[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.''
____________________