Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I again say to Senator Lautenberg, I have enjoyed working with him on transportation issues--from aviation to highways to highway safety and certainly the rail area and most particularly with regard to Amtrak and the national rail passenger system. Earlier today, I referred to a ``Parade'' article that will be printed on November 4, 2007. This is a great article. I am going to be quoting some very interesting items that are included in this article because they are so applicable to our debate: Americans spent about 3.7 billion hours stuck in traffic last year, burning gasoline whose price had soared by 60 percent. And probably going up. At the airports, security lines snake endlessly, runways are choked, and delays are common. One recent study found that between January and August 2007, one in four flights arrived late; 159 flights were kept on the tarmac for more than 3 hours in August. I heard a story one time about a friend of mine, a Congressman from Missouri, who went to the airport and wanted to check three bags. He told the attendant: I would like this bag to go to St. Louis, this bag to Kansas City, and this bag to Chicago. They said: You can't do that. Why would you want to do that anyway? He said: Well, that is what happened to my luggage last week. There are certain indignities that go along with this. I don't want to attack airlines. We need to do more in aviation. We need a modern aviation control system. We should be critical when they do things that are indefensible, such as keeping people trapped on a plane on the tarmac. We need to be thinking about our transportation system in the air in the next generation, how are we going to make it safe, how are we going to deal with congestion. Let's not stand here and complain; let's act on it. That is why I am supporting an FAA reauthorization bill that includes funds for modernization. Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia and I have worked together on that legislation. He has been courageous, staking a tough stand. Everybody wants modernization; nobody wants to pay for it. We have had some serious recommendations, and I am still hopeful that we can resurrect that bill. That is another reason why we need this particular legislation. ``Trains use one-fifth less energy than cars or planes.'' I know this is something the Presiding Officer from Vermont cares a lot about. This makes environmental and conservation sense. They are business efficient, tourist friendly, and that goes not only for the Senator from New Jersey who came down this very morning, but the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, who said he was in New York City and came down on the train. It cost less, it was very pleasant, and it didn't take as much time. Why shouldn't we try to do more of that? By the way, it is not just about the eastern seaboard. We want a national passenger rail system. But one of the keys, as I mentioned earlier, is intercity connections. We are not talking about just going north, but talking about an intercity connection between DC and Charlotte, NC. We are talking about Portland and Seattle, Chicago and Detroit. We are talking Miami and Jacksonville. And we provide additional assistance in this bill through the State Capital Grant Program for intercity passenger rail projects. The grant program makes grants to States or groups of States to pay for the capital cost of facilities and equipment necessary to provide new and improved intercity passenger rail. The Federal match is 80 percent. Projects are selected by the Secretary of Transportation based on economic feasibility, expected ridership, and other factors. By the way, that is the same arrangement we have with highways. People say: Oh, my goodness, subsidy of a rail passenger system? Well, yes. We have a subsidy for airlines, and we have a subsidy for highways. I wish we didn't have to have a subsidy. I do hope we do a better job of running Amtrak. I think some progress has been made. I still say former Chairman of Amtrak, David Gunn is a good man and did a lot of tough things and would have done more if he had been able to stay on. I wish him well. By the way, how much money are we subsidizing Amtrak? Last year, the funding was $1.3 billion, the same as it was 25 years ago. We haven't even accounted for a piece of the inflationary impact. I want modernization. I don't want the Acela, this nice train running from Washington, DC, to New York and Philadelphia and then have me have to ride some raggedy train from Meridian, MS, that bumps and grinds and drags along and eventually comes to Washington. I want to have something like the Acela, also. We are going to have to have capital improvements. We will have to modernize. We can't tell the people we want you to consider the alternative of rail passenger if it is not on time, if the food has been pulled off the trains, and the equipment is pathetic. It is probably going to be an overnight trip. You have to have some modicum of comfort to take advantage of this alternative. I have a feeling--and it is not a good one--that we are going to have gridlock and congestion, maybe even safety threats. We are going to have to have a national passenger rail system. I would rather ride on a sleeper or a nice passenger car than in a cargo-type boxcar. That is the way a lot of people have traveled in years gone by, boxcars. We are trying to do something responsible to make a difference for the American people and deal with our transportation needs in this country. I do want more transparency. I do want them to cut out the waste. If food costs are being driven by 52 percent labor cost, change it. Raise the cost, do whatever is necessary. But I am tired of people complaining about it and nobody doing anything about it. I urge the Amtrak board: Get engaged. On transportation, I have urged this administration and the previous administration: Lead us, push the edge. Yet we have had to drag administrations into this area, which is one of the few areas, in my opinion, philosophically, the Federal Government has a role--interstate transportation. You can't do it alone if you are a poorer State, such as Vermont, Montana or Mississippi. It has to be between States, it has to be supported by the Federal Government. It creates jobs. When we build a highway, when we extend a runway, when we improve a terminal and make it safer, make it where the transportation safety administration can do its job, when we lay more railroad track, when we put more trains on that trackage, when we provide good service, jobs are created. I have absolutely been convinced, in the last 10 years of my career, that transportation is key to future of the country. Infrastructure, yes, industrial sites, water, all that. But lanes, planes, trains, ports, and harbors, if people can't get there, whether it is an individual, a corporate executive or international, multinational company, they are not going to come. If they have to get there on a dirt road--no. They are not going to come. If they can't get decent commercial service, they are not going to come. This is just a part of the package. It is the kind of thing we can do in a bipartisan way. One of my big problems this whole year is we have looked for ways or issues that we fight over. ``We are defining our base.'' ``We are defining our party.'' Baloney. I didn't come here just to define a party. I think we ought to be trying to find a way to do some things for the American people. It doesn't have to be the grand design of tax policy or budget policy. No, it can be national rail passenger system. It can be something smaller that we can work together on that produces a real result. Let's quit looking for ways that we can fight. There will be plenty of time for that. Let's look for things we can do together that have broad support. I will be involved when that time comes. I am in and out of here-- around here all the time, on a bipartisan basis, because I just can't stand the idea of just being here and producing nothing. I have been told, in a way, I have some sort of congenital defect; and that is a desire to get things done. I hope that is what the moniker on my tombstone will say: He died trying to get something done, something that people care about in this country. I am getting a little carried away. I am sounding like a preacher. I apologize. But I am passionate about this. I feel a little offended. Some people are sitting here saying this guy is from Mississippi, what does he care? I care because it is right for our whole country, not just for my State. I don't have a vested interest, thank goodness. Yes, we will have a little Amtrak service, not a whole lot, but we will have a couple of lines that come blowing through my State. We will be glad to have them. We hope they will stop a couple of times and pick us up and take us to New Orleans or take us to Atlanta or take us to Chicago. But Europe and Japan and other countries have done this. I don't like to emulate those countries in a lot of instances, but if they can do it, you are telling me we can't do it? It is just a matter of us making up our minds that we are going to do this, and I hope we have made up our minds this time and we are going to do something that will really help the national passenger rail system. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I may do that, and address some comments to the distinguished majority leader, and maybe even some questions, first of all, I think we have made good progress on the Amtrak bill. The leader was considerate of allowing it to go over until today, and our colleagues have fulfilled their commitments to be reasonable with their amendments, and we believe we are ready to go to Senator DeMint's amendment and get a vote on it at a certain time. I believe we could be very close to going to passage also. With regard to vitiating the cloture motion on the Children's Health Insurance Program, I can't see any reason why we would object to that, but we ought to continue to try to find a solution. Unfortunately, there has been no real consultation with the leadership on this side of the aisle by those who have been having all of these meetings, and we still have not involved the administration in trying to get a solution that we believe we could all get broad agreement on and avoid going back and forth on bills and vetoes. But to take more time--we still hope you will come up with something that will be supported broadly and signed by the President. But the idea that we would then agree for this to go automatically to the farm bill, we would have to have--

Mr. LOTT. But SCHIP would come back automatically after the farm bill.

Mr. LOTT. After a discussion with our leadership, at this time we would have to object. We don't object to vitiating the cloture vote on the CHIP bill, but we want to make sure we understand we are not agreeing to automatically going to the CHIP bill after the farm bill. So based on that, I would object at this time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with regard to Senator Reid's comments, I don't see any problem with vitiating cloture on the so-called CHIP bill, H.R. 3963. If the leader would like to do that, I assume after consultation with Leader McConnell there wouldn't be any problem getting it done. The problem is, say that after the farm bill you would automatically go to the CHIP bill which would preclude debate time on the motion to proceed, if necessary. To put that after the farm bill without full rights of the minority would be a concern. First of all, we don't know when that might come. It could come 2 weeks from now, right up against a date when we are supposed to be going out for the Thanksgiving period and we don't want to short-circuit that. But if we could work out something where our rights would be protected with regard to the CHIP bill instead of just going automatically to it after the farm bill, it looks as if that is something that could be worked out.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say again to the Senator from South Carolina who just left the Chamber, I appreciate the way he has approached this. He did not come in and condemn it; he looked at it. He had some ideas, and several of them have been accepted. I think he wound up getting five of his ideas that have been accepted. So he has been a constructive force. I have found a lot of Members assume we are trying to provide money to Amtrak without any reforms. When they look at it, I think they are surprised at the number of requirements and plans and reform that we do include in this legislation. But I would be opposed to this amendment. You would have to print on each individual ticket the specific amount of the Government subsidy per passenger for that route. Now, think about it. You know on its face that would take a lot of effort. It is changing. It would cost, I have heard, probably as much as $3 million. I do not want to vouch for that, but there would be some cost. But it is already available. You can get this information through the public Web site. That is available, about what the cost of the subsidy is on these tickets. So it would provide something that is already available. You would have to pay for it. We have a number of other reporting and disclosure requirements included in this bill. I think it is redundant to what we have in the bill. We are focused on trying to reduce subsidies. The point should not be how much is it now per ticket; the point should be: How much is it aggregate and what are we going to do about it? We have got specific markers in this legislation, the metrics and standards that will be required to get us to a reduced amount of subsidy. But, again, as I have said earlier, it is a chicken-and-egg thing. You can do it in a responsible and reasonable way and get a result or you can force things that cost money and do not achieve anything. Also, we are not going to reduce the subsidies until we improve the service, improve the capital stock, and do a better job. That is what I believe this legislation will do. So I urge the amendment be defeated. I again thank the Senator from South Carolina for being willing to work with us on a number of amendments he had that actually did add improvements to the bill. With that, I yield the floor. I do not know if there is any time remaining.

Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly? I have another commitment off the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the Senator's kind remarks. It was a pleasure working with him on this legislation. It has been a long time coming. I appreciate the active involvement he has had, along with other Senators on both sides of the aisle, including Senator Carper of Delaware. There is a long history of trying to get this passed freestanding through the Senate. We have to give credit to our leadership and to Senator Reid in particular. He had to make this happen. We tried last year repeatedly to get it freestanding or to get a window to offer it. We never could get it agreed to at that time. Senator Reid carved out a pretty big block of time for a Transportation bill. He didn't have to do that. He deserves credit for that. I also thank my staff, including Anne Marie Turner, who is here with me; Chris Bertram, who has been working with me for years; and Beth Spivey. Our staffs work together great. I am pleased with the Republicans who voted for it and probably all of the Democrats voted for it. I hope the House will act on this expeditiously. This could be a big step in the right direction. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation. I hope we can do more of this sort of thing in the future. I thank the Senator for letting me interrupt his remarks.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have a unanimous consent request we will propound in a few moments to get a time certain for a vote on this amendment. But we want to make sure everybody is OK with that before we do it. I say to Senator Lautenberg, do you want to go ahead and propound that? We understand everybody has cleared that now.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking Senator Coburn for getting involved in the process. He made some requests last week in terms of needing more time to actually look at this legislation and think about amendments that should be offered. Senator Reid agreed to that. Senator DeMint and Senator Coburn have both kept their commitments. Senator DeMint offered a number of amendments. We have cleared, I think, four of them, and we are working on some others. Senator Coburn came up with two very serious amendments he is interested in and has indicated he would agree to a limited time for debate and have a vote. So I want to acknowledge that, first of all. I too am concerned about some of the costs we have had at Amtrak. In fact, the last time we passed Amtrak reform, I included a provision in that legislation to allow food to be contracted out. Up until that point, it could not even be contracted out. It was all done in-house with Amtrak, and there was no good reason why that should have been limited that way. They still have not gotten the costs where they should be. But the opportunity is there for them to do that. I want them to continue to work to get better prices and cut the subsidies, cut the costs, and also while providing good food. But I do think food--whether you are on an airplane or a train--is an important part of the service. I am not going to take an Amtrak passenger train from some remote area that is going to be on the rail for a day or maybe even overnight and not have any food service. If you wipe out food service, you might as well terminate the route. But I think this is an amendment that deserves discussion and consideration. This amendment, as I understand it, would require Amtrak to regularly report to Congress on the profits or losses relating to the provision of food and beverage service. We ought to have that. We ought to have all kinds of reports. It ought to be transparent. We ought to know where the costs are, where the profits are. We should increase the profits and cut the costs. But to say you should limit such service on Amtrak lines that incur losses, what you are saying is you would have to terminate the lines because if you do not have food service, what are you going to do? Have a brown bag? Bring a lunch? Raise the price? I am for that. I think you ought to pay the costs for doing this. But if we say: ``OK, if you cannot get this under control, we are going to terminate the line,'' what if the line is actually doing pretty good, but the food service is still costing too much? We should keep the pressure on, but I do not think we can, in good conscience, deny passengers food and beverage service on these long-distance rails. Amtrak ought to lead more. They ought to address this question of food costs and get those costs down. I must say, we have not had particularly good success in the Senate either. We have had trouble controlling our food costs. But we have heard the stories about airline passengers stranded on planes with no food, and they could not get off the planes, and the kind of consternation that has caused. Unlike air travelers who may deboard and maybe purchase food during layovers, rail passengers do not have time during stops to get off and come back on. Even if they could, most Amtrak stations do not have snack bars. There is the question of what, in reality, your options are. Even in corridor service, we know providing food and beverage is essential. The improved food service, for instance, on the Acela contributed to a 20-percent increase in revenues during 2007. Of course, that is the gold standard. If all of Amtrak service was like the Acela, serving the numbers of people with the quality of service they have, and all that, then we would be a lot better off. But the Department of Transportation inspector general found that Amtrak has reduced its food and beverage labor costs by $12 million over the past 3 fiscal years. I think pressure from the last Amtrak bill has been leading to this. They understand they have to do a better job. We believe that number can drop even further. S. 294 will reduce subsidies by 40 percent over the life of the bill. This includes section 210, which requires Amtrak to reevaluate onboard amenities and service, including food for these long-distance rail routes. We want reform. We are pressing on this issue, and it is in the bill. In fact, I think some people, when they actually read this bill, have been surprised there are reforms in there, there are improvements that are going to be demanded. People might say we need even more. That is a legitimate argument. But that has been our goal. We want Amtrak to provide better service. We want Amtrak to be able to not lose money, to actually make money. But we want to have the national rail passenger system. With this amendment, if a particular rail line suffers a loss on a food service, then they would be required to renegotiate the contract relating to food and beverage, including labor contracts. You might say: Well, even that may not be bad. But if a particular rail line suffers a loss in two consecutive years, they would be required to terminate food service on that line. Therein lies the problem. Amtrak would be permitted to reinstate food and beverage service on a discounted line only after a 1-year moratorium and the Secretary certifies a profit for food and beverage service would be generated on such rail line for each of the following 5 fiscal years. I do agree this is a problem that should be able to be addressed. They just ought to do it. There is a simple solution: You change the service. You raise your costs. You get a different contractor. There are a lot of options. We should continue to press this point, but I don't think we ought to make it such that we wind up having to terminate service if we can't get the food situation straightened out. I don't think it is necessary given the other reforms that we have included in this bill. It goes too far, but I understand the intent. I want this service--I want improvement. I want the cost to come down. But I want a national rail passenger service. I have learned from past experience, don't mess with people's stomachs or you will get in real trouble. In that connection I will not read the entire piece, but I refer to an article from Parade magazine that will be printed on November 4, 2007. Some of what it says is that with plane delays and high gas prices, Americans are asking: Can we save our trains? It goes into some detail about all of the delays and inconveniences and problems now--the congestion on our highways, the delays, the discomforts on airlines-- and people are asking: Is there another alternative? That alternative should be a national rail passenger system. But, surely, the Government and Amtrak, we could all do a better job of making it a good experience and living within their means. They have not done that. This bill, hopefully, in its present form, or with additional amendments that can be added, will pressure Amtrak to provide this service because I think we are going to need it for the future transportation needs of our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, regarding the Amtrak legislation, work was done on Friday and it is being worked on now by our staffs. We had additional amendments that were filed this afternoon and we are going through them. In the meantime, we have cleared on both sides some nine amendments in a variety of areas. Our staffs have worked together, and we have reviewed these amendments. They look constructive to me. They are from both sides of the aisle--from Senators Crapo, Tester, Allard, Bond, DeMint, Sanders, Coburn, and Hutchison. So we will, in a few moments, offer these amendments en bloc for acceptance. I see that Senator Domenici has left the floor. I appreciate his remarks on the energy legislation. As on so many issues, he has been one of our most thoughtful and committed leaders on a variety of subjects. I used to call him our ``No. 1 utility player.'' Wherever you had a complicated substantive issue, if you needed someone to come and talk about it sensibly, whether it was budget issues, energy issues, appropriations, energy plants, nuclear issues, he has been such a great Member for many years. The Senate will truly miss him upon his retirement. Once again, I thought his remarks a few moments ago were extremely thoughtful and pointed out some of what we need to be doing in the energy policy of this country, and the many problems with trying to get to conference. The biggest problem in getting to conference is that the two bills are almost irreconcilable. In our bill, we had some very strong requirements with regard to fuel efficiency standards. We knocked out the energy taxes, we refused to put in a high percentage of renewables mandates, and we came out with a bill that had in it something worth having, but we still had some problems. The House had nothing on CAFE standards, the fuel efficiency standards. They went the other direction on renewables, and they went the other direction on taxes. We have a real mess on our hands. We need a national energy policy, but we need one that, hopefully, will create more energy for our country and not more dependence on foreign oil. We will continue to see if we can find ways to work together across the aisle and across the Capitol to see what can be done. We need to do something, but I fear we have created such a hodgepodge, we may not be able to reach agreement on how to proceed. Amendments Nos. 3475, 3483, 3488, 3485, 3484, 3477, 3476, 3473, 3472, En Bloc

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a package of amendments that have been cleared on both sides. On behalf of Senator Lautenberg and myself and the leadership on both sides, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc: Coburn amendment No. 3475, DeMint amendment No. 3483, Hutchison amendment No. 3488, Bond amendment No. 3485, DeMint amendment No. 3484, Crapo amendment No. 3477, Allard amendment No. 3476, Sanders amendment No. 3473, and Tester amendment No. 3472.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following pending amendments be withdrawn: amendments Nos. 3455 and 3464.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is yielding me 2 minutes out of the time of the proponents of the amendment? I don't want to mislead anybody here.

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, I thank the Senator for his comments about our efforts on the Amtrak legislation. This is the Amtrak legislation, and I do not think it is the place to have this debate he is proposing. He acknowledges such. In view of that, I would object.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, first, if I could clarify the agreement that was just enumerated here, at 3:15 then we will move to a vote on the pending Sununu amendment, and prior to that, it will give us a chance on both sides of the issue to make some brief remarks, and Senator Sununu will be back momentarily to make some comments and an explanation of his amendment. The amendment would modify the bill's competition pilot program to allow an unlimited number of existing Amtrak routes to be open to competition from freight rails that seek to operate passenger trains in exchange for Amtrak's current subsidy. We have worked on this issue before. Senator Sununu had this amendment the last time this bill came up. We worked out a compromise that is in the bill which is to have a pilot program. Philosophically, I am attracted to this amendment. I do think we ought to have competition. I think it makes sense maybe for the freight lines to provide this passenger service. But this is a major change in what is currently done. So rather than just leaping into this in an uncertain and an unknown way in terms of its impact, results, what would happen to Amtrak, how it would impact the service, the alternative is to go with what we worked out a couple years ago, and that is a competitive pilot program that would allow two routes a year--not two total; it is two a year--to get into this competitive pilot program area, see how it works, find out the details, assess the good and the bad and the costly which could come out of it. That is the preferred way to go. We do say we will have this for the life of the bill, which is a number of years, so it could be up to 10 or 12 routes that may be involved eventually. This is a new concept, and we believe what we have outlined in the provisions of S. 294 will prescribe it in such a way that it won't cause problems and we can see if it works. It may work. I emphasize, this is something I may want to move toward in the future. But I want us to have a national rail passenger system, No. 1. I want us to quit starving Amtrak and then blasting them because they don't do better even though we know they don't have the money to do the job. I want us to give them clear instructions for reform and to evaluate routes and have better governance. We have put this in the bill. This will be a major plus for Amtrak, to give them more authority. Some of these routes could be shut down. We had the earlier Sununu amendment that we think could have led to a pretty precipitous shutting down of six or eight of these long-distance routes in other parts of the country. That would have been a mistake. But I do think that, more than likely, over a period of 2 or 3 years, you can't defend an individual subsidy per passenger of $500 or $600. More and more, as we make this a more attractive entity, deal with the capital needs, improve the trackage that is available for them to use, get better governance, then it will be more attractive for competition to come into play. Maybe States will have more operations, as well as the freight lines. I understand the goal of Senator Sununu. I appreciate the fact that he is not one who has just been critical. He is engaged. He is thinking about it. He has some ideas. But I urge defeat of this amendment. Let's see how the pilot program works and then, in 4 or 5 years, evaluate what we have seen and perhaps do something more. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield back my time.