Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do not want us to have only those speaking who are opposed to the amendment. I know the sponsor, Senator Sununu, is here and will probably want to speak momentarily in support of his amendment. Let me say, to his credit, unlike some of our colleagues, he has been involved in this issue for years. As a member of the Commerce Committee, and when we were trying to get it up for consideration last year, he did not just try to block it from coming to the floor, he had some amendments, and we agreed those amendments should be considered. That is the way to do this. One of the things I said last night, and I want to expand on a little bit, is this bill may not be perfect, that we can perhaps have more improvements. But here is a case where the people I hear from say this is not a good bill because it does not do enough--not that they are opposed to most of what is in it, or what is in it; they just want to do more. But then you say: ``All right, what do you want?'' and they go silent. So I think it is a major step in the right direction. If we can find more things that would improve the service, more reforms that would be helpful, I think we ought to consider that. Mr. President, I ask Senator Sununu, would you like to speak now? I would be glad to defer and let you explain more about your amendment, and then I would follow you, if you prefer, or I can go ahead.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in the interest of fairness, usually we go back and forth. We have had a couple people speaking against the amendment--Senator Hutchison a few moments ago. I say to the Senator, if you wish to speak now, I encourage you to do so, and then we will have speakers on the other side after that.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that is typical generosity of the Senator from New Hampshire. He is engaged, thinking about this issue and trying to do the right thing. I also think this is a classic chicken-and-egg deal. We tell Amtrak we want them to do better, but yet we don't offer any reforms, challenges, responsibilities to do better. We throw rocks and say: Why aren't you providing better service at cheaper rates? I think you need a plan to move toward actually what the Senator from New Hampshire is trying to achieve. The bill before us, S. 294, already requires Amtrak to reduce its total Federal operating subsidy by 40 percent over the life of the bill. The bill gives Amtrak management the flexibility to achieve this goal through cost savings, route changes, revenue growth, or expanded service rather than through mandated route cuts. Additionally, the bill requires improvement plans for each long- distance route that will focus on strategies to increase revenues, ridership, efficiencies, and service quality. These plans must be implemented and achieved in order for them to continue to get Federal routes. I think some of these routes are going to eventually need to be terminated, but if we do what this amendment would do, it would basically, cold turkey, start eliminating routes very soon, including, to be perfectly honest, the Crescent, which is the train that comes down through the heart of the South, through Meridian, MS, Hattiesburg, down to New Orleans. We need that service. Also, this would force cuts at a time when we need more rail service, not less. We have ever-increasing air and highway congestion and environmental concerns. The Federal Government provides operating subsidies in all these other areas, but we are saying we want to terminate these long-distance routes. If we want a national rail passenger system, we are going to have to keep some of these routes going at least until we make an effort to make them more cost efficient.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg is here, chairman of the subcommittee. He is working with Senator Murray on a couple amendments. We have a couple amendments by Senator DeMint that we have cleared. We are hoping we will have a chance to visit with Senator DeMint or some of his representatives momentarily and maybe clear some other amendments. I thank Senator DeMint for coming over. He actually came over with a block of nine amendments, and we are working through those. Some of them we can certainly accept. We will work through the rest. Senator Reid was very generous yesterday in agreeing that we wouldn't complete this bill until Senators had a chance to review it and come up with amendments, even as late as Tuesday morning, provided they were germane; otherwise, we could finish this bill this evening. We have another issue that has been interjected; that is, the Internet tax issue. I know Members on both sides and the leadership are working out when and how we would get to vote on that important issue because next Thursday, if we don't come up with something, the Internet moratorium on taxes will expire November 1. We have to deal with the issue. I call on my colleagues, if you have amendments of any kind on the Amtrak legislation, come over and offer them. We will work through them this afternoon. I don't know what the leadership is going to decide with regard to votes later on this evening or tomorrow, but there will not be any votes on Monday, as previously announced by the leadership. So we will have to either deal with these amendments that might come up this afternoon or tomorrow or Tuesday. After we dispose of the Internet tax, everybody needs to know that this bill can and should and will be finished before sundown Tuesday. That is what the leader, Senator Reid, wants. That is what Senator McConnell wishes to accommodate. It is my intent to work with Senator Lautenberg to drive this bill to conclusion. It is not controversial. What is in here is broadly supported. We had 93 votes last time. We may get more this time. Of the amendments that have been offered, the most an amendment has received was 27 votes. We are going to continue to look for ways to do even more that is positive for Amtrak. But we need to go ahead and be done with this next Tuesday. I yield the floor to hear any remarks the chairman has.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator DeMint, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendments Nos. 3460 and 3461.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared on both sides. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we do have two more amendments by Senator DeMint that I think have been cleared, but we are waiting to have a chance to discuss with Senator DeMint some of the other amendments. We are trying to get sort of an equal amount agreed to as we go forward. But we are trying to clear the deck of some of these amendments, and we are going to continue to work on that. Hopefully, we can dispose of another four or five amendments this afternoon even. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what is the order of business at this time?

Mr. LOTT. Until what time?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, while we are in this morning business period and in anticipation of going to the next legislation, I wish to make some opening comments about what happened here and make a plea to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but particularly my own side of the aisle, that we not object to going to consideration of Amtrak legislation. I have been working on this issue for several years now. I think it is an important issue. It is an important part of our transportation system in America. I believe that for the future development of our country, for the mobility of our country, for the creation of jobs, the maintaining of jobs, for safety, security, and access, we should pay attention to infrastructure in America, and lanes, planes, trains, ports, and harbors. This is critical to our future economic development and to our American lifestyle. I have been working for years to upgrade and improve the Federal Aviation Administration, the air traffic control system so we can have less congestion in the airways and fewer delays, and modernization. We are still working on that. We did get FAA reauthorization a few years ago. Now it is back up but, unfortunately, stalled right now. We did pass a highway bill a few years ago that had many good things in it. But here is my point: You can only build so many lanes until you can't build any more. You can only have so many planes in the sky until you can't have any more. So what is the other alternative? Trains. Now, I am not from a State that is hugely dependent on the rail passenger system. We get some of the benefits of it. But part of the problem is we don't have enough access, enough opportunities in that area, or we have delays and problems such as that. Why do we have delays? Because we haven't modernized the Amtrak system. Because we have not worked through the Transportation Department to put in some reforms, decide what is needed in terms of money, and how to get more capitalization. We haven't done the reforms. I was pleased to be involved the last time we did some Amtrak legislation. That was several years ago. I stood right in this very spot and told my friend John McCain from Arizona if it didn't work and if Amtrak didn't do a better job, I would eat it without salt. Well, I guess I should have probably eaten it without salt later on. It didn't do everything I hoped it would. But what is the alternative? Do we want a national rail passenger system or not? I think we do. I don't mean only on the Northeast corridor, although I love the Northeast corridor. I have been delighted to work with my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, on this legislation, because I want good Amtrak service between Washington and New York City. Frankly, I would rather ride the Acela to New York City than the shuttle, the airline shuttle. You go to the airport; you wait; you are delayed. You get on the train. You ride the Acela. You do your computer. You are not crowded. It is nice, clean. It works. You can get a little something to eat, and you arrive in New York City. I realize Acela is one of the best in the country, but we need to do more. In fact, putting money in it--and by the way, not enough--year after year we are starving it to death and then we are saying, Why didn't it do better? It is because we haven't given them more opportunities, we haven't had more requirements, we haven't had reforms. I tried for the past 2 years to get this legislation up. We had some objections. We had some Senators who wanted to offer amendments. My attitude is: Fine. If you have amendments, let's go with them. Administration: If you have some reforms, fine, let's do it. But we need to get this thing done. Now here we are, we have a different majority. Senator Lautenberg is the chairman of the committee. But basically, this is the bill he and I put together 3 years ago. It is time to do it. It is not perfect. It has some reforms in it. It has some requirements in it. By the way, more people are riding Amtrak, and they have more income. They are doing better. If we give them more incentives, if we get them to close some of the routes that are never going to be profitable, they are not going to work, it would be even better than that. I am not going to give my full opening speech now, even though I sound like it. I am saying to my colleagues, we should not object to the motion to proceed on every bill, and filibuster the motion to proceed. That is bad business. Do it judiciously? Yes. If you want to slow this place down time after time after time after time, yes, we can do that. But I stood here on the floor earlier today and last night and said: If the Senate will do the right thing on this judicial nomination, Leslie Southwick, that will be a step forward to show that this place can work together. We can be civil. We can be less partisan, and there will be some benefits. I am standing right here right now saying this is the next step. Let's not tangle this bill up because we are not ready, or because we may not like it. You don't like it? Vote against it. You want more? Bring your amendments. Let's get this done. I hope my colleagues will not try to block the motion to proceed. Senator Reid is going to ask unanimous consent that we go to the bill, and I hope and pray that if it is objected to, he is going to file cloture and he is going to make us eat it, because we ought to take this up and deal with it. If we want to kill it, shoot it down, but doing nothing is unacceptable. The Senate has become very proficient at doing nothing; not just this year, but last year and the year before. We paid a price, because we didn't get anything done in the previous 2 years. Are we going to do it again or can we do something for the American people? This is one way we can do it. So I make that plea and I hope we can get something worked out when we get on this bill. I will not be a party to try to ram it through so quickly people can't get their amendments ready.

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to my distinguished colleague and leader on this effort now, and to my friend from New Jersey, and I look forward to working with him on this legislation.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, I am sorry I went ahead and spoke first, because you are chairman of the committee and you have been providing real leadership in trying to get this legislation brought up. I did it because I wanted to make a plea to my colleagues on this side of the aisle to let this move forward. Let me emphasize that I have no indication there will be objection. They want to take a look at it. They want to make sure they will have a chance to offer amendments or substitutes. I have assured them we will work with them. I believe we are going to be able to clear the hurdles, but I wanted to make a public plea so we could get on this legislation and guarantee the Members that their amendments will be considered and, in fact, in the past, when we worked together, we have accepted amendments and fought some of them, and we had votes. It is a novel idea in the Senate, to have a debate and have a vote. But I want to say again I have enjoyed working with Senator Lautenberg. This is a lot bigger issue in New Jersey and along the eastern seaboard, I guess, but more and more it is important on the west coast, it is important to the Chicago area, it is important all over America. This is not about one region or the other region, or trying to accommodate business or labor; this is about American people. So I think my colleagues, hopefully, are going to realize that we ought to do something about Amtrak, and this is the way to get it done. I thank the Senator for his question.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, since I have worked with the Senator on this issue, some of my colleagues have taken to calling me Senator ``Lott-enberg.'' I know there is a bit of a regional difference. It is not quite as crowded in our neck of the woods, so you might come on down South and it would be a lot less crowded. However, I would like for them to be able to get there on Amtrak, to be able to catch that train in Washington or in Newark and run on down and come through Atlanta down to Jackson, MS. I think they would enjoy it once they got there. I invite the Senator from New Jersey to take the ride to Jackson, and we will show him around down there.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are working on when we are going to be able to get this up. I have a couple of points. One, we have a catch- 22. Our Members want to make sure they have a chance to offer amendments, and we want to do that. At the same time, our leadership on both sides has to pay attention to when and how we get it to a conclusion. I think it is incumbent upon our leadership from the committee to work with Members to get amendments but also not to let this become a punching bag and have Members throwing everything out but the kitchen sink. I believe we can move this through in a reasonable time. My attitude is, when Senators have amendments, come over and offer them. We will debate them and then have a vote. We will not shove it over until 9 or 10 o'clock tomorrow night. I think there is hesitation on both sides of the aisle, and we have to work through that. But we have done this before. We did this bill 2 years ago, or so, and we got 90-something votes. So we can do that. Mr. President, one other observation: As I have worked on this, another part of the equation of having a good national rail passage system is encouraging our States to be able to do more on their own and build lines like we have in San Francisco to the L.A. area--there is incentive to do more--and at the same time, not telling poorer States that they have to do way more than they are capable of doing. Also, a couple of weeks ago, I thought about this bill. I was at Big D's Barbeque at Pocahontas, MS. The City of New Orleans, a sleeper Amtrak train, came whizzing by Big D's Tee Pee. They were ballin' the jack headed to New Orleans. It had about six or eight cars, which is relatively short. But the important thing was that they were going lickity-split. If we are going to be able to get these trains, in a reasonable way, where they want to go, part of the problem is a problem the freight lines have. If they are going to get off on a side track and let the Amtrak go through, they have to build side tracks. We need more lines all across America. Union Pacific, Burlington Northern, Santa Fe--they need to build more lines across this country. We need to encourage the freight lines to build more capacity, more lines, and more side tracks, so they can work with Amtrak, so that Amtrak is not adding to the cost of doing business of the freight lines. So I am looking at that equation too. We don't want a conflict between Amtrak and freight lines. We want them both to be able to make a profit and deliver the goods and services to the American people. So we are working on that side of the equation too, to make sure that Amtrak has a way to be on time.

Mr. LOTT. Yes, I think that is right.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. The occupant of the chair, the Senator from Maryland, I suspect, supports this too. I am ready to do business when we get the go-ahead to take up this legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Let me say with regard to the package that was agreed to, the changes, we did work together on that. It was cleared on both sides. I want to thank the leaders for allowing us to move forward on this legislation. It is never easy to go straight to a bill these days. There are Senators who have reservations about going to this particular bill at this time. Some Senators wanted to make sure they were going to have an opportunity to look at the legislation and prepare thoughtful amendments, amendments that might, frankly, improve the legislation, add additional reforms, delete parts of it. That is all well and good. I understand that maybe some Senators were not aware we were going to try to go to Amtrak today, even though I know an effort was made to try to inform both sides that would be the intent after we dealt with the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the Southwick nomination, and the DREAM Act. Maybe it moved a little quicker than people thought because of some of the earlier actions today. I want to emphasize this too. While I have been involved in working on this legislation for some 3 years with Senator Lautenberg as chairman of this subcommittee and now as ranking member, and I think there are some good things in here worth having, maybe we can even strengthen it more. That would be positive for the future of Amtrak. I am perfectly willing and anxious to see if there are good ideas of how we can make it even a stronger bill. I want Amtrak to succeed. If we are going to keep it, let's fix it where it will work. I do not think it is wise to continue putting money into a system that is not enough, and then complain because it is not doing the job. We are slowly starving it, using it more, and complaining that it is not doing better. I think we need some reforms. I think we need to have authorization. I think we need to expect more of the Amtrak board. We need to expect good service from Amtrak. I think we ought to provide an opportunity for them to have a way to get the funds to do the job. That is what we are trying to do here. As I said earlier today, this is not something people in my State are going to feel an immediate impact from. We do have Amtrak service that runs through my State, north and south, from New Orleans to Chicago. We have even had it down along the coast. Probably some people would say: Well, it is not worth it. I believe we need Amtrak. I believe we need a national passenger rail system. It is a part of the package. I support improving aviation and a modernization of the aircraft control system. I want us to have safety in the airways. I want us to have less congestion. I want us to do what we need to do to modernize the system. I want good passenger airline service. I also want to continue to work to improve highways in this country. But I do not believe that lanes and planes will always be enough. There is a limit to what you can do in the air and on the ground with highways. I think we need passenger rail service also. This is not something, again, that is going to be critical in my State. But I think it is important for our country. My State will benefit, too, when the rest of the country benefits. I also think if we are going to have this system, it ought to not be just the Northeast corridor. I think we should continue to work to try to find ways to make other routes profitable, on time, provide good service. That is what we are trying to do here. Some of my friends look at me and say: Well, why are you trying to do this? This is costing money. It is too overly subsidized. They have union problems, this, that and the other. I admit it has problems. I think we are part of the problem, because we are not engaged in trying to improve the law, give them more power to do what they need to do to make the tough decisions, get outside advice, try to figure out how to do a better job. That is what we do here. So this is an area I have worked on for most of my career in Congress, transportation and infrastructure. I believe they are critical to the future of our country. It is about jobs. It is about economic development. It is about opportunity. It is about movement. It is about America. That is why I have been involved for some time, to the consternation of some of my friends. We have worked on this before. I worked on the last Amtrak reform legislation. I had higher hopes from that legislation than the results we got. But I think we have made some progress. And when you do legislation that does not achieve all you want it to do, my attitude is, come back and try again. But to show you the amount of support we have, when we brought this up on the reconciliation package in 2005, it got 93 votes. Some people said: Well, it is not enough, or, we can do better. But when they voted, 93 Senators voted for it. That is part of the process. This time, hopefully, we can get it through here freestanding, get the House to act, let us get to conference, let's bring in the administration. If the administration has recommendations or concerns, great, let us hear them. My problem with the administration is, they have tried to ignore it. So let's try to get them involved. I am not going to be partisan about this. I do not want to blast Amtrak, I don't want to blast the board or the administration. I want us all to get together. That is part of the effort of what we are trying to do here. This legislation, S. 294, makes a number of important reforms in Amtrak. It has three major themes: Amtrak reform and accountability; cost cutting; and creating funding options for States. Now, whether are you from Illinois, California, or Missouri, or whether you are from New Jersey, you ought to like this. And if you are a conservative Republican, did you hear what I said? Cost cutting, reform, and accountability. This is made in heaven. I think we should get this done, and work in good faith with each other. I think we need to increase the executive branch oversight and involvement in Amtrak. The bill ensures that taxpayer money is used more effectively and it builds on the improvements that have been made in recent years. I think you have to give credit to the fact that David Gunn, when he was the president of Amtrak, made some improvements in his management. He did a good job. He finally wound up leaving because he had other opportunities, and maybe some people were critical of him. But I have to say I think he did a great job, and he moved it in the right direction. The bill requires Amtrak to develop better financial systems and to evaluate its operations objectively. It forces Amtrak to improve the efficiency of long-distance train service. There are some lines that are losing way too much money. I think the Amtrak officials should look at it and try to make those lines more profitable, put some guidelines on them, put some pressure on them, and if they do not meet them, cut them off. I cannot defend a line that is losing money and is costing $400 a head subsidy for a passenger. So the bill reduces Amtrak's operating subsidy by 40 percent by 2012 by requiring Amtrak to use its funds more effectively. But it does not just say ``do it,'' it provides a number of things that will lead to making that possible. The bill promotes a greater role for the private sector by allowing private companies to bid on operating Amtrak lines. The bill also creates a new rail capital grant program that States can use to start new inner city passenger rail service. There has been a real increase, and that is where we had a lot of boardings, a lot of passengers. They are using that service where that opportunity has existed. This would be the first time that States will have a Federal program they can use for passenger rail, putting inner city passenger rail on similar footing with highway transit and airports, all of which have Federal assistance programs for infrastructure. Some people complain about the money in Amtrak, and yet if you look at what we have in these other areas, highways and transit and airports, Amtrak is terribly shortchanged. We provide all of this infrastructure in these other areas, and then we are not prepared to do that with the passenger rail system. States will not have to rely only on Amtrak for their inner city passenger rail service. It gives them more opportunity, more for themselves, and to have a Federal program work with them to achieve that. Now, while discussing reform, we should not forget there is good news here. Some people will only say: Well, it is still losing money. In fiscal year 2007, there was a record number of 25.8 million passengers who traveled on Amtrak. People are using it and using it more. It is the chicken-and-egg deal. Once you get better equipment, on-time service, better food, going to places people want to go, they will ride. In the past they haven't done it because maybe the equipment was old or they got delayed. As they have provided better service, more people started riding. The boarding ticket revenues increased 11 percent to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2007. Of course, the Acela Express, I guess the old standard of what Amtrak should do, can do--and we use it here in this corridor--had a 20-percent increase in ridership and achieved an on-time performance of 87.8 percent, proving it can be done. Passenger service can be on time. The Acela is so popular that another round-trip between New York and Washington was created in July. We should not focus solely on the Northeast corridor though. I want to make sure we have some service in the South and the Midwest and the West and in the Northwest. The Capital Corridor operating in California between Auburn and San Jose increased ridership by 15 percent and has an ontime performance of 75 percent. Most notably, the Lincoln service connecting Chicago to St. Louis is up 42 percent. Chicago to St. Louis, that is a tremendous increase. It is a direct result of the State more than doubling its contract with Amtrak. Across the country, States are interested in passenger service, and passengers are responding in record numbers to the better service. S. 294 is the best mechanism to reform Amtrak. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Read it. It is not a long, complicated bill. But if you have a better idea, come on out here. Let's hear it. Tomorrow we will be ready for business. We will have some amendments. The way I like to do business, with the cooperation of our chairman, if you have an amendment, let's have you offer it. Let's talk about it, and let's vote. Let's don't be setting them aside and piling them up for later on in the day. Let's do business. I think that is one way you get Senators to actually be here and doing work, actually have some votes. I don't want to go on too long. Let me just run down some of the areas where we have concentrated in this bill. It does provide for management improvement. The bill requires a financial accounting system for Amtrak operations and a 5- year financial plan. Why in the world wouldn't they have that? I don't know. Families have plans for their budgets and what they are going to do in the future. Amtrak ought to do that. It deals with debt. The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and Amtrak, to negotiate the restructuring of Amtrak's debt within 1 year. This is something Senator Lautenberg has talked about. They can actually save money. Why would they not do that? So we would direct that in the bill. It does improve corporate governance. It adds the Amtrak president to the Amtrak board, bringing the total number of members of the board to nine. Think about that, the Amtrak president was not on the board. That doesn't make any sense. It calls for metrics and standards. In consultation with the Surface Transportation Board and the operating freight railroads, the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak shall jointly develop metrics and standards for measuring the performance and service quality of intercity train operations. They should include cost recovery, ontime performance, ridership per train mile, onboard and station services, the whole package. It does improve the route methodology. It would provide access to Amtrak equipment and services. States wishing to use operators other than Amtrak would be able to do so under this legislation. It would improve the Northeast corridor. It would work to improve the long distance routes. I think we have touched on the very important areas, but the one I think that is going to make the greatest difference is the State Capital Grant Program for intercity passenger rail. When I have talked to Governors and transportation officials, railroad people, they say this is what we need. This could really make a difference. I see the Presiding Officer nodding her head. I suspect her State is one that would have an interest up there in the northwest corner of Washington and Oregon. So there are significant reforms. This is a good effort. This is the kind of work we ought to do more of in the Senate. We have managed for the last few years to find what we could disagree about, something we could fight about. We haven't taken the time to take up issues that affect real people's lives that we can agree on, that are bipartisan. I appreciate the leader putting this in the agenda. He did it at the request of a number of Senators who care about this. Senator Carper obviously is one of them, Senator Lautenberg, myself, and others. We have been pleading with them. I pleaded with the previous majority leader. Let's get this bill up. Some people say there are other things more important we could be doing. Why aren't you doing something about health care, more appropriations bills? That is a good question. All I know is, this is an issue that matters. We don't know when we are going to have another incident in America with aviation, or somewhere else, when we need trains. We need good service. I am also working in the Finance Committee to see if we can't get a tax credit so that we can continue to improve the capacity of our freight rail and allow them to build off ramps so the freight trains can get out of the way so Amtrak can run without losing time and money. We are looking at that side of the equation too. I know some of our friends in the freight rail industry are not all that excited about this legislation because we want Amtrak to be on time and to get by the slower moving freight trains. Sometimes that costs them money, and it is an inconvenience for them. After all, Amtrak is running on their tracks. But we will work with the freight lines and make sure their points of view are considered in the process. I won't go on any longer. I would like for us to get to some amendments that may be available on Amtrak. I know Senator Sununu has some. We will continue tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will not object. I just want to say, we have worked through this, and it is cleared on our side. We have no objection.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.