[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 162 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13317-S13319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 AMTRAK

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, while we are in this morning business period 
and in anticipation of going to the next legislation, I wish to make 
some opening comments about what happened here and make a plea to my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but particularly my own side of 
the aisle, that we not object to going to consideration of Amtrak 
legislation.
  I have been working on this issue for several years now. I think it 
is an important issue. It is an important part of our transportation 
system in America. I believe that for the future development of our 
country, for the mobility of our country, for the creation of jobs, the 
maintaining of jobs, for safety, security, and access, we should pay 
attention to infrastructure in America, and lanes, planes, trains, 
ports, and harbors. This is critical to our future economic development 
and to our American lifestyle.
  I have been working for years to upgrade and improve the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the air traffic control system so we can have 
less congestion in the airways and fewer delays, and modernization. We 
are still working on that. We did get FAA reauthorization a few years 
ago. Now it is back up but, unfortunately, stalled right now. We did 
pass a highway bill a few years ago that had many good things in it. 
But here is my point: You can only build so many lanes until you can't 
build any more. You can only have so many planes in the sky until you 
can't have any more. So what is the other alternative? Trains.
  Now, I am not from a State that is hugely dependent on the rail 
passenger system. We get some of the benefits of it. But part of the 
problem is we don't have enough access, enough opportunities in that 
area, or we have delays and problems such as that. Why do we have 
delays? Because we haven't modernized the Amtrak system. Because we 
have not worked through the Transportation Department to put in some 
reforms, decide what is needed in terms of money, and how to get more 
capitalization. We haven't done the reforms.
  I was pleased to be involved the last time we did some Amtrak 
legislation. That was several years ago. I stood right in this very 
spot and told my friend John McCain from Arizona if it didn't work and 
if Amtrak didn't do a better job, I would eat it without salt. Well, I 
guess I should have probably eaten it without salt later on. It didn't 
do everything I hoped it would. But what is the alternative? Do we want 
a national rail passenger system or not? I think we do. I don't mean 
only on the Northeast corridor, although I love the Northeast corridor. 
I have been delighted to work with my friend and colleague from New 
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, on this legislation, because I want good 
Amtrak service between Washington and New York City. Frankly, I would 
rather ride the Acela to New York City than the shuttle, the airline 
shuttle. You go to the airport; you wait; you are delayed. You get on 
the train. You ride the Acela. You do your computer. You are not 
crowded. It is nice, clean. It works. You can get a little something to 
eat, and you arrive in New York City.
  I realize Acela is one of the best in the country, but we need to do 
more. In fact, putting money in it--and by the way, not enough--year 
after year we are starving it to death and then we are saying, Why 
didn't it do better? It is because we haven't given them more 
opportunities, we haven't had more requirements, we haven't had 
reforms. I tried for the past 2 years to get this legislation up. We 
had some objections. We had some Senators who wanted to offer 
amendments. My attitude is: Fine. If you have amendments, let's go with 
them. Administration: If you have some reforms, fine, let's do it. But 
we need to get this thing done.
  Now here we are, we have a different majority. Senator Lautenberg is 
the chairman of the committee. But basically, this is the bill he and I 
put together 3 years ago. It is time to do it. It is not perfect. It 
has some reforms in it. It has some requirements in it. By the way, 
more people are riding Amtrak, and they have more income. They are 
doing better. If we give them more incentives, if we get them to close 
some of the routes that are never going to be profitable, they are not 
going to work, it would be even better than that.
  I am not going to give my full opening speech now, even though I 
sound like it. I am saying to my colleagues, we should not object to 
the motion to proceed on every bill, and filibuster the motion to 
proceed. That is bad business. Do it judiciously? Yes. If you want to 
slow this place down time after time after time after time, yes, we can 
do that. But I stood here on the floor earlier today and last night and 
said: If the Senate will do the right thing on this judicial 
nomination, Leslie Southwick, that will be a step forward to show that 
this place can work together. We can be civil. We can be less partisan, 
and there will be some benefits. I am standing right here right now 
saying this is the next step. Let's not tangle this bill up because we 
are not ready, or because we may not like it. You don't like it? Vote 
against it. You want more? Bring your amendments. Let's get this done. 
I hope my colleagues will not try to block the motion to proceed. 
Senator Reid is going to ask unanimous consent that we go to the bill, 
and I hope and pray that if it is objected to, he is going to file 
cloture and he is going to make us eat it, because we ought to take 
this up and deal with it. If we want to kill it, shoot it down, but 
doing nothing is unacceptable.

  The Senate has become very proficient at doing nothing; not just this 
year, but last year and the year before. We paid a price, because we 
didn't get anything done in the previous 2 years. Are we going to do it 
again or can we do something for the American people? This is one way 
we can do it.
  So I make that plea and I hope we can get something worked out when 
we get on this bill. I will not be a party to try to ram it through so 
quickly people can't get their amendments ready.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to my distinguished colleague and 
leader on this effort now, and to my friend from New Jersey, and I look 
forward to working with him on this legislation.

[[Page S13318]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the obvious obstinacy at getting this 
on the floor seems to ignore the fact that you almost can't get 
anyplace from here or there without enormous delays, without enormous 
congestion, and with pollution problems, et cetera. Is it understood, I 
ask the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, how difficult it is for 
the country right now? You can't get an airplane that will leave on 
time or arrive on time with any degree of certainty. I, for instance, 
travel from here up to Newark or to LaGuardia Airport, both of which 
are convenient to my home in New Jersey, and a flight that takes 36 
minutes of air time takes 2\1/2\ hours to get there, more often than 
not.
  So do the Senator's friends understand that this is a crisis moment 
for this country of ours? We have seen incidents so many times where 
the absence of a rail system--for instance, we threw away billions of 
dollars some years ago because nuclear powerplants that were built, 
ready to operate, couldn't get a license to go because there weren't 
satisfactory evacuation routes and it had to be by rail because the 
highways were unable to provide for it.
  If we look at Katrina and we see how much better we could have done 
if rail was sufficiently employed down there, and we didn't get it, and 
people were jammed and stuck in there.
  There is no difference in what--when you cross the aisle, when you 
ask the question: Do we want to get things operating better? Do we want 
to facilitate our corporations to operate efficiently? Do we want to 
provide the jobs that go along when you have facilities for travel in 
place? Would people do better if they could travel by rail rather than 
have to get in a car and pay who knows what for gasoline? It is 
predicted that oil is going to go up to $200 a barrel one of these 
days. Well, Heaven forbid that does come. We are not going to close 
shop and say we will go home and rest.
  Do the Senator's colleagues recognize that those who don't want to 
let us get this train of theirs started, do they realize that these 
problems are in front of us, I ask?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished Senator from 
New Jersey, I am sorry I went ahead and spoke first, because you are 
chairman of the committee and you have been providing real leadership 
in trying to get this legislation brought up. I did it because I wanted 
to make a plea to my colleagues on this side of the aisle to let this 
move forward. Let me emphasize that I have no indication there will be 
objection. They want to take a look at it. They want to make sure they 
will have a chance to offer amendments or substitutes. I have assured 
them we will work with them. I believe we are going to be able to clear 
the hurdles, but I wanted to make a public plea so we could get on this 
legislation and guarantee the Members that their amendments will be 
considered and, in fact, in the past, when we worked together, we have 
accepted amendments and fought some of them, and we had votes. It is a 
novel idea in the Senate, to have a debate and have a vote.
  But I want to say again I have enjoyed working with Senator 
Lautenberg. This is a lot bigger issue in New Jersey and along the 
eastern seaboard, I guess, but more and more it is important on the 
west coast, it is important to the Chicago area, it is important all 
over America. This is not about one region or the other region, or 
trying to accommodate business or labor; this is about American people. 
So I think my colleagues, hopefully, are going to realize that we ought 
to do something about Amtrak, and this is the way to get it done.
  I thank the Senator for his question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to respond to what my friend 
from Mississippi has said. We have worked together in the past and we 
have gotten things done in the past. We know that Amtrak finally has 
come into its place. We have a lot of work yet to do when you think 
about what travel is like these days in all forms. The highways are too 
congested. The airways are getting even more congested. The expectation 
is that delays are going to become even longer. So I hope those who 
want to discuss it and those who want to amend it--the Senator is 
right, we should consider amendments. As a matter of fact, I think it 
is good if we do hear from people and see what problems they foresee. 
But we can't get it done unless we talk about it, unless we prepare for 
a vote.
  Are we about to say to the American people: No, continue to suffer? 
Stay stuck in traffic? Stay stuck at the airports? Time will take care 
of it? All you have to do is spend more time away from home, away from 
your job and away from things you might enjoy.
  American people, get used to spending more time away from home in 
useless activities, such as listening to an idling engine or listening 
to the car radio or something like that. We cannot function this way.
  Now the time is upon us where we have to do something about this. I 
believe this is an opportune time. I know a lot of colleagues on that 
side of the aisle want to see this happen. After all, we touch 40 
States across the country. Wherever you look and see where there has 
been new or upgraded rail service, people are responding to it: On the 
west coast, and some of the routes out of Chicago--people are 
responding to it, and they are getting on trains.
  I use the trains frequently. The other day I got on an Amtrak train 
here, and it was a full train with barely a seat left. So people are 
demanding it. If we look at the example that exists, let's say in 
Europe or in Japan, and see what happens. When I wanted to take a plane 
one time from Brussels, where a NATO meeting was ongoing, to go to 
Paris, I tried to get a flight. They said: You cannot get an airplane 
from here because we go by train--200 miles in 1 hour and 20 minutes. 
Imagine what it would do for travel in this country and business 
progress.
  So I am ready whenever my colleague and our friends on that side of 
the aisle are ready. I am told we are all set here and ready to go.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, since I have worked with the 
Senator on this issue, some of my colleagues have taken to calling me 
Senator ``Lott-enberg.'' I know there is a bit of a regional 
difference. It is not quite as crowded in our neck of the woods, so you 
might come on down South and it would be a lot less crowded. However, I 
would like for them to be able to get there on Amtrak, to be able to 
catch that train in Washington or in Newark and run on down and come 
through Atlanta down to Jackson, MS. I think they would enjoy it once 
they got there. I invite the Senator from New Jersey to take the ride 
to Jackson, and we will show him around down there.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In response, A, I would like to do it; and, B, I 
wonder if people realize how many new lines are being dreamt up--I say 
``dreamt'' up because unless we get the base going, nothing else is 
going to happen.
  I hear from colleagues in other States besides mine who say, you 
know, we could use train service here or there. We have seen something 
in New Jersey that exemplifies the value of rail service. We had a line 
open from the southernmost tip of our State to Trenton, our State 
capital. The ridership, at first, was very low. Before you knew it, we 
began to see buildings, factories, warehouses, et cetera, being built 
along the transit way. And now the area is beginning to prosper where 
it was just dead and nothing was going on. That is what we have seen.
  There is a lot of talk about something called transit villages. In 
New Jersey, the most crowded State in the country, we don't think about 
villages really, but we have transit villages centered around a rail 
hub. People know they can get back and forth, and companies know 
employees can get back and forth to work and they can run an efficient 
operation.
  So this is a point in time when opportunity presents itself, and we 
ought not to miss it. If we cannot see it, we ought to let the public 
see that. Certainly, at this point in time, we ought to be able to 
discuss it. We should not have any obstruction to bringing the issue to 
the floor of the Senate. Let's get out in this public forum and have a 
discussion and see what we can do or whether there are problems that 
can be dealt with or maybe we can go to some other kinds of travel--I 
don't know what kind, but we at least ought to take the one nearest to 
us that is the best option.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are working on when we are going to be

[[Page S13319]]

able to get this up. I have a couple of points. One, we have a catch-
22. Our Members want to make sure they have a chance to offer 
amendments, and we want to do that. At the same time, our leadership on 
both sides has to pay attention to when and how we get it to a 
conclusion. I think it is incumbent upon our leadership from the 
committee to work with Members to get amendments but also not to let 
this become a punching bag and have Members throwing everything out but 
the kitchen sink.
  I believe we can move this through in a reasonable time. My attitude 
is, when Senators have amendments, come over and offer them. We will 
debate them and then have a vote. We will not shove it over until 9 or 
10 o'clock tomorrow night. I think there is hesitation on both sides of 
the aisle, and we have to work through that. But we have done this 
before. We did this bill 2 years ago, or so, and we got 90-something 
votes. So we can do that.
  Mr. President, one other observation: As I have worked on this, 
another part of the equation of having a good national rail passage 
system is encouraging our States to be able to do more on their own and 
build lines like we have in San Francisco to the L.A. area--there is 
incentive to do more--and at the same time, not telling poorer States 
that they have to do way more than they are capable of doing.
  Also, a couple of weeks ago, I thought about this bill. I was at Big 
D's Barbeque at Pocahontas, MS. The City of New Orleans, a sleeper 
Amtrak train, came whizzing by Big D's Tee Pee. They were ballin' the 
jack headed to New Orleans. It had about six or eight cars, which 
is relatively short. But the important thing was that they were going 
lickity-split.

  If we are going to be able to get these trains, in a reasonable way, 
where they want to go, part of the problem is a problem the freight 
lines have. If they are going to get off on a side track and let the 
Amtrak go through, they have to build side tracks. We need more lines 
all across America. Union Pacific, Burlington Northern, Santa Fe--they 
need to build more lines across this country. We need to encourage the 
freight lines to build more capacity, more lines, and more side tracks, 
so they can work with Amtrak, so that Amtrak is not adding to the cost 
of doing business of the freight lines. So I am looking at that 
equation too. We don't want a conflict between Amtrak and freight 
lines. We want them both to be able to make a profit and deliver the 
goods and services to the American people.
  So we are working on that side of the equation too, to make sure that 
Amtrak has a way to be on time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Mississippi remembers that yesterday 
we had a hearing on freight railroads, and that traffic is going to be 
up some 44 percent by 2020. They are concerned about how to get it 
done. At the same time, we have to provide for passenger rail service. 
This is a good time for all sides to get together and start moving.
  Does the Senator remember this bill was processed on the Senate floor 
last year? We had a vote that was 93 to 6. I lost a year. It was 
actually in 2005.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, I think that is right.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The vote was 93 to 6, I remind everybody. This was 
popularly supported, totally understood. We were on our way to the next 
station, and it just didn't work out. Things were a little tumultuous, 
to put it mildly. Now there is a cooler moment to think about it and 
present it. We have time available on the floor, and I think to waste 
it would be a terrible loss when we can discuss this important problem 
with a solution for the country.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. The occupant of the 
chair, the Senator from Maryland, I suspect, supports this too. I am 
ready to do business when we get the go-ahead to take up this 
legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: Is the Senate 
in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business, with 10-
minute grants.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I wish to speak for a period of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________