A bill to amend the limitation on liability for certain passenger rail accidents or incidents under section 28103 of title 49, United States Code, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to raise the cap on rail liability in cases of gross negligence. This bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Elton Gallegly of the 24th District of California, and I thank him for all of his hard work on it.

When Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act in 1997, it included a small provision imposing a strict cap on liability in railroad crashes. The cap is now contained in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 28103 and states that the ``aggregate allowable awards to all rail passengers, against all defendants, for all claims, including claims for punitive damages, arising from a single accident or incident, shall not exceed $200,000,000.''

What this means is that regardless of the circumstances no matter how many people are killed or injured in a train crash, and no matter what caused the crash total liability for all of the passengers hurt or killed in the crash cannot exceed $200 million.

The problem is that when a real catastrophe occurs, this number is just not sufficient and there is no way around it.

Let me tell you what happened 2 years ago in California.

On September 12, 2008, a commuter train in Chatsworth, California carrying more than 200 people crashed head-on into a freight train.

The carnage from this crash was unspeakable. Twenty-five people were killed. Their bodies, many torn to pieces, had to be extracted from heaps of steel and wreckage.

Another 101 people were injured. Volunteers and rescue crews worked that day to help pull them from the wreckage. Emergency response agencies transported over 100 people to hospitals. Their injuries ranged from blood in the brain and collapsed lungs to bone fractures, gashes, and scratches.

For some people, the crash was a horrible, harrowing experience, but they have been able to return to the lives they had before.

For others, the families of the 25 people who died and for those who suffered the most serious of injuries, life will never be the same.

According to the final report of the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, no unexpected equipment malfunction or weather problem was responsible for this crash.

The National Transportation Safety Board report states: ``the probable cause of the September 12, 2008, collision was the failure of the Metrolink engineer to observe and appropriately respond to the red signal because he was engaged in text messaging that distracted him from his duties.''

The NTSB found, in other words, that the engineer wasn't paying attention, and he sailed through a red signal, crashing head-on into the freight train. In fact, the report finds that he was so busy texting that he never even hit the brakes.

According to the report, on the day of the crash, the engineer sent 21 text messages, received 20 text messages, and made four outgoing telephone calls while he was driving the train.

NTSB wrote,

the investigation further revealed that this amount of

activity was not unusual for this engineer. Wireless records

for the 7 days preceding the accident showed that on each

workday, the engineer had sent or received text messages or

made voice calls during the time he was responsible for

operating a train. Two days before the accident, he sent or

received about 125 messages during the time he was

responsible for operating a train. He had also made phone

calls during these periods.

Astoundingly, the NTSB found that ``the content of all of the engineer's text messages over the previous 7 days, including those during and outside the times the engineer was responsible for operating a train, indicated that the engineer and, a teenage boy, had been coordinating to allow, the teenage boy, to operate, Metrolink, train 111 on the evening of the accident.''

Although texting while driving the train was clearly prohibited under the operating rules of Veolia Transportation, who employed and oversaw the engineer under contract with Metrolink, this engineer had been violating these ruled habitually and had not been stopped.

The conductor who worked with the engineer on Metrolink train 111 observed him using his cell phone while driving the train a month before the accident. According to NTSB, ``He said he spoke to the engineer about it and he later brought the incident to the attention of a supervisor.'' But the behavior obviously continued.

Bottom line: The report says the engineer wasn't paying attention to the passengers' safety, he was sending text messages on his cell phone, and no one else took action to stop this dangerous behavior. As a result, 25 people died.

This is unbelievable. And it is unacceptable.

Since the Chatsworth Crash, I have worked to improve rail safety. In October 2008, Congress passed and the President signed the ``Rail Safety Improvement Act,'' which included a key provision that I strongly pushed requiring

mandatory collision-avoidance systems on America's major passenger, commuter, and freight lines.

But this $200 million liability cap remains in place.

That means that under current law, the train operator, Metrolink, and the company that hired and oversaw the engineer, Veolia, believe they only have to pay $200 million total to all of the victims of the Chatsworth crash and their families.

It doesn't matter how tragic the families' losses were. Or how high the survivors' medical bills are. Or how much has been lost in their ability to work and care for their families. The cap is $200 million total, regardless of the circumstances.

This is terrible public policy, should never have been adopted, and needs to be changed.

In a large crash involving hundreds of people and very serious injuries, a court needs to be able to award the damages that it finds are necessary to care for the victims and their families--to pay their medical bills and to compensate for wages they will never again be able to earn.

The bill I am introducing is straightforward. It would raise the liability cap in any case where a court finds gross negligence or willful misconduct to $500 million. And it would do so retroactively to ensure that those who were injured or whose family members were killed are not unfairly deprived of the benefits of what was really the right policy in the first place.

I understand that the rail industry believes that the cap on damages keeps their insurance costs and risk exposure down, and I appreciate all the feedback that has been provided by California's passenger rail systems.

I look forward to working with them to make sure this legislation will not have any unintended consequences. I do not expect this bill to be considered and enacted this week. Facing that reality, I will work with the interested parties, including California High Speed Rail Authority and CalTrain, to further refine this legislation. There will be an opportunity to introduce an improved product as a ``first day bill'' in the next Congress.

But I believe we must do everything we can first to improve safety on our rail lines and second to ensure that when the very worst occurs and people are injured or lose their lives in these accidents, they and their families are fairly compensated.

I urge my colleagues to work with me to amend this law and raise the cap in cases of gross negligence.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to raise the cap on rail liability in cases of gross negligence. This bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Elton Gallegly of the 24th District of California, and I thank him for all of his hard work on it.

When Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act in 1997, it included a small provision imposing a strict cap on liability in railroad crashes. The cap is now contained in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 28103 and states that the ``aggregate allowable awards to all rail passengers, against all defendants, for all claims, including claims for punitive damages, arising from a single accident or incident, shall not exceed $200,000,000.''

What this means is that regardless of the circumstances no matter how many people are killed or injured in a train crash, and no matter what caused the crash total liability for all of the passengers hurt or killed in the crash cannot exceed $200 million.

The problem is that when a real catastrophe occurs, this number is just not sufficient and there is no way around it.

Let me tell you what happened 2 years ago in California.

On September 12, 2008, a commuter train in Chatsworth, California carrying more than 200 people crashed head-on into a freight train.

The carnage from this crash was unspeakable. Twenty-five people were killed. Their bodies, many torn to pieces, had to be extracted from heaps of steel and wreckage.

Another 101 people were injured. Volunteers and rescue crews worked that day to help pull them from the wreckage. Emergency response agencies transported over 100 people to hospitals. Their injuries ranged from blood in the brain and collapsed lungs to bone fractures, gashes, and scratches.

For some people, the crash was a horrible, harrowing experience, but they have been able to return to the lives they had before.

For others, the families of the 25 people who died and for those who suffered the most serious of injuries, life will never be the same.

According to the final report of the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, no unexpected equipment malfunction or weather problem was responsible for this crash.

The National Transportation Safety Board report states: ``the probable cause of the September 12, 2008, collision was the failure of the Metrolink engineer to observe and appropriately respond to the red signal because he was engaged in text messaging that distracted him from his duties.''

The NTSB found, in other words, that the engineer wasn't paying attention, and he sailed through a red signal, crashing head-on into the freight train. In fact, the report finds that he was so busy texting that he never even hit the brakes.

According to the report, on the day of the crash, the engineer sent 21 text messages, received 20 text messages, and made four outgoing telephone calls while he was driving the train.

NTSB wrote,

the investigation further revealed that this amount of

activity was not unusual for this engineer. Wireless records

for the 7 days preceding the accident showed that on each

workday, the engineer had sent or received text messages or

made voice calls during the time he was responsible for

operating a train. Two days before the accident, he sent or

received about 125 messages during the time he was

responsible for operating a train. He had also made phone

calls during these periods.

Astoundingly, the NTSB found that ``the content of all of the engineer's text messages over the previous 7 days, including those during and outside the times the engineer was responsible for operating a train, indicated that the engineer and, a teenage boy, had been coordinating to allow, the teenage boy, to operate, Metrolink, train 111 on the evening of the accident.''

Although texting while driving the train was clearly prohibited under the operating rules of Veolia Transportation, who employed and oversaw the engineer under contract with Metrolink, this engineer had been violating these ruled habitually and had not been stopped.

The conductor who worked with the engineer on Metrolink train 111 observed him using his cell phone while driving the train a month before the accident. According to NTSB, ``He said he spoke to the engineer about it and he later brought the incident to the attention of a supervisor.'' But the behavior obviously continued.

Bottom line: The report says the engineer wasn't paying attention to the passengers' safety, he was sending text messages on his cell phone, and no one else took action to stop this dangerous behavior. As a result, 25 people died.

This is unbelievable. And it is unacceptable.

Since the Chatsworth Crash, I have worked to improve rail safety. In October 2008, Congress passed and the President signed the ``Rail Safety Improvement Act,'' which included a key provision that I strongly pushed requiring

mandatory collision-avoidance systems on America's major passenger, commuter, and freight lines.

But this $200 million liability cap remains in place.

That means that under current law, the train operator, Metrolink, and the company that hired and oversaw the engineer, Veolia, believe they only have to pay $200 million total to all of the victims of the Chatsworth crash and their families.

It doesn't matter how tragic the families' losses were. Or how high the survivors' medical bills are. Or how much has been lost in their ability to work and care for their families. The cap is $200 million total, regardless of the circumstances.

This is terrible public policy, should never have been adopted, and needs to be changed.

In a large crash involving hundreds of people and very serious injuries, a court needs to be able to award the damages that it finds are necessary to care for the victims and their families--to pay their medical bills and to compensate for wages they will never again be able to earn.

The bill I am introducing is straightforward. It would raise the liability cap in any case where a court finds gross negligence or willful misconduct to $500 million. And it would do so retroactively to ensure that those who were injured or whose family members were killed are not unfairly deprived of the benefits of what was really the right policy in the first place.

I understand that the rail industry believes that the cap on damages keeps their insurance costs and risk exposure down, and I appreciate all the feedback that has been provided by California's passenger rail systems.

I look forward to working with them to make sure this legislation will not have any unintended consequences. I do not expect this bill to be considered and enacted this week. Facing that reality, I will work with the interested parties, including California High Speed Rail Authority and CalTrain, to further refine this legislation. There will be an opportunity to introduce an improved product as a ``first day bill'' in the next Congress.

But I believe we must do everything we can first to improve safety on our rail lines and second to ensure that when the very worst occurs and people are injured or lose their lives in these accidents, they and their families are fairly compensated.

I urge my colleagues to work with me to amend this law and raise the cap in cases of gross negligence.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee-- Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and Senator Burr in introducing the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010.

Together our offices worked to craft a bipartisan bill that updates museum and library services funded through the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS, to better meet the needs of Americans of all ages and in all types of locations.

The Museum and Library Services Act was first enacted in 1996, and my predecessor, the late Senator Claiborne Pell, was instrumental in its development and enactment. This law established IMLS, an independent Federal agency, to oversee funding and programs authorized under the law's two main subtitles, the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, and the Museum Services Act.

Libraries and museums are rich centers of learning, woven into the fabric of our communities, big and small, urban and rural.

Libraries are not just places to read and borrow books or for parents to bring their children for story time. During the economic recession, even as libraries are being forced to do more with less, more and more people are also turning to their public libraries for access to information and the Internet, job search and training programs, and business development help.

As noted in the new report, ``Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries,'' nearly half of the 169 million visitors to public libraries over the past year used a library computer to connect to the Internet during their visit. Accessing information on education, employment, and health were most commonly cited for this computer and Internet usage.

Museums also provide 21st century learning opportunities, while connecting communities to the culture, science, art, and events that make up humankind's history. The estimated 17,500 museums in the United States reflect the great diversity of our nation. They are large and small; urban and rural; local, national, and international; and include aquariums, arboretums, historical societies, nature centers, zoos, planetariums, art museums, and many other types of museums.

Museums contribute to the quality of life and the economic development of their home communities. They are key partners in offering hands-on, self directed learning for students of all ages. They draw tourism, which contributes to local economies.

The Museum and Library Services Act represents our national commitment to these institutions that are essential to building strong and vibrant communities. Through a relatively modest federal investment, this law helps build capacity to support and expand access to library and museum services at the state and local level.

In Rhode Island, library funding has supported improved online resources; literacy initiatives, including a summer reading program; and the provision of talking books to residents with visual impairments and disabilities. Through museum funding, the Museum of Art at the Rhode Island School of Design, the Preservation Society of Newport, and the Blithewold Mansion, Gardens, and Arboretum have all received support this past year.

The legislation we are introducing updates the law to reflect the education and workforce development role libraries have been playing, including helping the out-of-work look for jobs, equipping business owners with data to make informed business decisions, and helping young and old alike gain critical digital literacy skills--the skills that help to discern fact from fiction when using the Internet.

Our bill will also help enhance training and professional development for librarians and ensure the development of a diverse library workforce, including by authorizing the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian program, which has been previously funded through annual appropriations.

It will help build state capacity to support museums by authorizing IMLS to support state assessments of museum services and the development and implementation of state plans to improve and enhance those services. Our bill will also strengthen conservation and preservation efforts.

Additionally, it seeks to fully leverage the role of libraries and museums in supporting the learning, educational, and workforce development needs of Americans by requiring IMLS to improve coordination and collaboration with other federal agencies that

also have an interest in and responsibilities for the improvement of museum and libraries and information services.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in this endeavor and urge the Senate to take quick action to adopt this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.