Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

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

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the time situation now for the body?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the veto message occur at 11:45, with half of that debate time equally divided between Senators Boxer and Inhofe and the remaining half under the control of the Republican leader.

This has been approved by both sides.

Mr. President, if I could, I will take a couple minutes at this time.

I have been watching the Congress pretty closely now for 35 years as a Member of the House and the Senate, and I have been involved in end of sessions 19 times in the Senate, but I must say, it is about as big a mess as I have ever seen. We are not going to have a single appropriations bill down to the President signed for the whole year, even by the end of this week.

The bill that is on the way, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, which is $9.8 billion above what the President asked for and has lots of problems, is going to be vetoed, and will be back up here next week. Hopefully, we will find a way before this week is out to pass the Defense appropriations bill so our men and women will know they are going to get the assistance they need, the equipment they need, the protections they need. That would be the first appropriations bill to get to the President that he might actually sign.

It is true right across the board. All year long, it has been about political positioning. It has all been about fighting over Iraq. There are so few things where we have come together and worked together and gotten something produced.

Thank goodness a couple weeks ago we did the Amtrak authorization bill. I have urged, all year long: Let's quit finding issues we can fight over, and let's find some issues we can work together on, get bipartisan agreements on that would help the American people.

I believe, actually, the WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act, is one of the few things we can look at and say we did something good for our country and for our constituents this year. It is bipartisan. It has been laboriously developed over the last 5 or 6 years--a long time coming.

It is one of the few areas where we actually do something constructive, where you can see physically something the Federal Government has done. It creates jobs. It provides safety and protection, safe drinking water. It is one of the only bills that I think actually produces a positive result.

I have always been proud of the Corps of Engineers because the Corps of Engineers is one of the few Government entities that actually does something, produces something--something you can see and feel and helps the quality of life. We are always involved in social welfare programs, giveaway programs, and we are always trying to find a way to raise taxes and do things that are not good for our constituents. This one actually does something good.

Sure, there are disagreements. There are some programs in here that probably are not sufficiently justified. I know from past experience, almost every President has opposed this type of bill. I remember Jimmy Carter did not like the Corps of Engineers. We had a fight with him over river projects, water projects, the same thing with George H.W. Bush, the same thing with Bill Clinton. He had people in his administration, in the Office of Management and Budget--oh, they didn't like water resources projects.

Here it is again. The President has vetoed this bill. So I must say, I am not boasting about it, but I have no qualms about saying the President's views notwithstanding, I will vote to override his veto on this legislation.

This is about flood protection. This is about water and sewer projects. It is about doing something about water and the proper salinity in the Gulf of Mexico. These are good, deserved, justified projects that should go forward.

So I will vote to override the veto. Perhaps the President did the right thing in some respect, but I buy the argument it is an authorization. It is not an appropriations bill. I have always in the past found that if you get a project authorized and then you go get the appropriations, you do not have a problem. Well, we kind of got away from that. We have gotten into difficulty. But I understand why the President vetoed it. He is trying to hold the line on spending. Congratulations. That is good. I am going to be supporting him on most of his vetoes.

I cannot imagine any vetoes that might be forthcoming where I would not support the President--beyond this. But in this case, I believe this bill is in the best interests of the country. I know it is very beneficial to my State. A quarter of the State probably would not exist if we did not have flood control projects. My State is a poor State. We are still struggling to make sure people have safe drinking water, so they do not have to haul the water to their house, believe it or not, here in 2007. Ports and harbors are critical for the future economic development and competitiveness of this country in a global economy.

So I look forward to having a brief discussion. I look forward to the vote. I will vote to override the President's veto.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted: ``yea.''

Mr. President, I wish to put in the Record that this has been cleared with the leader on our side also. I have no objection.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator

from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

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

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

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

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.

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

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 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 following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).