[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1531-H1535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 749, PASSENGER RAIL REFORM AND 
INVESTMENT ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD 
               FROM MARCH 6, 2015, THROUGH MARCH 13, 2015

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 134 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 134

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 749) to reauthorize Federal support for 
     passenger rail programs, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 114-9. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     March 6, 2015, through March 13, 2015--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  At any time through the legislative day of March 
     13, 2015, the Chair may postpone further consideration of a 
     measure in the House to such time as may be designated by the 
     Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the Reading Clerk read the work 
of the Rules Committee. I always look around to see how many folks are 
fixated on those words because words matter, and we spend a lot of time 
trying to craft the rules to be just right.
  But as proud as I am of the work we do in the Rules Committee, I 
confess that coming down here to this floor just moments after the 
Prime Minister of Israel delivered the speech that he just delivered--
wow, you talk about words that matter.
  I knew I was going to learn something in that speech, Mr. Speaker. I 
knew I was going to feel something in that speech. And just here 
moments after, what I came away with was, number one, we can learn a 
lot from the Prime Minister about leadership, about saying what you 
mean and meaning what you say. When the stakes are high, when the 
results impact all the families that we serve, it matters.
  We care a lot about people in this Chamber. Sometimes we have a 
crisis of leadership. Sometimes we have a crisis of followership. It is 
tremendously meaningful to me to see the leadership that was on display 
here, not just for America but for the world.
  Number two, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had a lesson for us all 
about class. He spent the first 5 minutes of that speech talking about 
his affection for President Obama, talking about his respect for 
President Obama, talking about the relationship between the United 
States of America and how President Obama had played a meaningful role 
in keeping Israel safe.

[[Page H1532]]

  We are not always in that place down here. And oftentimes, we find 
politics gets under our skin. Oftentimes, when there is a big debate 
surrounding a serious issue, we take it as a personal affront. And 
sometimes when we come back down to the House floor, we don't talk to 
one another with the mutual respect that, I would argue, every single 
Member of this Chamber has earned. We don't talk to each other across 
the aisle, I think, in ways that would always make our constituents 
back home proud.
  It meant a lot to me, given the emotion that surrounded the 
invitation of the Prime Minister to be here, that he spent his first 
moments of that speech not talking about frustrations, not talking 
about who did what to whom, but talking about his deep respect for the 
leader of the United States of America and what President Obama had 
meant to the safety and the security of Israel. I value that.
  It kind of makes what we are going to talk about next, Mr. Speaker, 
seem a little small, but it is not small. We are talking about 
passenger rail in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule, H. Res. 134, allows us to bring up H.R. 749, 
the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act. They call it PRRIA. And 
it passed unanimously out of the Transportation Committee. I have the 
great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, of serving both on the Rules Committee and 
the Transportation Committee, and rail isn't one of those you think 
about as being a unanimous issue.
  In my great State of Georgia, Mr. Speaker--and I have taken the train 
from Atlanta down to New Orleans, so I know we have some great stops on 
Amtrak in the great State of Mississippi. But if you want to take the 
train from Atlanta to Columbia, South Carolina--it is about a 3-hour 
drive right across the way--that train is going to leave tonight, out 
of Atlanta at 8 o'clock, and not tomorrow but 2 days from now, that 
train is going to arrive in Columbia, South Carolina, having connected 
through the city of Washington. It makes no sense whatsoever, but that 
is just where the rails are. That is where the rails are.
  Now, you contrast that--the complete meaninglessness that rail has 
for me, that Amtrak has for me in the great State of Georgia, since it 
takes me absolutely nowhere I want to go, at a speed that I desire, at 
a price that I can afford--contrast that with what is going on in the 
Northeast corridor.
  My friend from Massachusetts, I wonder if he ever gets on a plane to 
fly back home. If I lived in New York City and worked in Washington, 
D.C., I wouldn't even have a Delta frequent flyer number. I would be on 
the train every single trip. Why? Because it provides reliable, fast, 
inexpensive service for the most densely populated population corridor 
in the United States of America.
  That has always confounded this body, Mr. Speaker. How do we balance 
the needs of that northeastern transportation corridor, where Amtrak is 
so meaningful, so valuable to so many people--I don't think the roads 
and the bridges could handle the crush of humanity in the absence of 
Amtrak--how would we balance that success story, the only profitable 
corridor on the Amtrak route, with what, I would argue, is a tremendous 
failure in the rest of the country, where I can fly to Jacksonville, 
Florida, 48 hours faster than I can ride the train there, and at a 
lower price?
  This bill is about reform, Mr. Speaker. And I am not even going to 
argue that we, in the Transportation Committee, got it exactly right. 
We worked awfully hard on it. There was a lot of leadership provided by 
Members on both sides of the aisle.
  But on the outside chance that we didn't get it exactly right, the 
Rules Committee came together yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and made 
amendments in order. One of the great parts of this process is that you 
don't have to be on the committee of jurisdiction in order to have an 
impact on legislation. Any Member of the House can come to the Rules 
Committee and ask for an amendment to be made in order. This rule today 
makes in order seven such amendments to improve this bill. Four of 
those amendments come from Democratic Members. Three of those 
amendments come from Republican Members. Again, we were trying to 
maintain that collegial, bipartisan spirit that we had in the 
Transportation Committee on the underlying bill. We tried to continue 
that in the Rules Committee again last night.
  I don't know how those amendments are going to shake out down here 
today, Mr. Speaker. And I am glad that I don't know how they are going 
to shake out. I don't think having a predetermined destination on this 
floor is what our constituents sent us here to do. I don't think that 
is what being a representative democracy is. I think what you want are 
folks to be able to come down here and express their opinions. I have 
the great pleasure of serving on the Rules Committee, which enables 
that to happen.
  One of the great changes in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is we take those 
dollars that American citizens are paying to ride Amtrak on that 
northeastern corridor, that profitable corridor, and we leave those 
dollars there so that that route can expand and improve. The population 
continues to grow there. Transportation needs continue to expand there. 
And we create a partnership with States in those areas to say, Mr. 
Speaker, if you have a priority, as a Governor, as a State legislature, 
if you want to partner with the Federal Government to make your train 
service more effective, more efficient, we want to partner with you.

  But if your idea of a transportation plan is to do nothing locally 
but rely on the Federal Government to do it all for you, we have no 
money for you. That seems fair. The Federal Government is not a piggy 
bank that State and local communities can come to and withdraw from for 
their needs. What it is is a partner that, for these large 
transportation projects, for these projects of national significance, 
States and localities can partner with to make those a reality.
  I don't know that we will ever get the kind of Amtrak service in your 
or my part of the world, Mr. Speaker, that we have in the Northeast 
corridor. And candidly, I don't know that our constituencies will ever 
clamor for that service. But it is meaningful to me that even though we 
have different views on the issue of rail, even though we have 
different views on the future of rail, that we were able to come 
together, again, in a unanimous way to put forward a bill that will 
celebrate and fund those parts of the rail system that are successfully 
serving America and that will reform and, in some cases, eliminate 
those unprofitable parts of the rail system that I don't think any 
member of our constituency would be enthusiastic about funding with 
their hard-earned tax dollars.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we support the rule, and we support the 
underlying bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I told a group of constituents just a 
moment ago--I don't know if I look a little wet up here. It is not 
perspiration from running back to the House floor. I feel obligated to 
tell my friends that. It is dripping a little bit outside, and that is 
the fastest way to get here from my office.
  But I was back in my office with constituents from AIPAC. Sixteen 
thousand men and women from AIPAC came into town this week to make 
their voice heard. Now, I couldn't find anybody who was here on paid 
vacation, and I couldn't find anyone else that had someone else foot 
the bill. What I saw was 16,000 people who put their money where their 
mouth is to come and petition the government, to come and try to make 
us better.
  I bring that up, Mr. Speaker, because what I told those men and women 
today of AIPAC was that there were grumpy faces on the floor of the 
House yesterday. I remember seeing a few. In fact, I might have been 
one. I will go ahead and confess, Mr. Speaker, I was one. We have some 
serious problems here, some serious challenges, and

[[Page H1533]]

some serious disagreements. In the now almost 1 hour since the Prime 
Minister finished speaking, I have seen more smiles; I have seen more 
collegiality; and I have seen more Members enjoying each other and 
working together in just that 1 hour than I have seen in the entire 
month of February.
  I bring that up, Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and I have been working on rules for a long time 
together--a long time together--and I don't think it would offend the 
gentleman if I were to say that he and I often disagree about the way a 
rule ought to be crafted. We often disagree about the underlying 
legislation. Here we are on the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, but we 
may spend an hour or 2 or 3, sometimes longer, debating the merits of 
the underlying legislation. So to come here 1 hour after that 
spectacular come-together-for-things-that-matter speech the Prime 
Minister just gave and to find agreement with my friend on the Rules 
Committee--not just on the rule but, I daresay, on the underlying 
bill--I hope it is a sign of things to come--not just a thing to come 
in the regular relationship between my friend from Massachusetts and 
me, because that relationship is strong, but a relationship across the 
board.
  We have passed and sent to the President lots of bills this Congress, 
Mr. Speaker. In fact, I think we have passed something like 40 bills 
out of the U.S. House of Representatives. I don't know if I went home 
and asked my constituency that they can name two. I think they would 
know the XL pipeline bill, because that is something everyone has been 
focused on. But I don't think, as a population, they could name two.
  I hope this is the start of a success that the Rules Committee is 
going to have together over the next 18 months. I hope this is going to 
be the start of the kinds of agreements that we can create together, 
Mr. Speaker.
  I thank my friend from Massachusetts for being part of, again, making 
today a little bit better than yesterday was.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments. We support the rule and the underlying bill, and with that, I 
reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H. Res. 134.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while we talk about agreements here on the floor, I 
think sometimes folks back home are concerned that we are agreeing on 
the little things, things that don't matter, that we are talking about 
renaming a post office. While that is important to that community and 
while that is important to the man or woman being honored, I would 
argue it doesn't necessarily advance the cause of freedom and 
democracy. I can't tell you with a straight face that what we are doing 
on passenger rail today is going to advance the cause of freedom and 
democracy. If you want to advance the cause of freedom and democracy, 
you needed to be here 2 hours ago when the Prime Minister came to 
deliver his message to the United States Congress. Freedom and 
democracy lived there.
  What we are advancing on this passenger rail bill, Mr. Speaker, is 
just common sense. It is just common sense. I don't want to get in the 
weeds of all the exciting things that go on in there, Mr. Speaker. I 
serve on the Transportation Committee. Of course it is exciting to me. 
Of course I am going to be involved in the minutia. I don't know that 
my other colleagues are quite as enthusiastic about that.
  I would encourage folks to go to transportation.house.gov, Mr. 
Speaker. The Transportation Committee, like all committees on Capitol 
Hill, has a Web page, and on that Web page you can get deep into the 
weeds. If you are a policy wonk like I am and you want to dig down into 
the minutia and find out what subparagraph (f) says about clause 2, you 
can absolutely do it. But there are some top line numbers there, too.
  And again, I want folks to have something to celebrate here. I want 
folks to be able to be enthusiastic about their representative body. I 
would argue, as the Prime Minister argued, that the greatest 
deliberative body, the greatest bastion of freedom on the planet, if 
you want to know what is going on, go to that Transportation Committee 
Web site. You are going to find--well, you are going to find all sorts 
of information. You will find something like this one-pager right here, 
whether you are a high school student who cares about passenger rail or 
whether you are a transportation engineer leading your local Department 
of Transportation, all of those details can be found there.
  I will give you one example.
  Could you believe--you come from a constituency much like I do, Mr. 
Speaker, but can you believe that in the United States of America 
today, in the era of sequester--in the era of sequester--that not one 
Member of this body would say isn't having an impact on our social 
safety net, where not one Member of this body wouldn't say isn't having 
an impact on our national security, in this era of sequester, Amtrak 
subsidizes food and beverage service--subsidizes food and 
beverage service. It is a loss-leading part of the transportation 
funding on Amtrak.

  I will just tell you, I have ridden Amtrak to New York a time or two. 
I didn't have any beverage service. It is not like my friends on Delta 
who will bring me a Coca-Cola product on my flight to Washington, D.C., 
here. You have to go down to the beverage car. Now, if you would like 
to bring your own lunch on Amtrak, you absolutely can. If your husband 
or wife wants to make you a sack at home, you can bring it on in and 
eat it right there on the train. Yet the American taxpayer, as we sit 
here right now--this isn't prospective. This is as we sit here right 
now. The American taxpayer is funding--subsidizing--food service for 
those men and women who happen to ride Amtrak every day.
  Again, for your and my constituencies, Mr. Speaker, that is worth 
nothing. That is worth nothing. But even for those constituencies that 
ride Amtrak to work every single day, don't you think in this time of 
budget cutting, of trying to end the $18 trillion of borrowing from our 
children and grandchildren, this time of trying to balance our national 
security needs with our social safety net needs, don't you think that 
one of the things we could agree on is we don't need to subsidize snack 
food for train riders?
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, I say that like it is a rhetorical 
question, that I am going to start to get out my sharp stick and poke 
the other side. I am not. It happens to be one of the things that we 
agree on.
  How many years have you and I been in Congress, Mr. Speaker, trying 
to get rid of silly stuff that the Federal Government does? Well, for 
you and me, the answer is 4. For 4 years we have been working on trying 
to get rid of silly stuff that the Federal Government does; subsidizing 
Twinkies, part of that silly stuff. I am not picking on Twinkies. I 
have great respect for Twinkie eaters. But I don't want my tax dollars 
subsidizing that habit.
  Unanimously, on the Transportation Committee, Mr. Speaker, we have 
come together to say: I don't know why we didn't do this a long time 
ago, I don't know why the other previous Congress hadn't gotten it 
done, but the buck stops here. We are going to work together and do 
that.
  Where are those dollars going to go instead, Mr. Speaker? They are 
going to go to improving quality of service. Find me that constituent 
back home; find him in Atlanta; find him in Mississippi; find those 
constituents back home who wouldn't make that trade with their tax 
dollars every day of the week. We are doing it. We are doing it 
together, and we are doing it in a way I hope the Senate will act on 
it. If they can't take wisdom as we have defined it, I welcome a 
conference, and I hope we will be able to get this bill on the 
President's desk.
  All of these great ideas that we have come together, that we have 
done in a collaborative way, Republicans and Democrats on the 
committee, Republicans and Democrats here on the floor of the House, 
the seven amendments

[[Page H1534]]

that we are going to be considering today, all of these things we have 
done collaboratively, Mr. Speaker, mean nothing--mean nothing--if they 
don't go to the President's desk for his signature. This is but a first 
step, but it is a proud first step.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, we agree with the rule, and we agree with the 
underlying bill. If the gentleman would like more time, I am happy to 
yield to him because I always enjoy hearing him speak in the Rules 
Committee, and I think our colleagues could benefit from his speaking 
on the House floor. But I don't know what else to add except we are all 
in agreement, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the accolades of my 
friend from Massachusetts, the truth is I am not an expert on this 
bill. The Transportation Committee is staffed with those experts at a 
staff level and at an elected Member level.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), who has been a leader on 
the Transportation Committee, not looking for Republican solutions and 
not looking for Democratic solutions, but looking for commonsense 
solutions and then selling those to his colleagues on both sides.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch on a few of the great things on 
this reform bill. Make no mistake, this will reform passenger rail as 
we know it today in many different areas.
  First of all, we expect that Amtrak will be utilized more often in a 
more efficient way and in a more transparent way operating more like a 
business, a business that will give results back to its customers.
  This is going to be a bill that sets up different lines of business. 
So if you are on the Northeast corridor and you are paying a ticket 
that is high priced, you don't want to subsidize Amtrak across the 
Nation, your money is now going to stay on the Northeast corridor so 
you have not only improved infrastructure, but a smoother ride, a more 
efficient ride, and a quicker transit time.
  We want to fix rail across the Nation. We want to make sure that we 
are doing it in a fiscally responsible manner. On the Northeast 
corridor, we are going to see significant improvements and jobs created 
at the same time.
  We are going to see in other areas of the country, in areas like mine 
where you have got rail that we want to extend further, we want to be 
able to utilize RIF loans. RIF loans have been a great program that has 
been sorely underutilized. You talk to companies out there that want to 
use RIF loans, it is amazing that they won't even apply for them 
because they know they will slow their projects down. The wait time in 
actually getting them approved to release that capital will shut your 
project down, so they just don't apply. We streamline that process so 
that we can actually unleash that capital not only for Amtrak to 
improve its lines of business, but for other rails across the entire 
country to improve theirs as well.
  We also introduced competition. This leverages the private sector to 
reduce Amtrak's subsidies and uses our stations and right-of-way as 
actual income streams. Amtrak should be utilizing every income stream 
available to them and utilizing their right-of-way for signage, for 
cellphone towers, and utilizing their stations to actually generate a 
larger profit.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just touch on one other area that I am very, very 
passionate about, one that hasn't been talked about a lot on this floor 
but one that is getting a great deal of press across the entire 
country. To those families that have a pet at home, to those families 
that have to make a decision ``Do I leave my dog or cat at home, or I 
am actually able to travel with them on a train?'' right now they have 
to make a decision to either take a car or take an airplane.
  It is amazing to me to find out, as somebody from California, when I 
travel back and forth with my dog, I can put them on a plane, but yet I 
can't put them on a train to go up the Northeast corridor or anywhere 
else across the country. This is something that will allow new riders 
that didn't previously want to ride the train before because they 
couldn't take their pet on there to do so, but also a new revenue 
generation with paying for those pets the same way that our airplanes 
across the country are paid for taking their pets as well.
  Now, this is a great, bipartisan bill, one that I am very proud that 
we reached across both aisles. We whipped every Member of the 
Transportation Committee to make sure that we had true results across 
the entire country to get not only bipartisan support, but unanimous 
support. You talk about the right way to get a bill done, this is it, 
by encouraging Members of both parties to actually work together for 
real reforms that move America forward. This rail bill does just that. 
It will create jobs; it will create a more efficient passenger rail; 
and this is going to give new opportunities to those that never were 
able to ride rail before the opportunity to be greater involved.
  Let me just touch on one last point. Across the entire country, our 
passenger rail oftentimes rides on our freight rail system. They have 
to share the same tracks.

                              {time}  1300

  Well, one of the challenges is we have bottlenecks across the entire 
country. As we expand that new infrastructure, as we create these new 
jobs, as we create greater efficiencies, we need to be able to do it in 
a timely and cost-effective manner.
  What we have done is cut a lot of red tape and streamlined the 
process. There are both environmental and historic review that we 
actually put time periods on. We want to do the reviews. We want to 
make sure that it still remains historic and that we are being 
environmentally sensitive.
  We are just saying: Let's streamline the process so we can get the 
projects done quickly, getting people to work, and getting a rail 
system that is like no other across the entire globe.
  We have great improvements here. I am very proud of this bill and the 
work that we have done here, and I am looking for full passage this 
afternoon.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a member 
of the committee and a leader on transportation issues.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding me this time.
  I rise in very strong support of this legislation for all of the 
reasons that were just stated by Chairman Denham, who has been a great 
chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee.
  This is a major reform bill that I think every Member should be very 
proud to support. It is especially a very fiscally conservative bill. 
It will save $2.3 billion over the next 4 years, and it is moving this 
Congress and this legislation in a new direction, a better direction, 
from a fiscal standpoint.
  It also is going to save a very substantial amount of money on food 
service. According to The New York Times, train food service lost $800 
million over the last 10 years. This bill will, in a graduated way, 
remove the subsidy for train food service until it gets on a self-
supporting basis, so it is fiscally conservative and commonsense 
legislation in that respect also.
  It speeds up the environmental review process. This is an area that 
we try to do in all of our transportation bills because we have been 
doing all of our major transportation projects in such a convoluted, 
complicated bureaucratic way that we have always taken about three 
times as long as any other developed nation to do the things to improve 
our infrastructure that needs to be done.
  This bill also introduces opportunities for competition. This is 
another good thing about this bill because, if we really believe in the 
free market and in free enterprise, we need to give more companies and 
more people a chance to get into these businesses and make all of our 
industries have greater ease of entry.
  Another thing that I think is good about this legislation--this major 
reform bill--is that it empowers States to get involved by setting up a 
new State-supported route advisory committee. This has the potential of 
creating new train service in States, such

[[Page H1535]]

as mine in Tennessee, that don't have passenger train service at this 
time.
  For all these reasons and for all the reasons that Congressman 
Denham--Chairman Denham--just mentioned, I think this is a bill that 
deserves the support of all the Members on both sides of the aisle.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, we support the rule and the underlying bill. I want to thank 
everybody involved. This is a bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to reiterate the partnership that went on here not just with 
the underlying bill, but with the amendment process that is happening 
here, seven amendments available for our colleagues this afternoon.
  If you don't want to see Amtrak subsidized by the Federal 
Government--a lot of folks would have kept your voice silent--this 
amendment process allows your voice to be heard.
  If you want to make sure that all the folks doing contracting with 
Amtrak are focused on veterans and veteran-owned small businesses--you 
want that included in the underlying bill--we have an amendment process 
today that allows you to add that language.
  If you are concerned about the inspector general's reports and what 
they are looking at and how they are calculating it, we give you a 
chance to make those changes.
  Issue after issue after issue, Mr. Speaker--again, three Republican 
ideas, four Democratic ideas--we allow those to come to the floor in 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, passenger rail is an example of one of those things that 
divides this country. If you live in California, as the chairman does, 
you have a spectacular rail system. If you live in the Northeast 
corridor, you have a spectacular rail system.
  If you live in the State of Georgia, you can ride your horse to your 
next destination faster than you can take the train. That is not an 
inequity that we are going to solve in this bill; and, arguably, we 
don't even need to solve that inequity.
  I am happy for my friends in the Northeast corridor to have 
spectacular service. It is profitable. Folks want it, folks need it, 
folks use it, and folks are willing to dig into their pockets to pay 
for it.
  In fact, there is an amendment that is going to be offered here 
today, Mr. Speaker, that would allow competitive private train service 
in that corridor. Now, that is going to be up to the body to decide 
whether or not they think that is a good idea.
  Imagine that, imagine that, Mr. Speaker, that before us today you 
have your choice of: Do you want the bill as the committee has crafted 
it, saving money, as my friend from Tennessee described? Do you want to 
eliminate Amtrak subsidies altogether and say, We do not have a 
national interest in rail, and our budget will reflect that? Or do we 
want to allow even more rail service by allowing private competition on 
some of these Amtrak-owned routes?
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I came to this body. I am not going to try 
to twist any arms on this floor about which amendments they ought to 
vote for and which they don't. Folks have their own set of a million 
constituents back home, and they ought to represent those interests.
  What I will twist arms on this floor to do, Mr. Speaker, is to 
support the rule that allows for this kind of open debate. As I think 
my friend from Massachusetts would agree, we have not always had the 
open debates on important issues that I think we would all agree should 
be had. It is a process, and today, we got that process right.
  This rule is worthy of the support of all of my colleagues: 
Republicans, Democrats, north, south, east, and west.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Report 114-36, the report to 
accompany H. Res. 134, the special rule governing consideration of H.R. 
749, contains an inaccurate summary of Amendment #6 offered by Mr. 
McClintock of California. The summary should read as follows:
  The amendment eliminates all Federal assistance for Amtrak.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________