[Pages H5119-H5125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H5119]]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6003, PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1253 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1253

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6003) to reauthorize Amtrak, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 6003
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H. Res. 1253 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R.
6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. The
resolution provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and makes in order 8 of
the 10 amendments submitted for consideration.
From coast to coast we are seeing the effects of rising fuel prices.
Energy prices have been a regular topic here in Congress, in the
newspapers, and at family dinner tables.
The average price of a gallon of gas in Sacramento just climbed to
$4.41. My constituents are feeling this burden every single day.
Driving to work and school is becoming more difficult and more costly
for everyone.
The City of Sacramento also just started a major construction project
on I-5, which cuts through the heart of my district. The already
congested streets are going to become even more crowded.

{time} 1045

That is why I am glad we are here considering such an important bill
to reauthorize and invest in Amtrak. Our constituents are in desperate
need of alternative modes of travel to combat both increased congestion
as well as rising gas prices. Now is the time to capitalize on the
renewed interest in passenger rail.
Millions of Americans from Atlanta to Sacramento are getting out of
their cars and onto public transit. Many of these riders will be
getting on rail for the first time. We must not let the opportunity to
invest in our rail system pass us by.
From Greece to Paris to Tokyo, we have seen the economic benefits of
intercity rail. Let's now bring these benefits to our Nation, our
States, and our hometowns.
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act takes great strides
to improve Amtrak and give our constituents the flexibility they need
to travel.
Amtrak was created in 1970 to preserve and reinvigorate intercity
passenger rail service throughout the country. Since 1981, it has been
the Nation's sole provider of regularly scheduled intercity passenger
rail service.
In fiscal year 2007, Amtrak carried more than 25.8 million
passengers, the fifth straight fiscal year of record ridership.
Increased ridership numbers occurred across all of Amtrak's services in
both corridor and long-distance routes. On average, more than 70,000
passengers ride on Amtrak every day.
Amtrak's financial performance has also improved in recent years,
posting record gains in ticket sales. My region has seen the positive
effects and benefits of having efficient transportation options. The
Capitol Corridor line in California is showing that record numbers of
Californians are choosing to use passenger rail. Ridership on the
Capitol Corridor line is up 14 percent and revenue is up 21 percent
from last year. On-time performance was also up from last year.
We can all agree that Amtrak needs to be brought into the 21st
century. This legislation provides a comprehensive framework to improve
Amtrak across the country. It increases capital and operating grants to
Amtrak, helps bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair,
and makes various capital improvements.
H.R. 6003 also creates a new grant program for intercity passenger
rail capital projects. Our urban centers will see tangible benefits and
a commitment to getting cars off the streets by promoting alternative
and efficient modes of transportation.
H.R. 6003 takes great strides to relieve rail congestion. It provides
important congestion grants and works to resolve disputes between
commuter and freight railroads. It also provides significant funding
for high-speed rail corridors, including $1.75 billion for construction
and equipment.
Simply put, this bill will reduce congestion and facilitate ridership
growth.
I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for coming
together on this important bipartisan legislation. I am proud that this
Congress is taking this important issue and tackling it, and look
forward to supporting this legislation.
Madam Speaker, passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act is an important step to demonstrating our commitment to
infrastructure investment. This is long overdue, and I encourage
everyone to support the rule and the underlying legislation to provide
the country with a safe and alternative mode of travel.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today and want to thank my friend from California, a member of
the Rules Committee, for yielding this time to me to discuss the
proposed rule for consideration of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act.
I rise in opposition to this rule, and to the legislation, neither of
which will meet the Democrats' campaign promises about how they said
they would run the House in a fair and transparent manner, nor the
American taxpayers'

[[Page H5120]]

expectations how the Federal Government should manage tax revenues that
it takes from hardworking Americans.
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 would
reauthorize Government spending on Amtrak over the next 5 years at a
cost of almost $15 billion without requiring any meaningful reforms in
Amtrak's governance or operations and without allocating taxpayer
dollars based on a demand for the service.
As we know, Amtrak is a private corporation that continues to receive
large Federal operating subsidies, despite laws passed by Congress
requiring after 2002, over 5 years ago, that they should be able to run
their operations without Federal grant funds.
Despite the fact that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
approved this legislation, I am not alone in believing that Amtrak
should conduct its operations without picking the pockets of American
families who are already being asked to do this by the do-nothing
Democrat Congress to pay for record prices for energy, and can little
afford to subsidize the inefficiencies of a transportation system that
many of them will never use.
Like me and many of my Republican colleagues, President Bush has
urged this Congress to pass legislation that would: (1) create a system
driven by sound economics where services are provided based primarily
on consumer demand; (2) promote competition; (3) focus Amtrak on core
operating competencies; (4) establish funding partnerships with States;
and, (5) improve investment in and management of the Northeast
Corridor.
I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for
H.R. 6003.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, DC, June 9, 2008.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 6003--Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, (Rep.
Oberstar (D) Minnesota and 41 cosponsors)

The Administration believes that a significantly reformed
intercity passenger rail system has the potential to play a
role of growing importance in providing transportation
options in the United States, including helping to reduce
congestion along heavily traveled intercity corridors.
However, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of
H.R. 6003, which would reauthorize the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for five years, because it
would authorize an appropriation of more than $14 billion
without requiring any meaningful reforms in Amtrak's
governance or operations and without allocating resources
based on the demand for passenger rail service. For this
reason, and others set forth below, if the bill were
presented to the President in its current form, his senior
advisors would recommend he veto it.
Amtrak is a private corporation that continues to receive
large Federal operating subsidies, despite longstanding
existing law requiring that, after 2002, ``Amtrak shall
operate without Federal operating grant funds appropriated
for its benefit.'' H.R. 6003 authorizes an unprecedented
level of funding but does not include basic measures to hold
Amtrak accountable to taxpayers for its spending decisions.
For example, H.R. 6003 provides scant opportunity for
competition on existing Amtrak routes and does not include
provisions that would condition Amtrak's funding based on
progress on reforms. Measures to address these areas are
included in S. 294 and should be adopted before Congress
completes its work on this measure.
The Administration also would strongly object if bonding
authority were added to the bill. Language in the introduced
version of H.R. 6004, the Rail Infrastructure Development and
Expansion Act for the 21st Century, permits State issuance of
$24 billion in bonds, including but not limited to tax credit
bonds. In particular, the use of tax credit bonds to finance
the construction of high-speed rail capital projects would be
expensive and highly inefficient, and costs would be borne by
taxpayers, not system users.
To move Amtrak towards a sustainable business model, the
Administration urges Congress to pass legislation that
reflects the following core reform principles consistently
articulated by this Administration: (1) create a system
driven by sound economics where services are provided based
primarily on consumer demand; (2) promote competition; (3)
focus Amtrak on core operating competencies; (4) establish
funding partnerships with States; and (5) improve the
investment in and management of the Northeast Corridor.
The Administration appreciates that H.R. 6003 includes
measures to promote private sector development of the
Northeast Corridor and other potential high-speed routes.
Making use of the private sector's operational and financial
management capabilities could help new rail services to
perform at a high level for the traveling public. However,
the Administration is concerned that the authorized funding
levels for high-speed rail in H.R. 6003 send the wrong
message; any expansions of rail service should be based on a
sustainable business model.
Titles III and V would establish certain capital grants
programs requiring workers employed with funds obtained under
these programs be paid pursuant to Davis-Bacon Act
requirements. Thus, Titles III and V would expand Davis-Bacon
Act coverage, which is contrary to the Administration's long-
standing policy of opposing any statutory attempt to expand
or contract the applicability of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing
wage requirements. This expansion could undermine the
effectiveness of the enumerated programs.

____
This statement, which outlines these goals for the improvement of
Amtrak, makes clear that the President's senior advisers would
recommend his veto of today's legislation that falls far short of this
mark.
During testimony in the Rules Committee last evening, it was
represented to the committee that the legislation would allow some
minimal privatization of a few routes, and that some additional studies
and the rearrangement of some management duties at Amtrak were included
in the bill to improve its efficiencies. I appreciate these efforts,
and although I do not think that they go nearly far enough, because as
we speak Amtrak continues to hemorrhage money due to labor disputes,
energy costs, and the requirement that they maintain service on very
lightly used, long-haul routes through rural areas of the country.
Unfortunately, through their inaction, the Democrat majority has
already demonstrated its lack of interest in doing anything serious to
address this issue as well as soaring energy costs. Through its flurry
of constant action on behalf of big labor bosses, they have
demonstrated that they are equally unwilling to do anything to address
that problem for Amtrak, its riders, or the American public.
That means that the only opportunity that Members have to reform
Amtrak in this bill is through cutting the fat from these underused,
rural long-haul lines that are often subsidized at a cost of multiple
hundreds of dollars per ticket by American taxpayers.
To address this problem, I have offered an amendment that is very
similar to my efforts in the past on this issue, but is this time even
more direct in its approach.
In March 2007, I offered an amendment to the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act that would have prohibited Amtrak from
subsidizing its 10 worst revenue losing long-distance routes, as
determined by its own September 2006 monthly performance report unless
the Secretary of Homeland Security determined that the route was
critical to our homeland security needs. Unfortunately, this
commonsense and fiscally responsible amendment failed.
So today, I will be offering an amendment that is even more direct in
its purpose and even more clear in its intent, an amendment that will
simply prohibit taxpayer subsidies from flowing to the absolutely
worst, most wasteful, most expensive long-distance route that Amtrak
runs, according to its own performance report as of March 2008, unless
this route is deemed to be critical to our Nation's homeland security.
My amendment simply seeks to prevent further good taxpayer dollars
from being thrown after bad by limiting the cost of Amtrak's number one
least profitable route; the number one least profitable route, that's
all we are asking in this bill.
Madam Speaker, if Members cannot support this simple, security-
conscious amendment on behalf of fiscal discipline, I don't know if
there is anything that we can possibly do to help the American
taxpayers any more.
I ask all of my colleagues to vote against this rule which does not
match the Democrats' rhetoric about running the most honest, open and
transparent Congress in history. I also ask them to oppose this
underlying legislation which even if my amendment were included does
not go far enough to protect the hard-earned money of American
taxpayers from wasteful spending at Amtrak.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just
want to remind my colleagues that all of the

[[Page H5121]]

Nation's major transportation systems receive significant Federal
investment, with good reason. Investment in rail infrastructure creates
jobs, helps with congestion, decreases our dependence on oil, and
offers viable alternatives for many of our citizens, including the
elderly and disabled.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar,
Chairwoman Brown, and Ranking Members Mica and Shuster for their
bipartisan leadership on the Amtrak legislation we will consider today,
and as they showed yesterday in the Rules Committee, for their
passionate advocacy on behalf of this great bill.
There has been much discussion about the condition of our Nation's
transportation system and the growing pressures it faces from all
sides: skyrocketing costs of fuel and maintenance; increased congestion
from growing demand; and global climate change.
H.R. 6003 will take tremendous strides toward addressing these
pressures by continuing our commitment to Amtrak and passenger rail
service. Maintenance costs will continue to hinder us, but expanding
and improving passenger rail service has the potential to relieve
congestion both on our highways and in the skies by offering passengers
a viable alternative. A shift toward rail can reduce the harmful
CO<inf>2</inf> emissions generated by the transportation system.
For too long Amtrak has been the symbol of partisan politics in
Washington. If we are to have a robust and successful system that users
can rely on, then we must make a bipartisan commitment to supporting
Amtrak. We cannot waiver on this commitment and expect to keep pace
with the national rail systems of other developed countries around the
world.
Partisan bickering has hurt Amtrak's overall state of repair. In
fact, the Department of Transportation's inspector general concluded
that, ``Despite multiple efforts over the years to change Amtrak's
structure and funding, we have a system that limps along, is never in a
state of good repair, awash in debt, and perpetually on the edge of
collapse.'' That must change.
Amtrak's maintenance backlog is a major impediment to its success. In
recent years, Amtrak's ridership has grown at a modest but continuing
rate, and Amtrak's on-time performance has declined down to an on-time
arrival rate of 67.8 percent.
The Department of Transportation's inspector general has stated that
Amtrak's continued deferral of maintenance increases the risk of a
major failure on its system. Currently, Amtrak has an estimated $6
billion in backlogged capital maintenance needs, including $4 billion
on the Northeast Corridor, its most profitable line.
I would gladly take the train home to my Upstate New York district,
or from my home in Utica to New York City, but currently that is not a
viable option because of the minimal Amtrak service. And even when
there is service available, it is unreliable. Deferred track
maintenance, especially in Upstate New York, has required lowering the
speed limits on significant portions of the track. In addition,
competition with freight carriers for priority on tracks causes Amtrak
trains to become seriously delayed, to the point where train schedules
are simply unreliable. The on-time arrival rate between Albany and
Buffalo is a mere 42 percent, meaning that less than half of the trains
arrive on time.

{time} 1100

Unfortunately, for hardworking Americans, passenger rail is the only
option for travel because of record high fuel prices, making air and
car travel less viable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. ARCURI. I thank you for the additional time.
Improving passenger rail service must be part of our long-term
transportation strategy if we expect to effectively decrease our
Nation's reliance on finite fossil fuels, and allow Americans to get to
and from work on time without breaking the bank each month.
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act will aggressively
address these concerns. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule
and the underlying bill and continue to support the viable passenger
rail option in our Nation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York, my friend,
really made a great argument on exactly what I've been trying to say.
But we've got to get our friends to come around the corner and see that
if we would get Amtrak to do the things that are in their mission
statement, rather than running all across the United States trying to
do things that are not cost effective, are not within their main core
mission, then we could find the money that would be available for them
to support, as the gentleman said, the Northeast Corridor, to spend the
money within the corridor to make them safer.
But, instead, what happens is Amtrak is not held accountable, not by
this Congress. We tell them, just go ahead and do whatever you choose
to do, rather than focusing on their mission which they have, which is
that which is required for traffic on the coasts, the west coast and
the east coast.
So, Madam Speaker, once again, we can't expect Amtrak to do the
things that would be in the best interest if they won't stick to their
mission, if this Congress will not hold them accountable for the
taxpayer dollars that they are utilizing.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. I thank my great friend from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in strong support of H.R.
6003, the bipartisan Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
2008.
I want to applaud Subcommittee Chairwoman Brown and Ranking Member
Shuster, along with Full Committee Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member
Mica, for crafting a bipartisan reauthorization package that is focused
on both improving Amtrak's capital assets, while also providing for
development of new corridors in partnerships with States.
I am most pleased to see a major commitment to high speed rail
contained in this bill, something that is absent in the Senate's bill.
This legislation calls for more than just paper plans for high speed
rail projects; it actually calls for dedicated funding and private
sector involvement to move these projects forward.
Specifically, I am pleased that this legislation contains a provision
that will improve the ability of future high speed rail corridors in
the Southeast to best meet the changing population patterns and tourist
demands along the cost.
With America facing $4 gas and airlines seeing fuel costs 100 percent
higher than last year, we must look to develop in ways that will ensure
that new travel options such as high speed rail are directed where they
are most needed.
High speed rail can play an important role in reducing congestion in
places like the Grand Strand in my State, which sees 14 million
tourists a year, and Charleston, which is the most congested small city
in the country. And I am glad that this bill takes the next step
towards addressing the transportation needs of these communities.
Another important element of this bill moves us towards planning for
rail transportation the same way we plan for highways. Again, as we
face historically high gasoline and diesel fuel costs, we must ensure
that our transportation system is planned out to provide the
connectivity that we need for increased passenger rail use and to take
advantage of freight rail's ability to move a ton of freight 436 miles
on a gallon of fuel. When combined with the investment this bill makes
in high speed rail, and by allowing freight and passenger railroads to
negotiate access to freight-owned tracks, the Committee's
reauthorization proposal will go a long way towards an improved rail
system in the future.
But that future may not be possible, Madam Speaker, if America
continues

[[Page H5122]]

to face $4 gasoline at the pump. I urge the majority to bring to the
floor one of the many pieces of legislation introduced to open up
domestic sources of energy, or else we won't be able to catch even an
on-time train.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I'd just like to say that this bill
creates a new State Capital Grants program for intercity passenger rail
projects. These grants will help fund new facilities and equipment for
intercity passenger rail and help move commuters off the roads and
pollution out of the air.
The bill also authorizes $1.75 billion to develop 11 high-speed rail
corridors. These corridors will help remove cars from the highway and
reduce pollution.
With that, I would like to reserve my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5
minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the Republican from
Pennsylvania, the gentleman, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I want
to start today by saying that it's a shame that this Congress and that
the majority party, for 18 months, has failed to do anything to
alleviate our energy problems in this country. We've had ample
opportunity to pass legislation that will deal with this rising cost of
energy this country, and as I've said, we've done nothing. The American
people are crying out for us to do something.
And what we can do, it's obvious, in the short-term it's supply. It's
look for new sources of oil, explore in different parts of this
country, offshore. That's the answer in the short-term.
The long term-we have other technologies, clean coal technology,
nuclear energy. We have to start doing something here. The American
people, as I said, are crying out.
Gas in my district is $4 a gallon. In my 7 years in Congress, I've
been approached by people to tell me they disagree with me on this
issue or that issue. But I've never had people come up to me and at the
gas pump and yell at me publicly about this Congress doing absolutely
nothing.
The time is now. We have to act. We've already, 7, 15 years ago we
should have been acting. But we have to move today. As I said, it's
just a shame that we haven't done anything sooner.
That being said, I think that this bill that we have before us today,
The Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act, does something positive
when it comes to energy in this country. It's a small step. It's a
positive step, but it's a step I think it's important for us to take
today.
The last time that we authorized Amtrak was 1997. Gas was $1.27 a
gallon, and today, as I said, in Central Pennsylvania it's hovering
around $4 a gallon.
We also have, in this country, in 2005, we passed the 300 million
mark in population. It took us 65 years to go from 200 million to 300
million. It's only going to take us 35 years to go from 300 million to
400 million. And that population isn't all going to move out into the
West and to the middle of the country. That population will move around
some, but those corridors around the country that are densely
populated, the Northeast Corridor, Chicago, the west coast, throughout
Texas, Florida, up and down the east coast, those corridors are going
to become even more, the population is going to become denser.
So it's important that we do things to encourage people to use other
forms of transportation, and passenger rail is one of those modes of
transportation. It is one of the, if not the most efficient modes of
transportation to move people, move large quantities of people. And I
think that that's an extremely important reason for us to move forward.
As we watch fuel prices escalate, as we watch the population continue
to grow, and as I said, the American people are desperate to escape gas
prices, long commutes that define their work days, and I think this is
a way for us to move forward.
Now, in the bill there are some important provisions, and one of the
reasons that myself and the Ranking Member Mica signed on to it, and
there are some private sector initiatives. First, we authorize in this
bill for Amtrak, the IG and the Department of Transportation to
identify the least of the underperforming, significantly
underperforming lines in this country; identify at least two of them.
That we then turn to the private sector and allow them to bid to take
those lines over, and to allow them to run them and see if we can't
turn them into efficient operations.
The second privatization initiative is to take a line in this country
that Amtrak has stopped using, has abandoned because of high cost or
whatever reason, and allow the private sector to take it over, re-
establish it and run it efficiently and profitably, we hope.
And third is the Northeast Corridor. It is the most used corridor in
the country. We need to establish high speed rail in this country, and
the Northeast Corridor is where we need to do it, from Washington to
New York; to get private sector companies to come to the table to give
real bids on how much it's going to cost to establish high speed rail
in this country. Not pie in the sky, not throwing darts, as we've done
over the years, but to have real numbers, if it's $10 billion, $20
billion, $60 billion, how much is it going to cost us to have true high
speed which we need in this country, because of the population growth,
because of energy costs that we have in this country.
High speed rail is extremely important in this authorization. And for
the past 20 years we've had a theoretical debate on this floor about
can the private sector run a railroad, can the public, is it the public
responsibility, and can the public do it better than the private
sector?
Well, I believe that the private sector can run a passenger rail
system. And I just have to look back to history. From 1850 to 1950 the
private sector ran a profitable passenger rail system.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. SHUSTER. For 100 years the private sector operated passenger rail
profitably. But what happened to it wasn't mismanagement, it was
aviation, the airplane that came about. It was the interstate highway
system that we built in this country. So people got off the trains and
got into their cars and into airplanes. That's what happened to
passenger rail.
And for the last 30 some years, as the government's tried to run it,
it's not done it efficiently. So this is an opportunity for us to have
some real successes, some private sector successes, and we can end this
debate.
Is the private sector able to run a railroad, a passenger rail
system? I believe they are, and I believe that these initiatives are
extremely important for us to have some successes to point to as we
move down the road and give the American people something they need, a
passenger rail system that is profitable, that is successful.
And I want to end as I started. We need to do something on energy.
This is one small step in the right direction. We can do more to solve
our energy problems in this country. We should do more, and we must do
more. The American people deserve that.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that one of the
ways we are addressing gas prices is by giving constituents alternative
modes of transportation, thereby reducing the number of cars on the
road. Passenger rail will reduce our demand on foreign oil and help us
become more energy independent.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the MVP of the Republican
baseball championship team, the gentleman, Mr. Shimkus.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate Congresswoman Matsui
managing the time. We've worked very hard on clean diesel issues and
the like, so this is really appropriate to this debate though, because
Amtrak uses big diesel engines. And what's happened in the Amtrak
debate that we haven't heard yet, hopefully we'll hear it later on is,
like, one of the biggest threats to Amtrak is the high cost of diesel
fuel. In fact, the fiscal year 2007 budget for fuel was $125 million
for Amtrak. The fiscal year 2008 budget for fuel for Amtrak is $215
million.

[[Page H5123]]

Now, how are we going to pay for that? I know how they're going to
pay for it. They're going to raise prices on these commuters. And there
are some commuters who use Amtrak. But again, I'll quote the New York
Times article that says ``the counties where motorists spend the
highest percentage of their income on gasoline tend to be in poor,
rural areas.'' Amtrak doesn't go there. We don't have commuter rails.
We have working trucks. We have big trucks. We haul feed. We haul beef.
We haul pork. We need working trucks and they drive a large distance.
That's why this energy debate is critical. And here's the problem.
All we're trying to do is bring, what's the problem, what's the
solution. What's the problem. What's the solution.
Here's the problem. January 2001. $23 a barrel. January 2006, after
the Democrats took control and promised to lower fuel prices, that's
right here, where are we today? $123 a barrel.
What does that do for gas prices? From $1.45 to $2.33 to over $4 a
gallon for gas hurts rural America, hurts my district.

{time} 1115

Don't come to the floor without a solution. The Outer Continental
Shelf, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, billions of barrels of
oil. We have in this Congress and Congresses of the past said ``off-
limits.'' We're not going to explore this area. We're not going to
recover.
Very similar to our position on ANWR. A position a size of the State
of South Carolina. A drilling platform the size of an airport. And we
are not going to drill there for billions of barrels of oil. President
Clinton vetoed that in 1995. Had he not, that oil would be flowing to
our country today. 1995 he vetoed the bill. President Carter put it
off-limits for oil and gas exploration. That's why ANWR was originally
set aside, but, no, we have that off-limits.
What is another solution? Coal-to-liquid technologies, diesel fuel
that could help lower the price for Amtrak can be produced by taking
U.S. coal, American energy, and turning it into fuel.
We're going to come to this floor talking about, oh, unemployment
compensation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional
minute.
Mr. SHIMKUS. We're going to come to this floor saying, Oh, we've got
to do something because energy heating costs are high; oh, we need to
do something because people are losing their jobs.
I will tell you how we can get jobs back into the economy. Let's use
American-made emergency. Let's open up the coal fields. Let's get mine
workers the jobs. Let's build a coal-to-liquid refinery. Good building
trade jobs. Let's have high-paying jobs operating those refineries.
Let's build pipelines to get this fuel to the Amtrak station to put in
the diesel engines, and let's help our budget airlines not go bankrupt
because of the high cost of fuel. Not just our budget airlines. Here is
one on Continental: Continental joins cut-back frenzy. Soaring fuel
prices.
Why do we have a job problem in this country? Because we have an
energy problem. Until we come to this floor to debate on bringing more
supply to the American public, our economy is always going to be
struggling. We're the only country that looks at energy resources not
as an economic advantage but as an environmental disaster.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, first of all, at the end of the Clinton
administration, oil was $27 a barrel. It is now $134 a barrel. A
significant increase. And my friends on other side of the aisle are
attempting to blame this newly elected Democratic Congress--I think
someone on the other side said we have been here for 18 months--for
this increase.
Furthermore, every bill that the Democrats bring before this Congress
that attempts in any way, shape, fashion, or form to reduce the use and
therefore the price of oil, the other side of the aisle votes ``no.''
The response to high oil prices was to give the big oil companies tax
breaks. Well, that's not the priority of this Democratic Congress.
I want to talk about alternative energy. We want to invest in
alternative modes of transportation like passenger rails which would
take 8 million cars off the road. We want to reduce the dependence on
foreign oil, the dependence on gas and on fossil fuels thereby making
our country stronger both domestically and internationally.
The other side wants to talk about tax breaks for oil and gas
companies. We're talking about investing in Amtrak and making our
streets less congested, our skies cleaner, and our country less
reliable on oil and gas.
What that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire how much time
remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes. The
gentlewoman from California has 18\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for 3 minutes.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, 50 years ago President
Eisenhower created the national highway system which changed the way we
travel in this country. Today, we need to do the same thing with
passenger rail and make the level of investment necessary for us to
become the most successful in the 21st century. That is why I am so
excited about House bill 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act, which was introduced by Mr. Oberstar, Ranking Member
Mica, subcommittee Ranking Member Shuster, and myself.
Amtrak is extremely valuable to our country. It takes cars off the
road that are already congested. It reduces congestion in the sky, and
it's better for the environment.
In many areas of the country, Amtrak is the only mode of
transportation available. They have shown major increases in ridership,
too, as ridership has increased in 8 of the 9 last years and reached a
record level of 25.8 million passengers just last year. And with the
cost of gas potentially rising to $5 a gallon, there would be even more
riders lining up for Amtrak.
Unfortunately, for many years Amtrak had been given just enough money
to live alone, never getting the necessary funding to make serious
improvement in the system. The hydraulic electric system is 70 years
old, 65 percent of the bridges were built in the 1920s, and several
tunnels which trains travel through every day were built in the 1800s.
In 2005, Amtrak conducted a comprehensive review of its capital
needs. The review determined that Amtrak should invest $4.2 billion to
bring their infrastructure to the state of good repair. Today, with the
backlog of major bridges and tunnel work, the necessary investment
capital has approached an estimated $6 billion.
As other countries continue to invest tens of billions of dollars
each year to improve their passenger rail system, we are falling
further and further behind by deferring much-needed improvements to our
system. We must find a way to speed up Amtrak bylaws of repair work and
bring its assets to a good state of repair so that Amtrak can
concentrate on increasing capacity, increasing speed, developing new
facilities, and planning for the future.
These major infrastructure improvements are also necessary to improve
the safety and security of the system and its passengers and workers.
Amtrak has and will continue to play a critical role in evacuation and
transportation systems during national emergencies. Unfortunately, it
is also a prime target for those who wish to harm us, and we must
provide resources to make the system less vulnerable.
I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues in the House and
the Senate to pass important legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. The United States used to have a strong
passenger rail system. Now we're at the caboose, and they don't even
use cabooses anymore.
The American people deserve better, and I believe that the Amtrak
reauthorization bill will go a long way to bring the use to its
rightful place as the world leader in passenger rail.
In closing, I went from downtown Brussels to downtown Paris, 200
miles,

[[Page H5124]]

1\1/4\ hours; downtown Barcelona to downtown Madrid, 2\1/2\ hours.
We will move forward with high-speed rail in this country.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, you know, I think we've forgotten it's a
private corporation, not a government entity, that we're attempting to
help here.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding the time.
We're debating Amtrak. Well, certainly Amtrak's important for a lot
of folks in the Northeast, but I will tell you as far as my
constituents in western North Carolina, we can't commute to our jobs
using Amtrak. This is not a solution for American energy independence
that is being offered here on the House floor.
What is outrageous is as gas prices go above $4, all they have is
blame rather than action. My Democrat colleagues are simply passing
blame rather than trying to act in a constructive way. And there is a
way for us to act as a Congress to bring down gas prices. It is not by
lawsuits, which is what the Democrat majority wants; it is not by more
taxation on those driving cars, those using energy resources, those
producing resources.
You know, there is a way that we can act. The American people
understand it. This is a question of supply and demand. Seventy percent
of the price of fuel comes from the price of crude oil. The American
people understand this as gas is over $4 a gallon, as a barrel of oil
is over $130 a barrel. And I will tell you, we must act.
In order to lower gas prices, this Congress must act to increase
supply. We have to increase refining capacity, and we have to do this
in a constructive, reasonable, proper way. One day we will end our
dependence on foreign oil. We will end it and we will use our
alternative sources of energy. We will use domestic production. We will
use refining capacity here in the United States. But let's talk about
some important statistics here.
Seven hundred days ago the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said,
Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas
prices. What is the plan? Where's the action? We've seen nothing. The
Democrat Whip, Jim Clyburn, said, Democrats have a plan to help curb
rising gas prices. What have we seen? Nothing. Steny Hoyer, the
Democrat leader, said, Democrats believe that we can do more for the
American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices. Now,
all of this was said in an election year. What have we seen in the last
2 years from this Democrat Congress? Nothing.
Now, I will tell you it is not perfect. Not all Republicans support
opening up ANWR. Not all Republicans support oil shale. Not all
Republicans support increasing refinery capacity, but roughly 91
percent of Republicans support those issues while 86 percent of House
Democrats oppose those actions.
I think it's time that we come together for a commonsense solution to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Conservation is a sign of
personal virtue but is not a means to energy independence. We must act
together.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I want to remind everybody that investing
in Amtrak is an energy-efficient way to decrease our dependence on
foreign oil. One rail line can carry the equivalent of 16 highway
lanes, and Amtrak uses 50 percent less energy per passenger than air
travel.
I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire on the time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 7 minutes. The
gentlewoman from California has 15 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. If I could inquire of my colleague if she has
additional requests for time.
Ms. MATSUI. I have no additional speakers, and I will close.
I would yield to the gentleman to use his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman for saying she has no
additional speakers, so I will continue.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, whatever the outcome of this debate on Amtrak today
is, it is not going to affect my constituents very much. What does
affect them every minute of every day is the price of energy. I would
suggest that we should defeat the previous question on the rule so that
the gentleman, Mr. Sessions, can offer an amendment to this bill that
would bring to the floor a bill that has provisions that will do
something about energy, that will do something on the issue that
affects every American every moment of every day.
That amendment would bring to the floor H.R. 3089, the No More
Excuses Energy Act, and at the same time, a discharge petition today is
being filed to require the House to vote on that bill.
The philosophy of that bill is that we need to produce more energy of
all kinds here at home, and we have run out of time to make excuses on
why we can't do that. And you have heard some of those excuses and some
of the political blame game already today during the debate. Some
people want to blame China and India for using too much oil. Some
people want to blame big oil companies. Other people want to blame OPEC
for not producing enough. Some people even want to blame suburban moms
for using too much energy as they drive their kids to sporting events
in their minivans.

{time} 1130

They want to say they're using too much oil. But the point is, we've
had enough of this blame game. The point is, it's time for this
Congress to act and actually do something. And the way to act today is
to vote down the previous question so today we can do something about
the cost of energy throughout the country.
The No More Excuses Act takes the approach that we need to do more of
everything. Yes, it allows drilling in Alaska and off our coasts, but
it also encourages companies to take the CO<inf>2</inf> that goes up
the smokestacks and put it back in the ground to flush out all of the
oil on existing wells so that we can get every drop we can out of the
ground.
This bill encourages the building of more refineries. It encourages
the building of nuclear power plants. It encourages more wind energy.
There is a lot of wind energy activity in my district, but what I hear
from all of those involved is, when Congress just extends the tax
credit 1 or 2 years at a time, there is no way that we can make the
financial decisions we need to make.
So this bill that ought to come to the floor today would extend it by
10 years so that we can have a major investment in wind, as well as all
the other forms of energy that we can produce here at home, because
every bit of energy we produce here at home is one less barrel of oil
we have to buy from overseas. And that makes sense.
What we're trying to do is to force some action that will make things
better, not worse. Unfortunately, what the public and what the markets
hear from this Congress so far the last 18 months are ideas that make
things worse. They want to put a windfall profits tax on ``Big Oil'' so
that they are discouraged from producing more oil. They may not know by
the way, Madam Speaker, that 90 percent of the wells drilled in the
continental United States are drilled by independent companies, not Big
Oil. But what people hear from this Congress is we want to take away
the incentives that encourage us to drill the Deepwater in the gulf. So
other countries are there drilling, but we want to tie our hands and
not produce the energy we have; we'd rather buy the oil from Saudi
Arabia or Venezuela or Nigeria. That makes no sense.
There is no one perfect answer, but Madam Speaker, my argument is
that rather than pointing the fingers of blame, it's time for no more
excuses. It's time for action today, and that action can come by voting
down the previous question so that the rule can be amended and we can
take action today that produces more energy of all kinds here at home.
That will matter to my constituents, and that will matter to all
Americans.
Ms. MATSUI. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Thornberry, said it
best: no excuses. It's time for us to get our work done, and the bottom
line is is

[[Page H5125]]

that the supply side of the equation is the problem. If we had lots of
supply, prices wouldn't be what they are. We need to bring to the table
American energy for America's independence, but quite frankly, we're
not only tired of paying higher prices, we're also tired of building
new Dubais across the world. And that rests at the feet of our Speaker,
Nancy Pelosi, who has a policy that restricts Americans from drilling
for oil and having energy independence. Today is no excuses.
Madam Speaker, since taking control of Congress in 2007, this
Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to do
anything constructive, constructive, to address the domestic supply
issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs
that American families are facing today.
So, today, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
this House can address the real solutions to energy costs. That's the
supply side. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend
the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses
Energy Act of 2007, introduced by my friend Mac Thornberry of Texas,
that he introduced back 1 year ago in July 2007.
This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by opening new
American oil refineries; investing in clean energy sources such as
wind, nuclear and captured carbon dioxide; and making available more
homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the
arctic energy slope and America's deep sea reserves.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. I urge all of my colleagues to take this attempt to
spend almost $15 billion of taxpayers' money on subsidized trains and
turn it into something positive about energy prices for all of America
and for American independence so that we can say we are finally working
together and doing something positive about the rising price of fuel.
By defeating the previous question, we can do that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I
yield myself the balance of my time.
The rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to highlight
transportation challenges and our vision for a better tomorrow. It is
Congress' responsibility to provide our constituents with alternative
modes of transportation, especially as we see increased congestion and
ever rising gas prices.
The Democratic majority is fighting to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil and bring down gas prices and launch a cleaner, smarter
energy future for America that lowers costs and creates hundreds and
thousands of green jobs. This is a marked change from the 7 years of
the current administration's energy policies of simply drilling for
more fossil fuels and providing even greater taxpayer subsidies to big
oil companies already earning record profits.
The underlying bill, H.R. 6033, the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008, takes huge steps to modernize Amtrak and give
it the tools it needs to operate effectively and efficiently.
By giving this Nation viable passenger rail, we will be able to
decrease our dependence on foreign oil and give commuters options to
get to work and school. In fact, Amtrak takes 8 million cars off the
road.
We have a commitment to maintain and improve the backbone of our
Nation's transportation infrastructure system. This bill does just
that, and I urge its adoption.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on
the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1253 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3089) to secure
unrestricted reliable energy for American consumption and
transmission. All points of order against the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Natural Resources, the chairman and ranking
number of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the chairman
and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce;
and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered
by Representative Rahall of West Virginia, which shall be
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions
____

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . .[and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________