The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TRANSPORTATION BILL AND POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S7570-S7571 on Oct. 28, 2015.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TRANSPORTATION BILL AND POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a piece of legislation that is pending before the Senate and is expected, as I understand it, to be considered tomorrow, and that would be a short-
term extension of the Transportation bill.
While I am tired of short-term extensions of transportation bills, it is my understanding that in this particular case a short-term extension will lead us to a long-term transportation bill. I certainly welcome the opportunity to consider something that would meet the needs of our country--its infrastructure needs, our highways, roads, bridges--for a number of years to come. We have to get to the point at which we are dealing with issues over a longer period of time than we do when we do a short-term extension.
It is also important for us to make certain there is certainty so that the Kansas Department of Transportation and other departments across the country, as well as highway contractors and those who use our highways, can have certainty in what the transportation system--the roads, bridges and highways--is going to be.
There is another issue of uncertainty that is out there, and it has to do with positive train control. Included in the legislation, extending the time for us to consider a transportation bill, is a provision that extends the deadline for the final implementation of positive train control, a safety issue that has long had consideration here in Congress, and we are well on our way to having positive train control in our rail transportation system, both passenger and freight. But we need to have an opportunity for that implementation to occur over a slightly longer period of time than what was originally planned when positive train control became a mandate, a requirement upon our railroads.
I am pleased that we are going to consider an extension of the Transportation bill that puts us in a position to deal with a long-term transportation bill. I am also pleased--and I wish to spend just a minute or two speaking--about a provision that is included in that extension, and that deals with extending the positive train control implementation.
I wish to thank my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune. He is the chairman of the committee that I am on, the commerce committee. I thank him for his leadership in advancing this effort and allowing us the opportunity to deliver the certainty that we need on this important issue.
There is no allegation that those who are implementing positive train control are inattentive or that they lack desire; there is no suggestion that it is an undue delay, that they are not doing what needs to be done. Every indication we have from all experts is it has nothing to do with a lack of commitment of the railroads; it has to do with the fact that we can't get there in the time that we had hoped for originally when we set forth this requirement.
We know there is a pending implementation date, a deadline of December 31. We know it is unattainable. It is unattainable despite the fact that billions of dollars have already been spent to get PTC installed as quickly and as safely as possible. However, the reality is that without an extension of that deadline beyond December 31, railroads and shippers--that deadline to take the necessary precautions to alter their service standards is imminent. In other words, if they have to comply, they are going to change their schedules, and that has tremendous economic consequences to businesses that depend upon rail transportation. It creates a significant problem in contingency planning required by a shutdown of the supply chain that uses rail transportation. Congress needs to act now.
There are suggestions that I understand from a number of my colleagues that the extension we are going to presumably be voting on in the next day--that the vote be delayed or that the extension be shortened. I want to express my conviction that it is necessary for Congress to act now, not later. Our Nation's economy cannot afford--
those who work in Kansas in agriculture, including our farmers and ranchers, and those who work in manufacturing, as well as our laborers in the aircraft industry--cannot afford a rail disruption that would occur if we don't do this extension immediately. We need to extend the deadline. As I say, it could have a devastating impact upon thousands of manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, and certainly the passengers who utilize rail transportation--who use Amtrak and other passenger services across the country.
I would indicate to my colleagues that just a few weeks ago my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, and I joined in a bipartisan effort to ask our colleagues to express the need for this extension, and we were successful in getting 43 Senators, 12 of whom were Democratic Senators, to sign a letter encouraging our leadership to bring forth this issue. So in a very bipartisan way, with broad agreement, this extension needs to occur.
Incidentally, the House passed this extension by unanimous agreement. Again, apparently there was little controversy or no controversy; it passed by voice vote. So we have significant bipartisan support, bicameral support. The House has already acted, and it is time for us to do so.
I wanted my colleagues to know that many in this Chamber have encouraged this to occur. We are on the precipice of it happening, and we ought not allow it to be delayed or shortened. The extension needs to occur this week. The vote needs to occur this week. The extension needs to be for a sufficient period of time to send that message of certainty and give the rail industry the opportunity to come into compliance in a timeframe that is reasonable and manageable.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
