Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, to be sure the Record reflects our understanding, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 11:45 a.m. be for debate with respect to the Coburn amendment No. 3474, the time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form, no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that upon disposition of the amendment, the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 294.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would the Senator yield for a quick question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Knowing the situation that we run into with the airlines where the people are stuck for hours at a time, is it a good idea to eliminate--as the Senator suggested, we are happy that we eliminated pretzels on the airlines. Is that a good idea?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for one more question.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator if he was aware that we differ on the amount of subsidy that goes into rail service food costs. It is only $80 million as we see it. How would a rejection of all loss for food eliminate all subsidies, when, in fact, we subsidize the airlines that are for-profit businesses? Why should we then continue to offer them----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I must say how satisfying it is that the Senate has done what America has asked us to do. I can't tell you how involved personally I have been in this for many years. Since my relatively early days in the Senate, going back decades, I have been interested in what we could do to make Amtrak an integral part of the transportation system, to make Amtrak easier and more reliable for the American people. They asked us to do this, to give them relief. I wish to say to Senator Lott how much I have appreciated working with him--not only now, but we have done so for a number of years. We have the satisfaction of seeing this bill pass and we hope on its way to becoming law. With 70 votes, this is a clear message about what the representatives of the American people are saying. I thank Senator Lott. It has been a pleasure working with him. As I am sure he agrees, I look forward to having more opportunities to do things in a bipartisan nature to help the American people. They asked us for relief and we are giving it to them--relief from traffic congestion, relief from lines at the airports, and relief from planes lined up on the tarmac. Today, the Senate has said to American travelers: You will have another choice, and the choice is passenger rail. I am pleased to note the wide margin by which the Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act of 2007 has been approved in the Senate. The bill is going to speed passenger rail service in the United States into the 21st century. There are many people I wish to thank in addition to my friend and colleague from Mississippi, the minority whip, Senator Lott, who has had a long-standing commitment to passenger rail service. I also wish to thank Senator Inouye, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for giving me the privilege of pursuing and managing this legislation. His confidence has always been appreciated by me. I thank the majority leader, Harry Reid, for his leadership and decisiveness to work to bring our bill to the floor, and I thank his staff for their support. In particular, the floor staff, including Lula Davis, Marty Paone, Tim Mitchell, and Trisha Engle. On the Republican side, everybody was cooperative. I thank David Schiappa, Laura Dove, and Jodie Hernandez. I also thank all of our cosponsors of the bill. I particularly wish to focus on Senator Carper's help and his hard work and constant support for Amtrak, along with all of our cosponsors' dedication and commitment to improving travel in America. I thank Alex Kummant, the CEO of Amtrak, and his government affairs staff, including Joe McHugh and Caroline Decker. I thank my staff, of which I am very proud. They are always there, no matter what the hours or the intensity of the work are. They are there with their support, their knowledge and research and their constant concern for making sure we do things right. My staff includes David Matsuda, Dan Katz, Doug Mehan, and Meg Slachetka.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Not at all. I, too, thank Anne Marie Turner of Senator Lott's staff. She was always there, and I could tell by the expression on her face at a given moment whether we were on the right or wrong track in talking about Amtrak. I also thank Chris Bertram and Beth Spivey of his staff as well. I thank the staff from the Senate Commerce Committee, including Stephen Gardner, who is always so helpful and has extensive knowledge about transportation. Chairman Inouye was so gracious in making sure we were supported with the assistance of Mr. Gardner. Also, I thank Melissa Porter, who is on loan as a detailee from the Federal Railroad Administration; Shira Bergstein, from Senator Inouye's majority staff; Betsy McDonnell and Dan Neuman, from Senator Gordon Smith's and Senator Stevens's Committee minority staff. Getting legislation passed by this body takes a lot of work, and these folks are to be commended. Everyone knows our highways are jammed. We don't have to tell them that from here. All they have to think about is what time they get out of work and what time they get home and what time do they have to leave in the morning to get to work on time. In New Jersey, the most densely populated State in the country, we spend 300 hours commuting by car every year. Fifteen percent of that time is wasted sitting in traffic, creating pollution, creating anxiety, anger, frustration, and bigger bills as gas prices go up at the same time. With more than 220 million vehicles on the road and the population projected to pass the 400 million mark before 2050, congestion will remain a major challenge if cars and trucks remain the dominant mode of travel. I mentioned earlier in this debate that our population in 1971, when Amtrak was developed as a government corporation, was 200 million. Now, barely 36 years later, we are 300 million. We haven't made much progress in upgrading our rail systems even after our country has grown by 100 million people. And now we are feeling the effects. Our skies are becoming jammed as more planes take to the air. Last year was the worst year for flight delays since 2000. One in four planes were late. For travelers who fly, for instance, between Washington and the New York/New Jersey area, a 36-minute flight often becomes 2 or more hours because of delays getting off the ground and, once there, getting off the plane. I once flew up to LaGuardia Airport, and we waited an hour to get to the gate. The airlines have admitted this and have revised their schedules to reflect that now this 36-minute flight should be expected to take 2 hours: 36 minutes in the air, and the rest of the time admiring the landscape, which is pretty dismal when you see all these planes lined up on the tarmac like cars in traffic. Between lines of cars on the highways and long lines at the airports, America's travelers need and deserve another choice. The answer is a world-class passenger rail system. Riding a train saves people money. The national average cost per gallon of gasoline is over $2.80 a gallon. I have even heard estimates that we will see oil at $200 a barrel before too long. When you look at all the benefits to travelers, we see that riding a train can save time, money, and congestion in other modes of transportation. For instance, rail service often delivers passengers directly to where they need to go, as train stations are more frequently located in city centers. I can tell my colleagues from personal experience, since I road the train as recently as this morning, that riding the train was a pleasurable experience. It gave me a chance to read, to communicate, and even nod off for a couple of minutes. It was really a nice way to travel. Passengers can work on laptops, talk on the phone, walk around on the train, and generally be productive. Riding the train also helps secure our country's future by improving the environment. Amtrak trains are on average 17 percent more fuel efficient than passenger airlines, and 21 percent more fuel efficient than passenger cars, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Furthermore, trains produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than cars, trucks, and planes, and per mile locomotives emit about 50 percent less carbon dioxide than airplanes and still less than automobiles. Trains also save lives. If there was ever a moment that demonstrated how much America needed a passenger rail system, it was in the wake of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. On 9/11, when our airports were shut down, Amtrak was able to get travelers back to their families. On 9/11, airports were shut down. Amtrak was able to get travelers back to their families. During Hurricane Katrina, trains could have helped evacuate persons from those affected cities if our Government was better prepared to employ them. Trains sat idly by waiting for passengers to come aboard to be taken away from the center of the hurricane, but they could not get to the train. The Government wasn't there to lend a hand. There is great enthusiasm for passenger rail service in America. Amtrak's record ridership of 26 million passengers last year can attest to that fact. The potential of new railcars in our country is enormous. Efficient rail service between Chicago and other Midwest cities, such as St. Louis, Detroit, and Cleveland would revolutionize the way people travel in an entire vital region of our country. Likewise, a proposed passenger rail line serving Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Washington, and points in between would allow people options besides braving Interstate 95 traffic. If we foster passenger rail service that is viable, reliable, and comfortable, many will choose rail as an alternative, and Amtrak's record ridership has proven that fact. Today's action by the Senate is a victory for anyone who is tired of sitting in traffic or waiting in an airport and for people who work so hard to make a living and often live far away from work, far away from their homes. I remember a conversation I had with a man who worked in New York City who bought a house 50 miles away from his job. His thought, he said, for him and his family, in addition to seeing some green space, was that he would save money, he would be able to put his children in a house with some room. Now when I see the same man, he is distraught because of the cost for gasoline. The cost for the time lost in traffic outweighs the advantages he thought he would have. That is not an uncommon situation. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their support and look forward to completing this legislation in this Congress and getting it signed into law. I look forward to hearing from our colleague, Senator Carper from Delaware, who worked so hard and has for many years. He is a frequent user, as they say of Amtrak, that is. We appreciate his hard work and the opportunity we shared to work together to get this legislation considered and passed today in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be delayed until we finish this discussion.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to respond to Senator Bond's amendment, but I first ask the Senator from Missouri whether the delay he experienced this morning was due to congestion on the highways?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I just wanted to see whether there was any personal direct experience with congestion on the roads. I don't think there is a city or a town in this country, a highway that doesn't experience incredible pressure from its expanded use; will the Senator agree?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his suggestion that we expand rail service all across this country.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That was the interpretation. The Senator said there wasn't rail service available in lots of places. I take the positive side of that statement and say let's get on with our task of providing service. While I appreciate the Senator's perspective, I believe there is no need for this amendment. It covers some of the same debate we have already voted on as part of the discussion. This amendment establishes a new mission for Amtrak and sets a new standard by which Amtrak and operating subsidies for Amtrak services should be judged. While I can agree with the general principles of the mission statement, it largely covers issues already contained in existing Federal law related to Amtrak and is, therefore, redundant. We have seen Amtrak getting expanded use, but we have to look at what has happened in our society, what the conditions are that have put so much pressure on Amtrak. When we look at the growth in population alone, since Amtrak became a quasi-government corporation, the population of this country has expanded by 100 million people in barely over 35 years. It was never thought that our aviation system would be so strained because of inadequate infrastructure, and whatever the reasons, that it cannot be relied upon. One out of four flights is late, appointments are missed, crowding is standard, our highways are jammed. Maybe in some parts of the country we don't see the congestion we see in many of the metropolitan areas. But highways are notoriously slow-moving now because of expanded traffic. So Amtrak has been under the same pressure. And thank goodness we have Amtrak in existence. We have seen more rapid service from Amtrak and more riders--over 26 million passengers in the last year. So when we look at Amtrak's performance, we have to consider under what conditions it operates. I think it is fair to say that Amtrak was never financed at the level it should have been to be an up-to-date, modern railroad in this country. I have had the opportunity, as we know, to ride one of the French trains, TGV, in which a trip of just over 200 miles from Paris to Brussels, where our NATO headquarters exists, is 1 hour 20 minutes. If anything similar to that could ever be achieved with Amtrak, we would reduce the congestion in the sky substantially. It is so crowded in the air these days, separations are narrowed, and we are expecting over 5,000 new light jets into our system in the next 10 years. We have to look at the expectations Amtrak has had to live with over this period of time. Insufficient capital, that is where it all started, and it has continued to make it very difficult for Amtrak to produce the kind of service we want. I believe they ought to be responsible for maintaining the quality of service, for providing the data that is required on what progress has been lacking. Current law already requires Amtrak to minimize Government subsidies and provide high-quality rail service. I believe the real goal of this amendment is to reduce or eliminate Federal operating support for long-distance routes and other services where current infrastructure problems or ontime performance limits the service quality. Of course, as I said earlier, these problems resulting from insufficient capital expenditures and also hosting freight railroad delays are addressed by this bill. Most of the accountability Senator Bond desires is already in our bill through requirements of a 5-year plan, through the reduction of the operating subsidy by 40 percent. Our bill calls for changes that are significant as we attempt to put them in place. That is where we are going. While the Senator's amendment also requires the Secretary to eliminate funding for any route not meeting Amtrak's long-distance plan required under the bill, S. 294 already gives the Secretary this authority. But our bill preserves some flexibility for the Secretary to continue a long-distance route if Amtrak could not implement a plan or did not meet the goals of a plan for legitimate reasons or events beyond Amtrak's control. Heaven forbid if we have another serious hurricane or terrorist attack. The Secretary should have the ability to take these situations into consideration when judging whether Amtrak meets the requirements demanded under the law. I look forward to debating this amendment further. I certainly am open to discussion with the Senator from Missouri on his amendment. But as it is currently drafted, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand we are ready to go to morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, with cloture filed, we are hopeful we will be able to move with dispatch to the support and approval of S. 294, the Amtrak bill. I wish to start this morning by thanking our colleague and my cosponsor and longtime Amtrak supporter, Senator Trent Lott, for the opportunity to work together to move this bill along. His support is essential, and I know he is pleased with the progress we have made this morning up to this point. Today is our third day on the bill. Yesterday we made very good progress. We were able to work through a number of amendments, some of which we were able to agree to and some of which we disposed of with votes. Now, this morning, cloture has been filed, which should put us on a schedule to finish this bill early next week. It is very important that we do so for the future of America's transportation systems. Whether it is to reduce congestion on our roads or at our airports, or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that puts us at risk of global warming--our society and our world--or to give people another safe mode of transportation during an emergency, rail is critical. We cannot neglect the contribution it makes in the event of a calamity or disaster, whether it comes from a terrorist attack or from an erratic act of nature such as a storm or forest fires, and all of the things we see that call at times for evacuation. Our bill, by authorizing $2 billion a year for Amtrak in the States over the next 6 years, will make all of that much easier for America to deal with the problem of a decaying infrastructure. It provides funding for Amtrak's capital needs as well as State grants for passenger rail. While Amtrak had record ridership and revenues last year, our bill requires changes at Amtrak to make sure these funds will help the railroad to continue moving in the right direction. It would require Amtrak to reform its operations, to reduce its Federal operating subsidy by over 40 percent over the life of the bill. We worked very hard to forge this bipartisan compromise plan. Last Congress, our plan was approved by the Senate as an amendment to the budget bill by a vote of 93 to 6. I hope that early next week we will get a strong vote in support of our bill so we can be one step closer to making it law. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for asking this question at this moment because I have here existing law, which is continued in S. 294. Here, in existing law, it says the purpose of the management is: By using innovative operating and marketing concepts, Amtrak shall provide intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation that completely develops the potential of modern rail transportation to meet the intercity and commuter passenger transportation needs of the United States. The first goal is to: use its best business judgment in acting to minimize the U.S. Government subsidies, including-- And it lists a number of these things which I will submit for my colleague and friend to take a look at and see if these questions are not already dealt with. Yes, we have to be more diligent. There is no doubt we have to fill the board of Amtrak's open positions. We have not done that. We want to expand the board to a more significant body of opinion. We are doing all kinds of things. I have an affection for the State of Missouri, having been a soldier there many years ago and trying to dig foxholes in the Ozark Mountains. We know what steels the spine of those people who live in Missouri now. It is the depth and the quality of the rock upon which most of Missouri is built. That is why the railroad contributes so much, for instance, from Chicago to St. Louis, Kansas City to Kansas City. But in the final analysis, I think it is important to note a significant difference between business operations. I was fortunate enough to run a fairly large company; but business to business. However, it is clearly stated that Amtrak is a not-for-profit organization. When we look at what happens with good business operations and think of the subsidy that has been given to the airlines--it was as a result of a terrible calamity in American history, 9/11--but over $20 billion has been given to the airlines, for-profit businesses. They are doing very well right now, I might add, and still getting subsidies. I think, in fairness, we will have a chance to look at this further. We are pressed by several things, not the least of which is that there are others who would like to be included in the debate. I will be happy to loan the Senator from Missouri my copy of the existing law, if he would like to borrow it for a while.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In response, Mr. President, it would probably destroy the system. We can't escape the fact that the equipment is often moved around in different areas. We have to have this as a backup, as I said earlier, for security alone, but also, as we join the fight against pollution and greenhouse gases, the railroads are the best, most efficient use for transportation in those cases. So I think the wholeness of Amtrak's system is essential. We want to work together and make sure we include this as one of the targets for improving our transportation efficiency in the country. We are, unfortunately, way behind--whether it is in aviation or on the highways; and, certainly, Amtrak has not gotten its share of support. So we are looking forward to doing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, can I ask a moment of the Senator's time without him losing his right to the floor? I have a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are planning to hold the vote at 12:15. I want other Members who are interested to know that. I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Sununu amendment and the time until 12:15 be equally divided and all provisions under the previous order remain in effect. I assume Senator Sununu has agreed to this.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. May I take that at the end of the Senator's presentation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am touched by the generosity of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am concerned, Senator Lott wanted to say a couple of words.