight train 
loaded with orange juice smashed into a pickup truck just south of Dade 
City. The collision knocked the pickup truck 20 feet off the crossing 
and caused the train to derail. The intersection where the accident 
occurred had no flashing lights or crossing gate, just a crossbuck sign 
and a large faded stop sign. It also has a history of accidents and 
close calls.
  The driver of the pickup truck is a 34 year-old man, Steve Matala of 
Dade City, and he is listed in stable condition at St. Joseph's 
Hospital in Tampa.
  On July 12, 1995, a train crashed into a car at a rural Polk County 
crossing in Florida, killing Marie Meyer, 26, and her oldest son, Neil. 
Younger siblings, Douglas and Brenda, survived the crash. Now, some 
witnesses said they did not even see the red warning lights at all. 
These are people, the younger siblings, who apparently are going to be 
without their parent.
  On January 14 of this year, a van carrying five people was crushed by 
a freight train at a Riviera Beach crossing, killing four of the 
passengers. Now, the sad thing is that the van was carrying mourners 
returning from a funeral, and it is believed that warning devices and 
gate barriers at the crossing may have failed to operate because of 
mechanical problems and weather conditions, et cetera.
  It just seems to me that with these kinds of things happening that 
we, in fact, have to take some caps off for economic damages. Mr. 
Chairman, there is a great loss here. Pain and suffering and economic 
damages should not have caps on them because they are important, they 
are important to people who have considerations that they are thinking 
about.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following data concerning my amendment in 
the Record at this point:


                                new york

       A New York City subway train slammed into the rear of 
     another train stopped on the Williamsburg Bridge on June 5, 
     1995, killing one person and injuring more than 50 
     passengers. An outdated safety system based on 1918 
     technology was supposed to prevent such rear-end collisions, 
     but the system apparently malfunctioned in this instance. 
     This was the fourth time in less than two years that a subway 
     train rear-ended another train, raising noticeable questions 
     about the system's safeguards. A modern computerized system 
     that automatically slows or stops a train before a collision 
     is readily available, but the local transit authority chose 
     not to install this improved system in order to save money. 
     This was the city's worst subway accident since five people 
     were killed and 200 injured when a drunken motorman crashed 
     his speeding train into a wall near Union Station in 1991.
       On November 2, 1995, a toddler's stroller got stuck in 
     train doors at the Greenwich Village subway station. However, 
     Ismay Pinder was able to snatch Anthony, her 9-month-old 
     child, from the stroller seconds before the train pulled out 
     of the station. Anthony escaped serious injury. It was 
     learned that door-obstruction sensors that could have 
     prevented this mishap were not in place on this train, 
     despite the fact these safety precautions were recommended 
     back in 1988. This latest incident occurred just one week 
     after an October 25 accident in which a tot was pulled from 
     beneath a train car after being knocked off a stroller 
     trapped in the doors of a subway train stopped at the 42d 
     St.-5th Ave. station
       Brown, a 25-year-out student, was attempting to board a 
     subway train when it began to move, causing her to fall 
     between the cars. She was then run over by the train, causing 
     her right foot to be crushed beyond repair and resulting in 
     so much damage to her left leg that it had to be amputated 
     below the knee. Her left foot was successfully implanted into 
     her right leg, but she nonetheless walks with great 
     difficulty. Brown alleged negligence on the part of the 
     transportation authority in allowing the train to begin 
     moving unannounced while she was boarding. A structured 
     settlement with a present cash value of $1.25 million was 
     reached.
       Orlando, a 62-year-old clothing store manager, had his 
     dominant arm traumatically amputated when he fell beneath the 
     wheels of a Long Island Railroad passenger train while trying 
     to board. Eyewitnesses testified that they saw Orlando 
     attempting to catch the train. As he tried to jump through 
     the open doors, the train began to move, knocking him beneath 
     the car. Orlando asserted that the railroad was negligent in 
     that the train should not have left the station with its 
     manually operated doors open, in violation of the company's 
     own rules. In addition, there were not enough crew members to 
     adequately observe each other's hand signals indicating 
     whether all the doors were closed when the train was ready to 
     depart. A settlement was reached for $750,000.


                                florida

       On November 15, 1995, a 65-car CSX freight train loaded 
     with orange juice smashed into a pickup truck just south of 
     Dade City. The collision knocked the pickup 20 feet off the 
     crossing and caused the train to derail. The intersection 
     where the accident occurred has no flashing lights or 
     crossing gate, just a crossbuck sign and a large faded stop 
     sign. It also has a history of accidents and close calls. The 
     driver of the pickup, 34-year-old Steve Matala of Dade City, 
     is listed in stable condition at St. Joseph's Hospital in 
     Tampa.
       On July 12, 1995, a train crashed into a car at a rural 
     Polk County crossing, killing Marie Meyer, 26, and her oldest 
     son, Neil. Younger siblings Douglas and Brenda survived the 
     crash. Some witnesses to the accident stated that they did 
     not see the red warning light flashing at the railroad 
     crossing on the CSX-owned tracks.
       On January 14, 1995, a van carrying five people was crushed 
     by a freight train at a Riviera Beach crossing, killing four 
     of the passengers. The van was carrying mourners returning 
     from a funeral. It is believed that warning devices and gate 
     barriers at the crossing may have failed to operate because 

[[Page H13833]]
     of mechanical problems or weather conditions. Several witnesses stated 
     that one or both of the barrier arm gates at the crossing 
     were broken off or locked in an upright position because of 
     high winds.
       Gresham, 59, was traveling on an Amtrak passenger train 
     when it derailed on a poorly maintained track. He suffered 
     massive head trauma and died of his injuries 28 days later, 
     leaving behind seven adult children. Amtrak stipulated that 
     it would not contest liability in exchange for a waiver of 
     punitive damages. The jury awarded about $2.8 million 
     (contact Joseph Slama in Fort Lauderdale for more info/
     clippings)

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MASCARA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins], my good friend, would not want to misstate the facts. 
There is no limit on economic damages, a very important point.
  Second, all of the examples that the gentlewoman gave are very 
interesting and very sad, but they have nothing to do with this bill, 
because they all relate to freight, and they would not be addressed in 
any fashion by this legislation.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MASCARA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I misspoke. I said 
noneconomic damages. Children, of course, would not have economic 
damages. They, of course, would have noneconomic damages, and that is 
what the cap is on, not economic damages.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this amendment I think probably has a 
good intent behind it, but, first of all, it is unnecessary; and, 
second of all, it is actually a dangerous amendment. Let me explain why 
that is. It is unintendedly so.
  Presently, Mr. Chairman, Amtrak must run on private railroad, freight 
railroad tracks, and when it does so the freight railroads really have 
no say. We, as the U.S. Government, say to the freight railroads, you 
will allow our passenger trains to run on your tracks, and we actually 
command them to do so. They have no choice.
  What we are simply saying in this amendment is when we run a 
passenger train on a freight line and there is an accident, we say we 
will limit your liability, and we do not limit the economic liability. 
Medical bills, lost wages, hospital bills, if someone receives a 
disability of 10 percent, 15 percent, they are paid for any disability. 
Any permanent injury, they are compensated for.
  The one thing that we simply say is we will only pay $250,000 for 
pain and suffering, and that is money that the railroads, which do not 
want us on their tracks to begin with, and which we say we are going to 
run on your tracks, even if you say you do not want us there.
  For us to turn around and say, we are going to run on your tracks, 
and when there is an accident, people can sue you, and they can get $10 
million or $20 million is wrong. It goes beyond being wrong, and it 
becomes dangerous, and let me tell my colleagues why it becomes 
dangerous.
  Because of Amtrak and because of the Federal Government, we are 
spending literally millions of dollars every year eliminating dangerous 
grade crossings. That is what is killing people in this country is 
grade crossings. They are crossing these tracks, and they are getting 
killed.
  Presently, because of this legislation and because we have an Amtrak, 
we are eliminating every year over 100 grade crossings, and we are 
saving lives. But if we attach this amendment to this bill, we will 
kill Amtrak. We will increase the cost. In fact, two years from now we 
will appropriate $403 million for Amtrak.
  We have actually had court settlements in these accident cases of 
over $100 million. So we are talking about potentially one accident 
costing Congress and the United States, because we indemnify all of 
these. If there is an accident and we pay out all of this money, then 
we, the taxpayers, turn around and, out of Amtrak, we have to pay that 
money.

  Mr. Chairman, can my colleagues imagine us giving $400 million to 
Amtrak to operate these trains and then them having to pay $100 million 
of that for one accident? This will bankrupt Amtrak, and it will also 
end this elimination of these dangerous grade crossings.
  Other countries do not have this problem for two reasons. One is the 
government owns the tracks, and the people of those countries have 
chosen to use taxpayer money to eliminate the grade crossings. Now we 
have done that between Washington and New York. That is the long-term 
solution. That is the solution that we ought to both join in.
  We are both interested in one thing. We do not want people hurt; we 
do not want people injured. The long-term solution is for this 
government to eliminate more grade crossings and to put more money into 
that.
  Between Washington and New York, there is not a single grade 
crossing, so there will not be any grade-crossing accidents. Between 
New York and Boston, there are 13 grade crossings. Between Birmingham 
and Atlanta, Birmingham being in my district, there are 400 grade 
crossings. The answer is not this amendment; the answer is cleaning up 
some of those grade crossings.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make one final point. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] I think said it all when he said, we are not 
making these grade crossings any safer with this legislation, because 
most of the trains over those tracks are freight trains, and this 
amendment and this bill has no application to those.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Shuster, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bachus was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that in the committee 
the bill originally had a ban on punitive damages, zero, and we thought 
we had negotiated a compromise here, so we agreed to drop that ban and 
put in its place $250,000. So I am a bit disappointed that in thinking 
we were coming to the floor today with a compromise, and had we known 
there was not going to be an agreement with what we thought was an 
agreement, then we would not have put this in, and of course, that 
matter perhaps can be corrected in conference.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] that probably I am the 
culprit here. The gentleman did have, as I understand it from the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], a deal in committee; but as Mr. 
Lipinski also said, there are others of us who are not on the committee 
who have amendments; and at the last minute I, quite frankly, decided 
that this was something that I personally wanted to do, to bring this 
amendment to the floor of the House of Representatives which each of us 
has the right to do. So do not blame anybody on the committee for what 
I have done, please, because that is not the case.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to say this. The 
amendment of the gentlewoman I think was meant to apply to freight 
railroads, but this bill and this limitation only applies to passenger 
trains, and I think there is a lot of confusion there.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that I totally respect 
the gentlewoman's right to offer any amendment she wants. I was not 
referring to any Member's right. I was referring to the committee 
members on both sides of the aisle, who I thought would come to the 
floor united in support of the bill and in opposition to these kinds of 
amendments.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania that when the amendment came up, I was 

[[Page H13834]]
one of the ones that said, we do need to raise the limitations.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, when I offered the amendment, 
I reserved the balance of my time, and I would like to ask now how much 
time did I reserve?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman cannot reserve time under the 5-minute 
rule.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlewoman be given an additional 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for his kindness.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I wanted to point out that my amendment 
applies to the Amtrak bill that we are working on now, not to the 
freight legislation whatsoever.

                              {time}  1245

  I wanted to say two more things. First of all, I feel that this 
Congress is not the judge and the jury. That is why we have tort laws 
in our courts, so that people, the jurors and the judges, can make some 
decisions about these kinds of matters. I do not think that 535 Members 
of Congress can do this on an individual basis, nor should we. That is 
why we have those laws in place that have worked ever since we have had 
tort legislation. Now we have the responsibility to change it, but I 
think we ought to change it with a great deal of thought in mind before 
we do so.
  Let me say one other thing. The statements have been made that my 
amendment will bankrupt Amtrak. My amendment is not going to bankrupt 
Amtrak. The bills that we pass that underfund Amtrak might bankrupt 
Amtrak, but not this amendment. This amendment is not going to bankrupt 
Amtrak at all.
  Finally, let me say this. This is a good amendment. Believe me, it 
should be passed. If we have feelings for Americans who are suffering 
because of accidents that they have incurred while on Amtrak, I think 
that they should have the benefit of the doubt. They should have the 
benefit of a fair judicial system to award them the kind of damages 
that they deserve.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat confused. You have used the 
analogy of a CSX freight train hitting a pickup truck.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I have a better one 
than that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, on September 22, 1993, 
Amtrak's Los Angeles to Miami Sunset Limited jumped the CSX-owned track 
it was traveling on while crossing a bridge in Mobile and plowed into a 
bayou, submerging a number of passenger cars. Forty people died in this 
catastrophe, and approximately 150 were injured. This accident was the 
worst in the history of Amtrak.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, that accident occurred in my home State. It 
was a passenger train. This legislation would apply to that, but I 
would point out to the gentlewoman that it would reimburse each of 
those passengers not only for the loss of their lives but for any 
permanent injuries, for any medical expenses, for any lost wages, and 
in addition to that punitive damages and noneconomic damages with a 
cap, under this legislation.
  I would further say that that train was running by command of 
Congress over that freight line.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also 
reaffirm my comments that this is a good amendment and it should be 
supported.
  Mr. BACHUS. I would ask for one last point of clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has again expired.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Alabama is 
recognized for 1 additional minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members to realize that 
this legislation that we are voting on applies only to passenger 
trains. Yet this amendment that is being offered puts liability on not 
only passenger trains but also the freight companies. It is a wide-
reaching amendment and it applies to the freight company. If the 
gentlewoman wants to stand up and say that this does not impose 
liability on the freight line, she needs to do so at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 239, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 830]

                               AYES--164

     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hoyer
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--239

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter

[[Page H13835]]

     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Borski
     Chapman
     Costello
     Crane
     Ewing
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Johnston
     Kennelly
     King
     Laughlin
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     McNulty
     Moran
     Rose
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walsh

                              {time}  1308

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Costello for, with Mr. Hastert against.

  Messrs. FARR, RAHALL, GILLMOR, SKAGGS, DINGELL, and Ms. JACKSON-LEE 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: Page 11, after line 11, 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 209. TRACKAGE RIGHTS FOR FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION.

       Section 24904 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``rail freight or'' in paragraph (6);
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) consistent with safety and with priority for 
     intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation, make 
     agreements for rail freight transportation over rights-of-way 
     and facilities acquired under the Regional Rail 
     Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) and the 
     Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 
     U.S.C. 801 et seq.), notwithstanding and provision of law or 
     contractual provision restricting the ability of Amtrak to 
     enter into such an agreement.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c) (1) and (3), by inserting ``or (9)'' 
     after ``subsection (a)(6)''.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is vitally important to the 
States of New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and affects 
virtually no one else in the country one way or the other. This 
amendment seeks to bring competitiveness and viability to the rail 
freight industry in the northeast corridor, especially north and east 
of New York City.
  Amtrak owns the northeast corridor tracks. Conrail, by reason of a 
1976 contract signed at a time when both Conrail and Amtrak were 
totally owned entities of the Federal Government, in other words, this 
contract was signed between one Assistant Secretary of Transportation 
and another one down the hall; by reason of this contract, Conrail has 
had an exclusive easement in perpetuity, forever, for freight usage of 
the northeast corridor tracks.
  The major problem that this causes is that Conrail, with minor 
exceptions, does not utilize this privilege north of New York City and 
prevents anyone else from using the northeast corridor for freight, 
leaving an entire region effectively barred from rail freight service.

                              {time}  1315

  Taking advantage of its exclusive easement agreement, Conrail, with 
minor exceptions, does not allow any other rail freight carrier to use 
these tracks for freight. This monopoly privilege was purchased from 
the American taxpayer for the whopping price of $1. While the rest of 
the country enjoys competition in transportation, this produces the 
fact that 38 percent of all freight in the country is carried by rail. 
But in the region of New York City, Westchester and Putnam Counties, 
Long Island, Rhode Island and Connecticut, rail freight accounts for 
only 2.4 percent of traffic. In that geographic area, only 2.4 percent 
of freight travels by rail, compared to 40 percent in the country as a 
whole. This is caused to a large extent by the monopoly Conrail has and 
its refusal to service freight east of the Hudson River south of 
Boston.
  The lack of rail freight service to these areas compels us to bring 
our freight by truck to and from Conrail terminals in northern New 
Jersey. This classic monopoly conduct, in which they say ``bring your 
business to us, we will not go to your shippers and manufacturers and 
ports and companies,'' this classic monopoly conduct greatly increases 
shipping costs, congestion, wear and tear on our roads, and pollution 
in the entire region, and increases the cost of doing business.
  The majority in this Congress has been seeking the free market. 
Should we not allow private competition to give consumers a choice, to 
give them lower prices, and a better standard of living. This is our 
chance to bring competition in transportation services to the region 
east of the Hudson River.
  This amendment quite simply opens up the possibility of competition 
for rail freight service to the northeast. It accomplishes this by 
saying ``Amtrak may, not shall, may, consistent with safety and with 
priority for intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation, make 
agreements for rail freight transportation over rights-of-way and 
facilities, et cetera.''
  By allowing competition into the Northeast corridor, the area's 
economy, as well as the bottom lines of Amtrak and other rail freight 
carriers, which could be Conrail, if they so choose, could benefit 
enormously.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment mandates nothing. It simply opens up 
what is currently a monopoly area to open and fair competition. This 
unreasonable monopoly power is the result of another government give 
away to big business courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. In the spirit of 
the free market, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there are several arguments against this amendment 
which are bogus. Let me summarize them very quickly.
  First, this is a hazard to safety in the Northeast corridor, to the 
safety of commuter or passenger transportation. Nonsense, for two 
reasons: First, 50 years ago, in the 1940's, the Pennsylvania Railroad 
carried three times as much passenger transportation on the corridor as 
at present, the same number roughly of commuter transportation, and 
huge freight traffic, with no problems. Today we have sunk over $1 
billion, I believe, of Federal money into improving the corridor. It is 
in much better shape. We can handle the traffic. We do not have that 
traffic on the corridor now. So there are no safety problems.
  Second, Amtrak, which runs the passenger operations, by the terms of 
this amendment, Amtrak controls the track, we give them permission to 
allow freight transportation in the corridor. We do not tell them they 
must. They are in charge of the passenger transportation. They will not 
make any deals that would hazard the safety of the passengers that they 
run.
  The other major argument that is made is we should not break a 
contract. Conrail and Amtrak made a contract giving Conrail an 
exclusive monopoly on freight usage of the northeast corridor forever, 
and we should not break it.
  There are three answers to that. First, in the interests of the 
public in three great States, we should. The public in three States 
suffers from this monopoly. Second, this bill breaks other contracts, 
labor contracts. Why should this contract be sacred?

[[Page H13836]]

  Third, more important than those two arguments, this is not a real 
contract. Conrail is now a private company, like any other private 
company. Amtrak, according to this bill, in a couple years will be a 
private company. When this contract was signed, both of them were 
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Federal Government. So the so-called 
contract was an agreement between one finger of the Federal hand and 
the other finger of the Federal hand, an agreement between the Federal 
Government and itself. Why should it now bind two private companies?

  In summation, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is important to the 
economy of the Northeast, of the State of Connecticut, New York and 
Rhode Island, and hurts nobody, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment for several reasons. 
Before I get into those reasons, I am sure the gentleman did not want 
to misstate something when he said that this bill we bring before the 
House today in other places breaks labor contracts. That is not true. 
One of the most significant aspects of this legislation is that we do 
not break existing labor contracts. That is why we have such a longer 
period of time in which there can be negotiations, and that is why 
labor felt so strongly that they did not want the labor contracts 
broken. We agreed with that. So this bill does not break labor 
contracts.
  But more to the point of the amendment before us, this is a 
contractual agreement between two corporations, Conrail and Amtrak, 
both held at the time by the Federal Government, but, nevertheless, two 
corporate entities, a contractual agreement which would be broken by 
this amendment.
  It is very important to emphasize that Conrail owned this track. 
Conrail had exclusive rights in perpetuity over this track. And it was 
only because the Federal Government said ``You have got to give the 
ownership over to Amtrak'' that Conrail did so. As part of this 
agreement, the agreement was that Conrail would continue to have 
exclusive freight rights over that trackage, rights which they always 
had had because it was indeed Conrail's track.
  Now, the Nadler amendment could also reverse efforts to minimize 
freight traffic on the Northeast corridor. Currently there are over 
1,000 commuter trains per day on the corridor. Listen to what the 
distinguished former president of Amtrak had to say about this, Graham 
Clayton, the former president of Amtrak:
       ``If we are to effectively prevent passenger train 
     accidents caused by freight traffic on the line between New 
     York and Washington, we must eliminate the intermixture on 
     the same right-of-way of heavy freight trains and high speed 
     passenger commuter operations. It is not only feasible, but 
     necessary if we are really to solve all aspects of the 
     problem permanently and definitely.''

  We had a debate on the last amendment that dealt with the problems of 
safety. Here we have the former highly respected president of Amtrak 
saying that having any freight on that corridor is a safety problem.
  So the gentleman's amendment now would open it up to more freight. We 
want to minimize that, because we want to continue to focus on 
increasing the safety in the Northeast corridor.
  So for all of those reasons, it is important that we defeat this 
amendment, because if we do not defeat this amendment, we will be 
making it possible to load up more freight on an already jammed up 
corridor. We will be creating safety problems, and we will be 
abrogating contracts that Conrail entered into.
  Mr. Chairman, for all of those reasons I strongly urge defeat of this 
amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. The gentleman is without a doubt 
one of the most involved, knowledgeable, dedicated members of the 
Subcommittee on Railroads. The gentleman has identified a regional 
problem affecting freight rail service in the New York metropolitan 
area.
  Today there is only one railroad that provides freight service on 
Amtrak's Northeast corridor. It seems logical that an area of such 
economic importance as the Northeast corridor would have service from 
more than one single railroad. But the exclusive use agreement that was 
granted to Conrail gives it no competition on Amtrak's Northeast 
corridor.
  The Nadler amendment would allow other railroads the use of the 
Northeast corridor. Competition certainly makes sense to me, and I urge 
support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say that I concur with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the full 
committee, that there are no labor contracts being broken in this bill. 
I am quite sure that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], because 
of his anxiety of presenting this amendment, misspoke, and I am sure if 
he has another opportunity the gentleman will correct the Record in 
regard to that.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] for 
offering this amendment today. I believe it raises a very important 
issue about access onto Amtrak rail right-of-way. The issue is should 
Amtrak track be made available to others? In this case, freight 
railroads want access on Amtrak's track to ship their goods. Certainly 
one would think it is in the public interest to allow such access.
  Alternatively, should privately owned track be made available for 
passenger service if it is in the public interest and, if so, should we 
require freight railroads to provide the access?
  I do not have the answers today, but as the class I railroads merge 
and we are left with just a few companies controlling 75 percent of the 
track in this country, maybe it will be necessary for Congress to take 
a closer look at what is happening in the industry. As we consider the 
committee's hearing schedule next year, I would ask the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Molinari] to consider taking a closer look into the 
issue of access. I know that there are other Members who share my 
concerns.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
his support of this amendment. I would just like to say in conclusion 
we are in the day of trying to privatize. We are in the day of 
advocating free enterprise. Competition in this amendment will create 
competition for probably the largest economic area in the entire United 
States of America.
  So I urge all Members to support the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York brings to us an amendment 
that just makes a lot of practical sense. It is an amendment that 
addresses an issue regional in nature. It does not apply to the rest of 
the United States, but it is of intense local interest and importance.
  Conrail has an agreement with Amtrak under which Conrail has 
exclusive right to provide freight service on Amtrak's tracks in the 
Northeast corridor. Conrail is not using that authority to provide 
freight service to New York and parts of Connecticut and southern New 
England. The amendment of the gentleman from New York would permit, it 
would not require, Amtrak to grant rates to other freight carriers when 
consistent with safety and when consistent with the needs of passenger 
service.
  Conrail has written in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, 
making the thrust of its argument a safety concern. But the gentleman's 
amendment says very clearly that Amtrak may grant rights to other 
freight carriers when such grant of authority is consistent with safety 
and when it is consistent with the needs of Amtrak's own requirement to 
provide passenger service.
  This is not a mandate, this is not a requirement. It is permissive 
authority. Why Conrail would be opposed to that is beyond me.
  The main argument the gentleman from New York makes is that improved 
service to New York City and Connecticut will result if Amtrak has 
authority to grant rights to other freight railroads to use that 
corridor. Now, the 

[[Page H13837]]
Federal Government has invested already substantial sums of money in 
improving the Northeast corridor where portions of that corridor are 
going unused because of monopoly rights held by Conrail. The gentleman 
would not, I know, have offered this amendment if it would abrogate an 
agreement between private parties.

                              {time}  1330

  As he has already pointed out, this really is an agreement between 
two arms of the Federal Government. In fact, two branches within the 
same department of the Federal Government. It makes sense. It is 
permissive authority. It will offer an opportunity for improved service 
and use of now unused track authority.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman. I 
would simply like to add a comment in response to the comment of the 
distinguished chairman from Pennsylvania where he read from Mr. 
Claytor's--Amtrak's then President Claytor--testimony at a hearing that 
we must eliminate the intermixture on the same right-of-way of heavy 
freight trains and high speed passenger and computer operations.
  As a general rule, Mr. Chairman, that is true, but there are things 
such as road-railer freight operations. I will not go into what that 
is, but it is not heavy freight but it is freight. It is these truck 
trailers with retractable rail wheels, which we could use on the 
corridor, which can go 75 or 80 miles an hour and which have a low 
center of gravity and which present no safety concerns and no problems 
mixing with passenger transportation at all. In addition to which they 
do not have to be on the same track. Even slow freight trains, as long 
as they are on a different track, we have no problem, even if it is the 
same right-of-way.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the key to this amendment is that 
Amtrak, which owns the track, would have the ability to make those 
decisions, subject to whatever safety regulations the Federal Rail 
Administration, et cetera, sets up. We are not mandating them. We are 
saying Amtrak may do this. We are simply asking that three States, New 
York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, be given the opportunity to talk 
to Amtrak, to talk to freight railroads, and maybe we will get some 
rail freight service for that entire region of 15 or so million people 
that has no rail freight service and needs it for economic benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so that 
we can have the freedom to talk to Amtrak.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, again I urge support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Nadler 
amendment.
  This is a safety issue, my colleagues.
  If passed, increased freight traffic on the Northeast corridor will 
result in a much more dangerous arrangement on an already crowded 
stretch of track, and will place the lives of thousands of commuters 
and rail workers in jeopardy every day.
  The corridor already handles about 1,100 trains each day, almost 90 
percent of which are commuter trains.
  The heavy volume of traffic makes safety the top priority and ever 
since the tragic accident between a freight train and a commuter train 
in Chase, MD, that killed 16 people, the freight companies that operate 
on the line have been very careful to operate as often as possible 
during off hours when commuter trains are not running.
  Thankfull there has not been a repeat of the Chase incident.
  But opening up the track to greater amounts of freight traffic would 
only make it more difficult to keep the freight and commuter traffic 
apart, and would invite disaster again.
  You will see more and more trains line up on the same crowded track, 
and another Chase accident will become increasingly likely.
  This is not a wise amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 249, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 831]

                               AYES--161

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                               NOES--249

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Fattah
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

[[Page H13838]]


                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ackerman
     Borski
     Chapman
     Costello
     Dicks
     Ewing
     Hastert
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Kennelly
     King
     Laughlin
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     McNulty
     Moran
     Stupak
     Torkildsen
     Tucker
     Walsh
     Wilson

                              {time}  1350

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Costello for, with Mr. Ewing against.
       Mr. Markey for, with Mr. Hastert against.

  Messrs. NUSSLE, REED, WYNN, and COOLEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KASICH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time for the purpose of doing a colloquy 
with the distinguished chairman of the committee over a situation that 
I know has arisen in a community in my district, and I think affects 
some other communities as well.
  In this particular case there is a bridge in the borough of 
Parksburg, PA, that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission regards 
as being in such a state of disrepair that they have ordered the town 
to demolish the bridge. Parksburg is probably going to have to bear the 
expense and cost of the demolition of the bridge, but the problem is 
that because it crosses Amtrak tracks, Amtrak is coming in and saying 
that you have to pay them for review of the plans for demolition, for 
flagmen, and all kinds of costs.
  It is my understanding that in the bill as presently drafted, there 
are provisions that would say that instead of Amtrak having to use its 
own personnel for activities, that in fact these things can be 
contracted out. In the case of Parksburg, this could mean some of the 
savings. We are talking about the difference between $250,000 and $1 
million to demolish the bridge.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could confirm for me 
that in fact one of the beneficial aspects of the contracting-out 
language may well be that in communities such as this that are facing 
these kinds of enormous costs connected with the present situation, 
Amtrak might well find some relief.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say first, the gentleman is 
correct. Section 101 repeals the current contracting-out prohibition so 
Amtrak would be able to go out and contract out and presumably get a 
more competitive price; but beyond that, it is quite possible that in 
addition to that, the community you referred to, or any community, 
would have a cause of action against Amtrak if, indeed, the costs were 
excessive. If the job could be done for $250,000 but Amtrak was saying 
it cost $1 million, it seems to me that there may be a cause of action 
that the community might have.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman very much, because the situation is 
just one that is almost mind-boggling in its characteristics, because 
it costs $250,000 to knock the bridge down, but almost three times that 
much for Amtrak to review the plan and do the kinds of things Amtrak is 
involved in.
  The contracting-out language may well be a case where it can help 
this small community and others like it across the country that face 
similar kinds of situations. I thank the gentleman very much and I 
appreciate what he has done in his bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to the bill?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Reed: Page 39, after line 18, 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 702. ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS REDUCTION.

       Of the funds provided in Public Law 104-50, under the 
     heading ``National Railroad Passenger Corporation Operating 
     Losses'', $9,250,000 is rescinded. This reduction shall be 
     allocated entirely against Amtrak's administrative expenses 
     in its headquarters and Northeast Corridor Strategic Business 
     Unit.

  Mr. REED (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
amendment, in that it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which rules that 
the amendment must be related to the pending subject matter, and the 
amendment is not germane.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on this point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, my amendment is a 
straightforward cut of 5 percent in Amtrak's administrative funds. I am 
concerned that, while this bill asks for many sacrifices on the part of 
blue-collar Amtrak workers, it may not make the same demands on Amtrak 
management.
  With this need for shared sacrifice in mind, I would urge my 
colleagues to support the cutting of Amtrak's administrative account by 
a very small 5 percent, which is approximately $9 million in fiscal 
year 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment is fair. It does not ask Amtrak 
management to do anything beyond what Amtrak's management has asked of 
its workers. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The bill authorizes 
appropriations for Amtrak and revises the statutory authorities under 
which it operates. The amendment rescinds appropriations made available 
for Amtrak in the Transportation Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 
1996. A proposal to rescind funding provided in an appropriation act 
falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and, 
as such, is not germane to this authorization bill.
  The Chair sustains this point of order.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we do recognize the State of 
Rhode Island's concerns, and we have written the Federal Railroad 
Administration in an effort to address the concerns of the gentleman, 
and the issue will be addressed during the subcommittee hearing next 
year. We do insist on the point of order. I understand what the 
gentleman is trying to do.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], who has been a strong supporter of my State and has been very 
helpful, and I know he will take this into consideration and make the 
right judgment in the months ahead.
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my 
distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, who played a very 
important role in the drafting of this legislation, along with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, the chairman of the 
committee, and other members of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  My question is with section 503 of the bill and the changes it would 
mandate to the Amtrak Board of Directors.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MASCARA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I will be very happy to discuss this 
issue with the gentleman.
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, section 503 
of the bill would replace the current Amtrak Board of Directors with an 
entirely new board or with a director general if the new board were not 
fully constituted within 60 days of the enactment of the legislation.
  It is my understanding that the current board has performed quite 
ably. Based on the experience of the gentleman, Mr. Lipinski, on the 
subcommittee and his work with Amtrak, 

[[Page H13839]]
could the gentleman comment on the present board's commitment and 
dedication to Amtrak and a restructuring of its operations?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to me, the 
present Amtrak board has done an excellent job in providing guidance to 
the corporation during these difficult financial times.
  Last year, Amtrak was faced with a $200 million shortfall. Rather 
than come to the Congress for supplemental appropriations, as has been 
the past practice of the board, this board worked with Amtrak 
management to undertake the painful cuts necessary to make Amtrak live 
within its means.
  These efforts were successful because Amtrak finished fiscal year 
1995 with a $15 million cash balance. This board has demonstrated its 
ability to make the tough decisions.
  Within the last year, train miles have been reduced 20 percent and 
employment has been reduced by 8 percent. Clearly, this board is up to 
the challenge of moving Amtrak off its dependence on Federal operating 
subsidies.
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the 
assessment of my colleague of the current accomplishments of the board. 
I recognize that this is a compromise bill and that we need to move the 
bill through the House without delay so that we will be able to 
conference with the Senate when it has finished action on this bill. 
Nonetheless, I believe the accomplishments of the current board should 
be recognized and that we should not be removing successful and 
knowledgeable leadership at the same time we are providing Amtrak with 
the tools it needs to carry out the restructuring. I would hope that 
this will be one of the issues that receives careful consideration 
during the conference.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I certainly agree with the gentleman that we should carefully evaluate 
this during our conference with the Senate, and I thank the gentleman 
for the colloquy.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a technical amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster: Page 38, line 12, strike 
     ``$10,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,300,000''.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a typical amendment pertaining to 
the Penn Station amendment. This is to keep the authorization level 
from Penn Station redevelopment to a maximum total of $100 million.
  Because the NHS bill included partial funding for the Penn Station 
redevelopment after we had reported this Amtrak bill, total 
authorizations for the project would have exceeded $100 million. That 
was not our intent, and we are offering this amendment to reduce that 
total authorization and to correct this situation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have a technical inquiry on the 
chairman's technical amendment. Can the gentleman tell us what the 
resulting outlays will be with this reduction in budget authority?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it will be a total of 
$7.6 million, if it is appropriated. Of course, there will be nothing 
if it is not appropriated.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the reduction in budget authority is $7.6 million.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, I would say not budget authority, but authorization.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, yes, 
that is budget authority. Appropriations, or actual outlays, could be 
substantially less than that, or they could be the same amount.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it could be zero, depending on what the 
Committee on Appropriations does.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 
I just wanted to get an understanding of where we are.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HEFLEY

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Page 37, line 19, strike ``(1)''.
       Page 37, line 23, through page 38, line 2, redesignate 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E) as paragraphs (1) through (5), 
     respectively.
       Page 38, line 4, insert closing quotation marks and a 
     period after ``of this title.''.
       Page 38, lines 5 through 19, strike paragraph (2).

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I originally had two amendments, one which 
would have made sure that we were putting Amtrak on a glidepath to 
getting rid of the Federal subsidy, and the committee has done that, 
and I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the 
committee, for doing that. So I withdraw that amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the Republican majority. We are in the 
midst of passing legislation which will balance the Federal budget in 7 
years. Not since 1969 has that happened. I am proud of the Republican 
majority, and I am proud of many of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle that think this is important.
  It is not easy to balance the budget. We are all finding that we have 
had to make some tough choices on what this country's priorities must 
be. Each and every time we authorize a single dollar, we have had to 
ask the question, should the Federal Government be involved in this? If 
the answer to that question is yes, then we ask another question: Can 
we afford it?
  There are many expenditures that the Federal Government never should 
have made, but there have been a host of other items that we would love 
to fund if we had the money. But the fact is, we just cannot afford 
many of them.
  That is why I need to be able to go back home, as all of us do, and 
tell our constituents that we think the priorities set in Congress were 
priorities we believe in, I need to be able to defend why one program 
was cut and another authorized.
  That is why I have to offer this amendment. I simply cannot go back 
home and defend authorizing almost $4 million over 4 years, even with 
the technical amendment which we just passed here, for a train station 
in New York that has already received, and I wish my colleagues would 
listen to this, it has already received $60 million in taxpayer money, 
and that many people argue is not even necessary.
  I am not going to argue whether the train station should be moved 
from its current location at the Farley Post Office. Only the local 
community can answer that. But I must disagree that with these lean 
budget times we should tell the American people that one of our 
priorities is a project to move a train station across the street where 
bigger and better shops can be built to create a Union Station 
atmosphere in New York City. It will be tough enough to tell them that 
legislation has already been signed into law this year that provides 
this project $26 million.
  The National Highway System legislation was able to creatively 
include funding for this project. In fact, one Member of this Chamber 
described the efforts of Senator Moynihan as a masterful use of the 
process in getting that money allocated.
  Supporters of the Penn Station project may tell you the current 
location is rundown and unsafe, but that is why the Transportation 
appropriation legislation appropriated $20 million to Amtrak and Penn 
Station for important life safety improvements. So that makes $46 
million so far this year.
  Here we are in lean budget times and one train station gets not only 
$20 million to improve its current home but another $26 million to help 
build its new home. Except for my colleagues from New York, I am not 
sure there is anyone in this Chamber that can look their constituents 
in the eye and tell them this should be a priority project.
  Supporters of the project will also tell you that this is a $315 
million project, and only $100 million is asked for from the Federal 
Government. Where is the other money coming from? Some $115 million is 
coming from private investors that, to the best of my knowledge, have 
not anted up a 

[[Page H13840]]
dime; another $75 million from the State of New York, who has not 
appropriated a dime; and New York City, whose $25 million contribution 
is really only $8 million so far. How much more will this black hole of 
taxpayer money receive?

  Mr. Chairman, we all need to ask ourselves the question, is the Penn 
Station project one that the Federal Government should be involved in, 
and, if it is, can we afford to fund it? I am convinced that each and 
every Member of this body, if they really look at the budget and what 
we are trying to do, will answer that question by supporting this 
amendment and supporting fiscal responsibility in these lean times.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just state that this is not a New York-specific 
project we are talking about. The northeast corridor between 
Washington, DC, and Boston, which passes through New York City, is 
Amtrak's most traveled route. Ten million passengers a year, nearly 
half of Amtrak's annual ridership, travels on this route.
  Penn Station serves not only Amtrak passengers but Long Island 
Railroad, New Jersey Transit and New York City subway passengers as 
well. Five hundred thousand passengers pass through Penn Station every 
day. That is more passengers than many of Amtrak's routes support 
annually.
  Penn Station is in a current deplorable state. Conditions are 
crowded, and traffic will soon exceed the capacities of current 
facilities. In addition, there have been nine major fires or 
emergencies since 1987, and the New York City Fire Department has 
identified many inadequacies in the current safety systems that need to 
be addressed.
  Let me just state for the record, however, we have spent the last few 
months on appropriations and authorizations bills dealing with the 
situations that confront States all over this country. This Chamber has 
nearly unanimously agreed on spending tens of billions of dollars on 
highway projects throughout this Nation. We have spent hundreds of 
billions of dollars on airport projects throughout this Nation.
  That is OK for many Members in this Chamber, but come to an urban 
area that does not have the highways and does not have the airports, 
and then all of a sudden it is no longer a Federal responsibility to 
deal in transportation, because it is a transportation system that 
perhaps is not available in other areas of the country. Well, highways 
are not available in New York City to the extent that they are in many, 
many urban and rural areas in the country.
  So in the spirit of fairness I say, rejuvenating and renovating Penn 
Station helps tourism in America, it helps Amtrak, it helps local 
commuters, and it creates a sense of parity between those people who 
come to this Chamber and support the appropriations of billions of 
dollars of highway, bridges, airport improvement funds, so that we can, 
in some urban areas, receive some Federal assistance when it comes to 
some mass transportation assistance like Penn Station.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge strong opposition for this amendment.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in strong opposition to this amendment. I am also speaking on behalf of 
the ranking member of the committee and the subcommittee in opposing 
this amendment.
  Let me just say that the gentlewoman from New York expressed most of 
what I was going to say so I am not going to repeat it.
  There is no reason to take this money away from this project. It is 
an important, worthy project. That it is in my district does not 
detract from that. It is a very important, worthy project for this 
entire country.
  We spend money on airports, on highways, all over the country. This 
is the premier jewel of the rail system in this country. It ought to 
be, and we ought to do what we have to do for Penn Station. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. An article recently appeared in 
the National Train Journal which interviewed European tourists who had 
come to America. The vast majority of them said they wanted to see 
America by rail, and they were satisfied with Amtrak, and the average 
tourist, European tourist, spends several thousand dollars here when he 
comes or when she comes.
  What they did criticize Amtrak for were two things. One was on-time 
performance. The other one was some of the stations. They said the 
South Bay Station in Boston was a crown jewel. They talked about the 
station, Union Station. They talked about Philadelphia and Harrisburg, 
PA, as being outstanding stations.
  At the same time they said that some of the stations, and I will not 
name all of them, they said they were disaster areas. They said they 
almost turned them off. We are talking about a Pennsylvania station 
where many of these tourists form their first opinion of our rail 
transportation and of our country.
  If we are going to continue to attract European tourists and Japanese 
tourists, who feel much the same way, this is money, I think, at least 
that we ought to consider in making this investment or not making this 
investment, the fact that that is one major point that they say we do 
need to improve, and that is our station. This is our most heavily 
traveled area.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hefley amendment. I think this 
is a good amendment, and if not now, when? If not us, who?
  As a gentleman from New York, I have to tell you that it is a new 
time, it is a new place. We are supposed to be ferreting out this kind 
of excessive spending, spending particularly that is without need.
  In New York, we have just seen a state-of-the-art renovation to the 
train station there, and I would say that the Hefley amendment is well-
timed and it is necessary. We do not need this kind of pork. I would 
move in support of the Hefley amendment and ask my colleagues to 
embrace it.
  Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as a great New Yorker, Yogi Berra, once 
said, ``This is like deja vu all over again.''
  Time and time again we have debated this issue on the floor. We have 
gone back and forth and back and around.
  Frankly, it's time for these gratuitous attacks on Penn Station to 
stop.
  Seventy-five million passengers pass through Penn Station every 
year--that's 500,000 passengers a day. Penn Station is Amtrak's busiest 
station in the country. In fact, it serves more than 40 percent of all 
of Amtrak's passengers nationwide. It is also the hub for the New York 
City Transit System, the Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey transit. 
But Penn Station is falling apart. It's dark, it's dangerous, and 
within 10 years the station is projected to exceed its maximum 
pedestrian occupancy level.
  In order to address this situation, the Federal Government, the State 
of New York, and New York City have embarked on a cooperative plan to 
rebuild Penn Station. This project enjoys bipartisan support, including 
that of Senators Moynihan and D'Amato, Gov. George Pataki, and Mayor 
Guiliani.
  And despite all the roadblocks put up in our way we are almost there.
  So why has Penn Station generated such fierce opposition?
  Opponents of the Penn Station project don't like it because it's in 
New York. Plain and simple. We have learned time and time again that 
New York bashing is always in season here in Washington. We know that 
our friends on the other side of the aisle just can't help themselves--
New York is just too inviting a target.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Inglis of South Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. Allard, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that 

[[Page H13841]]
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1788) to 
reform the statutes relating to Amtrak, to authorize appropriations for 
Amtrak, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 284, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 406, 
nays 4, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 832]

                               YEAS--406

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--4

     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Flake
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ackerman
     Borski
     Chapman
     Costello
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Hastert
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Kennelly
     King
     Laughlin
     Lincoln
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     McNulty
     Moran
     Stupak
     Torkildsen
     Tucker
     Walsh

                              {time}  1441

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________