[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2081-S2090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF
2014--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume legislative session.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I can still remember my first job as
though it was yesterday. I worked as a busboy at a local family
restaurant during our small-town fair. While that job only lasted a few
days, I still remember how incredibly proud I was to have earned a few
dollars myself. The next year that same family hired me to bus tables
and wash dishes year-round at their family restaurant. I soon went from
busing tables to bagging groceries and then stocking shelves at the
local grocery store.
I grew up on a small farming and ranching operation. So whether it
was drying dishes after dinner or helping my dad with the cattle, hard
work was simply a requirement for every single member of my family. In
addition to tending cattle, my dad worked as a utility lineman. And my
mother worked in a factory inspecting wheels on the assembly line.
Like a lot of Americans, I learned the dignity of work long before I
ever held a job. I learned at home.
Everyone deserves a fair shot at success in this country. That is at
the heart of why raising the minimum wage truly matters.
Minimum wage workers are not just teenagers. They are single parents
working two jobs to make ends meet. They are women working a minimum-
wage job at a movie theater for 8 years waiting for a raise. They are
students working toward a degree that they hope will make all the
difference in their lives. They are mothers and fathers working 40
hours a week--sometimes many more--to support their families.
These are the Americans who work hard and earn the Federal minimum
wage and still find it difficult--some would argue impossible--to get
ahead.
At $7.25 an hour, the Federal minimum wage has lost more than 30
percent of its value over the past four decades. Groceries and housing,
education and energy costs all continue to rise, but the minimum wage
simply has not kept pace.
This financial hardship is especially felt by women who make up a
majority of minimum wage workers in this country. And stagnant wages
hinder a family's chance to work their way into the middle class.
For many, raising the minimum wage means the difference between
poverty and dignity. It can mean the difference between a trip to the
food bank and a trip to the grocery store. It means the difference
between earning enough to just barely get by and earning enough to at
least think about the future.
That is why I am supporting the Minimum Wage Fairness Act to raise
the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour by 2015.
According to recent estimates, more than 100,000 New Mexicans would
receive a direct raise from this legislation, and another 43,000 would
see their pay increase as overall wages improve, dramatically
increasing economic opportunities for New Mexico families.
Raising the minimum wage is not just good for those workers; it is
good for business and it is good for the economy at large. A higher
minimum wage helps reduce turnover, increases productivity, and boosts
consumer demand.
A higher minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of people who
spend locally and helps create a ladder of opportunity into the middle
class.
Americans are no strangers to hard work and embrace the belief that
if you work hard and you play by the rules, you should be able to get
ahead, you deserve a fair shot.
There are cities in New Mexico that are already taking the initiative
and raising the minimum wage on their own. The city of Santa Fe's
minimum wage is $10.51 per hour. As a city councilor myself, I fought
to raise the minimum wage in Albuquerque. And today Albuquerque's
minimum wage is still $1.25 more than the current Federal rate.
In Las Cruces, there is a growing grassroots effort to raise that
city's minimum wage.
I know this fight. We need to raise the national minimum wage so that
all workers have a fair shot to get ahead. Because, the truth is, the
deck has been stacked against working families for some time now. Too
many working families are forced to make decisions that hurt the
progress and strength of our Nation as a whole--such as taking on an
extra shift instead of pursuing their education, or having to choose
between paying the heating bill or the phone bill.
Raising the minimum wage is key to making this economic recovery work
for all of us. But raising the minimum wage alone is not enough to
constitute a middle-class economic agenda.
We need to put preschool within the financial grasp of every working
family, and we need to address the outrageous increases in college
tuition and loan costs. We must invest in vocational training and help
build the modern American manufacturing economy of the 21st century. We
must close the gender wage gap to ensure that women are paid what they
deserve--paid equally with men.
Fair, livable wages, together with educational opportunities for
middle-class families--that is a formula for a real opportunity agenda.
It is time to ensure that every New Mexican, every American has a
fair shot. It is time to raise the minimum wage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The Finance Committee is considering something we call in the Senate
tax extenders. One of those is the wind production tax credit. For the
next 10 minutes or so, I wish to address that
[[Page S2083]]
law which has been on the books for more than 20 years. It expired in
December, and, in my view, needs to stay expired.
One of the things we remember most about the late President Ronald
Reagan, is what he said about government programs: The closest you will
come to eternal life on this Earth is a government program.
Well, my nomination for the most glaring example of a government
program that seems to have eternal life is the wind production tax
credit--the Federal taxpayers' subsidy for what I would call ``big
wind.''
Here is what the wind production tax credit does. Let's say you build
one of those 20-story turbines and the wind turbines begin to go
around, as they will about one-third of the time to produce
electricity. So for every kilowatt hour of electricity that you
produce, the taxpayers will pay you 2.3 cents. That is a pretty good
deal because the wholesale price of electricity, depending on where you
are at in the country, might range from about 3 cents per kilowatt hour
to 7 cents per kilowatt hour. So let's say you are in Oregon or a part
of the country where they have pretty cheap electricity and you sell
wind for 3 cents a kilowatt hour. You will pay 1 cent of the money you
get in Federal corporate tax. That leaves you with 2 cents, but then
the taxpayer is going to come in and pay you 2.3 cents on top of that.
Because it is a tax credit, it is worth even more.
Now it is even better than that. That subsidy is not just for 1 year,
but it is for 10 years. So every time we have a 1-year extension of the
wind production tax credit, we tell the owner of the wind turbine--and
usually they take these ownerships and they put them in portfolios and
they split them up and sell them to rich people around the country and
around the world who can use the tax credits--it is for 10 years. So
the wind production tax credit is 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour of
taxpayer money, every year for 10 years if you are producing wind
electricity.
This provision of the Tax Code was enacted in 1992. It was supposed
to be a ``temporary'' subsidy. It was intended to do what we have done
several times in our country, which is to jump-start a new energy
technology. Well, as President Reagan observed, eternal life for a
government program sinks in pretty quickly. This temporary tax
provision, enacted in 1992--more than 20 years ago--has been extended
eight times since its enactment. The wind industry has become a very
well-developed industry.
I asked President Obama's Nobel Prize-winning Energy Secretary,
Secretary Chu, in the first term of President Obama's administration
how he would describe wind power. He said it was a ``mature''
technology.
The No. 1 problem with the wind production tax credit is its cost.
Congress enacted a 1-year extension for 2013. That was at a cost of
nearly $12 billion to the taxpayers--remember, not all in 2013; that
was just for a 1-year extension. For 2014 there is another 1-year
extension which is being considered by the Finance Committee, and that
will be another $6 billion.
This is real money. I mean, just look at the amount of money we spend
on energy research in multiple agencies. The number is about $10
billion let's say we, through our research, developed a way to capture
carbon from coal plants and recycle that carbon and turn it into
something commercially feasible and sell it. Then all of a sudden,
these coal plants that people worry about because they produce carbon,
would be as clean as nuclear power, as clean as wind power. As a result
we would be building coal plants everywhere in America. That seems like
a better use of taxpayer dollars. We would have cheap electricity--even
cheaper electricity for a longer period of time.
We spend $10 billion on energy research in a year and the last 1-year
extension of the wind production tax credit was $12 billion over 10
years. By comparison, take tax breaks for Big Oil. One of the last
times President Obama wanted to end the tax subsidies for what he
called Big Oil, he identified $4 billion worth of tax subsidies. Well,
most of those tax breaks, he calls subsidies for Big Oil, are tax
breaks that many manufacturing companies have.
The point I am trying to make is that we are talking about a lot of
money.
The supporters of this tax credit will say: ``Let's phase it out.''
In fact, it is phased out. If Congress did not act, all of those people
who currently today have their wind turbines would continue to get
their subsidies for up to 10 more years. So that phases it out.
But let's say we phase it out according to a proposal that was made
last year by the wind industry. Well, the American Energy Alliance said
that might cost as much as $50 billion over 10 years--a huge amount of
money. Now, there could be some other form of phase out--I would
welcome the opportunity to see it--that would not cost so much. Maybe
that would make sense, but beware the phase out.
The United States uses 20 to 25 percent of all of the electricity in
the world. It is important to us. We use it for our computers, we use
it for our businesses, we use it for our military, and we use it for
our lights. If the lights go out in America, America stops. That is how
important electricity is to us.
Where does that electricity come from? Four percent of it comes from
wind power. Of course, that is only available when the wind blows--
usually at night, usually when we need it the least. Four percent of
our electricity is wind after 22 years and billions of dollars. The
rest of it comes from other sources--7 percent from hydroelectric
power; 19 percent from nuclear power, which is about 60 percent of all
of our clean energy; nearly 40 percent from coal; and 27 percent from
natural gas. So 4 percent from wind.
It is true, as wind power advocates say, that in the past Congress
has approved other jump-starts for energy technology. But the
difference is that we put a cap on them.
We are very happy about all of the unconventional gas we have in this
country today. Suddenly, we have an enormous amount of natural gas. The
research for that partially came from Sandia Laboratory, from
Department of Energy demonstration projects. There was a tax credit for
fracking, but it expired in 1992. The demonstration projects are over.
This technology is out in the marketplace and making lives better all
across the country. Take plug-in electric cars. I supported that, but
there was a cap on the number of credits we had for plug-in electric
cars--200,000 per manufacturer. The nuclear production tax credit works
just like the wind production tax credit. You sell a kilowatt hour of
electricity from a nuclear power plant, and we will give you a taxpayer
credit. But that is capped at 6,000 megawatts. So there is a limit to
it. There is no cap on the subsidy for electricity produced by wind. I
do not know the exact number, but it is probably in the 50- or 60- or
70,000 megawatt range.
Problem No. 1 is cost.
Problem No. 2 is reliability risk.
The problem here is that Congress is picking winners and losers. When
it gives wind power such a big subsidy that is sometimes more than the
cost of the electricity, it undercuts our coal and nuclear plants. And
what that does is put us at risk as a country. Any country that uses
that much electricity needs these big plants to operate almost all the
time--coal and nuclear--to keep the lights on, to support jobs, to keep
the cars running, and to make America run. Our country cannot run on
windmills that only work when the wind blows. We cannot run only on
solar power that only works when the Sun shines. We have to have
baseload power.
Because the wind subsidy is picking winners and losers, it undercuts
baseload power. It has caused the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, a very well-respected organization, to say that
the combination of the federal subsidy for wind power and low gas
prices could cause as many as 25 percent of our nuclear plants in
America to close within the next 10 years. That would be a terrible
blow to our country's economy, to our effort to improve family incomes
and to find jobs for middle-class Americans.
How could that be? How does it do that? Well, let's take this
example. Let's say you are in Chicago and it is the middle of the
night, 3 a.m., and the demand for electricity goes down as people go to
sleep. Well, the supplier of electricity to your home or your business
in Chicago is buying electricity from the market at the lowest possible
[[Page S2084]]
cost. Well, as the demand goes down, the price goes down, and who is
left out there selling electricity? It is the wind power people because
they can give away their electricity and still make a profit because of
the subsidy. This negative pricing is what is undermining baseload,
coal and nuclear.
We are very proud of the fact that in our country we have, in effect,
a domestic price for natural gas. It is very low. Chemical companies
are moving back to America instead of leaving. Manufacturing plants are
enjoying the lower costs, and so are homeowners as they heat and cool
their homes. But remember that natural gas prices can go up and they
can go down. In 2005 they were not $3 and $4 as they are today, they
were $13. In New England, even today sometimes natural gas prices spike
to $30 a unit. So it is important to have diversity and it is important
to have baseload power.
The third problem is that these large wind turbines destroy the
environment in the name of saving the environment. Some people might
like to look at them. I really do not. Particularly in my part of the
country, the only places they work are along the foothills or along the
tops of the most beautiful mountains in the Eastern United States. So
you string these 20-story structures with blinking lights that can be
seen for 20 miles in the middle of the beautiful view you have in the
Eastern United States. They take up a lot of space.
You could run these 20-story windmills from Georgia to Maine to
produce electricity, scarring the entire eastern landscape. Or you
could produce the same amount of electricity with eight nuclear power
plants. And you would still need the nuclear power plants to produce
electricity when the wind is not blowing, which is most of the time.
The final problem is energy security. I had a meeting with George
Shultz, the former Secretary of State, the other day in San Francisco.
He made an observation that I had not heard him make before. George
Shultz said, ``We should pay a lot of attention to generating more
energy where we use it because of national security risks.''
George Shultz is head of the MIT Energy Initiative. He was observing
that the supply of energy ought to be near the user of energy. That is
especially true with military bases. It could be true for the rest of
us in this age of terrorism. That is another reason it makes less sense
to subsidize these giant turbines say in the Great Plains, and then
someone has to pay for 700 miles of transmission lines through
backyards and nature preserves to get the wind power to Memphis--to
bring that electricity to Tennessee and the Tennessee Valley.
Expecting the United States to operate on windmills is the energy
equivalent of going to war in sailboats while nuclear power is
available. It is even worse than that. It is the same as destroying our
nuclear ships--our nuclear plants, the same way--and replacing them
with sailboats.
The energy subsidy for wind turbines has served a purpose for the
last 22 years. We have spent enough money on them. We have distorted
the market as much as we can stand. Because of the cost and because we
are undermining the baseload power of coal and nuclear, which puts us
at risk as a country that uses 20 to 25 percent of the electricity in
the world, my hope would be that the Finance Committee would save some
money and let the marketplace flourish. Give us the opportunity to
allow the wind production tax credit to stay right where it is,
expired, as it did at the end of last year. Let those persons who
already have the benefit of the credits enjoy them for the rest of the
period of time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ISAKSON. I rise to address two subjects briefly on the floor and
would ask that my remarks be divided appropriately in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. There has been a lot said about the Affordable Care Act
on the floor of this Chamber for 5 years. I was here when we passed the
Affordable Care Act. I am in the Senate as it is being implemented.
There have been lots of things said about it, but this year marks one
of the things we need to recognize as a major hit to small business.
Bernie Marcus, a founder of Home Depot and the former chairman and CEO,
opined yesterday in the Wall Street Journal about the cost of ObamaCare
to American business, a hidden tax that has been unveiled on the
American people, the American ratepayer, and the American small
business person.
A tax assessment of $8 billion in 2014 is being levied by the
Affordable Care Act against every insurance company that sells to the
small- and medium-sized market, to every insurance company that sells a
Medicare Advantage policy or a Medicare managed care policy. The 2014
assessment is $8 billion, and it graduates up to where in 2018 it is
$14.3 billion. That assessment is an arbitrary amount of money that was
used as a pay-for in the ObamaCare legislation.
It is assessed on the insurance companies based on their market share
of the insurance market in small- or medium-sized carriers, Medicare
Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans. It represents about a $500-
per-year rate increase on every one of those policyholders, because as
we all know when an insurance company has the added cost to the
administration of their policy, that cost is obviously passed on to the
consumer; $500 a year is $5,000 in the next decade. It also represents
over the next decade the loss, as estimated by the CBO and NFIB, of
146,000 jobs.
Let's think for a minute. The main topics we have had this year in
the Senate of the United States is income inequality, the need to lower
unemployment, and the need to create jobs. Yet the signature piece of
legislation of this administration is going to cost us because of a new
tax being levied against insurance companies that provide health
insurance to the American people, and it is going to cost 146,000 jobs.
It is another example of how we need to rethink the approach of the
Affordable Care Act.
We have to recognize all the things it has done from the standpoint
of taxes, cost, lost jobs, and lost wages. Reform that legislation,
repeal that legislation, and get it right for the people of the United
States of America.
I commend Bernie Marcus on bringing this to the people's attention. I
commend him on all he has done for my State and for our country, and I
hope he will keep on giving us his opinion for what is best for the
United States of America.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a column
written and published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal by Mr.
Bernie Marcus, cofounder, former chairman, and CEO of Home Depot.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 1, 2014]
ObamaCare's Hidden Hit on Businesses
(By Bernie Marcus)
The law's insurance-company fee will raise premiums and
kill at least 146,000 jobs.
President Obama's promise that Americans could keep their
health insurance if they liked it was the most infamous of
the Affordable Care Act's sketchy sales pitches. But many of
the law's most damaging aspects are less known, buried in
thousands of pages of regulations.
Consider the ``fee''--really a hidden sales tax--that all
health-insurance companies have been forced to pay since the
first of this year on premiums for policies sold to
individuals and small and medium-size businesses. The health-
insurance tax--known as HIT in business circles--is expected
to generate revenues of about $8 billion this year and as
much as $14.3 billion by 2018, according to the legislation.
The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on
Taxation predict that insurance companies will pass the cost
on to customers, as any company subject to such a tax would.
In other words, millions of Americans lucky enough to keep
their current health insurance under ObamaCare will be paying
much higher premiums because of this tax, with the added cost
rippling through the economy and stifling job creation.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses projects
the health-insurance tax will add an additional $475 per year
for the average individually purchased family policy--nearly
$5,000 over the course of a decade. Small businesses will
take an even bigger hit, with the cost of an employer-
provided family policy rising a projected $6,800 in the next
decade.
Since most large companies self-insure, they aren't
affected by the new tax. But smaller- and medium-size
businesses don't have that luxury and will bear the brunt of
the tax. Many will be forced to raise their employees' share
of premium payments or, worse, lay off workers to pay the
escalating costs of health care for their core employees.
[[Page S2085]]
The NFIB projects private-sector employment through 2022
will be reduced by at least 146,000 jobs because of the
health-insurance tax, and perhaps as much as 262,000 jobs.
That's like vaporizing some of the largest employers in the
country. Just the low-end estimate--146,000 jobs--is still
more than the total number of employees currently working for
companies like Costco, Microsoft and Delta Airlines.
Sadly, the NFIB predicts that 59% of the reduced job growth
will be in small- and medium-size businesses, America's
biggest engines of job creation. Worse, 26% of the problem
will be concentrated in very small businesses--the Main
Street cafes, retailers and family businesses that are the
backbone of the U.S. economy. America's 28 million small
businesses make up 99.7% of all American employers. They also
create 63% of new private-sector jobs.
The jobs never created because of the health-insurance tax
will be a ``death of a thousand cuts'' on Main Street that
adds up to a major wound for the economy. As a result, NFIB
predicts total gross domestic product in 2022 will be $23
billion to $35 billion smaller than it would have been absent
the HIT.
To get a handle on what this means, consider that
McDonald's Corp. grossed $27.6 billion last year, selling to
68 million customers per day in 119 countries. So this one
new tax on our health insurance is projected to drill a hole
in our economy as big as McDonald's in just eight years, with
the overwhelming majority of the damage falling on already
struggling small businesses.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
Affordable Care Act was designed to fix only half the problem
of uninsured Americans, by bringing the number of uninsured
from 53 million down to 27 million--equal to the current
population of Texas. Yet this half-solution has brought with
it full-sized problems--like lost health coverage for the
previously insured, and job-killing policies like the health-
insurance tax.
Poor enrollment figures and endless stories of Americans
losing insurance indicate the law won't even be able to
accomplish its incomplete goals. Building a sicker economy
will not create healthy Americans. Congress and the president
must reform this ``reform.''
Iran
Mr. ISAKSON. America was insulted earlier last month by the Iranian
people. The government of the nation of Iran has appointed a new
Ambassador to the United Nations.
The new Ambassador's name is Hamid Aboutalebi. He will be an
Ambassador to the U.N. who served on the ground in the Iranian forces
who took the American Embassy hostages in 1979, captured 52 Americans,
and held them for 444 days--a man who claims he was just an innocent
bystander and didn't have much to do with that horrible tragedy. If you
were alive at that time and watched the ``Nightline'' shows night after
night to watch the beatings, the torture, the terror, and the capture
of the American people, you understand full well that nobody could have
been within sight of that Embassy and not claim to be a part of it.
My State has been touched. Almost every State of the Union has been
touched. Those hostages who were held--right up until the time Ronald
Reagan was sworn in as President--were finally released at the last
minute when the U.S. Government waived their right to compensation
against the nation of Iran.
The nation that held 52 of our diplomats hostage for 444 days signed
an agreement never to have to pay any reparation to those people and is
now appointing to the United Nations, the world forum, an ambassador
who was on the site in Tehran when those people were taken captive. It
is an insult to America.
First and foremost, the Government of Iran should apologize; second
and foremost, the Government of Iran should compensate all of those
hostages who had been held. Fifty-two hostages were held and 25 percent
of them have passed away. One of them, as recently as late last year,
took their own life as a consequence of the injuries they suffered.
One of the citizens from my State, Col. Chuck Scott of Jonesboro, GA,
was on television just 2 nights ago about the tragedy in Iran. His
teeth were knocked out by a 2 by 4 during his captivity. He is going
back for another surgery in another week to try to remedy some of the
pain he harbors from that tragedy that took place 34 years ago.
It is an insult to everything the United Nations stands for, to the
integrity of the people of the United States of America, and the memory
of those who passed and those who lived who were held hostage. We
should demand this appointment be withdrawn by the Iranian Government.
We should demand an apology on behalf of the Iranian Government to the
people of United States of America, and we should demand that they
voluntarily compensate those hostages.
They are not going to do that, and I know that, which is why we
introduced legislation, which I principally sponsored 3 years ago, to
compensate the 52 hostages who were held in captivity from 1979 until
1981. It is a shame beyond belief that 52 Americans who were held
hostage are the only Americans in the same circumstance who have not
been compensated for the damages perpetrated upon them.
I hope a vehicle comes through the floor of the Senate where we can
attach this. Senator Kerry, while he was chairman of the committee and
now Senator Menendez, who is now the chairman, and Ranking Member
Corker have all embraced our concept of seeing to it that we fight to
see that recompense is finally made to those hostages who were captured
from 1979 to 1981.
We have a great and compassionate country, and we owe them and their
families every effort to see that the nation of Iran compensates them
and they are in some way paid back for the terrible tragedy that was
perpetrated upon them.
But first and foremost, Iran needs to know that this U.S. Senator,
and I think every U.S. Senator, realizes the affront to the American
people and the insult to the United Nations that Iran is perpetrating
by making this appointment as Ambassador of their country today.
I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amtrak
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about one of the
most recent American transportation success stories--Amtrak's Northeast
corridor--and how Congress can help it grow.
First, however, I would like to thank two great leaders on the Senate
Appropriations Committee. First, our chair, Barbara Mikulski--she is
from the Northeast corridor. I often stop by in Baltimore as I take the
train from New York to Washington. She has been a staunch defender of
Amtrak from the day she got here. And Patty Murray who is chairman of
the transportation subcommittee. She is not from the Northeast corridor
but, of course, cares very much about Amtrak across the Nation and has
been a defender of those of us who care about Amtrak and depend on
Amtrak in the Northeast, as well as throughout the whole country. In
tough budget times, these two folks have stood up for Amtrak from one
end of the Nation to the other, and we very much appreciate that.
Now, as the committees begin their work on the fiscal year 2015
appropriations, my colleagues and I are here to urge something that
will benefit millions of riders on the Northeast corridor, which runs
from Boston to Washington, DC.
We are mindful of the fact we depend on national support for Amtrak.
Even though the Northeast corridor is far and away the most used and
the most profitable of the Amtrak lines, we are one Amtrak. We
understand how important Amtrak is, even if it doesn't serve as many
passengers in sparsely populated States, and of course in more
populated areas on the west coast and the Midwest and the South.
Having said that, I want to point out that I strongly believe in the
long-distance service provided by Amtrak. It connects rural communities
and other economic hubs by rail. People want it and like this service.
In upstate New York, in the Buffalo to Albany corridor, it is clearly
not as used as in the Northeast corridor, but we know how much we
depend on Amtrak there. In the other 49 States people depend on it as
well.
Since 1971, Amtrak, in the Northeast and throughout the country, has
been a Federal responsibility, and it should continue to be. So the
proposal we are
[[Page S2086]]
advocating today is one of fairness to both ends of the national
passenger rail system. What we are saying is simple. Accept Amtrak's
new budget framework, which would allow the NEC to reinvest profits
while continuing to provide long-distance service.
First, let me explain the backdrop. Amtrak's Northeast corridor has
become a profit-generating operation that carries passengers in an
economically critical region home to over 50 million people. Some of
the facts on our region: It generates $1 out of $5 of GDP. One out of
every three Fortune 100 companies has its headquarters located there.
One out of every five jobs in the United States is located in the
Northeast corridor. So you wouldn't be surprised that over the past
decade ridership along the Northeast corridor has been growing.
Between the years of 2001 and 2011, Amtrak's share of the air-rail
travel market has increased from 37 percent to 75 percent for trips
between New York and Washington and 20 percent to 54 percent from New
York to Boston. Look at those increases. You wouldn't believe it. It is
counterintuitive almost, but three-quarters of the people who make the
decision to travel between Washington, DC, and New York, and don't use
a car or a bus but would rather use a plane or train, use the train.
Even a majority now on the slightly longer route to Boston use the
train.
It is a testament to the region and to Amtrak that every day 750,000
people travel over portions of the Northeast corridor main line. That
is nearly half of all railroad commuters nationally. It is a total of
260,000 trips a year. Look at all the different commuter railroads that
run over Amtrak's Northeast corridor structure. Here they are: Mass
Bay, Shoreline East, Metro North in my city of New York, and in my
metropolitan area of New York, Long Island Railroad, New Jersey
Transit, SEPTA--Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation--Maryland Area
Regional Commuter, and Virginia.
Two of the biggest commuter railroads in the country operate on
Amtrak's structure, and those are in the metropolitan area that the
Presiding Officer and I share. They are Metro North and the Long Island
Railroad. Hundreds of thousands of people use these railroads every
day.
So the Northeast corridor is one of the most important arteries in
the beating heart of our economy, and I am happy to report that
business is booming. NEC revenues currently exceed operating costs by
more than $300 million a year. So one would think, finally, we have the
means to update the aging infrastructure that Amtrak and our commuter
rail system depend upon. Unfortunately, the growth of the Northeast
corridor and the profits it has produced are not going back into the
system. Instead, over the last 10 years, NEC revenues have been used to
cover the costs of the State-supported and long-distance services
across the rest of the national railroad.
We understand in the Northeast why that has happened, again because
we depend on support throughout the country and we need to bring the
whole country together. But it is happening at the same time the
Federal contributions to Amtrak in the form of operating grants have
declined. In fact, operating grants to Amtrak are lower now by almost
half than they were under a Republican Congress and President George
Bush. Here are the numbers. You can see them: $1 billion in 2003, and
they stay about the same. But operating as a percentage of the total
went from 50 percent to 24 percent.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. For the past few years, some of
my Republican colleagues have urged Amtrak to become more efficient and
rely on Federal operating grants. Amtrak has done just that. In 2013,
Amtrak set an annual ridership record of 31.6 million and a ticket
revenue record of $2.1 billion.
The reason my colleagues and I are speaking today is to make it very
clear that weaning Amtrak off of Federal operating grants shouldn't
come at the expense of the capital costs in the Northeast corridor. The
Amtrak operating grant request for 2015 is $700 million--a fraction of
the overall budget, and lower than the 2005 funding level under George
Bush. The total request is for $1.62 billion, a modest request over
last year's $1.4 billion. This would allow all long-distance service
mandated by Congress to continue and, importantly, it would allow $300
million a year to come back into the Northeast corridor's
infrastructure. That is real money--money that, if continued over time,
can service loans to build new tunnels and bridges and fix up the
tracks and stations which we desperately need. It is an old, old
system.
Think of some of the immediate projects Amtrak may have to forego if
they do not receive the full request: the replacement of structural
columns underneath Philadelphia's beautiful 30th Street Station;
overhauling the Acela, which is very profitable, and usually, we know,
very full, to improve Amtrak's on-time performance; and extremely
important--because if they collapse the whole Northeast corridor
collapses and their transportation mechanism collapses causing real
harm to the economy--reconstruction of the decaying infrastructure in
the East River tunnels.
This last project is particularly important--the East River tunnels,
that is--for several reasons. It shows the massive benefits of this
plan for people who use railroads that they rely on. The trains carry
hundreds of thousands of passengers back and forth every day and are in
a major state of disrepair. The proposal will allow Amtrak to invest
more--way more--in these vital East River tunnels, making them more
reliable and improving travel for Long Island Railroad riders and NEC
passengers every day. A collateral benefit for all commuting New
Yorkers is that there are Penn Station improvements--the most heavily
used transportation hub in the country. The plan would fund many of
these key improvements and make them happen quicker.
The status quo is unacceptable. The current Federal funding
requirements leave the NEC's infrastructure vulnerable to a bigger,
costlier, and far more damaging failure than we have ever seen.
The long-term need to increase capacity and make needed repairs to
our bridges and tunnels could not be clearer. Several important
segments, such as Hudson River tunnels, are growing at a record level.
By 2030--look at that--the need will be even greater. These are
segments which will exceed capacity by 2030--lots of them.
In my State of New York we see the economic cost of devastating
events such as Hurricane Sandy, which flooded Hudson River tunnels and
shut down the Northeast corridor for days. According to new estimates,
a 1-day disruption along the Northeast corridor could cost the economy
$100 million.
So I would ask my colleagues--both Democrats and Republicans--from
States along the Northeast corridor and from around the rest of the
country to support an increase in Federal investment in our rail
infrastructure. I know we can get bipartisan support because there has
been bipartisan support in the past. Senators in this body on both
sides of the aisle supported operating grant levels requested by Amtrak
in the past. In the longer term, we know we need to authorize a
dedicated intercity passenger rail fund that provides robust investment
in this infrastructure.
In the meantime, our Nation can no longer afford to let a railroad
that carries half of Amtrak's trains and 80 percent of the Nation's
rail commuters fall apart at the seams. Allowing the NEC to keep the
cash it generates will help benefit and support those same profit-
making activities, helping to create a virtual cycle of reinvestment. I
hope that sounds like something my colleagues across the aisle could
support.
If we want an interstate commuter network in the next century, we
must begin by fixing and improving the infrastructure from the
beginning of the last century. That was the mission of our good friend,
my dear friend, the late Frank Lautenberg. He was a tireless and
passionate advocate for improving our Nation's infrastructure--
especially our railways--because he knew it would better the State's
economy and indeed our country's economy. We can honor his legacy by
carrying on that mission.
I ask my colleagues to recognize this great leader as they have in
the past. Give the Northeast corridor the funds and flexibility to reap
the benefits of its recent growth while still providing service around
the rest of the country.
[[Page S2087]]
With that, I would like to turn to my friend the junior Senator from
Connecticut to ask him to talk about the importance of the Northeast
corridor for his State and especially the relationship Amtrak has with
commuter railroads.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from
New York for bringing us all together this evening to talk about the
really vital economic importance of the Northeast corridor to States
such as Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York.
This is a pivotal moment for the Northeast corridor. We have a region
that is growing with respect to the number of people who are using the
rail but an infrastructure that is dramatically aging.
It is important to remember the connection between investment in rail
and the emergence of this Nation's economic greatness. The rail line
that means the most to us in Connecticut was chartered in 1844. It was
the New York and New Haven Railroad, and it was initially built to
connect New York to Boston, going through New Haven and going through
Connecticut. Later on, it had a spur going through Long Island and then
a spur connecting down to Providence. It was built at a time of massive
rail expansion all across the country.
In the last 25 years of the 1800s, where a lot of this expansion
happened after the initial investment in places such as New York and
Connecticut and Boston, the expansion of rail led to a tenfold increase
in economic output for this Nation. It allowed for enormous social and
economic mobility because if you didn't like the circumstances where
you were today, tomorrow you could be halfway across the country
because of a train. It allowed for the gradual evaporation of a lot of
the divisions that were created because of the Civil War. As people got
to know other parts of the country and could move more freely back and
forth, they began to understand what this Nation was really about. One
historian, John Hankey, has noted that the railroads essentially
transitioned our lexicology about the United States from referring to
``these United States'' to ``this United States.'' It is a small
difference, but it suggests the way in which the rail lines allowed for
this country to connect.
Nowhere has this expansion of rail mattered more than in the
Northeast corridor. We have the highest concentration of population,
the highest concentration of commerce, the highest concentration of
ports of shipping, and the highest concentration of rail lines. Not
only do we have Amtrak running up and down the spine of the Northeast
corridor, we have 10 commuter railroads, including Metro North, a line
Mr. Blumenthal--the Presiding Officer--and I are very proud of.
We have 260 million passengers today who are using the Northeast
corridor. That number is expected to grow in 2030 to 412 million. Just
think about that. We are talking about a time period of only 16 years.
We are going to go from 260 million passengers today to 412 million
passengers in 2030. If you ride a train from Bridgeport to Stanford or
from Stanford to Grand Central on any given Monday morning or any given
Thursday afternoon, you are going to fail to understand how that line
is going to be able to absorb an increase from 260 million passengers
to 412 million passengers. We simply don't have the capacity today to
be able to absorb that increase.
We have 1,000 bridges and tunnels along the Northeast corridor that
are badly in need of repair. Some of them are 100 years old. The
estimates are that over the next 20 years we have to spend $50 billion
along the Northeast corridor simply to maintain a state of good repair.
I wish this were a cheaper exercise, but it is not.
In Connecticut alone, we have to replace a bridge in Cos Cob that is
going to cost $830 million. The Norwalk Bridge has to be rehabbed for
$250 million. The Saugatuck River Bridge in Westport has to be rehabbed
as well for $300 million. The Devon Bridge replacement project is going
to be $750 million. We have to upgrade communication and signals all
along the New Haven Line; that is $400 million. We have an old aging
catenary--the electric lines above the supply power to the trains--that
is going to be $600 million as well.
In Connecticut it is our lifeblood, meaning we are nothing if not for
the economic power that is driven by those trains. About a decade ago
an economic report came out on Connecticut that really shook the State
to its core. It talked about the great economic potential Connecticut
has as we sit right between the enormous job-creating hubs of New York
City and Boston. But it warned us that if we don't get serious about
unclogging the arteries out of Connecticut into Connecticut, that, in
the words of the report, ``Connecticut risks becoming an economic cul-
de-sac.'' That is a pretty scary premise, the idea that we could be so
close to all of this economic activity, but simply because people
cannot get to Connecticut or get out of Connecticut because of these
aging rail lines, we are going to ultimately be left behind.
So what we are really here to talk about is just a principle of basic
fairness. The Northeast corridor makes money. It is the only section of
rail in the Nation that does make money simply because of volume and
because of efficient management. The profit equals about $300 million a
year. We are not asking for the Northeast corridor to get any more than
we are owed; we simply want that $300 million, as Amtrak has proposed,
to be reinvested in the line.
From the Cos Cob Bridge to the Sagatuck River Bridge, we are going to
have to make these upgrades at some point. If we don't, ultimately they
are going to fall down. We have seen not only in the Northeast corridor
but across the country the consequences of allowing our infrastructure
to atrophy to the point of crisis and collapse. So why don't we make
those investments today? Why don't we make those investments at a
moment when people need to go to work, when the repairs are as cost-
efficient as they are going to get, and when the line itself in the
Northeast is generating $300 million extra a year that right now is
going to other parts of the country?
I agree with Senator Schumer. We support a national Amtrak. We
strongly support a robust inner-city connection linking major cities,
major urban areas with rail all across the country. Just in our small
region, we have half of the trips of the entire country. So we think it
is not too much to ask that to the extent we are profitable, we get to
reinvest that money into an infrastructure that is older than any other
piece of infrastructure in the entire country.
I would say this: It is not just about fairness for the States that
make up the Northeast corridor. The economic power of the Northeast
spreads itself out all across the country. The corporations that are
located in Manhattan and Stanford and Newark employ people in Nebraska
and in California, in South Dakota and Texas. So our pitch to our
colleagues outside of the Northeast is not just that it seems to be the
right and fair thing to do for all of this profit that is being made
through the ticket fares passengers in the Northeast are paying to stay
in the Northeast, but the benefit that comes from a well-constructed,
efficiently run Northeast corridor accrues to the entire country.
I am really pleased Senator Schumer brought us down to the floor
today to talk about how important reinvesting this $300 million is to
the Northeast corridor. In my State, with Metro North generating
literally hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefit to our
section of the country, if we don't recapture this income, if we aren't
able to make these repairs that I listed, then, as that economic report
suggests, we really do risk our State of Connecticut ultimately
becoming an economic cul-de-sac.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored to follow the
Presiding Officer, my good friend Senator Schumer of New York, and my
colleague and friend Senator Murphy of Connecticut to talk about an
issue that really affects quality of life, our pocketbooks, and our
environment.
But first I wish to join my colleague from New York in paying tribute
to
[[Page S2088]]
one of the great transportation advocates, indeed one of the great
public servants of our time, Senator Frank Lautenberg, who preceded me
as chairman of a critical subcommittee on the commerce committee which
has authority and jurisdiction over surface transportation.
I am tremendously honored to have followed him in that role, and my
mission and ambition is to be as effective and eloquent and ardent as
he was in this cause. It is a cause that brings us together as a
nation, as my colleague from New York has so eloquently said. We are
better when we come together as a nation and the railroads provide
arteries carrying the lifeblood of our economy. Not only is the train
used for commuters going to work and riders going to visit relatives
and enjoying tourism, traveling, vacations, and other benefits of this
great Nation, but it also transports the freight that is critical to
carry goods and services.
We know the infrastructure is aging all across the country. We are,
in effect, transporting goods and services, products and people,
commuters and riders in the 21st century using 20th century equipment,
tracks, and other infrastructure. We are talking, indeed, about the
economic lifeblood of our Nation, which has linked us coast to coast,
north to south, and east to west in ways that are not only economically
material and tangible but also emotionally and psychologically vital to
our present and our future.
These economic benefits will not continue. They are not an accident
of history. They are the result of purposeful invention and investing,
and we are challenged as a nation as to whether we will continue to
invest to ensure that our railroads carry our freight and our people to
places they must go if we are to have economic growth and jobs in this
Nation. No one knows this fact better than those who live on the
Northeast corridor. It is among the busiest. In fact, the Metro-North
line is the busiest in the Nation. It has bridges and tracks that are
more than 100 years old, and tragically we have seen the consequences
of lack of proper maintenance, management, and inspection of our
infrastructure.
My colleague from New York has been a relentless and tireless
advocate for improving rail service along the Northeast corridor and
most particularly in the area of our region of New York, Connecticut,
and New Jersey.
The derailment in Bridgeport was a recent tragedy that resulted in
the loss of lives and caused injuries as well as power outages which
disrupted travel for as much as 13 days. These disruptions should lead
to a new era of leadership at Metro-North, and hopefully it will.
Good management is the key to making this railroad work better than
it has and making it safer and more reliable. Good management is vital,
but money, along with management, is absolutely necessary. In fact,
good management requires investing, and that is why we are here today--
not to talk about money for the sake of dollars and cents but the
investment it means in the track, the bridges, the cars, and other
equipment vital to make this railroad safer and more reliable.
We know some of this investment is small in amount. The Senator from
New York and I have championed the idea of cameras facing inward and
outward. Compared to the overall costs of investments, that one is
relatively new. Likewise, alerters placed in cabs that operate the
railroad cost relatively little, but other expenditures are much more
substantial, and one of the problems is that money has been going into
the system--money taken from the riders and users in the New Jersey,
Connecticut, and New York area along the Northeast corridor has gone to
the system as a whole.
As I mentioned at the beginning, far from begrudging the national
system this kind of investment, we support it, but we need our fair
share, which is necessary to make the investment that is critical to
bridges such as Saugatuck, the Connecticut River, and the Norwalk
River. These bridges contain movable components. They are important for
marine traffic as well as rail. They are frequently opened and closed.
They experience more stress than normal, and the resulting corrosion
requires trains to use reduced speed. Repair and eventual replacement
of many of these bridges will be crucial for keeping train traffic safe
and reliable not only along the Northeast corridor but also freight and
riders traveling from New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey to other
parts of the east coast and indeed across the country.
It is a national investment, not just a Northeast investment. It is
an investment we must make as a whole or our infrastructure will
crumble and continue to erode.
I am proud to join my colleagues to urge that Amtrak's full funding
request for fiscal year 2015 be granted. This amount will allow the
Northeast corridor's operating revenue to be reinvested back where it
is needed most--the Northeast corridor--and will simultaneously provide
much needed Federal support for rail networks in the rest of the
country.
A fair share is what the Northeast corridor needs and deserves. A
fair share is what we are advocating. As my colleagues have explained,
the support we offer and advocate for this Northeast corridor is a
benefit to the whole country, and it is consistent with national
support for railway travel which eliminates congestion on roads, raises
the quality of our air, makes for safer travel, and maybe equally, if
not more importantly, creates jobs.
This investment will help create jobs and drive economic growth in
the jobs it creates directly and the jobs it enables along the route of
travel.
I thank my colleagues for joining me in this effort, and I know, in
particular, that there is a bridge in New Jersey--a movable swing
bridge along the Hackensack River between Kearny and Secaucus, NJ. I
believe it is called the Portal Bridge. That Portal Bridge is a key
linchpin in the Northeast corridor. Having a functional Portal Bridge
is essential to me as a resident of Connecticut. When I go from
Washington to New York and then to Connecticut, we are one country. We
are united by that railroad, and that Portal Bridge is a key linchpin
in the Northeast corridor. It is as important to me as it is to my
colleague from New Jersey who has been--similar to Senator Lautenberg--
a tireless advocate for rail transportation, and he has done model work
on improving rail transportation in this country.
I am happy to yield for the senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr.
Menendez.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Connecticut for his engagement and for recognizing our former
colleague, Senator Lautenberg, whose passion for public transportation
was unmatched in this body. He understood the nexus of why it was
important not just to our State of New Jersey and the Northeast but to
the country.
My colleague from Connecticut is correct, that Portal Bridge--it is
called the Portal Bridge because it is a bridge that is a portal to the
entire Northeast corridor and carries passengers over a movable swing
bridge across the Hackensack River between Kearny and Secaucus, NJ. It
is a portal into and out of Manhattan. It is one of the busiest
sections of the corridor with hundreds of passengers and commuter
trains crossing it every day.
You would think that given its importance to the Northeast and the
millions who live in that region, it would be a state-of-the-art,
reliable, world-class bridge that we would be willing to invest in,
making it the best possible bridge. Unfortunately, the reality is quite
different.
The Portal Bridge was built in 1910. It is over 100 years old and
deteriorating--causing significant delays for Amtrak riders in New
Jersey and throughout the system. Because of the low clearance over the
Hackensack River, the bridge opens to allow ships to pass, thereby
creating delays for rail passengers and then more delays come when the
bridge doesn't lock into place because it is too old and doesn't work
properly.
We have delay after delay all because we are unwilling to invest in
our infrastructure, and that is simply unacceptable. When the bridge
doesn't close, trains throughout the Northeast corridor are delayed
while Amtrak workers scramble to fix it. Further adding to the problems
are speed restrictions that have been in place on the bridge since
1996. These restrictions have been
[[Page S2089]]
essential to allow trains to cross safely, hardly a comforting thought
for riders traveling on the corridor.
The Northeast corridor is the Nation's busiest rail line and serves
700,000 people every day. The line supports eight commuter railroads
every day, carrying over 200,000 New Jersey transit passengers. So
failure to invest in a modern, state-of-the-art system does a
disservice to all of us--certainly to the commuters. It is an economic
hindrance in a region that supports 20 percent of the entire Nation's
GDP.
There are other reasons to consider the importance of these
investments and one is our economy and jobs. These intercity rail
systems ultimately create an opportunity for people to get to
employment and to reach out to find employment and find better
employment.
It is also about companies that send their sales force up and down
the Northeast corridor in a thorough and effective and efficient way.
It is about those who might visit one of the great health institutions
along the Northeast corridor for a health challenge they face. It is
about tourism from anywhere--from the sights of New York or New Jersey
or along the entire route, crossroads of the revolution, all the way to
the Nation's Capital of Washington, DC. It is about visiting a loved
one and having a way to do it that allows them to be able to afford to
do so.
In the aftermath of September 11, we learned that a multiplicity of
transportation modes was critical to security questions because on that
fateful day when every trans-Hudson crossing closed down--the bridges
closed down, the tunnels closed down, the ability to do intercity rail
closed down--the one element that was open was a different form of
transportation, and that was ferries. Imagine, in a different context,
if you don't have intercity rail to move people away from a location in
which there was a September 11-like event that, in fact, the
consequences that would flow.
We learned after September 11 that transportation is more than about
getting from one place to another, more than about sending a sales
force, more than even about the quality of life and the environment by
having more people on an efficient system, it is also another dimension
of security in a post-September 11 world. We must do better.
As far as the Amtrak budget proposal, I am pleased that Amtrak's
fiscal year 2015 budget request takes a step in the right direction to
improve its record of good repair and reliability in the Northeast
corridor. In spite of the challenges of aging infrastructure, Amtrak in
the Northeast corridor is a profitable rail line, generating over $300
million each year. Yet, under the current structure, Amtrak has been
unable to invest those profits back into essential projects such as the
Portal Bridge, which is ultimately the portal by which all of Amtrak's
rail lines to the Northeast have to go through. These profits have
instead been used elsewhere on Amtrak's system, subsidized long-
distance services that were traditionally a core Federal
responsibility.
For too long Congress has failed to meet its responsibility on these
routes, relying on the riders of the Northeast corridor to subsidize
other parts of the rail network. Riders on the Northeast corridor
deserve to have profits generated along the line reinvested--not used
as a substitute for insufficient Federal investment. Amtrak's new
proposal will allow it to keep revenue generated by the corridor in the
corridor--a commonsense solution and a successful business model for
the Northeast.
At the same time, Amtrak proposes full funding for lines outside of
the Northeast corridor, making this a win-win proposal for America's
rail system.
Finally, making these investments now will help us prevent large-
scale failures that could cripple our region in the future.
Unfortunately, we in New Jersey know all too well the consequences of a
significant transportation failure. When Hurricane Sandy crashed ashore
in October of 2012, our transportation systems were inundated with
water and severely damaged. We saw firsthand what happens when the
transit and rail networks we often take for granted are rendered
unusable. Residents were stranded--cut off from their loved ones and
their livelihoods. Sandy showed us just how much our region depends on
its rail and transit networks.
As New Jersey and its networks work to rebuild, we must take every
opportunity to strengthen our infrastructure and prevent future
failures of our transportation system. Current Federal funding
requirements leave the Northeast corridor vulnerable by preventing us
from reinvesting in critical projects.
Amtrak's budget proposal is a straightforward solution, by keeping
and allowing the Northeast to keep and reinvest its own profits. At the
same time, the proposal would maintain funding for other rail lines to
ensure a valuable, viable national network. The bottom line: This is a
proposal whose time has clearly come.
So it is time that we as a Congress say enough is enough; 100-year-
old infrastructure is simply unacceptable. It is time to make the
investments that will support our economy and our quality of life and,
I would add, our security. It is time to live up to our Federal
commitments and fully fund our rail network.
I certainly wish to join my other colleagues in thanking our
colleague from New York Senator Schumer for leading this important
discussion about the future of Amtrak. I urge my colleagues to support
this budget proposal, to fully fund Amtrak's operating and capital
costs nationwide, and to take the long overdue step of allowing
Northeast corridor profits to be reinvested into our critical
infrastructure.
Now let me turn this over to my colleague Senator Booker who, until
he came to the Senate, was the mayor of the State's largest city by
which all of these different modes of transportation came together and
through which the Northeast corridor has a major station. He saw, as it
related to his own community, the realities of what the rail passenger
system meant for consumers, what it meant for businesses, and what it
meant for our security.
I yield the floor for the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, Senator Menendez is absolutely correct.
When I was mayor of New Jersey's largest city, we sat upon a critical
transportation superstructure--a key node in the larger region. I wish
to thank my senior Senator, whom I relied upon then for being the
champion he is for infrastructure investment, for the critical nature
of the rail lines that crisscross our region, and really being a
promoter of jobs, of business growth, of security, and of the health of
this critical system. It is very good to have my senior Senator make
such important remarks. I wish to pick up from there. It is a little
uncomfortable not having the Presiding Officer on the floor with me,
but I will continue nonetheless.
I wish to thank all of my colleagues who have already spoken from
neighboring States about this absolutely vital transportation corridor.
If this were a country of its own, this corridor, from Washington to
Boston--this area--we would be the fifth largest economy in the world.
This region continues to grow, with more than 12 million residents
projected by 2040.
In New Jersey, our tracks and tunnels are simply no longer able to
meet the growing demand of our Amtrak and commuter rail lines. New
Jersey commuters--passengers up and down the Northeast corridor--are
profoundly frustrated by overcrowded trains and by delay after delay
after delay. It inhibits their transportation. It inhibits their
productivity. It inhibits their ability to be successful because of
those delays. Our underfunded passenger rail network forces too many of
our residents to then drive, where they end up stuck in traffic,
contributing more greatly to smog and pollution, and really making it
even more dangerous for them on our already overly congested highways.
Amtrak needs the ability to reinvest the growing profit from the
Northeast corridor back into the critical Northeast corridor
infrastructure. This much needed budget request would allow Amtrak to
invest $300 million of their profits back into this region and would
allow Amtrak to make overdue updates and repairs. This would create
jobs at this incredibly important time in our economic present. It
would create jobs and allow our busy commuter lines to travel more
safely and more reliably.
We need this economic growth. We need to alleviate the problems with
[[Page S2090]]
this infrastructure. We need to make the daily lives of tens of
thousands of people better.
One of the most important steps we can take to alleviate this
congestion and delays in New Jersey and throughout this region is to
make this investment. But I also say another critical aspect of making
those investments is to make a strategic investment in the Gateway
project. Amtrak's 2015 budget request seeks to continue investing in
needed preliminary work on the Gateway project. The Gateway project is
Amtrak's most important initiative--a project that is going to generate
benefits throughout the Northeast region that will have a multiplier
effect throughout our economy, enabling growth, enabling job creation,
improving the quality of life, and helping one of the most prosperous
regions on the globe continue to grow.
Currently, there are just two tunnels connecting New Jersey to New
York via rail. These tunnels are currently operating at full capacity,
with roughly 24 trains at peak hours carrying over 70,000 riders daily,
with no space for additional riders during rush hour. In order to
execute repairs and safety checks on these 100-year-old tunnels, Amtrak
is required to shut down the entire tunnel and suspend half the trips
in and out of the city. This causes so much of a burden. This is an
unnecessary burden. This is a threat to the safety of thousands of New
Jersey Transit and Amtrak passengers.
Ridership demand in and out of Manhattan is actually predicted to
double in the coming decades--double. It is critical for the economic
health of our region to accommodate this increase and ensure that
urgently needed growth and the safety and security of so many
Americans. The Gateway project itself would build two new rail tunnels
from New Jersey to New York City and expand Penn Station in New York to
handle all of this additional capacity. This project alone would create
thousands and thousands of jobs. It would reduce commuter times and
make traveling by rail more flexible and, very importantly to resident
after resident who has reached out to me, it would make it more
reliable. This critical investment will drive economic growth
throughout that entire region.
Upon completion, the Gateway project would allow Amtrak to run 8 more
trains during peak hours and allow New Jersey Transit to run 13 more
trains. This is a significant capacity increase that would take
thousands of cars off the roads every single day. It would increase
revenue for Amtrak and New Jersey Transit. It would allow intercity and
commuting passengers shorter and easier trips up and down the Northeast
and in and out of Manhattan, and it would improve significantly the air
quality of our region, alleviating the respiratory challenges so many
people unnecessarily face because of commuter car pollution.
In short, all of these reasons point to something critical: It would
make it easier for our region to be prosperous, for businesses to grow,
and American opportunity to increase. It is essential that Congress
join with Amtrak in advancing this important regional project and
support Amtrak's overall mission to deliver reliable, efficient
passenger rail service across the United States. For Amtrak to be
successful in the long term, Congress needs to become a more reliable
investment partner and fund multiyear Amtrak budgets, to have
predictability in that funding, making it again multiyear. Our current
approach of lurching from annual budget to annual budget does not allow
for Amtrak to flourish and serve our citizens as it could and as it
should. We need a level of predictability to make these kinds of
investments. Support for the Amtrak fiscal year 2015 budget request
would be a step in the right direction.
I urge my colleagues to appreciate this critical understanding that
we are a people who thrive through connectivity, whether it is virtual
connectivity on the Internet or even human connectivity; that we need
to, in environments such as this, one to another, work together.
Indeed, it is the words of Martin Luther King, written in a jail cell
in Birmingham, AL, in 1963, in the spring of that year, almost 50 years
ago--he wrote in profound manner, and I paraphrase it: We are all
caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a common garment
of destiny. It was an elevation and understanding of the power of human
connection, that we share one destiny, and that when we exalt our
connections, prosperity grows, equality grows, opportunity grows. What
King talked about in a spiritual way lives also in the physical:
Country, from its transcontinental railroads, a country that united
itself in early innovations and AM/FM dials; all the ways we as a
nation have made more robust connectivity. It has spurned industry, it
has spawned industry, and it has made jobs multiply and multiply--
economic growth connecting American to American. Right now, in this
critical time, we must continue.
I hope my colleagues will join me in making sure we support the
Amtrak budget. I know from personal experience the challenges and the
trials and the dangers from the status quo. It is time for us to
advance. It is time for us to come to together, to invest in America,
to expand opportunity, and make real, in a physical way, those
deepening connections we have, one to another.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and I note the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________