To require Amtrak to regularly report to Congress on the profits or losses relating to the provision of food and beverage service and to limit such service on Amtrak rail lines that incur losses.

PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT ACT

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page S13537]]

Senate will resume consideration of S. 294, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 294) to reauthorize Amtrak, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Bond (for DeMint) amendment No. 3467, to require Amtrak to
disclose the Federal subsidy of every ticket sold for
transportation on Amtrak.
Bond (for DeMint) amendment No. 3468, to increase
competition in the American rail system by allowing any
qualified rail operator or transportation company to compete
for passenger rail service.
Bond (for DeMint) amendment No. 3469, to clarify the level
of detail to be included in the modern financial accounting
and reporting system required under section 203.
Bond (for DeMint) amendment No. 3470, to require the
Performance Improvement Plan to address reaching financial
solvency by eliminating routes and services that do not make
a profit.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senate is now back on the Amtrak
bill that Senator Lott and I have been working on together for many
years. I am glad we are moving closer to passing this bipartisan
legislation. Our bill has had wide support with over 40 cosponsors.
This is our fifth day on the Amtrak bill, and we have made very good
progress. We have been able to work through most amendments. Some we
were able to agree to, while some required votes. We still have a few
amendments, however, we need to address. But we should be able to
finish this bill soon, hopefully today.
It is critical that we do so. When we think about how crowded our
roads are, the high price of gasoline, airport delays as an
alternative, the potential fuel savings and reduction in greenhouse
gases from more people riding the trains, the need for multiple modes
of transportation for evacuations during emergencies, rail is a
critical answer to our needs.
The need for multiple modes of transportation for evacuations during
emergencies is a critical factor, and rail is one very important
answer.
We know people will ride the train when there is service available.
Amtrak set a new company record of almost 26 million passengers in the
last fiscal year. We have seen successes in the Northeast corridor
between Boston and New York and through New Jersey to Washington, but
there is no reason why we can't have world-class rail service in other
regions of the country. Many States are ready to develop new rail
corridors, and our bill is going to meet this need by creating a new
State grant program for rail projects. In all, it would authorize
almost $2 billion a year for Amtrak and for the States over the next 6
years. Instead of barely giving Amtrak enough resources to survive, our
bill paves the way for an improved, modern passenger rail network by
providing funding for Amtrak's capital and operating needs. Our
legislation will also reduce train delays by allowing the Federal
Surface Transportation Board to issue fines to freight railroads when
their trains delay Amtrak passenger trains.
When it comes to overseeing use of taxpayer funds, our bill requires
that Amtrak improve its efficiency and its management. Overall, we
require a 40-percent reduction in Federal operating subsidies over 6
years. We require a new financial accounting system to increase the
transparency of the company's financial management.
The last Congress, our bipartisan compromise bill plan was approved
by the Senate 93 to 6. I hope we will see a similar showing of support
in this Chamber later today. America's travelers have been through
terrible inconveniences, missed appointments, total unreliability. Now
they are relying on us to provide practical and convenient travel
options and passenger rail service must be one of them.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Jersey
may object to a unanimous consent request.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.
Mr. COBURN. I need to make it first.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Excuse the delay.
Mr. COBURN. My attempt is for a colleague, an amendment for Senator
Ensign, amendment 3482. I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside and we consider 3482.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I note that this amendment could be
considered nongermane afterwards and could have been held after that.
The fact that we are not going to have a discussion on the amendment is
somewhat disconcerting, but we will honor the objection of my colleague
from New Jersey.

Amendment No. 3474

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3474.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 3474.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require Amtrak to regularly report to Congress on the
profits or losses relating to the provision of food and beverage
service and to limit such service on Amtrak rail lines that incur
losses)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE.

(a) Quarterly Report.--The National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (referred to in this section as ``Amtrak'') shall
submit a quarterly report to Congress and to the Secretary of
Transportation that sets forth the profit or loss, as
applicable, relating to the provision of food and beverage
service on each rail line operated by Amtrak.
(b) Contract Renegotiation.--If the food and beverage
service on a specific Amtrak rail line incurs a loss in any
fiscal year, Amtrak shall renegotiate any applicable
contracts relating to food and beverage service (including
associated labor contracts) for such rail line in an effort
to--
(1) reduce the cost of such service; and
(2) increase to likelihood to make a profit in the
following fiscal year.
(c) Discontinuance.--If the food and beverage service on a
specific Amtrak rail line incurs a loss in any 2 consecutive
fiscal years, Amtrak shall terminate such service on such
rail line.
(d) Reinstatement.--Amtrak may reinstate food and beverage
service that was discontinued under subsection (c) if--
(1) at least 1 year has elapsed since the date on which
such service was discontinued on the applicable rail line;
(2) Amtrak submits a credible proposal to Congress and to
the Secretary of Transportation for generating food and
beverage service profits on such rail line for each of the
following 5 fiscal years; and
(3) the Secretary of Transportation, or the designee of the
Secretary, certifies to Congress that the proposal submitted
under paragraph (2) will likely generate food and beverage
service profits on such rail line for each of the following 5
fiscal years.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a straightforward amendment. Last
night, at 11 o'clock, I arrived at Union Station, taking the Acela
Express from New York City to Washington. It is a great value, with
good service. It is one of the areas where Amtrak makes money.
But what the American public needs to see about this bill--and I am
going to talk about in this amendment, specifically--is we are right
here now at this level, as shown on this chart, and total subsidies
will not go down, they will go up over the next 5 years for Amtrak. If
you consider operating subsidies and capital subsidies, here is where
they are, as shown on this chart.
What we are going to have is about a $600 million increase between
now and 2012 in the amount the American taxpayers are going to
subsidize Amtrak. That may be something we want to do. This amendment
specifically deals with an area where Amtrak can make a difference
right now, and it is on food service. Over the last 3 years, American
taxpayers have subsidized food service on Amtrak to the tune of a
quarter of a billion dollars. Now, anybody who travels knows when you
get on American Airlines, you can buy a Milky Way candy bar for $3. The
same thing costs 75 cents on Amtrak. They know you can buy a beer for
$5. It costs $3 on Amtrak.
Why is it we have food programs and food sales programs that the
American taxpayer is subsidizing on Amtrak that we refuse to subsidize
on airlines?
Now, we have heard during this debate that, well, we subsidize
Amtrak,

[[Page S13538]]

but we subsidize all the rest of them. Here is the analysis of the
Department of Transportation on how much we do subsidize the other
forms of transportation in this country. It is pretty revealing.
If you are driving a car, you are paying in to the Federal
Government. It is a negative subsidy. You, the individual driver, are
paying $1.79, for every 1,000 miles you drive, to the Federal
Government--just for the privilege of you driving. But if you are
riding a bus, it is a $4.66 subsidy from us, the taxpayers, to us, the
bus riders. If you are flying on an airplane, the subsidy is $6.18 for
every 1,000 miles we travel. It is what we pay us to fly.
When you get to public transit, it is quite a bit bigger. Could you
make justifications for that? I am not saying we should not. But when
you get to Amtrak, we are talking about $210 per thousand miles
traveled, on average. We know on certain rail lines, certain routes,
there is not much subsidy, Amtrak actually makes money. They have
slightly improved in certain areas, especially with their latest data.
But $210?
Now, if you take their total subsidy, which right now is $1.3
billion--which counts all the subsidies, both capital and others--if
you were to take out the losses on food, you would save another $125
million to $150 million.
Nobody expects, when you get on Amtrak rail passenger service, that
the rest of us ought to pay for your beer. Nobody expects we ought to
pay for your 3 Musketeers candy bar. Yet, in essence, that is what is
happening on Amtrak.
This amendment is fairly straightforward. What it says is three
things:
It says Amtrak has to calculate and report quarterly to the
Department of Transportation and Congress on the quarterly profits and
losses, by route or rail line, of food and beverage services. What that
means is they ought to know where they are losing their money, and we
ought to know where they are losing their money.
The second thing it says is, Amtrak ought to restructure their food
and beverage service contracts for any rail line that is losing money
on its food and beverage services. This is not rocket science. This is
that if you are going to sell it, you ought to at least sell it for
enough to cover the cost. Yet we continue to not do that. We continue
not to want to hold them accountable to do that.
Then finally, if they cannot present a way to be able to sell food
and beverages at a break-even cost at least, then they ought to have to
discontinue selling food or have a food service on it. And they have
done it on one line because it was losing so much money. The question
is, why haven't they either raised the prices or done it on the other
lines?
All this amendment is is a management audit tool for Amtrak that
says: You are going to tell us every 3 months by route where you are
making your money. They need to know that anyhow. They don't right now.
They do not account for it right now. They cannot tell you how much by
line or route they are making or losing on food service. Any manager of
any process knows if you do not know the information, if you do not
have the metrics, you cannot manage it. If you do not have the metrics,
you cannot manage it.
The history in this debate on Amtrak is interesting, because in 1997,
the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 was supposed to solve
all the problems, and by 2003 we were not supposed to have a subsidy in
Amtrak. That is what the bill said. It said we will, in fact, by 2003
solve this drain of $1.3 billion per year coming out of everybody
else's hands into those people who ride Amtrak. We have not had an
authorization since 2003. This bill claims that, in fact, the subsidies
will go down. But they will not. That is their numbers. That is the
bill's numbers.
So now we are saying we are fixing the problem--except the problem
continues to grow. If, in fact, we would fix the food service portion
of this, the subsidies would do this, as shown on this chart. It would
be a flat line. There would be no increase in subsidies--capital or
otherwise--if, in fact, we were breaking even on all the food.
It is a straightforward amendment. I know there is some consternation
with this amendment by the authors of the bill and the managers of the
bill. I understand that. But the fact is, it is hard to explain to the
American people why we are subsidizing a 3 Musketeers candy bar and a
package of pretzels and a can of beer for people who ride Amtrak--and
we are.
It is interesting; I fly every week, and my total travel time is 8
hours each way. I price bottles of water at airports. A bottle of water
on Amtrak is $1.99. Do you know what the average price is for a bottle
of water at airports in this country? And that is not even on the
airplane. It is $2.49. Yet we are selling it 20 percent cheaper on
Amtrak than you can buy it in an airport. If you buy it at a
convenience store, you can buy it for 99 cents. But we have a captive
audience.
The airlines know how to take advantage of that, and we are not
subsidizing them, except for the $6, which we pointed out, per 1,000
miles. That comes to 6 cents a mile, by the way, versus $21 a mile for
those on Amtrak.

So my hope is we will at least look at this issue and say: OK, if you
are not going to manage it, at least look at the food side of it.
Measure it. Then, if we want to come back in a year and take this
amendment away, saying: OK, you have done it--with this amendment, if
they start breaking even on the food, it does not have any effect on
them, other than reporting. If they are not going to break even on
their food and beverage service, what it says is: Give us a plan to
show how you are going to do it. It is very simple. But if you are not
going to do either of those, then stop losing money on food service and
beverage service on Amtrak.
With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have a unanimous consent
request we will propound in a few moments to get a time certain for a
vote on this amendment. But we want to make sure everybody is OK with
that before we do it.
I say to Senator Lautenberg, do you want to go ahead and propound
that? We understand everybody has cleared that now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, to be sure the Record reflects our
understanding, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 11:45 a.m.
be for debate with respect to the Coburn amendment No. 3474, the time
be equally divided and controlled in the usual form, no amendment be in
order to the amendment prior to the vote; that upon disposition of the
amendment, the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on S. 294.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking Senator Coburn
for getting involved in the process. He made some requests last week in
terms of needing more time to actually look at this legislation and
think about amendments that should be offered. Senator Reid agreed to
that.
Senator DeMint and Senator Coburn have both kept their commitments.
Senator DeMint offered a number of amendments. We have cleared, I
think, four of them, and we are working on some others. Senator Coburn
came up with two very serious amendments he is interested in and has
indicated he would agree to a limited time for debate and have a vote.
So I want to acknowledge that, first of all.
I too am concerned about some of the costs we have had at Amtrak. In
fact, the last time we passed Amtrak reform, I included a provision in
that legislation to allow food to be contracted out. Up until that
point, it could not even be contracted out. It was all done in-house
with Amtrak, and there was no good reason why that should have been
limited that way. They still have not gotten the costs where they
should be. But the opportunity is there for them to do that.
I want them to continue to work to get better prices and cut the
subsidies, cut the costs, and also while providing good food. But I do
think food--whether you are on an airplane or a train--is an important
part of the service. I am not going to take an Amtrak passenger train
from some remote area that is going to be on the rail for a day or
maybe even overnight and not have

[[Page S13539]]

any food service. If you wipe out food service, you might as well
terminate the route.
But I think this is an amendment that deserves discussion and
consideration. This amendment, as I understand it, would require Amtrak
to regularly report to Congress on the profits or losses relating to
the provision of food and beverage service. We ought to have that. We
ought to have all kinds of reports. It ought to be transparent. We
ought to know where the costs are, where the profits are. We should
increase the profits and cut the costs.
But to say you should limit such service on Amtrak lines that incur
losses, what you are saying is you would have to terminate the lines
because if you do not have food service, what are you going to do? Have
a brown bag? Bring a lunch? Raise the price? I am for that. I think you
ought to pay the costs for doing this.
But if we say: ``OK, if you cannot get this under control, we are
going to terminate the line,'' what if the line is actually doing
pretty good, but the food service is still costing too much? We should
keep the pressure on, but I do not think we can, in good conscience,
deny passengers food and beverage service on these long-distance rails.
Amtrak ought to lead more. They ought to address this question of
food costs and get those costs down. I must say, we have not had
particularly good success in the Senate either. We have had trouble
controlling our food costs. But we have heard the stories about airline
passengers stranded on planes with no food, and they could not get off
the planes, and the kind of consternation that has caused.
Unlike air travelers who may deboard and maybe purchase food during
layovers, rail passengers do not have time during stops to get off and
come back on. Even if they could, most Amtrak stations do not have
snack bars. There is the question of what, in reality, your options
are.
Even in corridor service, we know providing food and beverage is
essential. The improved food service, for instance, on the Acela
contributed to a 20-percent increase in revenues during 2007. Of
course, that is the gold standard. If all of Amtrak service was like
the Acela, serving the numbers of people with the quality of service
they have, and all that, then we would be a lot better off.
But the Department of Transportation inspector general found that
Amtrak has reduced its food and beverage labor costs by $12 million
over the past 3 fiscal years. I think pressure from the last Amtrak
bill has been leading to this. They understand they have to do a better
job. We believe that number can drop even further. S. 294 will reduce
subsidies by 40 percent over the life of the bill. This includes
section 210, which requires Amtrak to reevaluate onboard amenities and
service, including food for these long-distance rail routes.
We want reform. We are pressing on this issue, and it is in the bill.
In fact, I think some people, when they actually read this bill, have
been surprised there are reforms in there, there are improvements that
are going to be demanded. People might say we need even more. That is a
legitimate argument. But that has been our goal. We want Amtrak to
provide better service. We want Amtrak to be able to not lose money, to
actually make money. But we want to have the national rail passenger
system.

With this amendment, if a particular rail line suffers a loss on a
food service, then they would be required to renegotiate the contract
relating to food and beverage, including labor contracts. You might
say: Well, even that may not be bad. But if a particular rail line
suffers a loss in two consecutive years, they would be required to
terminate food service on that line. Therein lies the problem. Amtrak
would be permitted to reinstate food and beverage service on a
discounted line only after a 1-year moratorium and the Secretary
certifies a profit for food and beverage service would be generated on
such rail line for each of the following 5 fiscal years.
I do agree this is a problem that should be able to be addressed.
They just ought to do it. There is a simple solution: You change the
service. You raise your costs. You get a different contractor. There
are a lot of options. We should continue to press this point, but I
don't think we ought to make it such that we wind up having to
terminate service if we can't get the food situation straightened out.
I don't think it is necessary given the other reforms that we have
included in this bill. It goes too far, but I understand the intent. I
want this service--I want improvement. I want the cost to come down.
But I want a national rail passenger service. I have learned from past
experience, don't mess with people's stomachs or you will get in real
trouble.
In that connection I will not read the entire piece, but I refer to
an article from Parade magazine that will be printed on November 4,
2007. Some of what it says is that with plane delays and high gas
prices, Americans are asking: Can we save our trains? It goes into some
detail about all of the delays and inconveniences and problems now--the
congestion on our highways, the delays, the discomforts on airlines--
and people are asking: Is there another alternative? That alternative
should be a national rail passenger system.
But, surely, the Government and Amtrak, we could all do a better job
of making it a good experience and living within their means. They have
not done that. This bill, hopefully, in its present form, or with
additional amendments that can be added, will pressure Amtrak to
provide this service because I think we are going to need it for the
future transportation needs of our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, everybody knows the Senator from
Oklahoma is meticulous in terms of his anxiousness to reduce the costs
of Government in any way we can. That certainly is what is being
attempted in this bill that Senator Lott and I have introduced.
The amendment the Senator from Oklahoma has offered will slowly but
surely eliminate one crucial component of Amtrak service, and that is
its food and beverage service.
Passengers who take Amtrak's long-distance trains may be in transit
for as long as 2 or 3 days, and some may be diabetic.
Unlike airports, most Amtrak stations don't have restaurants or snack
bars where you can pick up a bite before you get on the train.
Mr. President, how much time do we have available?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just a little over 1 minute.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will summarize very quickly to say
that on these long rides, a person may be diabetic, may need food. It
is part of what rail transportation offers, and it attracts more
passengers to know that they can be comfortable and still have some
nourishment along the way. If we want to reduce subsidies, then we
ought to look at the airlines where we are subsidizing them to the tune
of $15 billion a year and say cut out the mini pretzels, cut out the
little bag of nuts. It costs a lot of money when you multiply it by all
of the passengers who get on airplanes.
The objective is to make Amtrak a more viable part of our
transportation network, and I hope we will not start to pick things
apart. Maybe we ought to look at what they do mechanically; see whether
we can reduce a mechanic here or there. That is not what we want to do.
All of this is going to be reported. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma
for his amendment, but I am going to oppose it, and I hope all of our
colleagues will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is interesting that two-thirds of the
airlines don't have pretzels anymore because they have to make a
profit, and they have to report to their shareholders. So it is not
there anymore.
We heard a statement that subsidies have been reduced by 40 percent.
That is the operating subsidies. The total subsidies haven't been
reduced at all. They are actually going up. They are actually going up
by this amount over the next 5 years. These are Amtrak's numbers, based
on this bill.
These are the numbers of the Department of Transportation, based on
this bill.
Now, if you would break even on food service, there wouldn't be an
increase in total subsidies. But none of us would

[[Page S13540]]

run a business with a loss leader that would continue to undermine our
ability to put the capital into business and to stay in business. We
would, in fact, make a change. This amendment gives them 2 years. It
says, the first year--you get 2 years to lose money, so the first year
if you have lost money, renegotiate it, raise your prices, cut your
labor costs. The cost of food service on Amtrak is 52 percent labor
costs. The average person doling out the food on Amtrak makes twice
what somebody does in the private sector doing the same thing. So what
we really have is a subsidy to the food service workers on Amtrak
because that is 52 percent of the cost, rather than a subsidy to the
food.
Again, the question the American people ought to ask is, should we be
subsidizing somebody's beer and 3 Musketeers on Amtrak when we don't do
it anywhere else? Isn't it common sense that if you are going to offer
food service, you at least ought to break even?
What we know from the testimony of the head of Amtrak is they use it
as a loss leader. The only problem is where they use it as a loss
leader, they continue to lose more money. On their profitable routes,
they make money on food service. So the question is, should we, in
fact, subsidize food? Nobody wants a diabetic not to have food
available, and that would not happen. That is why we put 2 years in
here. The first year you recognize you have a problem, and the second
year you fix it. This isn't an amendment that is designed to get rid of
service in terms of train routes. This is an amendment that says none
of us would run a business losing this kind of money. It is a quarter
of a billion dollars the last 3 years lost on food, on Amtrak--a
quarter of a billion dollars.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would the Senator yield for a quick question?
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Knowing the situation that we run into with the
airlines where the people are stuck for hours at a time, is it a good
idea to eliminate--as the Senator suggested, we are happy that we
eliminated pretzels on the airlines. Is that a good idea?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the difference is, that becomes a
management decision of the airline, which has to compete. Amtrak has no
competition. They have no competition. So, therefore, they continue to
do things, because we will subsidize them, that somebody in the private
sector would not do. That is a decision that is made that says--
American Airlines saved $30 million last year by their restriction of
food services. It was in the paper today, $30 million they saved on all
the routes by a restriction of the food service. To them, in an airline
industry that has been struggling, that is a significant amount of
money. You know what. We still flew American Airlines; we just bought
it before we got on.
The statement that there is no food available in all of the Amtrak
stops is not true. That is true in the most remote areas, but there is
food available.
So if we, in fact, would pass this amendment, and Amtrak would run
the food service like any other business would run it, this number
would become a flat line. In other words, we would go up here and then
we would come across, and the American taxpayer would save about $1
billion over the next 5 years if, in fact, we would do that.
So the opposition--I want to finish my point. The opposition to this
amendment is the fear that we may lose a route because we may not offer
food service. I would be happy to offer----
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for one
more question.
Mr. COBURN. Let me finish my point. I would be happy to offer the
managers of this amendment, to make a second degree to this amendment
that says on long-haul routes, if, in fact, there is no possibility you
can never do it on a certain subsidy level, I will be happy to accept
that. The purpose is that--we lose a quarter of a billion dollars
subsidizing somebody's Heineken every day, every year, when we have
this system where we don't make a management decision that is in the
best interests.
Here is the real reason the decisions aren't made on food service. It
is because they don't have to be because we are still going to put the
money there. That is the real reason why it is not there.
In the private sector, it would have happened already. If there were
private trains competing, I guarantee the prices would be higher for
the food component of it. Nobody is going to lose it.
So it is a straightforward amendment. I have a couple of minutes
left, and I am happy to yield for a question from the Senator from New
Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator if he was
aware that we differ on the amount of subsidy that goes into rail
service food costs. It is only $80 million as we see it.
How would a rejection of all loss for food eliminate all subsidies,
when, in fact, we subsidize the airlines that are for-profit
businesses? Why should we then continue to offer them----
Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, the reason we do is we subsidize for
$6 per 1,000 miles traveled on the airlines, and we subsidize $210 per
1,000 miles of travel on the railroad. That is a significant reason we
ought to be all the more efficient with what we do.
The Senator is correct. The last year, we only subsidized $80 million
worth of food, but on average, every 3 years, it is a quarter of a
billion dollars. That was my statement. So ask yourself, should we be
subsidizing $80 million worth of food on Amtrak.
This is a straightforward, commonsense amendment that most Americans
would say makes sense. We at least ought to cover the cost. If we can't
cover the cost, then maybe we ought to renegotiate the contracts with
the food service workers who make $43,000 a year who are selling you a
bottle of water. Compare that to somebody who is working at an airport
or a stewardess on an airplane who is serving you and who is making
less than that.
So the consequences of our actions have great impact. Why is it
important? Is it because of the subsidy we give Amtrak? Do you know
what it is? It is borrowed from our grandkids. We can't deny it. We
have the administration claiming a $160 billion deficit this year, and
the real deficit is going to be $300 billion because we are going to
borrow $140 billion from Social Security to pay for Medicare, and then
we are going to borrow $200 billion to pay for a war that we are
charging to our grandkids. So that is important because the subsidy
isn't coming from us. It is coming from the next two generations.
I yield the floor. I understand all time has expired.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. COBURN. I yield back any remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. All time has
expired.
The question is on agreeing to the Coburn amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 67, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 397 Leg.]

YEAS--24

Allard
Barrasso
Bayh
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Gregg
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
McCaskill
McConnell
Roberts
Shelby
Sununu
Thune
Voinovich

NAYS--67

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper

[[Page S13541]]

Casey
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse

NOT VOTING--9

Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Graham
McCain
Obama
Sessions
Vitter
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3474) was rejected.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

cloture motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 158,
S. 294, AMTRAK Reauthorization.
Frank R. Lautenberg, Trent Lott, Joe Lieberman, Benjamin
L. Cardin, S. Whitehouse, Robert Menendez, Daniel K.
Inouye, Susan M. Collins, Mike Crapo, Larry E. Craig,
John Warner, Byron L. Dorgan, Gordon H. Smith, Max
Baucus, Bill Nelson, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Harry Reid.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 294,
a bill to reauthorize Amtrak, and for other purposes, shall be brought
to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 79, nays 13, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 398 Leg.]

YEAS--79

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse

NAYS--13

Allard
Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Chambliss
Coburn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Gregg
Inhofe
Shelby
Sununu

NOT VOTING--8

Biden
Clinton
Dodd
McCain
Obama
Sessions
Vitter
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are
13. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
during the recess period count postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________