[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 186 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6720-S6722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Scott of South 
        Carolina, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 2913. A bill to apply cooperative and small employer charity 
pension plan rules to certain charitable employers whose primary exempt 
purpose is providing services with respect to mothers and children; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Protecting 
Critical Services for Mothers and Babies Act, with my colleague Senator 
Perdue. Enacting this bill will help ensure that mothers and infants 
across the country continue to receive access to important health 
programs.
  About 700 women die each year in the United States from complications 
during or after pregnancy, a problem that disproportionately affects 
Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women. In the face of these 
challenges, organizations like March of Dimes provide services that 
disseminate health information to pregnant women and mothers and 
support care for premature and ill infants.
  Inflexible funding rules and historically low interest rates have 
combined to result in a sharp increase in March of Dimes' pension 
funding obligations next year. This Act will extend more flexible rules 
to organizations that have a long track record of serving maternal and 
infant health needs. These rules, already offered to other 
organizations, will continue to protect plan participants while also 
smoothing out pension funding obligations. This change will ensure that 
resources are not diverted away from important maternal and infant 
health programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2916. A bill to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Vermont, in introducing the Runaway and Homeless Youth and 
Trafficking Prevention Act. This bill would update and reauthorize the 
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs, which have provided life-
saving services and housing for America's homeless youth for more than 
forty years.
  Homelessness is affecting youth in unprecedented numbers. According 
to a recent study by Voices of Youth Count, an estimated 4.2 million 
young people experience homelessness at some point each year. Some of 
these youth may stay away from home for a few nights, while others have 
been living on the streets for years. Approximately 73 percent 
experienced homelessness lasting more than one month. The study also 
found that homelessness is just as prevalent in rural communities as it 
is in urban communities.
  And sadly, these statistics likely underestimate the scale of this 
problem. This month, I met with teachers and specialists from Lewiston, 
Maine, who work directly with young people in Lewiston High School 
whose families experience homelessness. We talked about the pressures 
that student homelessness places on teachers, school administrators, 
and their already strapped resources, and, of course, on the children 
and teens themselves. Although schools often serve as a first stop for 
assistance, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention 
Act would reauthorize and strengthen the programs that help homeless 
youth meet their immediate needs, and it would help secure long-term 
residential services for those who cannot be reunified with their 
families safely.
  The three Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs--the Basic Center 
Program, the Street Outreach Program, and the Transitional Living 
Program--help community-based organizations reach these young people 
when they need support the most. These programs help runaway and 
homeless youth avoid the juvenile justice system, and early 
intervention can help them to escape victimization and trafficking.
  As Chairman of the Senate Housing Appropriations Subcommittee, 
working to end the scourge of homelessness--among both youth and 
adults--has been one of my top priorities. Along with Senator Jack 
Reed, I created a grant program to reduce youth homelessness. According 
to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, there has been a 15 
percent drop in chronic homelessness since 2007. We must build on this 
success. Homeless youth should have the same opportunities to succeed 
as their peers, and this bill is an important step in that direction.
  In Maine, our homeless shelters are critical partners in the fight to 
end human trafficking. Earlier this year, I hosted U.S. Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson in Lewiston. We visited New 
Beginnings, where we saw firsthand how Runaway and Homeless Youth Act 
resources are

[[Page S6721]]

providing essential safety nets for young people in need. Staff at New 
Beginnings help young people with case management, find referrals to 
local and State agencies, assist with housing needs and access to 
shelter, and connect them to local educational and employment programs.
  These programs produce results. In 2015, I held a hearing during 
which Brittany Dixon, a former homeless youth from Auburn, Maine, 
testified about her personal experience with New Beginnings. After 
becoming homeless as a teenager, New Beginnings gave her the help and 
support she needed to develop critical life skills and become self-
sufficient. She went on to earn a college degree and obtain a full-time 
job as an education technician at an elementary school.
  Mr. President, teens run away and become homeless for many reasons. 
They are also at high risk of victimization, abuse, criminal activity, 
and even death. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
estimates that, in 2017, one in seven of nearly 25,000 youth reported 
to them as runaways were sex trafficking victims. In Maine, recent 
reports show that of the more than 10,000 reported human trafficking 
cases last year, 26 percent involved minors. Several hundreds of these 
victims identified as runaway or homeless youth. This population is at 
greater risk of suicide, unintended pregnancy, and substance abuse. 
Many are unable to continue with school and are more likely to enter 
our juvenile justice system.
  Our bill focuses on this tragic problem by supporting wrap-around 
services for victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. Congress 
has passed legislation in recent years to combat these horrific crimes 
and support survivors, and the policies and tools included in the 
Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act are important 
pieces of the Federal response to human trafficking.
  The data also show that a growing number of homeless youth identify 
as LGBT. According to the Voices of Youth Count report, LGBT young 
people are twice as likely to be homeless. Our bill would ensure that 
those seeking services through these Federal programs are not denied 
assistance based on their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, 
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
  Mr. President, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking 
Prevention Act will support those young people who run away, are kicked 
out, or are disconnected from families. A caring and safe place to 
sleep, eat, grow, study, and develop is critical for all young people. 
The programs reauthorized through this legislation help extend those 
basic services to the most vulnerable youth in our communities.
  I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this bill and urge my 
colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 2922. A bill to permit Amtrak to bring civil actions in Federal 
district court to enforce the right set forth in section 24308(c) of 
title 49, United States Code, which gives intercity and commuter rail 
passenger transportation preference over freight transportation in 
using a rail line, junction, or crossing; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2922

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rail Passenger Fairness 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (1) Congress created Amtrak under the Rail Passenger 
     Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-158).
       (2) Amtrak began serving customers on May 1, 1971, taking 
     over the operation of most intercity passenger trains that 
     private, freight railroads were previously required to 
     operate. In exchange for assuming these passenger rail 
     operations, Amtrak was given access to the national rail 
     network.
       (3) In return for relief from the obligation to provide 
     intercity passenger service, railroads over which Amtrak 
     operated (referred to in this section as ``host railroads'') 
     were expected to give Amtrak passenger trains preference over 
     freight trains when using the national rail network.
       (4) In 1973, Congress passed the Amtrak Improvement Act of 
     1973 (Public Law 93-146), which gives intercity and commuter 
     rail passenger transportation preference over freight 
     transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing. 
     This right, which is now codified as section 24308(c) of 
     title 49, United States Code, states, ``Except in an 
     emergency, intercity and commuter rail passenger 
     transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over 
     freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or 
     crossing unless the Board orders otherwise under this 
     subsection. A rail carrier affected by this subsection may 
     apply to the Board for relief. If the Board, after an 
     opportunity for a hearing under section 553 of title 5, 
     decides that preference for intercity and commuter rail 
     passenger transportation materially will lessen the quality 
     of freight transportation provided to shippers, the Board 
     shall establish the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on 
     reasonable terms.''.
       (5) Many host railroads have ignored the law referred to in 
     paragraph (4) by refusing to give passenger rail the priority 
     to which it is statutorily entitled and giving freight 
     transportation the higher priority. As a result, Amtrak's on 
     time performance on most host railroads is poor, has declined 
     between 2014 through 2019, and continues to decline.
       (6) According to Amtrak, 6,500,000 customers on State-
     supported and long-distance trains arrived at their 
     destination late during fiscal year 2019. Nearly 70 percent 
     of these delays were caused by host railroads, amounting to a 
     total of 3,200,000 minutes. The largest cause of these delays 
     was freight train interference, which accounted for more than 
     1,000,000 minutes of delay for Amtrak passengers, or 
     approximately 2 years, because host railroads chose to give 
     freight trains priority.
       (7) Poor on-time performance wastes taxpayer dollars. 
     According to a 2019 report by Amtrak's Office of Inspector 
     General, a 5 percent improvement of on-time performance on 
     all Amtrak routes would result in $12,100,000 in cost savings 
     to Amtrak in the first year. If on-time performance on long-
     distance routes reached 75 percent for a year, Amtrak would 
     realize an estimated $41,900,000 in operating cost savings, 
     with a one-time savings of $336,000,000 due to a reduction in 
     equipment replacement needs.
       (8) Historical data suggests that on-time performance on 
     host railroads is driven by the existence of an effective 
     means to enforce Amtrak's preference rights:
       (A) Two months after the date of the enactment of the 
     Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 
     (division B of Public Law 110-432), which included provisions 
     for the enforcement of these preference rights, was enacted, 
     the on-time performance of long-distance trains improved from 
     56 percent to 77 percent and Class I freight train 
     interference delays across all routes declined by 40 percent.
       (B) One year after such date of enactment, freight train 
     interference delays had declined by 54 percent and the on-
     time performance of long-distance trains reached 85 percent.
       (C) In 2014, after some of the provisions in the Passenger 
     Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 related to 
     enforcement of preference were ruled unconstitutional by a 
     D.C. Circuit Court, long-distance train on-time performance 
     declined from 72 percent to 50 percent, and freight train 
     interference delays increased 59 percent.
       (D) The last time long-distance trains achieved an on-time 
     rate of more than 80 percent in a given month was February 
     2012.
       (9) As a result of violations of Amtrak's right to 
     preference, Amtrak has been consistently unable on host 
     railroad networks to meet its congressionally mandated 
     mission and goals, which are codified in section 24101 of 
     title 49, United States Code (relating to providing on-time 
     and trip-time competitive service to its passengers).
       (10) Amtrak does not have an effective mechanism to enforce 
     its statutory preference right in order to fulfill its 
     mission and goals. Only the Attorney General can bring a 
     civil action for equitable relief in a district court of the 
     United States to enforce Amtrak's preference rights.
       (11) In Amtrak's entire history, the only enforcement 
     action initiated by the Attorney General was against the 
     Southern Pacific Transportation Company in 1979.
       (12) Congress supports continued authority for the Attorney 
     General to initiate an action, but Amtrak should also be 
     entitled to bring a civil action before a Federal district 
     court to enforce its statutory preference rights.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZE AMTRAK TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION TO ENFORCE 
                   IT PREFERENCE RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 24308(c) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended, by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding sections 24103(a) and 24308(f), Amtrak 
     shall have the right to bring an action for equitable or 
     other relief in the United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia, or in any jurisdiction in which Amtrak 
     resides or is found, to enforce the preference rights granted 
     under this subsection.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 24103(a)(1) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by striking ``of this subsection'' and 
     inserting ``and subsection 24308(c)''.

[[Page S6722]]

  


                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

   SENATE RESOLUTION 435--REAFFIRMING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GENERAL 
  SECURITY OF MILITARY INFORMATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF 
                KOREA AND JAPAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Reed) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations:

                              S. Res. 435

       Whereas the General Security of Military Information 
     Agreement (GSOMIA) between the Republic of Korea and Japan is 
     crucial to safeguarding United States and allied interests in 
     Northeast Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region;
       Whereas bilateral information sharing between the 
     Governments of the Republic of Korea and Japan is critical to 
     increasing trust and growing cooperation that advances shared 
     defense and security interests;
       Whereas the Governments and people of Japan and the 
     Republic of Korea have made significant contributions to 
     advancing our shared defense partnership and promoting 
     trilateral cooperation;
       Whereas defense cooperation among the United States, Japan, 
     and the Republic of Korea serves as a deterrent against 
     aggression from adversaries and external security threats as 
     well as against new and non-traditional challenges;
       Whereas the suspension of GSOMIA directly harms United 
     States national security at a time when the Government of the 
     Democratic People's Republic of Korea is engaging in an 
     increased level of provocations, including 12 tests of over 
     20 ballistic missiles this year, including new types of 
     nuclear-capable land and sea-launched ballistic missiles;
       Whereas the Governments of the People's Republic of China, 
     the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Russian 
     Federation are seeking to capitalize on friction between the 
     Republic of Korea and Japan, and the resulting strain on 
     trilateral cooperation and on our bilateral alliances;
       Whereas the Government and people of the United States 
     value the partnership of Japan and the Republic of Korea in 
     upholding regional security and prosperity, including by 
     safeguarding maritime security and freedom of navigation, 
     promoting investment and commerce, advocating for the rule of 
     law, and opposing the use of intimidation and force in the 
     Indo-Pacific; and
       Whereas strengthening intelligence sharing is fundamental 
     to the future of trilateral cooperation, and to enabling the 
     Governments of the United States, Japan, and the Republic of 
     Korea to face the challenges posed by the Government of the 
     Democratic People's Republic of Korea's destabilizing 
     actions, the People's Republic of China, and other emerging 
     security threats: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) reaffirms the importance of the General Security of 
     Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between the Republic 
     of Korea and Japan as a crucial military intelligence-sharing 
     agreement foundational to Indo-Pacific security and defense, 
     and specifically to countering nuclear and missile threats 
     from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea;
       (2) underscores the vital role of the alliances between the 
     United States and Japan and the United States and the 
     Republic of Korea in promoting peace, stability, and security 
     in the Indo-Pacific region;
       (3) highlights that friction between the Republic of Korea 
     and Japan only fractures the region and empowers its 
     agitators;
       (4) urges the Republic of Korea to consider how to best 
     address potential measures that may undermine regional 
     security cooperation;
       (5) encourages the Governments of Japan and the Republic of 
     Korea to take steps to rebuild trust and address the sources 
     of bilateral friction, insulate important defense and 
     security ties from other bilateral challenges, and pursue 
     cooperation on shared interests, such as a denuclearized 
     Korean peninsula, market-based trade and commerce, and a 
     stable Indo-Pacific region; and
       (6) commits to strengthening and deepening diplomatic, 
     economic, security, and people-to-people ties between and 
     among the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.

                          ____________________