[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 11, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5222-H5265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1253 and rule 
XVIII, 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. 6003.

                              {time}  1049


                     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. 6003) to reauthorize Amtrak, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Moran of Virginia in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we stand on the threshold of a transformational moment 
in the history of intercity passenger rail service in America.
  There was an earlier such moment. That was Amtrak, the creation of 
the Passenger Rail Corporation in 1970 when the freight rail interests 
of America gradually had been abandoning passenger service, 
discontinuing lines, discontinuing less-than-carload service, 
discontinuing the overnight railway Post Office service aboard 
intercity passenger rail. And as the RPO was discontinued, the 
passenger portion of the

[[Page H5223]]

rail service became unprofitable and the railroads one by one appealed 
to the Interstate Commerce Commission for discontinuance authority, to 
discontinue service on that portion of the line. And gradually, 
passenger rail service disappeared from the landscape until finally the 
Federal Government was left holding the bag, if you will, and created, 
through act of Congress, the passenger rail service we know today as 
Amtrak.
  But over the intervening years, Amtrak was never given the funding it 
needed to improve the track, the rail bed, to improve the rolling 
stock, and to operate independently from freight rail service on the 
lines and corridors where passenger service operated. And especially 
over the last dozen years, we have seen declining investment in 
Amtrak's operations, and in the last 6 years we have had at least one 
bankruptcy budget submitted by the administration, candidly stated so 
by the Secretary of Transportation. But with a combination of 
Republicans and Democrats looking to the future, we have been able to 
just keep Amtrak's nose above water during these intervening years. 
Today, we change that model.
  With passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, we 
will transform the future of intercity passenger rail in America.
  We heard all this morning from the one-minute speeches, the price of 
a gallon of gas breached $4 a gallon for the first time in history. The 
American Automobile Association says gas prices have gone up more than 
10 percent in the last month and a dollar in the past year. Those 
prices are reverberating across the Nation, changing people's travel 
patterns and habits and causing them to look more to transit, and 
transit across the country has exploded in its growth.
  Last year we added more than a million new passengers to transit 
services a day across this country for 375 million new transit trips 
last year. Amtrak has similarly experienced enormous growth.
  Our airlines are cutting back. Eight airlines since December of last 
year have shut down. One filed for bankruptcy, largely because of 
rising fuel costs. Fuel now represents 40 percent of the airline 
industry's expenses. A small increase in gas prices, and I know that a 
dollar a barrel increase in the price of oil for Northwest Airlines 
causes an increase in cost to that airline of $42 million. You can 
increase that by 50 percent more for Delta, and double that for United 
and American. That means less competition, less mobility, and higher 
prices for our fellow citizens.
  The Department of Transportation says vehicle miles traveled in March 
fell 4.3 percent from last year. That is the first time we have seen a 
drop in miles traveled on public roads in over 30 years.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.
  The Center for Housing Policy says that working families in large 
metropolitan areas spent nearly a third of their income on 
transportation. That means families are not able to buy homes, they are 
not saving, they are not investing in their children's education, they 
are spending it on transportation.
  People are beginning to realize, just as they did in the days after 
September 11, that Amtrak service to move people from one city to 
another, is vitally important. One full passenger train can take 250 to 
350 cars off the road. Intercity passenger rail removes 8 million cars 
from the highways every year and eliminates the need for 50,000 fully 
loaded passenger airline trips each year.
  Amtrak in the Northeast corridor has 56 percent of the air-rail 
market between Washington, D.C. and New York City, 43 percent of the 
market between New York and Boston. And now we come to the American 
public, perhaps 20 years too late, but just in time with the 
legislation before us today that will upgrade passenger rail intercity 
service.
  There is $14.9 billion authorized in this bill to rebuild Amtrak, 
construct high-speed rail corridors across the Nation, and I won't go 
into the specifics of it.
  At this point I simply want to express my deep appreciation to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) who extended his hand of cooperation, 
his enthusiasm for rebuilding passenger rail service in this country 
with some innovative ideas and a willingness to join hands and bring a 
truly bipartisan bill to the House floor, and to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) the Chair of the Rail Subcommittee who has 
been Amtrak's most vigorous cheerleader and advocate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  She did a Harry Truman-style whistle-stop tour on Amtrak when it was 
just about to go under and joined forces with a bipartisan initiative 
to save the funding for Amtrak. And Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania who 
has been a true partner in shaping this legislation today; his ideas 
and contributions have been enormously valuable.
  We bring to America an opportunity to join the rest of the world in 
world-class, intercity high-speed passenger rail service. And again, I 
thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I must pay tribute to the chairman of our full 
committee, Mr. Oberstar, at this juncture. He began his remarks by 
saying this is a very historic occasion. And, indeed, for rail 
passenger service in the United States, this is a watershed moment.
  I have been one of the harshest critics of Amtrak. I don't think I 
have ever voted for an Amtrak appropriation or authorization. In fact, 
we have not done an Amtrak reauthorization in Congress since 1997. And 
through the leadership of Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown, Mr. Shuster from 
Pennsylvania, today we have for the first time probably one of the most 
dramatic changes in rail passenger service proposed before the United 
States Congress in its history. This is really evolutionary because we 
have taken in a bipartisan fashion some of the desires, some of the 
ideas from the Democrat side, we have combined it with some of the 
ideas and initiatives proposed by the Republican side, and melded it 
into a piece of legislation.
  Nothing could be more fitting to bring before the Congress today, on 
a day when gasoline has reached $4.05 a gallon across the United States 
on average, nothing that this Congress has considered to date that I 
know of will have a more dramatic, positive effect on the environment, 
and helping to change also the patterns of travel and the consumption 
of fossil fuel than this legislation proposed here today, and it is a 
bipartisan effort and I thank all of those involved for that.
  Let me first address some of the concerns expressed by my 
administration. My administration has raised some concerns, one about 
the cost. Yes, the cost is higher; but for the first time we bring 
forward a program that doesn't just benefit Amtrak and an old Soviet-
style train operation, it brings passenger rail service into the 21st 
century in the United States. It allows free enterprise and the best 
private sector initiatives to come in and help design, construct and 
finance high-speed rail service first in the Northeast corridor, but 
not just to the Northeast corridor, throughout the United States of 
America.

                              {time}  1100

  It takes ideas like Mr. Shuster brought forward also, also Ms. Brown 
contributed too, in taking some of the money-losing operations. And 
I've been a critic. We subsidize every ticket on Amtrak right now at 
$50.60, $50.60 for every ticket.
  But what we do is we look at what the best solutions are, the best 
innovative private sector practices, and taking the money-losing 
operations and giving them a chance to succeed, to lower the cost to 
the taxpayers, and to provide service in public/private partnerships, 
and also partnerships with the State governments. Where we need 
service, we'll get service, and we have to help pay for service.
  Now, people are saying this bill may be too much. That's bunk. $14 
billion over 5 years?
  I'll give you two projects, let me just give you two transportation 
projects that, one I visited a week ago in New York, a tunnel from Long 
Island Railroad down to Grand Central Station. $7.2 billion for one 
line.

[[Page H5224]]

  The Federal Transit Administration just approved approximately $5 
billion to extend 21 miles of light rail with the Dulles extension, 21 
miles, $5 billion. Those two projects are equivalent to what we're 
talking about spending for a nationwide passenger rail system.
  And also launching the first high-speed rail effort in the United 
States. Right now we don't have that. Amtrak Acela, they do their best, 
they run 83 miles an hour. But we need a dramatic investment in that 
route to get high-speed service. It's going to cost money, and Congress 
doesn't have to provide all the money.
  Everybody finally woke up to the fact that, with the private sector 
involvement, we can create high-speed service, separate the traffic, 
improve commuter service in one of our most congested corridors. 
Commuters will do better, improve freight traffic. Freight traffic in 
the United States for rail moves at an average of 23 miles an hour. 
That's pitiful in a Nation like this.
  So, finally, this proposal takes, I have a little diagram here. This 
is what we have across the country, from sea to shining sea. 
Congestion. And what we want to have is not just Acela, which runs at 
83 miles an hour, the Japanese bullet train runs at 180 miles an hour. 
Maglev has gone 350 miles an hour. I've ridden it at 269 miles an hour. 
In China. That's where they have high-speed magnetic next generation 
technology. Not United States but in China. That's pitiful today.
  What we do is we take an asset. Finally, this is an asset the public 
all owns. It's part of Amtrak. It's from Washington to Boston through 
New York City.
  It's time that we stopped sitting on our assets. This is one of the 
most valuable assets that the public owns, that Amtrak owns, develop 
that to its maximum capability.
  And finally, the benefits. We'll relieve northeast corridor 
congestion. We can take passenger cars and trucks off the highways.
  The other thing is 75 percent of our delays in the air system that 
radiate throughout the entire United States start in the New York City 
airspace, in that Northeast airspace. So the first time we have a 
solution to deal with freeing up that airspace. It'll have positive 
economic development, reduce air pollution and emissions.
  No project is more friendly to the environment than what we're 
proposing here today. We'll have reliable transportation alternatives, 
enhanced commuter and freight operations in that congested but 
important corridor.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Chair of our 
rail subcommittee, Ms. Brown.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I've got to say that one 
of the joys of serving in this Congress is serving on this 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with Mr. Oberstar, who is 
the guru of transportation, not just for Amtrak, but every single area 
of transportation. And for helping to develop this Amtrak bill. Eleven 
years without a bill. The last authorization was 11 years ago.
  And of course I want to thank Mr. Mica for his leadership in this 
area, and Mr. Shuster, and also Mr. LaTourette, because I want people 
to know that we didn't just come up with this bill today. This is a 
bill we've been working on for years. And this is an exciting day for 
the American people, a real milestone.
  The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act provides over $2 
billion per year for capital and operational grants, $500 million per 
year for developing State passenger corridors, $345 million per year to 
pay down debt, $345 million per year for high-speed rail programs, and 
requires a plan for restoring service to the Sunset Limited Line.
  Amtrak's improved physical state and recent focus on customers 
service, along with increased highways and airport congestion and 
rising gas prices, have made intercity passenger rail more popular and 
necessary than ever.
  In Fiscal Year 2007, Amtrak carried more than 25.8 million 
passengers, the fifth straight fiscal year of record ridership. Like 
its ridership gains, Amtrak's financial performance has improved as 
well, posting approximately $1.5 billion in ticket revenue, a gain of 
10.8 percent over 2006 ticket revenue, and the third consecutive year 
that ticket revenues increased.
  More than just a convenient way to travel, Amtrak is also energy 
efficient. Rail travel is more energy efficient and uses less fuel than 
cars or airplanes. According to the U.S. Department of Energy data, 
Amtrak is 17 percent more efficient than domestic airline travel and 21 
percent more efficient than automobile travel.
  And let me just say that there is no mode of transportation that pays 
for itself. We all subsidize every form of transportation.
  Current initiatives include a more sleek model, more efficient Auto 
Train fleet, reducing annual fuel usage by 640,000 gallons, and 
remanufacturing brake systems throughout the Amtrak fleet that will 
reduce energy consumption by 8 percent.
  Passenger rail also reduces global warming. The average passenger 
rail train produces 60 percent lower carbon emissions than cars and 50 
percent less than airplanes.
  On May 10, Amtrak celebrated National Train Day by holding events 
throughout the country, over 60, to be exact, showcasing intercity 
passenger rail and its importance to this Nation. I celebrated National 
Train Day by holding events throughout my district, including press 
conferences and events in Jacksonville, Winter Park and at the Sanford 
Auto Train station. Every event had great turnout, showing strong 
support for Amtrak, and I got to hear firsthand accounts of people who 
use Amtrak every day to go to work, to visit friends and family all 
over the country.
  Congress also showed strong support for Amtrak and passenger rail by 
passing legislation supporting National Train Day by 415-0.
  Fifty years ago President Eisenhower created the national highway 
system, which really changed the way we travel in this country. Today 
we need to do the same thing with passenger rail, and make the level of 
investment necessary for it to become more successful in the future.
  The American people deserve the best passenger rail in the world, and 
I believe that this Amtrak authorization will go a long way to raise 
the U.S. to its rightful place as a world leader in passenger rail.
  Passing of H.R. 6003 will be the first major step in bringing our 
Nation's intercity passenger rail system to the 21st century. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the Passenger Rail 
Investment Improvement Act.
  Mr. MICA. I'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the Rail 
Subcommittee, Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania, a total of 6 minutes; 5 
minutes for his presentation and 1 minute for a colloquy with the 
gentlelady from Ohio.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, today Congress can finally do something 
positive when it comes to energy, the energy situation in this country, 
and that is to pass this landmark legislation, The Passenger Rail 
Investment Improvement Act of 2008.
  With gas prices today at $4 a gallon, we, on both sides of the aisle, 
can join together and move to improve passenger rail in this country. 
And it is, as I said, something that will be a positive for the energy 
situation.
  When you look at the airlines, they consume 20 percent more energy 
per passenger mile than Amtrak does to move a passenger. Passenger cars 
consume over 27 percent more energy per passenger mile than Amtrak. 
Amtrak is the most efficient way to move large numbers of people in our 
country today. So this is going to help with the energy situation. It's 
a positive step in the right direction. We still need to do much more 
but this is a positive step.
  The other situation that we're facing in this country is a growing 
population. It took, we just recently crossed over the 300 million 
threshold in population in our country. It took us 65 years to go from 
200 million to 300 million. It'll take us just 35 years to go from 300 
million to 400 million.
  And if you look around the country, and what I have is a chart that 
shows these corridors throughout the country. This is where the 
population density is going to get even thicker and more dense 
throughout this country. And this is where we're talking about down the 
road expanding high-speed rail across the country to help move 
passengers, to get people out of their

[[Page H5225]]

cars, to move them efficiently, to get them into our major urban areas 
and get them out again and get them between major urban areas.
  So, as I said, as the population grows, Amtrak can be there with 
intercity travel helping us to move people. And people are desperate to 
get out of their cars, I believe, especially when you're traveling to 
and from. I know in Pennsylvania we've had a fantastic partnership 
between the State and Amtrak to establish the Keystone line. It travels 
over 100 miles an hour, and gets you from Harrisburg, the State Capitol 
to downtown Philadelphia in about an hour and 35 minutes, an hour and 
40 minutes; no messing with traffic, no congestion.
  Once again, the American people, I think, will get out of their cars 
and get on this intercity travel if we establish a system that works, a 
system that moves people fast and conveniently.
  Three provisions in this legislation that I'm very pleased to see 
we've put in here. First, a private partnership with Amtrak, the 
Department of Transportation, identifying two of the worst performing 
lines in the country and putting them out for bid, allowing the private 
sector to come in and take those lines over and have a hand at trying 
to make them more efficient, trying their hand at finding ways to 
improve rail traffic, to decrease costs. So I'm very pleased that 
that's in here.
  Second, a private partnership that we're looking at is, as my 
colleague from Florida stated, to re-establish a line that has been 
abandoned by Amtrak, that's no longer in service, to have the private 
sector come in and around the country see where one of those lines are 
and to re-establish that.
  And third, as the gentleman from Florida talked about the Northeast 
Corridor, putting a request for a proposal in to have private industry 
come in in a partnership to look at how much it's going to cost us to 
take the Northeast Corridor and truly make it a high-speed rail 
corridor from New York City to Washington, D.C., traveling in 2 hours 
or less, which is something that, once again, I believe that the 
American people will embrace.
  So for my colleagues that we've debated on this floor, I've watched 
debates for the last 20 years on this floor. There's always been an 
argument; can the private sector do it better. No, the government has 
to do it. Well here we're going to have some tests. We're going to have 
I believe some positive results in a public/private partnership that 
we'll be able to look to be able to expand passenger rail in this 
country. So I'm very pleased with that.
  One thing I do want to point out in this that I've heard a lot of 
talk, that this legislation does not change Davis-Bacon law. There are 
people running around town here saying that this does change Davis-
Bacon law. It does not change Davis-Bacon law. So for any of my 
colleagues that wish to have a discussion with me on that, I'm happy to 
do that. But I want to make sure that that's been pointed out here.
  And finally, I want to say thank you to the chairman for his goodwill 
and his allowing me to put some of my ideas in this legislation. Also 
Chairwoman Brown and our partnership on the subcommittee. I appreciate 
her leadership. I thank you both very much.
  And also to Mr. Mica for giving me the opportunity to be the ranking 
member and also including me deeply in all the discussions as we were 
able to craft this legislation.
  So I would encourage all my colleagues to support this today. This is 
something positive we can do for America, a positive step we can take 
to help with our energy situation. And I think it's just a win/win for 
everybody in America today as we move forward to establish some high-
speed rail corridors around this country.

                              {time}  1115

  I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with 
Ranking Member Shuster.
  Ranking Member Shuster, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to 
discuss a very important matter to the future of Amtrak. As you are 
aware, Amtrak was formed by private shareholders who gave Amtrak their 
assets in exchange for ownership of the railroad. You were also aware 
that even though the Congress has previously insisted that these shares 
be redeemed, Amtrak has failed to act.
  I would deeply appreciate it if you would work to address this issue 
in conference. These shareholders have been held hostage for decades. 
Our government has hijacked their investment, and they deserve 
restitution. This is not a new issue but still a major impediment to 
the future of Amtrak.
  I thank you and subcommittee Chairwoman Brown for your work on these 
issues. I ask that you work to fix this continuing problem before it 
becomes even more complicated to solve.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentlewoman from Ohio bringing this 
issue to the forefront. We had discussed this in committee while 
putting this legislation together, but it is not addressed in the 
underlying legislation, and I certainly believe it's an important issue 
that needs to be resolved; and I will be pleased to work with you and 
other members of the committee to try to address this situation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland, the Chair of the Coast Guard Subcommittee (Mr. 
Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Passenger Improvement Act, and I applaud Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman 
Brown, Ranking Member Mica, and Ranking Member Shuster for their hard 
work on this critical and very, very important piece of legislation.
  Despite the many challenges it has faced in recent years, Amtrak's 
ridership has grown for 5 consecutive years and revenue from ticket 
sales has grown for 3 years. Year after year Amtrak has proven that it 
is an invaluable asset to the American public and a critical part of 
our transportation network.
  Recognizing the vital service that Amtrak provides, Congress has 
repeatedly provided a level of annual funding support that has exceeded 
the President's request. However, this funding has not been sufficient 
to maintain Amtrak's infrastructure in a state of good repair or to 
enable Amtrak to become a truly modern national rail service. By 
passing this legislation, Congress will finally take the necessary 
steps to enable Amtrak to modernize all aspects of the service, 
including revitalizing infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor.
  As part of that effort, H.R. 6003 supports the redevelopment of 
tunnel infrastructure in and around my City of Baltimore and the 
Potomac tunnel. Opened in 1873, the B&P tunnel's outdated design 
imposes a number of speed and height restrictions on trains and 
significantly slows travel time between Washington and New York. There 
are several studies underway to assess possible new rail alignments 
through Baltimore, and this bill authorizes $60 million to support the 
determination of the final alignment by 2023.
  Modernizing rail alignments in Baltimore is essential to improving 
service between our Nation's Capitol and all of the States in the 
Northeast Corridor.
  I thank Chairman Oberstar and I thank Chairwoman Brown for working 
with me to address this very critical issue of national importance. I 
also applaud them for ensuring that at the same time H.R. 6003 makes 
significant investments in Amtrak, the bill takes appropriate steps to 
demand accountability of Amtrak for these investments, including 
requiring Amtrak to implement a modern financial accounting and 
reporting system not later than 1 year after the date of H.R. 6003's 
enactment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this long-overdue legislation to 
provide the investments we need to ensure that America has a safe, 
effective, and efficient passenger rail system for years to come.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished former Chair of the Rail Subcommittee and current ranking 
member of the Coast Guard Committee, one of the leaders of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman of the committee, and I thank 
him for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is my 14th year in the Congress. This is the first 
year that

[[Page H5226]]

we've not had a major dustup over Amtrak, and that is a direct credit 
to the hard work on our side of Mr. Shuster and Mr. Mica, and on the 
Democratic side to Chairwoman Brown and the chairman of our full 
committee, who Ms. Brown has referred to as the guru of transportation. 
And I think this bill is one that deserves every Member's support.
  I was glad that Chairman Oberstar, in his remarks, talked about the 
high cost of fuel and gasoline, and he talked about airlines. And I 
just want to throw another one in. Continental Airlines is a big 
carrier in my part of the world. They just announced they're going to 
lay off 3,000 people out of a workforce of 54,000. And in talking to 
them, their jet fuel costs in the last year have gone up $2.3 billion. 
And if you think about what $2.3 billion means, translated over the 
workforce, it means that if fuel hadn't gone up by that amount, 
everybody that works for Continental Airlines could have gotten a raise 
of $50,000. I mean, we're talking real money.
  I just left a presentation by Michael Ward, the CEO, President and 
CEO of CSX, and his new advertising campaign as he attempts to convince 
those of us in Ohio and West Virginia and Pennsylvania and Virginia and 
Maryland to build the national gateway project. They can take a ton, a 
ton of cargo from Cleveland, Ohio, to Baltimore, Maryland, on a gallon 
of diesel fuel. Now, that is where we should be making our investments, 
and if we can do it with freight, we can certainly do it with passenger 
rail.
  I'm excited about this bill not only because we're going to stop the 
sort of nitpicking that's gone on here about how much Amtrak could get 
as a Federal subsidy. I've been here when we had the administration 
send up zero as the Federal contribution; I've been here when they sent 
up $500 million. I think this year they sent up $800 million when 
everybody agrees that that's not sufficient.
  The chairwoman and I have traveled the world looking at passenger 
rail systems. There is not a passenger rail system in the country, in 
the world, that makes money and doesn't rely on their government to 
make a contribution.
  We have a societal choice. We can either have people get in their car 
and pay $4.05 a gallon for one person listening to the radio, or we can 
convince them that for trips of 400 miles or less that passenger rail 
is a viable alternative in this country. And Mr. Mica's vision of high-
speed passenger rail is a viable alternative in this country, and they 
can get from point A to point B in a cheap, clean, environmentally 
friendly way; and this bill moves us in that direction.
  So congratulations, I think, go around to Mr. Mica, Mr. Shuster, Ms. 
Brown, and Chairman Oberstar.
  We should be embarrassed, Mr. Chairman, as Americans when you look at 
what the Asians and the Europeans are doing with passenger rail that we 
have such a sad state of affairs in the United States of America. It's 
time to stop it, and I just want to thank all four of the leaders of 
our committee for including a proposal to make a real commitment for 
the first time in the history, of recent history of passenger rail to 
the Midwestern part of this United States.
  And I know, I know for a fact that if we put the Federal resources to 
build a high-speed rail line from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati, 
people would beg, would beg to be on that train for 120 miles an hour 
to get their business done.
  My congratulations. Good bill. We all need to vote for it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want to express my appreciation both to Mr. Shuster for his 
comments and to Mr. LaTourette for his observations. But it must also 
be added that in the bleak years of those starvation budgets for 
Amtrak, the gentleman from Ohio was out front with Ms. Brown and myself 
advocating for increased funding for Amtrak.
  If you look at the New York Times today, the gentleman referred to 
the price of fuel. Every increase in the price of fuel, already up 84 
percent compared with last year, increases pressures on airlines. We 
have to pump 7,000 gallons into a 737 and 60,000 into a 747.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself another 15 seconds.
  So airlines are doing a whole host of new initiatives including 
washing their engines frequently. They get grime out of the engine 
which increases efficiency. And they're cutting back on a whole host of 
things like less water onboard aircraft for the lavatories, and they're 
trying to cut the paper manuals for the pilot and copilot in half to 
save weight onboard the aircrafts. It's all reported in today's New 
York Times and are things we've known on the committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself another 15 seconds.
  Today's bill puts us on course to do the right thing for the American 
public. Save fuel. Save the impact on the environment. Move people more 
efficiently.
  Now I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the land of 
high-speed intercity rail passenger service, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6003, 
the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. With over 
21,000 miles that has already been mentioned of track in the United 
States and 44 routes throughout America, this reauthorization measure 
is sorely needed, and Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Brown deserve a 
great deal of credit and thanks for their hard work and their efforts 
on this, along with my minority colleagues that are supporting this 
effort.
  This legislation, as noted, will make improvements to existing lines 
throughout the country and in California. California provides over $70 
million a year for intercity rail. We have the second, the third, and 
the sixth most frequently used corridors in the Nation. As a matter of 
fact, when people think about California, they think of the land of 
cars. But the fact of the matter is is that we have more intercity 
passenger ridership in California than any other State in the Union.
  In my district, the Amtrak San Joaquin lines run from Bakersfield to 
Oakland to Sacramento. It's the sixth busiest corridor in the country 
and had nearly 800,000 riders in fiscal year 2006.
  California, of course, obviously is not alone. This bill that 
Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Brown have been working on so hard and 
diligently, the RIDE 21 Act, will promote the development, 
construction, and the potential for high-speed rail, which is the 
transportation system that I think is a part of America's 21st century 
intermodal, interconnected system that will be the state-of-the-art 
system that we will depend upon.
  Our friends in Europe and Japan have had great success with 
developing over 6,000 miles of high-speed rail in Europe and over 2,000 
miles of high-speed rail in Japan, and it is expanding. This is fourth 
generation state-of-the-art technology that we can have off the shelf. 
We don't have to reinvent the wheel.
  This November in California we will have a $9 billion bond measure 
that will help us implement the first state-of-the-art high-speed rail 
system, 790 miles, trains that will go 225 miles an hour connecting 80 
percent of California's population. This measure will be a big shot in 
the arm to help this State.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I will yield an 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. COSTA. This measure will give an added shot in the arm to assist 
California and other States throughout the country that want to 
implement, choose 21st-century state-of-the-art high-speed rail within 
their States. There are 11 corridors there. This notion that, in fact, 
we are giving a subsidy makes no sense. Every system of transportation 
in this country, roadways, airlines, freight, rail, and ports and 
harbors have had a public partnership, and there is a subsidy in them. 
And to think that we would not do anything less than that for rail in 
this country, for passenger rail, makes no sense.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support these good measures for all of 
the right reasons.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

[[Page H5227]]

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Mica, 
yielding to me.
  I rise in support today of H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment 
Improvement Act, because we can't afford our Nation's rail service to 
fail. Our economy depends on it, and the September 11 terrorist attacks 
made clear that our country can't rely on one mode of interstate public 
transportation.
  Amtrak hasn't succeeded because it is underfunded, its line serves 
too many areas which don't need service, its customer service is poor, 
and it lacks imagination and creativity.
  I am pleased this legislation begins to address Amtrak's funding 
needs by providing more funding for capital improvements in operations 
and encouraging private sector participation, which I think is huge.
  I do, however, have concerns about writing Amtrak a check with no 
strings attached. Increased financial reports must be linked to the 
reforms. We must take a hard look at profitable lines across the 
country, and we must have a clearer sense of Amtrak's business plan.
  Mr. Chairman, the inconvenient truth is the transportation 
infrastructure in our country is broken. We have not maintained our 
commitment to our roads and highways and public transportation systems, 
and as a result, our transportation system, particularly rail, is 
failing. Making passenger rail a viable option for commuters will get 
cars off our congested highways, reduce the stress on our aging roads, 
and decrease oil consumption.

                              {time}  1130

  Another inconvenient truth is the rising cost of oil which is driving 
the cost of gasoline to new highs on a daily basis. Investing in energy 
efficient rail reduces our reliance on foreign oil and is a step in the 
direction towards energy independence, a step we should have been 
taking after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
  It is critical we conserve our fuel and develop the resources and 
technologies that will make us energy independent.
  We are at a crossroads regarding our transportation infrastructure. I 
believe the time is right for an increased commitment to efficiency, on 
our highways, in our public transportation systems, and in our 
consumption of oil and the use of energy.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6003. I commend 
Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Members Mica and Shuster 
for this bill.
  This bill provides a vision for the future of passenger rail in the 
U.S. It provides the necessary investments to modernize our antiquated 
system.
  Of special significance is section 217 which provides significant 
resources to Amtrak and to the States to address key chokepoints that 
slow down travel and commerce and cause unnecessary pollution from 
stalled trains. Illinois has already dedicated more funding to improve 
Amtrak's service. So I am pleased that the committee report addresses 
several critical bottlenecks reported by Amtrak that affect Illinois 
residents, including the Heritage Corridor line, which links Chicago to 
Joliet, as well other key routes from Chicago to Carbondale, Detroit, 
Michigan, and Porter, Indiana.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6003 puts American passenger rail back on track, 
and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues and Amtrak 
to improve and expand passenger rail service in our country. I urge 
passage of this visionary bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 12 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Minnesota has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. I have at this time no further speakers. I will reserve the 
balance of my time for my closing remarks and whatever time that Mr. 
Oberstar chooses to take, or if he needs additional time, I will be 
glad to assist him.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008 is a great piece of legislation. I want to 
commend Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Corrine Brown. I know how hard 
you worked on this the last several years, both of you, and of course, 
Ranking Member Mica and Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania.
  The need for a strong, national passenger railroad system grows 
daily. The price of oil has reached $140 per barrel.
  On the ground, congestion on our interstates mounts with increases of 
commuters and the movement of goods. In the air, many of our Nation's 
airlines are cutting back the number of planes and, therefore, the 
capacity by 10 to 20 percent. The American people need and deserve an 
alternative to driving their automobiles and traveling by airplane.
  This legislation would bolster the fortunes of our intercity 
passenger rail system and put Amtrak on the path to success.
  In addition to procuring new rolling stock and meeting its labor 
commitments, under this bill Amtrak would be able to make needed 
improvements to the heavily trafficked Northeast Corridor, NEC.
  My home State of New Jersey and Amtrak have had an interesting, 
symbiotic relationship. The Northeast Corridor rail operations are 
important for New Jersey's economic growth and our competitiveness, as 
the NEC is the spine for New Jersey Transit's commuter rail system. 
Both Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica have come, seen. They understand what 
the situation is in terms of our relationship to economic growth. 
Eighty percent of all New Jersey Transit riders use the Northeast 
Corridor, nearly 200,000 daily trips.
  New Jersey Transit is the major operator on the NEC, operating 385 
trains per day to Newark, New York, and the 30th Street Philadelphia 
Station, as compared to Amtrak's 110 daily trains.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Accordingly, the State of New Jersey has invested more 
than $1.8 billion in the NEC for Amtrak stations like the Newark 
Airport Station, as well as for capital investments that benefit both 
Amtrak and New Jersey.
  This is a great relationship. New Jersey's putting up its money, and 
the Federal Government now is leveraging that money. This is what it is 
all about, if we could get States to partner in what we're trying to 
do. That's why I commend the leadership on both sides.
  New Jersey has a major interest in the success of the corridor. This 
stake will increase going forward as we work with Amtrak, the FTA, the 
FRA to build this critical infrastructure. The new tunnel that we're 
going to invest in through the Hudson River is just another way.
  I want to thank both sides for this great legislation. I wish you 
both well.
  Mr. MICA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar), and before the gentleman, I yield myself 10 
seconds to observe that the gentleman who just spoke representing New 
Jersey, New Jersey is the only State in America to have achieved a mode 
shift of 10 percent of all travel by transit. If the rest of America 
would do that, we would save 550 million barrels of oil a year, the 
amount we import from Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding, and I would like to recognize him as a real leader in our 
rail transportation system. Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Brown and 
Ranking Member Mica and our Ranking Member Shuster, I want to thank you 
for your exceptional work and leadership on this important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6003, the Passenger 
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 and urge swift passage on 
this measure.
  H.R. 6003 is long overdue, and it has been nearly 11 years since 
Congress has authorized funding for Amtrak. And without sufficient 
funds, Amtrak has

[[Page H5228]]

been forced to operate with its hands tied. Maintenance and legacy 
projects have been delayed, and salaries have been frozen, and 
infrastructure has been deteriorating.
  Improving our passenger rail system is critical. It will mean better 
service reliability, reduced trip times, added capacity, and less 
congested highways.
  I am also pleased that this bill addresses high-speed rail. A number 
of us had the opportunity to travel with Chairman DeFazio and 
Chairwoman Brown and Ranking Member Mica to Europe several months ago, 
where we saw the advancements that have been made in various modes of 
transportation, notably high-speed rail. I think it is unacceptable 
that this country is so far behind other countries in this area.
  We also saw how public and private partnerships work to be 
successful. Given the current budget constraints, we need to keep all 
funding options on the table, including these partnerships.
  H.R. 6003 is a good bill that will allow for necessary improvements 
to be made to our Nation's transportation network. Hopefully, some day, 
we can have a high-speed rail system that will connect Denver to Grand 
Junction and all the ski areas in between. It will connect Fort 
Collins, the Pueblo, along the front range of Colorado.
  I carefully support this beautiful piece of bipartisan legislation, 
and Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for your strong leadership. I 
am proud to be a member of this bipartisan committee that works to 
improve America's transportation problems.
  Mr. MICA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in support of this bill to reauthorize Amtrak, create a State 
grant program for intercity passenger rail, and invest in high-speed 
rail corridors. I want to thank the chairman, Jim Oberstar, and Corrine 
Brown and Ranking Members Mica and Shuster for moving this bill, which 
is long overdue.
  For years, Amtrak has been underfunded and threatened with 
bankruptcy. For the last several years, Amtrak has received just enough 
money to maintain its system while many critical capital improvements 
have had to be postponed. As of 2005, Amtrak had a backlog of $4.2 
billion in capital investments, which rises to $6 billion if you 
include the necessary bridge and tunnel improvements. Even with 
adequate funding, it will probably take 10 years to complete the work 
to bring the system into a state of good repair.
  We cannot afford to play catchup with our rail transportation system, 
certainly not as gas prices continue to skyrocket. We have to look for 
ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. We 
should be shifting people from cars and airplanes onto rail.
  This bill is also of particular benefit to the Northeast and to New 
York. In addition to the investments in the Northeast Corridor, the 
bill authorizes $2.5 billion for a new State capital grant program for 
intercity passenger rail projects. I am particularly thankful to the 
committee for structuring this program so that projects such as the 
Moynihan Station project in New York City are eligible to apply for 
these grants. Penn Station in my district is the largest station in the 
passenger rail network and is the hub of the Northeast Corridor. It is 
basically at capacity. If we are to increase rail traffic, we have to 
look beyond just the track space between cities to improving the 
stations at the end of the line. I would like to thank Chairman 
Oberstar for working with us to ensure that the language was written in 
such a way that projects like Moynihan Station are eligible.
  Investing in high-speed rail is an urgent issue. We must accelerate 
investment in our rail infrastructure. This bill finally starts to 
authorize rail investments at an adequate level. It makes eminent sense 
as part of a rational energy and transportation policy. I urge all of 
my colleagues to support it.
  I thank again the chairman and the ranking member.
  Mr. MICA. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the chairman from Minnesota; the chairwoman, Ms. 
Brown; of course, our ranking members, Mr. Mica and Mr. Shuster, for 
the leadership that they provided in moving this bill from committee 
and bringing it down to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6003, the 
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.
  I also would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for including in the 
manager's amendment a proposed amendment both Ruben Hinojosa and myself 
have, and I thank them.
  The proposed amendment that is part of the manager's amendment would 
charge the Department of Transportation with studying the feasibility 
of extending the South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor from San 
Antonio into south Texas.
  South Texas is home to a large population that is a great distance 
removed from the City of San Antonio. Laredo, my hometown as an 
example, has been identified as the fastest growing city in the State 
of Texas, the second fastest growing city in the United States.
  South of San Antonio we have four counties in the Rio Grande Valley 
that boasts a population that's larger than nine States. The State Data 
Center projects that the population of the greater Laredo and greater 
McAllen areas will more than double in the next 2 decades.
  With the high price of gas and the large geographic distance that 
separates many of the towns in south Texas, the presence of high-speed 
rail will make a significant impact on the mobility of south Texans. 
The presence of high-speed rail in this rapidly expanding region will 
provide south Texas with greater access and mobility, and I look 
forward to working with the Department of Transportation to explore 
those options.
  Again, I want to thank you. I applaud the efforts of Chairman 
Oberstar and his leadership and the ranking members for their 
leadership.
  I thank the Chairman from Minnesota and I thank the Gentleman and 
Ranking Member Mica for the leadership in moving this bill through 
committee and bringing it to the floor.
  Ms. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6003, the 
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.
  This legislation will bring much needed relief and reform to our rail 
systems by increasing capital and operating grants to Amtrak, 
developing State Passenger Corridor, and working to Reduce Amtrak's 
debt.
  I would also like to thank the Chairman for including in the 
manager's amendment the proposed amendment submitted by me.
  South Texas is home to a large population that is a great distance 
removed from the city of San Antonio.
  The City of Laredo, the closest major metropolitan area south of San 
Antonio, is 150 miles away from San Antonio.
  Laredo has been identified as the fastest growing city in Texas, and 
the second fastest growing city in the United States.
  The City of Laredo is home to the largest inland port in the nation 
through which 40 percent of goods trucked into the U.S. are inspected 
and allowed to pass.
  The State of Data Center projects that the population in the greater 
Laredo area will double in the next couple of decades.
  For these reasons, it is my intent that the Secretary consider a 
south Texas Connection such as the City of Laredo as the location for a 
potential new connection to the south Central High Speed Rail Corridor.
  With the high price of gas and the large geographic distance that 
separates many towns in South Texas, the presence of high speed rail 
will make a significant impact on my constituents.
  My proposed amendment would charge the Department of Transportation 
with studying the feasibility of extending the South Central High-Speed 
Rail Corridor to serve the burgeoning population south of San Antonio.
  I believe that the presence of high-speed rail in the rapidly 
expending area in South Texas will provide my constituents with a new 
way to travel, and I look forward to working with the Department of 
Transportation to explore these options.
  Mr. MICA. Continuing to reserve, and I would be glad to yield some 
time to the other side if they do need it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. May I inquire how much time remains on both sides, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 4 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Florida continues to have 12 minutes remaining.

[[Page H5229]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts to engage in a discussion about Amtrak.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill, 
the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, and I want to 
congratulate the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and also the ranking member 
for their great work on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with you. As you know, I 
submitted an amendment on this bill earlier in the week related to 
security training for Amtrak frontline employees. I have been 
encouraged to withdraw the amendment in order to expedite consideration 
of this bill, which is very important and which I support. However, I 
remain troubled by one underlying issue.
  As evidenced by the terrorist attacks against rail systems in Madrid 
and in London and in Moscow and in Tokyo and Mumbai, and 3 days ago in 
Algeria, terrorists have demonstrated their intent to continue to 
target public transit systems as a favored tactic against civilian 
populations.
  In response to this continued threat, Congress in the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue 
comprehensive rail and transit worker training directives to prepare 
our rail workers and transit workers to prevent and respond to 
potential terrorist attacks against our public transit systems.

                              {time}  1145

  With respect to railroad employees, the law required the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to develop and issue security training regulations by 
last February, 4 months ago, so that each carrier could develop a 
training program based on this guidance.
  Regrettably, however, and this gets to the issue of my amendment, the 
Secretary has failed to comply with the 9/11 Act's rail worker training 
directives and has not issued a single mandated regulation. Worse yet, 
this missed deadline comes on the heels of yet another missed deadline 
by the Department on issuing interim training regulations for transit 
workers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. LYNCH. If the locomotive engineers, security personnel, our 
dispatchers, our conductors, train workers and rail workers don't 
understand what our plan is in the event of an attack, then we really 
don't have a plan.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of the continued reports from our Nation's 
front line rail workers, I respectfully ask you to join me in sending a 
letter to the Amtrak Inspector General asking him to conduct a review 
of the current state of security training provided to front line Amtrak 
employees. It is my understanding that the Inspector General would 
welcome this responsibility.
  I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate the gentleman raising this issue. It's a 
matter of very deep concern to us on the committee. It goes to the 
heart of safety and security on our domestic passenger rail system. I 
certainly will join enthusiastically with the gentleman in making this 
request to the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to congratulate you on the 
great work on this bill. I do want to encourage my colleagues to 
support the underlying bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his concern.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to insert in the 
Record a letter by the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials, commonly known as AASHTO, in support of the 
measure and also a letter from the Association of American Railroads in 
support of this measure.
         American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
           Officials,
                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2008.
     Hon. John L. Mica,
     Ranking Republican Member, Transportation and Infrastructure 
         Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Mica: On behalf of the Standing Committee 
     on Rail Transportation and the Intercity Passenger Rail 
     Leadership Group of the American Association of State Highway 
     and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), I am writing to 
     support House passage of H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail 
     Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.
       The States have been leading the way in developing rail 
     corridors through investment in capital projects to increase 
     capacity, reduce travel times and improve on-time 
     performance. In addition, 14 states support intercity 
     passenger rail through payment of operating costs on 
     additional frequencies on routes. According to a survey by 
     AASHTO, at least 35 states are developing intercity passenger 
     rail plans for additional future service. I would like to 
     thank you for including funding for the intercity passenger 
     rail capital grant program to assist states in improving 
     infrastructure on intercity passenger rail routes.
       As you know, intercity passenger rail ridership across the 
     United States is on the rise in part due to congestion on the 
     highways and at the airports and the rising cost of gasoline. 
     Having another truly viable transportation option in 
     intercity passenger rail will give consumers another choice 
     in both business and leisure travel and a choice that is the 
     most environmentally friendly. Intercity Passenger Rail 
     consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger mile than 
     airlines and 21 percent less per passenger mile than 
     automobiles. The average intercity passenger rail train 
     produces 60 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions per 
     passenger mile than the average auto, and half the carbon 
     dioxide emissions per passenger mile of an airplane.
       For too long, intercity passenger rail has been an 
     underutilized mode in our national transportation system. 
     With this historic legislation, you will make intercity 
     passenger rail competitive and marketable to an anxious 
     public. The time for intercity passenger rail investment is 
     now. I commend you for your leadership and for moving this 
     legislation so quickly and pledge my support to the effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Astrid C. Glynn,
     Chair.
                                  ____

                                                    Association of


                                           American Railroads,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2008.
       Dear Representative: The House of Representatives is 
     scheduled to consider H.R. 6003, the ``Passenger Rail 
     Investment and Improvement Act of 2008'' on the floor today. 
     The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is writing to 
     urge you to support the bill.
       H.R. 6003 would authorize capital grants to help Amtrak 
     bring the Northeast Corridor to a state-of-good-repair, 
     procure new rolling stock, rehabilitate existing bridges, and 
     make additional capital improvements and maintenance over its 
     entire network. The bill would also provide congestion grants 
     to Amtrak and the States for high-priority rail corridors in 
     order to reduce congestion and facilitate ridership growth.
       AAR commends the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure for introducing and 
     reporting this important bill. We urge the full House to 
     approve H.R. 6003.
           Sincerely,
                                              Edward R. Hamberger,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. Chairman, as we conclude debate today, I do consider this an 
historic debate. You've heard other Members say they've been here for 
decades and they've never seen a resolution of some of the problems in 
the debate about Amtrak. Today, working together in a bipartisan 
fashion, you are seeing what we can do. This is what we can do and we 
can make this work because we combine the best of the proposals. And 
that's what the Founding Fathers really created this institution for.
  We heard Mr. Costa from California come and speak in favor from the 
Democrat side. We heard from Mr. LaTourette from Ohio come and speak in 
favor. We heard Mr. Salazar from Colorado. We heard Mr. Shays from 
Connecticut. We heard Mr. Nadler from New York. So from basically sea 
to shining sea, you see support for this measure because it takes the 
best of what this institution can offer.
  I must take a moment to pay special tribute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota. Sometimes the good Lord has a special way of making things 
happen for people. Now he became the chairman after 32 years. I would 
have liked to have been the chairman rather than the ranking member, 
but how fitting for him after 32 years of working as a staffer, then a 
Member. When I came to Congress, he was chairman of the Aviation 
Subcommittee. The good Lord would have it in February of 2001 by sheer 
coincidence that would probably never be re-created, I became the 
chairman of Aviation through probably one of its most difficult times. 
We all worked together after 9/11. We kept the country safe, 
particularly in aviation which the enemy saw as our Achilles' heel. We 
did that by working together then and we're making a big change in this 
country today by working together to bring high-speed rail for the

[[Page H5230]]

first time in the history of this country--the first time, folks--and 
we took again the best ideas and melded them together through the 
efforts of everyone on the committee. I want to thank the staff. The 
staff has done a tremendous job in trying to work on this issue.
  Let me say, too, that this proposal for high-speed rail and making it 
work isn't my idea. I like to borrow other people's good ideas. It's 
interesting that Richard Branson who created Virgin Air, which many 
people have heard of, he also bought the two north-south lines in 
England that go north and south. He instituted private investment in 
that line. He expanded employment, put in new equipment and expanded 
passenger service there. He's paid a dividend the last 5 years in that 
high-speed service and is actually on his way to almost eliminating the 
Federal subsidy the U.K. subsidy. Even Romania is privatizing its rail. 
So it's not improper that the United States, the bastion of free 
enterprise, now takes this important step. And it's not all about 
privatization because it is a public-private partnership.
  Let me say to our friends, our brothers and sisters in labor, that 
some of them support this, some have questions about it, but all of the 
workers, whether it's a private system or Amtrak or combination, are 
guaranteed protections in this. For the first time they can see hope of 
an expanding rather than a contracting industry. When I came 16 years 
ago, the employment in Amtrak was 28,000. Today it's 19,000 and going 
down. The people want this service across the United States and will 
partner with this service so they have that great opportunity.
  The American people aren't interested in us arguing and coming up 
here and making headlines of charges and countercharges and not getting 
anything done. The American people are facing $4 gasoline prices. 
They're not facing options like Europeans and Asians have to get around 
their country. We should have that here in the United States because 
we're the most innovative, creative and entrepreneurial people the good 
Lord ever put on the face of this earth. So, yes, I believe we can make 
this work. I thank so much the gentleman from Minnesota. John Brennan 
is not with us, one of our staffers. He left last Friday and took a job 
in the private sector. I want to pay tribute to John Brennan who left 
the minority side for the private sector. He worked hard over the years 
to try to make this happen, too.
  To the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Brown), to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), to everyone who made this day possible and staff, I thank you 
for your hard work and good efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  How much time do I have?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Minnesota has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MICA. Is it possible for me to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
  Mr. MICA. I want to make sure I do everything by the rules, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman can yield directly to the gentlewoman.
  Mr. MICA. Then I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Florida for the time.
  At the outset, I would like also to express my congratulations to our 
chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and Rail Subcommittee Chairwoman Brown of 
Florida for their good works on the bill and also the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). 
It is a good bill that will have an immediate impact on improving the 
mobility of Americans all across the country.
  I would particularly like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman 
Brown for working with me to include a provision that requests the 
Secretary to examine the feasibility of expanding the South Central 
Rail Corridor to Houston, Texas.
  Passenger rail lowers American fuel consumption because it's more 
energy efficient than both cars and airplanes. Intercity passenger rail 
consumes 21 percent less energy per passenger mile than automobiles and 
17 percent less energy per passenger mile than airlines. Passenger rail 
also reduces global warming because it cuts in half the carbon dioxide 
impact per passenger over cars and airplanes, meaning that expanding 
passenger rail will reduce global warming.
  The average intercity passenger rail train produces 60 percent lower 
carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile than the average automobile 
and 50 percent lower emissions than the average airplane. This bill is 
not only good energy policy, it is also good transportation policy. 
Intercity passenger rail is an increasingly necessary alternative to 
highway and air travel, as congestion grows in many regions of the 
country. For example, Amtrak removes 8 million cars from the road each 
year.
  At a time when gas prices continue to skyrocket, the demand by 
commuters and other travelers for cost-efficient public transportation 
systems, including passenger rail, is growing rapidly. This critical 
bill will help meet this growing need.
  I urge my colleagues to support this sound bipartisan piece of 
legislation.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. MICA. Again how much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. Am I allowed to give Mr. Oberstar 2\1/2\ minutes or 3 
minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield his remaining time, but not 
control thereof.
  Mr. MICA. Let me just conclude by again thanking folks. Around this 
place it is very difficult to bring new ideas forward. I've said in the 
past that sometimes trying to get a new idea through Congress is like 
giving birth to a porcupine. I can't say that this has been the easiest 
task we have undertaken, but we have given birth today to a new idea.
  And the answer is not to just say ``no,'' or to zero out a program 
that is so essential to this country. The answer is to come up with a 
positive solution, a positive solution for energy. And today, again, 
when gas is $4.05 a gallon, this gives some little hope, but it is 
probably the biggest thing that we are going to do. And it will have 
the greatest positive impact on America's environment and its energy 
needs of anything we have done this session.
  So I am pleased at this time to yield time to Mr. Oberstar. How much 
time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to Chairman Oberstar.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota will be recognized for an 
additional 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And again I express 
my great appreciation for the many hours of consultation that we have 
had between the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from 
Florida, and myself, and with Mr. Shuster and myself, and with Ms. 
Brown. Mr. Mica has been a vigorous advocate for high-speed rail 
passenger service with changes, with changes in the way we conduct the 
business of passenger rail service in America. And as he said, this 
wasn't easy. But if it were easy, they wouldn't need us. They wouldn't 
need Congress if things were all easy.
  But the point of the legislative process is to be open, to be 
receptive, to think constructively, to trust that the ideas advanced by 
one or the other side are set forth in earnest pursuit of a valid 
public purpose goal. And that has been a long tradition of this 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the principal reason 
that we have succeeded over so many years in being the building 
committee of the Congress.
  The gentleman from Connecticut said that there weren't reforms or 
deplored the lack of significant reform in this legislation. I just 
want to say we have management improvement. It is requiring a financial 
accounting system for Amtrak operations and a 5-year financial plan 
monitored by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, an 
overall assessment being to be done by the Inspector General, progress 
made by Amtrak management and by DOT in implementing the provisions of 
the bill. We direct the Secretary of Treasury, and there has been

[[Page H5231]]

a consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and Amtrak, to 
negotiate restructuring of Amtrak's debt. We include a corporate 
governance provision restructuring Amtrak's board, expanding the board 
to ten persons serving 5-year terms and requiring that the President 
consult with Congress to ensure balanced representation of regions 
served by Amtrak in that board, and to have rail transportation or 
business background among those members.
  In consultation with the Service Transportation Board and Federal 
Railroad Administration, Amtrak is required to develop standards for 
measuring performance of quality of intercity train operations, 
including cost recovery, on time performance, ridership per train mile, 
on board and station services and interconnectivity of routes and 
requires the DOT IG to evaluate performance and service quality of 
intercity passenger rail service and identify the five worst performing 
Amtrak routes from which then IG will recommend a process for the DOT 
to consider proposals for competitive service by the private sector to 
Amtrak on that route.
  Those are significant reforms. And I invite the attention of the 
gentleman from Connecticut, and I will send him the specifics that I 
just mentioned.
  We are ready to move ahead with the balance of this bill. This is an 
exciting opportunity. This is the beginning of the transformation of 
passenger rail service in America. It is not going to lead us tomorrow 
to the Grande Vitesse, the TGV of France, or the Talgo of Spain, or the 
ICE of Germany, or the Shinkansen of Japan, or the 220-mile-per-hour 
train service between Beijing and Shanghai in China. But it will put us 
on a course to get there, to achieve those speeds over those distances.
  When I traveled, as a student, to begin graduate studies in 1956 at 
the College of Europe, from Paris to Brussels, the trip was 6 hours. 
Today that trip is 80 minutes. There is no air service, no commercial 
air passenger service between the capital of Europe, Brussels, and the 
Capital of France, Paris. But there is a train leaving every 3 minutes 
in each direction with 1,100 passengers on board traveling at 184 miles 
per hour, all day long from 6 in the morning until midnight.
  We should be able to achieve that kind of service on the east coast. 
We should be able to achieve that kind of service in the Southwest, as 
was referenced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar). We should be 
able to do that in California, as was referenced by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa), and in the Pacific Northwest and in the 
Southeast of the United States. And this bill will put us on a track to 
do that.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, restoring passenger rail service to 
one of the most densely-populated urban corridors in Ohio . . . 
Cleveland-Columbus Cincinnati . . . is an idea beyond overdue at the 
station. This corridor is at the heart of a potentially vibrant 
passenger rail system in Ohio, a fact borne out by a number of studies 
dating back as far as the 1980's.
  Public demand is growing for transportation choices in Ohio. 
Significant anecdotal evidence around the United States suggests that 
even basic passenger rail service such as this would draw heavy 
ridership and grow the demand for more service.
  Today, the reality of ever-higher gasoline prices and their impact on 
the everyday mobility of our fellow Ohioans and on Ohio's economy makes 
the restoration of rail passenger service in Ohio a critical 
transportation need.
  We are hearing from our constituents increasingly that ``pain at the 
pump'' leaves them few or only expensive options to travel on business, 
and to access everything from education to jobs to medical care.
  Since January 2007 alone, the average price of unleaded gas in 
Cleveland has gone up 72 percent. In some cases, Ohioans are seeing 
more and more of their incomes going to feed their car and cutting into 
other life necessities
  A recent study by the Ohio Rail Association discussed the economic 
impact that high-speed rail would have on Ohio and the surrounding 
region. Here are just a few statistics:
  A seven corridor high speed rail systems in Ohio would save $9.4 
million in fuel per year. There would be approximately 1.1 million 
annual riders just out of Cleveland alone by 2025. It would provide 
16,700 permanent jobs as well as 6,100 temporary jobs to build the rail 
system.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the passage of this bill to 
move Amtrak forward with high speed rail.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
6003, the Passenger Rail investment and Improvement Act of 2008.
  Since coming to Congress, I have been a strong supporter of Amtrak 
because of the benefits it brings, including congestion and 
environmental emissions relief. It continues to produce almost 20,000 
jobs, services more than 25.8 million passengers, and provides a 
significant transportation link for communities in my congressional 
district and throughout the Nation.
  In H.R. 6003, we authorize more than $14.4 billion for Amtrak capital 
and operating grants, state intercity passenger grants, and high-speed 
rail over the next five years. Further, we provide $1.75 billion for 
grants to states to finance construction and equipment for 11 
authorized high-speed rail corridors, including the St. Louis-Chicago 
corridor.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Brown for 
working with me to include a provision that allows previous State 
investments for capital and operating Amtrak to be used toward the 
required 20% local match. The bill allows for States to use half of 
what they put into Amtrak in operating and capital investments toward 
their local match. Illinois has made significant investments in recent 
years into Amtrak and the language will help Illinois and other states 
continue to provide and expand service.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 6003 and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the reauthorization 
of Amtrak. This bipartisan bill authorizes $14.4 billion over five 
years and is Amtrak's first full reauthorization since 1997. The bill 
includes $4.2 billion for capital grants, $3 billion for operations, 
and $1.75 billion over five years for grants for high-speed rail 
corridors. This marks a major step in the right direction at a time 
when consumers around the country are struggling with high gasoline 
prices and limited transportation options.
  At the same time, I am sobered by Chairman Oberstar's remarks 
highlighting a European initiative to spend $350 billion on their rail 
system. Over the past decade, the United States, by contrast, has 
barely doled out enough resources to allow Amtrak to limp along. Our 
Nation must invest in our infrastructure if we expect to remain 
competitive. This bill takes the first steps in that direction. I would 
support further action to expand and improve intercity passenger 
service in the United States.
  In Oregon, the state transportation department partners with Amtrak 
to provide service along the Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, BC 
corridor, a federally-designated high speed rail corridor, known as the 
Cascades line. While Oregon and Washington pay for the Cascades 
service, Amtrak operates the train, and this arrangement has proven to 
be a very successful partnership.
  Ridership on the Oregon segment of the line, which has two daily 
roundtrip trains, has nearly quadrupled since it was initiated in 1994, 
rising to over 130,000 passengers in 2006. Total ridership on the 
Cascades service rose over 7 percent last year, reaching 674,000 
passengers, making the Northwest high speed rail corridor the seventh 
most heavily traveled in the country. With gas prices high, ridership 
on the corridor for the first quarter of 2008 is up 14.4 percent 
compared to the first quarter of 2007. This train service is an 
important part of the region's transportation system on the congested 
1-5 corridor.
  As successful as the Cascades service is, however, reaching its full 
potential will require additional investments in the rail line to allow 
Oregon and Amtrak to increase the frequency and reliability of service. 
The authorization of capital grants for this purpose will provide 
needed system upgrades and will strengthen this successful partnership.
  I am also supportive of Congressman Oberstar's manager's amendment, 
which allows for grants to create bike storage on Amtrak trains. Much 
of the increased ridership in Oregon and around the country is a result 
of people changing their work commutes to include public 
transportation. Many commuters, however, still need their bikes to get 
to and from the train stations, or for transportation at their 
destination. By equipping our trains with bike storage we offer people 
more choices and we do so in a way that is efficient, economical, and 
good for the environment.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, today I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 
2008. I am glad to see this bill on the House floor, as it shows a 
commitment by this Congress to strengthening and improving America's 
passenger rail system and moving Amtrak forward.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. This bill 
includes development of new intercity passenger rail services, 
including $500 million per year to states to cover the capital costs of 
investing in new intercity passenger rail services. By investing in new 
rail

[[Page H5232]]

infrastructure, this legislation creates jobs, increases tourism and 
spurs economic development in the communities impacted by new rail 
service.
  In Iowa's First District, this bill will help fund two new routes 
that would both increase rail services and provide economic benefits. 
The routes between Chicago and the Quad Cities and Chicago to Dubuque, 
Iowa would encourage economic development in both Iowa and Illinois, 
while creating local jobs and decreasing traffic and congestion. Both 
of these routes would provide another piece to a new transportation 
corridor through the center of the country, which would be beneficial 
for business and recreation from coast-to-coast.
  I am also glad to see Section 220 up for House passage today that 
includes the `Study of the Use of Biobased Lubricants.' This language 
instructs the Federal Railroad Administration to issue a report on the 
feasibility of using readily biodegradable lubricants by freight and 
passenger railroads, partly through comparisons of these lubricants 
with the petroleum-based lubricants traditionally used. The National 
Ag-Based Lubricants Center (NABL) at the University of Northern Iowa 
would be a perfect partner for the Federal Railroad Administration in 
this study, as NABL's expertise and resources in biobased lubricants is 
unmatched, and it is the only entity whose primary mission is the 
research and testing of agricultural-based lubricants.
  I thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Brown, and the rest of 
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for their work on this 
legislation, and I look forward to seeing these important changes 
becoming law.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, authored by my 
friend and colleague, Chairman James Oberstar of Minnesota. As a New 
Yorker, I strongly support making travel easier, safer, and more 
affordable for my constituents and for all Americans who choose this 
method of travel. This bill mandates that preference be given to rail 
projects that have high levels of projected ridership and punctuality 
which will include the development of a high speed rail project between 
Washington and New York City. H.R. 6003 serves to improve not only the 
quality of service on the most popular rail line in the country, but 
also will increase the availability and accessibility of mass transit 
to individuals. In this era of skyrocketing energy costs and global 
warming, encouraging the development of efficient mass transit options 
is very important to improve our economy and protect our environment.
  As a frequent Amtrak user, I know how important it is for rail 
service in the Northeast Corridor to be in a constant state of ``good 
repair.'' I am sure that thousands of my fellow passengers, men and 
women traveling for business or personal reasons on this popular 
railway also will appreciate this requirement.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of final 
passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act and to 
commend Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Brown and Ranking Member Shuster for their leadership in 
constructing this bi-partisan bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 
2008--authorizes appropriations for Amtrak for FY2009-FY2013 and makes 
long overdue improvements and enhancements to the system. Millions of 
Americans rely on Amtrak and its local lines for everything from 
commuting to work to going on holiday. In 2007 alone, 28 million 
passengers rode Amtrak. Amtrak has become a critical part of the 
Nation's transportation infrastructure and every effort must be made to 
sustain the system as a safe and reliable source of transportation.
  This bill authorizes $14.5 billion for commuter rail transit 
enhancements, a high-speed rail service route between New York and 
Washington, DC, and contains important reforms and operational 
enhancement. The bill also contains needed accountability measures and 
capital improvement funding.
  To increase accountability, the bill requires Amtrak to implement a 
modern financial accounting and reporting system. Amtrak must also 
submit an annual budget and business plan.
  With the passage of the Davis/Van Hollen/Hoyer amendment regarding 
WMATA, the bill also provides a more reliable source of funding for 
maintenance and improvement projects in the Washington, DC Metro area.
  We all know that the Federal Government relies heavily on the Metro 
system to bring thousands of its employees to work each day: employees 
of our national security agencies, employees of the Department of 
Health and Human Services, and all the other Federal agencies that help 
provide services to the American people. But, the Metro system is also 
a critical link in any evacuation plan of the Nation's capital.
  These are just a couple of the reasons the Federal government has 
invested billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in WMATA construction and 
maintenance projects over the years. Since WMATA's creation, keeping 
the Metro up and running has become a national priority.
  The Davis/Van Hollen/Hoyer amendment helps ensure the Metro remains a 
reliable source of transportation for Federal employees by authorizing 
$150 million a year in matching funds for ten years to help WMATA pay 
for critical improvement and maintenance. But, importantly, these 
matching funds can only be accessed when the local jurisdictions of 
Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia contribute their own 
funds from a dedicated source.
  Currently, the Federal Government is at the whim of local 
jurisdictions on a year-to-year basis, as to whether they will uphold 
their part of this long-term Federal-local funding partnership 
regarding WMATA.
  Our amendment specifically states that funds authorized in the 
legislation cannot be available until WMATA notifies the Department of 
Transportation that local jurisdictions have established a reliable 
source of funds to pay their share of Metro operating and maintenance 
costs.
  Over the years, Amtrak has proven it is a critical and growing part 
of the country's transportation infrastructure. Last May, Amtrak 
ridership rose 12.3 percent from a year earlier, and ticket sales 
climbed 15.6 percent. Despite continued growth, Amtrak has not been 
reauthorized since 1997.
  With the passage of this bill, we have an opportunity to end 8 years 
of starvation budgets that have strained Amtrak resources, frozen 
salaries and delayed capital improvements.
  I encourage my colleagues to support final passage of this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6003, the 
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, legislation that 
would authorize $14.9 billion in funding for Amtrak over the next 5 
years.
  Rail service has integrated small communities with large cities 
across the country providing opportunity for economic expansion, 
increased mobility, and environmentally sound transit. Since Amtrak was 
founded in 1971, our country has benefited from organized, reliable and 
safe service to individuals commuting to and from work and individuals 
using rail service for extended travel. With the skyrocketing costs of 
airline flights and gas prices at over $4 a gallon, individuals are 
relying more and more on rail service.
  It is no exaggeration to say that rail service is the lifeline from 
which New Jersey's state economy draws nourishment. Our region's 
employers--small, medium, and large--depend upon an integrated rail 
operation to enable many of their employees to get to and from work. 
Clients, potential clients, and business partners use the train to come 
to New Jersey. Our local entrepreneurs use Amtrak to pitch their ideas 
and sell their products outside of our home state.
  For the last 12 years, Amtrak has been suffering from a lack of 
federal support and for the last 6 years it has been operating without 
Congressional authorization. In order to keep from going out of 
business, Amtrak was forced to delay necessary repairs and security 
improvements, freeze the salaries of its employees, rescind on employee 
pensions and go billions of dollars into debt. The legislation before 
us today would authorize the funding necessary to improve Amtrak's 
operations throughout the country and bring our country's rail service 
into the 21st Century.
  H.R. 6003 authorizes $14.9 billion for Amtrak over the next 5 years. 
$4.3 billion of which would be used for capital grants to help Amtrak 
afford to make necessary repairs and upgrades to the Northeast 
Corridor. It would also allow Amtrak to procure new rolling stock, 
rehabilitate existing bridges, as well as make additional capital 
improvements and maintenance over its entire network.
  As a regular Amtrak rider, I appreciate the professionalism and 
service that customers enjoy every day. Amtrak's hard working 
employees, including the over 1,300 employed in New Jersey, have 
continued to provide high quality service despite Amtrak's payroll 
freezes and pension problems. The Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act would provide Amtrak with $3 billion in operating 
grants, which would help Amtrak make good on its promises to these 
employees. A portion of these funds would be used to pay employees 
salaries, health costs, and overtime pay. It would also help Amtrak pay 
for increasing fuel costs, facilities, maintenance and train 
operations.
  This legislation would also create a new State Capital Grant program 
to provide grants for States for intercity passenger rail capital 
projects. In New Jersey the demand for public transportation has 
skyrocketed, with NJ Transit providing 900,000 trips per weekday on its 
trains, buses and light-rail vehicles. H.R. 6003 would authorize over 
$2.5 billion in grants to states over the next 5 years to help 
organizations like NJ Transit pay for the capital costs

[[Page H5233]]

of facilities and the equipment necessary to provide new or improved 
intercity passenger rail.
  The Passenger Rail Investment Reauthorization Act would provide $1.7 
billion annually to help Amtrak pay off the debt it incurred when 
Congress drastically cut its funding in 2000 and 2001. Amtrak has 
aggressively targeted this debt, paying down $600 million from 2002 
through 2007. This bill would help Amtrak take further steps to reduce 
its debt, and allow Amtrak to focus its resources on improving existing 
services and making additional capital and operational improvements.
  H.R. 6003 would bring American passenger rail into the 21st century, 
authorizing $1.7 billion for the construction of eleven high-speed rail 
network spanning the entire Nation. The first of which would be a high-
speed rail corridor between Washington, D.C. and New York City. 
Countries like France, England and Japan have greatly improved the 
experience of commuters through the utilization of high speed 
corridors. This would lead to more efficient public transportation and 
help the over 1.5 million New Jerseyans who use Amtrak spend less time 
commuting and more time at home with their families.
  Supporting public transportation especially passenger rail, should be 
a crucial element of our national effort to slow the rate of global 
climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign fuels. Passenger 
rail consumes 21 percent less energy per passenger mile than 
automobiles and 17 percent less than airplanes. It releases half the 
amount of greenhouse gases per passenger mile as both air and car 
travel. The continued operation of Amtrak is an essential component of 
easing traffic congestion, reducing wear and tear on roads, protecting 
our environment and preserving open space in New Jersey and across the 
country.
  Rail service is a fundamental component of our Nation's continually 
growing transportation system, and Amtrak has demonstrated the capacity 
of integrated rail service to expand economic opportunity, commuter 
options, and make vital contributions to the fabric of our communities. 
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6003.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 6003

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Passenger Rail Investment 
     and Improvement Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to a 
     section or other provision of law, the reference shall be 
     considered to be made to a section or other provision of 
     title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Amendment of title 49, United States Code.
Sec. 3. Table of contents.

                        TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 101. Authorization for Amtrak capital and operating expenses and 
              State capital grants.
Sec. 102. Repayment of long-term debt and capital leases.
Sec. 103. Other authorizations.
Sec. 104. Tunnel project.

          TITLE II--AMTRAK REFORM AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 201. National railroad passenger transportation system defined.
Sec. 202. Amtrak Board of Directors.
Sec. 203. Establishment of improved financial accounting system.
Sec. 204. Development of 5-year financial plan.
Sec. 205. Establishment of grant process.
Sec. 206. State-supported routes.
Sec. 207. Metrics and standards.
Sec. 208. Northeast Corridor state-of-good-repair plan.
Sec. 209. Northeast Corridor infrastructure and operations 
              improvements.
Sec. 210. Restructuring long-term debt and capital leases.
Sec. 211. Study of compliance requirements at existing intercity rail 
              stations.
Sec. 212. Oversight of Amtrak's compliance with accessibility 
              requirements.
Sec. 213. Access to Amtrak equipment and services.
Sec. 214. General Amtrak provisions.
Sec. 215. Amtrak management accountability.
Sec. 216. Passenger rail study.
Sec. 217. Congestion grants.
Sec. 218. Plan for restoration of service.
Sec. 219. Locomotive biofuel study.
Sec. 220. Study of the use of biobased lubricants.
Sec. 221. Applicability of Buy American Act.
Sec. 222. Intercity passenger rail service performance.
Sec. 223. Amtrak Inspector General utilization study.
Sec. 224. Amtrak service preference study.

               TITLE III--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL POLICY

Sec. 301. Capital assistance for intercity passenger rail service; 
              State rail plans.
Sec. 302. State rail plans.
Sec. 303. Next generation corridor train equipment pool.
Sec. 304. Rail cooperative research program.
Sec. 305. Passenger rail system comparison study.

              TITLE IV--COMMUTER RAIL TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT

Sec. 401. Commuter rail transit enhancement.

                        TITLE V--HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Sec. 501. High-speed rail corridor program.
Sec. 502. Additional high-speed projects.
Sec. 503. High-speed rail study.
Sec. 504. Grant conditions.

                        TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION FOR AMTRAK CAPITAL AND OPERATING 
                   EXPENSES AND STATE CAPITAL GRANTS.

       (a) Operating Grants.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for operating costs the following amounts:
       (1) For fiscal year 2009, $525,000,000.
       (2) For fiscal year 2010, $600,000,000.
       (3) For fiscal year 2011, $614,000,000.
       (4) For fiscal year 2012, $638,000,000.
       (5) For fiscal year 2013, $654,000,000.
       (b) Inspector General.--Out of the amounts authorized under 
     subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Transportation for the Office of the 
     Inspector General of Amtrak the following amounts:
       (1) For fiscal year 2009, $20,368,900.
       (2) For fiscal year 2010, $22,586,000.
       (3) For fiscal year 2011, $24,337,000.
       (4) For fiscal year 2012, $26,236,000.
       (5) For fiscal year 2013, $28,287,000.
       (c) Americans With Disabilities Act Compliance.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the use of Amtrak for compliance with the 
     requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) the following amounts:
       (1) For fiscal year 2009, $68,500,000.
       (2) For fiscal year 2010, $240,000,000.
       (3) For fiscal year 2011, $240,000,000.
       (4) For fiscal year 2012, $240,000,000.
       (5) For fiscal year 2013, $240,000,000.
       (d) Capital Grants.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use 
     of Amtrak for capital projects (as defined in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) of section 24401(2) of title 49, United States 
     Code) to bring the Northeast Corridor (as defined in section 
     24102(a)) to a state-of-good-repair, for capital expenses of 
     the national rail passenger transportation system, and for 
     purposes of making capital grants under section 24402 of that 
     title to States, the following amounts:
       (1) For fiscal year 2009, $1,202,000,000.
       (2) For fiscal year 2010, $1,321,000,000.
       (3) For fiscal year 2011, $1,321,000,000.
       (4) For fiscal year 2012, $1,427,000,000.
       (5) For fiscal year 2013, $1,427,000,000.
       (e) Amounts for State Grants.--Out of the amounts 
     authorized under subsection (d), the following percentage 
     shall be available each fiscal year for capital grants to 
     States under section 24402 of title 49, United States Code, 
     to be administered by the Secretary of Transportation:
       (1) 41.60 percent for fiscal year 2009.
       (2) 38 percent for fiscal year 2010.
       (3) 38 percent for fiscal year 2011.
       (4) 35 percent for fiscal year 2012.
       (5) 35 percent for fiscal year 2013.
       (f) Project Management Oversight.--The Secretary may 
     withhold up to \1/2\ of 1 percent of amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to subsection (d) for the costs of project 
     management oversight of capital projects carried out by 
     Amtrak.

     SEC. 102. REPAYMENT OF LONG-TERM DEBT AND CAPITAL LEASES.

       (a) Amtrak Principal and Interest Payments.--
       (1) Principal and interest on debt service.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the use of Amtrak for retirement of 
     principal and payment of interest on loans for capital 
     equipment, or capital leases, not more than the following 
     amounts:
       (A) For fiscal year 2009, $345,000,000.
       (B) For fiscal year 2010, $345,000,000.
       (C) For fiscal year 2011, $345,000,000.
       (D) For fiscal year 2012, $345,000,000.
       (E) For fiscal year 2013, $345,000,000.
       (2) Early buyout option.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation such sums as 
     may be necessary for the use of Amtrak for the payment of 
     costs associated with early buyout options if the exercise of 
     those options is determined to be advantageous to Amtrak.
       (3) Legal effect of payments under this section.--The 
     payment of principal and interest on secured debt, with the 
     proceeds of grants authorized by this section shall not--
       (A) modify the extent or nature of any indebtedness of the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation to the United States 
     in existence of the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) change the private nature of Amtrak's or its 
     successors' liabilities; or
       (C) imply any Federal guarantee or commitment to amortize 
     Amtrak's outstanding indebtedness.

     SEC. 103. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation--

[[Page H5234]]

       (1) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013 
     to carry out the rail cooperative research program under 
     section 24910 of title 49, United States Code; and
       (2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, to remain available 
     until expended, for grants to Amtrak and States participating 
     in the Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool 
     Committee established under section 303 of this Act for the 
     purpose of designing, developing specifications for, and 
     initiating the procurement of an initial order of 1 or more 
     types of standardized next-generation corridor train 
     equipment and establishing a jointly owned corporation to 
     manage that equipment.

     SEC. 104. TUNNEL PROJECT.

       (a) New Tunnel Alignment and Environmental Review.--Not 
     later than September 30, 2013, the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, working with Amtrak, the City of Baltimore, 
     State of Maryland, and rail operators described in subsection 
     (b), shall--
       (1) approve a new rail tunnel alignment in Baltimore that 
     will permit an increase in train speed and service 
     reliability; and
       (2) ensure completion of the related environmental review 
     process.
       (b) Affected Rail Operators.--Rail operators other than 
     Amtrak may participate in activities described in subsection 
     (a) to the extent that they can demonstrate the intention and 
     ability to contribute to the construction of the new tunnel.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Federal Railroad Administration for 
     carrying out this section $60,000,000 for the period 
     encompassing fiscal years 2009 through 2013.

          TITLE II--AMTRAK REFORM AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 201. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 
                   DEFINED.

       (a) In General.--Section 24102 is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2);
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) as so redesignated the 
     following:
       ``(5) `national rail passenger transportation system' 
     means--
       ``(A) the segment of the Northeast Corridor between Boston, 
     Massachusetts and Washington, DC;
       ``(B) rail corridors that have been designated by the 
     Secretary of Transportation as high-speed corridors (other 
     than corridors described in subparagraph (A)), but only after 
     they have been improved to permit operation of high-speed 
     service;
       ``(C) long distance routes of more than 750 miles between 
     endpoints operated by Amtrak as of the date of enactment of 
     the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008; 
     and
       ``(D) short-distance corridors, or routes of not more than 
     750 miles between endpoints, operated by--
       ``(i) Amtrak; or
       ``(ii) another rail carrier that receives funds under 
     chapter 244.''.
       (b) Amtrak Routes With State Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 247 is amended by inserting after 
     section 24701 the following:

     ``Sec. 24702. Transportation requested by States, 
       authorities, and other persons

       ``(a) Contracts for Transportation.--Amtrak may enter into 
     a contract with a State, a regional or local authority, or 
     another person for Amtrak to operate an intercity rail 
     service or route not included in the national rail passenger 
     transportation system upon such terms as the parties thereto 
     may agree.
       ``(b) Discontinuance.--Upon termination of a contract 
     entered into under this section, or the cessation of 
     financial support under such a contract by either party, 
     Amtrak may discontinue such service or route, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     247 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 24701 the following:

``24702. Transportation requested by States, authorities, and other 
              persons.''.

       (c) Amtrak To Continue To Provide Non-High-Speed 
     Services.--Nothing in this Act is intended to preclude Amtrak 
     from restoring, improving, or developing non-high-speed 
     intercity passenger rail service.
       (d) Applicability of Section 24706.--Section 24706 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Applicability.--This section applies to all service 
     over routes provided by Amtrak, notwithstanding any provision 
     of section 24701 of this title or any other provision of this 
     title except section 24702(b).''.

     SEC. 202. AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 24302 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 24302. Board of Directors

       ``(a) Composition and Terms.--
       ``(1) The Board of Directors of Amtrak is composed of the 
     following 10 directors, each of whom must be a citizen of the 
     United States:
       ``(A) The Secretary of Transportation.
       ``(B) The President of Amtrak, who shall serve ex officio, 
     as a non-voting member.
       ``(C) 8 individuals appointed by the President of the 
     United States, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, with general business and financial experience, 
     experience or qualifications in transportation, freight and 
     passenger rail transportation, travel, hospitality, cruise 
     line, and passenger air transportation businesses, or 
     representatives of employees or users of passenger rail 
     transportation or a State government.
       ``(2) In selecting individuals described in paragraph (1) 
     for nominations for appointments to the Board, the President 
     shall consult with the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the 
     minority leader of the Senate and try to provide adequate and 
     balanced representation of the major geographic regions of 
     the United States served by Amtrak.
       ``(3) An individual appointed under paragraph (1)(C) of 
     this subsection serves for 5 years or until the individual's 
     successor is appointed and qualified. Not more than 5 
     individuals appointed under paragraph (1)(C) may be members 
     of the same political party.
       ``(4) The Board shall elect a chairman and a vice chairman 
     from among its membership. The vice chairman shall serve as 
     chairman in the absence of the chairman.
       ``(5) The Secretary may be represented at board meetings by 
     the Secretary's designee.
       ``(b) Pay and Expenses.--Each director not employed by the 
     United States Government is entitled to $300 a day when 
     performing Board duties. Each Director is entitled to 
     reimbursement for necessary travel, reasonable secretarial 
     and professional staff support, and subsistence expenses 
     incurred in attending Board meetings.
       ``(c) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Board is filled in the 
     same way as the original selection, except that an individual 
     appointed by the President of the United States under 
     subsection (a)(1)(C) of this section to fill a vacancy 
     occurring before the end of the term for which the 
     predecessor of that individual was appointed is appointed for 
     the remainder of that term. A vacancy required to be filled 
     by appointment under subsection (a)(1)(C) must be filled not 
     later than 120 days after the vacancy occurs.
       ``(d) Quorum.--A majority of the members serving shall 
     constitute a quorum for doing business.
       ``(e) Bylaws.--The Board may adopt and amend bylaws 
     governing the operation of Amtrak. The bylaws shall be 
     consistent with this part and the articles of 
     incorporation.''.
       (b) Effective Date for Directors' Provision.--The amendment 
     made by subsection (a) shall take effect 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act. The members of the Amtrak 
     Board serving on the date of enactment of this Act may 
     continue to serve for the remainder of the term to which they 
     were appointed.

     SEC. 203. ESTABLISHMENT OF IMPROVED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Amtrak Board of Directors--
       (1) may employ an independent financial consultant with 
     experience in railroad accounting to assist Amtrak in 
     improving Amtrak's financial accounting and reporting system 
     and practices;
       (2) shall implement a modern financial accounting and 
     reporting system not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (3) shall, not later than 90 days after the end of each 
     fiscal year through fiscal year 2013--
       (A) submit to Congress a comprehensive report that 
     allocates all of Amtrak's revenues and costs to each of its 
     routes, each of its lines of business, and each major 
     activity within each route and line of business activity, 
     including--
       (i) train operations;
       (ii) equipment maintenance;
       (iii) food service;
       (iv) sleeping cars;
       (v) ticketing; and
       (vi) reservations;
       (B) include the report described in subparagraph (A) in 
     Amtrak's annual report; and
       (C) post such report on Amtrak's website.
       (b) Verification of System; Report.--The Inspector General 
     of the Department of Transportation shall review the 
     accounting system designed and implemented under subsection 
     (a) to ensure that it accomplishes the purposes for which it 
     is intended. The Inspector General shall report his findings 
     and conclusions, together with any recommendations, to the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation.
       (c) Categorization of Revenues and Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Amtrak 
     Board of Directors shall separately categorize routes, 
     assigned revenues, and attributable expenses by type of 
     service, including long distance routes, State-sponsored 
     routes, commuter contract routes, and Northeast Corridor 
     routes.
       (2) Northeast corridor.--Amtrak revenues generated by 
     freight and commuter railroads operating on the Northeast 
     Corridor shall be separately listed to include the charges 
     per car mile assessed by Amtrak to other freight and commuter 
     railroad entities.
       (3) Fixed overhead expenses.--Fixed overhead expenses that 
     are not directly assigned or attributed to any route (or 
     group of routes) shall be listed separately by line item and 
     expense category.

     SEC. 204. DEVELOPMENT OF 5-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN.

       (a) Development of 5-Year Financial Plan.--The Amtrak Board 
     of Directors shall submit an annual budget and business plan 
     for Amtrak, and a 5-year financial plan for the fiscal year 
     to which that budget and business plan relate and the 
     subsequent 4 years, prepared in accordance with this section, 
     to the Secretary of Transportation and the Inspector General 
     of the Department of Transportation no later than--
       (1) the first day of each fiscal year beginning after the 
     date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the date that is 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     an appropriation Act for the fiscal year, if later.
       (b) Contents of 5-Year Financial Plan.--The 5-year 
     financial plan for Amtrak shall include, at a minimum--

[[Page H5235]]

       (1) all projected revenues and expenditures for Amtrak, 
     including governmental funding sources;
       (2) projected ridership levels for all Amtrak passenger 
     operations;
       (3) revenue and expenditure forecasts for non-passenger 
     operations;
       (4) capital funding requirements and expenditures necessary 
     to maintain passenger service which will accommodate 
     predicted ridership levels and predicted sources of capital 
     funding;
       (5) operational funding needs, if any, to maintain current 
     and projected levels of passenger service, including state-
     supported routes and predicted funding sources;
       (6) projected capital and operating requirements, 
     ridership, and revenue for any new passenger service 
     operations or service expansions;
       (7) an assessment of the continuing financial stability of 
     Amtrak, such as Amtrak's ability to efficiently manage its 
     workforce, and Amtrak's ability to effectively provide 
     passenger train service;
       (8) estimates of long-term and short-term debt and 
     associated principal and interest payments (both current and 
     anticipated);
       (9) annual cash flow forecasts;
       (10) a statement describing methods of estimation and 
     significant assumptions;
       (11) specific measures that demonstrate measurable 
     improvement year over year in the financial results of 
     Amtrak's operations;
       (12) prior fiscal year and projected operating ratio, cash 
     operating loss, and cash operating loss per passenger on a 
     route, business line, and corporate basis;
       (13) prior fiscal year and projected specific costs and 
     savings estimates resulting from reform initiatives;
       (14) prior fiscal year and projected labor productivity 
     statistics on a route, business line, and corporate basis; 
     and
       (15) prior fiscal year and projected equipment reliability 
     statistics.
       (c) Standards To Promote Financial Stability.--In meeting 
     the requirements of subsection (b), Amtrak shall--
       (1) apply sound budgetary practices, including reducing 
     costs and other expenditures, improving productivity, 
     increasing revenues, or combinations of such practices;
       (2) use the categories specified in the financial 
     accounting and reporting system developed under section 203 
     when preparing its 5-year financial plan; and
       (3) ensure that the plan is consistent with the 
     authorizations of appropriations under title I of this Act.

     SEC. 205. ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT PROCESS.

       (a) Grant Requests.--Amtrak shall submit grant requests 
     (including a schedule for the disbursement of funds), 
     consistent with the requirements of this Act, to the 
     Secretary of Transportation for funds authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for the use of Amtrak under 
     sections 101(a), (c), and (d), 102, and 103(c) of this Act.
       (b) Procedures for Grant Requests.--The Secretary shall 
     establish substantive and procedural requirements, including 
     schedules, for grant requests under this section not later 
     than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act and 
     shall transmit copies to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate.
       (c) Review and Approval.--
       (1) 30-day approval process.--The Secretary shall complete 
     the review of a complete grant request (including the 
     disbursement schedule) and approve or disapprove the request 
     within 30 days after the date on which Amtrak submits the 
     grant request. If the Secretary disapproves the request or 
     determines that the request is incomplete or deficient, the 
     Secretary shall include the reason for disapproval or the 
     incomplete items or deficiencies in the notice to Amtrak.
       (2) 15-day modification period.--Within 15 days after 
     receiving notification from the Secretary under the preceding 
     sentence, Amtrak shall submit a modified request for the 
     Secretary's review.
       (3) Revised requests.--Within 15 days after receiving a 
     modified request from Amtrak, the Secretary shall either 
     approve the modified request, or, if the Secretary finds that 
     the request is still incomplete or deficient, the Secretary 
     shall identify in writing to the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation the 
     remaining deficiencies and recommend a process for resolving 
     the outstanding portions of the request.

     SEC. 206. STATE-SUPPORTED ROUTES.

       (a) In General.--Within 2 years after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Board of Directors of Amtrak, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the 
     governors of each relevant State and the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia or groups representing those officials, 
     shall develop and implement a single, Nationwide standardized 
     methodology for establishing and allocating the operating and 
     capital costs among the States and Amtrak associated with 
     trains operated on routes described in section 24102(5)(B) or 
     (D) or section 24702 that--
       (1) ensures, within 5 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, equal treatment in the provision of like services 
     of all States and groups of States (including the District of 
     Columbia); and
       (2) allocates to each route the costs incurred only for the 
     benefit of that route and a proportionate share, based upon 
     factors that reasonably reflect relative use, of costs 
     incurred for the common benefit of more than 1 route.
       (b) Review.--If Amtrak and the States (including the 
     District of Columbia) in which Amtrak operates such routes do 
     not voluntarily adopt and implement the methodology developed 
     under subsection (a) in allocating costs and determining 
     compensation for the provision of service in accordance with 
     the date established therein, the Surface Transportation 
     Board shall determine the appropriate methodology required 
     under subsection (a) for such services in accordance with the 
     procedures and procedural schedule applicable to a proceeding 
     under section 24904(c) of title 49, United States Code, and 
     require the full implementation of this methodology with 
     regards to the provision of such service within 1 year after 
     the Board's determination of the appropriate methodology.
       (c) Use of Chapter 244 Funds.--Funds provided to a State 
     under chapter 244 of title 49, United States Code, may be 
     used, as provided in that chapter, to pay capital costs 
     determined in accordance with this section.

     SEC. 207. METRICS AND STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Railroad Administration and Amtrak shall jointly, in 
     consultation with the Surface Transportation Board, rail 
     carriers over whose rail lines Amtrak trains operate, States, 
     Amtrak employees, nonprofit employee organizations 
     representing Amtrak employees, and groups representing Amtrak 
     passengers, as appropriate, develop new or improve existing 
     metrics and minimum standards for measuring the performance 
     and service quality of intercity passenger train operations, 
     including cost recovery, on-time performance and minutes of 
     delay, ridership, on-board services, stations, facilities, 
     equipment, and other services. Such metrics, at a minimum, 
     shall include the percentage of avoidable and fully allocated 
     operating costs covered by passenger revenues on each route, 
     ridership per train mile operated, measures of on-time 
     performance and delays incurred by intercity passenger trains 
     on the rail lines of each rail carrier and, for long distance 
     routes, measures of connectivity with other routes in all 
     regions currently receiving Amtrak service and the 
     transportation needs of communities and populations that are 
     not well-served by other forms of public transportation. 
     Amtrak shall provide reasonable access to the Federal 
     Railroad Administration in order to enable the Administration 
     to carry out its duty under this section.
       (b) Quarterly Reports.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Railroad Administration shall collect the necessary data and 
     publish a quarterly report on the performance and service 
     quality of intercity passenger train operations, including 
     Amtrak's cost recovery, ridership, on-time performance and 
     minutes of delay, causes of delay, on-board services, 
     stations, facilities, equipment, and other services.
       (c) Contract With Host Rail Carriers.--To the extent 
     practicable, Amtrak and its host rail carriers shall 
     incorporate the metrics and standards developed under 
     subsection (a) into their access and service agreements.
       (d) Arbitration.--If the development of the metrics and 
     standards is not completed within the 180-day period required 
     by subsection (a), any party involved in the development of 
     those standards may petition the Surface Transportation Board 
     to appoint an arbitrator to assist the parties in resolving 
     their disputes through binding arbitration.

     SEC. 208. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR STATE-OF-GOOD-REPAIR PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Within 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation, in consultation with the Secretary and the 
     States (including the District of Columbia) that make up the 
     Northeast Corridor (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, 
     United States Code), shall prepare a capital spending plan 
     for capital projects required to return the railroad right-
     of-way (including track, signals, and auxiliary structures), 
     facilities, stations, and equipment, of the Northeast 
     Corridor to a state of good repair by the end of fiscal year 
     2024, consistent with the funding levels authorized in this 
     Act and shall submit the plan to the Secretary.
       (b) Approval by the Secretary.--
       (1) The Corporation shall submit the capital spending plan 
     prepared under this section to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for review and approval pursuant to the 
     procedures developed under section 205 of this Act.
       (2) The Secretary of Transportation shall require that the 
     plan be updated at least annually and shall review and 
     approve such updates. During review, the Secretary shall seek 
     comments and review from the commission established under 
     section 24905 of title 49, United States Code, and other 
     Northeast Corridor users regarding the plan.
       (3) The Secretary shall make grants to the Corporation with 
     funds authorized by section 101(d) of this Act for Northeast 
     Corridor capital investments contained within the capital 
     spending plan prepared by the Corporation and approved by the 
     Secretary.
       (4) Using the funds authorized by section 101(f) of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall review Amtrak's capital expenditures 
     funded by this section to ensure that such expenditures are 
     consistent with the capital spending plan and that Amtrak is 
     providing adequate project management oversight and fiscal 
     controls.
       (c) Eligibility of Expenditures.--The Federal share of 
     expenditures for capital improvements under this section may 
     not exceed 100 percent.

     SEC. 209. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 24905 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 24905. Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and 
       Operations Advisory Commission

       ``(a) Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations 
     Advisory Commission.--

[[Page H5236]]

       ``(1) Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall establish a Northeast 
     Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission 
     (hereinafter referred to in this section as the `Commission') 
     to promote mutual cooperation and planning pertaining to the 
     rail operations and related activities of the Northeast 
     Corridor. The Commission shall be made up of--
       ``(A) members representing the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation;
       ``(B) members representing the Secretary of Transportation 
     and the Federal Railroad Administration;
       ``(C) 1 member from each of the States (including the 
     District of Columbia) that constitute the Northeast Corridor 
     as defined in section 24102, designated by, and serving at 
     the pleasure of, the chief executive officer thereof; and
       ``(D) non-voting representatives of freight railroad 
     carriers using the Northeast Corridor selected by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that the membership 
     belonging to any of the groups enumerated under subparagraph 
     (1) shall not constitute a majority of the commission's 
     memberships.
       ``(3) The commission shall establish a schedule and 
     location for convening meetings, but shall meet no less than 
     four times per fiscal year, and the commission shall develop 
     rules and procedures to govern the commission's proceedings.
       ``(4) A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.
       ``(5) Members shall serve without pay but shall receive 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(6) The Chairman of the Commission shall be elected by 
     the members.
       ``(7) The Commission may appoint and fix the pay of such 
     personnel as it considers appropriate.
       ``(8) Upon request of the Commission, the head of any 
     department or agency of the United States may detail, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that department 
     or agency to the Commission to assist it in carrying out its 
     duties under this section.
       ``(9) Upon the request of the Commission, the Administrator 
     of General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a 
     reimbursable basis, the administrative support services 
     necessary for the Commission to carry out its 
     responsibilities under this section.
       ``(10) The commission shall consult with other entities as 
     appropriate.
       ``(b) General Recommendations.--The Commission shall 
     develop recommendations concerning Northeast Corridor rail 
     infrastructure and operations including proposals addressing, 
     as appropriate--
       ``(1) short-term and long-term capital investment needs 
     beyond the state-of-good-repair under section 208 of the 
     Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008;
       ``(2) future funding requirements for capital improvements 
     and maintenance;
       ``(3) operational improvements of intercity passenger rail, 
     commuter rail, and freight rail services;
       ``(4) opportunities for additional non-rail uses of the 
     Northeast Corridor;
       ``(5) scheduling and dispatching;
       ``(6) safety enhancements;
       ``(7) equipment design;
       ``(8) marketing of rail services; and
       ``(9) future capacity requirements.
       ``(c) Access Costs.--
       ``(1) Development of formula.--Within 1 year after 
     verification of Amtrak's new financial accounting system 
     pursuant to section 203(b) of the Passenger Rail Investment 
     and Improvement Act of 2008, the Commission shall--
       ``(A) develop a standardized formula for determining and 
     allocating costs, revenues, and compensation for Northeast 
     Corridor commuter rail passenger transportation, as defined 
     in section 24102 of this title, that use National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation facilities or services or that provide 
     such facilities or services to the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation that ensure that--
       ``(i) there is no cross-subsidization of commuter rail 
     passenger, intercity rail passenger, or freight rail 
     transportation; and
       ``(ii) each service is assigned the costs incurred only for 
     the benefit of that service, and a proportionate share, based 
     upon factors that reasonably reflect relative use, of costs 
     incurred for the common benefit of more than 1 service;
       ``(B) develop a proposed timetable for implementing the 
     formula before the end of the 6th year following the date of 
     enactment of that Act;
       ``(C) transmit the proposed timetable to the Surface 
     Transportation Board; and
       ``(D) at the request of a Commission member, petition the 
     Surface Transportation Board to appoint a mediator to assist 
     the Commission members through non-binding mediation to reach 
     an agreement under this section.
       ``(2) Implementation.--The National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation and the commuter authorities providing commuter 
     rail passenger transportation on the Northeast Corridor shall 
     implement new agreements for usage of facilities or services 
     based on the formula proposed in paragraph (1) in accordance 
     with the timetable established therein. If the entities fail 
     to implement such new agreements in accordance with the 
     timetable, the Commission shall petition the Surface 
     Transportation Board to determine the appropriate 
     compensation amounts for such services in accordance with 
     section 24904(c) of this title. The Surface Transportation 
     Board shall enforce its determination on the party or parties 
     involved.
       ``(d) Transmission of Recommendations.--The commission 
     shall annually transmit the recommendations developed under 
     subsection (b) and the formula and timetable developed under 
     subsection (c)(1) to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 24904(c)(2) is 
     amended by--
       (A) inserting ``commuter rail passenger and'' after 
     ``between''; and
       (B) striking ``freight'' in the second sentence.
       (2) The chapter analysis for chapter 249 is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 24905 and inserting the 
     following:

``24905. Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory 
              Commission.''.

       (c) Acela Service Study.--
       (1) In general.--Amtrak shall conduct a conduct a study to 
     determine the infrastructure and equipment improvements 
     necessary to provide regular Acela service--
       (A) between Washington, DC and New York City--
       (i) in 2 hours and 30 minutes;
       (ii) in 2 hours and 15 minutes; and
       (iii) in 2 hours; and
       (B) between New York City and Boston--
       (i) in 3 hours and 15 minutes;
       (ii) in 3 hours; and
       (iii) in 2 hours and 45 minutes.
       (2) Issues.--The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) an estimated time frame for achieving the trip time 
     described in paragraph (1);
       (B) an analysis of any significant obstacles that would 
     hinder such an achievement; and
       (C) a detailed description and cost estimate of the 
     specific infrastructure and equipment improvements necessary 
     for such an achievement.
       (3) Report.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, Amtrak shall submit a written report containing the 
     results of the study required under this subsection to--
       (A) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives;
       (B) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (C) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate;
       (D) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (E) the Federal Railroad Administration.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation to 
     enable Amtrak to conduct the study under this subsection 
     $5,000,000.

     SEC. 210. RESTRUCTURING LONG-TERM DEBT AND CAPITAL LEASES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and Amtrak, 
     may make agreements to restructure Amtrak's indebtedness as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act. This authorization 
     expires 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Debt Restructuring.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and Amtrak, 
     shall enter into negotiations with the holders of Amtrak 
     debt, including leases, outstanding on the date of enactment 
     of this Act for the purpose of restructuring (including 
     repayment) and repaying that debt. The Secretary of the 
     Treasury may secure agreements for restructuring or repayment 
     on such terms as the Secretary of the Treasury deems 
     favorable to the interests of the Government.
       (c) Criteria.--In restructuring Amtrak's indebtedness, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury and Amtrak--
       (1) shall take into consideration repayment costs, the term 
     of any loan or loans, and market conditions; and
       (2) shall ensure that the restructuring results in 
     significant savings to Amtrak and the United States 
     Government.
       (d) Payment of Renegotiated Debt.--If the criteria under 
     subsection (c) are met, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     assume or repay the restructured debt, as appropriate.
       (e) Amtrak Principal and Interest Payments.--
       (1) Principal on debt service.--Unless the Secretary of the 
     Treasury makes sufficient payments to creditors under 
     subsection (d) so that Amtrak is required to make no payments 
     to creditors in a fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall use funds authorized by section 
     102(a)(1) of this Act for the use of Amtrak for retirement of 
     principal on loans for capital equipment, or capital leases.
       (2) Interest on debt.--Unless the Secretary of the Treasury 
     makes sufficient payments to creditors under subsection (d) 
     so that Amtrak is required to make no payments to creditors 
     in a fiscal year, the Secretary of Transportation shall use 
     funds authorized by section 102(a)(1) of this Act for the use 
     of Amtrak for the payment of interest on loans for capital 
     equipment, or capital leases.
       (3) Reductions in authorization levels.--Whenever action 
     taken by the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (a) 
     results in reductions in amounts of principal or interest 
     that Amtrak must service on existing debt, the corresponding 
     amounts authorized by section 102(a)(1) shall be reduced 
     accordingly.
       (f) Legal Effect of Payments Under This Section.--The 
     payment of principal and interest on secured debt, other than 
     debt assumed under subsection (d), with the proceeds of 
     grants under subsection (e) shall not--
       (1) modify the extent or nature of any indebtedness of the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation to the United States 
     in existence of the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) change the private nature of Amtrak's or its 
     successors' liabilities; or
       (3) imply any Federal guarantee or commitment to amortize 
     Amtrak's outstanding indebtedness.

[[Page H5237]]

       (g) Secretary Approval.--Amtrak may not incur more debt 
     after the date of enactment of this Act without the express 
     advance approval of the Secretary of Transportation.
       (h) Report.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall transmit a 
     report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, by November 1, 
     2009--
       (1) describing in detail any agreements to restructure the 
     Amtrak debt; and
       (2) providing an estimate of the savings to Amtrak and the 
     United States Government.

     SEC. 211. STUDY OF COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS AT EXISTING 
                   INTERCITY RAIL STATIONS.

       Amtrak, in consultation with station owners and other 
     railroads operating service through the existing stations 
     that it serves, shall evaluate the improvements necessary to 
     make these stations readily accessible to and usable by 
     individuals with disabilities, as required by such section 
     242(e)(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 12162(e)(2)). The evaluation shall 
     include, for each applicable station, improvements required 
     to bring it into compliance with the applicable parts of such 
     section 242(e)(2), any potential barriers to achieving 
     compliance, the estimated cost of the improvements necessary, 
     the identification of the responsible person (as defined in 
     section 241(5) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 12161(5))), and the 
     earliest practicable date when such improvements can be made. 
     The evaluation shall also include an overall schedule for 
     bringing all applicable stations into compliance with the 
     applicable parts of section 242(e)(2). Amtrak shall submit 
     the evaluation to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; the 
     Department of Transportation; and the National Council on 
     Disability by July 1, 2009, along with recommendations for 
     funding the necessary improvements. Should the Department of 
     Transportation issue the Final Rule to its Notice of Proposed 
     Rulemaking of February 27, 2006, on ``Transportation for 
     Individuals with Disabilities,'' after Amtrak submits its 
     evaluation, Amtrak shall, not later than 120 days after the 
     date the Final Rule is published, submit to the above parties 
     a supplemental evaluation on the impact of those changes on 
     its cost and schedule for achieving full compliance.

     SEC. 212. OVERSIGHT OF AMTRAK'S COMPLIANCE WITH ACCESSIBILITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Using the funds authorized by section 101(f) of this Act, 
     the Federal Railroad Administration shall monitor and conduct 
     periodic reviews of Amtrak's compliance with applicable 
     sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 to ensure that Amtrak's 
     services and facilities are accessible to individuals with 
     disabilities to the extent required by law.

     SEC. 213. ACCESS TO AMTRAK EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES.

       If a State desires to select or selects an entity other 
     than Amtrak to provide services required for the operation of 
     an intercity passenger train route described in section 
     24102(5)(D) or 24702 of title 49, United States Code, the 
     State may make an agreement with Amtrak to use facilities and 
     equipment of, or have services provided by, Amtrak under 
     terms agreed to by the State and Amtrak to enable the State 
     to utilize an entity other than Amtrak to provide services 
     required for operation of the route. If the parties cannot 
     agree upon terms, and the Surface Transportation Board finds 
     that access to Amtrak's facilities or equipment, or the 
     provision of services by Amtrak, is necessary to carry out 
     this provision and that the operation of Amtrak's other 
     services will not be impaired thereby, the Surface 
     Transportation Board shall, within 120 days after submission 
     of the dispute, issue an order that the facilities and 
     equipment be made available, and that services be provided, 
     by Amtrak, and shall determine reasonable compensation, 
     liability and other terms for use of the facilities and 
     equipment and provision of the services. Compensation shall 
     be determined in accordance with the methodology established 
     pursuant to section 206 of this Act.

     SEC. 214. GENERAL AMTRAK PROVISIONS.

       (a) Repeal of Self-Sufficiency Requirements.--
       (1) Plan required.--Section 24101(d) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``plan to operate within the funding levels 
     authorized by section 24104 of this chapter, including 
     budgetary goals for fiscal years 1998 through 2002.'' and 
     inserting ``plan, consistent with section 204 of the 
     Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 
     including the budgetary goals for fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013.''; and
       (B) by striking the last sentence and inserting ``Amtrak 
     and its Board of Directors shall adopt a long-term plan that 
     minimizes the need for Federal operating subsidies.''.
       (2) Amtrak reform and accountability act amendments.--Title 
     II of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (49 
     U.S.C. 24101 nt) is amended by striking sections 204 and 205.
       (b) Lease Arrangements.--Amtrak may obtain services from 
     the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator 
     may provide services to Amtrak, under section 201(b) and 
     211(b) of the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act 
     of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481(b) and 491(b)) for each of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2013.
       (c) Travel Facilitation.--Using existing authority or 
     agreements, or upon reaching additional agreements with 
     Canada, the Secretary of Transportation and other Federal 
     agencies, as appropriate, are authorized to establish 
     facilities and procedures to conduct preclearance of 
     passengers traveling on Amtrak trains from Canada to the 
     United States. The Secretary shall seek to establish such 
     facilities and procedures in areas determined appropriate by 
     the Secretary.

     SEC. 215. AMTRAK MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 243 is amended by inserting after 
     section 24309 the following:

     ``Sec. 24310. Management accountability

       ``(a) In General.--Three years after the date of enactment 
     of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 
     and two years thereafter, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Transportation shall complete an overall 
     assessment of the progress made by Amtrak management and the 
     Department of Transportation in implementing the provisions 
     of that Act.
       ``(b) Assessment.--The management assessment undertaken by 
     the Inspector General may include a review of--
       ``(1) effectiveness in improving annual financial planning;
       ``(2) effectiveness in implementing improved financial 
     accounting;
       ``(3) efforts to implement minimum train performance 
     standards;
       ``(4) progress maximizing revenues and minimizing Federal 
     subsidies and improving financial results; and
       ``(5) any other aspect of Amtrak operations the Inspector 
     General finds appropriate to review.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     243 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 24309 the following:

``24310. Management accountability.''.

     SEC. 216. PASSENGER RAIL STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the General 
     Accountability Office shall conduct a study to determine the 
     potential cost and benefits of expanding passenger rail 
     service options in underserved communities.
       (b) Submission.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit a report containing the results of the study conducted 
     under this section to--
       (1) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate.

     SEC. 217. CONGESTION GRANTS.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation may make 
     grants to States, or to Amtrak in cooperation with States, 
     for financing the capital costs of facilities, 
     infrastructure, and equipment for high priority rail corridor 
     projects necessary to reduce congestion or facilitate 
     ridership growth in intercity passenger rail transportation.
       (b) Eligible Projects.--Projects eligible for grants under 
     this section include projects--
       (1) identified by Amtrak as necessary to reduce congestion 
     or facilitate ridership growth in intercity passenger rail 
     transportation along heavily traveled rail corridors; and
       (2) designated by the Secretary as being sufficiently 
     advanced in development to be capable of serving the purposes 
     described in subsection (a) on an expedited schedule.
       (c) Compliance With Environmental Laws.--The Secretary 
     shall not make a grant under this section for a project 
     without adequate assurances that the project will be 
     completed in full compliance with all applicable Federal and 
     State environmental laws and regulations.
       (d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project financed under this section shall not exceed 80 
     percent.
       (e) Employee Protection.--The recipient of a grant under 
     this section shall agree to comply with the standards of 
     section 24312 of title 49, United States Code, as such 
     section was in effect on September 1, 2003, with respect to 
     the project in the same manner that the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation is required to comply with those 
     standards for construction work financed under an agreement 
     made under section 24308(a) of such title.

     SEC. 218. PLAN FOR RESTORATION OF SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall transmit to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a plan for restoring passenger 
     rail service between New Orleans, Louisiana, and Sanford, 
     Florida. The plan shall include a projected timeline for 
     restoring such service, the costs associated with restoring 
     such service, and any proposals for legislation necessary to 
     support such restoration of service. In developing the plan, 
     Amtrak shall consult with representatives from the States of 
     Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, railroad 
     carriers whose tracks may be used for such service, rail 
     passengers, rail labor, and other entities as appropriate.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation to 
     enable Amtrak to conduct the study under this subsection 
     $1,000,000.

     SEC. 219. LOCOMOTIVE BIOFUEL STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy 
     and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     shall conduct a study to determine the extent to which 
     freight and passenger rail operators could use biofuel blends 
     to power its locomotive fleet and other vehicles that operate 
     on rail tracks.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``biofuel'' means a fuel that utilizes renewable resources 
     and is composed substantially

[[Page H5238]]

     of a renewable resource blended with ethanol, methanol, or 
     other additive.
       (c) Factors.--In conducting the study, the Federal Railroad 
     Administration shall consider--
       (1) the energy intensity of various biofuel blends compared 
     to diesel fuel;
       (2) the emission benefits of using various biofuel blends 
     compared to locomotive diesel fuel;
       (3) the cost of purchasing biofuel blends;
       (4) the public benefits derived from the use of such fuels; 
     and
       (5) the effect of biofuel use on relevant locomotive and 
     other vehicle performance.
       (d) Locomotive Testing.--As part of the study, the Federal 
     Railroad Administration shall test locomotive engine 
     performance and emissions using blends of biofuel and diesel 
     fuel in order to recommend a premium locomotive biofuel 
     blend.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Railroad Administration 
     shall issue the results of this study to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation 
     $1,000,000 to carry out this section, to remain available 
     until expended.

     SEC. 220. STUDY OF THE USE OF BIOBASED LUBRICANTS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Federal Railroad Administration shall transmit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report containing 
     the results of a study of the feasibility of using readily 
     biodegradable lubricants by freight and passenger railroads. 
     The Federal Railroad Administration shall work with an 
     agricultural-based lubricant testing facility or facilities 
     to complete this study. The study shall include--
       (1) an analysis of the potential use of soy-based grease 
     and soy-based hydraulic fluids to perform according to 
     railroad industry standards;
       (2) an analysis of the potential use of other readily 
     biodegradable lubricants to perform according to railroad 
     industry standards;
       (3) a comparison of the health and safety of petroleum-
     based lubricants with biobased lubricants, which shall 
     include an analysis of fire safety; and
       (4) a comparison of the environmental impact of petroleum-
     based lubricants with biobased lubricants, which shall 
     include rate and effects of biodegradability.

     SEC. 221. APPLICABILITY OF BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       Section 24305(f) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Applicability of Buy American Act.--Amtrak shall be 
     subject to the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-d) and the 
     regulations thereunder, for purchases of $100,000 or more.''.

     SEC. 222. INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE PERFORMANCE.

       (a) Development of Evaluation Metrics.--Not later than 6 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Transportation shall, using the 
     financial and performance metrics developed under section 
     207, develop metrics for the evaluation of the performance 
     and service quality of intercity passenger rail services 
     including cost recovery, on-time performance and minutes of 
     delay, ridership, onboard services, maintenance of facilities 
     and equipment, and other services.
       (b) Identification of Worst Performing Routes.--On the 
     basis of these metrics, the Inspector General shall identify 
     the five worst performing Amtrak routes.
       (c) Alternative Routes.--The Inspector General shall also 
     establish criteria for evaluating routes not currently served 
     by Amtrak which might be able to support passenger rail 
     service at a reasonable cost.
       (d) Report to Congress.--The Inspector General shall submit 
     a report to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate recommending a process for the Department of 
     Transportation to consider proposals by Amtrak and others to 
     serve underperforming routes, and routes not currently served 
     by Amtrak. The proposals shall require that applicants follow 
     grant requirements of section 504. The Inspector General 
     shall recommend one route not currently served by Amtrak and 
     two routes (from among the five worst routes identified under 
     subsection (b)) currently served by Amtrak, for the 
     Department of Transportation to consider under the selection 
     process.
       (e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall not implement the 
     selection process recommended by the Inspector General under 
     subsection (d) until legislation has been enacted authorizing 
     the Secretary to take such action.

     SEC. 223. AMTRAK INSPECTOR GENERAL UTILIZATION STUDY.

       Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Amtrak Inspector General shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on Amtrak's 
     utilization of its facilities, including the Beech Grove 
     Repair facility in Indiana. The report shall include an 
     examination of Amtrak's utilization of its existing 
     facilities to determine the extent Amtrak is maximizing the 
     opportunities for each facility, including any attempts to 
     provide maintenance and repair to other rail carriers. In 
     developing this report, the Amtrak Inspector General shall 
     consult with other railroad carriers as it deems appropriate.

     SEC. 224. AMTRAK SERVICE PREFERENCE STUDY.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Surface Transportation Board shall transmit to the 
     Congress a report containing--
       (1) the findings of a study of the effectiveness of the 
     implementation of section 24308(c) of title 49, United States 
     Code, in ensuring the preference of Amtrak service over 
     freight transportation service; and
       (2) recommendations with respect to any regulatory or 
     legislative actions that would improve such effectiveness.

               TITLE III--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL POLICY

     SEC. 301. CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL 
                   SERVICE; STATE RAIL PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Part C of subtitle V is amended by 
     inserting the following after chapter 243:

   ``CHAPTER 244--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE CORRIDOR CAPITAL 
                               ASSISTANCE

``Sec.
``24401. Definitions.
``24402. Capital investment grants to support intercity passenger rail 
              service.
``24403. Project management oversight.
``24404. Use of capital grants to finance first-dollar liability of 
              grant project.
``24405. Grant conditions.

     ``Sec. 24401. Definitions

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Applicant.--The term `applicant' means a State 
     (including the District of Columbia), a group of States, an 
     Interstate Compact, or a public agency established by one or 
     more States and having responsibility for providing intercity 
     passenger rail service.
       ``(2) Capital project.--The term `capital project' means a 
     project or program in a State rail plan developed under 
     chapter 225 of this title for--
       ``(A) acquiring, constructing, improving, or inspecting 
     equipment, track and track structures, or a facility for use 
     in or for the primary benefit of intercity passenger rail 
     service, expenses incidental to the acquisition or 
     construction (including designing, engineering, location 
     surveying, mapping, environmental studies, and acquiring 
     rights-of-way), payments for the capital portions of rail 
     trackage rights agreements, highway-rail grade crossing 
     improvements related to intercity passenger rail service, 
     mitigating environmental impacts, communication and 
     signalization improvements, relocation assistance, acquiring 
     replacement housing sites, and acquiring, constructing, 
     relocating, and rehabilitating replacement housing;
       ``(B) rehabilitating, remanufacturing or overhauling rail 
     rolling stock and facilities used primarily in intercity 
     passenger rail service;
       ``(C) costs associated with developing State rail plans; 
     and
       ``(D) the first-dollar liability costs for insurance 
     related to the provision of intercity passenger rail service 
     under section 24404.
       ``(3) Intercity passenger rail service.--The term 
     `intercity passenger rail service' means transportation 
     services with the primary purpose of passenger transportation 
     between towns, cities and metropolitan areas by rail, 
     including high-speed rail, as defined in section 24102 of 
     this title.

     ``Sec. 24402. Capital investment grants to support intercity 
       passenger rail service

       ``(a) General Authority.--
       ``(1) The Secretary of Transportation may make grants under 
     this section to an applicant to assist in financing the 
     capital costs of facilities, infrastructure, and equipment 
     necessary to provide or improve intercity passenger rail 
     transportation.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall require that a grant under this 
     section be subject to the terms, conditions, requirements, 
     and provisions the Secretary decides are necessary or 
     appropriate for the purposes of this section, including 
     requirements for the disposition of net increases in value of 
     real property resulting from the project assisted under this 
     section and shall prescribe procedures and schedules for the 
     awarding of grants under this title, including application 
     and qualification procedures and a record of decision on 
     applicant eligibility. The Secretary shall issue a final rule 
     establishing such procedures not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and 
     Improvement Act of 2008.
       ``(b) Project as Part of State Rail Plan.--
       ``(1) The Secretary may not approve a grant for a project 
     under this section unless the Secretary finds that the 
     project is part of a State rail plan developed under chapter 
     225 of this title, or under the plan required by section 302 
     of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 
     and that the applicant or recipient has or will have the 
     legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out the 
     project, satisfactory continuing control over the use of the 
     equipment or facilities, and the capability and willingness 
     to maintain the equipment or facilities.
       ``(2) An applicant shall provide sufficient information 
     upon which the Secretary can make the findings required by 
     this subsection.
       ``(3) If an applicant has not selected the proposed 
     operator of its service competitively, the applicant shall 
     provide written justification to the Secretary showing why 
     the proposed operator is the best, taking into account price 
     and other factors, and that use of the proposed operator will 
     not unnecessarily increase the cost of the project.
       ``(c) Project Selection Criteria.--The Secretary, in 
     selecting the recipients of financial assistance to be 
     provided under subsection (a), shall--

[[Page H5239]]

       ``(1) require that each proposed project meet all safety 
     requirements that are applicable to the project under law;
       ``(2) give preference to projects with high levels of 
     estimated ridership, increased on-time performance, reduced 
     trip time, additional service frequency to meet anticipated 
     or existing demand, or other significant service enhancements 
     as measured against minimum standards developed under section 
     207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 
     2008;
       ``(3) encourage intermodal connectivity through projects 
     that provide direct connections between train stations, 
     airports, bus terminals, subway stations, ferry ports, and 
     other modes of transportation;
       ``(4) ensure that each project is compatible with, and is 
     operated in conformance with--
       ``(A) plans developed pursuant to the requirements of 
     section 135 of title 23, United States Code; and
       ``(B) the national rail plan (if it is available); and
       ``(5) favor the following kinds of projects:
       ``(A) Projects that are expected to have a significant 
     favorable impact on air or highway traffic congestion, 
     capacity, or safety.
       ``(B) Projects that improve freight or commuter rail 
     operations.
       ``(C) Projects that have significant environmental 
     benefits, including projects that involve the purchase of 
     environmentally sensitive, fuel-efficient, and cost-effective 
     passenger rail equipment.
       ``(D) Projects that are--
       ``(i) at a stage of preparation that all pre-commencement 
     compliance with environmental protection requirements has 
     already been completed; and
       ``(ii) ready to be commenced.
       ``(E) Projects with positive economic and employment 
     impacts.
       ``(F) Projects that encourage the use of positive train 
     control technologies.
       ``(G) Projects that have commitments of funding from non-
     Federal Government sources in a total amount that exceeds the 
     minimum amount of the non-Federal contribution required for 
     the project.
       ``(H) Projects that involve donated property interests or 
     services.
       ``(I) Projects that are identified by the Surface 
     Transportation Board as necessary to improve the on time 
     performance and reliability of intercity passenger rail under 
     section 24308(f).
       ``(J) Projects described in section 5302(a)(1)(G) of this 
     title that are designed to support intercity passenger rail 
     service.
       ``(K) Projects that encourage intermodal connectivity, 
     create significant opportunity for State and private 
     contributions toward station development, are energy and 
     environmentally efficient, and have economic benefits.
       ``(d) Amtrak Eligibility.--To receive a grant under this 
     section, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation may 
     enter into a cooperative agreement with 1 or more States to 
     carry out 1 or more projects on a State rail plan's ranked 
     list of rail capital projects developed under section 
     22504(a)(5) of this title.
       ``(e) Letters of Intent, Full Funding Grant Agreements, and 
     Early Systems Work Agreements.--
       ``(1)(A) The Secretary may issue a letter of intent to an 
     applicant announcing an intention to obligate, for a major 
     capital project under this section, an amount from future 
     available budget authority specified in law that is not more 
     than the amount stipulated as the financial participation of 
     the Secretary in the project.
       ``(B) At least 30 days before issuing a letter under 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph or entering into a full 
     funding grant agreement, the Secretary shall notify in 
     writing the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations of the proposed letter or 
     agreement. The Secretary shall include with the notification 
     a copy of the proposed letter or agreement as well as the 
     evaluations and ratings for the project.
       ``(C) An obligation or administrative commitment may be 
     made only when amounts are appropriated.
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary may make a full funding grant 
     agreement with an applicant. The agreement shall--
       ``(i) establish the terms of participation by the United 
     States Government in a project under this section;
       ``(ii) establish the maximum amount of Government financial 
     assistance for the project;
       ``(iii) cover the period of time for completing the 
     project, including a period extending beyond the period of an 
     authorization; and
       ``(iv) make timely and efficient management of the project 
     easier according to the law of the United States.
       ``(B) An agreement under this paragraph obligates an amount 
     of available budget authority specified in law and may 
     include a commitment, contingent on amounts to be specified 
     in law in advance for commitments under this paragraph, to 
     obligate an additional amount from future available budget 
     authority specified in law. The agreement shall state that 
     the contingent commitment is not an obligation of the 
     Government and is subject to the availability of 
     appropriations made by Federal law and to Federal laws in 
     force on or enacted after the date of the contingent 
     commitment. Interest and other financing costs of efficiently 
     carrying out a part of the project within a reasonable time 
     are a cost of carrying out the project under a full funding 
     grant agreement, except that eligible costs may not be more 
     than the cost of the most favorable financing terms 
     reasonably available for the project at the time of 
     borrowing. The applicant shall certify, in a way satisfactory 
     to the Secretary, that the applicant has shown reasonable 
     diligence in seeking the most favorable financing terms.
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary may make an early systems work 
     agreement with an applicant if a record of decision under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) has been issued on the project and the Secretary finds 
     there is reason to believe--
       ``(i) a full funding grant agreement for the project will 
     be made; and
       ``(ii) the terms of the work agreement will promote 
     ultimate completion of the project more rapidly and at less 
     cost.
       ``(B) A work agreement under this paragraph obligates an 
     amount of available budget authority specified in law and 
     shall provide for reimbursement of preliminary costs of 
     carrying out the project, including land acquisition, timely 
     procurement of system elements for which specifications are 
     decided, and other activities the Secretary decides are 
     appropriate to make efficient, long-term project management 
     easier. A work agreement shall cover the period of time the 
     Secretary considers appropriate. The period may extend beyond 
     the period of current authorization. Interest and other 
     financing costs of efficiently carrying out the work 
     agreement within a reasonable time are a cost of carrying out 
     the agreement, except that eligible costs may not be more 
     than the cost of the most favorable financing terms 
     reasonably available for the project at the time of 
     borrowing. The applicant shall certify, in a way satisfactory 
     to the Secretary, that the applicant has shown reasonable 
     diligence in seeking the most favorable financing terms. If 
     an applicant does not carry out the project for reasons 
     within the control of the applicant, the applicant shall 
     repay all Government payments made under the work agreement 
     plus reasonable interest and penalty charges the Secretary 
     establishes in the agreement.
       ``(4) The total estimated amount of future obligations of 
     the Government and contingent commitments to incur 
     obligations covered by all outstanding letters of intent, 
     full funding grant agreements, and early systems work 
     agreements may be not more than the amount authorized under 
     section 101(d) of the Passenger Rail Investment and 
     Improvement Act of 2008, less an amount the Secretary 
     reasonably estimates is necessary for grants under this 
     section not covered by a letter. The total amount covered by 
     new letters and contingent commitments included in full 
     funding grant agreements and early systems work agreements 
     may be not more than a limitation specified in law.
       ``(f) Federal Share of Net Project Cost.--
       ``(1)(A) Based on engineering studies, studies of economic 
     feasibility, and information on the expected use of equipment 
     or facilities, the Secretary shall estimate the net project 
     cost.
       ``(B) A grant for the project shall not exceed 80 percent 
     of the project net capital cost.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall give priority in allocating 
     future obligations and contingent commitments to incur 
     obligations to grant requests seeking a lower Federal share 
     of the project net capital cost.
       ``(2) Up to an additional 20 percent of the required non-
     Federal funds may be funded from amounts appropriated to or 
     made available to a department or agency of the Federal 
     Government that are eligible to be expended for 
     transportation.
       ``(3) 50 percent of the average amounts expended by a State 
     or group of States (including the District of Columbia) for 
     capital projects to benefit intercity passenger rail service 
     and operating costs in fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 
     2006, 2007, and 2008 shall be credited towards the matching 
     requirements for grants awarded in fiscal years 2009, 2010, 
     and 2011 under this section. The Secretary may require such 
     information as necessary to verify such expenditures.
       ``(4) 50 percent of the average amounts expended by a State 
     or group of States (including the District of Columbia) in a 
     fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 2007, for capital 
     projects to benefit intercity passenger rail service or for 
     the operating costs of such service above the average capital 
     and operating expenditures made for such service in fiscal 
     years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 shall be credited 
     towards the matching requirements for grants awarded under 
     this section. The Secretary may require such information as 
     necessary to verify such expenditures.
       ``(g) Undertaking Projects in Advance.--
       ``(1) The Secretary may pay the Federal share of the net 
     capital project cost to an applicant that carries out any 
     part of a project described in this section according to all 
     applicable procedures and requirements if--
       ``(A) the applicant applies for the payment;
       ``(B) the Secretary approves the payment; and
       ``(C) before carrying out the part of the project, the 
     Secretary approves the plans and specifications for the part 
     in the same way as other projects under this section.
       ``(2) The cost of carrying out part of a project includes 
     the amount of interest earned and payable on bonds issued by 
     the applicant to the extent proceeds of the bonds are 
     expended in carrying out the part. However, the amount of 
     interest under this paragraph may not be more than the most 
     favorable interest terms reasonably available for the project 
     at the time of borrowing. The applicant shall certify, in a 
     manner satisfactory to the Secretary, that the applicant has 
     shown reasonable diligence in seeking the most favorable 
     financial terms.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall consider changes in capital 
     project cost indices when determining the estimated cost 
     under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
       ``(h) 2-Year Availability.--Funds appropriated under this 
     section shall remain available until expended. If any amount 
     provided as a grant under this section is not obligated or 
     expended for the purposes described in subsection (a) within 
     2 years after the date on which the

[[Page H5240]]

     State received the grant, such sums shall be returned to the 
     Secretary for other intercity passenger rail development 
     projects under this section at the discretion of the 
     Secretary.
       ``(i) Special Transportation Circumstances.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall allocate an appropriate 
     portion of the amounts available under this section to 
     provide grants to States--
       ``(1) in which there is no intercity passenger rail service 
     for the purpose of funding freight rail capital projects that 
     are on a State rail plan developed under chapter 225 of this 
     title that provide public benefits (as defined in chapter 
     225) as determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(2) in which the rail transportation system is not 
     physically connected to rail systems in the continental 
     United States or may not otherwise qualify for a grant under 
     this section due to the unique characteristics of the 
     geography of that State or other relevant considerations, for 
     the purpose of funding transportation-related capital 
     projects.
       ``(j) Small Capital Projects.--The Secretary shall make 
     available $10,000,000 annually from the amounts authorized 
     under section 101(d) of the Passenger Rail Investment and 
     Improvement Act of 2008 beginning in fiscal year 2009 for 
     grants for capital projects eligible under this section not 
     exceeding $2,000,000, including costs eligible under section 
     206(c) of that Act. The Secretary may wave requirements of 
     this section, including state rail plan requirements, as 
     appropriate.

     ``Sec. 24403. Project management oversight

       ``(a) Project Management Plan Requirements.--To receive 
     Federal financial assistance for a major capital project 
     under this chapter, an applicant must prepare and carry out a 
     project management plan approved by the Secretary of 
     Transportation. The plan shall provide for--
       ``(1) adequate recipient staff organization with well-
     defined reporting relationships, statements of functional 
     responsibilities, job descriptions, and job qualifications;
       ``(2) a budget covering the project management 
     organization, appropriate consultants, property acquisition, 
     utility relocation, systems demonstration staff, audits, and 
     miscellaneous payments the recipient may be prepared to 
     justify;
       ``(3) a construction schedule for the project;
       ``(4) a document control procedure and recordkeeping 
     system;
       ``(5) a change order procedure that includes a documented, 
     systematic approach to handling the construction change 
     orders;
       ``(6) organizational structures, management skills, and 
     staffing levels required throughout the construction phase;
       ``(7) quality control and quality assurance functions, 
     procedures, and responsibilities for construction, system 
     installation, and integration of system components;
       ``(8) material testing policies and procedures;
       ``(9) internal plan implementation and reporting 
     requirements;
       ``(10) criteria and procedures to be used for testing the 
     operational system or its major components;
       ``(11) periodic updates of the plan, especially related to 
     project budget and project schedule, financing, and ridership 
     estimates; and
       ``(12) the recipient's commitment to submit a project 
     budget and project schedule to the Secretary each month.
       ``(b) Secretarial Oversight.--
       ``(1) The Secretary may use no more than 0.5 percent of 
     amounts made available in a fiscal year for capital projects 
     under this chapter to enter into contracts to oversee the 
     construction of such projects.
       ``(2) The Secretary may use amounts available under 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection to make contracts for 
     safety, procurement, management, and financial compliance 
     reviews and audits of a recipient of amounts under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(3) The Federal Government shall pay the entire cost of 
     carrying out a contract under this subsection.
       ``(c) Access to Sites and Records.--Each recipient of 
     assistance under this chapter shall provide the Secretary and 
     a contractor the Secretary chooses under subsection (c) of 
     this section with access to the construction sites and 
     records of the recipient when reasonably necessary.

     ``Sec. 24404. Use of capital grants to finance first-dollar 
       liability of grant project

       ``Notwithstanding the requirements of section 24402 of this 
     chapter, the Secretary of Transportation may approve the use 
     of capital assistance under this chapter to fund self-insured 
     retention of risk for the first tier of liability insurance 
     coverage for rail passenger service associated with the 
     capital assistance grant, but the coverage may not exceed 
     $20,000,000 per occurrence or $20,000,000 in aggregate per 
     year.

     ``Sec. 24405. Grant conditions

       ``(a) Domestic Buying Preference.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out a project funded in 
     whole or in part with a grant under this title, the grant 
     recipient shall purchase only--
       ``(i) unmanufactured articles, material, and supplies mined 
     or produced in the United States; or
       ``(ii) manufactured articles, material, and supplies 
     manufactured in the United States substantially from 
     articles, material, and supplies mined, produced, or 
     manufactured in the United States.
       ``(B) De minimis amount.--Subparagraph (A) applies only to 
     a purchase in an total amount that is not less than 
     $1,000,000.
       ``(2) Exemptions.--On application of a recipient, the 
     Secretary may exempt a recipient from the requirements of 
     this subsection if the Secretary decides that, for particular 
     articles, material, or supplies--
       ``(A) such requirements are inconsistent with the public 
     interest;
       ``(B) the cost of imposing the requirements is 
     unreasonable; or
       ``(C) the articles, material, or supplies, or the articles, 
     material, or supplies from which they are manufactured, are 
     not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in 
     sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and 
     are not of a satisfactory quality.
       ``(3) United states defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `the United States' means the States, territories, and 
     possessions of the United States and the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(b) Operators Deemed Rail Carriers and Employers for 
     Certain Purposes.--A person that conducts rail operations 
     over rail infrastructure constructed or improved with funding 
     provided in whole or in part in a grant made under this title 
     shall be considered a rail carrier as defined in section 
     10102(5) of this title for purposes of this title and any 
     other statute that adopts that definition or in which that 
     definition applies, including--
       ``(1) the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231 et 
     seq.);
       ``(2) the Railway Labor Act (43 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); and
       ``(3) the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 
     351 et seq.).
       ``(c) Grant Conditions.--The Secretary shall require as a 
     condition of making any grant under this title for a project 
     that uses rights-of-way owned by a railroad that--
       ``(1) a written agreement exist between the applicant and 
     the railroad regarding such use and ownership, including--
       ``(A) any compensation for such use;
       ``(B) assurances regarding the adequacy of infrastructure 
     capacity to accommodate both existing and future freight and 
     passenger operations;
       ``(C) an assurance by the railroad that collective 
     bargaining agreements with the railroad's employees 
     (including terms regulating the contracting of work) will 
     remain in full force and effect according to their terms for 
     work performed by the railroad on the railroad transportation 
     corridor; and
       ``(D) an assurance that an applicant complies with 
     liability requirements consistent with section 28103 of this 
     title; and
       ``(2) the applicant agrees to comply with--
       ``(A) the standards of section 24312 of this title, as such 
     section was in effect on September 1, 2003, with respect to 
     the project in the same manner that the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation is required to comply with those 
     standards for construction work financed under an agreement 
     made under section 24308(a) of this title; and
       ``(B) the protective arrangements established under section 
     504 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act 
     of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 836) with respect to employees affected by 
     actions taken in connection with the project to be financed 
     in whole or in part by grants under this chapter.
       ``(d) Replacement of Existing Intercity Passenger Rail 
     Service.--
       ``(1) Collective bargaining agreement for intercity 
     passenger rail projects.--Any entity providing intercity 
     passenger railroad transportation that begins operations 
     after the date of enactment of this Act on a project funded 
     in whole or in part by grants made under this title and 
     replaces intercity rail passenger service that was provided 
     by Amtrak, unless such service was provided solely by Amtrak 
     to another entity, as of such date shall enter into an 
     agreement with the authorized bargaining agent or agents for 
     adversely affected employees of the predecessor provider 
     that--
       ``(A) gives each such qualified employee of the predecessor 
     provider priority in hiring according to the employee's 
     seniority on the predecessor provider for each position with 
     the replacing entity that is in the employee's craft or class 
     and is available within 3 years after the termination of the 
     service being replaced;
       ``(B) establishes a procedure for notifying such an 
     employee of such positions;
       ``(C) establishes a procedure for such an employee to apply 
     for such positions; and
       ``(D) establishes rates of pay, rules, and working 
     conditions.
       ``(2) Immediate replacement service.--
       ``(A) Negotiations.--If the replacement of preexisting 
     intercity rail passenger service occurs concurrent with or 
     within a reasonable time before the commencement of the 
     replacing entity's rail passenger service, the replacing 
     entity shall give written notice of its plan to replace 
     existing rail passenger service to the authorized collective 
     bargaining agent or agents for the potentially adversely 
     affected employees of the predecessor provider at least 90 
     days before the date on which it plans to commence service. 
     Within 5 days after the date of receipt of such written 
     notice, negotiations between the replacing entity and the 
     collective bargaining agent or agents for the employees of 
     the predecessor provider shall commence for the purpose of 
     reaching agreement with respect to all matters set forth in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1). The 
     negotiations shall continue for 30 days or until an agreement 
     is reached, whichever is sooner. If at the end of 30 days the 
     parties have not entered into an agreement with respect to 
     all such matters, the unresolved issues shall be submitted 
     for arbitration in accordance with the procedure set forth in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Arbitration.--If an agreement has not been entered 
     into with respect to all matters set forth in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (D) of paragraph (1) as described in subparagraph 
     (A) of this paragraph, the parties shall select an 
     arbitrator. If the parties are unable to agree upon the 
     selection of such arbitrator within 5 days, either or both 
     parties shall notify the National Mediation Board, which 
     shall provide a list of

[[Page H5241]]

     seven arbitrators with experience in arbitrating rail labor 
     protection disputes. Within 5 days after such notification, 
     the parties shall alternately strike names from the list 
     until only 1 name remains, and that person shall serve as the 
     neutral arbitrator. Within 45 days after selection of the 
     arbitrator, the arbitrator shall conduct a hearing on the 
     dispute and shall render a decision with respect to the 
     unresolved issues among the matters set forth in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1). This decision 
     shall be final, binding, and conclusive upon the parties. The 
     salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally 
     by the parties; all other expenses shall be paid by the party 
     incurring them.
       ``(3) Service commencement.--A replacing entity under this 
     subsection shall commence service only after an agreement is 
     entered into with respect to the matters set forth in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1) or the 
     decision of the arbitrator has been rendered.
       ``(4) Subsequent replacement of service.--If the 
     replacement of existing rail passenger service takes place 
     within 3 years after the replacing entity commences intercity 
     passenger rail service, the replacing entity and the 
     collective bargaining agent or agents for the adversely 
     affected employees of the predecessor provider shall enter 
     into an agreement with respect to the matters set forth in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1). If the 
     parties have not entered into an agreement with respect to 
     all such matters within 60 days after the date on which the 
     replacing entity replaces the predecessor provider, the 
     parties shall select an arbitrator using the procedures set 
     forth in paragraph (2)(B), who shall, within 20 days after 
     the commencement of the arbitration, conduct a hearing and 
     decide all unresolved issues. This decision shall be final, 
     binding, and conclusive upon the parties.
       ``(e) Inapplicability to Certain Rail Operations.--Nothing 
     in this section applies to--
       ``(1) commuter rail passenger transportation (as defined in 
     section 24102(4) of this title) operations of a State or 
     local government authority (as those terms are defined in 
     section 5302(11) and (6), respectively, of this title) 
     eligible to receive financial assistance under section 5307 
     of this title, or to its contractor performing services in 
     connection with commuter rail passenger operations (as so 
     defined);
       ``(2) the Alaska Railroad or its contractors; or
       ``(3) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation's access 
     rights to railroad rights of way and facilities under current 
     law.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for 
     subtitle V is amended by inserting the following after the 
     item relating to chapter 243:

``244. INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE CORRIDOR CAPITAL AS24401''.....

     SEC. 302. STATE RAIL PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Part B of subtitle V is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

       ``CHAPTER 225--STATE RAIL PLANS AND HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS

``Sec.
``22501. Definitions.
``22502. Authority.
``22503. Purposes.
``22504. Transparency; coordination; review.
``22505. Content.
``22506. Review.

     ``Sec. 22501. Definitions

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Private benefit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `private benefit'--
       ``(i) means a benefit accrued to a person or private 
     entity, other than the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation, that directly improves the economic and 
     competitive condition of that person or entity through 
     improved assets, cost reductions, service improvements, or 
     any other means as defined by the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) shall be determined on a project-by-project basis, 
     based upon an agreement between the parties.
       ``(B) Consultation.--The Secretary may seek the advice of 
     the States and rail carriers in further defining this term.
       ``(2) Public benefit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `public benefit'--
       ``(i) means a benefit accrued to the public in the form of 
     enhanced mobility of people or goods, environmental 
     protection or enhancement, congestion mitigation, enhanced 
     trade and economic development, improved air quality or land 
     use, more efficient energy use, enhanced public safety, 
     reduction of public expenditures due to improved 
     transportation efficiency or infrastructure preservation, and 
     any other positive community effects as defined by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(ii) shall be determined on a project-by-project basis, 
     based upon an agreement between the parties.
       ``(B) Consultation.--The Secretary may seek the advice of 
     the States and rail carriers in further defining this term.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' means any of the 50 States 
     and the District of Columbia.
       ``(4) State rail transportation authority.--The term `State 
     rail transportation authority' means the State agency or 
     official responsible under the direction of the Governor of 
     the State or a State law for preparation, maintenance, 
     coordination, and administration of the State rail plan.

     ``Sec. 22502. Authority

       ``(a) In General.--Each State may prepare and maintain a 
     State rail plan in accordance with the provisions of this 
     chapter.
       ``(b) Requirements.--For the preparation and periodic 
     revision of a State rail plan, a State shall--
       ``(1) establish or designate a State rail transportation 
     authority to prepare, maintain, coordinate, and administer 
     the plan;
       ``(2) establish or designate a State rail plan approval 
     authority to approve the plan;
       ``(3) submit the State's approved plan to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for review; and
       ``(4) revise and resubmit a State-approved plan no less 
     frequently than once every 5 years for reapproval by the 
     Secretary.

     ``Sec. 22503. Purposes

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of a State rail plan are as 
     follows:
       ``(1) To set forth State policy involving freight and 
     passenger rail transportation, including commuter rail 
     operations, in the State.
       ``(2) To establish the period covered by the State rail 
     plan.
       ``(3) To present priorities and strategies to enhance rail 
     service in the State that benefits the public.
       ``(4) To serve as the basis for Federal and State rail 
     investments within the State.
       ``(b) Coordination.--A State rail plan shall be coordinated 
     with other State transportation planning goals and programs 
     and set forth rail transportation's role within the State 
     transportation system.

     ``Sec. 22504. Transparency; coordination; review

       ``(a) Preparation.--A State shall provide adequate and 
     reasonable notice and opportunity for comment and other input 
     to the public, rail carriers, commuter and transit 
     authorities operating in, or affected by rail operations 
     within the State, units of local government, and other 
     interested parties in the preparation and review of its State 
     rail plan.
       ``(b) Intergovernmental Coordination.--A State shall review 
     the freight and passenger rail service activities and 
     initiatives by regional planning agencies, regional 
     transportation authorities, and municipalities within the 
     State, or in the region in which the State is located, while 
     preparing the plan, and shall include any recommendations 
     made by such agencies, authorities, and municipalities as 
     deemed appropriate by the State.

     ``Sec. 22505. Content

       ``(a) In General.--Each State rail plan shall contain the 
     following:
       ``(1) An inventory of the existing overall rail 
     transportation system and rail services and facilities within 
     the State and an analysis of the role of rail transportation 
     within the State's surface transportation system.
       ``(2) A review of all rail lines within the State, 
     including proposed high-speed rail corridors and significant 
     rail line segments not currently in service.
       ``(3) A statement of the State's passenger rail service 
     objectives, including minimum service levels, for rail 
     transportation routes in the State.
       ``(4) A general analysis of rail's transportation, 
     economic, and environmental impacts in the State, including 
     congestion mitigation, trade and economic development, air 
     quality, land-use, energy-use, and community impacts.
       ``(5) A long-range rail investment program for current and 
     future freight and passenger infrastructure in the State that 
     meets the requirements of subsection (b).
       ``(6) A statement of public financing issues for rail 
     projects and service in the State, including a list of 
     current and prospective public capital and operating funding 
     resources, public subsidies, State taxation, and other 
     financial policies relating to rail infrastructure 
     development.
       ``(7) An identification of rail infrastructure issues 
     within the State that reflects consultation with all relevant 
     stake holders.
       ``(8) A review of major passenger and freight intermodal 
     rail connections and facilities within the State, including 
     seaports, and prioritized options to maximize service 
     integration and efficiency between rail and other modes of 
     transportation within the State.
       ``(9) A review of publicly funded projects within the State 
     to improve rail transportation safety, including all major 
     projects funded under section 130 of title 23.
       ``(10) A performance evaluation of passenger rail services 
     operating in the State, including possible improvements in 
     those services, and a description of strategies to achieve 
     those improvements.
       ``(11) A compilation of studies and reports on high-speed 
     rail corridor development within the State not included in a 
     previous plan under this chapter, and a plan for funding any 
     recommended development of such corridors in the State.
       ``(12) A statement that the State is in compliance with the 
     requirements of section 22102.
       ``(b) Long-Range Service and Investment Program.--
       ``(1) Program content.--A long-range rail investment 
     program included in a State rail plan under subsection (a)(5) 
     shall include the following matters:
       ``(A) A list of any rail capital projects expected to be 
     undertaken or supported in whole or in part by the State.
       ``(B) A detailed funding plan for those projects.
       ``(2) Project list content.--The list of rail capital 
     projects shall contain--
       ``(A) a description of the anticipated public and private 
     benefits of each such project; and
       ``(B) a statement of the correlation between--
       ``(i) public funding contributions for the projects; and
       ``(ii) the public benefits.
       ``(3) Considerations for project list.--In preparing the 
     list of freight and intercity passenger rail capital 
     projects, a State rail transportation authority should take 
     into consideration the following matters:
       ``(A) Contributions made by non-Federal and non-State 
     sources through user fees, matching funds, or other private 
     capital involvement.

[[Page H5242]]

       ``(B) Rail capacity and congestion effects.
       ``(C) Effects on highway, aviation, and maritime capacity, 
     congestion, or safety.
       ``(D) Regional balance.
       ``(E) Environmental impact.
       ``(F) Economic and employment impacts.
       ``(G) Projected ridership and other service measures for 
     passenger rail projects.

     ``Sec. 22506. Review

       ``The Secretary shall prescribe procedures for States to 
     submit State rail plans for review under this title, 
     including standardized format and data requirements. State 
     rail plans completed before the date of enactment of the 
     Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 that 
     substantially meet the requirements of this chapter, as 
     determined by the Secretary, shall be deemed by the Secretary 
     to have met the requirements of this chapter.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for 
     subtitle V is amended by inserting the following after the 
     item relating to chapter 223:

``225. STATE RAIL PLANS AND HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS.........22501''.....

     SEC. 303. NEXT GENERATION CORRIDOR TRAIN EQUIPMENT POOL.

       (a) In General.--Within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall establish a Next 
     Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee, comprised of 
     representatives of Amtrak, the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, host freight railroad companies, passenger 
     railroad equipment manufacturers, and other passenger 
     railroad operators as appropriate and interested States. The 
     purpose of the Committee shall be to design, develop 
     specifications for, and procure standardized next-generation 
     corridor equipment.
       (b) Functions.--The Committee may--
       (1) determine the number of different types of equipment 
     required, taking into account variations in operational needs 
     and corridor infrastructure;
       (2) establish a pool of equipment to be used on corridor 
     routes funded by participating States; and
       (3) subject to agreements between Amtrak and States, 
     utilize services provided by Amtrak to design, maintain and 
     remanufacture equipment.
       (c) Cooperative Agreements.--Amtrak and States 
     participating in the Committee may enter into agreements for 
     the funding, procurement, remanufacture, ownership and 
     management of corridor equipment, including equipment 
     currently owned or leased by Amtrak and next-generation 
     corridor equipment acquired as a result of the Committee's 
     actions, and may establish a corporation, which may be owned 
     or jointly owned by Amtrak, participating States or other 
     entities, to perform these functions.
       (d) Funding.--In addition to the authorization provided in 
     section 103(2) of this Act, capital projects to carry out the 
     purposes of this section shall be eligible for grants made 
     pursuant to chapter 244 of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 304. RAIL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment and Content.--Chapter 249 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 24910. Rail cooperative research program

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a rail cooperative research program. The program shall--
       ``(1) address, among other matters, intercity rail 
     passenger and freight rail services, including existing rail 
     passenger and freight technologies and speeds, incrementally 
     enhanced rail systems and infrastructure, and new high-speed 
     wheel-on-rail systems;
       ``(2) address ways to expand the transportation of 
     international trade traffic by rail, enhance the efficiency 
     of intermodal interchange at ports and other intermodal 
     terminals, and increase capacity and availability of rail 
     service for seasonal freight needs;
       ``(3) consider research on the interconnectedness of 
     commuter rail, passenger rail, freight rail, and other rail 
     networks; and
       ``(4) give consideration to regional concerns regarding 
     rail passenger and freight transportation, including meeting 
     research needs common to designated high-speed corridors, 
     long-distance rail services, and regional intercity rail 
     corridors, projects, and entities.
       ``(b) Content.--The program to be carried out under this 
     section shall include research designed--
       ``(1) to identify the unique aspects and attributes of rail 
     passenger and freight service;
       ``(2) to develop more accurate models for evaluating the 
     impact of rail passenger and freight service, including the 
     effects on highway and airport and airway congestion, 
     environmental quality, and energy consumption;
       ``(3) to develop a better understanding of modal choice as 
     it affects rail passenger and freight transportation, 
     including development of better models to predict 
     utilization;
       ``(4) to recommend priorities for technology demonstration 
     and development;
       ``(5) to meet additional priorities as determined by the 
     advisory board established under subsection (c), including 
     any recommendations made by the National Research Council;
       ``(6) to explore improvements in management, financing, and 
     institutional structures;
       ``(7) to address rail capacity constraints that affect 
     passenger and freight rail service through a wide variety of 
     options, ranging from operating improvements to dedicated new 
     infrastructure, taking into account the impact of such 
     options on operations;
       ``(8) to improve maintenance, operations, customer service, 
     or other aspects of intercity rail passenger and freight 
     service;
       ``(9) to recommend objective methodologies for determining 
     intercity passenger rail routes and services, including the 
     establishment of new routes, the elimination of existing 
     routes, and the contraction or expansion of services or 
     frequencies over such routes;
       ``(10) to review the impact of equipment and operational 
     safety standards on the further development of high-speed 
     passenger rail operations connected to or integrated with 
     non-high-speed freight or passenger rail operations;
       ``(11) to recommend any legislative or regulatory changes 
     necessary to foster further development and implementation of 
     high-speed passenger rail operations while ensuring the 
     safety of such operations that are connected to or integrated 
     with non-high-speed freight or passenger rail operations; and
       ``(12) to review rail crossing safety improvements, 
     including improvements using new safety technology.
       ``(c) Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--In consultation with the heads of 
     appropriate Federal departments and agencies, the Secretary 
     shall establish an advisory board to recommend research, 
     technology, and technology transfer activities related to 
     rail passenger and freight transportation.
       ``(2) Membership.--The advisory board shall include--
       ``(A) representatives of State transportation agencies;
       ``(B) transportation and environmental economists, 
     scientists, and engineers; and
       ``(C) representatives of Amtrak, the Alaska Railroad, 
     freight railroads, transit operating agencies, intercity rail 
     passenger agencies, railway labor organizations, and 
     environmental organizations.
       ``(d) National Academy of Sciences.--The Secretary may make 
     grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, the 
     National Academy of Sciences to carry out such activities 
     relating to the research, technology, and technology transfer 
     activities described in subsection (b) as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     249 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``24910. Rail cooperative research program.''.

     SEC. 305. PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM COMPARISON STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall complete a study that compares the 
     passenger rail system in the United States with the passenger 
     rail systems in Canada, Germany, Great Britain, France, 
     China, Spain, and Japan.
       (b) Issues To Be Studied.--The study conducted under 
     subsection (a) shall include a country-by-country comparison 
     of--
       (1) the development of high-speed rail;
       (2) passenger rail operating costs;
       (3) the amount and payment source of rail line construction 
     and maintenance costs;
       (4) the amount and payment source of station construction 
     and maintenance costs;
       (5) passenger rail debt service costs;
       (6) passenger rail labor agreements and associated costs;
       (7) the net profit realized by the major passenger rail 
     service providers in each of the 4 most recent quarters;
       (8) the percentage of the passenger rail system's costs 
     that are paid from general government revenues; and
       (9) the method used by the government to provide the 
     subsidies described in paragraph (8).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the completion 
     of the study under subsection (a), the Comptroller General 
     shall submit a report containing the findings of such study 
     to--
       (1) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate.

              TITLE IV--COMMUTER RAIL TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT

     SEC. 401. COMMUTER RAIL TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT.

       (a) Amendment.--Part E of subtitle V is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

            ``CHAPTER 285--COMMUTER RAIL TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT

``Sec.
``28501. Definitions
``28502. Surface Transportation Board mediation of trackage use 
              requests.
``28503. Surface Transportation Board mediation of rights-of-way use 
              requests.
``28504. Applicability of other laws.
``28505. Rules and regulations.

     ``Sec. 28501. Definitions

       ``In this chapter--
       ``(1) the term `Board' means the Surface Transportation 
     Board;
       ``(2) the term `capital work' means maintenance, 
     restoration, reconstruction, capacity enhancement, or 
     rehabilitation work on trackage that would be treated, in 
     accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, as 
     a capital item rather than an expense;
       ``(3) the term `fixed guideway transportation' means public 
     transportation (as defined in section 5302(a)(10)) provided 
     on, by, or using a fixed guideway (as defined in section 
     5302(a)(4));
       ``(4) the term `public transportation authority' means a 
     local governmental authority (as defined in section 
     5302(a)(6)) established to provide, or make a contract 
     providing for, fixed guideway transportation;
       ``(5) the term `rail carrier' means a person, other than a 
     governmental authority, providing common carrier railroad 
     transportation for compensation subject to the jurisdiction 
     of the Board under chapter 105;
       ``(6) the term `segregated fixed guideway facility' means a 
     fixed guideway facility constructed within the railroad 
     right-of-way of a rail carrier

[[Page H5243]]

     but physically separate from trackage, including relocated 
     trackage, within the right-of-way used by a rail carrier for 
     freight transportation purposes; and
       ``(7) the term `trackage' means a railroad line of a rail 
     carrier, including a spur, industrial, team, switching, side, 
     yard, or station track, and a facility of a rail carrier.

     ``Sec. 28502. Surface Transportation Board mediation of 
       trackage use requests

       ``If, after a reasonable period of negotiation, a public 
     transportation authority cannot reach agreement with a rail 
     carrier to use trackage of, and have related services 
     provided by, the rail carrier for purposes of fixed guideway 
     transportation, the public transportation authority or the 
     rail carrier may apply to the Board for nonbinding mediation. 
     The Board shall conduct the nonbinding mediation in 
     accordance with the mediation process of section 1109.4 of 
     title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this section.

     ``Sec. 28503. Surface Transportation Board mediation of 
       rights-of-way use requests

       ``If, after a reasonable period of negotiation, a public 
     transportation authority cannot reach agreement with a rail 
     carrier to acquire an interest in a railroad right-of-way for 
     the construction and operation of a segregated fixed guideway 
     facility, the public transportation authority or the rail 
     carrier may apply to the Board for nonbinding mediation. The 
     Board shall conduct the nonbinding mediation in accordance 
     with the mediation process of section 1109.4 of title 49, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this section.

     ``Sec. 28504. Applicability of other laws

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit a 
     rail transportation provider's right under section 28103(b) 
     to enter into contracts that allocate financial 
     responsibility for claims.

     ``Sec. 28505. Rules and regulations

       ``Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this section, the Board shall issue such rules and 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters of such 
     subtitle is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     chapter 283 the following:

``285. COMMUTER RAIL TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT...................28501''.....

                        TITLE V--HIGH-SPEED RAIL

     SEC. 501. HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 261 is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 26106. High-speed rail corridor program

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish and implement a high-speed rail corridor program.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Applicant.--The term `applicant' means a State, a 
     group of States, an Interstate Compact, a public agency 
     established by one or more States and having responsibility 
     for providing high-speed rail service, or Amtrak.
       ``(2) Corridor.--The term `corridor' means a corridor 
     designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 104(d)(2) of 
     title 23.
       ``(3) Capital project.--The term `capital project' means a 
     project or program in a State rail plan developed under 
     chapter 225 of this title for acquiring, constructing, 
     improving, or inspecting equipment, track, and track 
     structures, or a facility of use in or for the primary 
     benefit of high-speed rail service, expenses incidental to 
     the acquisition or construction (including designing, 
     engineering, location surveying, mapping, environmental 
     studies, and acquiring rights-of-way), payments for the 
     capital portions of rail trackage rights agreements, highway-
     rail grade crossing improvements related to high-speed rail 
     service, mitigating environmental impacts, communication and 
     signalization improvements, relocation assistance, acquiring 
     replacement housing sites, and acquiring, constructing, 
     relocating, and rehabilitating replacement housing.
       ``(4) High-speed rail.--The term `high-speed rail' means 
     intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected 
     to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour.
       ``(5) Intercity passenger rail service.--The term 
     `intercity passenger rail service' means transportation 
     services with the primary purpose of passenger transportation 
     between towns, cities, and metropolitan areas by rail, 
     including high-speed rail, as defined in section 24102 of 
     this title.
       ``(6) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       ``(7) State.--The term `State' means any of the 50 States 
     or the District of Columbia.
       ``(c) General Authority.--The Secretary may make grants 
     under this section to an applicant to finance capital 
     projects in high-speed rail corridors.
       ``(d) Applications.--Each applicant seeking to receive a 
     grant under this section to develop a high-speed rail 
     corridor shall submit to the Secretary an application in such 
     form and in accordance with such requirements as the 
     Secretary shall establish.
       ``(e) Competitive Grant Selection and Criteria for 
     Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish criteria for selecting among projects that 
     meet the criteria specified in paragraph (2);
       ``(B) conduct a national solicitation for applications; and
       ``(C) award grants on a competitive basis.
       ``(2) Grant criteria.--The Secretary may approve a grant 
     under this section for a project only if the Secretary 
     determines that the project--
       ``(A) is part of a State rail plan developed under chapter 
     225 of this title, or under the plan required by section 302 
     of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008;
       ``(B) is based on the results of preliminary engineering;
       ``(C) has the legal, financial, and technical capacity to 
     carry out the project; and
       ``(D) is justified based on the ability of the project--
       ``(i) to generate national economic benefits, including 
     creating jobs, expanding business opportunities, and 
     impacting the gross domestic product;
       ``(ii) to increase mobility of United States citizens and 
     reduce congestion, including impacts in the State, region, 
     and Nation; and
       ``(iii) to otherwise enhance the national transportation 
     system.
       ``(3) Project selection criteria.--In selecting a project 
     under this section, the Secretary shall consider the extent 
     to which the project--
       ``(A) makes a substantial contribution to providing the 
     infrastructure and equipment required to complete a high-
     speed rail corridor;
       ``(B) leverages Federal investment by encouraging non-
     Federal financial commitments, including evidence of stable 
     and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain, and 
     operate the high-speed rail corridor and service; and
       ``(C) helps protect the environment.
       ``(f) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project financed under this section shall not exceed 80 
     percent of the project net capital cost.
       ``(g) Issuance of Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     issue regulations for carrying out this section.
       ``(h) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $350,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.''.
       (b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 261 is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 26105 the following new item:

``26106. High-speed rail corridor program.''.

     SEC. 502. ADDITIONAL HIGH-SPEED PROJECTS.

       (a) Solicitation of Proposals.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Northeast corridor.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall issue a request for proposals for 
     projects for the financing, design, construction, and 
     operation of an initial high-speed rail system operating 
     between Washington, DC, and New York City. Such proposals 
     shall be submitted to the Secretary not later than 150 days 
     after the publication of such request for proposals.
       (B) Other projects.--After a report is transmitted under 
     subsection (e) with respect to projects described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
     request for proposals for additional projects for the 
     financing, design, construction, and operation of a high-
     speed rail system operating on any other corridor in the 
     United States. Such proposals shall be submitted to the 
     Secretary not later than 150 days after the publication of 
     such request for proposals.
       (2) Contents.--A proposal submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) the names and qualifications of the persons submitting 
     the proposal;
       (B) a detailed description of the proposed route and its 
     engineering characteristics and of all infrastructure 
     improvements required to achieve the planned operating speeds 
     and trip times;
       (C) how the project would comply with Federal rail safety 
     regulations which govern the track and equipment safety 
     requirements for high-speed rail operations;
       (D) the peak and average operating speeds to be attained;
       (E) the type of equipment to be used, including any 
     technologies for--
       (i) maintaining an operating speed the Secretary determines 
     appropriate; or
       (ii) in the case of a proposal submitted under paragraph 
     (1)(A), achieving less than 2-hour express service between 
     Washington, DC, and New York City;
       (F) the locations of proposed stations;
       (G) a detailed description of any proposed legislation 
     needed to facilitate the project;
       (H) a financing plan identifying--
       (i) sources of revenue;
       (ii) the amount of any proposed public contribution toward 
     capital costs or operations;
       (iii) ridership projections;
       (iv) the amount of private investment;
       (v) projected revenue;
       (vi) annual operating and capital costs;
       (vii) the amount of projected capital investments required 
     (both initially and in subsequent years to maintain a state 
     of good repair); and
       (viii) the sources of the private investment required, 
     including the identity of any person or entity that has made 
     or is expected to make a commitment to provide or secure 
     funding and the amount of such commitment;
       (I) a description of how the project would contribute to 
     the development of a national high-speed rail system, and an 
     intermodal plan describing how the system will connect with 
     other transportation links;
       (J) labor protections that would comply with the 
     requirements of section 504;
       (K) provisions to ensure that the proposal will be designed 
     to operate in harmony with existing and projected future 
     intercity, commuter, and freight service;
       (L) provisions for full fair market compensation for any 
     asset, property right or interest, or service acquired from, 
     owned, or held by a private person or non-Federal entity that 
     would be acquired, impaired, or diminished in value as a

[[Page H5244]]

     result of a project, except as otherwise agreed to by the 
     private person or entity; and
       (M) a detailed description of the environmental impacts of 
     the project, and how any adverse impacts would be mitigated.
       (3) Documents.--Documents submitted or developed pursuant 
     to this subsection shall not be subject to section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Determination of Cost Effectiveness and Establishment 
     of Commissions.--Not later than 60 days after receipt of a 
     proposal under subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall--
       (1) make a determination as to whether the proposal is cost 
     effective; and
       (2) for each corridor for which one or more cost effective 
     proposals are received, establish a commission under 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Commissions.--
       (1) Members.--The commission referred to in subsection 
     (b)(2) shall consist of--
       (A) the governor of the affected State or States, or their 
     respective designees;
       (B) a rail labor representative, a representative from a 
     rail freight carrier using the relevant corridor, and a 
     commuter authority using the relevant corridor, appointed by 
     the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate;
       (C) the Secretary of Transportation or his designee;
       (D) the president of Amtrak or his designee; and
       (E) the mayors of the three largest municipalities serviced 
     by the proposed high-speed rail corridor.
       (2) Chairperson and vice-chairperson selection.--The 
     Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among 
     members of the Commission.
       (3) Quorum and vacancy.--
       (A) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum.
       (B) Vacancy.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers and shall be filled in the same manner in 
     which the original appointment was made.
       (d) Commission Consideration.--
       (1) In general.--Each commission established under 
     subsection (b)(2) shall be responsible for reviewing the 
     proposal or proposals with respect to which the commission 
     was established, and not later than 90 days after the 
     establishment of the commission, shall transmit to the 
     Secretary, and to the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate, a report which 
     includes--
       (A) a summary of each proposal received;
       (B) a ranking of the order of the proposals according to 
     cost effectiveness, advantages over existing services, 
     projected revenue, and cost and benefit to the public and 
     private parties;
       (C) an indication of which proposal or proposals are 
     recommended by the commission; and
       (D) an identification of any proposed legislative 
     provisions which would facilitate implementation of the 
     recommended project.
       (2) Verbal presentation.--Proposers shall be given an 
     opportunity to make a verbal presentation to the commission 
     to explain their proposals.
       (e) Selection by Secretary.--Not later than 60 days after 
     receiving a report from a commission under subsection (d)(1), 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to the 
     Congress a report that ranks all of the recommended proposals 
     according to cost effectiveness, advantages over existing 
     services, projected revenue, and cost and benefit to the 
     public and private parties.
       (f) Northeast Corridor Economic Development Study.--Not 
     later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate the results of an economic 
     development study of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service 
     between Washington, DC, and New York City. Such study shall 
     examine how to achieve maximum utilization of the Northeast 
     Corridor as a transportation asset, including--
       (1) maximizing the assets of the Northeast Corridor for 
     potential economic development purposes;
       (2) real estate improvement and financial return;
       (3) improved intercity, commuter, and freight services;
       (4) optimum utility utilization in conjunction with 
     potential separated high-speed rail passenger services; and
       (5) any other means of maximizing the economic potential of 
     the Northeast Corridor.

     SEC. 503. HIGH-SPEED RAIL STUDY.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall conduct--
       (1) an alternatives analysis of the Secretary's December 1, 
     1998, extension of the designation of the Southeast High-
     Speed Rail Corridor as authorized under section 104(d)(2) of 
     title 23, United States Code; and
       (2) a feasibility analysis regarding the expansion of the 
     South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor to the Port of 
     Houston, Texas.

     These analyses shall consider changes that have occurred in 
     the region's population, anticipated patterns of population 
     growth, connectivity with other modes of transportation, 
     ability of the designation to reduce regional traffic 
     congestion, and the ability of current and proposed routings 
     to meet the needs of tourists. The Secretary shall submit 
     recommendations to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and conduct a redesignation of one or both corridors 
     if necessary.

     SEC. 504. GRANT CONDITIONS.

       (a) Domestic Buying Preference.--
       (1) Requirement.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out a project funded in whole 
     or in part with a grant under this title, or the amendments 
     made by this title, the grant recipient shall purchase only--
       (i) unmanufactured articles, material, and supplies mined 
     or produced in the United States; or
       (ii) manufactured articles, material, and supplies 
     manufactured in the United States substantially from 
     articles, material, and supplies mined, produced, or 
     manufactured in the United States.
       (B) De minimis amount.--Subparagraph (A) applies only to a 
     purchase in an total amount that is not less than $1,000,000.
       (2) Exemptions.--On application of a recipient, the 
     Secretary may exempt a recipient from the requirements of 
     this subsection if the Secretary decides that, for particular 
     articles, material, or supplies--
       (A) such requirements are inconsistent with the public 
     interest;
       (B) the cost of imposing the requirements is unreasonable; 
     or
       (C) the articles, material, or supplies, or the articles, 
     material, or supplies from which they are manufactured, are 
     not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in 
     sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and 
     are not of a satisfactory quality.
       (3) United states defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``the United States'' means the States, territories, and 
     possessions of the United States and the District of 
     Columbia.
       (b) Operators Deemed Rail Carriers and Employers for 
     Certain Purposes.--A person that conducts rail operations 
     over rail infrastructure constructed or improved with funding 
     provided in whole or in part in a grant made under this 
     title, or the amendments made by this title, shall be 
     considered a rail carrier as defined in section 10102(5) of 
     title 49, United States Code, for purposes of this title and 
     any other statute that adopts that definition or in which 
     that definition applies, including--
       (1) the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231 et 
     seq.);
       (2) the Railway Labor Act (43 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); and
       (3) the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 351 
     et seq.).
       (c) Grant Conditions.--The Secretary shall require as a 
     condition of making any grant under this title, or the 
     amendments made by this title, for a project that uses 
     rights-of-way owned by a railroad that--
       (1) a written agreement exist between the applicant and the 
     railroad regarding such use and ownership, including--
       (A) any compensation for such use;
       (B) assurances regarding the adequacy of infrastructure 
     capacity to accommodate both existing and future freight and 
     passenger operations;
       (C) an assurance by the railroad that collective bargaining 
     agreements with the railroad's employees (including terms 
     regulating the contracting of work) will remain in full force 
     and effect according to their terms for work performed by the 
     railroad on the railroad transportation corridor; and
       (D) an assurance that an applicant complies with liability 
     requirements consistent with section 28103 of title 49, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) the applicant agrees to comply with--
       (A) the standards of section 24312 of title 49, United 
     States Code, as such section was in effect on September 1, 
     2003, with respect to the project in the same manner that the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation is required to comply 
     with those standards for construction work financed under an 
     agreement made under section 24308(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code; and
       (B) the protective arrangements established under section 
     504 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act 
     of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 836) with respect to employees affected by 
     actions taken in connection with the project to be financed 
     in whole or in part by grants under this chapter.
       (d) Replacement of Existing Intercity Passenger Rail 
     Service.--
       (1) Collective bargaining agreement for intercity passenger 
     rail projects.--Any entity providing intercity passenger 
     railroad transportation that begins operations after the date 
     of enactment of this Act on a project funded in whole or in 
     part by grants made under this title, or the amendments made 
     by this title, and replaces intercity rail passenger service 
     that was provided by Amtrak, unless such service was provided 
     solely by Amtrak to another entity, as of such date shall 
     enter into an agreement with the authorized bargaining agent 
     or agents for adversely affected employees of the predecessor 
     provider that--
       (A) gives each such qualified employee of the predecessor 
     provider priority in hiring according to the employee's 
     seniority on the predecessor provider for each position with 
     the replacing entity that is in the employee's craft or class 
     and is available within 3 years after the termination of the 
     service being replaced;
       (B) establishes a procedure for notifying such an employee 
     of such positions;
       (C) establishes a procedure for such an employee to apply 
     for such positions; and
       (D) establishes rates of pay, rules, and working 
     conditions.
       (2) Immediate replacement service.--
       (A) Negotiations.--If the replacement of preexisting 
     intercity rail passenger service occurs

[[Page H5245]]

     concurrent with or within a reasonable time before the 
     commencement of the replacing entity's rail passenger 
     service, the replacing entity shall give written notice of 
     its plan to replace existing rail passenger service to the 
     authorized collective bargaining agent or agents for the 
     potentially adversely affected employees of the predecessor 
     provider at least 90 days before the date on which it plans 
     to commence service. Within 5 days after the date of receipt 
     of such written notice, negotiations between the replacing 
     entity and the collective bargaining agent or agents for the 
     employees of the predecessor provider shall commence for the 
     purpose of reaching agreement with respect to all matters set 
     forth in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1). The 
     negotiations shall continue for 30 days or until an agreement 
     is reached, whichever is sooner. If at the end of 30 days the 
     parties have not entered into an agreement with respect to 
     all such matters, the unresolved issues shall be submitted 
     for arbitration in accordance with the procedure set forth in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (B) Arbitration.--If an agreement has not been entered into 
     with respect to all matters set forth in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (D) of paragraph (1) as described in subparagraph (A) 
     of this paragraph, the parties shall select an arbitrator. If 
     the parties are unable to agree upon the selection of such 
     arbitrator within 5 days, either or both parties shall notify 
     the National Mediation Board, which shall provide a list of 
     seven arbitrators with experience in arbitrating rail labor 
     protection disputes. Within 5 days after such notification, 
     the parties shall alternately strike names from the list 
     until only 1 name remains, and that person shall serve as the 
     neutral arbitrator. Within 45 days after selection of the 
     arbitrator, the arbitrator shall conduct a hearing on the 
     dispute and shall render a decision with respect to the 
     unresolved issues among the matters set forth in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1). This decision 
     shall be final, binding, and conclusive upon the parties. The 
     salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally 
     by the parties; all other expenses shall be paid by the party 
     incurring them.
       (3) Service commencement.--A replacing entity under this 
     subsection shall commence service only after an agreement is 
     entered into with respect to the matters set forth in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1) or the 
     decision of the arbitrator has been rendered.
       (4) Subsequent replacement of service.--If the replacement 
     of existing rail passenger service takes place within 3 years 
     after the replacing entity commences intercity passenger rail 
     service, the replacing entity and the collective bargaining 
     agent or agents for the adversely affected employees of the 
     predecessor provider shall enter into an agreement with 
     respect to the matters set forth in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (D) of paragraph (1). If the parties have not entered into an 
     agreement with respect to all such matters within 60 days 
     after the date on which the replacing entity replaces the 
     predecessor provider, the parties shall select an arbitrator 
     using the procedures set forth in paragraph (2)(B), who 
     shall, within 20 days after the commencement of the 
     arbitration, conduct a hearing and decide all unresolved 
     issues. This decision shall be final, binding, and conclusive 
     upon the parties.
       (e) Inapplicability to Certain Rail Operations.--Nothing in 
     this section applies to--
       (1) commuter rail passenger transportation (as defined in 
     section 24102(4) of title 49, United States Code) operations 
     of a State or local government authority (as those terms are 
     defined in section 5302(11) and (6), respectively, of title 
     49, United States Code) eligible to receive financial 
     assistance under section 5307 of title 49, United States 
     Code, or to its contractor performing services in connection 
     with commuter rail passenger operations (as so defined);
       (2) the Alaska Railroad or its contractors; or
       (3) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation's access 
     rights to railroad rights of way and facilities under current 
     law.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 110-703. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member designated 
in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to 
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-703.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       In section 101(c)--
       (1) strike ``Americans With Disabilities Act Compliance'' 
     in the subsection heading and insert ``Accessibility 
     Improvements and Barrier Removal for People With 
     Disabilities''; and
       (2) strike ``for compliance with the requirements of the 
     Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et 
     seq.)'' and insert ``to improve the accessibility of 
     facilities, including rail platforms, and services''.

       In title I, add at the end the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 105. COMPLIANCE WITH IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of 
     the funds authorized by this Act may be used to employ 
     workers in violation of section 274A of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a).
       In section 205(a), strike ``103(c)'' and insert ``103(2)''.
       In section 209(a), in the proposed section 24905(b)--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (2) strike the period at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     insert ``; and''; and
       (3) after paragraph (9), insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(10) potential funding and financing mechanisms for 
     projects of corridor-wide significance.
       In section 209(a), in the proposed section 24905(c)(1)(A)--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
       (2) insert ``and'' at the end of clause (ii); and
       (3) after clause (ii), insert the following new clause:
       ``(iii) all financial contributions made by an operator of 
     a service, including but not limited to, for any capital 
     infrastructure investments, as well as for any in-kind 
     services, are considered;
       In section 209(c)(2)(B), insert ``, including but not 
     limited to, any adverse impact on existing and projected 
     intercity, commuter, and freight service'' after ``such an 
     achievement''.
       In section 211, insert ``including issues related to the 
     raising of passenger rail station platforms,'' after ``to 
     achieving compliance,''.
       In section 211, strike ``an overall schedule'' and insert 
     ``a detailed plan and schedule''.
       In section 211, insert ``by the 2010 statutory deadline for 
     station accessibility'' after ``parts of section 242(e)(2)''.
       In section 211, strike ``July 1, 2009'' and insert 
     ``February 1, 2009''.
       Strike subsection (c) of section 214.
       In title II, add at the end the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 225. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND RAILROAD SAFETY.

       (a) Study; Other Actions.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall--
       (1) conduct a study, in consultation with the Advisory 
     Council on Historic Preservation, the National Conference of 
     State Historic Preservation Officers, the Department of the 
     Interior, appropriate representatives of the railroad 
     industry, and representative stakeholders, on ways to 
     streamline compliance with the requirements of section 303 of 
     title 49, United States Code, and section 106 of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) for federally 
     funded railroad infrastructure repair and improvement 
     projects;
       (2) take immediate action to cooperate with the Alaska 
     Railroad, the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office, the 
     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Department 
     of the Interior, in expediting the decisionmaking process for 
     safety-related projects of the railroad involving property 
     and facilities that have disputed historic significance; and
       (3) take immediate action to cooperate with the North 
     Carolina Department of Transportation, the North Carolina 
     State Historic Preservation Office, the Virginia State 
     Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on 
     Historic Preservation, and the Department of the Interior, in 
     expediting the decisionmaking process for safety-related 
     projects of the railroad and the Southeast High Speed Rail 
     Corridor involving property and facilities that have disputed 
     historic significance.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit, to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate, a report on the results of 
     the study conducted under subsection (a)(1) and the actions 
     directed under subsection (a)(2) and (3). The report shall 
     include recommendations for any regulatory or legislative 
     amendments that may streamline compliance with the 
     requirements described in subsection (a)(1) in a manner 
     consistent with railroad safety and the policies and purposes 
     of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470f), section 303 of title 49, United States Code, 
     and section 8(d) of Public Law 90-543 (16 U.S.C. 1247(d)).
       In section 301, in the proposed section 24402, add at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Bicycle Access.--Grants under this chapter may be 
     used to provide bicycle access into rolling stock, and to 
     provide bicycle racks in trains.''.
       In section 301, in the proposed section 24405(e), strike 
     paragraph (1) and redesignate paragraphs (2) and (3) as 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.
       In section 502(a)(2), amend subparagraph (F) to read as 
     follows:
       (F) the locations of proposed stations, identifying, in the 
     case of a proposal submitted under paragraph (1) (A), a plan 
     allowing for station stops at or in close proximity to the 
     busiest Amtrak stations;
       In section 503--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);

[[Page H5246]]

       (2) strike the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     insert a semicolon; and
       (3) insert after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       (3) a feasibility analysis regarding the expansion of the 
     South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor to Memphis, Tennessee; 
     and
       (4) a feasibility analysis regarding the expansion of the 
     South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor south of San Antonio 
     to a location in far south Texas to be chosen at the 
     discretion of the Secretary.
       In section 504(e), strike paragraph (1) and redesignate 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     respectively.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1253, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  The manager's amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
conduct a study on ways to streamline compliance with the National 
Historic Preservation Act requirements for Federally funded rail 
infrastructure projects. This issue was raised in committee by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, the ranking member, Mr. Shuster, for 
himself, for North Carolina and for Alaska. I felt that we needed to 
explore the matter further, so we scheduled a hearing on the issue 
because this matter had not been raised previously.
  We heard from the Alaska Railroad, the North Carolina Department of 
Transportation, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the 
National Trust For Historic Preservation and the Rails-to-Trails 
Conservancy.
  At the conclusion of that meeting, it was obvious we weren't going to 
be able, in the course of the hearing, to reach agreement. But we saw a 
path toward agreement. And I directed the parties and the staff to work 
through the weekend to develop a compromise proposal, which they did, 
and we have reflected that understanding in the manager's amendment.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) for bringing this matter to our attention, and to Mr. 
Mica for participating and working out what I think is a reasonable 
approach.
  I also what to thank colleagues who had amendments that were proposed 
to the bill for agreeing to incorporate those amendments into the 
manager's amendment to expedite consideration. The gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Arcuri), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), from Delaware (Mr. Castle) Mr. Cuellar and Mr. 
Hinojosa from Texas, Mr. Weiner and Mr. Blumenauer, from New York and 
Oregon respectively.
  The Arcuri amendments ensure that the financial contributions and in 
kind services provided by commuter rails are taken into account in 
developing a standardized formula for Northeast Corridor commuter cost 
allocation.
  The Berry-Cohen amendment requires a feasibility analysis on 
extending south central high-speed rail service to Memphis, Tennessee. 
The Castle amendment ensures that all proposals for high-speed rail on 
the Northeast Corridor plans to allow station stops at or in close 
proximity to the busiest Amtrak stations. The Cuellar-Hinojosa 
amendment requires a feasibility analysis on extending South Central 
high-speed rail to a location in south Texas to be determined by the 
Secretary.
  The Weiner-Blumenauer amendment authorizes intercity passenger rail 
grants for bicycle access on rolling stock and bicycle racks on trains. 
And the amendment also provides that none of the funds may be used to 
employ workers in violation of section 274A of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act and makes a number of technical corrections in the 
reported bill.
  There are other items of a bipartisan nature included in the 
manager's amendment, and I think we have worked these matters out 
satisfactorily.
  I urge all Members to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of this amendment. And I am not going to run down 
through. The chairman did a good job of going over all the provisions 
in this manager's amendment. But we have reached a bipartisan agreement 
between Mr. Oberstar and Ms. Brown, Mr. Mica and myself, so we support 
the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for 
yielding the time. I am rising in support, in very strong support of 
the manager's amendment which includes some very important provisions 
especially the one regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act 
compliance and the raising of the stations' platforms. The Los Angeles 
Metrolink and many other commuter railroads have fully complied with 
ADA rules by putting ramps and lifts in all of their stations so the 
disabled community can safely and easily board the trains.
  DOT has proposed a rule that would require all railroad stations to 
fully raise their platforms. It would be a very great cost to all the 
different railroads that service our people and then most passenger 
rail stations are serviced by multiple railroad companies with 
different train settings. Raising the platform will create major 
vertical and horizontal gaps between the trains and the platforms, 
making it harder for the disabled community to safely and efficiently 
enter and exit trains.
  The manager's amendment requires Amtrak to study how raising station 
platforms will affect the safe and efficient boarding of trains for all 
passengers.
  I fully support the manager's amendment and thank Mr. Oberstar, Ms. 
Brown, Ranking Members Mica and Shuster for their work on the 
reauthorization of the bill which helps provide many needed 
improvements in the sadly lacking rail transportation, and hopefully 
will provide enticement to people leaving their cars at home, saving 
gasoline, arrive rested and avoid the traffic jams, creates for us in 
California a desperately needed program where we have three of the top 
five busiest rail corridors in the U.S., the Pacific Surfliner, the 
Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin Corridors, alleviating the choke 
points and being able to help us look at the San Diego to Los Angeles 
San Francisco high-speed rail. It will help Metrolink, and I strongly 
support the passage of the manager's amendment in the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation's amendment before 
us today. I never thought I would be involved in a love fest in a 
discussion for reauthorization of Amtrak. I would like to credit that 
to Chairman Oberstar and everybody on the committee who put this 
together. On Monday I submitted an important amendment to the Rules 
Committee which fortunately has been included as part of this manager's 
amendment.
  For anybody who has driven on I-95 recently, it is strikingly clear 
that highway congestion has become a critical problem threatening 
business productivity, increasing safety risk and hindering efforts to 
improve air quality. In fact a recent study found that road congestion 
in the top four metropolitan areas cost Americans 4.2 billion hours and 
2.9 billion gallons of fuel sitting in traffic delays. Try multiplying 
that by $4.
  In contrast, passenger and commuter rail systems have proven to be 
the most efficient options for travelers in heavily congested areas of 
the country. Between Boston and Washington, ridership on Amtrak has 
surged 20 percent with nearly 2,000 trains operating along the corridor 
every day. Clearly the Northeast's entire transportation system would 
stagger to a halt if these trains ever stopped running. In fact, a few 
weeks ago, I was pleased to welcome Ranking Member Mica to my home 
station in Wilmington, Delaware, to discuss the importance of rail 
transportation in alleviating congestion in the Northeast.

[[Page H5247]]

  In this era of high gas prices, congested roadways and overcrowded 
airports, rail transportation has become imperative for many travelers. 
For this reason, I strongly support the provisions in the bill to begin 
developing a high-speed rail corridor between New York and Washington, 
D.C.
  My amendment to this bill will simply ensure that proposals to build 
a high-speed rail system in the Northeast allow for station stops at 
the corridor's busiest rail hubs. For example, last year nearly 1 
million people boarded or exited a train in Wilmington, Delaware, which 
is centrally located on the corridor between New York's Penn Station 
and Union Station here in Washington. As a regular Amtrak commuter 
myself, I can attest to the fact that thousands of travelers rely on 
the Wilmington train station when it comes to visiting friends and 
relatives who are traveling for business, making it the fifth busiest 
station on the Northeast Corridor. Therefore my amendment makes clear 
that heavily utilized high-ridership stations like Wilmington should be 
included in any proposal for building a high-speed rail system in the 
Northeast.
  As co-chairman of the House Passenger Rail Caucus, I commend Chairman 
Oberstar, Congressman Mica, Congresswoman Brown, Congressman Shuster 
and everyone who has worked hard to expand transportation options and 
cut delays for travelers in this part of the country.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for including my amendment as 
part of the legislation before us today. I believe this bill is vital 
to exploring the untapped potential of passenger rail, and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on these critical transportation 
issues.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, a distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Braley), intended to be here and had actually requested 
time to be heard on general debate. But, unfortunately, he is home in 
his district, probably handling sandbags to deal with flooding in 
Waterloo. Late yesterday, the flooding washed away a Union Pacific 
Railroad bridge over the Cedar River in downtown Waterloo and our 
committee colleague is back home with his constituents, as he rightly 
should be.
  I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Braley), who I know wanted to be here during consideration of the 
bill.
  Regrettably, he is home in his District to help his constituents deal 
with flooding in Waterloo.
  Yesterday, the flooding washed away a Union Pacific railroad bridge 
over the Cedar River in downtown Waterloo.
  I include a report from the local newspaper on the tragedies in Iowa.

  Update: Railroad Bridge in Downtown W'loo Collapses; CF Orders More 
                              Evacuations

                (By Jim Offner, Courier Business Editor)

       Waterloo, June 10.--One-third of the Union Pacific railroad 
     bridge parallel to Sixth Street over the Cedar River in 
     downtown Waterloo has washed away in the flood waters.
       The third of the bridge adjacent to the east bank of the 
     Cedar River washed away at 2:45 p.m.
       Roger Verch saw the bridge section give way.
       ``We were actually standing on the 18th Street Bridge'' 
     downstream when it gave way. It struck the 18th Street 
     Bridge. `` We really felt the vibrations,'' Verch said. A 
     portion of it remained lodged in the 18th Street Bridge and 
     another portion of it washed down river.
       The bridge is used by the Iowa Northern Railroad to serve 
     John Deere's East Donald Street Tractor Works, and Deere 
     tractors are transported by rail over that line to Cedar 
     Rapids.
       Iowa Northern general manager Mark Sabin said the railroad 
     is assessing the flood's impacts all along its line and had 
     not yet had an opportunity to assess the effects of the 
     bridge washout.
       We will provide more details as they become available.
       Also, the city of Cedar Falls has now expanded its area of 
     evacuation. The mayor has ordered an immediate evacuation of 
     everyone in the following areas:
       --On Franklin Street from Sixth Street to the north; on 
     Sixth Street to the east toward Main Street; on Main Street 
     from Ninth Street to the north; and all downtown areas from 
     those streets toward the river.
       Unauthorized vehicles will be removed beginning at 3 p.m.
       People who are evacuating are urged to turn off their 
     power, utilities, water and gas. Security will be provided 
     for the area to safeguard property by the Cedar Falls Police 
     Department and the National Guard.
       Volunteers may remain in this area if they are assisting 
     with the sandbagging efforts. Volunteers will be needed 
     throughout the night. It cannot be emphasized enough that 
     volunteers are needed and must report to the north parking 
     lot of the UNI-Dome to assist with sandbagging. Volunteers 
     must not travel downtown or go near the levy. Transportation 
     will be provided to volunteers.


                             EARLIER STORY

       Businesses in downtown Waterloo were struggling to hold 
     back the waters--with some success--as the Cedar River was 
     spilling over the flood wall that protects rivers lining the 
     riverbanks Tuesday.
       ``Right now, we're cleaning up some groundwater,'' said 
     Vern Nelson, owner of the River Plaza and Black's buildings 
     downtown. ``We're doing what we can to prevent any more 
     damage.''
       The River Plaza building had some water seepage, but it was 
     under control at midday Tuesday, Nelson said.
       ``We haven't had very much--some groundwater coming up--but 
     it's continuous,'' Nelson said. ``Just carpets are damp and 
     maybe an inch of water.''
       Donna Nelson, Vernon Nelson's wife and co-owner of the 
     properties, said any problems that existed in either the 
     River Plaza the Black's Building, were manageable.
       ``We're coping pretty good in our buildings,'' Donna Nelson 
     said. ``But we have relocated some Cedar Falls businesses 
     into our buildings.''
       The couple also own the Gasser Building and Winter Bottom.
       ``We're having a little groundwater over at River Plaza,'' 
     Donna Nelson said. ``The city has walls in front of River 
     Plaza, and I believe they're another 10 feet high.''
       She praised the city officials' response to the deluge.
       ``The city has been really good,'' she said. ``They've been 
     in constant contact. I've got hundreds of calls from our 
     tenants and, of course, they're nervous. But the city has 
     been very good at keeping us updated. Some people are parking 
     at ground levels. The city has been very kind to let them 
     relocate.''
       She said three Cedar Falls businesses had moved temporarily 
     into the River Plaza.
       Vern Nelson said seepage through the River Plaza's basement 
     floor has been the primary problem there.
       ``It's not coming through the walls,'' Nelson said.
       A plan of action, should the situation deteriorate, was 
     being devised Tuesday afternoon, Nelson said.
       ``We're deciding on what we're going to do, whether we're 
     going to stay open,'' he said. ``We have two rooms--a free 
     weight room and a cafe--that have water in them that we've 
     closed down. Half the athletic club is open.''
       The hope is to reopen as soon as officials give the go-
     ahead, he said.
       ``We hope to do that immediately,'' he said.
       Diane Graham, administrative assistant for Main Street 
     Waterloo, said the downtown-based organization was still dry 
     at noon.
       ``I'm a little nervous, but so far, so good,'' she said. 
     ``Even the basement is dry at this point. It's all dry on 
     Fourth Street.''
       Gene Leonhart, chief executive officer of Cardinal 
     Construction, said the Waterloo Building, which houses his 
     company, had some seepage.
       ``We're fortunate that our building hasn't taken on any 
     more water than it has,'' he said. ``Our basement that has 
     the boilers has a deep sump, and we're able to keep ahead of 
     it.''
       The company's inventory of sump pumps had long since been 
     depleted.
       ``We had calls for pumps, but those are long since 
     dispersed.''
       The company was continuing to function, however, Leonhart 
     said.
       ``We're functioning, and the building is functioning,'' he 
     said, ``Given what the city has to do with the sewers and 
     water, it's a concern here. since we're only one block away 
     from the river.''
       Traffic downtown was bottled up. Police officers directing 
     snarled traffic around the Five Sullivan Brothers Convention 
     Center, which was hosting the Heartland Conference 2008, a 
     medical supply convention that was expecting an estimated 
     1,000 attendees, said at noon that getting out of downtown 
     would be a 20-minute ordeal.
       ``It's a busy day downtown,'' said Jim Walsh, CEO of VGM 
     Group, who owns several properties downtown and whose company 
     is attending the convention. ``In addition to the concerns we 
     have about floodwater both direct and indirect, we also have 
     staff and traffic issues. Many employees have floodwaters in 
     their houses, and we're trying to help them as much as we can 
     I know a number of businesses have sent their people home and 
     moving things out of their homes.''
       Walsh said the convention was proceeding as scheduled, with 
     a couple of small exceptions.
       ``We did have to relocate our major social event from the 
     Electric Park Ballroom (near the Cattle Congress) to UNI,'' 
     he said.
       There's only so much downtown merchants can do, Walsh said.
       ``If the levees are topped, of course, it's game over, as 
     far as anything but life safety,'' he said. ``Right now, the 
     plan is to get

[[Page H5248]]

     things out of lower levels that can be moved and cut losses 
     from any basement flooding.
       ``There's quite a bit of consternation.''
       Walsh said his properties were in acceptable shape--for the 
     moment.
       ``We don't have much more than seepage right now,'' he 
     said. ``We have stopped all the elevators at upper floors, so 
     nobody is using any elevators in the downtown buildings. Of 
     course, we're trying to get our people out of the offices, 
     which is hard. We have some people helping with the work, and 
     it is a business day,''
       Leonhart said he had never seen this type of flooding.
       ``Not even in '93,'' he said. ``I never sew this, not since 
     the dikes were built,'' he said.
       A pickup truck at Fifth and Commercial tried to ply its way 
     through flowing down Fifth with its wheels half-submerged.
       ``There's quite a bit of consternation,'' Walsh said.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the Chair of the Public 
Buildings and FEMA Subcommittee.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I have 
to thank him first for a bill that is the breakthrough of the decades. 
Not only is this a bill about the beginning of an entirely new train 
system for the United States, it is a bill about keeping the old 
system, Amtrak, in check, a bill we have been needing it seems forever.
  Everybody who rides Amtrak, I have to say to you and to my good 
friend the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Brown, is enormously indebted 
to you both, particularly in this region, and, if I may say so, across 
the country. At least 43 different districts are affected by what you 
do here today, and it has been a long time coming.
  It is important in every way. It is important for the workers at 
Amtrak, trained workers who have suffered through a period when we have 
not brought forward what it takes to keep such trained people on the 
job, and it is most important for Amtrak, which the Federal Government 
has today only because the private sector threw it at us because it was 
unprofitable. We are now making up for years of neglect of this system.
  I also want to say a word on the Davis amendment. It makes sense that 
it is a part of this bill. Both are in my district. The nation's 
capital is the hub for Amtrak and it is the hub, of course, for Metro. 
Metro mostly serves Federal workers. It is in this bill. The region has 
ponied up and said, we will pay for what it takes for capital 
improvements.
  But the fact is that we should watch what we wish for, because we 
told people to get on the Metro, and we said, especially after 9/11, 
Federal workers better learn how to get on the Metro. So many have 
gotten on the Metro that they have broken down the Metro. The 
obligation falls to the Federal Government to do its share, along with 
the region.
  This amendment would not be on the floor if the District first, then 
Maryland and then Virginia, hadn't passed local bills, saying all 
right, we will have dedicated funding every year for our share, for the 
first time. This is the only major system that does not have dedicated 
funding. The system has suffered for it.
  What the Congress says in this amendment is in return for that, D.C., 
Maryland and Virginia, particularly because the people who ride back 
and forth are mostly Federal employees on weekdays, we will do our 
share for capital improvements as well.
  I thank the chairmen, both Chairs, very much.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I brought this chart that shows $4.05 a gallon gasoline today. That 
is the average national cost. In some jurisdictions it is more. This is 
not an energy policy. This is not acceptable to the American people, 
$4.05 a gallon gasoline.
  First of all, I strongly support the manager's amendment. Contained 
in it are provisions that we would have high-speed rail service. We 
heard the gentleman, the former Governor of Delaware, Mr. Castle, the 
distinguished Representative now from Delaware, talk about having 
stops. I think when I visited Wilmington, when I visited Philadelphia 
and New York and stops along the way, people were excited about this 
proposal, because it offered them an option to expensive gasoline.
  The proposal that we bring forward is revolutionary. It does allow 
the Secretary of Transportation to take proposals. The reason we took 
the Northeast Corridor first is because that is the only real estate 
and asset that Amtrak wholly owns, almost all of it all the way to 
Boston. There is a little bit between New York and Boston that they 
don't own. That is why we took the first leg of this high speed 
proposal from Washington, D.C., right down the block to downtown 
Manhattan.
  We don't specify technology, but we say it must be there within 2 
hours, and we have a provision that assures stops along the way. 
Revolutionary. Again, what it would do for air travel congestion would 
be monumental for this Nation.
  This isn't limited to the Northeast Corridor, that first segment. 
Everyone has a possibility of doing that through the provision Mr. 
Shuster, Ms. Brown and Mr. Oberstar worked out.
  We also have the possibility of opening for the first time public-
private partnerships cutting the cost and the subsidy of some of the 
money-losing routes and bringing in private sector innovation. This 
whole attempt today, again, is revolutionary.
  So, again, this outlines the high-speed rail proposal, and it shows 
that it is not just limited to Washington and to New York. It is open 
to the entire Nation, and it provides a cost-effective alternative to 
just saying no, to trying to zero out Amtrak, and to not having high-
speed rail passenger service either in that corridor or any other 
corridor of the United States.
  So I urge adoption of the manager's amendment and I urge passage of 
the final bill. I think most of the amendments are acceptable. We have 
a couple of questions on them. They will be debated here and Members 
will have to pick and choose between those amendments. But, all in all, 
this is a good, bipartisan effort to get us away from being dependent 
on $4.05 gasoline, escalating energy costs and limited choices for the 
traveling public. This is a very significant step forward, and I thank 
again Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown and Mr. Shuster.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Florida for that statement, for his 
charts, for the genuinely sincere effort that brought us to this point 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the 
Rail Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, once again I want to 
thank Mr. Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Shuster 
and the staff. On behalf of the American people, I thank you. This is 
really a great day.
  Let me say thank you, Mr. Oberstar, for your hard work on this bill 
and helping to develop this manager's amendment which incorporates 
provisions in the bill that would improve the overall Amtrak system. We 
are falling behind other industrialized nations who have prepared their 
country for the future by investing heavily in high-speed rail.
  Mr. Oberstar talked about what he did when he was right out of 
college with his scholarship and how it took him 6 hours to go from 
downtown Brussels to downtown Paris. Now it takes 1 hour and 15 
minutes, over 200 miles. We went less than 6 months ago to visit a new 
system, downtown Barcelona, Spain, to downtown Madrid, over 300 miles, 
2\1/2\ hours, and we didn't even know we were moving.
  That is our competition. That is who we are competing against as far 
as when we talk about trade and other issues. They are able to move 
their people, goods and services, and we are falling behind.
  Amtrak reauthorization legislation is one of the few pieces of 
transportation legislation that has passed the Senate. Let me repeat 
that. Amtrak reauthorization legislation is one of the only pieces of 
legislation that has passed the other body. We have a great opportunity 
to go to conference and send a bill to the President's desk that 
provides a tremendous benefit for the traveling public, creating 
economic development and decreased energy consumption.

[[Page H5249]]

  The American people deserve the best passenger rail system in the 
world. I have said over and over and over again, we are the caboose, 
and we don't use cabooses anymore.
  This legislation takes a proactive step in addressing the outrageous 
cost of gas, now over $4 a gallon, and it makes a statement that we are 
serious about improving our dependence on foreign oil. Rail travel is 
more efficient and uses less fuel than both cars and airplanes.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment and 
support the bill so we can quickly move this bill through the process 
and have it on the President's desk for his signature.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I am prepared 
to close, if the gentleman is through.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We have no further speakers on our side.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to close by talking directly to my 
colleagues who have over the years been on the floor arguing against 
Amtrak, arguing to cut Amtrak. I think that this agreement we have here 
today, there are two important reasons to support this.
  First, because of the energy situation in our country. Amtrak does 
provide a positive alternative to get people out of their cars and to 
travel, inter-city travel around this country. So that is the first 
point.
  Energy, it is a positive thing we can do for America for energy, and 
we haven't done anything positive in the last 18 months. Here is 
something positive we can do on that front.
  Second, my colleagues who argue against Amtrak talk about the private 
sector and how they can do things. Well, this bill has three provisions 
in it that allow for pilot projects for the private sector to come in 
to take over underperforming lines, to reestablish lines that are no 
longer in operation by Amtrak and reestablish them, and to demonstrate 
what the private sector can do in passenger rail service.
  After these lines are taken over, we will have concrete evidence as 
to what the private sector can do. I feel confident they will be able 
to perform very well and we will no longer be on the floor 
theoretically debating. We will say, look what the private sector has 
done on this line. Look what they have done on the other line. We will 
have that evidence and have real world facts before us, and that is a 
positive thing.
  So those are two things that my colleagues that have been down here 
opposing Amtrak today can come to the floor for. I urge them to support 
the manager's amendment and I urge them to support the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cuellar). The gentleman from Minnesota has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have all spoken to one another as colleagues about 
the work that we have done and the time we have invested to bring this 
legislation to the floor in the shape that it is in, which is 
remarkable. But we stand on the shoulders of skilled, dedicated 
professionals who make our work possible and make it effective.
  On the full committee, our Chief of Staff, Dave Heymsfeld, Ward 
McCarragher, Jen Walsh and Erik Hansen. On the Republican side, Jim 
Coon and Amy Steinmann.
  On the subcommittee, our very dedicated Jennifer Esposito, John 
Drake, who has filled in for Jennifer while she was raising a new 
passenger for Amtrak, Rose Hamlin, Niels Knutson and Nick Martinelli of 
Chairwoman Brown's staff. On the Republican side, Allison Cullin and 
Joyce Rose, whose distinguished service and experience contributes 
enormously, and Mike Meenan and John Brennan, who Ranking Member Mica 
mentioned has left the committee staff to take an operating position 
with a railroad.
  The Office of Legislative Counsel has been of enormous help, Tim 
Brown. And at CBO, Sarah Puro.
  All of whom have made their unique contribution without whose wise 
professional guidance we couldn't be at this point. And, believe me, I 
know. I served on the staff for 12 years in this body, and I know what 
hard work it is.

                              {time}  1230

  I know what hard work it is. All the digging is done there, and I 
thank them, the staff.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania cited one of the cornerstone 
breakthrough provisions of this legislation, and that is opening up an 
opportunity for competition from the private sector to demonstrate 
whether private sector funding, financing, management, expertise, can 
operate passenger rail routes successfully, and I welcome that 
opportunity.
  I know that for good friends in the railroad brotherhoods it 
initially caused a great deal of concern, but I recall the words of 
President John F. Kennedy, who said we should never fear to negotiate, 
but we should never negotiate out of fear. There is nothing to fear in 
this proposition.
  There is an opportunity for us to expand the horizons. We are going 
to have to do this in the surface transportation authorization next 
year, inviting private sector investments in key elements of our 
national transportation system.
  To open Amtrak to that kind of investment, that challenge of 
expanding the horizon, is necessary, and I welcome that opportunity. We 
will monitor it very closely, we will have a very careful evaluation 
step-by-step of how these provisions will proceed. But I think, net, it 
will be a benefit to our passenger rail service in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time and ask for a 
favorable vote on the manager's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 110-703.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia:
         Add at the end of title I the following new section:

     SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION FOR CAPITAL AND PREVENTIVE 
                   MAINTENANCE PROJECTS FOR WASHINGTON 
                   METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

         (a) Authorization.--
         (1) In general.--Subject to the succeeding provisions of 
     this section, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized 
     to make grants to the Transit Authority, in addition to the 
     contributions authorized under sections 3, 14, and 17 of the 
     National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (sec. 9--1101.01 
     et seq., D.C. Official Code), for the purpose of financing in 
     part the capital and preventive maintenance projects included 
     in the Capital Improvement Program approved by the Board of 
     Directors of the Transit Authority.
         (2) Definitions.--In this section--
         (A) the term ``Transit Authority'' means the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority established under Article 
     III of the Compact; and
         (B) the term ``Compact'' means the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact (80 Stat. 1324; 
     Public Law 89--774).
         (b) Use of Funds.--The Federal grants made pursuant to 
     the authorization under this section shall be subject to the 
     following limitations and conditions:
         (1) The work for which such Federal grants are authorized 
     shall be subject to the provisions of the Compact (consistent 
     with the amendments to the Compact described in subsection 
     (d)).
         (2) Each such Federal grant shall be for 50 percent of 
     the net project cost of the project involved, and shall be 
     provided in cash from sources other than Federal funds or 
     revenues from the operation of public mass transportation 
     systems. Consistent with the terms of the amendment to the 
     Compact described in subsection (d)(1), any funds so provided 
     shall be solely from undistributed cash surpluses, 
     replacement or depreciation funds or reserves available in 
     cash, or new capital.
         (3) Such Federal grants may be used only for the 
     maintenance and upkeep of the systems of the Transit 
     Authority as of the date of the enactment of this Act and may 
     not be used to increase the mileage of the rail system.
         (c) Applicability of Requirements For Mass Transportation 
     Capital Projects Receiving Funds Under Federal Transportation 
     Law.--Except as specifically provided in this section, the 
     use of any amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization 
     under this section shall be subject to the requirements 
     applicable to capital projects for

[[Page H5250]]

     which funds are provided under chapter 53 of title 49, United 
     States Code, except to the extent that the Secretary of 
     Transportation determines that the requirements are 
     inconsistent with the purposes of this section.
         (d) Amendments to Compact.--No amounts may be provided to 
     the Transit Authority pursuant to the authorization under 
     this section until the Transit Authority notifies the 
     Secretary of Transportation that each of the following 
     amendments to the Compact (and any further amendments which 
     may be required to implement such amendments) have taken 
     effect:
         (1)(A) An amendment requiring that all payments by the 
     local signatory governments for the Transit Authority for the 
     purpose of matching any Federal funds appropriated in any 
     given year authorized under subsection (a) for the cost of 
     operating and maintaining the adopted regional system are 
     made from amounts derived from dedicated funding sources.
         (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``dedicated 
     funding source'' means any source of funding which is 
     earmarked or required under State or local law to be used to 
     match Federal appropriations authorized under this Act for 
     payments to the Transit Authority.
         (2) An amendment establishing an Office of the Inspector 
     General of the Transit Authority.
         (3) An amendment expanding the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority to include 4 additional Directors appointed 
     by the Administrator of General Services, of whom 2 shall be 
     nonvoting and 2 shall be voting, and requiring one of the 
     voting members so appointed to be a regular passenger and 
     customer of the bus or rail service of the Transit Authority.
         (e) Access to Wireless Service in Metrorail System.--
         (1) Requiring transit authority to provide access to 
     service.--No amounts may be provided to the Transit Authority 
     pursuant to the authorization under this section unless the 
     Transit Authority ensures that customers of the rail service 
     of the Transit Authority have access within the rail system 
     to services provided by any licensed wireless provider that 
     notifies the Transit Authority (in accordance with such 
     procedures as the Transit Authority may adopt) of its intent 
     to offer service to the public, in accordance with the 
     following timetable:
         (A) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, in the 20 underground rail station platforms 
     with the highest volume of passenger traffic.
         (B) Not later than 4 years after such date, throughout 
     the rail system.
         (2) Access of wireless providers to system for upgrades 
     and maintenance.--No amounts may be provided to the Transit 
     Authority pursuant to the authorization under this section 
     unless the Transit Authority ensures that each licensed 
     wireless provider who provides service to the public within 
     the rail system pursuant to paragraph (1) has access to the 
     system on an ongoing basis (subject to such restrictions as 
     the Transit Authority may impose to ensure that such access 
     will not unduly impact rail operations or threaten the safety 
     of customers or employees of the rail system) to carry out 
     emergency repairs, routine maintenance, and upgrades to the 
     service.
         (3) Permitting reasonable and customary charges.--Nothing 
     in this subsection may be construed to prohibit the Transit 
     Authority from requiring a licensed wireless provider to pay 
     reasonable and customary charges for access granted under 
     this subsection.
         (4) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and each of the 3 years thereafter, 
     the Transit Authority shall submit to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the 
     implementation of this subsection.
         (5) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``licensed 
     wireless provider'' means any provider of wireless services 
     who is operating pursuant to a Federal license to offer such 
     services to the public for profit.
         (f) Amount.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Transportation for grants under this section 
     an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,500,000,000 to be 
     available in increments over 10 fiscal years beginning in 
     fiscal year 2009, or until expended.
         (g) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization under this section shall remain available until 
     expended.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1253, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of the Davis-Van Hollen-Hoyer 
amendment to the Passenger Rail and Investment Improvement Act of 2008. 
This amendment would reaffirm the Federal Government's longstanding 
commitment to the regional transportation system critical to keeping 
the Government open and operating efficiently.
  The precedent for Federal investment in the Washington Metropolitan 
Area Transit Authority dates back to 1960, when President Eisenhower 
signed the ``National Capital Transportation Act,'' creating the agency 
responsible for developing a regional rail system for the Nation's 
Capital.
  Since that time, Congress has infused the system with funding for 
construction of the original 103-mile system on multiple occasions.
  The Federal Government has a vested interest in the long-term 
sustainability of the Metro system. After all, approximately half of 
the system's peak ridership is composed of Federal employees and 
contractors and over 50 Federal agencies in the National Capital Region 
are located adjacent to Metro stations. These Federal agencies rely on 
Metro to get their employees to and from the workplace year-round, in 
all types of weather.
  Unlike other transit systems throughout the country, however, the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority cannot generate revenues 
from the property adjacent to Metro stations because the property is 
disproportionately occupied by Federal buildings, embassies and non-
profit organizations. This amendment would make up for this 
discrepancy.
  In exchange for the reauthorization, the Davis-Van Hollen-Hoyer 
amendment would require Maryland, D.C. and Virginia--at long last--to 
develop dedicated funding sources for the Metro system. All three local 
jurisdictions have already taken steps to fulfill this Federal 
requirement--although the job is not yet done. Virginia's efforts to 
establish a dedicated source of funding for Metro was recently struck 
down by the Virginia Supreme Court, forcing local legislators to go 
back to the drawing board to develop a new mechanism to fund Metro.
  In addition, in order to address some of the significant management 
challenges facing Metro, the amendment would require the establishment 
of an independent inspector general for the Washington Metropolitan 
Area Transit Authority to oversee its spending and finances, and it 
would add four federal members to WMATA's Board of Directors to help 
ensure the transportation needs of the federal government are 
adequately addressed.
  The reauthorization of Federal funding, as well as the increased 
federal oversight of WMATA, must not face further delay. Earlier this 
year, the Washington Post reported that the Transit Authority is in 
dire need of additional financing--to the tune of $489 million--to 
address short-term capital improvement needs such as track replacement, 
rail car safety improvements, and repairs to deteriorating 
infrastructure. This needed funding for the agency's capital budget is 
above and beyond the additional funding generated by Metro's recent 
fare increase, which goes to the agency's operating budget.
  This federal funding will not be going toward expansions to the Metro 
system--the funding will be dedicated exclusively to overhauling the 
agency's capital and infrastructure, which has not undergone a 
comprehensive overhaul since the system was created several decades 
ago.
  The House passed legislation similar to this amendment during the 
109th Congress but we were unable to get it through the Senate before 
time ran out.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critical investment in the 
transportation infrastructure which supports our Federal Government. It 
is only a matter of time before the reports of potential disasters in 
the transit system serving the Nation's capital become reports of 
actual disasters involving collapsed platforms or derailed trains. We 
must not stand by and wait for that to happen before we take action.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen), who is a cosponsor of this amendment with me and Mr. 
Hoyer.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me begin by congratulating Chairman Oberstar and 
Ranking Member Mica and the Transportation Committee for all the work 
they have done in bringing this very important legislation to the 
floor, and to my colleague, Mr. Davis from Virginia, for his leadership 
on this issue of the WMATA system, the Washington Metro system. I am 
pleased to join with him and others in a bipartisan basis from the 
Washington region to offer this amendment.
  I think we all know that the Federal Government relies very heavily 
on the Metro system to bring thousands and thousands of Federal 
employees to work each day at our national security agencies, at the 
Department of Health and Human Services, and other Federal agencies 
throughout this region that help provide essential services to the 
American people. It's also a critical part of any evacuation plan in 
the

[[Page H5251]]

event of a national emergency that would require the evacuation of the 
Capitol.
  That's one of the reasons the Federal Government has made large 
investments in the WMATA construction in the past and its maintenance, 
and that is why it's important that we continue to have a Federal role. 
What the purpose of this amendment is to protect that Federal 
amendment, because right now the Federal Government is at the whim of 
local jurisdictions as to whether or not they are going to make their 
payments into this system as part of a partnership.
  What this does is it says, yes, the Federal Government will provide, 
authorizes up to $150 million a year in matching funds. Those funds may 
only be released when WMATA certifies and notifies the Department of 
Transportation that local jurisdictions have established a reliable and 
dedicated source of funding to do their share of the funds in 
partnership here.
  It also increases accountability to protect that Federal investment 
by creating an inspector general to oversee WMATA's finances and adds 
four new federally appointed directors to WMATA. This is to protect the 
Federal investment that has been made and make sure the interests of 
the people in this area, consumers as well as the Federal interest, is 
protected.
  This has passed the House. I want to stress this. This Davis 
provision has passed the House in the past in 2006. We passed it. It's 
been sitting over in the Senate. I just urge all our colleagues to come 
together in 2008 to do what we did in 2006 and adopt this important 
provision.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I seek time to speak in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate people on both sides 
of the aisle who have worked out a way to have Amtrak work. My family 
and I travel on Amtrak every chance we get, and I believe that we need 
an efficient, strong, train system in the United States.
  I want to especially commend Ranking Member Mica and subcommittee 
Ranking Member Shuster for their work in pushing for private-sector 
initiatives.
  As a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it's 
also been my pleasure to work with Ranking Member Davis on a variety of 
issues. I appreciate his passion for this issue, but I have to say that 
this amendment is eerily similar to a bill that came before that 
committee, H.R. 401, the National Capital Transportation Amendments 
Act, which summed up the largest earmark in history and would direct 
$1.5 billion in new Federal spending towards the Washington 
Metropolitan Transit Authority, or WMATA.
  When that bill came before the committee, I raised a number of 
concerns, including the fact that it was not referred to or considered 
by the Transportation Committee. When I raised these concerns, I was 
concerned that the OGR committee had appropriate jurisdiction to 
consider the issue, which begs the question why it is now appropriate 
to consider this amendment on a Transportation Committee bill. The fact 
that it's here now, it seems, proves to me, that H.R. 401 should not 
have been in Oversight but in Transportation.
  However, there are a variety of other concerns I have with this 
proposition. It's true that WMATA has been plagued by reports of 
mismanagement that compromise the fiscal integrity of the system. 
Management is beholding to employee unions that have run amok with 
overtime pay and retirement benefits, warping the system's fiscal 
priorities. Providing another Federal line item for WMATA is the last 
thing we needed to spur reform of this mismanaged system.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record three pieces I 
believe articulate many of my concerns in this respect.

                   [From the Examiner, Apr. 13, 2007]

             Bloated Payroll Behind Metro's Budgetary Woes

       Washington.--Now we know why the Washington Metropolitan 
     Area Transit Authority alsways seems to be out of money.
       Examiner reporter Joe Rogalsky examined Metro payroll 
     records (available online at www.examiner.com/wecan) and 
     found that the transit agency paid out a staggering $70 
     million in overtime last year. More than half of the top 200 
     hourly employees who racked up the most overtime in 2006 took 
     home six-figure paychecks that equaled or exceeded the 
     already generous salaries of Metro's top managers.
       There's something wrong when a bus driver makes more than 
     an assistant general manager, or a Metro police officer is 
     paid more than the director of emergency management. This is 
     especially true when Metro managers themselves are more than 
     amply compensated. According to the Bureau of Economic 
     Analysis, average per-capita income in the Washington region 
     in 2005 was $49,530--the fourth-highest in the U.S. But the 
     total pay for Many metro employees is three times that 
     amount.
       General Manager John Catoe Jr. says he won't ask for a fare 
     increase this year. Instead, he plans to cut spending and 
     eliminate 100 positions in an attempt to make up a $116 
     million budget shortfall. But if Metro is really stretched so 
     thin that it had to spend an extra $70 million in overtime to 
     keep the trains and buses running, Catoe should be hiring 
     people, not downsizing.
       The answer to this apparent contradiction is that Metro's 
     bloated payroll has long been padded by politically sensitive 
     management with no interest in keeping down costs for 
     passengers or relieving the taxpayers who have been bailing 
     them out for decades. Metro's latest bailout scheme is the 
     controversial $1.5 billion federal earmark that if adopted 
     will also mean higher taxes for District, Virginia and 
     Maryland residents.
       The scandal here is not just overtime abuses, however. 
     Metro pensions are based on the three-highest earning years, 
     so a unionized bus operator with an annual base salary of 
     $50,000 and lots of overtime during those ``High Three'' 
     years can easily end up with $80,000 in annual pension 
     benefits. This is substantially more generous than even the 
     old federal Civil Service Retirement System.
       Sooner or later, Metro will have to address its growing 
     unfunded pension liability. Major management reforms are 
     probably impossible under the present union contract and 
     political leadership, which means that higher taxes, more 
     fare increases, deferred maintenance and diminished service 
     are likely unavoidable. Catoe is paid $360,000--more than any 
     area elected official--and his perks include a company car, 
     so it will be tough for him to demand austerity from the 
     union without practicing it himself. And Metro Board 
     members--political creatures who should be looking out for 
     taxpayers but don't--need to learn some new pitches instead 
     of always begging for more tax dollars.
       Metro employees deserve good working conditions and 
     competitive salaries, but they shouldn't be allowed to take 
     the rest of us to the cleaners.
                                  ____


                [From The Washington Times, May 5, 2008]

                    Time To End Metro's Gravy Train

                            (By Tom Coburn)

       There are a lot of words to describe the D.C. Metrorail 
     system, but ``underfunded'' is not one. Still, many local 
     politicians are incensed that I oppose a proposal to give the 
     Metro an additional $1.5 billion for infrastructure 
     improvements. Proponents of this plan argue that the answer 
     to Metro's problems is another huge influx of federal 
     dollars.
       I respectfully disagree. The biggest problem facing Metro 
     may actually be too much federal funding. Like most rail 
     systems around the country, Metro has grown accustomed to the 
     huge subsidies it gets every year from federal taxpayers. In 
     the last five years alone, Metro was given over $1 billion--
     hardly a small amount.
       The difference between Metro and other municipal transit 
     systems, however, is that other systems are both accountable 
     to and better supported by their local users and governments. 
     Keeping Metro on life support primarily through ever-
     increasing federal subsidies will only exacerbate the 
     problems the system already faces and insulate Metro from 
     meaningful, customer-centered reform.
       Metro riders themselves are all too familiar with the 
     system's problems. When trains are late, riders are left 
     standing on the platform not knowing when, or if, it will 
     ever come. Little effort is made to keep escalators working. 
     In 2005, there were typically more than 50 broken escalators 
     on any given day. According to Metro, it would take several 
     months to fix an escalator, forcing people to walk up huge 
     flights of stairs instead while they were inoperable.
       Many efforts to improve the system have been a bust due to 
     poor management. So- called refurbished trains break down 
     more often than those that haven't been updated. Lavish 
     ``culture change'' management programs have done nothing to 
     improve management while wasting nearly half a million 
     dollars. Meanwhile, management has failed to manage spiraling 
     overtime costs. By 2006, Metro was spending 14 percent of its 
     entire payroll budget on overtime, costing it $91 million 
     that year. Although management must have known about the 
     problem for years, it wasn't addressed until the negative 
     publicity became too much to ignore.
       The expectation of more federal dollars that aren't 
     connected to performance has caused the system to overextend 
     itself. Consider the $5 billion Dulles extension being sought 
     by the state of Virginia. To keep the project alive, local 
     politicians are forced to

[[Page H5252]]

     claim on the one hand that there is absolutely no money in 
     the budget to fix the current system. On the other hand, they 
     have billions available to build a 23-mile extension to 
     Dulles Airport that few think will have an impact on traffic 
     congestion. Is it too much to ask local governments to fix 
     the system they already have before asking for money for 
     expansions?
       Federal taxpayers--including those from my home state of 
     Oklahoma--have been extremely generous to the D.C. Metro. 
     Most taxpayers will never get to set foot in a Metro car that 
     they helped pay for. This is a helpful reminder considering 
     the fact that the average Oklahoman, who earns $40,000 a 
     year, subsidizes the Metro rides of federal workers in D.C. 
     who earn $90,000 a year. Those federal workers who earn very 
     good money make up nearly half of Metro's riders. Asking them 
     to pay a little more would hardly be unfair or burdensome.
       It also is not too much to ask supporters of this plan in 
     Congress to propose spending offsets to pay for this 
     additional $1.5 billion request. My office alone has 
     identified $300 billion in annual waste, fraud and 
     duplication in the federal budget. Any member of Congress who 
     can't find a little fat in the federal budget is out of touch 
     with the real-world budget choices families face every day. 
     In the real world, Americans tighten their belts in tough 
     times and spend less in some areas if they have to spend more 
     in other areas. Dismissing an additional $1.5 billion for the 
     Metro as a blip in the budget is precisely the mentality that 
     has caused Congress to rack up a $600 billion annual deficit 
     this year and a long-term debt of nearly $10 trillion. I make 
     no apologies for opposing this reckless status quo culture of 
     spending that puts the interests of career politicians ahead 
     of the next generation.
       The real solution for Metro is to return to local control, 
     even though that means more local funding and less federal 
     funding. If more funding came from local sources, Metro 
     officials would have no choice but to be more accountable to 
     local governments that are elected by local citizens. As long 
     as I'm in the Senate, the policy that says we have to pump 
     more federal money into a system regardless of performance 
     and outcome is a train that will never leave the station.
                                  ____


             [From the Heritage Foundation, Oct. 16, 2007]

          Washington Metro Needs Reform, Not a Federal Bailout

                       (By Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.)

       Both the House and Senate will soon have an opportunity to 
     vote on legislation introduced by Representative Tom Davis 
     (R--VA) to divert $1.5 billion of federal revenues over 10 
     years to provide additional subsidies to the deeply troubled 
     Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), which 
     serves the nation's capital and his congressional district 
     with buses and a metro rail system Titled the ``National 
     Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007,'' both the 
     Senate version (S. 1446) and the House version (H.R. 401) 
     have been reported out of committee and now await action on 
     the floor. These proposed subsidies, and the tax increases 
     needed to fund them, would be in addition to the other 
     subsidies and tax increases being sought to extend WMATA's 
     metro rail service to Dulles Airport.
       Defined as an earmark because of its location-specific 
     applicability and the distribution of benefits to a small 
     number of people in a limited number of communities, this 
     massive earmark would be one of the largest ever passed--
     larger than even Alaska's infamous ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' 
     which Congress and the state of Alaska have since canceled. 
     Congress should reject the bailout approach and instead link 
     the continuation of existing federal subsidies to management 
     and labor reforms at WMATA.
       Overstepping Federal Bounds. As bad as this legislation may 
     be from a federal budget perspective, the Davis bailout also 
     promotes tax-and-spend policies at the state and local 
     levels. Section 18 (d)(1)(A) requires jurisdictions in 
     Metro's service area to raise local matching funds through a 
     ``dedicated funding source'' in order to receive the federal 
     funds This, of course, implies the imposition of a dedicated 
     tax. This 10-year, $1.5 billion commitment would be on top of 
     the $671 million the Local communities already provide WMATA 
     each year.
       Seduced by the federal largesse, legislators in Virginia 
     recently enacted a controversial transportation law (HB 3202) 
     that empowered a transportation taxing authority for 
     Virginia's Washington suburbs. The authority's unelected 
     board would be allowed to impose theses taxes, and would 
     guarantee that the first $50 million in taxes raised by the 
     authority each year would go to WMATA, despite the fact that 
     only a small number of people in the region use the system. 
     Widely unpopular among voters, the Virginia legislation is 
     now the subject of court challenges based on its 
     constitutionality, and some analysts believe that voters' 
     adverse reaction may lead to a change in party control of the 
     Virginia legislature.
       Rewarding Poor Performance. Mr. Davis justifies the earmark 
     on the grounds that ``Metro, the public transit system of the 
     Washington metropolitan area, is essential for the continued 
     and effective performance of the functions of the Federal 
     Government, and for the orderly movement of people during 
     major events and times of regional and national emergency.''
       But Metro provides no such service. Unreliable and poorly 
     run, the system is subject to frequent shutdowns and service 
     interruptions due to equipment failure, bad weather, 
     suicides, driver error, and passenger medical emergencies. 
     During one recent setback, a Metro spokeswoman noted that 
     ``Because nearly half of Metro's daily commuters are federal 
     government employees . . . delays could be less severe if 
     large numbers of them take advantage of the unscheduled leave 
     option and stay home.'' So much for it being ``essential for 
     . . . the Federal Government.'' Perhaps as a result of its 
     low quality service, WMATA ridership has been stagnant over 
     the past few years, declining from 2004 to 2005, but rising 
     to slightly above the 2004 volume in 2006.
       Despite decades of lavish subsidies from state, local, and 
     federal authorities, WMATA is plagued by serious problems, 
     chief among them being a legacy of mismanagement and high-
     cost operations. As a consequence of its many operating 
     inefficiencies, the system is broke and has no funds to add 
     to capacity, replace unreliable rolling stock, or make other 
     necessary repairs and improvements. Although it has raised 
     fares twice in the last few years, the modest increases were 
     well below the cost increases incurred by local motorists due 
     to soaring gasoline prices. A proposal by its director to 
     increase them again was not supported by its board.
       WMATA has avoided opportunities to save money and improve 
     service through competitive contracting, due in part to 
     management's unwillingness to confront opposition from its 
     unionized workforce. The communities it serves do not share 
     WMATA's fear of contracting. Private contractors operate 
     virtually all of the newer public transit services in the 
     Washington, D.C., area, the WMATA alternative is simply too 
     expensive and unreliable.
       Another troubling aspect of this legislation is the 
     regressive nature of the spending policies it promotes. 
     Notwithstanding the bill's contention that subsidizing the 
     daily commute of civil servants is an essential national 
     need, Washington-area workers are among the best paid in the 
     nation. Whereas the median household income nationwide was 
     $58,526 in 2006, it was $119,812 in Fairfax County, VA--the 
     most populous pan of Mr. Davis' congressional district. Also, 
     the U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that only 9.4 percent 
     of Fairfax County residents and only 4.2 percent of Prince 
     William County residents use WMATA services or another form 
     of transit to get to work.
       Conclusion. This bill would do little more than reward poor 
     performance with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout. Congress 
     should force fundamental market-based reforms on Metro by 
     linking the continuation of the system's existing federal 
     subsidies to reductions in operating costs, improvements in 
     service, and an aggressive program of competitive contracting 
     similar to the successful reforms implemented elsewhere in 
     several of the major metropolitan areas of Europe.
  The other question I raised during committee consideration of H.R. 
401 is why should Washington, D.C. step to the front of the line to 
receive special subsidies paid for by taxpayers throughout the country, 
many of whom will never step foot on a Washington Metro train or bus. I 
have heard that due to the high number of Federal employees in the 
area, we are somehow obliged to subsidize their commute in this way.
  However, this point fails to recognize that the Federal Government 
already subsidizes Federal employees' commutes through the issuance of 
Metro checks, which many Capitol Hill staffers receive. These subsidies 
come on top of those provided through a variety of preexisting, 
generous Federal grant programs. This system of allocating Federal 
transit funding is considerably more equitable and fair than creating a 
special line item for a particular metropolitan area.
  I am quite confident that my constituents in Winston-Salem or 
elsewhere throughout my district would certainly appreciate their own 
Federal transit line item. We also heard that Washington, D.C. needs 
this especially targeted Federal line item more than other regions or 
cities, including New York City, which are not included in this 
amendment, because of security threats to the city.
  However, even if security threats help justify the need for more 
Federal assistance to Washington, D.C., then the efforts invested in 
this approach should be focused on establishing an equitable system 
that allocates funding fairly among cities with varying degrees of 
security threats.
  It is for these reasons and many more that I recommend rejecting this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the distinguished 
majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for 
yielding.

[[Page H5253]]

  I note that my good friend, Frank Wolf, is on the floor as well. I 
don't know that there is any Member of this body with whom I have 
worked more closely on an objective than Frank Wolf and I worked, 
particularly during the 1980s and early 1990s on this America's subway. 
I am glad that he is on the floor, and I thank Mr. Davis for his 
leadership and Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Moran. We have all worked very hard 
on that. Mr. Oberstar, we thank you as well for your assistance.
  Bill Lehman was from Florida. Bill Lehman was chairman of the 
Transportation Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and Bill 
Lehman used to call this America's subway.
  I tell the gentlelady from North Carolina, I don't know whether she 
has left, and I appreciate her remarks, but it is America's subway. 
It's in the Nation's Capital, yet 18 million to 22 million Americans 
from outside this region ride it as they visit their Nation's Capital.
  The employees who come into this city work for our Nation, not for 
the State of Virginia and the State of Maryland or even for the 
District of Columbia but for our Nation and all of our taxpayers.
  That's why it's America's subway, and that's why we invested 
significantly in its construction. That's why it is necessary and 
appropriate for us to invest in its maintenance and continuing quality.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I have a 
statement that I will put in the Record without going through all of 
the specifics that have been discussed.
  I want to say also to the gentlelady, yes, this is an amendment, but, 
unlike most amendments, this amendment has already gotten the 
imprimatur of the overwhelming numbers in this House and passed on 
suspension when Mr. Davis offered it, when the now minority, but the 
then Republican majority, was in charge of the Congress, with Democrats 
strongly supporting Mr. Davis' bill.
  I think Democrats will strongly support Mr. Davis' bill. I would hope 
Republicans would strongly support Mr. Davis' bill to accommodate their 
taxpayers, their workers and their Nation's Capital.
  I want to again thank Mr. Davis for his leadership on this issue. I 
want to thank Mr. Wolf for his partnership for me for now into our 
third decade of working on this issue.
  We can be proud of this Metro system. It is one of the best in the 
world, not just in our country. Every American can be proud of their 
subway.
  I urge very strong support across the aisle. This is not a partisan 
issue. As I say, Mr. Wolf and I worked in lockstep for over a decade in 
ensuring that this subway was completed. Mr. Moran joined us some time 
later, and that was working at the local level as the mayor of his 
city. Mr. Davis, as county executive of his county, we worked together. 
I want to also thank the ranking member very much for his leadership 
and his facilitating this amendment coming forward on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Davis-Van Hollen-Hoyer 
amendment to the Amtrak reauthorization. This critical amendment will 
help ensure that the ``Nation's subway'' continues to operate in a 
safe, reliable and effective manner.
  The Washington Metro Area Transit Authority--which was established in 
1967--has been faced with a severely aging infrastructure. In recent 
years, it has led to widespread maintenance problems, increased delays, 
and threats to passenger safety.
  In fact, Metro officials recently estimated that the system needs 
approximately $489 million in urgent and outstanding infrastructure 
repair work.
  This amendment--which is based on legislation which overwhelmingly 
passed the House of Representatives in the last Congress--would 
authorize $1.5 billion in Federal funding for capital repairs and 
maintenance in the Metro System. This funding would be collectively 
matched by dedicated funds from Maryland, DC, and Virginia.
  I have heard some of my colleagues question the appropriateness of a 
Federal investment in this system. In my view, this perspective is 
shortsighted and does not take into consideration the Federal 
Government's long history in the development of and reliance upon the 
Metro.
  In 1960, the Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law 
the legislation to provide for the development of a regional rail 
system for the Nation's Capital. Congress has since passed Metro 
authorization bills in 1965, 1969, 1979, and 1990. The Federal 
Government provided $6.2 billion of the approximately $10 billion 
needed to construct the original 103-mile system.
  Metro is critical to the Federal Government's evacuation plans of the 
Nation's Capital and we experienced Metro's essential role during the 
city's evacuation on September 11th, 2001.
  Nearly half of Metro's riders during peak ridership are Federal 
employees and more than 50 Federal agencies are located adjacent to 
Metro stations.
  Millions of tourists from across the country visit our Nation's 
Capital each year and many of these visitors use the Metro system to 
traverse the city while visiting our Nation's museums, monuments and 
historic landmarks.
  Clearly, the Federal Government and the American people depend on 
Metro and there is a clear Federal interest in ensuring that the system 
is able to operate efficiently and effectively.
  Unfortunately, just this week we were reminded of Metro's importance 
and its deteriorating infrastructure when an orange line train derailed 
in Northern Virginia. This mishap, where thankfully no one was injured, 
delayed the evening commute for many Federal employees and reinforced 
the need for this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, we must act now to preserve this critical national 
asset and ensure that the Nation's capital continues to have a safe, 
reliable, and effective transit system for the Federal workforce and 
its visitors. I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for this 
important amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend and colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, the rail system that this amendment funds serves the 
capital of the free world. Yet, along with Los Angeles, we have the 
very worst congestion in the country.
  In fact, when you look at lost productivity, it is the most expensive 
loss of productivity, congestion in the country and those who are 
wasting so much of their time in traffic are our government workers. 
The reason for this deficiency is that we are the only public transit 
system that doesn't have a dedicated source of revenue.
  Now, what we are suggesting here, when gas is at $4 a gallon, when it 
costs over $60 to fill up your tank, we have got to have more public 
transit throughout the country. But shouldn't we lead the way? 
Shouldn't we show by example that at least the Washington metropolitan 
area has a decent transit system?
  That's what Mr. Davis's amendment does. It does what should have been 
done years ago. It creates a dedicated source of funding for 
Washington's transit system.
  I very strongly support Mr. Davis's amendment, and I thank all of my 
friends and colleagues who have contributed to it. It belongs on the 
Amtrak bill. It's all about finding more intelligent, more efficient 
ways of transportation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his 
leadership. I am going to miss him and everyone is going to miss him as 
he leaves the body.
  I would shudder to think how the Nation's Capital would function 
without Metro. Visitors from all over the country, as the other Members 
have said, and all over the world use this system when visiting the 
Nation's Capital.
  Metro's highest ridership days have come when national events were 
taking place, Presidential inaugurations, holiday celebrations, 4th of 
July and such as the recent visit of the Pope.

                              {time}  1245

  Lastly, this system is vital to the emergency needs of the Nation. 
During the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when the Pentagon was hit, this 
city was immobilized and you could not get in and you could not get 
out. Metro was the reliable source, the reliable way to ensure that 
thousands were able to safely and quickly evacuate the city. This is, 
as the majority leader said, America's system.
  I thank Mr. Davis again, and God bless him on his service.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
Virginia colleague

[[Page H5254]]

and long-time advocate for the transportation needs of the Washington 
metropolitan area.
  This House and this region are going to miss Tom Davis. He has worked 
tirelessly to provide the needed support and oversight of the 
Washington Metro system to ensure that it serves not only the residents 
and commuters of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, but 
the millions of visitors to the Capital City.
  I have been pleased to work with Congressman Davis as well as 
Congressman Hoyer and others in the Washington metropolitan area 
congressional delegation to spur Congress as Metro's partner, providing 
the Federal investment to operate the system.
  Every Congress and every administration since 1960 when President 
Eisenhower signed the National Capital Transportation Act creating the 
agency to develop a rapid rail system in the Nation's capital has 
recognized the Washington Metro system as America's subway.
  I shudder to think how the Nation's capital would function without 
Metro. Visitors from all over the country and indeed the world use the 
system daily when visiting our nation's capital. Metro's highest 
ridership days have come when national events were taking place here, 
attended by thousands of citizens from across the country--presidential 
inaugurations, holiday celebrations, and events such as the Pope's 
recent visit.
  The Metro system also supports the Federal workforce. Federal 
employees rely on Metro to commute back and forth to work and home 
every day, and also between Federal offices during the day. During peak 
times, over half of Metro's riders are Federal employees and 
contractors.
  Finally, this system is vital to the emergency needs of the region. 
During the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Metro was the reliable way to 
ensure that thousands of people were able to safely and quickly 
evacuate the city.
  Now today, with gas prices soaring, Metro serves as the mass transit 
option for growing numbers of commuters.
  It was a 16-year effort after President Eisenhower signed the 
planning legislation which culminated in Metrorail's opening day in 
1976 with five stations operating 4.2 miles on the Red Line. Some 12 
years later in 1988, Metrorail carried its one-billionth rider. In 
2001, Metro opened the five-station, 6.5-mile segment to Branch Ave, 
completing the 103-mile, 83 station Metrorail system.
  With Metro's growing use and importance in providing mobility for 
thousands of riders every day, it is critical that this Congress makes 
sure that capital improvements and preventive maintenance are provided 
to ensure the system's continued operation.
  With the federal investment, however, comes the expectation that 
Metro be accountable for the taxpayer funds which it uses. This 
amendment is important to that effort and I urge adoption of 
Congressman Davis's amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this legislation 
has passed the House freestanding before. This establishes an 
independent inspector general's office for WMATA and puts Federal 
representation on the WMATA board for the first time in history, along 
with local representation, and it requires dedicated local matches, 
something the current legislation doesn't do.
  We have one choice, we can make Metro safer or put it at greater 
risk, and the choice is ours, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was created by an 
act of Congress--Public Law 89-744--in 1966. Since that time, Congress 
has authorized billions of dollars for WMATA on several occasions, 
including reauthorizations in 1969, 1979 and 1990.
  All of these reauthorizations, including the one we are considering 
here today, have been based on the congressional finding from the 
National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, signed into law by 
President Eisenhower as Public Law 86-669, that an ``improved 
transportation system for the National Capital region is essential for 
the continued and effective performance of the functions of the 
Government of the United States.''
  To call into question the ethics of Members who support the 
reauthorization of Federal funding for an agency created by Congress 
more than four decades ago illustrates the absurdity of the majority's 
newly instated rule on congressional earmarks. It also highlights an 
overzealousness by Members on our side of the aisle who are keen on 
doing whatever it takes to derail important legislation.
  This amendment is not an earmark in violation of clause 9 of House 
Rule XXI and does not require disclosure under clause 17 of the Code of 
Official Conduct, just like Chairman Oberstar's H.R. 6003, the 
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, which 
reauthorizes Federal funding for Amtrak, is not an earmark in violation 
of the rules.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my metropolitan Washington colleagues, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and 
the Majority Leader (Mr. Hoyer).
  This amendment authorizes the Secretary to make grants to the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (``WMATA'') to finance 
capital and preventive maintenance projects included in the agency's 
Capital Improvement Program.
  The amendment will also require that all local payments for the cost 
of operating and maintaining the area's regional rail system--known as 
the ``Metro''--be made from dedicated funding sources.
  This is especially important in light of the fact that WMATA is 
currently the only transit system of its size that does not have a 
fully dedicated source of State or local funding.
  The WMATA transit system is one of the busiest in the entire country, 
providing over 415 million passenger trips each year. Each day, more 
than 800,000 people ride Metro trains, and over 150,000 ride Metro 
buses.
  Only the New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles transit systems produce 
more yearly transit passenger trips than WMATA in Washington, DC.
  Further, the Federal workforce relies heavily on the reliable and 
efficient service that the WMATA system provides. More than 165,000 
Federal employees, or one-third of Federal employees in the region, are 
currently enrolled in the transit benefits program with WMATA.
  According to a study by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the 
service that WMATA provides to our Federal employees helps keep an 
additional 15,500 automobiles off the roads in the National Capital 
region, and saves those commuters over 8.2 million gallons of gas each 
year.
  The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is an important 
part of our Nation's strategy to provide commuters efficient and 
reliable transit options, thereby allowing them to reduce their 
transportation-related emissions, energy consumption, and reliance on 
foreign oil.
  Regarding the specific language of this amendment, it is important to 
note that these new grants will be subject to the same labor, 
environmental, Buy America procurement, diversity contracting, and 
other requirements applicable to all transit projects funded under 
Chapter 53 of Title 49, United States Code. If this amendment is 
adopted, in conference on H.R. 6003, 1 would like to further clarify 
the specific terms of Chapter 53 which may be inconsistent with the 
purposes of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
amendment.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Washington D.C. Metro 
system is the fourth busiest transit system in the nation. The system 
provides transportation to the federal employees who work here everyday 
and the millions of visitors that visit the city each year.
  This amendment will require a dedicated funding source provided by 
the local governments that are served by the Metro. Something for which 
the Metro has been without for far too long.
  It also creates an office of Inspector General to help provide 
oversight of the system.
  This legislation also ensures that rail customers will have access to 
a broad range of wireless providers in case of an emergency and will 
provide additional dollars to the Transit Authority.
  The Metro system that serves this country's capital is a national 
asset and I hope that both the local and federal government will 
continue to show full support for the system.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 110-703.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an approved 
amendment by the rule to offer.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Smith of Washington:
       In title IV, add at the end the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):


[[Page H5255]]



     SEC. 402. ROUTING EFFICIENCY DISCUSSIONS WITH AMTRAK.

       Amtrak shall engage in good faith discussions, with 
     commuter rail entities and regional and State public 
     transportation authorities operating on the same trackage 
     owned by a rail carrier as Amtrak, with respect to the 
     routing and timing of trains to most efficiently move a 
     maximal number of commuter, intercity, and regional rail 
     passengers, particularly during the peak times of commuter 
     usage at the morning and evening hours marking the start and 
     end of a typical work day, and with respect to the expansion 
     and enhancement of commuter rail and regional rail public 
     transportation service.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1253, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It encourages 
collaboration between Amtrak and local and regional commuter rail 
agencies on train schedules and routing in shared corridors. There are 
competing needs for some of these uses, and cooperation between Amtrak 
and others is critically important to take most advantage of our rail 
corridors.
  Across the Nation there are multiple commuter rail transit agencies 
that run on the same rails as Amtrak. Many of these public 
transportation services have made substantial investments in the tracks 
and signal capacity on a rail corridor to enhance commuter rail 
service.
  Currently, Amtrak has first right to schedule their services, which 
can often result in delays to commuter rail passengers and have 
negative impacts on the on-time performance of the commuter rails. 
Amtrak must work with commuter rail in a collaborative manner and in 
coordination with the host railroad to best facilitate an efficient 
flow of intercity Amtrak commuter rail passengers.
  In the Puget Sound region in particular, Sound Transit has worked 
closely with BNSF and made a tremendous investment in the rail corridor 
throughout the Puget Sound region, investing more than $1 billion of 
public funding in the freight corridor between Tacoma and Everett, 
Washington. These investments represent a high price that has been paid 
by the region to ensure that commuter rail did not impact the freight 
rail operations that drive our region's economy. These investments 
benefit light rail, Amtrak, and of course Sound Transit's commuter rail 
passengers, as well as our freight rail.
  This amendment does not change Amtrak's priority in setting these, it 
merely asks that they work cooperatively with the other parties that 
are interested in using these rail systems to maximize their capacity. 
There are a number of folks who want to make investments in improving 
those rail systems, and if Amtrak works cooperatively with them, those 
investments will work out better for all concerned.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I just want to say that the gentleman from Washington 
has a commonsense amendment. I think encouraging collaboration between 
Amtrak and commuter rail systems is a positive thing. I urge all 
Members to accept and support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Oberstar.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman. Commuter rail certainly is one of the fastest growing 
modes of transportation in the public sector. We had over 461 million 
trips by commuter rail last year, and that is a 5.5 percent increase 
over the previous year.
  The amendment offered by gentleman directs Amtrak to engage in good-
faith negotiations with commuter rail entities and public 
transportation authorities to move more efficiently the maximum number 
of intercity rail passengers, especially during peak commuter hours.
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, it is a good, commonsense 
amendment, and I urge support of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Commuter rail is one of the fastest growing modes of public 
transportation in this country. In 2007, Americans took 461 million 
trips by commuter rail, a 5.5 percent increase over 2006. As a result, 
many commuter rail operators are seeking to expand their services while 
contending with other rail traffic.
  In response to these challenges, this amendment directs Amtrak to 
engage in good-faith discussions with commuter rail entities and public 
transportation authorities operating on the same track to efficiently 
move the maximum number of commuter, intercity, and regional rail 
passengers, especially during peak commuter hours. It also directs 
Amtrak to work with these parties toward the expansion and enhancement 
of commuter rail and regional public transportation service.
  This amendment helps ensure that Amtrak is doing everything it can to 
not only maximize the efficiency of its operations but also ensure the 
maximum growth possible for other rail services.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time just to close.
  I thank Chairman Oberstar and the ranking member on this committee 
for their work on this bill and their cooperation in my efforts with 
this amendment. I call for passage of the amendment.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we would encourage Amtrak 
to work closely with all the states they operate in to ensure that they 
are operating in conjunction with local commuter systems.
  This is one more example of the need for additional rail capacity and 
the affect this lack of additional infrastructure can have on a state.
  As more and more states turn to commuter rail service to move their 
citizens, it will be imperative that passenger, commuter, and freight 
rail work together to best utilize limited rail resources.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 110-703.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       In title I, add at the end the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 105. LIMITATION.

       None of the operating funds authorized in this Act may be 
     used by Amtrak for the long distance route that has the 
     highest cost per seat/mile ratio according to the March 2008 
     Amtrak monthly performance report, unless the Secretary has 
     transmitted a waiver for this route or a portion of the route 
     because the Secretary considers it to be critical to homeland 
     security.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1253, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, straightforward, 
and fiscally responsible. It would prevent any taxpayer funds from 
being wasted on operating Amtrak's worst-performing long-distance 
route.
  Under this amendment, which is supported by Citizens Against 
Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers' 
Union, the determination about what constitutes Amtrak's most wasteful 
route will not be a political one made by Congress, it will instead be 
determined by Amtrak's own most recent monthly report, and it will not 
take effect if the Secretary of Transportation determines that the line 
is critical to homeland security.

[[Page H5256]]

  Amtrak's most recent performance report produced in March 2008 lists 
the Sunset Limited as Amtrak's worst performing long-distance route. 
And for the few lucky people who actually buy a ticket on this route, 
this journey constitutes a 48-hour ordeal from New Orleans, Louisiana, 
to Los Angeles, California.
  Amtrak's report indicates that this route had an astonishing loss of 
26.3 cents per seat mile, which is unsurprising given the length of the 
trip coupled with the lowest ridership of all of Amtrak's long-distance 
lines.
  Right before I came to the House floor today, I went to Amtrak's 
Website and looked up how much a round-trip ticket on this line would 
be. The answer: an astonishing $522. For the purpose of comparison, a 
bus ticket for a similar trip leaving on and returning the exact same 
days, it would cost only $366, and riding the bus would take 19 fewer 
hours to complete the trip.
  Back in 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability 
Act which required that Amtrak operate without any Federal operating 
assistance after 2002.
  Despite this decade-old, commonsense requirement that Amtrak cease 
their fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, without my amendment, 
today's bill would continue to waste taxpayer money by forcing American 
families to subsidize Amtrak's worst line.
  Amtrak's net loss in 2007 was over $1.12 billion, an increase of 5 
percent over last year. In March of 2008 alone, Amtrak's net loss was 
$96 million. These awful performance figures prove that the time has 
come to restore commonsense fiscal responsibility at Amtrak, and that 
the time has come to at least take a small step in helping taxpayers' 
hard-earned money not to be used on long, expensive routes with low 
ridership.
  This amendment simply seeks to prevent further good taxpayer dollars 
from being thrown after bad by limiting the cost of Amtrak's number one 
least-profitable route. And if Members cannot support this simple, 
security-conscious amendment on behalf of fiscal discipline, I don't 
know if there is anything else that we can do to help not only this 
Congress be responsible, but also to be in support of American 
taxpayers.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We had a thoughtful, constructive discussion about the 
gentleman's proposal in the Rules Committee on Monday, and the 
gentleman is very sincere and very genuine in his proposal. However, we 
have a number of provisions in this bill to improve Amtrak's 
operations, to reform the way Amtrak conducts its business, to get at 
the lowest-performing routes.
  We specifically direct the Amtrak board of directors to implement a 
modern financial accounting system to save money, improve operations, 
and increase revenue.
  In section 204, we direct Amtrak to report on projected revenues, 
expenditures and ridership over a 5-year period to promote improved 
financial stability and how best to allocate the resources we provide 
to Amtrak. We direct Amtrak to work with the States to institute a 
nationwide methodology for allocating, operating and capital costs, to 
standardize financial support of Amtrak to the States and the Federal 
Government to ensure each is contributing their appropriate and fair 
amount, and to address specifically the performance of poorly 
performing routes, and they may be different from the one that the 
gentleman has in mind at this particular moment.
  We further direct the inspector general of DOT to evaluate 
performance, service quality of the five worst performing Amtrak routes 
and recommend a process for DOT to consider proposals by Amtrak and 
other operators to provide service both on under-performing Amtrak 
routes and routes not served by Amtrak.
  So the gentleman is proposing that Congress make a preemptive strike 
and direct dropping a route when we have in place with the enactment of 
this legislation a process by which we are going to improve these 
processes. It would be better to look and reexamine at the end of that 
process rather than at the beginning and prejudge the outcome of these 
sincere efforts that we are making to improve all of Amtrak's 
operations.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman. This is a 
preemptive strike to get the correct measure done so we are not arguing 
10 years from now what should have been done 10 years before.
  I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis) in support of this amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. First of all, let me say to the authors of 
this legislation, I appreciate the coalition that they put together and 
I support the underlying bill, but I think this amendment makes a 
couple of good points.
  Number one, on this particular route, you can take a bus and it gets 
you there faster and cheaper than taking Amtrak. Secondly, you can take 
a plane and it gets you there faster and cheaper than what you can do 
with Amtrak. And by the way, they operate without a Federal subsidy, 
both the bus system and the plane system in this particular case.
  The third thing I note, the gentleman has added a provision to his 
amendment which I think is very important, that the Secretary can 
transmit a waiver of this route or a portion of this route if the 
Secretary considers it to be critical to homeland security.
  So nobody is trying to take away routes that we may need to use in a 
critical situation, and we give the Secretary of Homeland Security the 
ultimate yes or no on this. But what is important about this is this 
route is the most heavily subsidized in the system. It is not utilized 
that much.

                              {time}  1300

  And if we can't make some statement here and give Members some 
opportunity, I think, to voice their concerns about oversubsidization 
on certain routes, I don't know what we're doing here.
  There are other provisions, I might add, in this bill that address 
shorter routes like this that Amtrak will be able to look at and take 
care of those routes. But I think it allows Members who are concerned 
to have their vote. I appreciate the gentleman bringing it up. I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, we have now heard Chairman Davis talk 
about the articulation. We believe that something should be done 
immediately; that this is about the worst performing route that has 
existed for year after year after year.
  And while I have great respect and appreciation, not only for the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) to work towards this, we believe it's time 
for action. We believe that the worst performing route, one which not 
only underperforms from the number of passengers, but also costs 
taxpayers a lot of money, that we, as Members of Congress, should have 
a say about this.
  I will ask all Members to support this vote when it comes on the 
floor in this amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I will yield the balance of our time to the gentlewoman 
from Florida, but I wish I had known about the opposition of the 
gentleman from Virginia before he offered his amendment. I might have 
had a different view about his amendment and his seeking special 
consideration for WMATA.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I encourage my colleagues to reject 
this sham amendment. Prohibiting funds for one route will have negative 
effects on the entire system, and it's already addressed in this 
legislation in a way that won't harm Amtrak and the services it 
provides.
  Opponents of passenger rail have repeatedly tried to siphon off the 
growth of our Nation's rail system by cutting funds, zeroing out the 
budget, and now cutting out the only transcontinental passenger route; 
all while in the same time the opponents have the gall to ask for a 
better profit model.
  Let me tell you, I've got some breaking news for you. There is 
something

[[Page H5257]]

more important than profit. Amtrak was the first responder during 
Hurricane Katrina and used the Sunset Limited line, which is being 
restored in this legislation, to help evacuate thousands of gulf coast 
region residents while President Bush and his administration was 
nowhere to be found. Now, that is a part of every key State future 
evacuation plan.
  This amendment will have a negative effect on major States, eight--
California, Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
Florida and Texas, Texas, Texas.
  The Sessions amendment will do the exact opposite of what we're 
trying to accomplish with this legislation, which is to expand 
passenger rail service, reduce congestion and improve our energy 
independence.
  Passenger rail's ability to reduce congestion is well known, with 
ridership numbers increasing steadily each year. One full passenger 
train can take 250 to 350 cars off the road. Passenger rail also 
consumes less energy than both automobiles and commercial airlines.
  I would encourage any Member who don't want to explain to their 
constituents why they no longer have access to Amtrak service, to vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 110-703.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York:
       In section 304(a), in the proposed section 24910(b)--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11);
       (2) strike the period at the end of paragraph (12) and 
     insert ``; and''; and
       (3) after paragraph (12), add the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) the development and use of train horn technology, 
     including, but not limited to, broadband horns, with an 
     emphasis on reducing train horn noise and its effect on 
     communities.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1253, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, 
Ranking Member Mica, Chairwoman Brown and Ranking Member Shuster for 
their work on this bill.
  My district is located in a densely populated area on Long Island, 
New York. We are fortunate to have the comfort and convenience of rail 
transportation to New York City and around Long Island by the Long 
Island Railroad.
  The Long Island Railroad moves safely through the Fourth 
Congressional District with the use of horns at train crossings. 
Although train horns are necessary to ensure the safety at railroad 
crossings, the noise can significantly affect families and communities 
surrounding these railroad crossings.
  While we can still all agree that train horns are necessary to ensure 
the safety of residents at railroad stations and crossings, the 
sounding of train horns day and night seriously impacts the quality of 
life of many in my communities in Long Island.
  I support the Federal Railroad Administration and its primary goal of 
ensuring the safety of railroads and trains across the country and in 
the Fourth Congressional District in New York. I do not, and will not 
support any measure that will reduce the safety of railroads and trains 
moving through our communities.
  With that in mind, I also understand the effect that locomotive horn 
noise has on the quality of life of my constituents. Over the years, I 
have been contacted by constituents who have complained that the volume 
of the train noise is so severe that many of them lose their sleep, 
even with earplugs.
  Trains on Long Island can run literally around the clock. Residents 
complain of several minutes of constant horn noise as the train travels 
through many of my communities such as Valley Stream, East Rockaway and 
Cedarhurst, Long Island.
  When trains are nearby, the volume is so high that people are forced 
to stop their conversations, and teachers at nearby schools are forced 
to stop teaching their students.
  Rail traffic through many communities in this country is an 
unavoidable reality as to the use of train horns. However, we have an 
obligation to ensure that we do everything possible to maintain the 
quality of life for communities near railroad tracks.
  That is why I've introduced an amendment to ask that the Secretary 
research the development and use of train horn technology with an 
emphasis on reducing train horn noise and its effect on a community. 
This will ensure that, as we move forward and continue to expand our 
railroad infrastructure in this country, we will also continue to 
address the concerns of the communities surrounding the infrastructure.
  Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, for continuing to work with me on this 
issue that is so important to my constituents.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment though I do not intend to oppose the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
which directs a study of train horn technology as part of the Rail 
Cooperative Research Program authorized at section 304 of the bill. And 
the gentlewoman has worked tirelessly to highlight her concerns with 
constituents on locomotive horn noise.
  I can understand how horn noise is terrible and disturbing. We've 
heard many iterations of that over the years in hearings in the 
committee in close urban quarters.
  But out on the prairie, the sound of a train horn late at night is a 
very comforting sound, I can say for those of us who live in those 
environments.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I just wanted to say that we accept the amendment. 
Anything to do with improving technology on trains we certainly 
support.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The key issue with train horns, again and again, is 
safety. Where they are removed in an experimental basis there have been 
fatalities or incidents or accidents, and where the train horn has been 
reinstated, lives have been saved. But technology can lead us to better 
train horns that don't intrude on the daily lives or nightly lives of 
citizens alongside railroad tracks.
  So I reserve the balance of my time, and I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I just want to thank Chairman Oberstar and 
Ranking Member Shuster for their support on this amendment. I too can 
hear the train whistle in the late of the night, and to me it is a nice 
sound. But for my constituents who are right along those tracks and 
near, it is a problem.
  I hope that my colleagues will support me on this amendment.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, anyone who has railroad 
tracks in their district has heard from constituents who are upset by 
repeated train whistles.
  Unfortunately, these train whistles are the most effective way of 
warning people of an oncoming train. And even still we see constant 
reports of injuries and deaths on the tracks.
  Technology holds the key to many improvements throughout our rail 
system, including improved safety. And hopefully it can help with the 
age-old problem of train whistles.
  We also need to invest in more grade separations at rail crossings to 
improve safety and

[[Page H5258]]

cut down on the need to blow warning whistles in the first place.
  Mrs. McCarthy of New York. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 110-703.


          Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 110-703.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut:
       In title II, add at the end the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 225. COMMUTER RAIL EXPANSION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress find the following:
       (1) In 2006, Americans took 10,100,000,000 trips on public 
     transportation for the first time since 1949.
       (2) The Northeast region is one of the Nation's largest 
     emerging transportation ``megaregions'' where infrastructure 
     expansion and improvements are most needed.
       (3) New England's road traffic has increased two to three 
     times faster than its population since 1990.
       (4) Connecticut has one of the Nation's longest average 
     commute times according to the United States Census Bureau, 
     and 80 percent of Connecticut commuters drive by themselves 
     to work, demonstrating the need for expanded commuter rail 
     access.
       (5) The Connecticut Department of Transportation has 
     pledged to modernize, repair, and strengthen the rail line 
     infrastructure to provide for increased safety and security 
     along a crucial transportation corridor in the Northeast.
       (6) Expanded New Haven-Springfield rail service would 
     improve access to Bradley International Airport, one the 
     region's busiest airports, as well as to Hartford, 
     Connecticut, and Springfield, Massachusetts, two of the 
     region's commercial, residential, and industrial centers.
       (7) Expanded commuter rail service on the New Haven-
     Springfield line will result in an estimated 630,000 
     additional trips per year and 2,215,384 passenger miles per 
     year, helping to curb pollution and greenhouse gas production 
     that vehicle traffic would otherwise produce.
       (8) The MetroNorth New Haven Line and Shore Line East 
     railways saw respective 3.43 percent and 4.93 percent 
     increases in ridership over the course of 2007, demonstrating 
     the need for expanded commuter rail service in Connecticut.
       (9) Expanded New Haven-Springfield commuter rail service 
     will provide transportation nearly 17 times more efficient in 
     terms of average mileage versus road vehicles, alleviating 
     road congestion and providing a significant savings to 
     consumers during a time of high gas prices.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the Sense of the Congress 
     that expanded commuter rail service on the rail line between 
     New Haven, Connecticut, and Springfield, Massachusetts, is an 
     important transportation priority, and Amtrak should work 
     cooperatively with the States of Connecticut and 
     Massachusetts to enable expanded commuter rail service on 
     such line.
       (c) Infrastructure Maintenance Report.--Amtrak shall submit 
     a report to Congress and the State Departments of 
     Transportation of Connecticut and Massachusetts on the total 
     cost of uncompleted infrastructure maintenance on the rail 
     line between New Haven, Connecticut, and Springfield, 
     Massachusetts.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1253, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to allow myself 
such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for his hard work, not only 
on the underlying bill, but in his gracious work with me and the 
Massachusetts and Connecticut delegations to allow us to bring this 
amendment before the House today.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment before us. By supporting 
the implementation of commuter rail service, as this amendment will 
assist us between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, 
Massachusetts, we can help strengthen and expand one of my State's most 
vital transportation corridors.
  While Metro North and Shoreline East rail lines provide extensive 
commuter service across Connecticut's southern coastal region, there is 
little available service to meet the needs throughout the central 
portion of the State. Connecticut's existing commuter rail lines have 
already seen over 5 percent increase in ridership just in the first 
quarter of 2008, and there's a clear need to expand it throughout the 
other sectors.
  Not only would such rail service help alleviate roadway congestion, 
save consumers money on gas, and help combat global warming, it would 
contribute to the economic revitalization of this route. In my 
district, the city of Meriden is prepared to build a state-of-the-art 
intermodal transportation hub to take advantage of this new rail line.
  At a time when gas prices are squeezing American's budgets like never 
before, we need to invest in this type of commuter rail service that is 
available right now on the line that runs between New Haven and 
Springfield.
  We need sensible mass transit solutions, and by expressing strong 
congressional support for this new proposed rail line, taking advantage 
of an existing Amtrak line, and by directing Amtrak, as this amendment 
does, to report on the lines' uncompleted infrastructure maintenance, 
information that is badly needed in order to make plans going forward 
to add local commuter service to that line, we are sending a clear 
signal that the time for action is now.
  Again, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar and I would urge 
support for this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do 
not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I just wanted to say that the situation highlighting the 
situation is certainly important, and I understand why the gentleman is 
highlighting it.
  It would have been covered, it is covered in the underlying bill I 
believe. But as I said, I understand why the gentleman wants to 
highlight the situation. And this report to determine the cost of 
uncompleted infrastructure maintenance is extremely important, and we 
need to tend to that. This Northeast Corridor is extremely important 
and, as I said, I do not oppose the amendment, and would accept it.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for his support. At 
this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my dear 
friend and colleague from Connecticut for proposing thoughtful 
legislation like this.
  I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his comments and once 
again salute our distinguished chairman, Mr. Oberstar, who has such 
great vision on the importance of utilization of rail.
  This is vitally important, not only to Connecticut, but both 
Connecticut and Massachusetts. The rail line between New Haven and 
Springfield is a vital cog for commerce. It also impacts the second 
largest airport in New England; and with the vision of Mr. Oberstar, an 
airport that we hope to have be one of the first green airports in the 
country.
  So again I want to applaud my colleague, thank him for his vision, 
and continue to support the visionary programs that Mr. Oberstar and 
his committee put forward.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 
time. I yielded back prematurely.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping to get this train running on 
time, excuse the pun, so if somebody needs me to yield time to them, I 
will make it available.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

[[Page H5259]]

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman 
Murphy and thank Congressman Shuster, as well as Jim Oberstar, a long 
time friend here, for offering the support to this proposal that it 
deserves.
  Establishing a New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter line would do 
much to improve the transportation needs of the Northeast Corridor. In 
addition to contributing to the national effort to reduce carbon 
emissions, this commuter line would greatly promote economic 
development for the cities and towns along the line. Union Station, 
with the help of Mr. Oberstar's committee, is now underway and great 
work we expect to happen there in Springfield.
  Mr. Chairman, Connecticut has already dedicated funding for the 
commuter line and is in the predevelopment phase. And today, the 
Massachusetts House is expected to approve a $1.3 billion 
transportation bill authorizing $90 million for the commuter developing 
road transportation line from New Haven to Springfield. A New Haven to 
Springfield line would also allow for more connections to existing 
Amtrak routes as well as other planned commuter rails, such as a Boston 
to Springfield line, which would further extend economic benefits to 
the region.
  Due to improved service, Amtrak ridership has increased in the past 
few years, and commuters want this progress to continue, particularly 
in light of gas prices. The Murphy amendment will help maintain this 
progress and promote this much-needed commuter line. The benefits of 
incorporating new commuter lines with Amtrak is undeniable and worth 
the investments.
  Commuter rail service would help other industrial cities like 
Springfield to better connect with regional economies and offer a 
smarter and cleaner transportation option.
  Thanks to the individuals who have stood with us today, and I hope 
the Murphy amendment will be successful.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  This amendment expresses support for expanded commuter rail service 
on the rail line between New Haven, Connecticut, and Springfield, 
Massachusetts, and encourages Amtrak to work cooperatively with the 
States of Connecticut and Massachusetts to enable expanded commuter 
rail service on the line. Further, this amendment directs Amtrak to 
report to Congress and the States on the total cost of uncompleted 
infrastructure maintenance on the New Haven--Springfield rail line.
  Commuter rail is one of the fastest growing modes of public 
transportation in this country. In 2007, Americans took 461 million 
trips by commuter rail, a 5.5 percent increase over 2006. Since 1990, 
New England's highway traffic has increased two to three times faster 
than its population and commuter rail is a critical transportation link 
in the Northeast.
  According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Connecticut has one of the 
nation's longer average commute times (24.5 minutes) in the nation, and 
80 percent of Connecticut commuters drive themselves to work. The State 
of Connecticut is seeking to provide additional transportation 
alternatives to its commuters and is hoping to expand commuter rail 
service to address its congestion.
  This amendment will help Connecticut understand the capital costs 
needed to better develop its commuter rail infrastructure as it works 
to develop its passenger transportation systems.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a unique 
opportunity to be able to use an existing rail line. We need--we 
understand the need in many other parts of the country to build out our 
infrastructure in Connecticut. We have the unique opportunity to take 
an existing line, have either a partnership or a transfer of the line 
to the State Department of Transportation, and with that we believe we 
will be able to greatly expand our opportunities for mass transit 
development in the State of Connecticut.
  With that, I wonder if the gentleman from Pennsylvania might be 
willing to yield a few minutes of his time to Ms. DeLauro.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes of our time to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Connecticut has seen a 5.5 percent increase in commuter rail usage 
over the first quarter of 2008 alone. As gas prices continue to 
skyrocket, more Americans than ever are looking for new ways to get 
where they are going without filling their gas tank.
  While thousands of Connecticut residents who live in the southern 
portion of the State are well served by Metro North and the Shoreline 
East commuter rail, there remains hardly any commuter rail options in 
the central portion of our State through Hartford and up to 
Springfield, Massachusetts. Yet New England's traffic has increased 2 
to 3 times faster than its population since 1990. When 80 percent of 
Connecticut commuters drive to work by themselves, we must provide a 
better alternative.
  I want to commend Chairman Oberstar for his hard work on this bill. I 
congratulate my colleague, Mr. Murphy, whose amendment expresses 
support for current discussions between Amtrak and the Connecticut 
Department of Transportation to create a cooperative framework by which 
an Amtrak-owned New Haven-Springfield rail line could serve as the 
conduit for increased commuter rail run by Connecticut DOT. And his 
amendment also requires a report to Congress on uncompleted 
infrastructure maintenance.
  Expanded commuter rail service on the New Haven-Springfield line will 
result in an estimated 630,000 more trips a year and over 2 million 
passenger miles annually. The demand is there. The benefits are clear.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank Chairman 
Oberstar, and I thank you graciously, Mr. Shuster, for allowing me to 
take the time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for his accommodations. We're in support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


    Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 110-703.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of 
     Pennsylvania:
       In title II, add at the end the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 225. SERVICE EVALUATION.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, Amtrak shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report containing the results of an evaluation of 
     passenger rail service between Cornwells Heights, PA, and New 
     York City, NY, and between Princeton Junction, NJ, and New 
     York City, NY, to determine whether to expand passenger rail 
     service by increasing the frequency of stops or reducing 
     commuter ticket prices for this route.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1253, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, families across the country are facing record gas 
prices and increased congestion on our roadways. We hear it every time 
we go home. And as Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to do 
what we can do to make things better. This amendment is about making 
sure that our public transportation resources are being used as 
effectively and efficiently as possible.

[[Page H5260]]

  Through this measure, we require Amtrak to take a hard look at 
passenger rail service at two important rail stations in our districts. 
Our hope is that they will find a way to help commuters and rail 
passengers in our districts by either expanding passenger rail service 
through increasing the frequency of stops or by reducing prices.
  For years, the Cornwells Heights and Princeton Junction stations have 
been hubs for commuters who work in New York City. Amtrak then cut the 
number of trains at these stations in half. Then they increased prices 
for our commuters.
  Mr. Chairman, countless families rely on the Cornwells Heights and 
Princeton Junction stations, and as a result of Amtrak's train cuts and 
fare hikes, families have been forced to drive longer distances or pay 
much higher fares. Today, our region is making economic progress, and 
Amtrak has a chance to keep moving us forward.
  Mr. Chairman, in these troubled times, our local economy can't afford 
to take anymore hits and we can't allow commuters to use more time on 
crowded highways when they could be home with their families.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. We support it, accept the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in support of the Murphy amendment. I feel the 
amendment is an important contribution to the work of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  This amendment directs Amtrak to evaluate the passenger rail service 
between Cornwells Heights, Pennsylvania, and New York, New York, and 
between Princeton Junction, New Jersey, and New York, New York, to 
determine whether to expand passenger rail service by increasing the 
frequency of stops or reducing commuter ticket prices for the route.
  Until a few years ago, Cornwells Station was the primary SEPTA and 
Amtrak station for service into New York City from the Bensalem 
Township. It has direct access to Interstate 95 and Pennsylvania Route 
63, with the largest parking lot on the SEPTA network, making it an 
ideal terminal for commuter service into New York for many people in 
the surrounding region.
  However, Amtrak recently reduced the number of trains serving the 
station each day by one-half, while greatly increasing the ticket 
prices for the service. As a result, ridership has plummeted, leading 
Amtrak to consider dropping service to the station all together.
  This study has several potential benefits. For one, the Bensalem 
region is enjoying an economic revitalization, which could be enhanced 
by increased Amtrak service to Cornwells Heights. Increased Amtrak 
service would allow for better mobility in the region as well as help 
relieve local congestion.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, at this time I 
would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
this amendment and for yielding me time. He is very diligent in looking 
after the concerns of the people of his area in Pennsylvania, and in 
this amendment, I must say it also benefits--would benefit the people 
of New Jersey as well.
  When you look at the numbers where Amtrak is setting record highs for 
numbers of users--25 million users last year--and look at how in New 
Jersey the State rail system is breaking ridership records for the 6th 
straight year with over 900,000 trips per weekday on its trains, buses, 
and light rails, and you match that with the increased costs of 
commuting by internal combustion cars, it should be apparent that 
Amtrak should do everything it can to attract riders on these underused 
routes; and that is exactly what the Murphy-Schwartz-Holt amendment 
seeks to do.
  It would require Amtrak to re-examine the service cuts that it's made 
at two stations to see if it would be feasible to increase services at 
those stations. They can do this through service and pricing. I hear 
from my constituents about this. One constituent, John, who commutes 
from Princeton Junction, summed it up by saying Amtrak seems to be 
driving customers away. It has negative effects, including increased 
automobile traffic and consequences on the environment.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank 
Mr. Murphy for preparing it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I don't rise in opposition of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania's amendment. In fact, he's looking for solutions in 
his district, in his area to provide commuter service to get people out 
of their cars to deal with increased congestion and high-rising fuel 
costs.
  But the gentleman from Pennsylvania is no different from the 
gentleman from Connecticut, from the gentlewoman from Arizona, the 
gentleman from California, from the gentleman from Ohio. We're drowning 
in congestion in this country. This bill provides a first opportunity 
to look at cost-effective ways of providing that service.
  So we've got to support commuter rail across the Nation. We've got to 
take some of these underutilized urban rail corridors that formally 
serve freight and convert those to commuter rail systems. We've got to 
find a host of solutions and incorporate private sector initiatives in 
these to make it happen because they can bring projects in on time and 
under budget and at the lowest cost possible.
  It is true that we may have to subsidize commuter rail service, long-
distance service, and some high-speed service, but we want that at the 
minimum cost to the taxpayer, the maximum benefit to those that we need 
to serve.
  So we will support the amendment, but again, what you hear from the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania is what we're hearing from 435 
congressional districts.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
the balance of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, it now costs a Cornwells Heights commuter $972 per 
month just to get to work and back. More importantly, the cuts in 
service have put more cars on our clogged highways, more exhaust fumes 
in the air, and forced our hardworking constituents to spend more time 
getting to and from work and less time at home. That means more time on 
a train or in traffic and less time at home with the ones that they 
love.
  Mr. Chairman, our region is experiencing the economic revitalization. 
Increased rail service and more riders means progress, while more cuts 
means going backwards. I would like to thank the chairman, Chairman 
Oberstar. I would like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Shuster. I would like to thank my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Holt, 
and also my other colleague from Pennsylvania, Ms. Schwartz, for their 
support on this important measure.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 110-703.
  The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H5261]]

                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150, 
noes 275, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 397]

                               AYES--150

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--275

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Braley (IA)
     Doolittle
     Flake
     Fortuno
     Gillibrand
     Hulshof
     Loebsack
     McCrery
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Spratt
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1357

  Messrs. CLEAVER, RANGEL, JACKSON of Illinois, BOUCHER, PICKERING, 
BERMAN, CROWLEY, WHITFIELD of Kentucky, BOOZMAN and DENT, and Ms. 
CLARKE, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ and Mrs. BONO 
MACK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. COOPER, TERRY, McKEON, BILBRAY, FEENEY, PETERSON of 
Pennsylvania and Mrs. SCHMIDT changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 397, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Tierney) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Acting 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. 6003) to 
reauthorize Amtrak, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1253, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a re-vote on the Davis 
of Virginia amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment to the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  The Clerk will designate the amendment on which a separate vote has 
been demanded.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 110-703 offered by 
     Mr. Davis of Virginia:
       Add at the end of title I the following new section:

     SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION FOR CAPITAL AND PREVENTIVE 
                   MAINTENANCE PROJECTS FOR WASHINGTON 
                   METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the succeeding provisions of 
     this section, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized 
     to make grants to the Transit Authority, in addition to the 
     contributions authorized under sections 3, 14, and 17 of the 
     National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (sec. 9--1101.01 
     et seq., D.C. Official Code), for the purpose of financing in 
     part the capital and preventive maintenance projects included 
     in the Capital Improvement Program approved by the Board of 
     Directors of the Transit Authority.
       (2) Definitions.--In this section--
       (A) the term ``Transit Authority'' means the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority established under Article 
     III of the Compact; and
       (B) the term ``Compact'' means the Washington Metropolitan 
     Area Transit Authority Compact (80 Stat. 1324; Public Law 89-
     774).
       (b) Use of Funds.--The Federal grants made pursuant to the 
     authorization under this section shall be subject to the 
     following limitations and conditions:
       (1) The work for which such Federal grants are authorized 
     shall be subject to the provisions of the Compact (consistent 
     with the amendments to the Compact described in subsection 
     (d)).
       (2) Each such Federal grant shall be for 50 percent of the 
     net project cost of the project involved, and shall be 
     provided in cash from sources other than Federal funds or 
     revenues from the operation of public mass transportation 
     systems. Consistent with the terms of

[[Page H5262]]

     the amendment to the Compact described in subsection (d)(1), 
     any funds so provided shall be solely from undistributed cash 
     surpluses, replacement or depreciation funds or reserves 
     available in cash, or new capital.
       (3) Such Federal grants may be used only for the 
     maintenance and upkeep of the systems of the Transit 
     Authority as of the date of the enactment of this Act and may 
     not be used to increase the mileage of the rail system.
       (c) Applicability of Requirements For Mass Transportation 
     Capital Projects Receiving Funds Under Federal Transportation 
     Law.--Except as specifically provided in this section, the 
     use of any amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization 
     under this section shall be subject to the requirements 
     applicable to capital projects for which funds are provided 
     under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, except to 
     the extent that the Secretary of Transportation determines 
     that the requirements are inconsistent with the purposes of 
     this section.
       (d) Amendments to Compact.--No amounts may be provided to 
     the Transit Authority pursuant to the authorization under 
     this section until the Transit Authority notifies the 
     Secretary of Transportation that each of the following 
     amendments to the Compact (and any further amendments which 
     may be required to implement such amendments) have taken 
     effect:
       (1)(A) An amendment requiring that all payments by the 
     local signatory governments for the Transit Authority for the 
     purpose of matching any Federal funds appropriated in any 
     given year authorized under subsection (a) for the cost of 
     operating and maintaining the adopted regional system are 
     made from amounts derived from dedicated funding sources.
       (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``dedicated 
     funding source'' means any source of funding which is 
     earmarked or required under State or local law to be used to 
     match Federal appropriations authorized under this Act for 
     payments to the Transit Authority.
       (2) An amendment establishing an Office of the Inspector 
     General of the Transit Authority.
       (3) An amendment expanding the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority to include 4 additional Directors appointed 
     by the Administrator of General Services, of whom 2 shall be 
     nonvoting and 2 shall be voting, and requiring one of the 
     voting members so appointed to be a regular passenger and 
     customer of the bus or rail service of the Transit Authority.
       (e) Access to Wireless Service in Metrorail System.--
       (1) Requiring transit authority to provide access to 
     service.--No amounts may be provided to the Transit Authority 
     pursuant to the authorization under this section unless the 
     Transit Authority ensures that customers of the rail service 
     of the Transit Authority have access within the rail system 
     to services provided by any licensed wireless provider that 
     notifies the Transit Authority (in accordance with such 
     procedures as the Transit Authority may adopt) of its intent 
     to offer service to the public, in accordance with the 
     following timetable:
       (A) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, in the 20 underground rail station platforms 
     with the highest volume of passenger traffic.
       (B) Not later than 4 years after such date, throughout the 
     rail system.
       (2) Access of wireless providers to system for upgrades and 
     maintenance.--No amounts may be provided to the Transit 
     Authority pursuant to the authorization under this section 
     unless the Transit Authority ensures that each licensed 
     wireless provider who provides service to the public within 
     the rail system pursuant to paragraph (1) has access to the 
     system on an ongoing basis (subject to such restrictions as 
     the Transit Authority may impose to ensure that such access 
     will not unduly impact rail operations or threaten the safety 
     of customers or employees of the rail system) to carry out 
     emergency repairs, routine maintenance, and upgrades to the 
     service.
       (3) Permitting reasonable and customary charges.--Nothing 
     in this subsection may be construed to prohibit the Transit 
     Authority from requiring a licensed wireless provider to pay 
     reasonable and customary charges for access granted under 
     this subsection.
       (4) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and each of the 3 years thereafter, 
     the Transit Authority shall submit to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the 
     implementation of this subsection.
       (5) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``licensed 
     wireless provider'' means any provider of wireless services 
     who is operating pursuant to a Federal license to offer such 
     services to the public for profit.
       (f) Amount.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Transportation for grants under this section an 
     aggregate amount not to exceed $1,500,000,000 to be available 
     in increments over 10 fiscal years beginning in fiscal year 
     2009, or until expended.
       (g) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization under this section shall remain available until 
     expended.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 295, 
noes 127, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 398]

                               AYES--295

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--127

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)

[[Page H5263]]


     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blackburn
     Braley (IA)
     Flake
     Gillibrand
     Hulshof
     Loebsack
     McCrery
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Two minutes are remaining to vote.

                              {time}  1415

  Messrs. KELLER of Florida, HAYES and COLE of Oklahoma changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GOODLATTE and SHUSTER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


          Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Davis of Kentucky

  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Yes, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Davis of Kentucky moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6003 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House promptly in 
     the form to which perfected at the time of this motion, with 
     the following amendment:
       In title II, add at the end the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 225. LOCOMOTIVE ALTERNATIVE FUEL STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy 
     and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     shall conduct a study to determine the extent to which 
     freight and passenger rail operators could use domestically 
     available alternative fuels to power their locomotive fleets 
     and other vehicles that operate on rail tracks.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``domestically available alternative fuels'' means fuels that 
     are derived from coal, oil shale, oil sands, natural gas, 
     methane, or butanol and are available within the United 
     States.
       (c) Factors.--In conducting the study, the Federal Railroad 
     Administration shall consider--
       (1) the energy intensity of various alternative fuels 
     compared to diesel fuel;
       (2) the cost of purchasing and the domestic availability of 
     alternative fuels;
       (3) the public benefits derived from the use of such fuels; 
     and
       (4) the effect of alternative fuel use on relevant 
     locomotive and other vehicle performance.
       (d) Locomotive Testing.--As part of the study, the Federal 
     Railroad Administration shall test locomotive engine 
     performance and emissions using alternative fuels.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Railroad Administration 
     shall transmit the results of this study to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.

  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008 will expand transportation options for some 
commuters. It doesn't address the underlying problem affecting all 
Americans.
  The current energy climate has highlighted the critical need for 
America to develop a national energy strategy that will promote energy 
independence. We can no longer rely on unstable foreign entities to 
supply us with the resources we need to keep our country running. We 
need to use American resources to meet American energy needs.
  Although section 219 of H.R. 6003 authorizes $1 million to the 
Department of Transportation to study the potential for renewable 
biofuels, the bill makes no mention of utilizing the huge proven 
resources that we have in this country at our fingertips. We need to 
address the underlying and immediate issues of increasing our domestic 
supply of energy to reduce prices. This MTR would expand the scope of 
the study to include those American resources that are now available, 
like coal, natural gas and oil shale.
  One year ago, Amtrak was buying fuel for $2.19 a gallon. As of May 
22, 2008, Amtrak was forced to pay $4.26 a gallon. This dubious 
milestone was achieved 776 days after the current Speaker of the House 
stated that Democrats had a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing 
fuel prices. That plan has yet to materialize, and a new CNN poll shows 
that 86 percent of our citizens believe that gas prices will hit $5 a 
gallon this summer.
  Indeed, the majority has pursued a misguided energy strategy that 
tightens the vice on American consumers in the form of higher taxes and 
higher energy prices. Frankly, we need to use American resources for 
Americans now. While I don't object to public transportation as a sound 
alternative to commuting by car, expanding Amtrak service still doesn't 
lessen our dependency on foreign oil.
  Skyrocketing fuel prices are affecting every aspect of our daily 
lives. We all know the impact it is having on our family budgets. But 
it is also having a dramatic impact on many other budgets, ranging from 
school districts to local governments to the Armed Forces. Even 
Amtrak's budget is ballooning with these increasing prices. Their fuel 
budget for 2008 has increased from $125 million to $215 million.
  In the areas where American budgets are being hardest hit by gas 
prices, consuming 16 percent of gross income, they have very little 
access to Amtrak. How does this bill help those Americans deal with our 
energy prices?
  My constituents can literally no longer afford the empty promises and 
failed policies of this Congress. What we need now is an action plan 
that focuses on real solutions that use real resources to address our 
short and long-term needs, putting all the options on the table to be 
considered. It will unleash American innovation, create American jobs 
and lower prices for American consumers.
  We need to focus on increasing our domestic energy supply by 
exploring the resources that rest at our fingertips on the Outer 
Continental Shelf and in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve. These 
resources could significantly increase our domestic oil production and 
supply a considerable amount of our energy needs. Yet the Democratic 
majority refuses to allow the American people to access resources that 
are on their own soil. I echo the recent declaration that we need to 
drill here, we need to drill now, and then we will pay less.
  We need to promote the research and development of renewable 
resources while investigating the potential for alternative fuels 
developed from coal-to-liquids, hydrogen, and other new technologies to 
lessen our dependency on foreign oil supply shocks.
  Congress has been historically shortsighted about the use of our most 
abundant fuel, coal, to boost our energy supply. The United States is 
estimated to have 40 times the amount of energy stored in coal reserves 
than we have in our domestic oil reserves. American coal resources in 
Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois exceed the oil resources of Saudi Arabia 
and is an excellent source for American energy. With oil prices heading 
towards $150 a barrel, how can we not afford to explore our own 
domestic resources?

[[Page H5264]]

  The leaders of this Congress have proven themselves to be out of 
touch, turning blindly away from any attempt to relieve the American 
people of their burden with practical solutions. We need to lower 
prices for the American people. By continually refusing to recognize 
the problem at hand, the Democratic majority is causing irrevocable 
harm to our Nation.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the motion to recommit the bill 
to broaden the Locomotive Alternative Fuel Study to include American 
reserves that will increase domestic oil supply, reduce costs and make 
us more independent from foreign oil. The best thing that we can do for 
Amtrak is to lower fuel prices. If we use our resources for Americans, 
we can ignite a third industrial revolution that will create millions 
of jobs and provide a future for our children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this is only a halfhearted attempt. If it 
were a wholehearted attempt, the motion would have included soybean oil 
and ethanol and it would have included the word ``forthwith'' and we 
could have accepted it. In fact, if the gentleman had come to the 
committee, both the Republican and Democratic side of the committee in 
the course of consideration of the bill, if he were serious about this 
matter, we would have included it in our section 219, Locomotive 
Biofuel Study. There is no reason we couldn't include all of what the 
gentleman is saying, plus additional items. But I think by using the 
word ``promptly,'' clearly this is just another gesture, a political 
gesture, to sidetrack the bill. Sending it back to committee simply 
delays the benefits of Amtrak.
  We have worked diligently over the better part of a year-and-a-half, 
Republicans and Democrats together on the committee, and fashioned a 
wide-ranging proposition for the future of inter-city passenger rail in 
America, introducing extraordinary reforms that have not been 
considered or have been rejected in the past. We have included those in 
this bill.
  We include a locomotive biofuel study. We require locomotive testing. 
We require a report. We require it to be done in a very specific period 
of time. We also require a study on the use of bio-based lubricants for 
Amtrak to use.

                              {time}  1430

  In fact, soybean-derived fuel is being used by the freight rail 
sector in what is known as Green Goat technology, Green Goat 
locomotives and freight rail makeup switchyards with great success.
  The Green Goat technology using soybean-based fuel is reducing 
particulate emissions in rail makeup yards reducing noise and also 
reducing cost of maintenance of locomotives because the fuel also 
provides lubricating quality to a locomotive engine.
  Furthermore, to insist that we move on this amendment--I think an 
earlier version I saw would have required implementation immediately--
Amtrak has warranties with General Electric, who produces the P42 
locomotives for Amtrak's fleet. That's the backbone of their diesel 
locomotive fleet.
  To force Amtrak to rush into applying some not-yet proven technology 
would vitiate the warranties, would increase the cost, would subject 
Amtrak having to absorb all the costs instead of GE, the locomotive 
engine producer, absorbing the costs.
  Again, I say we are very accommodating on this committee. We want 
good ideas. We would have welcomed the gentleman's ideas in the 
fashioning of the legislation. In fact, if this had been a forthwith 
motion, we could have accepted it with an amendment to include 
biodiesel fuel, soybean-based fuel.
  But the way it's fashioned simply sidetracks the very good bill, the 
extraordinary progress we have made with bringing passenger high-speed 
rail service to all of America. This is a transformational moment, this 
Amtrak legislation, a transformational moment in American 
transportation to bring our country into the first world of intercity 
high-speed passenger rail service, to make changes in the way Amtrak 
operates, to invite the private sector in to be a partner in fashioning 
a future for Amtrak.
  Don't sidetrack it with this frivolous motion that comes way late in 
the process and is not serious at all in its purpose. If it were 
serious at all in its purpose, it would have come to the committee, we 
would have done something about it, we would have included this 
language earlier on in the bill.
  Oppose the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 6003; the motion to refer House 
Resolution 1258; and the motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 1235.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 230, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 399]

                               YEAS--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)

[[Page H5265]]


     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Braley (IA)
     Flake
     Gillibrand
     Hulshof
     Loebsack
     McCrery
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain on this 
vote.

                              {time}  1453

  Messrs. HILL and YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 311, 
nays 104, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 400]

                               YEAS--311

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Buyer
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--104

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gingrey
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pitts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bartlett (MD)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Flake
     Gillibrand
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hulshof
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Loebsack
     McCrery
     Musgrave
     Ortiz
     Rush
     Stark
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members should note there 
is less than 1 minute to vote.

                              {time}  1459

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 400, I inadvertently 
failed to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________