Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. This amendment is a technical amendment, a final wrapup, change of the ands and ifs and buts and what have you. It has nothing to do with the substance but to conform various technicalities in the other amendments that we agreed upon in the course of consideration of this particular bill. I urge its adoption.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I think that is entirely reasonable. This could be done by regulation or even by an explicit gentleman's agreement from the airlines. I do not think it is too much to ask.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Virginia will yield, not only as chairman of the Commerce Committee but also as a former member of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, I was vitally interested in the whys and wherefores of holding back Reagan National Airport. We had the Secretary of Transportation 2 days after this particular tragic event. We were allowing, say, Dulles, and other airports, to function. There was no reason, once we secured the cockpit--I realize you had the general security problems--but once you secured that cockpit--and Boeing said they could retrofit immediately sufficient planes to be landing and taking off at Reagan National--that we at least ought to start back the shuttles to New York and then on to Boston. So I have been down the path of the Senator from Virginia on this particular score. I endorse his idea 100 percent. It is just that kind of situation on airport security. As you know, the junior Senator, Mr. Allen, has been vitally interested in it. He is a member of our committee. He and I have been working on this particular bill, moving as much as we possibly can. So in any way I can possibly promise you that you will have my support on the amounts, and everything else of that kind, I would be glad to help.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me affirm the exchange between the distinguished Senator from Delaware and our ranking member, the Senator from Arizona. The fact is, a railroad infrastructure enhancement bill was introduced today, with some 10 cosponsors. The reason I mention that is because we have been working long before September 11 on that need of the Nation. With respect to stimulus, there is no better stimulus than construction, and there is no more needed construction than to refurbish the Amtrak line itself. Extend that: America needs high-speed rail. Of course my distinguished colleague from Arizona, our ranking member, is disposed at the moment only for safety. We will call up the bill and we will mark up what we can, facilitate, if necessary, and try to separate perhaps a bill. But I hope to move next week in committee on this matter, as was indicated in our previous conversations, on Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock when we can get a quorum and mark that bill up and report authorization out here so we will not be confronted later on with obstacles. I think long before any passage of an authorization bill we are going to be hitting appropriations on the stimulus bill or some other bill because we need to immediately take care of safety and rail transportation. The frustration of both Senators from Delaware is well understood. When we adjourned last year, we had everybody running around-- Republican, Democrat, leader and plebeians like myself--saying: Oh, the first thing we are going to do next year, the first thing we are going to do is take up Amtrak. It is now October. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished ranking member, Senator McCain, for his total cooperation and leadership on this measure, along with Senator Hutchison of Texas and Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia who lead our Aviation Subcommittee. It is not only an important safety measure but, in a sense, an airport and airline stimulus bill because now, if the House can take this up in judicious fashion, we can move forward and everyone can be assured immediately of security in air travel. For example, the American people will know once and forever that a domestic airliner is never going to be used as a weapon of mass destruction because we will have that cockpit secured, never to be opened in flight, so then we can economize on our requirements for the military patrolling over flights, ready to shoot down a domestic airline because it cannot be hijacked in the sense of taken over and directed anywhere, beyond a particular discord or disruption in the cabin itself. Once that occurs, the pilots will be informed, they will land, law enforcement will be there, and that will end hijacking in America, as it has in Israel. It is a very important measure with which we move forward promptly. I am delighted and pleased, particularly with the cooperation I mentioned, the staffs on both sides. But the whip, Democratic whip, Harry Reid, Lord knows--I have been here 35 years; I am still 20 years younger than Strom; he was here a minute ago--he is the best whip I have seen. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me thank, once again, the distinguished Senator, Mrs. Hutchison of Texas. It is bipartisan, mainly because of her leadership.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Argenbright is a contractor at Logan Airport, at Newark Airport, and at Dulles, all three airports from which the planes on that disastrous day were taken over. The article relayed how the firm was fined for misgivings and misdeeds at Philadelphia. It says Argenbright, a subsidiary of AHL Services, provides security workers at 17 of the Nation's 20 largest airport hubs, including Newark, Logan, and Dulles, where the hijacked flights originated. The company is hired by the airlines. Incidentally, the major amendment we have is for airline worker benefits. I thought we passed a $15 billion package so we could stabilize the airlines so they could continue the health care and pay for their workers. But, no, we have to have an additional amendment to take care of the unemployed airline workers. I do not know what the $15 billion did, whether or not it took care of the airline bonuses that we all know about. Let me read. In the Philadelphia case, Argenbright hired more than 1,300 untrained checkpoint screeners from 1995 through 1998 without checking their backgrounds. Among these employees were dozens of criminals. That is in quote marks--``dozens of criminals.'' According to the Government's sentencing memorandum, Argenbright falsely certified the company had done the background checks and fraudulently charged the airlines for this work. In other words, they lied about the background checks and charged the airlines for the background checks they lied about. Yet they hold us up for an entire month because we want to prevent further negligence. As has been stated, we had a pretty sobering lesson with Pan Am 103 and we knew how security was lax at that particular time, so we were working to strengthen it. We were going to have higher standards. We were going to have more training. We were going to have supervision and more pay. And then in 1996, TWA 800. Guess what. We had all kinds of studies, commissions, hearings. All this debate about contracts has been ongoing now for 15 years. What did we come up with? More higher standards, more training hours, more supervision, and more pay. But you have to contract out. No one would ever think contracting would help the Border Patrol. No one would think of contracting out the FBI. No one would ever think about contracting out the security and protection of the President, the Secret Service. No one would think about contracting out our security, the Capitol Police. Walking into the Capitol today, I was asked, should we get the National Guard around the Capitol? We have the Capitol Police. They are not only adequate, they are more than adequate. They have been doing an outstanding job. We don't need any more National Guard troops running around and everything else of that kind. Terrorists would do better than getting a Senator or two or a bunch of them. They would be replaced by the Governor by sundown, so you couldn't get rid of them. In any event, here we come. No one would think about contracting out the Customs agents or any of these other security workers or the 669,000 civilian workers in defense. They are Civil Service, they get health care. They get retirement benefits. They are stable. They are reliable. They are professional. They are accountable. That is what we are trying to do in a bipartisan fashion. Who is holding the Senate up? The lying, thieving lobbyists who said contract, contract, contract out. We have federalization in the bill. I want to see who comes to take it out of the bill. The unmitigated gall of that crowd running around here after learning what we've learned for 15 years, and particularly after the September 11 hijackings and terrorist killings, they have the unmitigated gall to say that is what we ought to do again. They don't have any idea of security. They have an idea of their political issue and their reelection because they pledged to downsize, get rid of the Government--the Government is not the solution, the Government is the problem. So they can't viscerally, ideologically, or philosophically, even think in terms of security. They are like a chicken with the line in the sand: In my reelection, I pledged to get rid of the Government, and I'm not about to vote for 28,000 professionals. If we get the bill to the House, we can negotiate what is necessary. The traveling public are ready, willing, and anxious to pay for it. Heavens above, we ought to at least take away the threat of being shot down. The day before yesterday, and yesterday again, somebody hands a note to the pilot, and good gosh, you have F-16s, A- 10s, F-15s flying above ready to shoot you down. Who wants to get on a plane and get shot down? This bill, S. 1447, will take care of that. We lock the cockpit door; it is never open. Let me emphasize, the chief pilot of El Al said: My wife can be assaulted in the cabin, but I don't open that door. The intended hijacker knows he will not be able to hijack the plane. He can start a fight. He can maybe kill some people. He is going to get killed himself. You can see how the traveling public is ready to take them out. They did on the flight yesterday. They did on the flight the day before. More power to these patriotic Americans. The people understand. When is the Senate going to understand and cut out this dillying around and get together to pass security, safety? It is unheard of that they would resist, having learned from all of these other experiences, having learned from September 11 to not even give it a second thought, just bite their teeth and say: We are not going to have the Federal Government do anything. We don't trust government. I think we were elected to get the Government to work. And we have tried the so-called contracting already. We can easily lock that door. That does away with the expense of everybody being on alert, flying planes around. No one put that cost down in defense, but we will get the Defense appropriations measure, and they will find out, as a result of our dillying around, we have a charge now for guard units that are alerted--to do what? To shoot down domestic flights. Why? Because of the Senate. We should have gotten off our backsides and seen reality and been ready, by gosh, to get moving here on an airline security measure. Yes, we federalize. We are proud of it. It is taken care of. It is paid for. The pilots are for it. The executives are for it. The flight attendants are for it. The municipal association is for it. Everybody is for it except the lobbyists, who want to continue to cheat and continue to defraud. Isn't it grand? We have put up with it long enough. There is no reason we can't get through this bill today. We have two or three amendments. I think we can temporarily set aside Carnahan. We have the final vote at 1:35, so that time has been changed because the distinguished cardinal is coming to town and we have a prayer service. So we will go along and put it off for another hour, but they can debate that amendment. Everyone knows its merit. Otherwise, we ought to have two or three amendments here this morning and move ahead this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with respect to the three Rockefeller amendments, one has to do with safety and security of onboard supplies that the flight personnel and pilots are concerned with. The other Rockefeller amendment has to do with property and passengers. We have prescribed, everyone can see it on page 18 of the managers' amendment, whereby every bit of passenger luggage, cargo, and property will be screened. This provision would guarantee that all objects are checked, as I read it, by adding language on page 18, insert ``cargo, carry-on, and checked baggage, other articles.'' The other articles would be anything else. So there would be no dispute on that particular amendment. With the third amendment, the reference is to the Secretary ensuring that the training curriculum is developed in consultation with Federal law enforcement. The Federal law enforcement has the expertise necessary. We want to make sure of this. The distinguished Senator and chairman of our Aviation Subcommittee, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, wants to make sure of it. I send these three amendments to the desk and ask the clerk to report each.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the Daschle-Carnahan amendment so that we can consider both the Inouye and the Rockefeller amendments.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in urging the adoption of the Breaux amendment, there is one colleague at the memorial exercise who would want to be heard and perhaps have an amendment. The adoption of the Breaux amendment will not forgo any consideration he may have, if he thinks it is an improvement. I wanted to say that publicly because we are not trying, on the one hand, to disregard the desire of all of us to be at that memorial service and at the same time overriding the duty we have here on the floor to move this legislation. In that light, I then urge the adoption of the Breaux amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one month ago today, the United States was attacked by terrorists who hijacked airplanes and used them as weapons against the World Trade Center, Pentagon and another unknown target which was crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. After the Federal Aviation Administration grounded the airlines following the terrorist attacks, travelers flocked to Amtrak. Whether people had to travel for business, to help with rescue efforts, or just to get home, Amtrak kept our American citizens moving during a time of national emergency. The situation not only proved that Amtrak works, but that Amtrak is a critical part of our transportation infrastructure during a national emergency. Now that airlines have reduced their flights on the East Coast and throughout the country, more of the passenger burden has fallen on Amtrak, which carries 35,000 passengers along the Northeast Corridor everyday. Even the U.S. Postal Office carried 237 extra carloads of mail in the days following the terrorist attacks. Today I am introducing the Railroad Advancement and Infrastructure Law of the 21st Century, or RAIL-21. In the short run, this bill will provide emergency security assistance to Amtrak, a key part of our national transportation infrastructure. In the long run, this bill will spark the building of important high-speed rail infrastructure in high- volume corridors across the United States, reducing our dependence on air and highway travel. In light of the events of September 11, it is important to look at the entire transportation system. Transportation security requires a balanced and competitive system of transportation alternatives. Three weeks ago we found out that our dependence on the aviation system almost crippled us. We cannot be overly reliant on any single mode of transportation; we need to ensure that we have a balanced system. Today we are trying to pass the airline security bill to make airline passengers feel safe so they will fly again. We need to make passengers feel just as safe when they travel by train. And we need to make sure we have transportation alternatives. To address Amtrak's immediate concerns, the bill would authorize $3.2 billion in emergency spending for Amtrak's security and capacity needs. The money will pay for more police, surveillance, fencing and lighting at the train stations and train yards; life-safety improvements and more fire-fighting capacity for tunnels in New York, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.; and more passenger cars and capacity improvements to meet the growing demand for train service. RAIL-21 would reauthorize Amtrak for one year with $1.2 billion for capital and operating expenses. The bill would allow Amtrak to continue its GSA vehicle lease agreements and would suspend Amtrak's redemption requirements for common stock until the end of FY2004. Additionally, the bill would remove the operational self-sufficiency requirement passed three years ago. Let me talk about that for a moment. There is no truly national passenger train service in the world that makes a profit. Requiring Amtrak to do so has forced the railroad to short-change critical infrastructure investments in order to meet a questionable economic model. We must free Amtrak from this requirement so they can go back to running a passenger railroad with modern and safe equipment, not juggling bond payments and taking out mortgages on Penn Station just to meet an impossible self-sufficiency deadline. Nations invest in passenger rail service because it increases the opportunities to travel and thus a Nation's quality of life. Rail service also reduces car congestion and pollution. And we saw last month that, during a national emergency, having a viable, operating national train system can be a strategic asset. Kenneth Mead, the Inspector General for the Department of Transportation, has said the drive for self-sufficiency has forced Amtrak to spend money on quick projects that improve the short-term bottom line while cutting back on maintenance and investments. Those who want Amtrak to operate without Federal assistance, ultimately forcing the railroad's passengers onto cars, buses and airplanes, always cry that we should not ``subsidize'' Amtrak. But we subsidize the building of roads and highways with tax dollars. We subsidize the building of airports and pay flight controllers with tax dollars. We consider those subsidies to be worthwhile investments in our economy and our quality of life. We must make the same investment that other countries make it passenger rail service. While that argument should stand on its own, here's something the highway and airplane crowd can take to the bank: moving more short-haul travelers to rail service reduces congestion on our already overcrowded highways and eases congestion at airports, allowing airlines to focus on more-profitable, long-distance routes. Investing in passenger rail improves conditions for highway and airport users at a fraction of the cost per mile traveled. According to some experts, Amtrak has reduced air traffic congestion out of Philadelphia's airport by 50 flights a day. Rail service between New York and Washington carries enough passengers to fill 121 airline flights per day. Now, with reduced flights out of East Coast airports, it makes more sense to look at Amtrak not only as a transportation alternative, but as a transportation mainstay for regional corridors all over the U.S. Amtrak has been severely under-capitalized since its inception in 1971. We would not be talking about many of these problems with Amtrak if it had been given the proper seed money for capital and annual funding from the very beginning. And that leads me to the second part of this bill, in which we look to passenger rail's long-term future. The passenger railroad system that has worked on the Northeast Coast can work in other high- congestion areas of the country: the South, the Midwest, California and the Northwest. Thirty years ago, those areas did not have the population to support high-speed intercity rail. But today those areas are growing by leaps and bounds. As the highways in those areas clog up and the planes run three hours late, their governors, many of them Republicans, are asking us for help to build high speed rail. RAIL-21 authorizes $35 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees for passenger rail, freight rail, and rail security enhancements. The criteria for these loans will replace language contained three years ago in TEA-21. TEA-21 directed the Department of Transportation to establish a program to replace the old Title V loan guarantee program which was used to build, rehabilitate or upgrade primarily short line railroads. On September 5, 2000, the DOT issued a final rule on the Railroad Rehabilitation and improvement Financing Program (RRIF) to provide direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments, government sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads, and joint ventures that include at least one railroad. Eligible projects for RRIF include: 1. acquisition, improvement or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment of facilities (including tracks, components of tracks, bridges, yards, buildings, and shops), 2. the refinancing of outstanding debt incurred for these purposes; 3. development or establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities, 4. and security purposes. RAIL-21 eliminates much of the bureaucratic red tape that has delayed any TEA-21 loans or loan guarantees from being issued. Under RAIL-21, Class 1 railroads, regional railroads, short lines, and passenger projects would be eligible for loans and loan guarantees. The bill would set aside $7 billion of the loans and loan guarantees for short lines. RAIL-21 also establishes a $350 million grant program for rehabilitating, preserving or improving railroad tracks for regional and short line railroads. Short line railroads have saved tens of thousands of miles of light density rail line from abandonment. In 1980, there were 220 short line railroads in the U.S. Today there are over 500 short line railroads, due in part to the mergers and streamlining of Class I operations which encouraged the larger companies to sell off their little-used or abandoned branch lines. Short line and regional railroads are an important and growing component of the railroad industry. Today they operate and maintain 29 percent of the American railroad industry's route mileage and account for 9 percent of the rail industry's freight revenue and 11 percent of railroad employment. These line railroads employ approximately 25,000 workers, serve thousands of local and rural shippers, and are often the only connection these shippers have to the national rail network. To survive, this infrastructure needs to be upgraded in order to move the heavier cars that are currently being moved by the Class I railroads. The revenues of the smaller railroads are not sufficient to get the job done. Since 1982, the short lines and regional railroads have maintained the track in rural areas where rail service would have been abandoned by the Class I railroads. Because of their relatively low traffic levels, the Class I railroads could not afford to invest in this infrastructure and, as a result, allowed these lines to slowly deteriorate. With a lower cost structure and more flexible service, short line companies that bought the track have been able to keep them going. However, the revenue is still not high enough to make up for past years of neglect. Today, two factors have combined to bring this situation to a head. First, the advent of the heavier 286,000-pound cars that are becoming the standard of the Class I industry require substantially higher investment in the track. Second, as the Class I industry puts a greater premium on speed and precisely scheduled operations, the short line railroads must meet these higher standards or be cut off from the national system. This legislation does not create a long-term program to fix this problem, but instead it creates a one-time fix for this problem. While these small railroads have enough traffic to operate profitably on an ongoing basis, they do not earn enough to make the large capital investment required by the advent of the 286,000-pound cars or the need to significantly increase speed. This legislation would authorize a program that could provide grants to the nation's smaller railroads to help them make the improvements needed to stay in business and continue to serve small shippers. RAIL-21 also would authorize $50 million in matching grants annually during FY02 through FY04: $25 million would be available for security and technology research and development; $25 million would be available for corridor planning and acquisition of rolling stock, with preference given to designated corridors. RAIL-21 identifies existing high-speed corridors for priority consideration. Many of these corridors are in the South, Midwest and California where people are now driving cars or taking airplanes on trips of 200 miles or less. In these areas, like the East Coast, travelers could take a high-speed train instead, and arrive about the same time. But right now they don't have that option. Therefore, we have a problem here: They can't use it if we don't build it. We built high speed rail on the East Coast, and the people have used it. If we build rail corridors around Chicago and the Midwestern cities, they will use it. If we build rail lines in the South from Washington, D.C. through the Carolinas to Atlanta and Florida, they will ride it. If we build a corridor in California from San Diego to Sacramento, they will ride it. This bill does not only support Amtrak. It is intended for commuter rail, freight railroads, and short line operators. That's what many Senators, governors and constituents have asked for. In the long term, travel in the United States will outpace the ability of airports and highways to handle the volume. With the tighter security checks at the airports, it will be faster to make trips of 200-300 miles by train than by air. More train travel will reduce congestion at our most crowded airports and our most gridlocked Interstate highways. I am pleased my colleagues have joined with me to introduce this bill, which we hope to move quickly. Modernizing Amtrak now will create jobs in the short run to stimulate our economy. And by modernizing our transportation infrastructure, high-speed rail corridors will play a key role in our long-term prosperity. I would ask that the text of my bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if there are no further amendments, we are ready for third reading.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. We agree with the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I have an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, which I send to the desk.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold suggesting the absence of a quorum?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that I continue with an additional hour from any other Senator, that I proceed for another few minutes.