[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11006-11009]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 AMTRAK

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is Friday. The weekend starts for most 
people today. It looks as if it is going to be a great weekend whether 
at the Delaware beaches or the New Jersey shore. Next weekend might 
start a little early for a lot of people in this country, for hundreds 
of thousands, maybe millions of commuters from Trenton, NJ, to New 
York, Connecticut, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, 
Chicago, and out on the west coast, L.A., and a lot of other places as 
well because right now it looks as if, starting in the latter part of 
next week, Amtrak will begin an orderly shutdown of its operations, and 
there will be a cascading effect that will also lead to disruption of 
commuter operations in all those cities and many others I did not 
mention.
  Amtrak is running out of operating funds for this fiscal year. They 
expect to run out of operating funds sometime in early July. The new 
president of Amtrak has announced his intention to try to negotiate a 
loan for Amtrak from a consortium of commercial banks, which Amtrak has 
done any number of times in the past, for operating moneys to bridge a 
period of time until the new Federal grant comes through or to 
negotiate money for capital improvements to Amtrak.
  Those negotiations were underway in earnest early this week. I 
understand the auditors for Amtrak were not able to say with conviction 
that Amtrak was a going concern because, in part, of the announcement 
of the administration yesterday for the Amtrak restructuring plan, 
which is really, in my judgment, an Amtrak dismantling plan.
  Rather than Amtrak being able to negotiate the bridge loan with 
private lenders to carry them through the end of the year when our new 
appropriation might be available, Amtrak faces a cutoff of its 
operations, again, the impending effect on commuters throughout this 
country late next week.
  The Presiding Officer and I have discussed this situation any number 
of times in the year and a half we have been here, and we have 
discussed it more earnestly in the last week or two. I am mindful of 
the efforts he is making to avert what could be a disaster. They are 
efforts that are supported by any number of our colleagues.
  A week or so ago, 52 of us finished putting our signatures on a 
letter to the ranking members of the Senate Appropriations Committee 
voicing our support for a $1.2 billion appropriation for Amtrak in the 
next fiscal year. A week or so prior to that, the Senate voted to 
accept a provision included in the Senate appropriations bill for 
another $55 million as part of an emergency supplemental to enable 
repair work to begin on Amtrak locomotives, passenger cars, and 
sleeping cars that had been damaged in wrecks around the country, 
wrecks, frankly, not caused by Amtrak or Amtrak's neglect, but because 
of trucks that were on the tracks in some places and because of 
problems with track bed outside the Northeast corridor that led to a 
derailing.
  That money is in the emergency appropriations bill passed by the 
Senate and is one of the items at issue in the conference. I have been 
led to believe

[[Page 11007]]

the President has threatened to veto even those moneys as part of the 
emergency supplemental if they remain in the bill.
  We are looking at a train wreck. It seems to me we look at a train 
wreck about every year close to this time.
  I wish to take a moment this morning to look back over time. I would 
like for us to go back to 1970. That was when Amtrak was created. 
Amtrak was created because our Nation's private railroads did not want 
to continue to carry passengers. They could not make money doing that. 
They wanted out of the business. Then-President Richard Nixon signed 
into law legislation creating Amtrak.
  The deal was the private railroads would pony up some money to buy 
Amtrak stock. They agreed to turn over all of their old locomotives, 
their old passenger cars, their old dining cars, their old sleeper 
cars. They agreed to turn over their old track bed in the Northeast 
corridor between Washington and Boston, old overhead wires, old 
signaling systems, old repair shops around the country, old train 
stations, and give all that to Amtrak.
  Somehow Amtrak, with a little seed money, was to make a go of, and 
begin turning a profit from, operations that the private sector could 
not make profitable. It did not happen. We should not be surprised that 
it did not happen because it has not happened in other countries 
either.
  For those Americans who this summer are going to be traveling to 
places in Europe--England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, up into 
Scandinavia--throughout Europe, they are going to ride on trains that 
will almost take their breath away, beautiful trains, trains that run 
at speeds of close to 200 miles an hour, trains where one can sit with 
a cup of coffee or a cup of tea on the table and it does not even 
rattle or vibrate.
  Americans are going to be traveling to places in Asia this summer, 
and they will ride trains in Japan and other countries that provide a 
similar high-quality, fast, dependable service. In those countries, the 
private sector does not operate that train service. The national 
governments of those nations have decided it is in their naked self-
interest to invest their taxpayers' dollars in national passenger rail 
service. They do not do it out of some sense of altruism. They do it 
because they realize that in order to relieve congestion on their 
highways and in their airports, passenger rail can make a big 
contribution toward reducing that congestion.
  Those countries, those governments, realize that in order to reduce 
their dependence on foreign oil and to reduce their trade deficits, 
passenger rail service can make a real contribution.
  They have problems with clean air in those countries as well, and 
they realize, compared to the emissions that come out of their cars, 
trucks, and vans, that the emissions emitted by passenger trains are 
far less.
  We have similar kinds of concerns in this country. We have congestion 
around our airports and on our Nation's highways worse by far than we 
did in 1970. We have problems with air pollution that are as bad, or 
maybe worse, than the problems we faced in 1970, certainly with respect 
to global warming and carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. We have a trade 
deficit in this country that makes our trade deficit woes of 1970 pale 
by comparison. Over half of our oil is imported, and that number is 
growing. In the 1970s, not even a third of our oil was imported.
  National passenger rail service will not solve all of these problems 
for the United States, but it will help us to reduce the size of those 
problems. We can take a lesson from our neighbors, our sister nations 
in Europe and in Asia, and we ought to do that.
  There are a whole series of things that need to happen this year and 
next. I want to mention those, and then I will close. We need to pass 
an emergency appropriations bill that includes at least $55 million so 
the work can begin on repairing wrecked trains in order to provide 
service to people, especially the Auto Train south of Washington to 
Orlando, FL, where Amtrak actually makes money. We need to keep that 
money in the supplemental appropriation. It would be great to grow it, 
but we at least need to keep that money.
  The White House has, in my judgment, a moral responsibility. Having 
acted this week in a way that I believe disrupts Amtrak's ability to 
negotiate a private sector loan from a consortium of banks for $200 
million to carry them through the end of this fiscal year, the 
administration should use their discretion, authorized under law, as I 
understand, through the FRA, to provide a loan guarantee so that Amtrak 
can obtain the money it needs to avoid the kind of disruption we are 
going to begin witnessing by next weekend if nothing is done.
  We need to take up in the Senate the Amtrak reauthorization bill, 
which has cleared the Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote, I 
think, of 21 to 3. Senator Hollings has been a champion for passenger 
rail service. He has authored very good legislation. Many of us have 
cosponsored it. We need to take it up, and we need to pass a motion to 
proceed and debate it.
  If people want to offer amendments to it, that is all well and good. 
We debate amendments, vote them up or down, and then move on to the 
bill. Fifty-two of our colleagues in the Senate have said: We believe 
Amtrak ought to be funded at $1.2 billion next fiscal year, and we need 
to go forward. As we take up the appropriations bill, we need to 
provide that money through the appropriations process in the Senate and 
work with our colleagues in the House and in the administration.
  Finally, we need a good, healthy debate on what the future of 
passenger rail service should be in this country. I realize that the 
heydays of passenger rail of the 1800s and the early 1900s are behind 
us, but there is still a huge need for the good that passenger rail 
service can provide us with respect to congestion, air congestion, 
highway congestion, with respect to reducing the emissions into our 
air, and with respect to reducing our reliance on foreign oil and 
trying to curtail, at least a little, our trade deficit.
  What should the future passenger rail service be in this country? In 
my judgment, it ought to include making the Northeast corridor world 
class. As to the beautiful Acela Express train service that is now 
available, we are not able to harness the full potential of those 
trains from Washington to Boston because of the work that can and 
should be done to the track bed, to the overhead wires, to the 
signaling system, to enable the trains to go 150 or 160 miles an hour, 
which is faster than in many places they can now go.
  We need to begin developing high-speed rail corridors in other parts 
of this country, the southeastern United States and Florida, in and out 
of Atlanta. The Northeast corridor finally should be extended at least 
into Virginia, maybe as far as Richmond. I know there are people in 
North Carolina who would like to see the Northeast corridor extended 
into North Carolina where they are investing in passenger rail service 
on their own.
  There are any number of densely populated corridors such as out of 
Chicago, Chicago/St. Louis, Chicago/Milwaukee, Chicago/Indianapolis, 
Chicago/Detroit, where it makes a lot more sense for people to travel 
on high-speed trains instead of on commuter airlines that are going 
less than 300 miles.
  On the west coast, whether it is L.A. to San Diego or maybe L.A. to 
Las Vegas, L.A. to San Francisco, Portland, Spokane, Seattle, Portland-
Seattle, Seattle-Vancouver, those are areas that are just ripe for 
high-speed passenger rail. The challenge for us is how to raise the 
money to put in place the infrastructure, the high-speed rail 
capability, the track bed, the overhead wires, the signaling, to be 
able to provide the service where it would be used.
  The former chairman of the Amtrak board of directors who succeeded me 
on the Amtrak board, and preceded me on the Amtrak board, is former 
Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, now Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. He and I believe, as do many others, including many in this 
body, there needs to be a dedicated source of capital for passenger 
rail service in this country

[[Page 11008]]

to make world class the Northeast corridor, to begin developing, in 
conjunction and coordination with the right-of-way of freight 
railroads, the high-speed corridors in these densely populated areas of 
America.
  I was struck to learn a couple of years ago that 75 percent of the 
people in America today live within 50 miles of one of our coasts. 
Think about that. As time goes by, the density of our population, 
especially in those coastal areas, will not diminish, it will increase. 
The potential good that passenger rail service can provide for us will 
increase as well.
  Not everybody wants to ride a train from one end of the country to 
the other. Some people do, but a lot of people could benefit by riding 
a train in a densely populated corridor. A lot of people every day ride 
the longest train in the world, and that is the Auto Train that leaves 
just south of Washington, DC, down to near Orlando, FL, and back every 
day.
  There are people who ride trains that go through spectacular parts of 
America. They go along the northern part of America, the Northwest, and 
the Coast Starlight from the west coast from one end of California up 
to the Canadian border. People are willing to pay good money to ride 
those trains.
  I think one of the big questions we face is, What do we do with the 
other long-distance trains where Amtrak is unable to provide service 
and out of the farebox pay for the full cost of the service? I was 
always frustrated as Governor that when Delaware received Federal 
transportation monies, we did not have the discretion to use any of 
that money to help pay for passenger rail service in our State, which 
did not make sense.
  For example, we could use our Federal congestion mitigation money in 
my State--other Governors could in their States --for freight 
railroads. We could use it for roads and highways. We could use that 
Federal congestion mitigation money for bicycle paths. We could not use 
it for passenger rail service, even if it made sense for our States. 
That is foolish. That ought to change. This Senate has tried to change 
it any number of times. We have not gotten the support we need from the 
other body. Sometimes we have not gotten the support we need from the 
administration. We should give Governors and mayors the discretion to 
use a portion of their money to help underwrite the cost of long-
distance trains that are not fully sustainable.
  A number of years ago when I was on the Amtrak board, we started an 
experiment to see if Amtrak might partner with the freight railroads, 
when operating outside the Northeast corridor, to carry things other 
than people, such as mail, express packages, but also to carry other 
commodities, even perishable commodities, that are highly time 
sensitive in terms of getting where they are needed.
  A lot of times, shippers will use trucks because they believe there 
is a greater reliance in terms of on-time performance, and especially 
in shorter distances, but a greater ability than trucking to provide 
on-time performance, and we started an experiment to see if maybe we 
could carry not only people but commodities as well, and specially 
designed cars attached to Amtrak trains. If Amtrak were able to make 
money carrying these commodities on the track bed of a freight 
railroad, Amtrak would share the profits with the freight railroads. 
Amtrak would have a way to supplement its costs and to underwrite its 
costs of the long-distance trains which, frankly, do not make money.
  Amtrak has entered into an agreement with, I believe it is the 
Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad, to be able to do that kind of 
thing, and it has attempted to negotiate with other freight railroads. 
That could be part of a solution as well. I am not sure there is 
consensus in this body as to what the long-term passenger rail system 
should be in this country. I am not sure we know.
  We do know if we do not do something, if the administration does not 
do something, by next weekend we are going to have a train wreck. Not a 
literal train wreck but a figurative train wreck. A lot of people who 
will want to go to work next Thursday or Friday are not going to get to 
work or they will end up in traffic jams in and around their cities and 
communities, the likes of which they have not seen for a long time. 
Maybe on the brighter side, some people who didn't want to go to work 
next Thursday or Friday will get a long weekend. For them, maybe that 
is good. For our Nation, this is not good.
  We need to address this issue. We need to address it today. The 
administration has that capability of addressing it today. The 
administration should use discretion as provided to the Federal 
Railroad Administration to use the loan guarantee to enable Amtrak to 
go forward for us to have an orderly debate over this fiscal year to 
determine the long-term course for passenger rail service in America.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the comments 
made yesterday morning by the Secretary of Transportation in regards to 
Amtrak.
  Frankly, I am puzzled by his remarks yesterday, puzzled because many 
of us in this body have been calling for the administration to take a 
position on Amtrak's future since last July, when a group of us met 
with Secretary Mineta and Federal Railroad Administrator Rutter. 
Earlier this year, when the Commerce Committee prepared to mark-up the 
National Defense Rail Act, we again sought the administration's input. 
The administration did not raise any significant objection, and the 
bill was reported favorably by the committee by an overwhelming margin.
  Indeed, the only thing we knew of the administration's feelings 
toward Amtrak was that the Office of Management and Budget refused to 
release the $100 million in funding that the Congress appropriated late 
last year for improved security on trains and in stations.
  After a full year of being AWOL on this issue, the administration 
suddenly announced that it would like to see massive, but vaguely 
defined, structural changes at Amtrak. And Secretary Mineta has said 
that without these big changes, whatever they may be, the 
administration will oppose Congressional attempts to increase funding 
for Amtrak. The Senate should not be cowed by this kind of bullying. 
The administration could have been a full partner in this process by 
raising these concerns last year, or even before the committee 
considered the National Rail Defense Act.
  Instead, the administration has chosen to take a position that is 
diametrically opposed to the goals of the National Defense Rail Act, 
which now has 35 cosponsors. Rather than give Amtrak the resources it 
needs to run a forward-looking, national rail system, it seeks to tear 
down our national rail system and replace it with a model similar to 
the failed British model of rail privatization. The administration 
would like to have a regional passenger rail system, based on a model 
that is universally derided for its inefficiency and its lack of 
safety. The British experience has shown us that safe, efficient, 
reliable service cannot be done on the cheap. But that kind of short-
sighted penny-pinching is exactly what the President has in mind. This 
strategy could strip countless communities, including several in 
Massachusetts, of train service, further reducing transportation 
alternatives in those parts of our country.
  Much as the administration would like to score philosophical points 
with conservative think tanks, the issue here is not who actually runs 
the trains and maintains the tracks. The fact is that the most 
important issue for Amtrak is funding, and whether we want to dedicate 
the sort of funds that will be necessary to maintain and enhance a 
national passenger rail network, and whether we want to try to build 
high-speed rail corridors into that network.
  In his remarks yesterday, Secretary Mineta said ``The country can ill 
afford to throw billions of Federal dollars at Amtrak and just hope its 
problems disappear.'' He is right about one thing: We cannot wish away 
Amtrak's problems. But Amtrak's biggest problem is

[[Page 11009]]

that, for 30 years, we have given it just enough funding to get by, but 
never enough to be truly viable. In his most recent review of the 
company's finances, the Department of Transportation's Inspector 
General mused, ``It's amazing that Amtrak has gotten this far.'' While 
Amtrak has limped along on insufficient funding, our highways have 
become choked and our skyways will soon be once again strained beyond 
their capacity.
  Now we hear that Amtrak is prepared to shut down as soon as next week 
unless it receives immediate financial assistance. This will leave 22.5 
million riders without train transportation. Let's be clear: The 
administration, by virtue of its non-involvement in this issue, will 
bear the responsibility for this unprecedented blow to our national 
transportation network. I would like to know how the administration 
will handle the immediate extra burden placed on other transportation 
modes. Rather than put $200 million into Amtrak, it appears they would 
prefer to continue to spend billions more on already-clogged highways 
and skyways.
  We must remember that this Nation has spent less than 4 percent of 
our Nation's transportation budget on inter-city passenger rail over 
the life of Amtrak. We've spent more than $300 billion spent on 
highways, nearly $200 billion on airports and just $35 billion on 
inter-city passenger rail in 32 years.
  As Amtrak's ridership has increased despite its financial condition, 
that is not good enough anymore.
  I would also add that Amtrak's place in the $2-trillion Federal 
budget is tiny. We spend $150 billion per year on debt service alone, 
but just $521 million on inter-city passenger rail. The Commerce 
Committee's bill, authorizes full funding for Amtrak's security, 
operating and capital needs. For the first time in its 30-year history, 
we would appropriately fund passenger rail.
  I think a lot of criticisms frequently raised about Amtrak are indeed 
warranted. Its management structure is top-heavy and unwieldy. The 
company's new president has already announced plans to restructure 
management. That is a positive step, but we can and should reserve 
judgment on the success of that restructuring until it is fully 
implemented.
  Amtrak is not sufficiently insulated from political pressures. That 
is also a legitimate concern, and one that must be addressed. Language 
inserted in the National Rail Defense Act would take a step toward 
ensuring that decisions about route terminations are made based on 
objective financial criteria. Still, we must do more to ensure that 
Congress provides oversight of the company, without unduly burdening 
it.
  Clearly, the company's fiscal problems have been exacerbated by the 
Congress's unrealistic requirement that Amtrak meet an ``operational 
self-sufficiency.'' As a result, Amtrak explored a wide variety of 
revenue options, with varying degrees of success. The new CEO, David 
Gunn, has expressed a desire to return Amtrak to its fundamental 
mission of moving people.
  As these changes in the company are implemented, I believe it would 
be a grave mistake to allow the termination of Amtrak. And make no 
mistake, that is the road we are headed down. So I urge my colleagues 
to work toward an appropriation that will allow Amtrak to stand on 
solid financial ground in the short term, and toward passage of 
reauthorization legislation that allows our country to develop high-
speed rail corridors without sacrificing traditional rail service. 
Unfortunately, the administration's plan does neither of those things.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________