Transportation, Housing And Urban Development, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 - Continued

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Wicker amendment, No. 2366, pending before the Senate on the THUD bill, as it is known around here--the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill. This is a bill which obviously includes Amtrak. Senator Wicker, of Mississippi, has offered an amendment which relates directly to the funding for Amtrak and whether it will be cut off.

The Senator from Mississippi says in his amendment he would cut off all Federal transportation funding for Amtrak in the next fiscal year unless Amtrak allows its passengers to transport guns in their checked baggage. This amendment would essentially impose upon Amtrak the standards for checking guns and ammunition that currently applies to airplanes. However, planes and trains have very different systems for handling checked baggage and different security concerns.

Let's talk about the effect of the Wicker amendment. Amtrak has said it is not ready to allow guns and ammunition to be transported in checked baggage. Amtrak doesn't have the security infrastructure, the processes or the trained personnel in place to ensure that checked firearms would not be lost, damaged, stolen or misused. Senator Wicker is imposing a new burden on the Amtrak train system in America--clearly an unfunded mandate--so some passengers--I don't know how many--can check firearms in their baggage. If this amendment becomes law, Amtrak would have to let guns checked in baggage onboard, regardless of the fact that they aren't prepared for this, or they forfeit Federal transportation funding that the railroad desperately needs to provide services to millions of Americans.

I understand the Senator from Mississippi is going to modify his amendment to provide for a March 2010 effective date, which, in effect, gives about 5 or 6 months for Amtrak to hire additional security personnel, to buy the equipment or create the equipment for this checked baggage and to establish procedures at all the Amtrak stations across America so some people can check a firearm on an Amtrak train. I don't know if 6 months is feasible for Amtrak to make such a significant policy change.

Why is the Senator from Mississippi determined that we have to, in 6 months, make sure that any American who legally owns a gun can take it with them on an Amtrak train in checked baggage? Shouldn't we take the time to take a look at this and consider the basic questions of safety and cost before we vote for this?

Amtrak's current policy prohibits any type of firearm, explosive or weapon from being checked or carried on in baggage. This policy was put in place in the year 2004. Do you want to know why Amtrak put this policy in place in 2004? It was after the Madrid, Spain, train attack that killed 191 people and wounded 1,800 more. Amtrak's reasons for this policy were clear--safety and security. It was put in place in the aftermath of terrorist attacks that claimed lives.

Let me quote from a statement issued by Amtrak on its current policy.

Amtrak accepted firearms in baggage in checked baggage at one time. Weapons had to be separately secured in baggage or containers. However, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Amtrak began to place restrictions on the carriage of weapons on Amtrak trains. In 2004, the review and evaluation of numerous security measures occurred again after the attack on passenger trains in Madrid, Spain, on March 11, 2004. The purpose of this policy revision was to better ensure the safety and security of Amtrak passengers and employees. Amtrak decided to implement a total weapons prohibition, including firearms. The only exception was for sworn law enforcement personnel. Today, that policy is still in effect.

That exception is reasonable--for sworn law enforcement personnel. But the Senator from Mississippi wants to go beyond that. He wants to allow anyone who legally owns a gun in America--and I might tell you that the standards in many States are not that high for the ownership of firearms--to impose upon Amtrak an obligation to check baggage with an unloaded firearm in a container, as specified, and that Amtrak has to set up the process for that passenger, regardless of the cost to Amtrak, which incidentally neither the Senator from Mississippi nor anyone else on the Senate floor knows. We have no idea what this is going to cost.

This amendment simply disregards the risk assessment that Amtrak conducted for the security of our rail network. It calls for eliminating all funding for Amtrak unless they adopt the policy on checking firearms in baggage the Senator from Mississippi is insisting on.

The stakes for Amtrak are enormously high. In the current fiscal year, Congress has appropriated $1.49 billion for Amtrak's operations and capital improvements. This amendment would say Congress couldn't give $1 to Amtrak unless it changes the policy, as the Senator from Mississippi insists.

Well, I can tell you what Amtrak means to my State of Illinois. With the increasing cost of gasoline, more and more people are relying on Amtrak. Thank goodness they are. Using Amtrak trains means fewer cars on the highway and less pollution. Families are saving money. It is a godsend for those who use them in college towns--sending their kids to school and letting the kids return using the trains.

In Senator Wicker's home State of Mississippi, Amtrak had a ridership of 100,000 people last year. That number isn't as large as the 4.4 million in my home State, but it is a fair number of people in Mississippi who found it convenient to ride on Amtrak trains. Last year, Amtrak employed 72 people in Mississippi and paid out over $4.5 million in wages. The Senator from Mississippi says: If you don't accept my amendment to allow firearms in checked baggage, close it down.

Nationwide last year, 28.7 million passengers rode on Amtrak--an average of more than 78,000 passengers per day. Amtrak employs nearly 18,000 people nationwide with good jobs, but the Senator from Mississippi would rather see Amtrak's funding, riders, and employees cast aside unless he is satisfied that Amtrak's checked baggage policy allows people to take firearms onto trains.

Besides concerns about terrorism, there are legitimate safety concerns with permitting weapons in checked bags on trains. Amtrak doesn't have the personnel, systems or security infrastructure needed to manage firearms aboard passenger trains. Amtrak cannot effectively safeguard against theft, loss, damage or misuse of transporting guns. Does the Senator from Mississippi expect Amtrak to assign someone to the baggage car to guard the suitcases that may contain the firearms? If he does, how is he going to pay for that?

Passenger trains do not have nearly the baggage handling safeguards that airplanes do. Checked baggage on trains is carried in a separate train car. I wish to tell you, most of the rolling stock of Amtrak is decades old and certainly these baggage cars are as well. They were never designed with this level of security in mind. These train baggage cars are much easier to access during transit and in stations than the checked baggage compartments of airlines. That is fairly obvious.

In addition, Amtrak trains stop much more frequently than airplanes, which creates more opportunities for access and theft and misuse of firearms in checked baggage. In fact, checked luggage is often unloaded and presented to passengers on the platform rather than a remote, secure baggage pickup area. In order to screen and capably manage checked firearms, Amtrak would need to significantly revise its baggage handling operations and the training of its personnel.

What about special situations, such as when there is a homeland security alert due to specific threats against our rail network? There is not one word in the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi about how to deal with these homeland security threats when it comes to firearms and checked baggage. Should Amtrak be required to allow weapons on trains when there is a terrorism alert?

I wish to know if the Senator from Mississippi ever considered that. I know it didn't come up in a hearing on this amendment because there has never been a hearing on this amendment.

A serious effort at revising Amtrak's weapons policy would include an assessment of these safety and security issues. A serious legislative effort at revising Amtrak's weapons policy would also look at the cost this amendment imposes on Amtrak. There is a lot of criticism on the floor about spending and deficits. Here we have an unfunded mandate on Amtrak because at least one Senator--perhaps others join him--believes it is a good idea that people could show up at the Amtrak station and check their firearms. Are the people willing to pay more, every passenger pay more for tickets, so that person can have a guard on the checked baggage in the baggage car with the firearms in place? We regularly hear concerns about Federal spending, particularly from the other side of the aisle. But the Wicker amendment imposes significant security costs that would have to be absorbed by Amtrak. They may have to cut back in services or raise ticket prices to absorb the cost of this effort, because at virtually every Amtrak station in America they have to be prepared, with the Wicker amendment, to take on firearms as checked baggage.

There have been no hearings on this amendment. The Senate has not given Amtrak or law enforcement or Homeland Security, or the baggage handling unions, or anyone affected by this amendment, the opportunity to even consider it and testify.

Given time, given the opportunity to work with these stakeholders, we may be able to work out some kind of understanding that accommodates the concerns of the Senator from Mississippi, but the amendment we have before us is not a responsible approach to this challenge. To think that we would allow one person at one station to impose a burden and expense on Amtrak to be borne by every other passenger, to me, in this age of terrorism, is difficult to explain and impossible to accept.

I urge my colleagues to think twice about this amendment. I know the political force behind gun amendments, but this goes too far. If it is a good idea, why doesn't it go through the ordinary process here? At least have a hearing and answer the basic questions I have raised and others have raised during the course of consideration of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source