James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman can yield directly to the gentlewoman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And again I express my great appreciation for the many hours of consultation that we have had between the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Florida, and myself, and with Mr. Shuster and myself, and with Ms. Brown. Mr. Mica has been a vigorous advocate for high-speed rail passenger service with changes, with changes in the way we conduct the business of passenger rail service in America. And as he said, this wasn't easy. But if it were easy, they wouldn't need us. They wouldn't need Congress if things were all easy. But the point of the legislative process is to be open, to be receptive, to think constructively, to trust that the ideas advanced by one or the other side are set forth in earnest pursuit of a valid public purpose goal. And that has been a long tradition of this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the principal reason that we have succeeded over so many years in being the building committee of the Congress. The gentleman from Connecticut said that there weren't reforms or deplored the lack of significant reform in this legislation. I just want to say we have management improvement. It is requiring a financial accounting system for Amtrak operations and a 5-year financial plan monitored by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, an overall assessment being to be done by the Inspector General, progress made by Amtrak management and by DOT in implementing the provisions of the bill. We direct the Secretary of Treasury, and there has been a consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and Amtrak, to negotiate restructuring of Amtrak's debt. We include a corporate governance provision restructuring Amtrak's board, expanding the board to ten persons serving 5-year terms and requiring that the President consult with Congress to ensure balanced representation of regions served by Amtrak in that board, and to have rail transportation or business background among those members. In consultation with the Service Transportation Board and Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak is required to develop standards for measuring performance of quality of intercity train operations, including cost recovery, on time performance, ridership per train mile, on board and station services and interconnectivity of routes and requires the DOT IG to evaluate performance and service quality of intercity passenger rail service and identify the five worst performing Amtrak routes from which then IG will recommend a process for the DOT to consider proposals for competitive service by the private sector to Amtrak on that route. Those are significant reforms. And I invite the attention of the gentleman from Connecticut, and I will send him the specifics that I just mentioned. We are ready to move ahead with the balance of this bill. This is an exciting opportunity. This is the beginning of the transformation of passenger rail service in America. It is not going to lead us tomorrow to the Grande Vitesse, the TGV of France, or the Talgo of Spain, or the ICE of Germany, or the Shinkansen of Japan, or the 220-mile-per-hour train service between Beijing and Shanghai in China. But it will put us on a course to get there, to achieve those speeds over those distances. When I traveled, as a student, to begin graduate studies in 1956 at the College of Europe, from Paris to Brussels, the trip was 6 hours. Today that trip is 80 minutes. There is no air service, no commercial air passenger service between the capital of Europe, Brussels, and the Capital of France, Paris. But there is a train leaving every 3 minutes in each direction with 1,100 passengers on board traveling at 184 miles per hour, all day long from 6 in the morning until midnight. We should be able to achieve that kind of service on the east coast. We should be able to achieve that kind of service in the Southwest, as was referenced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar). We should be able to do that in California, as was referenced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), and in the Pacific Northwest and in the Southeast of the United States. And this bill will put us on a track to do that.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have no further speakers on our side.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. The manager's amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on ways to streamline compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act requirements for Federally funded rail infrastructure projects. This issue was raised in committee by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the ranking member, Mr. Shuster, for himself, for North Carolina and for Alaska. I felt that we needed to explore the matter further, so we scheduled a hearing on the issue because this matter had not been raised previously. We heard from the Alaska Railroad, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National Trust For Historic Preservation and the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. At the conclusion of that meeting, it was obvious we weren't going to be able, in the course of the hearing, to reach agreement. But we saw a path toward agreement. And I directed the parties and the staff to work through the weekend to develop a compromise proposal, which they did, and we have reflected that understanding in the manager's amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for bringing this matter to our attention, and to Mr. Mica for participating and working out what I think is a reasonable approach. I also what to thank colleagues who had amendments that were proposed to the bill for agreeing to incorporate those amendments into the manager's amendment to expedite consideration. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), from Delaware (Mr. Castle) Mr. Cuellar and Mr. Hinojosa from Texas, Mr. Weiner and Mr. Blumenauer, from New York and Oregon respectively. The Arcuri amendments ensure that the financial contributions and in kind services provided by commuter rails are taken into account in developing a standardized formula for Northeast Corridor commuter cost allocation. The Berry-Cohen amendment requires a feasibility analysis on extending south central high-speed rail service to Memphis, Tennessee. The Castle amendment ensures that all proposals for high-speed rail on the Northeast Corridor plans to allow station stops at or in close proximity to the busiest Amtrak stations. The Cuellar-Hinojosa amendment requires a feasibility analysis on extending South Central high-speed rail to a location in south Texas to be determined by the Secretary. The Weiner-Blumenauer amendment authorizes intercity passenger rail grants for bicycle access on rolling stock and bicycle racks on trains. And the amendment also provides that none of the funds may be used to employ workers in violation of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act and makes a number of technical corrections in the reported bill. There are other items of a bipartisan nature included in the manager's amendment, and I think we have worked these matters out satisfactorily. I urge all Members to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, a distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley), intended to be here and had actually requested time to be heard on general debate. But, unfortunately, he is home in his district, probably handling sandbags to deal with flooding in Waterloo. Late yesterday, the flooding washed away a Union Pacific Railroad bridge over the Cedar River in downtown Waterloo and our committee colleague is back home with his constituents, as he rightly should be. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley), who I know wanted to be here during consideration of the bill. Regrettably, he is home in his District to help his constituents deal with flooding in Waterloo. Yesterday, the flooding washed away a Union Pacific railroad bridge over the Cedar River in downtown Waterloo. I include a report from the local newspaper on the tragedies in Iowa. Update: Railroad Bridge in Downtown W'loo Collapses; CF Orders More Evacuations (By Jim Offner, Courier Business Editor) Waterloo, June 10.--One-third of the Union Pacific railroad bridge parallel to Sixth Street over the Cedar River in downtown Waterloo has washed away in the flood waters. The third of the bridge adjacent to the east bank of the Cedar River washed away at 2:45 p.m. Roger Verch saw the bridge section give way. ``We were actually standing on the 18th Street Bridge'' downstream when it gave way. It struck the 18th Street Bridge. `` We really felt the vibrations,'' Verch said. A portion of it remained lodged in the 18th Street Bridge and another portion of it washed down river. The bridge is used by the Iowa Northern Railroad to serve John Deere's East Donald Street Tractor Works, and Deere tractors are transported by rail over that line to Cedar Rapids. Iowa Northern general manager Mark Sabin said the railroad is assessing the flood's impacts all along its line and had not yet had an opportunity to assess the effects of the bridge washout. We will provide more details as they become available. Also, the city of Cedar Falls has now expanded its area of evacuation. The mayor has ordered an immediate evacuation of everyone in the following areas: --On Franklin Street from Sixth Street to the north; on Sixth Street to the east toward Main Street; on Main Street from Ninth Street to the north; and all downtown areas from those streets toward the river. Unauthorized vehicles will be removed beginning at 3 p.m. People who are evacuating are urged to turn off their power, utilities, water and gas. Security will be provided for the area to safeguard property by the Cedar Falls Police Department and the National Guard. Volunteers may remain in this area if they are assisting with the sandbagging efforts. Volunteers will be needed throughout the night. It cannot be emphasized enough that volunteers are needed and must report to the north parking lot of the UNI-Dome to assist with sandbagging. Volunteers must not travel downtown or go near the levy. Transportation will be provided to volunteers.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida for that statement, for his charts, for the genuinely sincere effort that brought us to this point today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Rail Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have all spoken to one another as colleagues about the work that we have done and the time we have invested to bring this legislation to the floor in the shape that it is in, which is remarkable. But we stand on the shoulders of skilled, dedicated professionals who make our work possible and make it effective. On the full committee, our Chief of Staff, Dave Heymsfeld, Ward McCarragher, Jen Walsh and Erik Hansen. On the Republican side, Jim Coon and Amy Steinmann. On the subcommittee, our very dedicated Jennifer Esposito, John Drake, who has filled in for Jennifer while she was raising a new passenger for Amtrak, Rose Hamlin, Niels Knutson and Nick Martinelli of Chairwoman Brown's staff. On the Republican side, Allison Cullin and Joyce Rose, whose distinguished service and experience contributes enormously, and Mike Meenan and John Brennan, who Ranking Member Mica mentioned has left the committee staff to take an operating position with a railroad. The Office of Legislative Counsel has been of enormous help, Tim Brown. And at CBO, Sarah Puro. All of whom have made their unique contribution without whose wise professional guidance we couldn't be at this point. And, believe me, I know. I served on the staff for 12 years in this body, and I know what hard work it is. I know what hard work it is. All the digging is done there, and I thank them, the staff. The gentleman from Pennsylvania cited one of the cornerstone breakthrough provisions of this legislation, and that is opening up an opportunity for competition from the private sector to demonstrate whether private sector funding, financing, management, expertise, can operate passenger rail routes successfully, and I welcome that opportunity. I know that for good friends in the railroad brotherhoods it initially caused a great deal of concern, but I recall the words of President John F. Kennedy, who said we should never fear to negotiate, but we should never negotiate out of fear. There is nothing to fear in this proposition. There is an opportunity for us to expand the horizons. We are going to have to do this in the surface transportation authorization next year, inviting private sector investments in key elements of our national transportation system. To open Amtrak to that kind of investment, that challenge of expanding the horizon, is necessary, and I welcome that opportunity. We will monitor it very closely, we will have a very careful evaluation step-by-step of how these provisions will proceed. But I think, net, it will be a benefit to our passenger rail service in America. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time and ask for a favorable vote on the manager's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my metropolitan Washington colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and the Majority Leader (Mr. Hoyer). This amendment authorizes the Secretary to make grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (``WMATA'') to finance capital and preventive maintenance projects included in the agency's Capital Improvement Program. The amendment will also require that all local payments for the cost of operating and maintaining the area's regional rail system--known as the ``Metro''--be made from dedicated funding sources. This is especially important in light of the fact that WMATA is currently the only transit system of its size that does not have a fully dedicated source of State or local funding. The WMATA transit system is one of the busiest in the entire country, providing over 415 million passenger trips each year. Each day, more than 800,000 people ride Metro trains, and over 150,000 ride Metro buses. Only the New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles transit systems produce more yearly transit passenger trips than WMATA in Washington, DC. Further, the Federal workforce relies heavily on the reliable and efficient service that the WMATA system provides. More than 165,000 Federal employees, or one-third of Federal employees in the region, are currently enrolled in the transit benefits program with WMATA. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the service that WMATA provides to our Federal employees helps keep an additional 15,500 automobiles off the roads in the National Capital region, and saves those commuters over 8.2 million gallons of gas each year. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is an important part of our Nation's strategy to provide commuters efficient and reliable transit options, thereby allowing them to reduce their transportation-related emissions, energy consumption, and reliance on foreign oil. Regarding the specific language of this amendment, it is important to note that these new grants will be subject to the same labor, environmental, Buy America procurement, diversity contracting, and other requirements applicable to all transit projects funded under Chapter 53 of Title 49, United States Code. If this amendment is adopted, in conference on H.R. 6003, 1 would like to further clarify the specific terms of Chapter 53 which may be inconsistent with the purposes of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman. Commuter rail certainly is one of the fastest growing modes of transportation in the public sector. We had over 461 million trips by commuter rail last year, and that is a 5.5 percent increase over the previous year. The amendment offered by gentleman directs Amtrak to engage in good- faith negotiations with commuter rail entities and public transportation authorities to move more efficiently the maximum number of intercity rail passengers, especially during peak commuter hours. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, it is a good, commonsense amendment, and I urge support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith). Commuter rail is one of the fastest growing modes of public transportation in this country. In 2007, Americans took 461 million trips by commuter rail, a 5.5 percent increase over 2006. As a result, many commuter rail operators are seeking to expand their services while contending with other rail traffic. In response to these challenges, this amendment directs Amtrak to engage in good-faith discussions with commuter rail entities and public transportation authorities operating on the same track to efficiently move the maximum number of commuter, intercity, and regional rail passengers, especially during peak commuter hours. It also directs Amtrak to work with these parties toward the expansion and enhancement of commuter rail and regional public transportation service. This amendment helps ensure that Amtrak is doing everything it can to not only maximize the efficiency of its operations but also ensure the maximum growth possible for other rail services. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We had a thoughtful, constructive discussion about the gentleman's proposal in the Rules Committee on Monday, and the gentleman is very sincere and very genuine in his proposal. However, we have a number of provisions in this bill to improve Amtrak's operations, to reform the way Amtrak conducts its business, to get at the lowest-performing routes. We specifically direct the Amtrak board of directors to implement a modern financial accounting system to save money, improve operations, and increase revenue. In section 204, we direct Amtrak to report on projected revenues, expenditures and ridership over a 5-year period to promote improved financial stability and how best to allocate the resources we provide to Amtrak. We direct Amtrak to work with the States to institute a nationwide methodology for allocating, operating and capital costs, to standardize financial support of Amtrak to the States and the Federal Government to ensure each is contributing their appropriate and fair amount, and to address specifically the performance of poorly performing routes, and they may be different from the one that the gentleman has in mind at this particular moment. We further direct the inspector general of DOT to evaluate performance, service quality of the five worst performing Amtrak routes and recommend a process for DOT to consider proposals by Amtrak and other operators to provide service both on under-performing Amtrak routes and routes not served by Amtrak. So the gentleman is proposing that Congress make a preemptive strike and direct dropping a route when we have in place with the enactment of this legislation a process by which we are going to improve these processes. It would be better to look and reexamine at the end of that process rather than at the beginning and prejudge the outcome of these sincere efforts that we are making to improve all of Amtrak's operations. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will yield the balance of our time to the gentlewoman from Florida, but I wish I had known about the opposition of the gentleman from Virginia before he offered his amendment. I might have had a different view about his amendment and his seeking special consideration for WMATA.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment though I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman which directs a study of train horn technology as part of the Rail Cooperative Research Program authorized at section 304 of the bill. And the gentlewoman has worked tirelessly to highlight her concerns with constituents on locomotive horn noise. I can understand how horn noise is terrible and disturbing. We've heard many iterations of that over the years in hearings in the committee in close urban quarters. But out on the prairie, the sound of a train horn late at night is a very comforting sound, I can say for those of us who live in those environments. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The key issue with train horns, again and again, is safety. Where they are removed in an experimental basis there have been fatalities or incidents or accidents, and where the train horn has been reinstated, lives have been saved. But technology can lead us to better train horns that don't intrude on the daily lives or nightly lives of citizens alongside railroad tracks. So I reserve the balance of my time, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. This amendment expresses support for expanded commuter rail service on the rail line between New Haven, Connecticut, and Springfield, Massachusetts, and encourages Amtrak to work cooperatively with the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts to enable expanded commuter rail service on the line. Further, this amendment directs Amtrak to report to Congress and the States on the total cost of uncompleted infrastructure maintenance on the New Haven--Springfield rail line. Commuter rail is one of the fastest growing modes of public transportation in this country. In 2007, Americans took 461 million trips by commuter rail, a 5.5 percent increase over 2006. Since 1990, New England's highway traffic has increased two to three times faster than its population and commuter rail is a critical transportation link in the Northeast. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Connecticut has one of the nation's longer average commute times (24.5 minutes) in the nation, and 80 percent of Connecticut commuters drive themselves to work. The State of Connecticut is seeking to provide additional transportation alternatives to its commuters and is hoping to expand commuter rail service to address its congestion. This amendment will help Connecticut understand the capital costs needed to better develop its commuter rail infrastructure as it works to develop its passenger transportation systems. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in support of the Murphy amendment. I feel the amendment is an important contribution to the work of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). This amendment directs Amtrak to evaluate the passenger rail service between Cornwells Heights, Pennsylvania, and New York, New York, and between Princeton Junction, New Jersey, and New York, New York, to determine whether to expand passenger rail service by increasing the frequency of stops or reducing commuter ticket prices for the route. Until a few years ago, Cornwells Station was the primary SEPTA and Amtrak station for service into New York City from the Bensalem Township. It has direct access to Interstate 95 and Pennsylvania Route 63, with the largest parking lot on the SEPTA network, making it an ideal terminal for commuter service into New York for many people in the surrounding region. However, Amtrak recently reduced the number of trains serving the station each day by one-half, while greatly increasing the ticket prices for the service. As a result, ridership has plummeted, leading Amtrak to consider dropping service to the station all together. This study has several potential benefits. For one, the Bensalem region is enjoying an economic revitalization, which could be enhanced by increased Amtrak service to Cornwells Heights. Increased Amtrak service would allow for better mobility in the region as well as help relieve local congestion. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I object.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this is only a halfhearted attempt. If it were a wholehearted attempt, the motion would have included soybean oil and ethanol and it would have included the word ``forthwith'' and we could have accepted it. In fact, if the gentleman had come to the committee, both the Republican and Democratic side of the committee in the course of consideration of the bill, if he were serious about this matter, we would have included it in our section 219, Locomotive Biofuel Study. There is no reason we couldn't include all of what the gentleman is saying, plus additional items. But I think by using the word ``promptly,'' clearly this is just another gesture, a political gesture, to sidetrack the bill. Sending it back to committee simply delays the benefits of Amtrak. We have worked diligently over the better part of a year-and-a-half, Republicans and Democrats together on the committee, and fashioned a wide-ranging proposition for the future of inter-city passenger rail in America, introducing extraordinary reforms that have not been considered or have been rejected in the past. We have included those in this bill. We include a locomotive biofuel study. We require locomotive testing. We require a report. We require it to be done in a very specific period of time. We also require a study on the use of bio-based lubricants for Amtrak to use. In fact, soybean-derived fuel is being used by the freight rail sector in what is known as Green Goat technology, Green Goat locomotives and freight rail makeup switchyards with great success. The Green Goat technology using soybean-based fuel is reducing particulate emissions in rail makeup yards reducing noise and also reducing cost of maintenance of locomotives because the fuel also provides lubricating quality to a locomotive engine. Furthermore, to insist that we move on this amendment--I think an earlier version I saw would have required implementation immediately-- Amtrak has warranties with General Electric, who produces the P42 locomotives for Amtrak's fleet. That's the backbone of their diesel locomotive fleet. To force Amtrak to rush into applying some not-yet proven technology would vitiate the warranties, would increase the cost, would subject Amtrak having to absorb all the costs instead of GE, the locomotive engine producer, absorbing the costs. Again, I say we are very accommodating on this committee. We want good ideas. We would have welcomed the gentleman's ideas in the fashioning of the legislation. In fact, if this had been a forthwith motion, we could have accepted it with an amendment to include biodiesel fuel, soybean-based fuel. But the way it's fashioned simply sidetracks the very good bill, the extraordinary progress we have made with bringing passenger high-speed rail service to all of America. This is a transformational moment, this Amtrak legislation, a transformational moment in American transportation to bring our country into the first world of intercity high-speed passenger rail service, to make changes in the way Amtrak operates, to invite the private sector in to be a partner in fashioning a future for Amtrak. Don't sidetrack it with this frivolous motion that comes way late in the process and is not serious at all in its purpose. If it were serious at all in its purpose, it would have come to the committee, we would have done something about it, we would have included this language earlier on in the bill. Oppose the motion.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 6003, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.