[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8964-H8978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              AMTRAK REFORM AND PRIVATIZATION ACT OF 1997

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 270

       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. 2247) 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. 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. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution and an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute by Representative Oberstar of 
     Minnesota. The amendment by Representative Oberstar may be 
     offered only after the disposition of the amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules, shall be considered 
     as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment. The amendments printed in 
     the report may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. 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 committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. 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 [Mr. Foley]. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to 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. Speaker, House Resolution 270 is a modified closed rule providing 
for consideration of H.R. 2247, the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act 
of 1997.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided, and makes in order the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure's amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Further, the rule makes in order two amendments printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules as well as the Democratic substitute.
  To expedite floor proceedings, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may be allowed to postpone votes during the consideration of H.R. 
2247 and to reduce votes to 5 minutes, provided they follow a 15-minute 
vote.
  Finally, the rule also provides the minority with the customary 
motion

[[Page H8965]]

to recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1445

  Many of my colleagues may recall that last Congress the House 
considered and passed an Amtrak reform bill. In fact, that bill is 
virtually identical to the legislation before us today and it passed 
the House by an overwhelming vote of 406 to 4 with the support of both 
political parties, the administration, and organized labor. So one 
would think that without much debate the House could again easily pass 
this compromise legislation. But oddly things have changed.
  Last night, in the Committee on Rules we heard testimony to the 
effect that organized labor has had a change of heart and no longer 
finds the Amtrak reform bill to their liking. While the reason for this 
mood swing was not made fully clear, the Committee on Rules voted to 
make in order two amendments that had the support of organized labor, a 
bipartisan amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentlemen from Ohio 
[Mr. LaTourette], and [Mr. Traficant], as well as an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], which will be offered as a 
substitute to the LaTourette-Traficant amendment. Each amendment will 
be debatable for 20 minutes.
  In a further effort to alleviate recent concerns, the Committee on 
Rules agreed to allow the ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure to offer an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute which will be debatable for 30 minutes. That means that 
under the rule, two Democrats and two Republicans will have the 
opportunity to offer amendments to the Amtrak reform bill. In addition, 
the minority has the opportunity to offer a motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  I would submit to my colleagues that the rule before us is very 
balanced and, given the easy passage of virtually identical legislation 
in the 104th Congress, I think the rule provides adequate time to 
debate the substance of the legislation, including the new concerns 
that have cropped up.
  Mr. Speaker, not only is the rule before us fair, but the underlying 
legislation it allows the House to debate is critical. Amtrak's 
financial state is rapidly deteriorating. In April of this year, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure appointed a panel of 
outside experts to study Amtrak. The panel reached the unanimous 
conclusion that Amtrak is facing a severe financial crisis with 
bankruptcy looming the next 6 to 12 months.
  In response, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
reintroduced legislation to implement a number of long-awaited reforms 
that will stave off bankruptcy and put the railroad back on track, 
ready to serve the many passengers who rely on its services. H.R. 2247 
will eliminate the Federal Government's micromanagement of Amtrak and 
provide Amtrak with needed flexibility in managing its work force.
  For example, H.R. 2247 will restructure Amtrak's management by 
removing the current board of directors and providing for the 
appointment of an emergency reform board which will recommend a plan to 
restructure Amtrak. The bill also creates a seven-member advisory 
council of business experts having no affiliation with the railroad 
industry, Amtrak, or the U.S. Government who will be charged with 
evaluating Amtrak's business plan, cost containment measures, 
productivity improvements, and accounting procedures. The council would 
then recommend to Congress how best to proceed toward partial or 
complete privatization of the railroad.
  In addition, the bill gives Amtrak the option of contracting out work 
which will provide for desperately needed capital savings. Contracting 
out the work to repair and modernize Amtrak's facilities alone would 
save taxpayers an estimated $262 million. The bill also makes some 
reasonable changes to onerous labor protection requirements that will 
allow Amtrak to streamline and reassign its work force in line with 
commonsense business practices.
  Other reforms in the bill will provide options for private financing 
and encourage States to continue their financial support of Amtrak in 
cooperation with other States to ensure their citizens have continued 
access to valued intercity rail services. These and other reforms in 
H.R. 2247 promise to continue Amtrak's service for passengers in the 
short term and set the railroad on a course to financial solvency and 
self-sufficiency in the long run.
  While these changes are dramatic by necessity, they are carefully 
designed in fairness to the American taxpayers and Amtrak's employees.
  Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. Our constituents who rely on 
intercity rail services and all American taxpayers are looking to 
Congress to address Amtrak's crisis in a reasonable, responsible, and 
timely manner. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt this fair and 
balanced rule without delay so that the House can move on to debate the 
important issues surrounding Amtrak's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for 
yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, Amtrak is one of the foundations of our national 
transportation system and it is a crucial part of our economic 
infrastructure. But this bill will hurt Amtrak. It will hurt Amtrak 
workers far more than it will help Amtrak. For that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this modified closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans rely on Amtrak. They take the 
train to work. They take the train to meet their customers. They take 
the train to meet their clients. They take the train to college. They 
take the train to visit family and friends.
  The people who work on the railroad do an excellent job of making 
sure that the trains run on time.
  Mr. Speaker, rail travel is the transportation of the future. It is 
fast. It is convenient. It is energy-efficient, and it enables everyone 
to travel regardless of whether or not they can afford an automobile.
  The Northeast corridor is the most traveled rail route in the 
country. This corridor stretches from Boston to Washington, DC, and 
carries over 100 million passengers a year. Without Amtrak, Mr. 
Speaker, our infrastructure would be much more overloaded than it 
already is. Our air would be more polluted, and most people would have 
a much more difficult time getting from one destination to another.
  Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that Amtrak, despite the great 
improvements that have been made over the last few years, is still not 
working at its best. According to the General Accounting Office, 
Amtrak's equipment, Amtrak's facilities, its stations, its tracks, its 
rolling stock are all starved for capital investment. Without capital 
investment, services are less reliable, trains are less comfortable, 
and the American rail system falls further and further behind those of 
other developed countries.
  Mr. Speaker, today's bill is designed to help solve these problems by 
making Amtrak more commercially viable. For example, today's bill 
forbids Federal micromanagement of Amtrak's routes and incorporates 
transport industry expertise from the private sector. It also triggers 
up to $2.3 billion in tax credits for desperately needed capital 
expenditures.
  But despite the great improvements this bill will make in our 
national rail system, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and 
oppose the bill.
  This bill contains some very dangerous provisions which will hurt 
Amtrak, hurt Amtrak employees, and hurt Amtrak's passengers. It is 
unfair and it is antiworker.
  This bill ends the statutory wage protection for displaced or 
downgraded workers which Amtrak employees have had since the 1930s. It 
also ends the remaining protections Amtrak employees have against the 
contracting out of their jobs to outside vendors.
  Amtrak's labor protection costs are minimal. Over the last couple 
years, when Amtrak has laid off 4,000 workers, they have paid only 
$100,000 on labor protection. And this is out of an entire budget of 
nearly $1 billion a year.
  My Republican colleagues will argue that these protections drive up 
costs and cripple attempts to make passenger rail commercially and 
financially viable.

[[Page H8966]]

  Mr. Speaker, that is totally untrue. In fact, the cost of statutory 
protections is tiny compared to total operating subsidies and even 
tinier when compared to Amtrak's total cost. So removing these 
statutory protections will do very little to make Amtrak more 
efficient, but it will do a lot more to make workers' lives more 
difficult.
  The lives of the people on Amtrak's management team do not seem to be 
suffering much. Amtrak has paid $3.5 million in management buyout 
costs. I do not hear my Republican colleagues complaining about that.
  Mr. Speaker, outside contracts do nothing to help keep the costs down 
either. Amtrak already has considerable leeway to make outside 
contracts, but its own workers are much more efficient. For example, 
Amtrak has not been able to find an outside vendor capable of 
delivering food and beverage services more economically than Amtrak 
workers already deliver those services at the present time.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues appear to be obsessed with the 
idea of contracting things out. But in this case they are really 
putting politics before the national interest. The facts show Amtrak 
employees just can do it better. If organized Amtrak workers can do the 
job better for less money, why on Earth would anybody try to stop them?
  Mr. Speaker, Amtrak workers are not exactly living high on the hog. 
Over the last 16 years, Amtrak workers' standard of living has declined 
by over 33 percent. In most cases, their wages have not even kept 
abreast of inflation.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from a railroad family. All of my uncles also 
worked for the railroad, so I have always respected and saw firsthand 
the hard work that these people do. Today it is no different. The 
20,000 Americans who work so hard for Amtrak deserve some protection in 
this bill. Unfortunately, the way it stands now, they just will not get 
it.
  Meanwhile, this bill's attacks on Amtrak employees workers just do 
not stop at cutting statutory wage protection and increasing outside 
contracts. Mr. Speaker, this bill completely ends the wage protection 
aspect of collective bargaining agreements, and it is not as if these 
agreements were forced on anyone. These agreements were freely agreed 
to by unions and management under the established law. To overturn them 
is completely unwarranted and, once again, smacks of unjustified attack 
on organized labor.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill hurts Amtrak passengers by limiting 
the liability of freight railroads for causing accidents and by tying 
the calculation of damages to an arbitrary economic formula. It sets up 
an unfair double standard under which the liability of freight carriers 
is restricted, but under which Amtrak's liability is not restricted.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the much-needed improvements this bill will make 
in our national passenger rail system, the harm it will do, the harm it 
will cause Amtrak employees is far worse. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill, oppose the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], a member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 270. 
This rule is a fair rule especially in light of the history of this 
legislation. In the 104th Congress, the House passed virtually the same 
bill that we have before us today. That legislation enjoyed the 
bipartisan support of 406 House Members and the full endorsement of 
organized labor. In fact, labor participated in drafting the labor 
reforms that it is opposing today. This rule allows for a Democratic 
substitute amendment and for one Republican amendment with a 
substitute. Members will have the opportunity to vote on these 
amendments. Amtrak reform legislation must be enacted. Anyone who has 
been paying attention to Amtrak knows that it is about to enter into 
bankruptcy.
  The General Accounting Office has confirmed this as well as the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's bipartisan Blue Ribbon 
Panel on intercity rail.
  Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about the future of intercity rail in 
the United States. If we want to continue to have rail service as a 
transportation option, then we must enact reform legislation dealing 
with Amtrak. There is no way Amtrak can survive without it. In 
addition, the reform legislation will free up $2.3 billion that was 
provided in the Taxpayer Relief Act for badly needed capital investment 
in Amtrak.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the 
legislation to follow.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and let us just get to the heart of 
one of the things we are going to hear, and that is the mantra, over 
and over, 406 to 4, 406 to 4. My colleagues, I voted for this bill last 
year. I spoke for it last year. So why would I be one of the 406 that 
is opposed to the rule and opposed to the bill? Because, my colleagues, 
this is not the same time, it is not the same conditions.
  I guess I played a little bit, mainly from the bench, but I played 
high school football, and I learned that if a play is run and it does 
not go anywhere, then that play is not run again. And this is what is 
attempting to be done with this Amtrak bill. Yes, it passed this House 
406 to 4. Does anybody ever talk about what happened after that? There 
is deafening silence. And the reason is because there was deafening 
silence. Nothing happened. It went to the Senate, but it was not 
brought up for consideration, therefore, it never got to the President 
for his signature.
  The fact of the matter is it passed here 406 to 4, and in terms of 
getting enacted, the score is zero. So that is what will happen again 
if we run the same play, and that is why there are a number of us who 
oppose this bill.
  There is another reason, too, because a number of the representations 
that were made last year about the provisions in this bill, why they 
had to be in there, have since proven to be false in terms of the labor 
protection language. We were told that Amtrak had to have this because 
of high labor protection costs. It turns out that Amtrak has laid off 
almost 2,000 workers at an average cost of a little over $1,000 a 
worker, less than most severance packages in any private sector bill.
  We were told there had to be the indemnification provisions, which 
Amtrak has to sign indemnification contracts agreeing to bear the 
responsibility for the costs of any accident, even if the fault is that 
of the railroad over which Amtrak runs and leases. Well, we were told 
of course that Amtrak needed this in order to operate and to negotiate 
these leases. Since then Amtrak has negotiated the trackage rights over 
all these at no significant markup in cost. Once again, a nonissue.
  There is another reason that I oppose this bill, and I will speak 
further on it. I oppose this rule because the Committee on Rules did 
not make in order my language to strike the limitations of liability. 
In this bill, if someone is injured they are entitled to no more than 
$250,000 in noneconomic damages. Furthermore, they are entitled to no 
more than $250,000 or three times their economic loss for punitive 
damages. They also require Amtrak, no matter what the situation, to pay 
the railroad that may have been at fault for the accident that 
resulted.
  These are onerous provisions. They do not help Amtrak. They will hurt 
Amtrak in the long run. So I urge rejection of this rule for that 
reason. And remember, 406 to 4 and the bill never went anywhere. That 
is why it needs to be changed.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I hesitate to stand up here and 
talk, especially when my blood pressure goes up, but I have been here 
for 20 years and I came out of the private sector, and in the private 
sector we never played politics. We did what was right for our business 
and we made it successful and we made our payrolls. Is

[[Page H8967]]

it not too bad that we cannot do the same thing in this body? Maybe 
this is why we are not held in high esteem by the American people.
  With all the good intentions of my good friend, the gentleman from 
West Virginia, Mr. Bob Wise, and I highly respect him and admire him, 
let me just quote to my colleagues his statements when this same bill, 
the identical bill, passed the House with 406 affirmative votes. He 
said, 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. I am satisfied that the bill is a reasonable compromise 
and that it is needed to keep Amtrak moving ahead. 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.
  Now my good friend just said sometimes times change. Let me tell my 
colleagues what the changes are. And Amtrak is terribly important to 
the Northeast and especially to the Hudson Valley corridor that I have 
the privilege of representing. Let me tell my colleagues what those 
time changes are. It means Amtrak is going bankrupt. Now, not only does 
that affect all of the people that commute back and forth in using 
Amtrak, but it affects the economy. And more than that, it affects the 
jobs of every single one of those Amtrak workers.
  Now, I have gone back and I have talked to those workers, and they 
have told me not to let Amtrak go down the drain. Many of them have 
worked all of their lives there. That is what this is all about.
  Now, how did we get to this point? I guess my friend from West 
Virginia does not remember several months ago when we were fighting the 
battle of the balanced budget, which is probably the most important 
thing that we can do in this Congress, is to get this deficit spending 
under control and stop this sea of red ink which is bankrupting all 
Americans, particularly those that have to live on fixed incomes; young 
people who have to buy homes and have to pay mortgage rates that are 
just astronomical caused by this deficit.
  I will give an example. I hate to get off on another subject, but if 
there is a young couple that just got married and has one child, and 
now they are making an interest payment annually on their mortgage 
payment of $6,000, that is not a lot, because it is a low mortgage that 
produces that, but $2,000, one-third of that entire interest payment 
they make, is caused by the Federal deficit. We had to get the deficit 
under control and we did. We bit the bullet and we had bipartisan 
support in doing it.
  But in doing so, then we had to fight to save Amtrak, and it meant 
come up with a couple of billion dollars extra. And, my colleagues, in 
order to do that we had to have compromise. And, yes, we had to work 
with Senator Roth in the other body, I guess I should not mention names 
over there, but the quid pro quo is that we would have some reform.
  Now, I do not know about all of my colleagues, but I know for sure 
that the Amtrak workers in the Hudson Valley want us to save Amtrak. 
They want to save their jobs. This bill will do that. So why do we not 
just kind of stop the rhetoric? Why do we not just get down to brass 
tacks and agree that we have to do this and pass this bill?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, to have the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules quote my words, print them up, I am honored, and I 
hope he will do the same thing with the many predictions that I made 
that turned out to be true on the Contract With America.
  But also let me then quote these words today. Yes, a number of us 
voted for this bill because we were told certain things would happen. 
They did not happen. This bill went absolutely nowhere in the Senate 
because of the very provisions that are in the bill today: Labor 
protection, indemnification, limitation of liability, resulting in 
Amtrak coming to a quick halt.
  If we are serious about wanting Amtrak to keep running, and I want it 
to run through West Virginia just as much as the gentleman does from 
New York. If we are serious about wanting it to keeping running, we 
have to recognize the realities. We can pass this bill without a lot of 
burdensome baggage on it and we can get it then moving to the Senate 
and to the President, who, incidentally, has threatened to veto over 
some of the same provisions they insist on keeping in this bill. We do 
not have to go down this track again.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Mica], a member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, this rule, in 
fact, that will keep Amtrak on track.
  Mr. Speaker, let us examine the facts. Amtrak is about to enter 
bankruptcy, and this Nation could, in fact, risk losing its inner city 
passenger rail system. We have a bill before us that enjoyed the 
bipartisan support of 406 House Members in 1995.
  This bill includes significant reform of Amtrak that will allow the 
corporation to do these things: To operate like a business, to cut 
costs, and achieve financial stability. In addition, the bill will 
allow the $2.3 billion that was provided in the Taxpayer Relief Act 
that we passed to be spent by Amtrak on very badly needed capital 
improvements and investments.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule should not be controversial at all. There is 
no veto threat. This is a badly needed piece of legislation. It allows 
us to have a Democratic substitute as well as Republican amendments. 
And H.R. 2247, in fact, is the same bill that this Congress passed 2 
years ago on this floor. We need to act decisively to get this rule 
passed so that Amtrak reform legislation can be enacted to save Amtrak 
from bankruptcy, and that is the fact.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the labor reform measures that 
are contained in this bill since they are now generating some 
controversy. These reforms are exactly the same labor reforms that were 
included in H.R. 1788, the Amtrak reform bill of the 104th Congress.
  The reforms were actually endorsed by labor then. In fact, they were 
even drafted with labor's full participation in the process. These 
compromise reforms were the product of significant battles in our 
committee. And since the original committee proposals included even 
stronger proposals for labor reform, I think the case can be made that 
stronger labor reforms are appropriate for a company that is indeed 
facing bankruptcy.
  Through the efforts of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], 
working in conjunction with organized labor, the committee produced 
legislation that enjoyed the support of the minority and also of 
organized labor. In fact, the bill was reported out of committee on a 
unanimous voice vote. Now labor is claiming the reforms are, in fact, 
unfair and this is what they have indeed supported in the past.
  I tell my colleagues what I think is unfair. The status quo to which 
labor is attached is unfair, and it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable 
to this Congress and it is unacceptable to the American taxpayers who 
foot the bill for a system that is near bankruptcy.
  Under current law, Amtrak must pay a worker who is laid off due to a 
route elimination or frequency reduction up to 6 full years of full 
wages and benefits. Currently, over 75 percent of Amtrak employees are 
eligible for the full 6 years of benefits based on their length of 
service. This is what labor is, in fact, trying to preserve. They have 
a sweetheart deal that Congress handed to them a number of years ago on 
a silver platter when Amtrak was created and they do not want to give 
that up. Those are the facts.
  The same dynamic principle applies to the ban on contracting out. 
Right now Amtrak cannot contract out any work, other than food and 
beverage services, if it would result in the layoff of a single 
employee in a bargaining unit. This effectively prohibits almost all 
contracting out, in fact, of work by Amtrak.
  How is Amtrak supposed to rationalize the system and save money? This 
is a company about to, in fact, go bankrupt; to go belly up. But if it 
wants to downsize its employment base, if it has to pay everybody wages 
and benefits for 6 years, I ask how is that possible?

[[Page H8968]]

  Congress does not require the airlines to pay their employees for 6 
years in the event of a layoff; why should we make Amtrak do that? And 
Amtrak cannot even achieve any savings through contracting out work as 
its competitors in the airline industry have been able to do.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is indeed fair. Amtrak reform legislation is 
crucial to the future of passenger rail in this country. Let us pass 
the rule and let us move on to general debate on this important bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to the Amtrak reform bill because in its current form the bill betrays 
Amtrak's employees' rights, it compromises the safety of Amtrak's 
passengers, and it would deny just compensation for victims of 
passenger rail accidents.
  This bill would be better known as the Simon Legree Act of 1998. It 
essentially proposes to balance the books of Amtrak on stripping away 
the income of the workers that lay our rails, that essentially make our 
rails safe and secure, and it would impose an undue burden on those 
victims of any rail accidents that would no longer be able to look to 
their legal rights.

                              {time}  1515

  The fact of the matter is that our legal system in this country plays 
an important role in making certain that victims are provided the 
assurance that they will receive benefits if in fact they are hurt or 
injured in the course of normal day-to-day operations. This is a basic 
security which has always been the balance of justice in America. It is 
a system that has worked well for over 200 years. Why should we cut out 
Amtrak from that balance that we achieve in every other aspect of 
American life?
  Under the guise of financial interests for the insolvent Amtrak 
system, this bill dresses up a bunch of unfair labor provisions and 
calls them reforms. In direct violation of their collective bargaining 
agreements, this bill would eliminate wage protections for displaced 
Amtrak workers, protections that have been in place for employees for 
over 70 years. The truth of the matter is Amtrak employees have not 
gotten anything close to the kind of cost of living benefits that are 
necessary in order to keep up with the rising costs that almost all the 
American people have been able to enjoy.
  What we have here is a system that is being put in place and imposed 
on the poor workers of that system that will, I believe, unduly shift 
the balance of fairness and justice onto the backs of the people that 
use the Amtrak system, the people that build the Amtrak system and 
those few individuals that may be hurt by a rail accident.
  To further undermine the unions, this bill would also make 
contracting out Amtrak jobs a routine procedure by ending current 
protections against such practices. I strongly urge and support the 
LaTourette-Traficant amendment, which will retain statutory wage 
protections, collective bargaining, and the rights of Amtrak workers to 
keep their jobs without the fear of losing them to cheaper, less 
skilled labor.
  I also encourage and support the efforts to repeal the bill's caps on 
punitive and non-economic damages. These provisions would deny just 
compensation to victims of passenger rail accidents and should be 
removed.
  Mr. Speaker, Amtrak service is important to the Northeast corridor, 
the heavily traveled route between Boston and Washington, where almost 
600,000 people use the trains each day. Amtrak service gives my 
constituents an alternative to fighting traffic jams, it contributes to 
reducing air pollution from auto exhaust and it keeps 27,000 cars off 
our highways each and every day in this country.
  It is no secret that a pending Amtrak strike is being held at bay 
with the hopes of the passage of this bill. We must do all we can to 
avert a strike that would be devastating for the commuters in many of 
our districts. I believe that we can pass the underlying bill by a wide 
margin if we strip out these anti-labor provisions and limits on 
liability.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the LaTourette-Traficant 
amendment and the Democratic substitute and send a real reform bill, 
one free of poison pills, to the President's desk.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, a gentleman who is an expert on this 
matter.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his kind words.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have a billboard as the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Rules had on who said what, but I do have the 
transcript of the debate in 1992, August 11, the last time that an 
Amtrak authorization bill passed the House to be enacted by the 
President. It is remarkable to note in that debate that not a single 
question was raised by either Democrat or Republican about labor 
issues. Not a single question. It passed on a voice vote in the House. 
It passed overwhelmingly on suspension later on when the conference 
report came back. Not a single question was raised about labor rights 
at a time when there are the same issues as there are today.
  So if we want to talk about consistency, one might be reminded by 
Samuel Pepys, the British poet and writer who said, ``Consistency is 
the hobgoblin of small minds.'' Because there is not consistency. There 
is a significant change in what has happened with Amtrak and with the 
issues underlying the effective operation of Amtrak. But that is not 
what I want to discuss at this time. There will be time, plenty of time 
in the general debate and on the amendments later.
  What I rise for here is objection to the rule that was crafted. It is 
not a fair rule. Democrats were not given an opportunity to offer 
pinpointed, specific amendments. Instead, what was done was to 
carefully, thoughtfully, and cleverly make in order the LaTourette 
amendment to rectify the passenger rail labor rights which the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] requested and which we supported 
on the Democratic side, and then to make as a substitute to LaTourette 
an amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], which vitiates 
LaTourette, reinstates essentially the committee bill, but corrects a 
little problem that was opened by obiter dictum language in the 
committee report to suggest that the Surface Transportation Board might 
extend these provisions of eliminating labor protection for freight 
rail and transit labor.
  So now we have the Quinn amendment that goes just so far, but not 
quite far enough, and the body never gets to vote on the underlying 
real issue of rail labor, the LaTourette amendment.
  And then the rule makes in order something we did not even ask for, a 
substitute on our side. Our committee has historically come to the 
Committee on Rules and asked for open rules. The chairman has always 
praised the leadership on both sides for doing so, both during the 
times when he was ranking member in the minority and now in his service 
as chairman. He has essentially remained faithful to that premise. But 
not in this case, and that is why I object to this rule. It is unfair. 
It sets up a process by which labor must fail or Democrats are going to 
be substantially divided on a range of issues and Members on the 
Republican side who might ordinarily be favorable to labor issues but 
divided on consumer questions are necessarily going to be divided.
  It is a fundamentally unfair rule. You did not lay the issues out and 
give an opportunity for each question to be debated and voted on its 
own merits. That is why I object to the rule.
  I think, in all fairness, that the gambit has failed, because labor 
is not taking the bait and the consumer groups are not taking the bait, 
and I think that in the end we are going to prevail because of the 
unfairness with which the issue has been handled in the present rule.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. It is an unfair rule. 
We should not have that kind of mischief visited in the legislative 
process. We ought to be able to vote on issues on their merits without 
these little games being played.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to

[[Page H8969]]

the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me address my good friend the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], because he is a good friend. He is a 
highly respected Member of this body. I admired him even when I was a 
member of the committee many, many, many years ago. I really am 
surprised at his protestations here this afternoon, because when he 
testified before the Committee on Rules we discussed at length the kind 
of rule that we would make in order in trying to be fair to everybody. 
We all know that there are few precious days left before this Congress 
will adjourn. If we are fortunate enough to adjourn by November 7 or 
even the 14th, we will only be able to accomplish about one-third of 
all that is planned between now and then as far as passing the 
important legislation on this floor.
  But let us get to the rule itself. The gentleman from Minnesota knows 
that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] was allowed to offer an 
amendment, which he supports. It is strongly supported by labor. We 
also made in order a substitute amendment to the LaTourette amendment. 
It was characterized, I think, by the gentleman from Minnesota as the 
LaTourette amendment being a whole loaf and the Quinn amendment being a 
half a loaf. Both of them are supported by labor. Both of them are pro-
labor, I guess you could characterize them that way. So that when 
Members come to the floor later on today, they can either vote in favor 
of the LaTourette amendment, the whole loaf, or they can vote against 
it by voting for the Quinn amendment. It is as simple as that. This is 
the normal procedure that we follow in this House.
  We also discussed at length a number of other amendments that were 
offered from Republicans and Democrats. We told the gentleman from 
Minnesota that he, being the ranking member, was entitled, with 
fairness, to offer a substitute in which he could put any amendment 
that he wanted to, the Wise amendment which was a very important 
amendment, in his opinion, the Vento amendment or I believe there was a 
Jackson-Lee amendment, but any of those or any part of those could have 
been included in a Democrat substitute and as I understand it, we gave 
them something we very rarely do and something the Democrats never did 
in my 20 years here, and that was to give the minority the right to 
offer a substitute, sight unseen, providing it is germane to the bill. 
We did that in an act of being as fair and open as we possibly could.
  So I think the gentleman protests too much. I think we really have 
been open and fair, much more fair than the Democrats ever were to us 
on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. At the 
hearing of the Committee on Rules yesterday evening, I specifically 
said my recommendation is make in order the LaTourette amendment, make 
in order the Quinn amendment, they deal with different aspects of the 
labor issue, and I specifically also said, ``But do not play a little 
game with us by making the Quinn amendment in order as a substitute for 
the LaTourette.'' I said that, I was very, very clear about that 
because it was a very important point for me. I did not ask for an 
amendment on our side. I asked for other amendments to be made in 
order. I did not ask for a substitute. The Committee on Rules crafted a 
rule that plays both ends against the middle. I do not believe that the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] asked for his to be a substitute.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If I could just reclaim my time briefly to say, the 
question was posed that the Democrat side of the aisle did not have all 
of the information available and we were requested to leave it open so 
that you could present a sight unseen substitute. We did exactly as we 
were asked.
  Having said that, please come over and vote for this fair rule and 
vote for this very vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, just to correct my dear friend, my 
chairman, it was not our side that asked to keep it open. It was the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], who was testifying before the 
panel on a different bill. Secondly, if the chairman looks at the 
records, when I was chair, we did give unseen amendments to the 
minority leader on many occasions. You can look in the records.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman, but I just 
want to start out here and say something that I think is important. I 
am going to vote for the rule. I appreciate the fact you allowed the 
LaTourette amendment. It would probably be called Traficant-LaTourette 
if it were not for the politics here. Both sides are playing politics.
  I am concerned about workers. There is not a more wily strategist in 
the House than the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and really 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has been very fair. There is 
an opportunity for working people, and just let me say this before we 
go on. The Quinn amendment says freight and transit workers will not be 
impacted by this bill.

                              {time}  1530

  The LaTourette-Traficant amendment says that, too.
  Now, let us tell it the way it is. Labor came out and tried to beat 
Republicans, but there are a whole lot of working people that did not 
agree with some of those endorsements and voted for you, too.
  I think the collective bargaining agreement should be allowed to be 
intact. There has been an awful lot of contracting out by Amtrak that 
has not even been contested by the workers. It was agreed.
  I believe, and I say this straightforward, the Republican Party has 
an opportunity to say, ``Look, you in labor tried to screw us, but we 
are more concerned about the rights of all people.'' And I honest-to-
God believe there is a shot to pass LaTourette-Traficant.
  I agree with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] that if that 
Quinn amendment passes, and the way the bill has been structured I 
guess it has been set up by the craftiest Member in the House, maybe in 
its history, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I don't 
blame him, but there has not been a better man, and he is a pit man, he 
is a pit man, I might say, and he knows those steel workers, those coal 
workers, those workers at Amtrak and related labor people.
  I am just saying, look for fairness. I am going to vote for the rule, 
and I want Members to consider what I say in other substantive points 
during the debate on this bill. I am proud to join with the gentleman 
from Ohio, Steve LaTourette, my neighbor. He has done an outstanding 
job. He, like many Republicans, contrary to what the press might say, 
has been a friend of labor and working people.
  So, the Republicans have an opportunity to demonstrate, I honest-to-
God believe this, and the fact is that most of the many working people 
voted for them or you would not be here in the majority. Believe me 
when I tell you that. Look for the fairness of the bill.
  I wish you had structured the rule a little different, Mr. Chairman, 
but I want to thank you for allowing the vote on it in the first place.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I just want to make it very clear that labor opposes 
the Quinn amendment, because passage of Quinn forecloses an opportunity 
to vote ``aye'' on LaTourette-Traficant.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know that. We want 
to defeat the Quinn amendment, but we have an opportunity to do it, and 
we have an opportunity to debate it before the Quinn amendment is 
offered. I am hoping that people understand the substance of that, and 
not get tied up in the politics.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)

[[Page H8970]]

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not here to dispute the need for this 
legislation. In fact, I am a strong Texas advocate for Amtrak. In fact, 
we are certainly working to maintain our sources of intercity transit 
in our State, and I am a strong advocate of that.
  Certainly, I am concerned about pieces of this legislation that deal 
with removing employee and various other rights as relates to working 
conditions, and I hope we address that.
  But I am also here to speak on behalf of an amendment that I 
attempted to offer and that I think is extremely important, and that is 
H.R. 2247 removes or caps the noneconomic damages at $250,000 in this 
legislation, regardless of the nature of an individual's injury. It 
caps punitive damages at $250,000, or three times economic damages, 
whichever is greater.
  We have had this debate when we talked about tort reform. That 
clearly weighs on the side of the more economically endowed, the CEO 
versus the little girl who lost her leg. Each leg is of similar value, 
because they do not have a leg, but the CEO gets more than the little 
girl with no job.
  Regardless of the cause of that injury, it allows Amtrak to indemnify 
other railroads for even gross negligence and recklessness. I offered 
an amendment to correct that, as I said, and that was not included.
  Let me address the issue of a cap on noneconomic damages. A cap on 
noneconomic damages is unfair to passengers injured by Amtrak's 
negligence because it arbitrarily places a value on the injured 
person's loss.
  This value may be completely unrelated to the type of injury 
suffered, and may fail to fully compensate that individual's loss. This 
value may be completely unrelated, as I said, to the type of injury 
suffered, and may fail to fully compensate the injured passenger for 
his or her loss.
  H.R. 2347 as written says the loss of a leg is worth $250,000, at 
most. The loss of both legs is worth $250,000, at most, and the loss of 
both legs plus an arm is again worth, at most, is worth $250,000.
  As I said earlier, this cap discriminates against women, children, 
the elderly and the poor who may not have the same substantial economic 
losses, by placing greater value on economic losses than on noneconomic 
losses. Effectively what this does is it says that injuries such as the 
losses of senses or one's limbs, the loss of a child or a spouse, the 
loss of one's fertility or ability to care for one's family or gross 
disfigurement are not real losses and need not be compensated.
  We really need to correct this. I do believe that this legislation is 
important legislation, but limiting these damages, as well as punitive 
damages, which are in fact the basis upon which industry reforms 
itself, is distracting from this very good legislation.
  I would hope that we would be able to cure this by relieving us of 
these caps to be fair to all citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 2247, the 
Amtrak reauthorization bill.
  H.R. 2247 is an important piece of legislation which authorizes $3.4 
billion in continued Federal support for Amtrak through fiscal year 
2000. H.R. 2247 also facilitates the privatization of Amtrak by 
decreasing its costs and increasing its revenues, in order to 
eventually eliminate its reliance on Federal subsidies. I am not here 
to dispute the need for such legislation, but instead to address 
concerns raised by some of the more controversial provisions of the 
bill, specifically those dealing with liability issues.
  H.R. 2247 caps noneconomic damages at $250,000 regardless of the 
nature of an individuals' injury, caps punitive damages at $250,000 or 
three times economic damages, which ever is greater, regardless of the 
cause of that injury, and allows Amtrak to indemnify other railroads 
for even gross negligence and recklessness.
  I offered an amendment before the Rules Committee last night which 
would have struck these unfair and arbitrary provisions from the bill. 
However, neither my amendment, nor any other amendment with the same or 
a similar purpose, was made in order under the rule.
  Let us first address the issue of the cap on noneconomic damages that 
is included in H.R. 2247. A cap on noneconomic damages is unfair to 
passengers injured by Amtrak's negligence because it arbitrarily places 
a value on the injured person's loss. This value may be completely 
unrelated to the type of injury suffered and may fail to fully 
compensate the injured passenger for his or her loss. For example, H.R. 
2247 as written, says that the loss of a leg is worth $250,000 at most, 
the loss of both legs is worth $250,000 at most, and the loss of both 
legs plus an arm is again worth at most $250,000.
  A cap on noneconomic damages discriminates against women, children, 
the elderly, and the poor who may not have substantial economic losses 
by placing greater value on economic losses than on noneconomic losses. 
H.R. 2247 effectively says that injuries--such as the loss of one's 
senses or one's limbs, the loss of a child or a spouse, the loss of 
one's fertility or ability to care for one's family or gross 
disfigurement--are not real losses and need not be compensated as 
completely as the loss of salary.
  Consider the case of an accident in which two individuals--a business 
executive earning $1 million a year and a mother who stays at home to 
care for her children--sustain the exact same injury. The executive 
might be able to recover $1.25 million--$1 million for a year of lost 
salary and up to $250,000 in noneconomic damages. The mother, who does 
not earn real wages or a salary for her job, would be limited to a 
maximum of $250,000 for her loss.
  By limiting compensation for noneconomic damages, women, children, 
senior citizens, and others whose injuries cannot be measures in lost 
wages will become second-class citizens when it comes to claims for 
rail accidents.
  A second area of concern in H.R. 2247 is the provision capping 
punitive damages at $250,000, or three times economic damages, 
whichever is greater. A cap on punitive damages threatens public 
safety. While punitive damages are rarely awarded, they remain an 
important tool in forcing reckless or malicious defendants to change 
their conduct and in deterring others from recklessly disregarding 
public safety. Punitive damages ensure that safety devices are 
installed and properly maintained, that speed limits are followed, and 
that employees are trained to follow safety procedures. Given the 
current cost-cutting climate at Amtrak, the safety incentives offered 
by the threat of punitive damages are needed now more than ever.
  It is not necessary to look for in order to find cases in which a cap 
on punitive damages would have been inappropriate. The 1987 accident in 
Chevy Chase, MD that resulted in 16 passenger deaths and 175 passenger 
injuries, was completely preventable. The engineer and brakeman of a 
Conrail train, high on marijuana and alcohol, drove the train 62-miles-
per-hour in a 20-miles-per-hour zone blasting through stop signs before 
slamming head first into an Amtrak train filled with passengers. More 
recently, the National Transportation Safety Board stated that last 
year's Silver Spring accident between a MARC commuter train and Amtrak 
that resulted in 11 deaths was preventable had Federal regulators and 
safety officials been more aggressive in enforcing safety requirements.
  Finally, I would like to direct your attention to the troubling 
indemnification provisions in H.R. 2247. These provisions are clearly 
contrary to public policy. Even though indemnification agreements 
between Amtrak and rail owners are common, several courts, including 
the court in the Chevy Chase, MD case, have refused to uphold these 
private agreements where the freight railroads are themselves 
responsible for the crash and engaged in particularly egregious 
conduct. The courts found it against public policy and contrary to the 
interests of public safety to uphold an agreement that would completely 
immunize freight railroads for truly outrageous conduct that caused 
death and serious injury. The courts have recognized that legalizing 
private agreements that force Amtrak to pay for a freight railroad's 
liability--regardless of how grossly reckless or negligent the freight 
railroad is--will only lessen the pressure on freight railroads to 
ensure that their tracks are as safe as possible for passenger trains, 
and in so doing, will lead to further accidents.
  There is no reason freight railroads should be exempt from the 
consequences of their actions, just because an Amtrak train is involved 
in the accident. As written, the bill establishes an irrational double 
standard. Under it, a motorist who is hit by a freight train because 
the freight railroad's grade-crossing signal malfunctions would be 
entitled to full damages from the freight railroad, including punitive 
and noneconomic damages. If the motorist was hit by an Amtrak train, 
however, because of the same malfunctioning signal, the motorist could 
collect only limited punitive damages and noneconomic damages from 
Amtrak, and no damages could be collected from the freight railroad--
even though the freight railroad was equally at fault in both cases.
  We must consider that the indemnification provision in H.R. 2247 does 
not just pose a threat to public safety, but is also potentially

[[Page H8971]]

quite costly. At a time when the financial viability of Amtrak is at 
stake, why should taxpayers pay for the gross negligence or 
recklessness of another rail carrier?
  My colleagues, I ask you to consider the impact of the liability 
restrictions in H.R. 2247 on the safety of rail passengers as you cast 
your vote on the rule to H.R. 2247. I urge you to consider these 
provisions and then to vote against the rule that does not allow an 
amendment to address these alarming provisions.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to save Amtrak. That is what we have been 
dedicated to. Now, I can tell you, as I am sure many of you know, there 
are some in this body that do not want to save Amtrak. In fact, I was 
in a meeting this morning with several Members where we had a hard sell 
because they were telling us why are you trying to save it? It is about 
to go into bankruptcy. It is a failure. Let it go down the tubes.
  But we need Amtrak, but we need an efficient Amtrak. And it is the 
sad truth. In fact, virtually everybody agrees, it is on a steep path 
to bankruptcy. The GAO report says that, the panel of experts that 
Congressman Oberstar and I together appointed in order to come back and 
give us their recommendations said that. Everybody acknowledges it is 
on a steep path to bankruptcy.
  We need to reform it, but we also need the votes to reform it. And it 
is a fact that virtually the same legislation before us today passed 
this body in the last Congress 406 to 4. It is almost a bit 
embarrassing to tell you that every Member who stood up today, who 
spoke against this rule and this bill, is on record as having voted for 
this very legislation in the last Congress.
  Now, what changed? What changed is our friends in rail labor 
apparently think they can get a better deal, and so they have said they 
now oppose this.
  I would have to say, while I have the greatest respect for my 
colleagues, this is the biggest flip-flop since Humpty Dumpty fell off 
the wall. To have 406 Members vote for this bill, every Member who 
spoke against it today, to now stand up and speak against it, when he, 
in fact, voted for the bill.
  We need to save Amtrak. There is $2.3 billion already set aside for 
Amtrak if this reform legislation passes. That is extraordinary. It 
puts us on the way to saving a needed transportation mode in our 
country.
  Some of my friends have talked about how labor will be hurt, how 
labor will be hard done by.
  I represent Altoona, PA, one of the big railroad centers of America. 
I am perhaps one of the few Members of the Congress who actually worked 
on the track gang on the railroad. We heard it said earlier about how 
the track gang workers, the maintenance of way, they are now called, 
would be hurt by this.
  Let me tell you, the average maintenance of way worker on Amtrak 
makes $41,000 a year. I don't begrudge that to them. As a former gandy 
dancer, and that is what they called us back in those days. As a former 
track gang worker myself, I am delighted to see that the fellows that I 
used to work with in a previous time, today are making that kind of 
money. There is nothing here which will reduce those salaries, those 
incomes.
  But if we do not pass this legislation, if we do not pass this 
reform, there is not going to be an Amtrak. We need to save these jobs.
  We are told about the Senate not moving, that is a fact, the other 
body not moving last year. That is a fact. We did our job. We passed 
the reform. They did not move.
  However, it is very significant to note that this year, in 
reconciliation, we sat down and cut a deal with the Senate which was 
that $2.3 billion would be made available to Amtrak, coupled with the 
reform legislation, and the Senators in conference were willing to go 
along with that. We had an agreement with the Senate to pass virtually 
this reform language, and unlock the $2.3 billion for Amtrak.
  Well, we could not get agreement downtown, so in reconciliation, we 
had to drop it.
  We are back here trying to do the responsible thing, and that is save 
Amtrak, and trying to do it in a fashion that will unlock the money, 
and trying to do it in a way that really this body previously 
overwhelmingly approved. My good friends have talked about not being a 
fair rule, and my good friend from Ohio talked in terms of ``my rule.'' 
I wish it were true, but, of course, it wasn't my rule. The Committee 
on Rules writes rules; I did not craft it.
  In fact, initially it was suggested to me that it should be a closed 
rule, and the minority would have their opportunity to offer a motion 
to recommit. I objected to that. I said, no, I believe the minority 
should have an opportunity to offer their substitute, and the Committee 
on Rules has, indeed, provided that the minority does have the right to 
offer their substitute.
  I generally like our committee to bring open rules, but when you have 
a piece of legislation that passed by a vote of 406 to 4, and we are 
coming down to the closing days of this session, it does not seem 
unreasonable to say if we bring back that which already passed 406 to 
4, do we really need to have an open rule?
  Let us give the minority their rights. Let us give them the 
opportunity to offer their substitute. We offer our bill. And that is 
why it is in front of us as it is today.
  So I urge you, if you care about saving Amtrak, if you care about 
unlocking the $2.3 billion that can be there for the capital 
improvements that are so necessary, I urge Members to support this 
rule, to support us in our efforts to save Amtrak, because this Member, 
at least, and I believe I speak for many, does not want to see Amtrak 
go into bankruptcy.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the debate provided for under this 
rule should be more than sufficient to address any new concerns that 
have arisen since the House last considered this measure and passed it 
overwhelmingly by a vote of 406 to 4. Therefore, I urge my colleagues 
to support this fair and generous rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 226, 
nays 200, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 520]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella

[[Page H8972]]


     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Chambliss
     Cubin
     Gonzalez
     Lantos
     McIntosh
     Schiff
     Strickland

                              {time}  1604

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. JEFFERSON and Mrs. MINK of Hawaii changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BRYANT and Mr. SMITH of Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution 270 
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. 2247.

                              {time}  1605


                     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. 
2247), to reform the statutes relating to Amtrak, to authorize 
appropriations for Amtrak, and for other purposes, with Mr. Kolbe 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] and 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] each will control 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, we are here today to seize what is probably the last 
chance to save Amtrak without a bankruptcy. I am dedicated to trying to 
save Amtrak, but it is no secret that are several Members in this body, 
and in the other body, who would just as soon kill Amtrak.
  So what we have tried to do is put together a compromise which we can 
get through to reform Amtrak, which will unleash the $2.3 billion that 
has already been set aside for Amtrak if we are able to get reform 
through.
  Mr. Chairman, much of this debate took place during the rule, and so 
there is no need for me to restate what has been stated many times 
already with regard to the debate that took place concerning the rule. 
The bottom line is if we do not reform Amtrak, if we do not pass 
legislation to reform Amtrak, Amtrak goes into bankruptcy, there will 
be no Amtrak. It is that simple.
  In the last Congress virtually the same legislation passed this body 
406 to 4, as has been emphasized in the previous debate, and that needs 
to be reemphasized here. This is our last, best hope of saving Amtrak 
and saving the jobs of the many good people who work at Amtrak; also 
for saving Amtrak and saving the very positive implication that the 
saving of Amtrak will have on the whole railroad retirement system.
  So for all of those reasons, I would urge support for this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here today to seize what is probably the last 
chance to save Amtrak without a bankruptcy. No informed observer denies 
that the company is at best only a few months away from the bankruptcy 
court. That includes Amtrak itself, the General Accounting Office, and 
the expert bipartisan panel that our committee formed to examine 
Amtrak's condition.
  This is no longer a postponable problem: Amtrak has only a few months 
to live if it is kept in the straitjacket of Federal laws that prevent 
it from operating on a rational, business-like basis. This bill removes 
that straitjacket, and frees Amtrak from the statutory micromanagement 
that has brought it to the brink of financial collapse.
  These structural changes were drafted on a bipartisan basis with the 
participation and agreement of the minority and of rail labor in the 
104th Congress. They include: Establishing a new reform board of 
directors; giving Amtrak a fresh start in its capital and stock 
structure; removing the numerous Federal mandates that preclude 
rationalizing its route system; and organizing itself for business 
efficiency. Up to now, the company has never been permitted to do any 
of these things--unlike other transportation companies.
  This bill should be very familiar to most Members, because you voted 
for it by a rollcall of 406 to 4 less than 2 years ago. There are only 
technical changes in this bill to reflect the passage of time, plus one 
substantive change. We have authorized the reform Board of directors--
if it chooses--to recommend a plan to Congress to implement one of the 
key ideas of our expert panel--the separation of Amtrak into two 
distinct corporations, one for infrastructure, and one for operations. 
Of course, even if the board made such a recommendation, it would take 
future congressional action to implement such a plan.
  Among the restrictions this bill removes are the current statutory 
requirements for up to 6 years of labor protection--that is, full 
salary and benefits, to any employee adversely affected by a 
discontinuance of service a reduction of service below three trains 
weekly, or even a 30-mile relocation. But remember, this bill was a 
bipartisan compromise: It does not forbid Amtrak from providing 
protections for its employees--if merely places these issues in 
collective bargaining, without having the Federal Government dictate 
what the protections will be by statute.
  The bill also addresses the continuing problem of unlimited tort 
liability exposure. Almost everywhere except the Northeast corridor 
that Amtrak owns, it must operate over the tracks belonging to private-
sector freight railroads. Amtrak, by Federal law, has access to those 
tracks, whether the freight carrier likes it or not. Therefore, the 
liability exposure that is placed on the freight railroads is 
involuntary in nature. All this bill does is to place reasonable limits 
on the punitive and non-economic damage exposure in passenger train 
accidents. It has no effect on the freight railroads' own freight-
carrying operations. If we do not make these sensible reforms, however, 
Amtrak may be facing prohibitively expensive access requirements, 
because Amtrak still has to pay

[[Page H8973]]

the freight railroads, even under compulsory access arrangements.
  There are those, Mr. Speaker, who say that the only way Amtrak will 
ever be fixed is by going bankrupt first. I do not share this view, 
because a shutdown would be a great blow to our transportation system, 
to our commuter rail operations, and even to the Railroad Retirement 
System.
  But let's look at an Amtrak bankruptcy, because there are too many 
constituencies here who are still in denial about Amtrak and its 
finances. If Amtrak goes under, the GAO estimates that labor protection 
payments alone would total up to $5 billion. Amtrak's commercial debt--
not to the Federal Government--is about $1 billion. So that's $6 
billion in liabilities, with virtually no possibility of paying those 
claims out of Amtrak's assets. And just this week, the Comptroller 
General issued a legal opinion in response to an inquiry from Chairman 
Kasich and myself. He ruled that none of Amtrak's liabilities--labor 
protection or commercial debt--constitute claims against the U.S. 
Treasury.

  What does this mean? It means that if Amtrak's labor force and 
management do not cooperate and help turn this company around there 
will be no golden parachute of 6 years of labor protection. The golden 
parachute has already collapsed, and if they help drive Amtrak into 
bankruptcy, Amtrak's employees are simply going to be standing in line 
with a lot of other unsatisfied creditors who collect little or 
nothing.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, that these rather stark realities will spur 
Members to realize that this is the last train out of the station. If 
this bill is not enacted, Amtrak stands virtually no chance of survival 
for more than a few months at best.
  What about some good news? Well, if we do approve this reform 
legislation and the President ultimately signs it into law, then Amtrak 
will have access to over $2 billion in much-needed capital funds that 
have been set aside for it under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. So 
this bill not only presents the opportunity to avoid an immediate 
Amtrak collapse; it also will provide Amtrak with immediate access to 
desperately needed capital funds. I know from our committee's hearings 
that Amtrak has a severe shortage of capital, and has, in fact, been 
cannibalizing its physical plant and equipment for some time, because 
it did not have the resources to do an orderly capital replacement 
program. Together with the efficiencies made possible by this bill, the 
$2 billion of additional capital will go a long way toward turning 
Amtrak around and letting it become a healthy, self-sustaining company.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me tell all Members on both sides of the 
aisle, this bill is not about free votes. History has placed us in 
positions of responsibility in a time of transportation crisis. Unlike 
some of our predecessors in this body, we do not have the option of 
punting. It's put-up-or-shut-up time, and currying favor with special 
interests today will not solve any of these problems that have been 
getting worse for 26 years. If you can't stand up and be counted on a 
sensible bipartisan reform like this, then don't delude yourself into 
thinking that there's going to be a second chance. That's a pipe dream.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I would like to inquire of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], is my understanding correct that this 
afternoon we are going to do only general debate?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, presumably we will 
begin tomorrow morning at some time? Has there been an announcement by 
the leadership of when we may anticipate?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I have no further information other than the statement that I will move 
that the committee rise following general debate.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, that leaves our 
side somewhat puzzled. During the debate on the rule there was some 
statement made about the shortness of the session and the urgency to 
move this bill ahead. Now it seems that the urgency has faded and I am 
very puzzled by this, and I am wondering what has happened on the other 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the decision was made by the leadership during the vote to not proceed 
beyond general debate today, and that decision is above my pay grade.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I would say 
that I did not think there was much above the gentleman's pay grade.
  Mr. Chairman, it reminds me of the last Congress when this bill was 
before the committee and there was a vote and then we suspended and 
then we came back, then the bill was pulled again, and now this is the 
third time. I am curious as to what really is going on here. I am very 
curious about what has happened.
  Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to mention that during debate on the 
rule, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania was making his comments, I 
noted with great interest his reference to service on the track gang 
and I wanted to suggest at the conclusion of the gentleman's remarks 
that we might form a track gang caucus, since this Member also worked 
in the iron ore mines on the track gang pounding oil and bumping rail.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, that is back when men were men.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this is extremely important legislation. 
It puzzles me, therefore, why we have a truncated process today if it 
is that important and there is so little time remaining in the session 
that we are to have this restricted rule and this expedited process 
that we cannot proceed through to conclusion tonight.
  Amtrak's financial situation is indeed critical. We do need to pass 
reform legislation. We do need to pass reauthorization legislation to 
enable Amtrak to operate efficiently and release the funds that have 
been made available in the tax legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, Amtrak's survival is absolutely vital to the Nation's 
transportation system. Most passengers now travel by car or plane, but 
those modes use enormous amounts of energy. They have substantial 
adverse environmental impact. There are limits to our ability to 
accommodate more traffic by building new highways and new airports. We 
need rail service.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a highly efficient passenger rail system as 
other countries in the world have. We ought to be able to have 175-
mile-an-hour passenger rail service in America as they do in France or 
300-mile-an-hour rail service, as they will have in Germany with the 
construction now underway of the Maglev train system between Hamburg 
and Berlin or the 180-mile-an-hour passenger rail system in Japan, the 
Shin-Kansen, that carry 254 million passengers a year. But we do not 
have that in the United States, and we ought to make that investment. 
And this legislation would move us in that direction if it was the 
right kind of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, we agree with much of what is in this bill and what 
passed the House in 1995. But we believe it is bad public policy to go 
forward with provisions in the bill that adversely affect labor and the 
consumer interests that are adversely affected by the liability caps.
  Mr. Chairman, there will be amendments to address those issues and I 
will support those amendments. But it will be extremely difficult to 
pass this legislation in its present form because the provisions in the 
bill dealing with labor and liability are opposed by the administration 
and, indeed, caused the bill in 1995 to die in the other body.

                              {time}  1615

  The same provisions are there this time. They will again make it 
impossible to include Amtrak reform, to see Amtrak reform through to 
enactment, and they made it impossible to see Amtrak reform through in 
the reconciliation package that passed the Congress recently.
  It is puzzling to us why this restrictive labor language is 
necessary. The obligations in current law to protect the rights of 
working men and women that are freely negotiated between labor and 
management, which would be eliminated by this legislation, are not an 
impediment to the efficiency of Amtrak.
  In the year and a half, almost 2 years now since the House passed the 
much

[[Page H8974]]

ballyhooed bill in 1995, we have had an opportunity to see what the 
effect has been of labor protective provisions. In this period that has 
elapsed since passage of that bill, there has been a net loss of 2,000 
jobs at Amtrak. The cost has been an average of $1,000 per employee. 
That nets out to about $2 million.
  Amtrak adjusted service, laid off 10 percent of its work force. It 
cost roughly $2 million to do that. I do not see how that is an 
impediment. I do not see why we need to eliminate protection of labor's 
rights freely negotiated in order to save Amtrak. How does that $2 
million save Amtrak?
  In fact, in a July 28 letter from the chairman of Amtrak, Tom Downs, 
he stated:

       I testified in front of the Senate Finance Committee with 
     Sonny Hall, and I stated in the hearing on the record, that 
     Amtrak does not experience significant costs in C-2 expenses; 
     that is, labor protection expenses, so that the impact of the 
     repeal of C-2 would not save us any significant funds except 
     in the ultimate bankruptcy of Amtrak. I also stated I would 
     prefer to be able to negotiate C-2 provisions with labor than 
     to have Congress mandate changes.

  That same view was expressed by Mr. Robert Kiley, spokesman for the 
committee's task force of experts who reviewed the Amtrak financial 
situation, that the chairman had appointed. At a press conference on 
the task force report, Mr. Kiley said that the labor protection issue 
is a red herring.
  Well, it is a red herring. Why it has to be the centerpiece of this 
legislation is beyond me, Mr. Chairman. I simply do not understand it. 
I do not know why they want to take it out on Amtrak labor, on rail lab 
labor under the guise of somehow saving Amtrak. The labor and liability 
provisions are bad public policy.
  On the labor side, it takes away from employees all rights on 
severance pay and all rights on contracting out. The provisions in the 
bill abrogate not only labor protection provisions in law, but those 
provisions that labor and management together have negotiated. Why do 
you break a contract?
  My father worked in the iron ore mines all his life. He said the only 
guarantee against the company is your union contract. It cannot be 
taken away from you. But here in this legislative body, if we pass this 
bill, by legislative fiat we will take away what labor has freely 
negotiated with management. That is wrong. I will not stand for it. No 
one else should stand for it in this body.
  The reported bill also establishes new procedures for negotiations on 
labor protection and on contracting out. And they go far beyond and 
substantially depart from the balance process established in the 
Railway Labor Act.
  The liability provisions in the bill create serious inequities. The 
bill would cap noneconomic damages, such as damage for pain and 
suffering, in a manner that favors affluent plaintiffs. The cap is 
economic damages plus $250,000. That means the higher the economic 
damage, the higher the added damage for pain and suffering.
  For example, take a wealthy corporate executive who can show economic 
losses or damage of a million dollars. That person gets in an 
additional $1.25 million in noneconomic damage for pain and suffering. 
A child or an unemployed person with the same pain and suffering is 
limited to $250,000. That is not right. We should not do that. We 
should not make those kinds of changes. We should not interfere in the 
tort liability process.
  I cannot support a bill that has such onerous provisions and is so 
destructive of the labor-management relationship. There are reasonable 
amendments that will be offered. They could be offered tonight. We 
could pass this, pass those amendments and conclude action on this bill 
tonight and get Amtrak on its way if Members are so concerned about 
seeing Amtrak continue to operate safely and efficiently.
  We could do it tonight. We could pass the LaTourette amendment and 
get on with our business, but apparently it is going to be held over 
until tomorrow.
  In that spirit, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious business, a very 
serious issue before the Congress. In fact, as we heard the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] say, Amtrak is going down the tubes. 
Amtrak cannot survive a strike which has been put off for another week 
here.
  What is fundamental to this debate is, why is Amtrak off track? As a 
member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, I had the nerve, the very 
gall, like other responsible members of the subcommittee, to ask why. 
Why is Amtrak in this condition? We held hearings on this matter. Why 
are we subsidizing billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars in a losing 
system? Why is Amtrak losing money day, after day, after day? How can 
we put national and vital regional rail passenger service back in 
responsible operation?
  Anyone, in fact I submit anyone, Democrat or Republican, who take a 
look at this and we passed this bill by a wide, wide bipartisan measure 
and folks looked at it. We had a bipartisan commission look at it. I 
submit even if we had the village idiot look at this they would all 
come up with the same conclusion, that there are two reforms that are 
necessary for Amtrak. One is labor reforms, changes in labor law, some 
that were enacted decades ago. Two, liability reform. Everyone who 
looks at it comes to the same conclusion.
  I submit on the labor front, and this is, let us get to the heart of 
the issue, just read this, what are the Democrats and labor bosses 
defending? Up to 6 years of wages and benefits for any Amtrak employee 
asked to travel more than 30 miles from home to work. This is one 
provision. Look at this one.
  What are the Democrats and labor bosses defending? Up to 6 years of 
full wages and benefits for all Amtrak employees who are laid off due 
to a route elimination or because of the frequency of Amtrak train 
service falls below three trips per week. This is the premium that we 
have to pay some labor agreements that were made years and decades ago. 
We do not have firemen on trains anymore because the situation changes. 
We do not have fires in the engine anymore. But this is what they want 
to preserve. This is the heart and the core of it.
  I submit we can protect employee rights. I think that we can expand 
employment in Amtrak and give more opportunity. But we need labor 
reforms, we need liability reforms. We can protect individual rights 
as far as liability reform, but we must limit some exposure. We cannot 
be paying out these huge settlements and make this train run on track.

  With a little bit of flexibility, I submit, with a little bit of 
cooperation and, God forbid, a little bit of innovation, we can make 
Amtrak run. We can increase employment and, in fact, we can provide 
cost-effective national passenger rail service.
  Times change. I said there is no firemen on trains anymore. I am part 
of the club, too. I worked on the railroad in the summers and they are 
great people. They are wonderful people. They are hard-working people. 
But times and position change, I submit, Mr. Chairman, and we must 
change. Why must we change? Because Amtrak must run like a business. 
The Congress demands it. The balanced budget requires it. Common sense 
dictates it. The taxpayers are fed up and they will no longer pay for 
it running the way it is.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to continue a 
vital service to millions of people or to help in causing its demise. I 
think it important that we adopt the LaTourette-Oberstar amendment and 
the Oberstar substitute, which would provide the capital funds Amtrak 
needs and would not punish Amtrak's workers and those unfortunate 
enough to be injured in any possible accident.
  The need to fund Amtrak's capital program and provide operating 
assistance is obvious. The bill before us provides that funding at 
adequate levels. Unfortunately, the bill also includes provisions that 
are unacceptable to many of us in this body, to many in the other body 
and to the President. This House passed an almost identical bill last 
year and at that time we thought it was the only way that Amtrak could 
receive the funding it needs to continue. We know now this is not the 
case. We know that this bill died in the Senate last year precisely 
because of the objectionable provisions that are

[[Page H8975]]

contained in this bill and will most likely meet the same fate again. 
We also know the President will likely veto this legislation as 
currently drafted.
  What must be removed to make this an acceptable and a good bill? The 
caps on punitive damages and noneconomic damages must be removed. To 
put a cap on punitive damages of $25,000 or three times the amount of 
economic loss, whichever is greater, says that the rich person who is 
damaged by deliberate negligence, by deliberate tort, we should punish 
the tort-feasor by three times as much as he is worth. But the infant 
or the low-income person, his pain and suffering is not worth that. His 
suffering is only worth the much lower amount.
  The straight cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages on pain and 
suffering, that is not fair. That is not fair to those who are injured. 
It is wrong to arbitrarily place a value on an injured persons's loss 
or his life.
  The second issue that has no place in this bill is the circumventing 
of labor protections. This body, through this bill, has taken upon 
itself to determine the labor practices for Amtrak and its employees. 
Even Amtrak does not believe that these provisions are needed.
  Thomas Downs, chairman of Amtrak, stated that Amtrak was completely 
satisfied with the collective bargaining process under the Railway 
Labor Act. Even the amendment to the C-2 provision in this bill, he 
said, was not necessary. Amtrak does not experience significant costs 
in C-2 expenses. This is supposedly the most burdensome labor 
protection Amtrak employees have. The reason Amtrak needs this capital 
money and this operating assistance is because the competition from the 
federally subsidized interstate highway system makes it imperative that 
any passenger railroad have this kind of subsidy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge this Congress not to punish Amtrak, its 
labor, its management, and its passengers. We should support the 
LaTourette-Traficant amendment. We should vote ``yes'' on the Oberstar 
substitute and then we should pass a bill that will keep Amtrak viable 
for all Americans.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bachus], a distinguished member of our committee.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, there have been several issues that have 
come up on the floor that I think need clarification. One thing that 
has been said on this House floor is why is there a need for labor 
reform? Why can Amtrak labor and management not just sit down and 
negotiate through the collective bargaining process?
  I would point out to the Members that Amtrak is presently required by 
Federal law to make labor protection payments of up to 6 years of full 
wages and benefits to any employee who is laid off due to a route 
discontinuation or the reduction in service below three times a week.
  Now, there have been some statements also on the floor of this House 
that that is the same labor protection that the freight railroads 
enjoy. But that fact is not true. Reducing service below three times a 
week does not kick in the freight railroad protection. The 
discontinuation of service does not kick it in.
  Under the labor protection in this bill, if an employee is asked to 
move 30 miles or more, these labor protection provisions kick in. That 
is not true with the freight railroads.
  What we basically have by the protection that is in the bill today is 
we have our railroads competing with bus lines and airlines which do 
not have these restrictions, and they are losing money, and that is 
despite the fact that we have subsidized them to the tune of $19 
billion between 1970 and today. That is something that we should not 
ask the American taxpayer to do. And we also should not have the type 
of restrictions in this bill that we find nowhere else in America, that 
no other worker enjoys.
  We also have the contracting out provisions. Those are a source of 
capital drain for Amtrak. That is one of the reasons that Amtrak 
capital and their equipment is in such bad shape today; that it is 
beginning, I think, to be a responsibility of all of us in Congress 
either to operate Amtrak safely or not operate it at all. This is 
becoming more and more a safety issue.
  There was a reference on the floor of the House that they are 
presently contracting out some work. The only work that they can 
contract out now is work if it would not result in one single employee 
of Amtrak being terminated. So we have almost zero contracting out now.
  The final thing that I would say is it has been said that Amtrak pays 
out very little cash in labor protection payments. The reason for that 
is, and that is probably one thing that has been said that is true, 
that this simply proves that Amtrak management is unable to make 
normal, rational business decisions because the statutory labor 
protection standards are standing in the way.
  I repeat again this example. Most Amtrak service reductions do not go 
below three trains a week. The reason they do not is to do so would 
trigger the labor protections. So Amtrak is tied up. That is why they 
are running three trains on some routes when they would like to run 
none.
  We ought to at least give Amtrak the right to operate with sufficient 
capital and to operate the way that other businesses operate in this 
country. And we also should not come to this floor and say that what 
Amtrak now has is the same labor protection that the freight railroads 
have. That is not true.
  In fact, and I will close with this, these labor protections not only 
extend to labor, they extend to the management of Amtrak, which I do 
not think I have ever seen an instance of that before.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 25 seconds.
  In the interest of accuracy, the 30-mile issue is not in Amtrak law, 
it is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. And if we wipe out 
collective bargaining agreements, then we have wiped out something 
labor and management together have freely negotiated.
  Amtrak did try cutting their frequencies to three times a week. They 
found that it lost money. So they cut those routes altogether.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. 
Brown of Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
preserving wage and labor protection for Amtrak rail workers. Overall, 
the Amtrak authorization bill is an acceptable bill, but it eliminates 
wage protection provisions which already exist because of collective 
bargaining agreements. Mr. Chairman, this is totally unacceptable. Let 
me repeat, Mr. Chairman. This is totally unacceptable.
  Congress should not place in law language that disregards labor 
agreements. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Traficant 
amendment which allows collective bargaining to settle the wage 
protection and contracting issues.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and also for all the work he is doing on this bill.
  I am a little concerned about the debate which I am hearing today. I 
am right in the center of Amtrak. Wilmington, DE, is directly between 
New York City and Washington. We are the ninth most used rail station. 
I use it personally. We have a lot of employees there. I speak to Mr. 
Downs on a regular basis, for whom I have a tremendous amount of 
respect. I think he is doing a wonderful job. I have toured the 
different facilities there and spoken to the union people. I have been 
through the whole thing.
  We have a problem on our hands, and I am not sure we are recognizing 
that on the floor of the House of Representatives today. And that 
problem is that there is almost a strike today. It would have started 
at 12:01 this morning, I believe, if they had not put it off for a 
week. It could start up 6 days from now. That is a tremendous problem.
  If we shut down Amtrak, we will have a problem. That did not come up 
directly because of this but because of a board which the President put 
together imposing some very high wage increases, which is all well and 
good, except nobody said how we are going to pay for it. It comes to 
about $85 million a year, is what it comes to, and we are

[[Page H8976]]

not sure at this point how that will be paid for.
  We are not sure at this point what we will do with respect to the 
capital improvements, which everybody agrees are needed. We did pass 
$2.3 billion as part of the tax bill in the course of this summer, but 
we cannot get that released unless we get this authorization done. All 
these things have to come together and they all have to interlock 
together in some way or another.
  And while it is fine that we are debating the labor and liability 
issues, the bottom line is if we do not pass something pretty soon in 
the House of Representatives, Amtrak will fail, and then our debate 
will be about whose fault it was that it failed. We need to come to 
some resolution of this. We need to make sure the $2.3 billion is 
released. We need to deal with the strike issues as soon as possible.
  And by the way, I have serious doubts they can continue commuter 
travel at the same time that they are going through a strike. This 
would just clog the whole east coast area. Amtrak is vitally important 
not just to the east coast but to other parts of this country, but it 
literally would have an effect that is overwhelming in certain parts of 
the country, and the congestion on the east coast would be that.

  But I am bothered beyond all this. I am bothered by the fact we are 
trying to play catch up with Amtrak. And yet we go to other countries 
and see videos of other countries on television and we learn about the 
rail systems which they have, which are vastly superior to what we have 
in the United States of America. That does not exist in any other area 
of transportation but in that of rail. And I think we need to address 
that issue as well.
  This does have 500 destinations. Amtrak does touch in 45 States. It 
does provides over 22 million passenger rail trips every year. That is 
a significant amount of travel in this country, and my judgment is we 
have to improve it. We have that chance to do it. The chairman has 
worked hard to get us in that position to do it, and we have to pull 
together.
  If indeed there are labor, liability, or other issues that need to be 
resolved, such as route flexibility or whatever it may be, we need to 
sit down and try to work that out. But we do not need to defeat this 
legislation. That would be a serious error. It passed last year by a 
vote of 406 to 4. Let me tell my colleagues, it is a lot more urgent 
this year in 1997 than it was in 1996.
  I would encourage all of us to support this legislation, work out 
what the differences are and make sure rail travel in America goes 
forward.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I believe to save Amtrak we do not have 
to kill the Amtrak workers. We all want to save Amtrak. I think that we 
are not going to go forward with any votes tonight because there are 
many Republicans that realize that it may be perceived as just a jab 
back at labor, because the two major elements of this bill and the real 
bottom line issue is preserving the integrity of the collective 
bargaining process, and that is why labor is up in arms.
  I think Republicans are foolish. I think they are getting more labor 
votes than they think, and I think they have an opportunity to look at 
this in a different vein. My voting record reveals I have tried to 
always be fair, and I vote for what I think is best for the country, 
and I am advising my Republican colleagues to take a look at this 
before they come to the floor.
  One thing the Quinn bill does, and I love the gentleman, I think he 
is a great Member, but it does something I do not like: It treats some 
people differently; namely, Amtrak workers. And I want to stand here 
today on behalf of Amtrak workers.
  I have said this many times, but I will say it again, because I want 
that old Pitt man there, one of the great chairmen in our history, I 
think he was born to be chairman of this committee, and I follow his 
lead, but as an old Pitt quarterback, I can remember when Vince 
Lombardi died. Everybody said they loved him, and the news media could 
not believe it. And they went up to Willie Davis and said, Willie, big 
Hall of Fame defensive end, Willie, tell us the truth about Vince 
Lombardi. Now, look, tell us the truth. He said, I loved him. They 
asked him why he loved him. He said because he treated us all alike, 
like dogs at times, but all alike.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is bad policy, poor precedent to place 
worker against worker. If I were a Republican and the labor unions 
tried to beat me, I would feel the same way. I think it is time to rise 
above that.
  Here is the point I want to make: The contracting out provisions and 
the other labor protections in this bill for Amtrak workers has been 
admitted by Amtrak to not be a part of the cost complications. They are 
inconsequential. So what appears to me to be labor is, all right, these 
guys screwed me and I am going to get them. And I guaranty back there 
in Altoona the gentleman has more labor support than any Democrat that 
is going to run against him.
  I am asking the chairman to treat Amtrak workers like all the other 
workers, and we do not have to kill Amtrak workers to save Amtrak. Let 
us save Amtrak and get ourselves a few votes in the process.
  With that, I yield back any more of the politics of this matter.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me be very brief on some very key issues. There is no doubt that 
we join collectively to save Amtrak. I am a strong proponent of that, 
and I appreciate the work that has been done by both the ranking member 
and the chairman on this committee.
  I want to lay on the table two key issues, and that is protecting 
employees, providing them with the same work conditions and benefits as 
we would want to have provided for our other workers throughout this 
Nation; and then, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 
I must emphasize my great concern in the capping of economic and 
noneconomic damages, in this instance relating to punitive damages as 
it relates to individuals who are injured.
  We have gone through this battle before. I think that we can save a 
valuable transportation vehicle and tool like Amtrak by being fair with 
those injured parties. There is no price that we can place on a lost 
arm or leg. There is no price that says that one who is the CEO of a 
company, that one who has great wealth should be costed out in damages 
more so than that retired, elderly, former schoolteacher, or that young 
student who tragically was injured.
  We can fix this legislation, and I think we should. Let us be fair 
and provide for transportation for all those who need it and, at the 
same time, give value and benefits to the workers and protect those 
individuals, those innocent individuals who may be using this vehicle, 
this means of transportation, so that they too will recognize the value 
of what we do in this Congress and we do it in a fair and honest way.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to raise some serious concerns about H.R. 
2247, the Amtrak reauthorization bill, as it stands today. Unless 
amended, this legislation would be a failure by this Congress to 
protect the interests of the American people in general, as well as, 
the constituents that we have all been elected to represent. I do not 
mean to suggest that H.R. 2247 is a piece of legislation without merit. 
Actually, this legislation begins the important first steps necessary 
to make Amtrak a fully self-funded national transportation entity, by 
decreasing costs and making it possible to increase revenues. However, 
it is still very important that we be careful of what means we use to 
achieve greater gains in fiscal solvency. Frankly speaking, the changes 
that this bill makes to the state of standing Amtrak labor relations 
and the liability of the rail line for either economic or non-economic 
injury is greatly in need further review and revision by this Congress. 
We must and can not pass legislation from this body that chooses 
economic gains and protections for corporations above the rights of the 
individual to recover in case of injury.
  As far as claims for property damage or personal injury, my primary 
objections to H.R. 2247, as it stands, are as follows. First of all, 
H.R. 2247 caps damages for noneconomic injuries at a sum of $250,000 
above the victim's economic damages. Second, the bill then limits an 
injured passenger or victim's recovery for punitive damages to $250,000 
or three

[[Page H8977]]

times the amount of economic loss, whichever is greater in that case. 
And third, the bill sanctions private indemnification agreements that 
would completely immunize railroads from liability in the event of an 
accident, forcing Amtrak to pay for the gross negligence of these 
parties.
  First of all, the final legislative initiative in this group, about 
indemnification, may very well increase Amtrak's costs because of the 
recent frequency of rail crashes in America, which occur approximately 
once an hour according to U.S. News and World Report. On the other side 
of every indemnified Amtrak crash, there are most likely going to be 
injured passengers or victims who deserve to recover damages, why place 
that burden solely on Amtrak? Is it prudent or responsible at a time 
when railroad accidents are occurring at an alarming rate to pass 
legislation that assigns additional financial responsibilities on 
Amtrak to compensate injured parties for accidents? I would contend 
that it is not. What incentive does an indemnified entity have to make 
sure that accidents do not occur, and if these incentives do exist, why 
take such a great risk with the lives of the American people? These 
railroads can act negligently or recklessly, cause an accident, and 
simply leave Amtrak to carry the bill.
  Furthermore, how can we dare to put a cap, a calculated, definitive 
value on the amount of recovery for noneconomic and punitive losses? Is 
the loss of an arm, a leg, a wife, a husband, a mother, a father, a 
daughter, or son because of a disastrous crash all equal in value? I do 
not see how they could be. Also, why does this legislation place a cap 
upon punitive and noneconomic damages and not economic damages? Are 
those who have lesser economic harms somehow justifiably entitled to 
less no matter what that particular injury may be? In sum, none of 
these new initiatives appear to be pragmatic in function or necessary 
for the future of Amtrak; they ultimately raise a lot of questions, but 
give very few answers.
  Finally, the blatant disregard of this appropriations bill for the 
standing labor relations within the Amtrak operative structure, is 
grounds enough for opposing H.R. 2247. The bill, as it stands, removes 
protections from workers, tells Amtrak and its employees to negotiate, 
but gives no incentive for Amtrak to negotiate. H.R. 2247 just strikes 
standing Amtrak employee protections from the law without giving Amtrak 
bargaining constraints, and thus forces the employees to strike to 
enforce their demands to management because their statutory protections 
are gone. Much like many of the other changes within this bill, it just 
does not make any sense. I urge my colleagues to support the LaTourette 
amendment which was drafted specifically to address these concerns.
   In light of all of these many concerns and controversies, I would 
ask all of my colleagues to be reasonable, and please reconsider H.R. 
2247. Not simply for the good of Amtrak, but as well for the good of 
America.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and I want to 
thank the chairman of our full committee and members of the Republican 
Party. It is the first time in 15 years I have ever had my words blown 
up and prominently displayed. I have joined the ranks of Gingrich, 
Armey, Gephardt, and many others. I just hope they will also blow up 
some of my predictions that I made about the Contract With America 
because I think those proved to be equally succinct and of course 
prescient.
  Now, 406 to 4, and so the claim is made, well, many of our colleagues 
voted for that and, yes, I voted for the bill the last time, too. But, 
Mr. Chairman, I have got a practice that if I run one time into a brick 
wall, I try not to suit up and run into it again. And so many of us 
when we signed up last time and voted were told this is the way it had 
to be because this is the best way to get this bill passed and Amtrak 
is in trouble and this is the way to get it passed, emphasis on 
``passed.''
  406 to 4, 2 years ago and we are back here again. Why? Because it did 
not pass the Senate and it was not signed by the President. The Senate 
would not even take it up and so we can vote for this bill again and we 
can run into a legislative brick wall for every bit the same reasons. 
What we are doing in our amendments and in our language is we are 
trying to remove the impediments to getting this bill passed, the labor 
protection clauses and the liability clauses. That is what held this 
bill up. We can get this bill passed, I presume, in the next week or so 
by removing the controversial items.
  So, yes, my hope is that 406 to 4, there are a lot of people that 
learned something out of that. And what we have learned is that if it 
did not work this way last time, it will not work this time and so let 
us make the changes that are necessary to keep Amtrak functioning. 
There are significant differences between then and now. Amtrak is in a 
different situation but, most importantly, we know what did and did not 
work and now that we know what did not work, let us not make that 
mistake again. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendments 
that will make this bill work and get it passed.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana [Ms. Carson].
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, during this general debate there are 
certain points that need to be made crystal clear. Amtrak's most 
important assets are the many men and women who work hard to make sure 
that our Nation's rail passenger trains operate safely. The bill before 
us today simply is not fair to these employees. It creates a gaping 
hole in the law which will deprive Amtrak workers of wage protections 
which have been in place since the 1930's for displaced and downgraded 
employees.
  It also removes restrictions on contracting out work. This would 
allow Amtrak management to throw away its employees by making their 
jobs disappear. This provision in the bill would directly affect 706 
workers in the 10th Congressional District of Indiana. Amtrak operates 
a maintenance shop in Beech Grove, IN, to keep its engines and 
passenger coaches in good running order. This bill would allow Amtrak 
to shut down that facility and shift maintenance to privately 
contracted shops outside of Indiana. The 706 workers at the Beech Grove 
maintenance shop deserve better than this. They are doing a good job 
and receive health care and other benefits. I do not believe that we 
should be eliminating those jobs and sending the work out of Indiana, 
especially the contract facilities that do not give their workers the 
same pay and benefits.
  That is why I support the LaTourette-Traficant amendment. It would 
restore the labor protections that exist in current law and would 
preserve the jobs in Beech Grove. I compliment my two colleagues for 
offering this amendment.
  The Quinn amendment, on the other hand, would only make minor 
improvements to the bill. By voting for the Quinn amendment, we would 
be voting against the LaTourette-Traficant amendment. Do not be fooled. 
The Quinn amendment does nothing to help Amtrak workers. It is a killer 
amendment designed to defeat the important labor protections that the 
LaTourette-Traficant amendment seeks to restore. When these amendments 
are offered, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject Quinn and adopt 
LaTourette-Traficant.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is a master at 
creating Federal programs based upon good intentions, but for which the 
tax till has become a lifeline for survival. Congress created Amtrak 
back in 1970 with a one-time grant of $40 million, one-time grant, it 
was supposed to be. It was to be independent and was to be self-
sufficient. As we all know, Amtrak has not become self-sufficient. It 
has turned into a $22 billion black hole for taxpayer dollars.
  What have we gotten for our money? Passenger trains in 1997 are 
slower than they were in the 1950's. Their average speed is slower than 
many Third World countries. Even tomorrow's version of high speed rail 
will be slower than France or Japan's trains in the 1970's. Amtrak has 
used the taxpayers' $22 billion and taken a giant step backward. How do 
we reward Amtrak for this? In Congress' infinite wisdom we have decided 
to give Amtrak, which has never paid any taxes, a $2.3 billion tax 
refund. But to kill the $2.3 billion now, we would have to kill this 
legislation.
  While I do not think this bill goes far enough and I know Amtrak will 
be right back at the Federal trough as soon as it gobbles up the next 
$2.3 billion, it does contain a number of items which make sense. With 
the passage of

[[Page H8978]]

this bill, Amtrak will finally be able to adjust their system of routes 
without fear that Congress will tie their hands. At the same time we 
have given preapproval for States to form interstate compacts in order 
to take over any routes Amtrak discontinues. We are encouraging 
contracting out, replacing the current Amtrak board, taking the 
Government out of Amtrak through the redemption of Amtrak's common 
stock and reforming the labor structure.
  Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues beholden to the labor unions will 
argue that this bill goes way too far, and I say it does not go nearly 
far enough. This bill does not go far enough and Amtrak is bound to 
turn to Congress for more help in future years. But as long as the 
labor unions are spending millions of dollars trying to buy Congress, 
as long as we continue to delude ourselves that Amtrak will ever be 
able to run a railroad and as long as we continue to waste our 
taxpayers' dollars by pouring it down this empty pit, this is the best 
bill we can probably pass in this House. I urge my colleagues not to 
water it down any more.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, although we have more time, we have no 
further speakers on our side. In sorrow, disappointment, and puzzlement 
that we will not get to a vote tonight, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Callahan) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2247) to 
reform the statutes relating to Amtrak, to authorize appropriations for 
Amtrak, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________