[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 85 (Monday, June 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5940-S5941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 AMTRAK

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I do not believe any of the Senators who 
are on the floor at this time were serving in the House or the Senate 
when Amtrak was created. It was created in 1970 and it was created 
after an extended debate which found none of the private railroads in 
this country wanted to continue to provide passenger rail service. They 
wanted out of the business and they got out. They convinced the 
Congress and then the President, Richard Nixon, that they should be 
able to buy stock in this entity called Amtrak, they should turn over a 
lot of their rolling stock--their locomotives and their passenger cars 
or dining cars, the whole Northeast corridor from Washington to Boston, 
repair shops, train stations--to this new entity, Amtrak, to see if 
they could make it go as a quasi-governmental entity whereas for years 
the private sector had not been able to make a go of it.
  Lo and behold, 32 years later Amtrak has not been able to figure out 
how to make money, how to make a profit doing what the private 
railroads could not make a profit doing in the 1970s or 1960s or the 
years before that; that is, carrying people.
  Last Thursday here on the floor I talked a bit about all those other 
countries around the world that offer terrific passenger train service, 
whether it is Britain or France or Spain or Italy, Scandinavia or 
Germany--or over the other side of the world, Asian countries such as 
Japan, where people can go in trains that run at 200 miles an hour and 
can actually write on the trains and people can read your writing--
something no one is able to do with mine when I ride the rails with 
Amtrak. They can put a cup of coffee on the table and the coffee is 
still like it would be on this table before me.
  The reason why they have such good train service in those countries 
is because they make it a national priority. They believe it is in 
their national interest to have good passenger rail service.
  Some of those countries are more densely populated than our own, but 
as time goes by we are becoming more densely populated, too. I said 
last week that some 75 percent of Americans today live within 50 miles 
of one of our coasts. As time goes by, we are going to become more 
densely populated. Those dense populations provide for a number of 
problems: congestion on our highways, congestion in our airports, the 
fouling of our air. As we all climb into our cars, trucks, and vans to 
go from one place to the other and then fill them up with gas, we 
import a lot of the oil we refine into gasoline and we end up with a 
huge trade deficit, about a third of which is attributable to imported 
oil.
  Part of the reason so many of those other countries put so much of 
their

[[Page S5941]]

money, so much of their resources into their passenger rail system is 
not because of nostalgia. They do not pine for the days when people 
rode the trains from coast to coast. They do it because it is in their 
naked self-interest to have good passenger rail service.
  It is in our naked self-interest to have good passenger rail service 
as well. As a former Governor, I served on the Amtrak Board appointed 
by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and I served there as a 
member of the board of directors for 4 years. There were a number of 
times during the time I served on the board--and a number of times 
since--that Amtrak has run short of cash. They negotiated with a 
consortium of private lenders and got enough money to carry them 
through their tough patch and when the next Federal appropriation comes 
through or the ridership peaks in one of the peak ridership periods for 
the summer or Thanksgiving or Christmas or the other holidays, they pay 
off the loans.

  Amtrak is endeavoring to arrange a bridge loan from a consortium of 
private banks to carry them through to the end of this fiscal year. 
Their ability to negotiate that loan fell apart with the announcement 
of the administration's restructuring plan for Amtrak, which is not so 
much a restructuring plan for Amtrak but it is, frankly, the end, the 
demise of Amtrak as we know it.
  With that having been done and the inability to negotiate with the 
private lending consortium, I think in large part because of the 
announcement of the restructuring plan for Amtrak by the 
administration, the administration has some responsibility to step to 
the plate and to provide--as they can under law; they have the 
discretion under the law--a loan guarantee so Amtrak can go ahead with 
this negotiation with the private bankers. They ought to do that.
  When we get past this very difficult time--and I want to tell you if 
Amtrak does shut down, it is not because everybody rides Amtrak but 
because Amtrak is very involved in commuter operations. Amtrak runs the 
entire Northeast corridor. Electricity is sold to the commuter trains. 
The commuter trains use Penn Station. Amtrak is involved in the 
Midwest--we have a colleague here from Chicago--in helping run the 
commuter operations there, and California. It is not just the Northeast 
corridor. It is throughout the country. A shutdown, especially a hasty 
shutdown, will create havoc, not necessarily because of the people who 
run Amtrak trains but all the people who depend on Amtrak and maybe 
don't know it. They depend on Amtrak to get to work every day and to 
get home.
  Let me close with this thought, if I could. When we get through this 
difficult time--and we need to, and I hope the administration steps up 
to the plate and says we have some responsibility and acts to discharge 
those responsibilities--when we get through this, that carries us to 
the next fiscal year. We need to determine as a country, with a healthy 
debate with the administration fully engaged, what we are going to do 
for passenger rail service in America. What will taxpayers support? 
What will Congress and the administration support? That debate is one 
in which I look forward to participating.
  I think passenger rail going forward will depend, in no small part, 
on our willingness, and that of the administration, to find a dedicated 
source of capital funding. Since Amtrak's creation 32 years ago, there 
has never been adequate capital support for the railroad. There has 
never been capital support.
  We all know that railroading is capital intensive. There needs to be 
a dedicated source of capital funding. My colleagues will hear me say 
that more in the months to come. In my judgment, that is the key. If we 
support passenger rail service, we have to provide the capital to 
support it.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Madam President.
  If the Senator from New Jersey wishes to speak for any period of 
time, I will go ahead and take my right. But if he wants only to ask 
for a unanimous consent, I would be happy to provide that opportunity.
  Mr. CORZINE. May I ask the Senator from Arizona how long he intends 
to speak?
  Mr. KYL. I intend to take about 20 or 25 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from Arizona would consider it, I would 
talk no more than 5 minutes, and probably a few minutes less.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, in accommodation of my colleague from New 
Jersey, if he will keep his remarks to 4 minutes, shall we say, I would 
be happy to provide him the opportunity, and then I will begin after he 
is finished speaking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, my colleague from Arizona is very kind 
to offer this opportunity.

                          ____________________