[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 159 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10588-H10594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 738, AMTRAK REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY 
                              ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 319 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 319

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (S. 738) to reform the 
     statutes relating to Amtrak, to authorize appropriations for 
     Amtrak, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered 
     as read for amendment. The amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, which shall be equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; 
     and (2) one motion to commit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, again I 
yield one-half hour to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, during 
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for debate 
purposes only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 319 provides for the consideration of 
S. 738, Amtrak reform and authorization, which shall be considered as 
read. The resolution provides that the amendment now printed in the 
Committee on Rules report shall be considered as adopted, and that all 
points of order against the bill as amended are waived.
  House Resolution 319 also provides for 1 hour of debate, equally 
divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and finally, the 
resolution provides 1 motion to commit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the House to consider the Senate bill 
reforming Amtrak and authorizing appropriations for Amtrak, with the 
inclusion of an additional amendment in the nature of a substitute that 
had been suggested by the chairman of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The addition to the Senate bill reflects essentially the same reforms 
that were endorsed by the House last year by a rather overwhelming vote 
of 406 to just 4 negative votes. This amendment that we have self-
enacted in the rule has bipartisan support and is crucial to achieving 
real reform of Amtrak.
  Under this bill, the House would accept the labor and liability 
provisions worked out in the Senate bill. Also, the provisions in the 
amendment crafted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], 
which have no Senate counterpart, include, and this is very important, 
include: the restructuring of Amtrak's board of directors toward a more 
business-oriented, private sector board; reforming Amtrak's capital 
structure; and increasing the flexibility of Amtrak's route structure.
  We all know that these real reforms must be made to keep Amtrak 
viable; indeed, to keep it out of bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, it is 
vitally important that Amtrak be maintained. Amtrak is important to our 
entire Nation, but especially important to the Northeast which the 
gentlewoman from Rochester, NY [Ms. Slaughter] represents and the 
Hudson Valley area that I represent. Thousands of my constituents rely 
on Amtrak service to get to work every day and to visit friends and 
family on weekends and holidays.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to move this bill through Congress as quickly as 
we possibly can. Amtrak's ability to provide nationwide service at the 
present level is seriously threatened. It cannot continue unless we 
pass this legislation.
  For years, there has been underinvestment in Amtrak's equipment and 
in their facilities, which has led to declining service quality and 
reduced reliability. But passage of Amtrak reform legislation will give 
Amtrak the much-needed boost of capital funds that will allow it to 
upgrade its equipment and gain independence from the Federal 
Government, and those are 2 very, very key issues: gain independence 
from the Federal Government and to upgrade its equipment, which is in 
dire need right now for the safety of its passengers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
proceed with general debate and consideration of the merits of this 
very important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], for yielding me the customary half-hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Just days ago, the 
Senate passed their version of the Amtrak bill without a single 
dissenting vote. The Senate bill includes consensus language on both 
the labor and liability issues, the issues that caused the most 
controversy in the House version of

[[Page H10589]]

that measure. But, instead of taking the Senate bill straight to the 
House floor in its present form, the Committee on Rules self-executes 
the Shuster substitute that threatens any chance of passing this 
critical bill before the Congress adjourns.
  The self-executing language includes a provision dealing with the 
board of directors that, if included, will not pass the Senate. By 
self-executing this provision instead of making it a freestanding 
substitute amendment, the House will be precluded from voting up or 
down on the Senate bill.
  Mr. Speaker, Amtrak is on the verge of bankruptcy. It desperately 
needs the funds that were provided in the reconciliation bill passed by 
the Congress earlier this year. Those funds, as my colleagues know, are 
contingent on the passage of an Amtrak reform package.
  The House bill was abruptly pulled after the defeat of the Quinn 
amendment. Since that time, the Senate has worked out most of the 
concerns of the legislation, and if we do not act now, there is little 
chance that Amtrak reform legislation will be enacted this year.
  If this rule passes, we will move to recommit the bill with 
instructions. The motion to recommit will make in order the Senate-
passed bill, which will give the House an opportunity to vote up or 
down on the Senate version of the bill, and I would like to say again 
that that bill passed the Senate without a single dissenting vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill is the bill that the President says that 
he will sign. If we truly want to save Amtrak, we must give Members the 
opportunity to vote on this bill as it passed the Senate. I urge a 
``no'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
also want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for 
getting this rule to the floor.
  I am going to talk as much about the merits of the bill and the 
predicament we find ourselves in as about the rule, because that is 
what is important. The issue is whether or not we want to save Amtrak, 
and what I was impressed by, by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] in the Committee on Rules meeting, it seems like forever ago 
but it was just Thursday night, I believe, late Thursday night, but 
what I was impressed by was his recognition, and I think the 
recognition of the Committee on Rules, that something has to be done.
  I say to my colleagues, the situation is this: If we want to save 
Amtrak, we have to pass a bill that can immediately be approved by the 
Senate, or better yet, not go back to the Senate.
  Amtrak is in this situation. If we leave this House today or tomorrow 
or Friday and there has not been Amtrak reform passed, when we come 
back and then when we are able finally to get around to Amtrak, which 
will probably be March or April, there will not be an Amtrak as we know 
it, and indeed there may not be an Amtrak.
  Why do I make that kind of dire prediction? The one thing that all of 
us have agreed upon through the many debates that have been held on 
this House floor over the past several years, and particularly in the 
past 2 months, is that Amtrak has great financial problems. What is 
necessary for Amtrak is to be able to access the $2.3 billion worth of 
capital that this Congress made available to it in the budget package 
just a couple of months ago, but that capital cannot be accessed until 
reform legislation passes.
  Well, my colleagues will say, fine, why not go ahead and let the 
House pass whatever kind of reform legislation? The reality of the 
situation is that the Senate has passed that reform legislation. The 
Senate did the heavy lifting that the House has not been able to come 
to closure on.
  If we remember, the two main issues, labor and liability reform, the 
Senate has done that. We fought ourselves to a standstill here on the 
House floor just a couple of weeks ago over those two issues. The bill 
was pulled, if we recall, because of the fact that there was not 
agreement on it. The Senate has taken those issues on and has reached 
compromises that everyone has signed off on, on the labor and the 
liability provisions.
  Now we get down to the fact that we are going to get out of here in a 
couple of days, and now comes forward some measures dealing with 
predominantly the board of directors. And whether or not the House 
passes its provisions dealing with the board of directors and sends it 
over to the Senate, the Senate has made quite clear it will not accept 
those provisions. That means a lengthy, at best, conference. The 
administration, incidentally, has also made clear it will not accept 
those provisions.
  The reality is, send those provisions over to the Senate and there 
will not be an Amtrak bill. No Amtrak bill, no access to capital. No 
Amtrak bill, no ability to go to the banks in the next month to extend 
its line of credit.
  That is the other thing I forgot to mention. We talked about 
accessing capital that the Congress has already approved. Amtrak in 
December needs to go back to the major banks to extend its line of 
credit. If this reform legislation does not pass, the chances are 
likely it will not.
  Now, some have urged passing some kind of resolution, or we all put 
language, happy talk, in the Congressional Record about the fact that 
Congress loves Amtrak and as soon as it gets back in January or 
February it will act on this. Do we want to take that to the bank? I do 
not think so. Amtrak does not want to take it either.
  So the reality is, Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that we pass the 
legislation that has already been adopted by the Senate. To those who 
say well, the Senate language, did they cave in to labor or did they 
cave in to trial lawyers or did they cave in to somebody, this is the 
Lott-Hutchison bill, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi and Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison of Texas and others, not exactly the arbiters of 
organized labor or of trial lawyers.
  So this is truly a compromise that has been reached at all levels. It 
is a compromise that people can feel comfortable about. I pledge to my 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], as the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, that I would be happy to work 
and sign off on whatever hearings he wants to hold when we come back to 
look at subsequent legislation that does deal with the board of 
directors.
  But I plead with my colleagues, particularly those of us who believe 
in Amtrak, that we do not leave this Congress this year without 
enacting the Amtrak reform legislation.
  Now, the only way to do that is to effectively pass the Senate bill. 
We can load this thing up all we want, and it is going right down 
across the Rotunda into the other body and it is going to sit there. So 
that is why we are in this predicament.
  Mr. Speaker, I am one who often stands on the floor and says, well, 
we ought not to just take a Senate bill, we ought to of course have our 
own voice. The fact is, though, in the last Congress, the 104th 
Congress that ended last year, plus this Congress, we have had this 
bill on the floor several times. It has been pulled, I believe, four 
times this year alone.

                              {time}  1245

  So we in the House have not been able to reach the compromises 
necessary. The compromises reached in the Senate language do the heavy 
lifting that needs to be done today, in this session of Congress.
  In terms of the board of directors, that is a much knottier question. 
That gets to who appoints the board and what is their role. I would 
urge that that be held off for subsequent legislation, which I am 
pledged to work on with the majority in the next Congress.
  But by passing the reform legislation, the Senate bill today, then we 
can immediately send this bill to the President. It does not even go 
back for a conference. We can send this bill to the President, and when 
the Amtrak reform legislation has passed, they can access the capital 
for capital investment, particularly modernizing the Northeast 
corridor, making sure the high-speed rail is installed. That is the one 
section that turns a profit. They can get to the banks right away. They 
can get their line of credit.
  But let us not kid ourselves. Vote for any other thing but the Senate 
language which will be in the motion to

[[Page H10590]]

recommit, and we will vote to not save Amtrak. I wish I could say that 
there was some other way, but there is not.
  The position we are going to find ourselves in is that there will be 
a period of time for debate when this rule is approved, presuming it is 
approved. There will be a period of time for debate. The first motion 
will be the Oberstar motion to recommit.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize that that motion is the only way we 
can save Amtrak, because what that motion does is to strip out the 
House language, add it onto the Senate bill, and simply adopts the 
Senate-passed legislation. That is the key vote, the Oberstar motion to 
recommit.
  I want to say once again, particularly to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, this is not done in any way to confront the 
majority. This recommittal motion is what I would consider the 
necessary measure to save Amtrak, particularly fiscally.
  But my pledge is, then, on the other issues that have been raised in 
the House bill, to immediately begin working with the majority on 
whatever hearings they want to have, whatever markups; we will work 
with them, whatever negotiations they want, because Amtrak will not be 
finished at this point.
  Those on the other side and those on this side who say Amtrak needs 
to be revisited, they are correct. But at least let us, for the first 
time in many years, get Amtrak in a situation where it can truly go to 
the banks in December with reform, newly passed reform legislation.
  Let us at least let Amtrak get to the banks in December with newly 
passed reform legislation that guarantees it the access to capital, 
that permits it to get the line of credit. That is the most important 
thing that we can do for Amtrak, and then begin making the investments.
  Let me just say something about the board of directors. I am happy to 
work on changing the makeup of the board of directors next year. The 
worst thing I think we can do today, at a time when Amtrak has such 
fiscal instability, the worst thing we could do is try to enact 
legislation that radically alters a board of directors that has to go 
to negotiate for a line of credit in the next few weeks. Let that 
process take place, if it must take place, let it take place next year.
  Chairman Solomon made a good observation in the Committee on Rules. 
This Congress goes out in the next couple of days. It will not come 
back effectively in January, except for the State of the Union Message. 
There will be some working time during February. The earliest we are 
looking at being able to bring Amtrak legislation back up if we do not 
pass it today is March. My guess is that it will probably be after 
that.
  So therefore, once again, I urge my colleagues, I plead with my 
colleagues, to adopt the Oberstar recommittal motion, because that will 
adopt the Senate bill and permit this legislation immediately to go to 
the President.
  In reality, there is no other way to save Amtrak. We are not going to 
be here much longer. The only way to save Amtrak is to approve the 
Senate bill and vote for the Oberstar motion to recommit. I urge my 
colleagues to take this very, very necessary and vital step.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if this rule is adopted, and I would like to restate 
what the gentleman said, if this rule is adopted, the first vote during 
consideration of the bill will be on the Oberstar motion to adopt the 
Senate bill, and that truly is the vote that will save Amtrak.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Slaughter], that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], 
the chairman of the committee, is on his way here. If she did need 
additional time, we would let her take some of her time back, because 
now I will have two speakers. So I would just inform her of that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules. I have run over here, so I am a little out of 
breath, but I am delighted to be able to be here. I did hear some of 
the debate. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] is 
also on his way.
  I think it is very important that we focus on the problems of Amtrak. 
I am not going to get into the debate of the nitty-gritty of what has 
happened in the Senate, where it is now versus where the House might go 
under the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  But before we leave in the next 24 or 48 hours, I hope that each and 
every one of us will understand that the future of rail passenger 
transportation in the United States of America is at hand. If we are 
not able to resolve the problems which exist now, we run the distinct 
risk of potential failure of Amtrak and the end of rail service as we 
know it now, or at least a worsening of the problem. I do not know, 
frankly, if it would go into bankruptcy. We hear these things.
  I have looked at the Senate version of this. I have spent the last 
couple of days reading this carefully. I have made some discoveries 
which I think should enlighten us in the House. One is that they have 
an Amtrak reform council, which I believe is acceptable to virtually 
everybody involved in this, which would give large control to the House 
and to the Senate as sort of a super board overlooking the board of 
directors which would help decide the direction of Amtrak. And, most 
importantly, we would have access to all the information which is 
needed. It would provide us the information we need to make the very, 
very important decisions in the financing and the future of Amtrak. 
That is crucial. We are about to yield $2.3 billion in capital 
improvements as well as operating expenses. We need to have that 
information. The Amtrak reform council does that. I think it is 
important that we focus on that.
  In addition, I think some of the suggestions which are being made by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] are very sound 
suggestions and ones we should also look at. I hope we would be able to 
sit down with the Senate and perhaps resolve some of the differences 
that exist there.
  I think, for example, giving up some of the voting rights of the 
stock owned by the Government is something which may make some sense 
with respect to how we run Amtrak. When we look at the actual board and 
look at the difference between the Senate and House proposals, it is 
not that overwhelming.

  My view is this: We should have the best people possible on that 
board who are not politically motivated or answering to anybody who can 
run Amtrak. If I had my druthers, frankly, I would go out and pick the 
seven best managers of businesses I could find and put them on that 
board and let them run it. But I would hope we could come up with 
something that would allow us to have the best board possible.
  The bottom line is, I hope we do not get in a position of passing a 
bill or recommitting a bill over the objections of the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure without resolution of 
this with the Senate. I would hope in the next 24 hours we could sit 
down with the Senate and the House together and try to work out some 
compromise on which everybody can agree, so we can thwart and avoid the 
problem of an impasse here in Congress in which we do not go forward 
with Amtrak.
  We could wait perhaps, and perhaps there would not be economic 
failure, but if that happens, when the waiting game begins in Congress, 
it tends to go on and on. This is the moment, I think, for us to all 
act.
  I would hope that all parties involved in this could pay close 
attention to the details involved, we could resolve it, we could go 
forward and make Amtrak a better passenger rail carrier, and we could 
indeed be able to, at some point a decade or two later, look at this as 
a dark period in the life of passenger rail

[[Page H10591]]

traffic but understand that we have now fixed it and we now have made 
America's passenger rail service the best in the world, not just in 
this country.
  We are not going to do it unless we sit down and talk to one another. 
I think we should continue to move forward, and I am glad the rule is 
moving forward, but I think we should work towards a final resolution 
of this.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated 
November 12, 1997, from Rodney E. Slater, Secretary of Transportation.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                     Department of Transportation,


                              The Secretary of Transportation,

                                Washington, DC, November 12, 1997.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: The House of Representatives is scheduled 
     to consider a substitute amendment to S. 738, the ``Amtrak 
     Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.'' I am writing to urge 
     strongly that the House of Representatives approve the motion 
     to be offered by Representative Oberstar to recommit the 
     bill, thus enabling passage of the Senate Amtrak reform 
     legislation.
       Legislation has passed the Senate to reform Amtrak, thus 
     enabling it to serve better as a national passenger rail 
     system. That bill, S. 738, would afford Amtrak the ability to 
     undertake significant reforms with its workforce and position 
     Amtrak to address better future liability issues. The Senate 
     bill represents many weeks of negotiations and is a 
     compromise that passed unanimously. If adopted without 
     change, it will free up $2.3 billion in capital funding that 
     Amtrak desperately needs to improve its equipment and 
     infrastructure throughout the nation.
       Instead, an amendment has been included in the Rule 
     accompanying the Amtrak bill dealing with the Board of 
     Directors that could have grave implications for the future 
     of Amtrak. The proposed amendment is intended to 
     substantially change the manner in which the Amtrak Board is 
     appointed. This approach is unnecessary and will present 
     serious problems as Amtrak approaches its most critical and 
     uncertain time. Perhaps more importantly, House action making 
     controversial changes to the Senate-passed bill is likely to 
     delay final passage, thus delaying the release of the $2.3 
     billion and casting doubts on Amtrak's financial future.
       Concerns have been raised in recent days about the 
     constitutionality of the Amtrak Board. Let me assure you that 
     if the House adopts the Senate-passed version of S. 738 the 
     President will sign this bill. This Administration intends to 
     implement the Senate-passed Amtrak bill in a manner that is 
     consistent with the Constitution.
       Amtrak needs reform to become the national passenger rail 
     system that this nation needs and deserves. At stake is the 
     ability of Congress to pass legislation that will help ensure 
     Amtrak's long-term financial stability. I urge the House to 
     oppose changes to S. 738 and that it act to send this bill, 
     without change, to the President for his signature.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rodney E. Slater.

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I have just been handed a letter from 
Secretary Slater, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, 
writing about the legislative situation today and strongly urging the 
House of Representatives to approve the recommittal motion to be 
offered by our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar].
  He notes that the Senate bill that will be in the recommittal motion 
and has passed the Senate unanimously, the Lott-Hutchison bill, 
represents many weeks of negotiations and is a compromise that passed 
unanimously. If adopted without change, it will free up to $2.2 billion 
in capital funding, not operation and maintenance but capital funding, 
that Amtrak desperately needs to improve its equipment and 
infrastructure throughout the Nation.
  He also says that if the House adopts the Senate-passed version of 
Senate bill 738, the President will sign this bill. The administration 
intends to implement the Senate-passed Amtrak bill in a manner that is 
consistent with the Constitution. He is adding his voice and that of 
the administration to the urging that the House adopt the Senate 
language in the Oberstar recommittal motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it should be noted that the Senate-passed 
language, as I have noted previously, contains significant labor and 
liability reforms. The contracting-out provisions that have proved so 
nettlesome in this body, the labor protection provisions, particularly 
dealing with the up to the possible 6 years of labor protection, 
although in reality I believe it averaged out about to $1,000 per 
severed employee in the past 2 years, those provisions have all been 
compromised and have become the subject of collective bargaining.
  On the liability provisions, for the first time there is a global cap 
of $200 million on liability related to passengers, Amtrak passengers. 
They were able also to reach agreement on the troublesome area of both 
punitive damages and indemnification.
  They did what Congress here with the House has constantly ground to a 
halt on, and that is not because people have not tried. Chairman 
Shuster has been very active in trying, and our side, as well. But they 
were able to accomplish this and then passed it unanimously. We ought 
to take advantage of their labors and their accomplishments.
  We also ought to note that it is not easy over here. This bill has 
been pulled four times alone from this floor because we were not able 
to reach agreement on these very, very difficult issues. Now we have a 
bill before us on which all the parties have signed off, labor, 
management, on the liability issues, a wide range of groups, they have 
signed off on it. We can pass that bill today and we can have it on its 
way to the President, and Amtrak then has passed the reform legislation 
that is so vital to it.
  Does it close the book on Amtrak legislation? No. The gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], who has been very articulate and active in this, 
stated it well, the need for continuing negotiations and continuing 
discussions. Amtrak requires that. Our side stands ready to work with 
the chairman and with others to make that happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just urge the Members, once again, to support 
the Oberstar recommittal motion. It is the only way we can get this 
bill to the President quickly this week, knowing that if we vote down 
this recommittal motion and we send the bill to the Senate, when we 
come back and are able to take up the Amtrak legislation, we will not 
recognize Amtrak from what it is today. It will be significantly 
impaired financially, and we will have lost an incredible opportunity 
that we have been striving to get to for many years.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], one of the Members that has been a Member 
of this body longer than we have, and there are not many of them 
anymore. He is chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure that I used to serve on, and he is one of the most 
respected Members of this body.
  (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is well-known that from the very beginning 
my objective has been to save Amtrak, although there are some in this 
body and the other body who would just as soon see it go into 
bankruptcy. And to save it, we have said from the beginning that we 
need to change the labor protection, we need to reform it, we need to 
reform liability. And there are other things as well which we believe 
need to be done.
  But the labor provisions and the liability provisions are very, very 
crucial. And, indeed, the Senate has acted. There are provisions in 
those areas of labor reform and liability reform and contracting out, 
which is a subset of labor, that are not as strong as many would like 
them to be, but, nevertheless, they are acceptable. So the biggest 
stumbling blocks that have been before us are, indeed, now acceptable.
  There is, however, at least one additional factor which is of extreme 
importance. And in a few moments, I will add an entirely new dimension 
to the extraordinary importance of our dealing with a restructuring of 
the board. Many of us believe, and of course we respect the other body, 
but the last time we checked the Constitution, this was a bicameral 
legislature. This House is not a potted plant. We have an obligation to 
do what we believe is right as

[[Page H10592]]

well, and then work together with the other body in attempting to craft 
an acceptable compromise.
  The one area in which we have great difficulty is in the area of the 
structure of the board. We believe that for the proposed reforms to be 
meaningful, to actually be put in place, that we must have a board of 
directors which is a more independent, more business-oriented board of 
directors. And so, to that end, that is exactly what we have proposed.
  It is, interestingly, ironically essentially what my good friend the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking Democrat of the 
committee, proposed in the legislation as it was working its way 
through the committee. So this is not something that is dropped on us 
out of the sky. It is something which in the past has had bipartisan 
support. Nevertheless, we are told that there is opposition to it now.
  I point out that our proposal gives the President the ability to 
appoint the seven members in some consultation with the leaders of the 
House and the Senate. We think that is reasonable, and we support that. 
However, and let me emphasize this, there is an entirely new dimension 
to this entire issue now, and that new dimension, which I have just 
been made aware of, is that the Justice Department says that the makeup 
of the board in the Senate bill coming to us is unconstitutional. Let 
me repeat that. The Justice Department informs us that the makeup of 
the board as coming to us in the Senate bill is unconstitutional. It 
violates the appointments clause.
  That adds a whole new dimension to this debate. It is no longer a 
question of whether we simply think our structure of the board is 
better than the structure of the board proposed by somebody else. It is 
beyond our control. The Justice Department says it is unconstitutional.
  As chairman of the committee, I would be derelict in my duties if I 
were to bring this bill to the floor recognizing that it has been said 
by the Justice Department that what I bring to the floor is 
unconstitutional. Therefore, unless we can get agreement, I shall not 
bring this bill to the floor. Unless we can get agreement, I will 
immediately move to hold hearings that deal with the constitutionality 
to invite the Justice Department to come up and testify. And only when 
we can satisfy ourselves that whatever we do is constitutional, then we 
can move ahead to save Amtrak.
  So unless we can work this out, I again want to emphasize, No. 1, the 
Justice Department says the bill as sent to us by the Senate is 
unconstitutional. No. 2, as chairman of the committee, I will not bring 
this bill to the floor unless we can work this out in some fashion. And 
No. 3, also as chairman of the committee, I will move immediately to 
hold hearings on the constitutionality question so we can clear it up 
so we can be back here early next year if we fail to work something out 
today and tomorrow, so we can be back as early next year as possible to 
deal with it so that whatever we bring to the floor will be 
constitutional rather than unconstitutional. I hope and I feel great 
responsibility to make that very clear to my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from the Justice 
Department.
                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter presents the views of the 
     Department of Justice on the reported bill, S. 738, the 
     ``Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.'' We have 
     several concerns about the role of the General Accounting 
     Office (``GAO'') in developing a liquidation plan and the 
     proposed competition of the Amtrak board of directors.
       Section 204 of the bill could be read to direct Amtrak to 
     incorporate recommendations of the GAO into its liquidation 
     plan. Such a construction would violate the constitutional 
     separation of powers doctrine. Section 411 of the bill would 
     amend 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24302(a), which governs the composition 
     of Amtrak's board of directors. Because certain directors 
     would not be appointed in conformity with the Appointments 
     Clause of the Constitution, art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, it is 
     likely that the statute's vesting of significant authority in 
     the board is unconstitutional.
       1. Section 204: Action Plans
       The bill would establish an ``Amtrak Reform Council'' 
     composed of nine members.\1\ Section 204 calls for the 
     development of two action plans if the Council finds that 
     Amtrak business performance will prevent it from meeting the 
     financial goals set forth in section 201, or if it finds that 
     Amtrak will need grant funds more than five years after 
     enactment of the bill. The Council is to construct and submit 
     to Congress an action plan providing for a ``rationalized 
     intercity rail passenger system.'' Amtrak is to develop an 
     action plan for ``the complete liquidation of Amtrak.'' 
     Amtrak must submit its plan to Congress ``after having the 
     plan reviewed by the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation and the General Accounting Office for accuracy 
     and reasonableness.'' Section 204(c). If Congress has not 
     enacted a law to establish a restructured and rationalized 
     rail system within ninety days of receiving the actions 
     plans, the bill directs Amtrak to implement its liquidation 
     plan ``after such modification as may be required to reflect 
     the recommendations, if any, of the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Transportation and the General Accounting 
     Office.'' Section 204(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The GAO is an arm of the Congress. See 31 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 702-03 (GAO is independent of the executive 
     departments and headed by Comptroller General; Comptroller 
     General removable by impeachment or by joint resolution of 
     Congress for cause); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) 
     (Comptroller General is subject to the control of Congress). 
     The constitutional separation of powers doctrine forbids 
     Congress from aggrandizing itself by enacting legislation 
     that confers non-legislative authority on Congress, its 
     agents, its appointees, or anyone subject to its direct 
     control. See, e.g., id. If section 204(c)(2) were read to 
     require Amtrak to adhere to the recommendations of the GAO, 
     the GAO would exercise executive authority. This would 
     violate the anti-aggrandizement principle. See id. at 727-34. 
     To avoid the serious constitutional question that such a 
     reading would present, we interpret section 204(c)(2) as 
     directing Amtrak to consider, rather than to adopt, any 
     recommendations made by the GAO regarding the liquidation 
     plan. See Edmond v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 1573, 1578 
     (1997) (Court avoids interpreting act in manner that could be 
     clearly unconstitutional if another reasonable interpretation 
     available); NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490, 
     500 (1978) (Court will decline to read act so as to give rise 
     to a serious constitutional question).

              2. Section 411: Amtrak's Board of Directors

       Amtrak is a government-created and government-controlled 
     corporation. See Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 Sec. 101, 
     84 Stat. 1328; 49 U.S.C. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 24302(a). Amtrak's 
     charter sets forth the ``public interest `goals' '' that 
     Congress intended for it to pursue, and its structure allows 
     the federal government to exert control ``not as a creditor 
     but as a policy maker.'' Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger 
     Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 399 (1995).
       In Lebron, the Supreme Court held that Amtrak is a Federal 
     government entity for the purpose of determining whether it 
     has violated an individual's First Amendment rights. Id. at 
     400. While the First Amendment was the only constitutional 
     provision at issue in Lebron, the Court did characterize 
     Amtrak as ``an agency of the Government, for purposes of the 
     constitutional obligations of Government * * * '' id. at 399. 
     We see ``no principled basis for distinguishing between the 
     status of a federal entity vis-a-vis constitutional 
     obligations relating to individual rights and vis-a-vis the 
     structural obligations that the Construction imposes on 
     federal entities.'' Memorandum for the General Counsels of 
     the Federal Government, from Walter Dellinger, Assistant 
     Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The 
     Constitutional Separation of Powers between the President and 
     Congress at 27 n.71 (May 7, 1996) (``Dellinger Memo''). We 
     therefore believe that under its best reading, Lebron implies 
     that any official of Amtrak who exercises significant 
     authority must be appointed pursuant to the Appointments 
     Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 2. See generally Buckley v. 
     Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 124-26 (1976) (per curiam).
       S. 738 would vest significant authority in the Amtrak 
     board. Amtrak is to ``operate as a national rail passenger 
     transportation system which provides access to all areas of 
     the country.'' section 101(a). The Amtrak directors have the 
     authority to make significant discretionary decisions 
     regarding the acquisition ``operation and maintenance of 
     equipment and facilities necessary for intercity and commuter 
     rail passenger transportation, the transportation of mail and 
     express, and auto-ferry transportation.'' 49 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 24305(a). Amtrak also ``may acquire by eminent domain'' 
     property ``necessary for intercity rail passenger 
     transportation.'' id. Sec. 24311(a). We therefore think it 
     apparent that the bill would vest significant authority in 
     the Amtrak board. As such, the directors must be appointed 
     in conformity with the Appointments Clause.
     A. Directors required to be chief executive officers of a 
         State or municipality
       Section 411 of the bill would amend 49 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 24302(a)(1)(C) to require the President to appoint four 
     members of the Amtrak board with the advice and consent of 
     the Senate. Among these four directors are to be:
     one chief executive officer of a State, and one chief 
     executive officer of a municipality,

[[Page H10593]]

     selected from among the chief executive officers of State[s] 
     and municipalities with an interest in rail transportation.

                            Section 411(2).

       Limiting the eligible appointees to these chief executive 
     officers does not leave sufficient ``scope for the judgment 
     and will of the person or body in whom the Constitution vests 
     the power of appointment.'' Civil Service Commission, 13 Op. 
     Att'y Gen. 516, 520-21. We suggest eliminating the 
     requirement that the nominees be chief executive officers of 
     a State and a municipality. The statute instead might provide 
     for the President to appoint directors with expertise in 
     local government, or to consult with one or more associations 
     of State and local government officials before making these 
     appointments.
     B. Directors appointed by the President alone
       Three of the directors would be appointed solely by the 
     President. One is to be a representative of a commuter 
     authority, one is to have expertise in finance and accounting 
     principles, and one is to be a representative of the general 
     public.\2\ Section 411(5). While principal officers must be 
     appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, Congress may provide for the appointment of inferior 
     officers by the President alone, the head of a department, or 
     a court of law. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 132. Accordingly, 
     vesting the authority to make these appointments in the 
     President is permissible if the directors are inferior 
     officers.
       ``The line between `inferior' and `principal' officers is 
     one that is far from clear,'' Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 
     654, 671 (1988), and ``[t]he nature of each government 
     position must be assessed on its own merits.'' Silver v. 
     United States Postal Serv., 951 F.2d 1033, 1040 (9th Cir. 
     1991). ``Inferior'' does not mean ``petty or unimportant.'' 
     See United States Attorneys--Suggested Appointment Power of 
     the Attorney General, 2 Op. O.L.C. 58, 58-59 (1978). 
     ``Generally speaking, the term `inferior officer' connotes a 
     relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers 
     below the President . . . .'' Edmond, 117 S. Ct. at 1580. As 
     such, the work of an inferior officer will usually be 
     ``directed and supervised at some level by others who were 
     appointed by presidential nomination with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.'' Id. at 1581. Accordingly, ``an 
     officer responsible only to the President for the exercise of 
     significant discretion in decision making is probably a 
     principal officer.'' Dellinger Memo at 30. ``[A]n officer who 
     is subject to control and removal by an officer other than 
     the President should be deemed presumptively inferior.'' Id.
       We think it unlikely that these three directorships can be 
     characterized as inferior offices. The Amtrak board exercises 
     broad authority over nationwide rail service. See 49 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 24302(f) (board may adopt bylaws governing the operation 
     of Amtrak). The board appoints the President of Amtrak, as 
     well as all other officers of the corporation. Id. 
     Sec. 24303(a) and (b). Finally, the members of the Amtrak 
     board are directly responsible to the President and to no 
     other Executive officer. We therefore recommend that section 
     411 be amended to provide for the appointment of these 
     directors by the President with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate.
     C. Amtrak's president
       The president of Amtrak serves as a director on the Amtrak 
     board. 49 U.S.C. 24302(a)(1)(B). The Amtrak president is 
     appointed by the board, and serves as its chairman. 49 U.S.C. 
     24303 (a). Because a majority of the directors who would 
     appoint the Amtrak president would not themselves be 
     appointed in conformity with the Appointments Clause, the 
     president's appointment does not comply with the Appointments 
     Clause.\3\
       Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Please 
     contact us if we may be of further assistance. The Office of 
     Management and Budget has advised us that from the standpoint 
     of the Administration's program, it has no objection to 
     submission of this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Andrew Fois,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.


                               Footnotes

     \1\ The Council will be composed of the Secretary of 
     Transportation, two individuals appointed by the President, 
     two individuals appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, one member appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, two individuals appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House, and one individual appointed by the Minority Leader of 
     the House. Section 203.
     \2\ We do not think that these more general qualifications 
     limit the class of potential nominees as significantly as 
     does the requirement that two directors be chief executive 
     officers of a State and of a municipality.
     \3\ We do not address any other constitutional issues that 
     might be raised by this appointment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, let me respond very quickly to the statements 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the distinguished 
chairman.
  First of all, in terms of the constitutionality, the letter that I 
have from Secretary Slater contests that. And, of course, the proper 
place for that is to be discussed over months. But the reality is that 
the Amtrak board, which if it were to continue under the Senate 
language, has been in existence for a long time for many, many years. 
All of a sudden we are now hearing concerns about the 
unconstitutionality of it.
  At any rate, that is something that can be resolved at a more 
leisurely pace over the next months, but should not be something that 
can be taken up on the floor today or tomorrow. And it also should be 
noted that, in the Senate legislation, there is a reform board that has 
some teeth in it as well, an oversight panel that is appointed that 
goes, I believe, partly to addressing the concerns of the chairman.
  The second is that I am interested because it was the chairman that I 
believe was just a couple weeks ago repeating my words in debate 2 
years ago, and he was talking about the need to pass this legislation 
immediately. Well, now I am reciting the words of the chairman, because 
it is important to pass this legislation immediately and also to 
recognize that it is not a finished product and that the legislation 
that we pass today is the basic reform of Amtrak, and then we can come 
back and deal with the issues of the board as well.
  I am concerned about one statement I heard, which is, if we do not 
reach agreement today on this board matter, the bill gets pulled. If 
the bill gets pulled, I think we have got a significantly different 
Amtrak when we get back. And I would sure hate for us to worry about 
angels dancing on the heads of pins when we have a chance to pass a 
significant legislation that lets Amtrak access the capital that this 
Congress voted for to give Amtrak the ability to do.
  I would urge support of the Oberstar recommittal motion, pass the 
basic legislation now, and come back later in the next few months and 
work on the very genuine concerns of the chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter] would like to yield back her time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I will be as brief as I can.
  But let me just say that what has happened to the railroad system in 
this country is so, so sad. I sort of grew up, beginning back in 1930, 
and we had a good railroad system in this country. And then something 
happened to it. Today, we are the greatest Nation in the world, and yet 
we have the worst railroad system in the world of any industrialized 
nation in the world. Something happened.
  I guess back in the Eisenhower days, they began to develop the 
national road system, which is now administered by each individual 
State with all the interstate highways that we have. But yet, we never 
did anything to try to solve the problems of the railroads. I do not 
know what the answer is. Sometimes I wonder, you know, the States on 
behalf of the Federal Government own the beds of all the interstate 
highways throughout this country, and maybe the States on behalf of the 
Federal Government ought to own the railroad beds and then let the free 
enterprise system work. I do not know what the answer is, but it is a 
shame, because we need a viable railroad system in this country, and we 
need Amtrak.
  My good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], who left 
the floor, he is noted for a Member that does his homework. He 
certainly articulates his position. Unfortunately, I just have to agree 
with him, we agree that we must, must save Amtrak. But I do not believe 
that the legislation before us, the Senate legislation, can pass. It 
cannot satisfy members of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. It cannot satisfy the Members of this body.
  Consequently, if we pass the amendment that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] is proposing to the Senate bill, I think 
there is ample time over in the Senate to take up the measure, since 
both Houses really will be in a position of treading water from now 
until the time we adjourn, just waiting for these four appropriations 
bills to be adopted so that we can go home.
  That is why I was sad to see us not be able to take the vote on the 
two-thirds rule that we just debated a few minutes ago, because once we 
had done that, then we could take up the Amtrak bill,

[[Page H10594]]

and we could send it over to the Senate, and it would give them an 
extra 5 or 6 hours to deal with this matter. But, unfortunately, that 
cannot happen now because all the votes are going to be delayed until 
5.
  So, again, I would just say that we must, must make sure that we are 
going to go away from here this weekend with the Amtrak legislation 
taken care of, because Amtrak, in my opinion, will not be solvent. The 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] repeated my remarks up in the 
Committee on Rules Sunday, in which I said there would be no meaningful 
legislation taken up during the month of January. We will be off most 
of the month of January, coming back for only a day or two. And then 
much of the month of February is taken up with the work period over the 
Presidential recess period.
  So I just hope we can pass this rule and we can pass the legislation 
that will follow it so that we can pass and get legislation dealing 
with the solvency of Amtrak into the law before we go home this 
weekend.
  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed until later today.

                          ____________________