[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 163 (Thursday, October 25, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13405-S13429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 294, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Sununu amendment No. 3452, to amend the Internet Tax 
     Freedom Act to make permanent the moratorium on certain taxes 
     relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce.
       Sununu amendment No. 3453, to prohibit Federal subsidies in 
     excess of specified amounts on any Amtrak train route.
       Lautenberg (for Carper) amendment No. 3454 (to amendment 
     No. 3452), of a perfecting nature.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3453

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey 
for giving me this time and for being a longtime advocate of Amtrak but 
not only the eastern corridor Amtrak. The Senator from New Jersey has 
worked diligently for a national system. The reason we have a need for 
a national system is because it is national. The national system 
connects other routes to each other. If we had funded Amtrak in the 
same way we funded and helped other modes of transportation, we would 
have a bigger ridership because we would have better on-time delivery. 
The bad on-time delivery has caused a drop-off in ridership. This does 
not mean we should abandon the national system.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill. Senator Lott has been 
another longtime champion of a national system. There are 41 cosponsors 
of this bill. We have worked together to make sure we don't only 
subsidize the eastern corridor. I have said all along, it is national 
or nothing for me. I believe in a national passenger rail system, one 
that connects our country from coast to coast. My vision is that we 
have a track going across the northern part of the country from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific, the southern part from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific, and then from the top to the bottom of our country, from the 
northernmost point down to the tip of Florida and the tip of 
California. That is a national system. It would have a track that also 
splits the middle of the country from Chicago down to Texas. From 
there, we have the capability to have State systems that would emanate 
from that skeleton.
  It is important that we stay together. It would be easy to say: Well, 
the northeastern corridor does own its own tracks, and therefore it is 
more efficient, and why don't we just cut off the rest of the country 
and subsidize that? That is not a national system. I

[[Page S13406]]

could not in good conscience support only a northeastern line. My 
constituents would be robbed of the Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited 
lines, and there are other States that have legitimate needs as well. 
If we actually had done better by Amtrak all these years, we would 
require fewer subsidies.
  I am pleased to support the bill, but I do not support the Sununu 
amendment. It isn't that I don't think his heart is in the right place. 
He is trying to save money because Amtrak is subsidized. We don't deny 
needed highways in the rural parts of our States. All of our Federal 
highway money is divided. It goes into rural areas. Why would we deny 
Amtrak service to other parts of the country that don't have the 
ridership mainly because of the on-time service not being dependable?
  In 2003, a public opinion poll showed an overwhelming 85 percent of 
participants supported Amtrak, $2 billion worth of funding for Amtrak. 
We need a better system. We are working for a better system.
  The bill before us is a well-debated, well-adjusted bill that isn't 
everything the Senator from New Jersey wants. It is not everything the 
Senator from Mississippi wants. It is not everything this Senator from 
Texas wants. But I know that if we have a national system, it is an 
important alternative mode of transportation for our country. We need 
highways. That is the bread-and-butter transportation system for the 
country. We need air transportation, and we do provide an air traffic 
control system to support that. A national rail passenger train is 
another mode that, in the event of an emergency, is a very helpful mode 
of transportation. After 9/11, when our air traffic system was shut 
down, people went to Amtrak. We needed that for the emergency. I 
believe we would be able to have much more in Amtrak if we funded it at 
a level where it would have better service and if we could get freight 
rail to work with us to actually help us alleviate some of the 
congestion they cause on their freight lines. We could work this out if 
we had rail support for Amtrak. It is important that we do that.
  In 2005, SAFETEA-LU authorized more than $40 billion on our highways 
for fiscal year 2009. The Senate will take up an FAA bill later this 
year that will invest $17 billion in aviation annually. We just sent 
the President a water resources bill authorizing $23 billion over the 
next 2 years. There is always a different standard for Amtrak. Amtrak 
is asking for, in this bill, $2.1 billion a year. I don't know why 
Amtrak is a stepchild. If we have the resources necessary to make it a 
system that serves the whole country, it would be an environmentally 
effective, efficient system that would operate to not only provide 
transportation needs in rural parts of the country, where you can have 
buses that go into very small communities and feed into an Amtrak 
station, but the service would improve. The on-time delivery would 
improve. For the kinds of subsidies we need, that we are authorizing in 
this bill, it should be a national system, not a northeastern corridor 
system. That is what is fair for the country. It is right for the 
country.

  Always in the Senate since I have been here, our Amtrak supporters 
have been national-or-nothing Amtrak supporters. I have supported the 
northeastern corridor. My friends on the northeastern corridor have 
supported a national system. Even in the hardest times, we have kept 
the system together. If we do that, we will see that the States will 
step in and do more, as California and some of the Western States have 
done, to their credit. We will have more private lines, more mass-
transit lines, such as we have coming into Dallas, feeding into the 
Amtrak station, making it more used. In Texas, 250,000 passengers used 
the Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited last year. It is a very 
important mode of transportation. The more we can do to make it 
efficient and effective, the better off we will be.
  The Sununu amendment would wreck the national system. I hope we will 
reject that, even though I respect my colleague from New Hampshire. I 
know his heart is in the right place. I want to work with him to make 
Amtrak more efficient, but dropping national lines is not going to make 
it more efficient.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Texas. She has always been a supporter of a national passenger rail 
service. We appreciate the fact that we can work together on this 
project.
  Among the routes that would be eliminated under a proposal that is in 
front of us would be the Crescent in the first year. The ridership 
there is not quite what it used to be because it originates in New 
Orleans and New Orleans is not a place where there is a lot of traffic. 
The Sunset Limited is the one--I am sorry--originates in New Orleans. 
In the third year, the Texas Eagle would be eliminated. Each one of 
them by themselves is not massive, but they are all part of a national 
network. When 9/11 came along and the aviation system was closed down, 
in many cases the only way to get more people to their destinations, 
home or otherwise, was through rail service. This would be a national 
security breach if we permitted this to be discontinued. There is no 
country in the world where there is rail service that doesn't have some 
subsidy contribution. We have to adjust ourselves to that. Neither 
would our aviation system work if we didn't make contributions to that; 
neither would our highway system be operating if we didn't, and we are 
deficient there.
  We have to make sure that a national transportation infrastructure is 
in place. An integral part of that is national passenger rail service.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Surely.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I was so pleased the Senator from New Jersey talked 
about the Sunset Limited because the Sunset Limited, which is the first 
line that would be eliminated under the Sununu amendment, connects 
California all the way through the southern part of the country, all 
the way through Texas. It goes through San Antonio and Houston, then 
over to New Orleans, through Mississippi, Alabama, and it ends in 
Florida. In Florida, you connect to go all the way up the northeastern 
corridor. If you take out the Sunset Limited--that is our 
intercontinental rail line all the way across the country on the 
southern side--you are taking out a major part of the connection to our 
national system. I hope the Senator from New Jersey is correct that we 
will not have a national system, if you take out the whole 
intercontinental southern half of it. I applaud him for bringing that 
out.
  Does he think if we took out that whole southern system, the Sunset 
Limited, that it would enhance Amtrak? Would it enhance the eastern 
seaboard? Would it enhance all the investment California has made all 
the way up to California and into the States of Oregon and Washington? 
Would that be something that would help the system?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In response, Mr. President, it would probably destroy 
the system. We can't escape the fact that the equipment is often moved 
around in different areas. We have to have this as a backup, as I said 
earlier, for security alone, but also, as we join the fight against 
pollution and greenhouse gases, the railroads are the best, most 
efficient use for transportation in those cases.
  So I think the wholeness of Amtrak's system is essential. We want to 
work together and make sure we include this as one of the targets for 
improving our transportation efficiency in the country. We are, 
unfortunately, way behind--whether it is in aviation or on the 
highways; and, certainly, Amtrak has not gotten its share of support. 
So we are looking forward to doing that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do not want us to have only those speaking 
who are opposed to the amendment. I know the sponsor, Senator Sununu, 
is here and will probably want to speak momentarily in support of his 
amendment.
  Let me say, to his credit, unlike some of our colleagues, he has been 
involved in this issue for years. As a member of the Commerce 
Committee, and when we were trying to get it up for consideration last 
year, he did not just try to block it from coming to the floor, he had 
some amendments, and we

[[Page S13407]]

agreed those amendments should be considered. That is the way to do 
this.
  One of the things I said last night, and I want to expand on a little 
bit, is this bill may not be perfect, that we can perhaps have more 
improvements. But here is a case where the people I hear from say this 
is not a good bill because it does not do enough--not that they are 
opposed to most of what is in it, or what is in it; they just want to 
do more. But then you say: ``All right, what do you want?'' and they go 
silent.
  So I think it is a major step in the right direction. If we can find 
more things that would improve the service, more reforms that would be 
helpful, I think we ought to consider that.
  Mr. President, I ask Senator Sununu, would you like to speak now? I 
would be glad to defer and let you explain more about your amendment, 
and then I would follow you, if you prefer, or I can go ahead.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Without objection, Mr. President, if I can respond to 
Senator Lott, I am happy to speak whenever the Senator feels he has 
made all the points he needs to make, at least in the current time 
frame. I wish to speak for 10 or 15 minutes or so on the amendment, and 
we can move from there. I know we have been allotted 2 hours, but I 
hope and I think we will not have to take all the time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in the interest of fairness, usually we go 
back and forth. We have had a couple people speaking against the 
amendment--Senator Hutchison a few moments ago. I say to the Senator, 
if you wish to speak now, I encourage you to do so, and then we will 
have speakers on the other side after that.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment I offered 
last night. This is an amendment that addresses the most basic question 
of fiscal responsibility. ``Fiscal responsibility,'' ``fiscal 
responsibility''--we hear this phrase all the time from politicians, 
whether you are inside the beltway from Washington or outside the 
beltway. I am sure at times people listening to the debate turn the 
other way because they hear everyone using this particular phrase as it 
seams to mean something different to everyone. But I say it is a most 
basic question of responsibility. Because we are not talking about how 
high the tax burden should be, or even how much or how large the 
Federal budget should be; we are not talking about whether we should 
spend money in a particular area so much as we are asking how much we 
should subsidize a money-losing proposition; how much money should the 
taxpayers be asked to spend on a business that is losing money.
  Amtrak is a business, and Amtrak is losing money. We are in a 
position to be able to look at different parts of that business and try 
to identify exactly how much money they are losing in particular areas, 
and ask that simple question: What is fair? What is right? How much 
Federal funding should be used to subsidize a passenger on a particular 
train in the Amtrak system?
  I would like to think my colleagues are willing to stand up and say 
the amount of money we should subsidize a passenger on a long-distance 
train is less than $1 billion per passenger. I think we can get 
agreement on that. Sometimes I am not sure if we could get agreement on 
that, but I think we could get agreement we should not provide a 
subsidy of $1 billion per passenger on every long-distance train Amtrak 
runs. That is a good starting point.
  I would like to think we could get agreement the subsidy for every 
passenger on every long-distance train Amtrak runs should not be $1 
million per passenger. In fact, let's say for the sake of reasonable 
discussion we can at least--at least--agree the maximum subsidy should 
not be $1,000 for every single passenger.
  This is a basic question of fiscal responsibility. How big should 
that subsidy be?
  Well, let's look at, first, how big the subsidy is today. There are 
15 long-distance routes. Mr. President, 15 percent of Amtrak ridership 
consumes 43 percent of the total Amtrak budget. That is well in excess 
of $1 billion. The revenue generated? Less than $400 million. By the 
Commerce Committee estimates, that means there is as much as $900 
million in losses--losses--for these 15 routes. The average per-
passenger subsidy is in excess of $200 for everyone riding these 
trains. Now, I say ``as much as $900 million'' because no one knows how 
much is being lost today.
  We have heard about all the fiscal reforms in this package, and we 
hope they better enable us to understand how much money Amtrak is 
losing, but the last time any clear audit was done on these long-
distance trains was in 2004 by the Inspector General. Let's look at 
what the Inspector General audit found in 2004.
  At that time, the losses were $475 million. They have only gone up 
since then. On the 15 routes, of course, the losses vary. On some 
routes they are higher than others. I think the lowest was for the Auto 
Train that runs from Orlando to Washington, DC. The subsidy per 
passenger was about $26. Given the importance many place on having a 
national system, and recognizing we provide different types of 
subsidies to aviation service, and even to our highways in different 
ways--mass transit as well--a subsidy level of $15 or $20 or $25 may 
well be justified. But that is the lowest subsidy level on any of the 
routes. The highest subsidy levels? In some cases, the Sunset Limited, 
at $286 per passenger; the Southwest Chief, at $198 for every passenger 
running on that train; the California Zephyr, at $140 per passenger.
  Where are we going to draw the line? Perhaps those who will support 
any of these long-distance trains no matter how much they are losing 
can stand up and say: Well, look, the good news is it is not $1 million 
per passenger. That is not good enough. It certainly is not good enough 
when we are taxing working families across America to provide these 
subsidies.
  It begs the question whether you could buy airline tickets for the 
amount that gets lost on any one of these routes. I think in many cases 
you could pay the airfare. I had my staff look today at what they might 
pay for an air ticket for the route of the California Zephyr. It 
certainly is lower than the cost of the train ticket. It is even lower 
than the cost of the subsidy. As compared to the Southwest Chief, the 
air ticket is lower than the cost of the train service and even lower 
than the subsidy--the cost to taxpayers for every passenger running on 
this system--and so on down the line.
  Now, I understand Amtrak has improvements they wish to make, that 
this bill has budget reforms and auditing reforms and costs management 
reforms that hopefully will improve these numbers. But we have to draw 
the line somewhere. All my amendment says is: draw the line at $200--
$200 per passenger--on any given train route. Next year, we lower that 
to $175; in the third year of the bill, $150. I think if you ask any 
American: ``Should we provide a subsidy of $150 per passenger,'' they 
would say: Of course not. That is ridiculous.
  We all feel there is some real value in train service, that Amtrak 
has great potential--a potential to be more successful, more 
financially successful, and to attract a different ridership. This 
amendment would not affect any of the corridor routes that serve the 
southern part of the country, the central part of the country, the west 
coast of the country, the Northeast part of the country. It would not 
affect any of those corridor routes. The corridor service is 46 percent 
of the ridership in the country. This amendment would not affect the 
Northeast corridor. That is nearly 40 percent of the ridership in the 
country.
  So the vast majority of people who enjoy or depend on service through 
Amtrak would not be affected. In fact, the vast majority of the riders 
on the long-distance routes would not be affected because today, at 
least according to the Inspector General's audit, there is only one 
route that is in excess of the $200 subsidy level. There are only two 
that are in excess of the $175 level.
  So if there is a real belief this bill is going to address these 
concerns and this problem, even the strongest supporters of long-
distance service should

[[Page S13408]]

be willing to support this amendment because, if nothing else, it will 
provide a real incentive, an honest incentive, to improve the 
performance of these routes.
  You would like to think it can be done. I would like to think it is 
not impossible to run these routes without losing $150 and $200 per 
passenger. Maybe it is not. But if it is not possible, the American 
people should be told it is not possible today--not in 3 years or 5 
years or 10 years.
  All the amendment would do is ask for some basic level of fiscal 
responsibility, to set some threshold as to the amount we are not 
willing to spend on these per-passenger subsidies. I hope those who 
feel most strongly about this legislation and about Amtrak can 
recognize this can only provide incentives for their performance, 
improvements they argue they want so very much. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote for the amendment, for no other reason than because 
I think it is pretty hard to defend a vote against it when we have 
families across America who are working hard, paying taxes every day, 
who could certainly use the $200 in subsidy per passenger, or the $150, 
or the $100, to spend themselves. Those are taxes we don't need to 
collect if we are not running these routes at such incredible losses.

  Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time we control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield 3 minutes to me?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the courtesy.
  Mr. President, how could something so wrong sound so good? Well, the 
answer is the label doesn't describe the problem. This label says it is 
going to be fine, but the product says: Let's get rid of rail passenger 
service in this country, except for Boston to Florida, the eastern 
corridor.
  Let me describe it in the context of the Empire Builder, a wonderful 
train that goes up through my part of the country. One hundred thousand 
North Dakotans rode the Empire Builder last year. That train has a 
great history, it has a past, and it also has a great future in my 
judgment.
  But there are those who come to this Chamber time after time after 
time and want to get rid of long-distance train service in this 
country. Why? Because they believe the country is crowded on the east 
coast and they ought to have good train service on the east coast and 
the rest of it doesn't quite match up. Look: Every country in the world 
virtually that has rail service, rail passenger service, has some 
subsidy for it. We subsidize most transportation services in this 
country. I don't have a problem with doing that.
  I think a national rail passenger system contributes to this country 
in a very significant way. Somehow, to suggest that our rail passenger 
system in the future should look like this: You have rail passenger 
opportunities from Boston down to Florida on the east coast, and the 
rest of it, you know, you don't need it--to suggest that is to ignore a 
significant part of this country.
  I support Amtrak. Can it work better? Sure. My colleagues, Senator 
Lautenberg and Senator Lott, have been great stewards in trying to put 
together legislation that accomplishes that. But I would say this: I 
think this country is strengthened and is a better country and has a 
transportation system that is a better system because we have a 
national rail passenger system.
  This is not a new amendment, I say to my colleagues. We have had this 
amendment around before. It has had different titles, but it is an 
amendment that says: Let's get rid of long-distance train service 
because there are people who have never liked Amtrak very much. Well, 
people probably will want to have train service, passenger rail service 
from Boston to Florida forever because that income stream of the large 
population center sustains it. The question is: should we have a 
national rail passenger system? Our country long ago answered that 
question and said: Yes, we should. That is why we have a national 
system.
  My colleague says: Well, there wouldn't be much consequence if we 
pass this amendment. Oh, yes, there would. Most of the long-distance 
rail system would cease to exist. That is what this product is. It 
doesn't say that on the label, but that is what the product is. I don't 
disparage my colleague for suggesting it. We come from different parts 
of the country. He apparently believes that only the eastern corridor 
should end up with a rail passenger system. I think it enriches our 
country, across the country from East to West to have a national rail 
passenger system that works well. It works well for my State. One 
hundred thousand people a year board that Amtrak system. They like that 
service. I hope the Senate will decide to weigh in, in opposition to 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, do I control the time on our side, or do I 
need to request the time to be yielded?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls the time on his side.
  Mr. SUNUNU. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 46\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, for any Senator who stands up and states that I believe there 
should only be service in the Northeast is wrong. It is wrong in 
substance, and I think it is wrong in the spirit of the debate on this 
floor because I certainly never suggested that. In fact, I suggested 
the opposite: No. 1, that this amendment doesn't affect the corridor 
services on the gulf coast, on the west coast, in the Northwestern part 
of the United States in any way, shape, or form; No. 2, that this only 
affects long-distance lines that lose more than $200 per passenger; and 
No. 3, that the goal of having a national service is a good one, 
provided that the level of cost and subsidy can be maintained.
  The suggestion was made earlier that I want to get rid of long-
distance trains. Again, no--only those losing more than $200 per 
passenger. In fact, to the point of the line that was mentioned 
previously in debate, the Empire Builder; according to the statistics 
of the Inspector General's review in 2004, it wouldn't be affected by 
this amendment either. The Empire Builder lost $94 per passenger in 
2004. I hope the performance has been improved a little bit since then, 
but even if it hasn't, even if this is one part of our economy that has 
seen no improvements in productivity since 2004, no reduction in costs 
since 2004, no improvements in marketing and ridership since 2004, the 
Empire Builder wouldn't be affected because it lost less than $200 per 
passenger. In fact, the Empire Builder wouldn't be affected in the year 
2009, when that subsidy threshold drops to $175. It wouldn't be 
affected in 2010, 2011 or 2012, because over the 5-year period, we only 
bring the cap down to $100, and the Empire Builder would still be below 
that figure in what it loses per passenger. In fact, in addition to the 
Auto Train, which I mentioned earlier, the Coast Starlite, the City of 
New Orleans, the Silver Service, all of those cost taxpayers less than 
$100 per passenger.

  Now, is a subsidy of $80 or $90 per passenger; a loss of $80 or $90 
per passenger; good? Is it that easy to justify to a family as they pay 
their taxes on April 15? I would be hard-pressed to justify that to 
people in my State of New Hampshire. But regardless, those routes are 
unaffected by this amendment. In fact, there are many others--several 
others--whose cost per passenger is in the range of $100 to $125, 
according to the Inspector General's report in 2004. I would hope and I 
would think they can improve performance by the 10 percent or 12 
percent or 15 percent necessary to get below that $100 cost per 
passenger as well. Maybe they can't. We can't forecast the future. But 
I think we can set an honest and a reasonable limit on what subsidies 
we are willing to provide.
  Again, I can't state it plainly enough. This amendment doesn't affect 
85 percent of the routes and ridership of Amtrak, the people who ride 
from all over the country--North, South, East, and West. It doesn't 
affect any of those long-distance routes, and there are probably close 
to half of them that have a subsidy level of less than $100 today. For 
any of those that meet the performance benchmarks, they would be 
unaffected as well. I hope my colleagues can support the amendment.

[[Page S13409]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would be interested in speaking on 
behalf of the Sununu amendment. I don't know what the alternating 
agreement is.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Alabama, 
whatever time he needs to consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be brief. Amtrak does go through 
my home State, and I have been interested in the impact of not having 
support for that periodic travel through our State that the system does 
and how much it costs and what the right public policy should be and 
how we should think about it. I would note Amtrak operates 44 routes 
over 220,000 miles of track, and 97 percent of those tracks are freight 
company tracks. But it runs a deficit each year, and we have to have 
Federal subsidies for it.
  The crux of the public policy issue that all of us, I think, should 
think about for the overall public policy--not for one or two little--
not for a few people in a vision for what we ought to do for the future 
but what is the truthful situation we are in.
  Kenneth Mead, the Department of Transportation inspector general, 
succinctly stated the situation this way:

       The mismatch between the public resources made available to 
     fund inner city passenger rail service, the total cost to 
     maintain the system that Amtrak continues to operate, and the 
     proposals to restructure the system comprise dysfunction that 
     must be resolved in the reauthorization process of the 
     Nation's inner city rail system.

  This proposed reauthorization would entail about a $2 billion-a-year 
subsidy for the next 6 years. Remember, the bill that was enacted in 
1997 to reform and have accountability for Amtrak contemplated there 
would be no more subsidies in 2002.
  Now, Senator Sununu has studied this issue, and I believe we can rely 
on the things he is saying, fundamentally. It is important, and I am 
glad somebody has committed the time and effort to point out some of 
the problems with going forward with business as usual.
  I am going to take a couple of minutes and share some thoughts. The 
train that goes through Alabama, Mobile, AL, east and west, it comes 
up--I am not sure exactly what the situation is this year, but when I 
checked last year, the train went through 2 or 3 days a week going east 
at 2 a.m. in the morning, and when it goes west, 2 or 3 days a week, it 
was 3 a.m. in the morning. Now, that is not likely to attract a lot of 
customers.
  Let me show this chart and go through it. I believe we will come to 
understand that what we are talking about, I say to Senator Sununu, is 
trying to do something that is basically impossible to do. It is not 
going to work. I wish we could. As we used to say in the country--I 
grew up on the railroad tracks. My daddy had a country store. There 
were three country stores and a railroad depot in our little community. 
The train went by, we had a passenger--I remember when we had a 
passenger train down there. There hasn't been a passenger train on that 
road in 40 years. There is only one store left and no railroad depot. 
Times change. Things happen.
  Let's look at this chart on what it would take from Birmingham to 
Washington, DC. Well, what are your options? If you go on a commercial 
airline--the one we checked here was a direct flight from USAir last 
October--to Birmingham, there were seven direct flights to Washington, 
DC, from Birmingham, AL, a day. If you take your personal vehicle, you 
can leave anytime you want to leave. If you take the train, there is 
only one a day. That limits your options. People, when they are 
deciding how to make a trip, think about these things.
  What about how long does it take? The air time is 3 hours 12 minutes, 
the personal vehicle is 11 hours, approximately, and the train time is 
18 hours.
  What about how many stops do you make? If you take an airline, it is 
one stop. It is a direct flight.
  What about your personal vehicles? Let's assume you make four stops. 
But Amtrak is making 18 stops. It is not taking the shortest route.
  What about our cost? I was surprised at this when we looked at the 
numbers. The primary cost for a round trip airline ticket, as I said, 
as of last October, was about $328. We now think it is $350 or $360, 
something around that price. That is what the commercial airline fare 
is. If you took your personal vehicle, the cost for gasoline is $87. 
Gas is about $2.97 a gallon today. The Amtrak ticket is $206 round 
trip.
  I don't know that this is an accurate figure for the food and board, 
but in the air you have no cost of food and a room is not needed. In a 
personal vehicle, you can estimate one meal or two meals at $20. On 
Amtrak, the high cost of food and a sleeper car can put you well over 
$100--maybe even $200--as our figures show. On the commercial airline, 
the total cost for one way would be $160 to $175. A personal vehicle is 
less than that while the train is more than that. The train is going to 
be much more than that one way.
  So this is why people are not traveling long distances on trains. It 
is not because they are not there. They are there. But you say: Well, 
what we need is Amtrak coming through Mobile at 5 a.m., 7 a.m, or 8 
a.m. Well, you cannot make that happen. To do that, we would have to 
double the number of trains or triple or quadruple them, and they will 
lose even more money. I wish it weren't so. I wish we could make this 
system work, but certain long routes are not feasible. However, 
Congress, being what it is, mandates it. We say you have to run these 
routes, and Amtrak runs up billions of dollars in debt trying to 
comply. If I could see us moving to a time when we would come close to 
making this feasible, I would be supportive.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, can I ask a moment of the Senator's 
time without him losing his right to the floor? I have a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield for that purpose.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are planning to hold the vote at 
12:15. I want other Members who are interested to know that.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 today the Senate proceed to 
vote in relation to the Sununu amendment and the time until 12:15 be 
equally divided and all provisions under the previous order remain in 
effect. I assume Senator Sununu has agreed to this.
  Mr. SUNUNU. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, while I am not opposed and don't think 
the proponents of the legislation have a bad intent, they have a vision 
for a national rail system, and they are willing to put billions of 
dollars into it. But I have never been able to lay my hand on a study 
that shows that a national rail system mandated by the government is 
feasible over long distances. Yet there was a study that showed, even 
in Europe, that train routes within certain ranges will work. I think 
the distance was approximately 200 to 300 miles. If it is much longer 
than that, people almost always choose to fly. If it is much shorter 
than that, they almost always choose to drive. Americans, more than 
anyone else in the world, have automobiles, and we choose to drive 
frequently. It allows you to arrive when you want, carry things you 
want to carry, drive straight to where you intend to go, and not have 
to wait in a station. And you don't have this on time problem. 
Commercial airlines are on time about 80 percent of the time. Amtrak 
was only on time 66 percent of the time. That is another factor you 
have to think about if you are going to regularly use a long-distance 
train.
  In certain corridors, where the traffic is heavy, it works, and I am 
not disputing that. I am not for shutting down a profitable route or 
even routes that are close to profitable, which we can justify 
subsidizing. But I think, in all honesty, that Senator Sununu has 
raised a legitimate point. How much can we support these routes that 
are losing money, are unlikely to ever make money, and are driving up a 
heavy cost that the whole Amtrak system must carry in its effort to 
comply with congressional mandates?
  So if you could reduce some of these losses that are draining 
Amtrak's ability to be effective and gave them some freedom to make 
business decisions rather than having their operations determined by 
political decisions made by Congress, I think we would be better off. 
So after much thought and review,

[[Page S13410]]

I have concluded that this is a rational amendment. It is hard for me 
to see how it can be opposed. Therefore, I will support it. I thank the 
Senator for offering it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I used to serve on the Amtrak board of 
directors. We have a lot of trains running up and down the Northeast 
corridor. I have ridden on them since I was a little boy. The trains 
run about every hour. You can catch a train in Boston to come to DC 
pretty much every hour; between New York and DC, the frequency is even 
more. They run from 5 in the morning and go well into the night.
  The reason a lot of people don't ride trains across the country is 
there are 15 different long-distance trains, which only run 2 or 3 days 
in a lot of cases. It may come in at 1, 2 or 3 a.m. in the morning, and 
it is not very convenient. It is hard to build ridership. I agree with 
Senator Sununu. I am not interested in spending $200 or $150 per 
passenger to subsidize long-distance trains. We don't do it in the 
Northeast corridor.
  We have addressed this in a more thoughtful way, and I want to share 
that. I commend Senator Lautenberg and Senator Lott and our staffs for 
working on it for years. The legislation calls for the Federal Railroad 
Administration to actually study every year, for the next 3 years, five 
long-distance train routes to figure out why they lose money and what 
can we do to reduce the cost of the train routes. I think they will 
find this in places in the Midwest. These numbers are out of the 
Midwest. There is a lot of investment, particularly in the Illinois 
area. Ridership is up on the Chicago-St Louis corridor in the last 
year. Ridership between Chicago and Carbondale is up 46 percent. For 
the Chicago-Galesburg-Quincy route, ridership has increased 33 percent. 
They have actually added frequency and provided better service and more 
on-time service, and they have worked with the freight railroads that 
control the tracks to get better support so that they let the passenger 
trains run on time.
  I think there is a better way to skin this cat than our friend, 
Senator Sununu, has proposed. I believe the answer is in the 
legislation. If you look at the country as a whole, today we have 
probably over 50 percent of the population living within 50 miles of 
one of our coasts. Think about that. What that means is we have these 
densely populated corridors up and down the east coast, the gulf coast, 
and on the west coast. They are perfectly suited for high-passenger 
corridor rail service.
  Think about the other places around the country, and there is an 
example of the St. Louis-to-Chicago route. That part of America is 
where densely populated corridors also exist. My suspicion is if we 
provide them the kind of service we are providing on these coastal 
corridors, we would see the increase in ridership that we are seeing in 
Illinois and also in Missouri.
  Again, to my friends who want to make sure we take some affirmative 
action to provide better train service but reduce the kind of subsidies 
now being paid for folks riding trains that run every 2 or 3 days, 
coming through communities at all hours of the night, as well as the 
day, there is a smarter way to do this, and it is in the legislation.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose this particular amendment, 
however well intended it is. I think there is a better way to get to 
the legitimate issue raised. It is the language Senators Lott and 
Lautenberg and our staffs and I have crafted and included. The first 
year, we would take five long-distance train routes and scrub their 
performance and find out a smarter way to provide the service. The 
second year, we would do five more, and the third year, five more. So 
over 3 years we would scrub 15 of these.
  A lot of people are starting to ride trains who would not have 
thought about it before. That is because of congestion on the roads and 
highways, in airports, bad pollution in the air, and our dependence on 
foreign oil. The passenger rail service can address all those issues. 
Amtrak is not the whole answer, but it begins to get at the answer.
  The language in the underlying bill answers the question Senator 
Sununu raises. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and support for 
the underlying legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we understand that Senator Sununu 
comes with a background in business and comprehension of what balance 
sheets and financial statements are like. We recognize that the State 
of New Hampshire does have some Amtrak service. But the State of New 
Hampshire is also one of the beneficiaries of something called 
Essential Air Service, where the country takes great pains to make 
certain that communities are not so isolated that you have difficulty 
in traveling from there and to there. It costs the Federal Government 
about $50 million a year for Essential Air Service. We are all in the 
same boat. It is our country, these are our communities, and they have 
to be part of the functioning of our society.
  So when I look at the amendment proposed by the Senator from New 
Hampshire, this amendment would destroy our national passenger rail 
system. Based on 2007 data, the Sununu amendment would immediately cut 
passenger rail service to the entire Southwestern United States. Four 
of Amtrak's longest train routes would be gone. It is easy to see on 
this chart the lines that crisscross our country. You are saying that 
almost everything, in about a 5-year period, would be pretty much not 
in existence. We start off with four of Amtrak's longest train routes, 
most of them in the Southwest. Next year, five more trains would be 
eliminated, including the Silver Star, which is New York to Miami; 
Silver Meteor; the Cardinal; the Coast Starlight, Seattle, WA, to L.A., 
CA; and the Lakeshore Limited, Chicago to New York. These comprise 
something over a million travelers a year. Within 5 years--likely 
sooner--the entire national network of long-distance trains would be 
gone because corporate overhead costs would be shared among the 
remaining routes, increasing their costs.
  These long-distance trains provide essential transportation services 
to millions of Americans, and their ridership and revenue has been 
growing.
  Last year, ridership increased on Amtrak's long-distance trains 2.5 
percent and revenue went up 5 percent. For instance, if we look at 
Amtrak's Palmetto train, which is New York to Miami, its route extends 
south from the Northeast corridor and serves South Carolina, Georgia, 
Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. It had 7.5 percent more riders 
than the year before, a total of 157,000 riders.
  The States want Amtrak service, and they want to expand it as well.
  One Governor--I have a letter written in 1996--wrote to Amtrak 
claiming:

       Many of us believe that Amtrak finances and operations are 
     a matter for the Federal Government. The Federal Government 
     created Amtrak.

  This is the letter from the then-Governor of Texas, George W. Bush, 
in 1996. He attributes responsibility to the Federal Government.
  To connect our rural areas with our urban commercial centers, the 
Federal Government subsidizes all modes of transportation. We have 
essential air service, which I mentioned. We have Federal subsidies for 
intercity bus transportation. And since the Federal Government took 
over passenger rail service, we have funded it as well.
  I wish to make note of the fact that despite the fact that our 
airlines are for-profit companies, we insist that we have to help them 
function and we give them about $3 billion a year in subsidies. These 
are for-profit companies. We want them to keep flying. There has been 
about $20 billion put into the aviation system since 9/11.
  I remind our colleagues, there is no passenger rail service in the 
world that earns a profit. Countries pay for rail service because of 
the benefits, and if you eliminate these trains, it would mean millions 
of additional cars on the highways and even longer lines at the 
airport, adding to our country's congestion problems.
  In addition, terminating these routes destroys Amtrak's 
interconnected system, isolating different parts of the country from 
one another and reducing the utility and the value of all of Amtrak's 
services.

[[Page S13411]]

  This bill, our bill, already cuts Amtrak's operating subsidy by 40 
percent. And rather than micromanaging Amtrak, our bill mandates that 
this performance standard is the one the company must meet. We also 
require Amtrak to tell us how they plan to meet this standard. They 
need to set up specific improvement goals and plans for each individual 
train route. If the plans are not followed or if they don't work, 
funding for that train route can then be terminated.
  Senator Lott and I, along with Senator Carper and others, put a lot 
of thought into this bill. It will make major improvements to rail 
service in our country. The Sununu amendment does exactly the opposite. 
It will destroy America's national passenger rail network. Ironically, 
it won't even save money because a sudden and massive reduction of 
trains that this amendment would force would leave Amtrak with huge 
labor costs for displaced employees.
  This is not a new subject we are airing today. In some ways, it would 
be nice to be able to agree with Senator Sununu on this issue and say, 
OK, it would be nice if they could pay their own way, but they can't do 
it. When you are operating on schedules that, in many cases, pay lots 
of attention to the key peak work hours and then don't have the traffic 
after that----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. None.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is good. We have no time left. We had, I 
thought, a minute or two before the vote.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, is it true that I have plenty of time 
left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It depends on the Senator's definition of 
``plenty.'' The Senator from New Hampshire has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SUNUNU. In New Hampshire, 11 minutes is plenty of time. I yield 2 
minutes to the Senator from New Jersey to finish his remarks.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. May I take that at the end of 
the Senator's presentation?
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wasn't aware this was a negotiation as 
opposed to an act of solidarity with my colleague on the other side of 
the aisle. I will be happy to reserve Senator Lautenberg's two minutes 
for the end.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am touched by the generosity of the Senator from 
New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we reserve 
two minutes on each side for the end of this debate. I have a couple of 
minutes of comments, and then if there are speakers on the other side, 
we may still have another couple of minutes to yield to them as well.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am concerned, Senator Lott wanted to say a couple 
of words.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Excellent. I will be happy to reserve those two minutes 
for the other side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is a satisfactory arrangement, and I consider it 
to be very fair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, let me use my portion of time to conclude 
my remarks. I wish to address some of the points Senator Lautenberg 
made in his presentation.
  First, it was suggested that under 2007 data, four routes would have 
to be shut down if my amendment were made the law of the land. I find 
that surprising and maybe a little problematic for a couple of reasons. 
First, I am not aware of any Inspector General audit that was done for 
2007, which would be required under the amendment. The only IG audit of 
which I am aware, the most recent one, was in 2004, and that indicated 
only one route did not meet this threshold. So, first, I don't think 
there is any data to make that assertion that four routes would be 
closed.
  Second, if that were the fact today, that means the situation has 
gotten worse over the last three years; that it has gotten worse and 
that the costs are trending in the wrong direction, and that is 
something about which we should all be concerned and, in fact, alarmed.
  Third, it was suggested that closing four routes, if that were the 
case, would be a sudden and massive reduction in the capacity of the 
system. In fact, even if four routes were affected, we are talking 
about 1 to 2 percent of ridership.
  The phrase ``making people pay their own way'' was also used. It does 
nothing of the sort. As I indicated, I think there is an opportunity 
for providing some support or subsidy level, certainly in the medium 
term. This would by no means require anyone to pay their own way 
because it would still allow in the first year subsidies up to $200 per 
passenger and in the second year subsidies up to $175 per passenger. 
Only in Washington would a $200 subsidy be called ``paying your own 
way.'' That is just not right.
  Finally, it was suggested that closing one of these routes would 
isolate parts of America. I think the idea that eliminating a long-
distance train would isolate people in America in this day and age, 
given all the ways we have to travel, to communicate, and to reach out 
to one another, is ridiculous.
  This is a common-sense amendment. This is not the grim reaper for 
national train service. This amendment only says if a route is losing 
more than $200 per passenger, we should not continue to operate that 
service. I suppose it is a little bit like hitting yourself in the head 
with a hammer: Maybe once you really get going, you are reluctant to 
stop because you think the next time you hit yourself in the head it 
might not feel quite as bad. At a certain point, we need to draw the 
line. I think $200 per passenger is a pretty reasonable line to draw. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I am happy to yield Senator Lott 
2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is yielding 
me 2 minutes out of the time of the proponents of the amendment? I 
don't want to mislead anybody here.
  Mr. SUNUNU. As the Senator may not be aware, we have a unanimous 
consent agreement, and having consumed all the time on the opponents' 
side, I offered to share an additional 2 minutes so that Senator Lott 
can conclude his remarks.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that is typical generosity of the Senator 
from New Hampshire. He is engaged, thinking about this issue and trying 
to do the right thing.
  I also think this is a classic chicken-and-egg deal. We tell Amtrak 
we want them to do better, but yet we don't offer any reforms, 
challenges, responsibilities to do better. We throw rocks and say: Why 
aren't you providing better service at cheaper rates?
  I think you need a plan to move toward actually what the Senator from 
New Hampshire is trying to achieve. The bill before us, S. 294, already 
requires Amtrak to reduce its total Federal operating subsidy by 40 
percent over the life of the bill. The bill gives Amtrak management the 
flexibility to achieve this goal through cost savings, route changes, 
revenue growth, or expanded service rather than through mandated route 
cuts. Additionally, the bill requires improvement plans for each long-
distance route that will focus on strategies to increase revenues, 
ridership, efficiencies, and service quality. These plans must be 
implemented and achieved in order for them to continue to get Federal 
routes.
  I think some of these routes are going to eventually need to be 
terminated, but if we do what this amendment would do, it would 
basically, cold turkey, start eliminating routes very soon, including, 
to be perfectly honest, the Crescent, which is the train that comes 
down through the heart of the South, through Meridian, MS, Hattiesburg, 
down to New Orleans. We need that service.
  Also, this would force cuts at a time when we need more rail service, 
not less. We have ever-increasing air and highway congestion and 
environmental concerns. The Federal Government provides operating 
subsidies in all these other areas, but we are saying we want to 
terminate these long-distance routes. If we want a national rail 
passenger system, we are going to have to keep some of these routes 
going at least until we make an effort to make them more cost 
efficient.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page S13412]]

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, we are approaching 12:15, which is the 
time for the vote. I wish to conclude first by responding to some of 
the remarks and the observations made by the Senator from Mississippi.
  First, there was mention of the Crescent, which is one of the 15 
long-distance trains. Under the 2004 Inspector General's audit, the 
Crescent lost $114 per passenger in coach class. At that rate, they 
would not be affected in 2008 by this amendment. They would not be 
affected in 2009 by this amendment, or 2010 or 2011. They might be 
affected in 2012 if they have failed to improve any performance on the 
basis of cost over a 4-year period. I don't think that is Draconian. I 
don't think that is too much to ask. I hope the Senator from 
Mississippi and others will support that kind of improvement in 
performance, and I think it can be achieved.
  To that point, the Senator from Mississippi said: We need to do 
better; we need to have a plan for doing better. From what I have 
heard, he and many others believe this bill is the plan to do better, 
and I think in many parts it is a plan to do better. I support that 
concept. I support a blueprint for improving financial reporting, 
standards of accounting, and cost performance.
  What my amendment simply does is tell people honestly and directly: 
How much better do we expect you to do? What is the minimum we expect 
you to do? We expect ridership or routes not to lose $1 million per 
passenger, or $500,000, or $1,000, or $500 per passenger, and I think 
it is reasonable to say we expect you not to lose $200 per passenger. 
That is what we are asking. That is how much better we expect you to be 
for only those routes which are not meeting that standard today.
  It is a reasonable standard. It is an understandable standard. Under 
the 2004 data, it would affect one of the 15 routes. It might affect 
more than one. It might affect two or three more routes 2 or 3 years 
from now if they have failed to improve. But when we are asking 
families across America to fill out their tax forms every April 15 to 
provide resources to our country to fulfill important obligations, I 
don't think we should be asking those families to subsidize passengers 
on Amtrak at $200 per person.
  It is reasonable, and I hope my colleagues will support a commonsense 
amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the Sununu amendment, No. 3453.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from California 
(Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 66, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 395 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--66

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clinton
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3453) was rejected.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I recognize I did not prevail in that 
amendment, but I appreciate that debate and the managers allowing me 
time on the debate. I do have another amendment. I told them I would 
try to move my amendments, so I have another amendment I wish to offer.
  Mr. President, what is the pending business?


                           Amendment No. 3454

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Lautenberg for 
Carper second-degree amendment.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this moment there is not a sufficient 
second.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. President, I think the bill manager does not have a copy. It was 
such a short amendment, I sort of assumed that multiple copies were 
made. If I can ask unanimous consent to speak on the topic of the 
amendment, to provide a little background.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator inform the Senate as to what the subject 
of his amendment is?
  Mr. SUNUNU. I would be pleased to describe the amendment prior to it 
being offered.
  Mr. President, this is one of the two amendments I filed in 
committee, but did not offer on the bill, because I wanted to allow a 
vote and debate on the floor rather than delay us unnecessarily in 
committee.
  This is an amendment that addresses the question of competing on 
different routes within the Amtrak system. Under this legislation that 
is before us today, there is an allowance to have two routes 
competitively bid each year.
  The managers think that is a good idea. I think that is a good idea. 
But I do not see why there needs to be a legal restriction on the 
number of routes that could be bid or sent out to bid under 
competition. This does not mandate that bids be put out to competition, 
but it certainly would allow that.
  That is what my amendment is intended to do. At this time, I yield to 
wait for the copies to be distributed in a timely way.
  Mr. President, at this time I believe copies have been distributed.


                           Amendment No. 3456

   (Purpose: To remove the limitation on the number of Amtrak routes 
                     available for competitive bid)

  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, ask unanimous consent 
that any pending amendment be set aside, and ask for the immediate 
consideration of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3456.


[[Page S13413]]


  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, the Senator has an 
amendment?
  Mr. SUNUNU. I do.
  Mr. BYRD. Does he wish to have it read?
  Mr. SUNUNU. I have submitted the amendment to the bill manager and to 
the clerk and asked that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk has reported the amendment by 
number.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the clerk read the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       On page 35, strike line 1 and all that follows through 
     ``(A)'' on line 4 and insert the following:
       ``(b) Implementation.--Pursuant to any rules or regulations 
     promulgated under subsection (a)
       On page 35, strike 11 through 16.

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I apologize again to the bill manager for 
not having a copy for him.
  As was clear from the reading of the amendment, if nothing else was 
clear, it is a brief amendment. It strikes the line of the bill that 
would have placed a limit on the number of routes that could be allowed 
for a competitive bid.
  That means it allows for an operator to offer to run that route at an 
effective cost with particular service goals in mind in order to 
provide service at or above the current quality of service at a lower 
cost. I think it would be a mistake to place an arbitrary restriction 
on the number of routes that could be competitively bid.
  Certainly decisions about putting routes out to bid, or which routes 
are put out to bid, how they are done, would still be in the hands of 
the management team at Amtrak. I think that is as it should be. I 
appreciate the opportunity to offer the amendment. I ask that my 
colleagues support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we look forward to a full discussion 
of this amendment. We do provide in the bill an opportunity for a 
competitive review on two lines.
  Whether it should be expanded is something we will want to talk 
about. We think that two lines each and every year can be competed for 
and reviewed by Amtrak. We have to examine it here. But our inclination 
is to oppose this. But we will have a discussion about it at such a 
time as we go to a vote.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sununu amendment No. 3456.


                           Amendment No. 3455

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment 3455, the Allard amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3455.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the provisions repealing Amtrak's self-sufficiency 
                             requirements)

       Strike subsection (a) of section 219.

  Mr. ALLARD. My amendment is very straightforward. Right now there is 
a provision in law saying that Amtrak is supposed to be financially 
self-sufficient. To be clear, the provision does not even apply to 
Amtrak as a whole. It only requires Amtrak to be operationally self-
sufficient, presuming, of course, that the Federal Government will 
continue to provide capital subsidies.
  I was surprised and even disheartened to learn that S. 294 would 
repeal this provision in law requiring Amtrak to become operationally 
self-sufficient. I strongly believe that this goal should be 
maintained.
  My amendment would strike the provision in the bill that repeals the 
self-sufficiency goal.
  I am quite puzzled that the Commerce Committee report noted:

       This repeal is technical in nature and not meant to 
     indicate that Amtrak should not strive to reduce its 
     dependency on Federal funds or improve the efficiency of how 
     it spends Federal funds as elaborated through this bill.

  This statement makes no sense. If we repeal a provision calling on 
Amtrak to become self-sufficient, we are saying they have no need to 
reduce their dependency on the taxpayers. There is no other way to 
interpret it. We need to be crystal clear that we expect them to reduce 
their dependency on Federal funds, and the only way to do it is to 
maintain this provision in current law.
  To be clear, even with the provision in law, Amtrak has made little 
progress toward becoming operationally self-sufficient. According to 
the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, Amtrak 
continues to incur substantial operating losses, and over the last 5 
years, annual cash losses, excluding interest and depreciation, have 
fallen only modestly, a little more than 3 percent a year. But modest 
progress is not a reason to eliminate the operational self-sufficiency 
provisions. Failure to meet a goal is not reason to lower the bar 
sufficiently to redefine success. Rather, it simply means that more 
work must go toward meeting their original goal.
  The Office of Inspector General went on to say:

       The problem with the current model exists beyond funding. 
     There are inadequate incentives for Amtrak to provide cost-
     effective service. Amtrak, as the sole provider of intercity 
     passenger rail service, has few incentives, other than the 
     threat of budget cuts or elimination, for cost control or 
     delivery of service in a cost-effective way. Amtrak has not 
     achieved significant cost savings since its last 
     reauthorization.

  That is what the Inspector General had to say in his report. The 
question I have is, given that we have so few incentives for cost 
controls, why would we eliminate one of the few provisions in law 
calling on Amtrak to control their costs? While passenger rail has a 
role in an efficient, modern transportation infrastructure, I am 
concerned about how Amtrak has performed in providing that service. As 
my colleagues may know, I am a strong proponent of results and 
outcomes. Amtrak and other government-funded entities should not be 
judged based on how much they receive in Federal funding but the 
results they can demonstrate with those taxpayer dollars or the fees 
they charge passengers who ride their trains. In the case of Amtrak, I 
am afraid these results are not very impressive. In the 
administration's PART assessment, their tool for evaluating the 
effectiveness of programs, Amtrak was rated as ineffective. In fact, it 
was the only program in the entire Department of Transportation to 
receive an ``ineffective'' rating.
  I want to be clear on what this rating means. From the 
administration's description ineffective, programs receiving this 
rating are not using taxpayer dollars effectively or the fees they are 
charging the passengers to use their services. That seems pretty clear 
to me, and I hope Members of this body will agree with me on that fact. 
If Amtrak is not being effective with the money they spend, it would 
make sense to reduce the money we spend there. Instead, we are talking 
about increasing their subsidies and eliminating provisions calling on 
Amtrak to be more careful in how they spend tax dollars. Again, that 
makes no sense. Right now Amtrak's Federal subsidy is nearly equal to 
its total ticket revenue per year. To put it a different way, for every 
dollar spent on a ticket, the rail passenger receives another dollar 
from the taxpayers.
  Given the subsidies on some routes, taxpayers would save money by 
actually paying passengers to take another mode of transportation such 
as flying. Calling on Amtrak to become operationally self-sufficient is 
not about being antirail. It is about being for taxpayers and for those 
riders who use that service to hold down their costs. It is for 
efficiency and for common sense.

[[Page S13414]]

  Even if Amtrak were to become operationally self-sufficient, it would 
continue to receive sufficient Federal subsidies under my amendment. 
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Amtrak is by far 
the most heavily subsidized mode of travel in the United States, even 
though it carries less than 1 percent of the intercity passenger 
market. Amtrak costs $210.31 per passenger, per thousand miles, 
compared to $4.66 for intercity buses and $6.18 for commercial 
airlines. Because motorists pay far more in Federal user fees than they 
get back in Federal transportation spending, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation estimates that the Federal Government earns a profit of 
$1.79 per passenger, per thousand miles from automobiles.
  This bill proposes to spend $11.3 billion on Amtrak. It is entirely 
reasonable for Congress and the American taxpayer and their passengers 
to tell Amtrak that they should work to reduce those subsidies. If we 
are too timid to even tell Amtrak to reduce their need for operational 
subsidies--remember, this is operational subsidies, not capital 
investment--how can we expect that they will ever do it? Many of us are 
parents and have worked to raise our children to become independent, 
self-sufficient people. When my daughters graduated from college, my 
wife and I expected them to get jobs to support themselves. If we had 
simply paid their rent, bought their groceries, paid their utilities, 
and given them spending money without any conditions or expectations of 
independence, why would they want to work and make the tough choices 
necessary for change? It is the same with Amtrak. Unless we are clear 
that we expect them to change and become operationally independent of 
the Federal Government, things will never change.
  It is critical that we keep this goal in place for Amtrak. They must 
hear loudly and clearly from Congress and from America that they need 
to make the tough choices necessary to get out on their own. My 
amendment will ensure they hear this message.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, would the Senator read his amendment 
again, please, for the edification of the Senate.
  Mr. ALLARD. My amendment is actually very simple. I will ask the 
clerk to read the amendment, if she will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Strike subsection (a) section 219.

  Mr. ALLARD. If I may address the Senator through the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, please.
  Mr. ALLARD. The section I am repealing puts in some guidelines, and 
it is not date specific but it says that the goal of Amtrak should be 
to become self-sufficient; in other words, work toward less subsidies 
from the Federal Government. For some reason or other that was taken 
out by the committee staff. It is appropriate we continue to keep that 
in law instead of repealing it. Since they are not driven by 
competitiveness within the fixed rail system, I encourage them to note 
that the Congress expects them to work for efficiency and to repeal it. 
I recall in Boston, for example, we had a situation where Amtrak runs 
through Boston and is part of their mass transit system. So a committee 
chair looked at a contract they let out for the Boston fixed rail. It 
was the most expensive contract, providing the least service to the 
passengers. This kind of provision is an incentive. It gives Members of 
Congress a way of expressing to Amtrak that we hope that they work for 
an efficient, effective system. I don't think it is particularly 
Draconian; at least I do not view it that way.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I have listened with interest to our 
colleague from Colorado. Since I have a son and two grandchildren who 
live in Colorado, they talk about how nice it would be for train 
service to run from Denver to Glenwood Springs and provide that kind of 
service. It would ease up the traffic on the highways in Colorado, 
Route 70, and others.
  It would be nice if it was possible to reduce the subsidies, but the 
problem is, the world has proven in country after country that you 
cannot operate passenger rail service at a profit. You cannot carry the 
obligations that are required with a passenger rail system. My 
colleague will excuse me when I say this: It is kind of fallacious to 
even believe that it is possible. We tried it.
  In 1997, our reauthorization bill said we should try to eliminate 
subsidies. We couldn't eliminate them. But I will tell my colleagues 
what did happen. Ridership has gone way up. That proves one thing; that 
is, that the railroads have to be there. We just had a vote on an 
amendment calling for the elimination of routes across the country 
which lost substantially. The fact is, the country desperately needs 
rail service. Our airlines are busy beyond capacity. Highways are busy 
beyond capacity. We are stuck in traffic all over. The railroad is 
finally beginning to find its way out.
  What we have in our bill, for the edification of our friend from 
Colorado, is a goal to reduce operating subsidies by 40 percent in 6 
years. That is a start.
  I urge my colleague to let this take place. Let it happen. Let's see 
what goes on there. We have made all kinds of conditions of reform for 
the railroad, not ignoring the fact that there have been large 
subsidies but also recognizing that passenger rail service requires 
subsidy.
  In the UK, for example, the Government decided to go private with its 
rail system. They found out that things deteriorated rapidly. They 
weren't safe, and they weren't efficient. We are now beginning to see 
that Amtrak is attracting ridership as we have not seen it before, as 
26 million people rode Amtrak last year. But so many burdens were 
placed on Amtrak: insufficient funding for capital in the first place, 
substantial outstanding indebtedness.
  How did Amtrak get to be a national corporation? It got there in the 
early 1970s because the private sector couldn't handle it. There is no 
money to be made there, when you consider that freight railroads are 
making money and freight railroads often are an impediment to passenger 
rail service operating efficiently.
  We are going through a review of what Amtrak ought to be. We know our 
equipment is not up to date. We know our trackage is not up to date. We 
know our signage is not up to date.

  I had the opportunity to ride in the engine of a train from Paris to 
Brussels going to a NATO meeting. We cruised along at 300 kilometers, 
180 miles an hour, and rode 200 miles in an hour and 20 minutes. It is 
that kind of service that could be offered if we could invest in 
bringing Amtrak up to date, and perhaps we could begin to see the 
results that would attract that kind of support.
  Revenue increases have been taking place, so we are on a good track 
to make Amtrak more efficient, less costly, and more conscious of their 
operating expenses. But we have to be able to continue in that vein. If 
we said we demand there be a point in time when there are no more 
subsidies, we would not be being realistic. It can happen.
  I hope if this comes to a vote, we will defeat it soundly. I think we 
have the votes to do that. I hope we can put this aside for now and 
give us a chance to go further on the debate and the review of the 
Amtrak bill as it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I wish to respond for a moment, if I 
might, to clarify. No. 1, I am a strong proponent of fixed rail. As 
chairman of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee in Banking, I 
worked hard for mass transit and, obviously, fixed rail. So I agree 
that rail needs to be a vital part of our transportation system.
  All this amendment does is put in law a goal we want self-sufficiency 
for--not capital investments. So as to the signage the Senator talks 
about, the rails on the ground that need to be laid, buying the new 
transportation, it does not apply to that. It applies to operational 
costs. It is not a hard line. We have been going for several years 
without meeting this goal.
  I think we have done some work in that direction, but as far as I am 
concerned, the amount of efficiency has been pretty minimal. I think we 
can do more. Even if it is minimal, at least we can keep it in there so 
it continues to

[[Page S13415]]

encourage them to be more efficient and review processes and procedures 
they use in the operation of Amtrak. That is not capital investment. 
That is operational, things they can do to bring efficiency to their 
services, which I think is to the advantage of the rider, as well as to 
the taxpayers of this country.
  I wanted to clarify that for the Senator from New Jersey.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Barrasso pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2229 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Internet Tax Moratorium

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a large number of Senators of both parties 
are working in good faith to try to address this question of the 
Internet tax moratorium. I simply want to take a few minutes this 
afternoon to bring to light a new development in the discussion that I 
hope all Senators will keep in mind.
  The Congressional Research Service--our independent group that 
analyzes policy matters--informed me this morning that because the 
other body, the House of Representatives, changed the definitions in 
the current Internet tax moratorium, it would be possible, under the 
language that was adopted by the other body, to tax various Web 
services, such as e-mail. I know no Member of the Senate who wishes to 
see that happen.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to have printed 
in the Record the memorandum the lawyers at the Congressional Research 
Service sent me about the Internet tax moratorium.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Congressional Research Service,

                                 Washington, DC, October 24, 2007.


                               Memorandum

     To: The Honorable Ron Wyden, Attention: Joshua Sheinkman.
     From: John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney, American Law 
         Division.
     Subject: Internet Tax Moratorium.
       This memorandum is furnished in response to your request 
     for an analysis of whether the definition of ``internet 
     access'' in the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments (H.R. 
     3678) as passed by the House is more restrictive (would 
     permit more activities to be taxed by the states) than that 
     of the Internet Tax Moratorium which is set to expire on 
     November 1, 2007.
       The expiring moratorium defines ``Internet access'' to 
     mean:

     a service that enables users to access content, information, 
     electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, 
     and may also include access to proprietary content, 
     information, and other services as part of a package of 
     services offered to users. The term `Internet access' does 
     not include telecommunications services, except to the extent 
     such services are purchased, used, or sold by a provider of 
     Internet access to provide Internet access.

       Exemption is provided for voice services over the Internet.
       H.R. 3678 would define ``Internet access'' as follows:
       The term ``Internet Access''--
       (A) means a service that enables users to connect to the 
     Internet to access content, information, or other services 
     offered over the Internet;
       (B) includes the purchase, use or sale of 
     telecommunications by a provider of a service described in 
     subparagraph (A) to the extent such telecommunications are 
     purchased, used or sold (i) to provide such service; or (ii) 
     to otherwise enable users to access content, information or 
     other services offered over the Internet;
       (C) includes services that are incidental to the provision 
     of the service described in subparagraph (A) when furnished 
     to users as part of such service, such as a home page, 
     electronic mail and instant messaging (including voice- and 
     video-capable electronic mail and instant messaging), video 
     clips, and personal electronic storage capacity; and
       (D) does not include voice, audio or video programming, or 
     other products and services (except services described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)) that utilize Internet protocol 
     or any successor protocol and for which there is a charge, 
     regardless of whether such charge is separately stated or 
     aggregated with the charge for services described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
       The language of H.R. 3678 would be more restrictive in at 
     least two ways. First, the ``enables users to connect'' 
     language of paragraph (A) would limit the moratorium to taxes 
     upon the connection provider and services they provide under 
     (B) and (C). Thus, if an Internet user utilized one provider 
     to connect to the internet and another paid provider of, for 
     instance, email services, the connection provider would be 
     covered by the moratorium but not the paid email provider. 
     Under the current moratorium, each would be covered.
       Second, the exemption of paragraph (D) would allow the 
     taxation of many more products and services than the existing 
     exemption under the current Sec. 1108.
       We hope this information is responsive to your request. If 
     you have further questions, please call.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in reference to the language that came from 
the other body, which I am concerned about, the Congressional Research 
Service said:

        . . . if an Internet user utilized one provider to connect 
     to the internet and another paid provider of, for instance, 
     email services, the connection provider would be covered by 
     the moratorium but not the paid email provider. Under the 
     current moratorium, each would be covered.

  What that means is, if you are an American, for example, who gets 
your Internet access from Verizon, under the House language that would 
continue to be protected. But if you get your e-mail from, say, another 
provider--perhaps EarthLink or Google or Yahoo--under the language that 
was passed by the other body, that could be taxed, according to the 
Congressional Research Service. I do not think any Member of this body 
wants that to happen.
  Also, reading further from the Congressional Research Service 
memorandum, they say it would also allow the taxation ``of many more 
products and services than the existing exemption under the current 
moratorium.''

  The reason I wanted to bring this to light this afternoon is I know 
various proposals will be voted on next week. I will not be able to be 
here next week because of some very exciting news in our household, but 
I do want all Senators to be aware of what the Congressional Research 
Service has said. We have had the Internet tax moratorium now for a 
decade. I wrote the original law with now-SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, 
and it has worked well. The Internet has thrived and prospered. It is, 
of course, a technology treasure trove that we use for business, health 
opportunities, education, and a vast array of services.
  We were told when the original proposal came out that it would, for 
example, be harmful to States, that they would lose revenue. That 
hasn't been the case. The States have gained in revenue for something 
like 16 straight quarters.
  We heard it would be harmful to Main Street, to small businesses. 
That hasn't been the case either. In fact, most small businesses now 
look to something called ``Bricks and Clicks'' where they have a 
physical presence and an Internet presence.
  We were also told it would be harmful to malls, as if our original 
proposal would empty the malls. That hasn't happened either. The 
moratorium has worked well, and I wish to make it permanent.
  Frankly, the thing I am most concerned about this afternoon is the 
change in these definitions. The change in the definitions from the 
original moratorium, as outlined in this memo by the Congressional 
Research Service, ought to trouble every Senator as this

[[Page S13416]]

body considers the various alternatives that will be presented this 
upcoming week. I think the current definitions have served us well. 
They have allowed the net to thrive and prosper and they haven't caused 
damage to the States or to small businesses on Main Street or to the 
shopping malls. I see no reason for changing those current definitions.
  I hope Senators will reflect on this language. Certainly it is going 
to be hard to explain to folks at home making changes that would open 
up the prospect, as the Congressional Research Service has said, for 
taxing e-mail. But an awful lot of Americans get their Internet access 
from one provider and they get their e-mail from somebody else. Given 
that, I wanted to make sure the Senate was aware of this, and that as 
the Senate considers this legislation, the issue of whether the 
moratorium should be made permanent is important, but even more 
important is getting this question of the definitions of what is 
covered in the moratorium right, because I don't believe any Senator 
wants to see happen what the Congressional Research Service has 
indicated this morning could happen under the bill that was passed by 
the other body.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we need to invest in America's 
infrastructure. Today, America invests only three-tenths of 1 percent 
of our gross domestic product in public buildings and roads and 
bridges, ports and railroads. This abysmal figure is the lowest rate in 
the recent history of public investments dating back to at least the 
1960s, and maybe before that. In Minnesota earlier this year, we saw 
some of the tragic consequences of the failure to invest in America.
  I am glad to see the Sununu amendment was not agreed to. That 
amendment would have put a cap on our subsidies that Amtrak can utilize 
on its routes. In truth, however, such an amendment would put an end to 
all of Amtrak's long-distance trains within 5 years. By eliminating all 
of these essential rail services, the amendment would also lead to the 
slow but certain death of America's regional service as well.
  The Nation receives extraordinary public benefits from mass 
transportation systems. They take thousands of cars off of our 
congested highways. They take tons of pollutants out of the air we 
breathe. They move people more efficiently into and out of our most 
congested areas. Such an amendment and the veto threat issued by the 
White House both are based on wrong assumptions--that we should be 
taking management flexibility and financial resources away from Amtrak. 
We should be doing exactly the opposite. We need to invest in Amtrak, 
just as we need to invest in our bridges, buildings, ports, and other 
transit systems.
  Amtrak operates approximately 90 trains daily in Maryland, mostly on 
the Amtrak-owned Northeast corridor, through Baltimore, Penn Station, 
and New Carrollton. In addition to the Northeast corridor service, 
including the Acela Express, Regional, and Metroliner trains, Amtrak 
operates five long-distance trains through Maryland, as well as two 
regional trains. More than 1.7 million passengers board and disembark 
in Maryland's Amtrak stations every year. Those numbers are increasing. 
Amtrak's fiscal 2007 ridership topped 25.8 million. That is the fifth 
year in a row that Amtrak has seen a growth in passenger service.
  So our constituents want this service. They need this service. It is 
in our national interest to promote a more efficient passenger rail 
system. It also set a record for the highest ridership that Amtrak has 
seen since the National Railroad Passenger Corporation was enacted in 
1971.
  Amtrak employs more than 2,500 Marylanders, brings good jobs that 
range from corporate executives and accountants to trainmen and the men 
and women who operate and maintain the tracks. Amtrak operates weekday 
MARC commuter rail service on the Northeast corridor, including 
Washington, Baltimore, and Perryville, under a contract with the 
Maryland Transit Administration. It has a shared capital agreement with 
the State. Both Amtrak and the State of Maryland invest jointly in the 
improvements. The joint benefit program included the investment of $28 
million by the State in 2006.
  Amtrak is part of the infrastructure backbone of Maryland. It carries 
millions of passengers, employs thousands of workers, and benefits all 
of us, both economically and environmentally. Let me underscore that.
  Transit service is important for quality of life, so people can get 
from one place to another. It is certainly a lot easier if you are 
trying to get from Baltimore to New York to get on a train. It takes 
you right to downtown New York. You don't have to worry about going 
through the security of an airport. It is easier for people to use the 
rail service. But you are also helping our environment. It is a 
friendlier way for our energy and dealing with the environmental risks 
of transportation today to our environment. I was at a hearing 
yesterday regarding global climate change. Rail service will help us in 
dealing with the challenges of our environment. So it is in our 
environmental interest.

  It is also in our economic interest. It helps us to become more 
energy efficient. We import too much oil. We are dependent upon 
countries with policies with which we disagree. Amtrak is part of the 
solution by improving rail service in this country. So we will be 
helping the security of America, the economy of America, and certainly 
the environmental issues as well.
  Mr. President, we need to rethink our approach to America's critical 
infrastructure. We need to reinvest in Amtrak. It is an investment in 
America that is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  I thank the leadership in the Senate for bringing this issue forward. 
It will have my support.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2007. I thank my 
distinguished senior colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, 
who, not only in this legislation but for some time, has been probably 
Amtrak's strongest advocate. Beyond being an advocate for Amtrak, which 
certainly is worthy of it, it is the advocacy over the course of the 
years of millions of riders who depend upon Amtrak to send their sales 
force to work, to promote their products along Amtrak's routes; those 
Americans who use Amtrak to get to some of the Nation's leading 
hospitals and research centers to try to be cured; those individuals 
who come to visit, for example, the Nation's Capital and do so through 
Amtrak and the tourism that is spread throughout that process; those 
who do financial transactions in commerce and lawyers--a whole host and 
universe of America's economy and people who use Amtrak to ultimately 
achieve the Nation's economic well-being. Senator Lautenberg has been 
at the forefront of that. I thank him and Senator Lott for their 
efforts in guiding this important legislation to the floor.
  Every year since 2002, Amtrak has had to continue operations on a 
yearly basis without adequate funds to maintain the rail system over 
the long term. It is almost like a starvation diet--keeping it up just 
enough to be temporarily alive but working it in such a way and cutting 
its funds in such a way that it can neither be successful nor fully 
survive. Right now, the system is at a breaking point. Amtrak's 
equipment is aging, and no amount of maintenance can keep cars built in 
the 1950s on the tracks.
  Amtrak is not just a passenger rail system that serves 25 million 
people each year; Amtrak is also a program that reduces our greenhouse 
gas emissions, reduces congestion on our roadways, fights sprawl, 
creates jobs, and it fosters economic activity. I know firsthand the 
benefits of Amtrak because over 100,000 New Jersey commuters depend on 
Amtrak's infrastructure every day. There are many other commuter

[[Page S13417]]

rail systems in States that depend upon Amtrak's infrastructure as well 
to move very large amounts of their State's residents over the Amtrak 
lines.
  Some critics want Amtrak to be the only major transportation system 
in the world that operates without Government subsidy. This standard is 
simply impossible to meet and a standard to which we do not hold any 
other mode of transportation. Over the past 35 years, we have spent 
less money on Amtrak than we will on highways in this year alone. So 
over the last three and a half decades, we have spent less money on 
Amtrak than we will spend on highways just in this year alone. When you 
factor in State and local subsidies for infrastructure and parking, 
some studies suggest that up to 8 percent of our gross national product 
is spent on subsidies for automobile use.
  We have never committed the same support behind Amtrak as we have for 
other modes of transportation. This bill will finally give Amtrak a 
stable amount of authorized funds it needs over the next 6 years to 
adequately fund its operation and finance capital improvements.
  At the same time, these funds aren't free. To get these funds, Amtrak 
will be forced to tighten its belt, while simultaneously improving 
service. The bill reduces Amtrak's annual appropriations need by 
requiring reforms that will reduce Amtrak's operating costs by 40 
percent over the life of the bill.
  In addition, the bill provides for $1.4 billion for States to provide 
new passenger rail service between cities. In some instances, these 
State operations will likely provide service that complements existing 
Amtrak service just as the recent light rail projects we have seen in 
New Jersey have done. In other cases, these funds may actually create 
competition for Amtrak for service between some cities.
  The bill will also require Amtrak to use a new financial accounting 
system so that regulators and legislators can better monitor how Amtrak 
uses its resources. This bill would also require Amtrak to use its 
resources to provide a new level of service by improving ontime 
performance, upgrading onboard services, and providing easier access to 
other transportation systems.
  Finally, the bill will also require a systemwide security review to 
ensure that rail remains a safe transportation alternative. With 
record-high gasoline prices, congested highways, and airports that are 
experiencing record delays, we need all the alternative forms of 
transportation we can provide to a frustrated American traveler.
  Mr. President, as someone who represents a State that saw the 
consequences of what happened on September 11, 2001, that fateful day, 
since then we have come to fully appreciate the importance of multiple 
modes of transportation in a security context.

  We have always talked about transportation in the context of getting 
people to work and jobs and economic opportunity. We have talked about 
sending sales forces of small and midsize businesses, using rail 
services to go to different cities, for intercity travel, so they can 
promote their products and services. We have talked about people who 
might get on a rail line to go to Johns Hopkins University Hospital or 
some of the great hospitals in New Jersey, such as Robert Wood Johnson 
or Hackensack University Medical Center, or the great hospitals in New 
York, to name one of the many route lines that give people access to 
such opportunities. We have talked about tourism and people being able 
to take Amtrak to go to different parts of the country to see the 
greatness of America. That has always been the focus we have had as it 
relates to rail passenger service or, for that fact, really 
transportation modes in general. But on September 11, and therefrom, we 
learned that multiple modes of transportation are critical to the 
Nation's security and well-being.
  On that fateful day, when we had the attacks in New York and the 
plane that crashed in Pennsylvania and the incident that took place in 
Washington at the Pentagon--on that fateful day, when in the 
metropolitan region where there are millions of Americans living, where 
the tunnels were closed down, where the bridges were closed down, where 
the subway systems were closed down, it was a different mode of 
transportation that got people out of downtown Manhattan from the World 
Trade Center site and to hospitals to be triaged in my State of New 
Jersey. That particular mode of transportation happened to be ferries. 
The only way to get into intercity travel, when all of the airlines 
were shut down for that period of time, was Amtrak.
  So we have learned a lesson that this is beyond economics. We have 
learned a lesson that this is beyond tourism and this is beyond getting 
people to great centers of research and medicine to be cured; it is 
also about security. If we do away with Amtrak, we do away with the 
ability to have another mode of transportation that is critical to our 
security blanket. We have to think about Amtrak in that way as well.
  Finally, there are small communities in rural America in which the 
only entity that stops at their doorstep is Amtrak--the only entity 
that stops at their doorstep. Imagine being cut off from the rest of 
America, other than through a car, because no entity serves the 
opportunity to make your community the destination. Amtrak, as part of 
a national rail system, creates opportunities for many parts of America 
to finally realize that they, too, will have access to the rest of the 
country.
  Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
recognize that a strong, well-funded Amtrak is an essential resource 
for our country in all of these dimensions. I urge my colleagues to 
give us a strong vote for the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment 
Act of 2007 and make sure that we reject amendments that would seek to 
undermine this critical asset for our economy, for our environment, for 
our health care and, yes, in a post-September 11 world, for our 
security. Let's make sure we send a strong message from the Senate that 
we will take second place to no one in the world in terms of having a 
strong passenger rail system and will unite our country by giving that 
opportunity for Amtrak to travel across the landscape of America and be 
able to meet all of these challenges.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3456

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order regarding my 
amendment No. 3456.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That amendment is pending.


                    Amendment No. 3456, as Modified

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to 
the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 35, strike line 20 and all that follows through 
     ``(A)'' on line 23 and insert the following:
       ``(b)'' Implementation.--Pursuant to any rules or 
     regulations promulgated under subsection (a)
       On page 36, strike lines 6 through 11.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, have I been recognized?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I submitted to the desk a small technical 
modification of the amendment I offered that would strike the 
prohibition on allowing multiple routes to be competitively bid under 
the Amtrak system. In the legislation, there is competitive bidding 
allowed but for only two routes. I don't think we need to have such an 
arbitrary restriction. The technical modification makes sure the right 
portions of the bill, the right lines of the bill are referenced in the 
amendment. It is not a substantive change.


                           Amendment No. 3452

  Mr. President, I also wish to address my amendment that deals with 
Internet taxes. I offered this amendment last night, and I offered it 
on this legislation because we have been unable to get a vote anywhere 
in the Senate on Internet tax moratorium.

[[Page S13418]]

  What an Internet tax moratorium does is prevents States, cities, and 
towns from placing taxes on the cost of Internet access, whether it is 
for consumers, small businesses, large businesses--it doesn't matter. 
The Internet is a national and global system for communications. It is 
a national system for commerce and for business, and it should be 
protected from multiple taxation, from local taxation for a number of 
reasons.
  First, it is interstate commerce and, frankly, if there are going to 
be taxes levied, that interstate commerce and interstate communication 
should be the responsibility of Congress.
  Second, because those taxes would only discourage broadband 
deployment, it would raise costs for consumers and certainly have an 
impact on businesses that rely on Internet access as part of doing 
business.
  We were supposed to have a markup in the Commerce Committee. The bill 
was pulled from the markup. This is not something that just came up. We 
implemented a ban on Internet taxes in 1998 that lasted for 5 years. We 
extended it in 2003 for another 4 years. This is something that has 
received bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. Over 240 
Members of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, 
support making this ban on Internet access taxes permanent.
  Given that we have seen no action and that the prohibition expires on 
November 1, less than a week from today, I am sure a lot of people 
across the country are wondering why is Congress so dysfunctional. Why 
has Congress not acted on something that has such broad bipartisan 
support that is going to expire in less than a week?
  I cannot answer that question, but I can try to do something about 
it, and that is why I offered an amendment to this bill that would make 
that ban on Internet access taxes permanent. The way it does that is by 
taking legislation that passed the House by a very strong bipartisan 
vote, 405 to 2, and making that 4-year proposal a permanent proposal. 
We take the same approach to technical definitions, the same approach 
to grandfathering that existed for some States that taxed the Internet 
in the past, and simply make that legislation permanent.
  There is also a second-degree amendment that was offered to my 
amendment--an amendment to my amendment--that would say we should not 
make this ban permanent; we should only make it 4 years. I think that 
is a mistake. Given that we have already extended the ban on Internet 
access twice, given that it has bipartisan support, given that we have 
been able to see how this law works and has worked effectively over the 
last 9 years, I don't think we need to keep passing short-term 
extensions. And, frankly, short-term extensions, whether they are 1 
year, 2 years, or 4 years, is something the American public looks at, 
and it is baffling why we cannot find it within ourselves the 
discipline, the will--whatever it takes--to make a good idea the 
permanent law of the land. It is high time we do that when it comes to 
banning Internet access taxes.
  Senator Wyden spoke earlier about this issue and suggested that the 
technical language in the bill passed by the other body was not 
perfect. That should come as a surprise to no one. There is no such 
thing as absolutely perfect legislation. But it was certainly good 
enough to get all but two Members of 435, all but two Members to vote 
for the legislation. It was certainly good enough to offer the same 
language as an amendment to my bill.
  To suggest that this language is fatally flawed is very much 
mistaken. But even if it were an issue that needed to be addressed, it 
will have to be addressed whether we pass a 4-year extension or a 
permanent extension. So to use that as an excuse to oppose making the 
Internet tax ban permanent, I think, is a mistake. It simply is wrong.

  I would like to see the clearest possible language when it comes to 
service providers that are providing different kinds of Internet 
services but might not be providing Internet access as well. I even had 
an amendment ready to offer in committee to improve this language. As I 
indicated, Mr. President, we didn't have any amendments in committee 
because we didn't have any votes in committee because we didn't have 
any bill offered before the committee for a markup.
  So that is where we find ourselves. We have a proposal in front of us 
in the way of an amendment to make permanent the ban on Internet access 
taxes using language that has been supported in a very strong 
bipartisan way in the House of Representatives, and we have an 
amendment to my proposal that would say: No, let's not make it 
permanent; let's do another short-term extension.
  We have filed a cloture petition to bring debate on this particular 
issue to a close. That vote will happen tomorrow. And if cloture is 
invoked, we will have a vote on both amendments.
  I have no problem voting on alternatives. And I have said this in 
different situations on different legislation in the past. What is most 
frustrating, as a Member of the Senate, is when there are procedural 
maneuverings used to prevent us from offering an amendment, having a 
vote on any given alternative. I do not mind voting on bills or 
legislation that I don't support. If you don't support something, you 
vote no and explain to people why you don't support it.
  So we have both of these amendments before us, a cloture vote that 
will occur to bring debate to a close, and have the votes. And I 
certainly hope we vote cloture so we can have the votes and move 
forward on this very important issue.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SUNUNU. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. CARPER. I would invite the Senator from New Hampshire to engage 
in a brief colloquy. I have been listening to his comments. I think we 
have a couple of options, and there may be a better path for it than 
the one we are assuming today. We are talking about an amendment that 
the Senator had offered to the Amtrak bill, bringing the Internet tax 
issues to the reauthorization of Amtrak, and others of us would offer a 
second-degree amendment to that. There will be a cloture vote that will 
proceed either of those two amendments.
  I think there is another alternative that I would ask my friend to 
consider, and that would be the chance--I think all along the Senator 
from New Hampshire has wanted an up-or-down vote on his proposal, which 
is fair game. I think our own leadership, and I think in consultation 
with your leadership, including with Senator Lott, has suggested maybe 
one day next week we have an up-or-down vote--your proposal and the 
alternative of our proposal that Senator Alexander and I and others 
would offer, which would provide for a 6-year extension for a 
moratorium on Internet taxation. For another 6 years we would provide 
for a 6-year extension of the grandfather--
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, and I am happy to view 
the statement that was made in the form of a question so I can respond. 
That is what we will have if we invoke cloture tomorrow. We will have a 
vote on a 4-year extension and a vote on making the ban permanent. We 
can certainly have further discussions about the procedures and 
proposals off the Senate floor rather than negotiate a process or a 
procedure in a colloquy format, but I am sure the Senator from Delaware 
can appreciate the frustration that has put us in this position, given 
that no bill was offered in committee, no bill was offered in the 
Finance Committee, and in fact the legislation was pulled.
  So I am pleased we are in a position now where tomorrow we will have 
exactly what the Senator from Delaware prescribes, and if there are 
other alternatives or proposals, I am certainly happy to listen to 
them.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, while Senator Sununu is still on the 
floor, if I could add one other comment. Senator Lott said at the 
beginning of the debate on this bill that folks are welcome, Democrats 
and Republicans, to come and offer their amendments, nongermane, if 
they are. But when we get to conference, he said: I will warn you right 
from the get-go, nongermane amendments that are offered to this bill 
might be attached to this bill when we get to conference, but they will 
not be in this bill when we come out.
  So I would suggest to Senator Sununu that we consider the approach

[[Page S13419]]

I just outlined; that next week, maybe in the middle of next week, he 
would have the opportunity, with time for debate, to offer his proposal 
to make permanent the moratorium on taxing Internet access, and we 
would have the opportunity to offer an alternative, which would be a 6-
year extension of the moratorium.
  I will tell you why we think it is important. Five years ago, I never 
heard of VOIT, voice over Internet protocol. I had no idea what it was. 
I don't think anybody around here did. That is the ability to send 
telecommunications, telephone messages, over the Internet. It is a 
major change in the way we communicate on the telephone. The problem 
with making permanent this legislation is we assume there are not going 
to be any more technological changes. We are learning how to send cable 
TV, movies, and all kinds of stuff over the Internet. Traditionally, 
State and local governments have had the right to raise revenues as 
they see fit. In fact, we have an unfunded mandates law that says State 
and local governments have protection from us in Congress telling them 
how to spend their money or telling them how to raise their money. We 
passed a law that says we can't do that. I was Governor, actually, in 
1995. I was Governor when we pushed for that sort of protection. Who 
are we in the Federal Government to tell States how they have to spend 
their money or how they can raise it? That is what was adopted in the 
unfunded mandates legislation in 1995.

  We turned around in Congress 3 years later and said: By the way, we 
don't want folks to tax access to the Internet, and if you are already 
doing that in the United States, we are going to grandfather you in for 
a while, but we put in place, starting in 1998, this 3-year moratorium 
on other States beginning to tax access to the Internet--really trying 
to tax people's AOL bills.
  The concern as we go forward, as we learn to do other things over the 
Internet other than sending e-mails and instant messaging and stuff, if 
we allow the bundling of services, including telephone services, 
including cable services, television services, the sort of thing that 
State and local governments have traditionally used to pay for 
education, pay for schools, pay for fire, pay for police, or pay for 
paramedics, if we aren't careful, we are going to basically preclude or 
reduce their ability to raise the revenue they need for the problems in 
their States.
  So we are not smart enough--I am not smart enough, and I don't think 
any of us here are smart enough--to know for certainty what the 
technology is going to be in 5 years, 4 years, or 10 years. That is why 
we want the extension of the moratorium, to make sure people's access 
to the Internet is not going to be taxed, but what we don't want to do 
is to do something permanently because of the changing nature of 
technology.
  So I think it makes sense next week for us to have the opportunity 
for Senator Sununu to come to the floor, offer his permanent moratorium 
amendment, and have the same opportunity for Senator Alexander and 
myself, and Senator Dorgan, Senator Feinstein, Senator Rockefeller, 
Senator Enzi, and Senator Voinovich, and others who believe that a 6-
year moratorium may be the better alternative for now. I hope we will 
have that opportunity.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I appreciate the interest of the Senator 
from Delaware in the issue, and I want to take the opportunity to 
respond to a couple of issues.
  First, on the substantive issues: The Congress--the Federal 
Government--tells the States what they can or can't do on taxes all the 
time; not in every area, to be sure, and we shouldn't in every area. 
And if this permanent ban on Internet taxes passes, Internet-related 
businesses will still pay property taxes, payroll taxes, and business 
income taxes, but the network itself, access to the global network 
itself, will not be subject to taxes.
  This is not that dissimilar from the fact that we prevent States from 
levying their own export taxes because it affects international trade 
and global commerce, and even interstate commerce. We don't allow 
States to arbitrarily tax flights from their State to other States or 
across the country for the same reason--because we view that as 
interstate commerce and an interstate transportation system. We even 
have restrictions on States' ability to impose tolls on interstate 
highways, all for the same reason.
  So to suggest that we should never tell States how to handle matters 
of taxation is incorrect. We do it all the time. And we should do it on 
matters of interstate commerce, which is the responsibility--the 
constitutional responsibility--of the Congress.
  Second, back to the issue of technology changing. Well, of course, 
technology changes things. And we may and do have to modify legislation 
from time to time with regard to evolving technology. Regulations or 
laws affecting the Federal Communications Commission--the FCC--laws 
regarding regulations of video, phone, Internet protocol services, we 
want to make sure they keep pace. But that doesn't mean every law we 
pass in these areas should be temporary, especially in matters of 
taxation, because the way we tax goods and services affects our entire 
economy.
  Anyone who has worked in the area of technology is familiar with the 
R&D tax credit. The Congress continually passes 1- and 2-year 
extensions of the research and development tax credit, even though it 
passes almost unanimously in both Chambers every time. The American 
public looks at that and they wonder if our goal is to just make a 
little bit of extra work for lobbyists. It is wrong to deal with our 
Tax Code on such a short-term basis, whether it is the research and 
development tax credit or Internet access taxes.
  Finally, a couple of points about process. How easy it is to stand up 
on the Senate floor and say: Well, let's do the collegial thing and 
just take care of this next week. We had the Internet tax moratorium on 
the floor a few years ago. It made the moratorium permanent. The 
opponents of making the Internet moratorium permanent said: We are not 
quite ready. Could we take care of this next week or maybe the week 
after? And in good faith that bill was taken from the floor. Then the 
opponents of making the ban permanent prevented us from bringing the 
bill to the floor for another 9 months. Maybe it was even longer.
  So it is easy to come and say we should take care of this next week, 
but the fact is that next week the moratorium expires. On November 1, 
the moratorium expires. Why can't we take care of it this week, with 
the votes that are currently pending, currently before us--not just for 
my amendment but for an alternative, an amendment to my proposal? I 
think that is more than fair.
  Again, I will be happy to talk about alternatives. And since we were 
first scheduled to have a debate and markup on this legislation in the 
Commerce Committee, no one has come to me and proposed specific 
alternatives other than the amendment that has been offered to my 
proposal. And just now Senator Carper said: Well, maybe not 4 years, 
maybe 6 years. And I know he means that in good faith, but there are 
other leaders, on the Commerce Committee and others, who have an 
important role to play that will also have to be part of those 
discussions, and none of them have approached me directly with an 
alternative.
  So I hope we can resolve this. I hope my colleagues will support 
making the Internet tax moratorium permanent and support me in voting 
for cloture tomorrow morning so we can have those votes.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the scientific truth. Once again, the administration has kept all the 
facts from getting to the American people. On Tuesday, the Director of 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Julie Gerberding, 
testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee on the 
health impacts of global warming. The purpose of this hearing was to 
get all the facts

[[Page S13420]]

about the health threats global warming poses to our communities and 
our families. I thank Senator Boxer for her leadership of that 
committee, for her leadership on climate change. I am proud to be a 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we are doing 
some very good work in the climate change area. We actually have some 
legislation that we are considering in the next few weeks that I 
believe is good legislation. I don't believe we can wait to act.
  I went to Greenland this summer and saw firsthand the water coming 
off these humongous glaciers like spigots. They have lost the size of 
Greenland and Arizona combined off the Greenland ice sheet. It is the 
canary in the coal mine for climate change.
  There was a hearing this week. Unfortunately, the Director's initial 
testimony was not the testimony that was presented to the committee 
because her initial testimony did present the facts. As the Centers for 
Disease Control Director, she appears if you look at her initial 
testimony, to have taken seriously the mission of Centers for Disease 
Control which pledges to:

        . . . base all public health decisions on the highest 
     quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.

  But the testimony she gave at the committee fell short of that pledge 
because, as has been reported in the press, the administration 
eliminated much of Dr. Gerberding's draft testimony which highlighted 
the threats to public health posed by global warming.
  It is only the latest incident in what has been a pattern of this 
administration in attempting to suppress science. Specifically, this 
administration deleted her testimony on the views of the Centers for 
Disease Control on several health impacts of global warming, including 
explanations and descriptions of the links to heat stroke, weather 
disasters, worsening air pollution and allergies, food- and water-borne 
infectious diseases, mosquito- and tick-borne infectious diseases, food 
and water scarcity, mental health problems, and even chronic disease.
  The Centers for Disease Control is an important agency that the 
American people trust to protect their health and safety and provide 
reliable health information. Let me reiterate one of the central tenets 
of the mission of the Centers for Disease Control, to:

        . . . base all public health decisions on the highest 
     quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.

  Dr. Gerberding's original testimony included the following statement:

       The United States is expected to see an increase in the 
     severity, duration and frequency of extreme heat waves. This, 
     coupled with an aging population, increases the likelihood of 
     higher mortality as the elderly are more vulnerable to dying 
     from exposure from excessive heat.

  The President's spokesman claims they edited the testimony because:

       there were broad characterizations about climate change 
     science that didn't align with the U.N. Intergovernmental 
     Panel on Climate Change Report.

  What did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report state 
about the prospects of heat waves? It is important to remember that the 
IPCC is a very cautious group of scientists with a very conservative 
process for meticulously reviewing their conclusions through consensus. 
Their reports are produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 
620 expert reviewers and a large number of Government reviewers also 
participated.
  The IPCC stated:

       Severe heat waves will intensify in magnitude and duration 
     over the portions of the U.S. where they already occur . . .

     and:

       Local factors, such as the proportion of elderly people, 
     are important in determining the underlying temperature-
     mortality relationship in a population.

  I ask you, how does this align? How does eliminating this from the 
Nation's leading public health official's testimony benefit Americans?
  Let me cite another example that was deleted from her testimony. Dr. 
Gerberding's original testimony stated:

       The west coast of the United States is expected to 
     experience significant strains on water supplies as regional 
     precipitation declines and mountain snowpacks are depleted. 
     Forest fires are expected to increase in frequency, severity, 
     distribution and duration.

  So as the wildfires rage out West, the President, his administration, 
is censoring testimony in the East.
  Global warming does not cause these fires, but they certainly 
intensify the three main causes of wildfires: high temperature, summer 
dryness, and long-term drought. Southern California has experienced all 
three and is now suffering the consequences.

  Again, we go back to what the President's spokesperson said yesterday 
when asked about this. She said they had to look at that testimony and 
make sure it was consistent with what the IPCC had said. In fact, that 
was the reason she gave for why they had censored it. Let's see what 
the IPCC said about forest fires. They, the IPCC, in their fourth 
assessment report, found that:

        . . . warm spells and heat waves will very likely increase 
     the danger of wildfire.

  That is what they said, the IPCC, that it would increase the danger 
of wildfire.
  Then you have the head health official for our Government, the 
Centers for Disease Control, in her original testimony, saying it would 
increase the danger of forest fires. Pretty similar.
  As these fires are raging in southern California and as we are seeing 
all across the country record high temperatures, record summer dryness, 
and long-term drought, the administration chose to redact, to delete 
portions of the testimony of their Director of Disease Control, which 
in fact predicted this would happen. We have not just seen large forest 
fires in California this year. We saw them in northern Minnesota. I was 
there shortly after these fires in the Ham Lake area in northern 
Minnesota devastated areas, burned down homes, and went way up to 
Canada. I was meeting up there with resort owners, with residents, and 
we were talking about the disaster relief, we were talking about when 
they are going to get their phone lines, we were talking about the 
effects on their business up there. Do you know what some of them 
wanted to talk about in the midst of all this disaster and burned 
trees? They wanted to talk about climate change because they had seen 
what was happening. There was a 30-percent reduction in profits at the 
ski resorts; forest fires raging--they knew something was wrong. Yet 
the administration is deleting the scientific prediction that is saying 
that exactly this will happen.
  This is not the time for this administration to be censoring 
information. It is the time, instead, to look seriously at the health 
and other impacts of global warming and to take the steps we need to 
address them. I am proud to be part of a committee, under the 
leadership of Senator Boxer, that is no longer talking about whether 
climate change exists but talking about how to solve it.
  We will continue to investigate the reasons this was deleted. We will 
continue to request information and get to the truth. But the main 
thing I would like to say today to my colleagues is that the American 
people know that something is wrong. They want us to solve it. You 
can't hide the facts anymore. You can't bury them as forest fires are 
raging and sea levels are rising and temperatures are rising. You can't 
bury the facts. You have to get to the solution.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 2 days ago the Environment and Public 
Works Committee held a hearing on the Health Impacts of Global Warming. 
Our lead witness was Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, the Director of the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Administrator for 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within the 
Department of Health and Human Services.
  Dr. Gerberding was invited to testify by Chairman Boxer because the 
Director is a highly respected leader in the public health arena. The 
committee wanted to have the benefit of her expertise as we grapple 
with one of the most important issues of our time, global climate 
change.
  As everyone now knows, Dr. Gerberding's written testimony for the 
hearing was severely edited, with whole pages deleted. The White House 
says that some of her written comments did not represent the consensus 
view of the scientific community.
  The very first line that the White House censored in Dr. Gerberding's 
testimony was this: ``Scientific evidence supports the view that the 
earth's climate is changing.''
  If that statement doesn't represent the overwhelming sentiment of the

[[Page S13421]]

world's scientific community, I don't know what does. I find it 
astounding that this simple, sober statement of scientific fact would 
be censored.
  These continuing efforts to silence the scientific community would be 
laughable if the stakes weren't so high. In the censored portions of 
her testimony, Dr. Gerberding lists them for us: direct effects of 
heat; health effects related to extreme weather events; air pollution-
related health effects; allergic diseases; water- and food-borne 
infectious diseases; vector-borne and zoonotic diseases; food and water 
scarcity, at least for some populations; mental health problems; and 
long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects.
  Mr. President, I found Dr. Gerberding's oral testimony to be 
excellent. She answered my questions directly and without 
qualifications. Her responses to the other Senators on the panel 
appeared to be equally candid.
  Oral testimony is always limited by time, and committees rely heavily 
on the written comments of witnesses to provide a more complete 
perspective. Because of votes on the Senate floor on Tuesday morning, 
we were especially constrained for time.
  I regret that we did not have the benefit of Dr. Gerberding's full 
statement prior to the hearing. Certainly, they would have added a more 
complete picture of the human health impacts associated with global 
warming than she was able to convey in the highly censored version that 
was transmitted to the committee.
  The American people and the U.S. Senate have a right to know what our 
top health officials have to say on this critical issue. Today I will 
be submitting to the Record a full copy of the testimony that Dr. 
Gerberding had intended to offer. Her views are critical to this 
debate.
  Science shouldn't be silenced. And today we will make sure Dr. 
Gerberding's words are heard.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of her draft testimony be 
printed into today's Record. The American people can read for 
themselves what the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention had to say before the White House censors tried to silence 
her.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Climate Change and Public Health


                              Introduction

       Good morning Madam Chairwoman, Senator Inhofe, and other 
     distinguished members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to 
     appear before you as Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention (CDC), the Nation's leading public 
     health protection agency located within the Department of 
     Health and Human Services. Thank you for the opportunity to 
     present testimony on climate change and human health and to 
     highlight the role of CDC in preparing for and responding to 
     the health effects of climate change.


                               Background

       The health of all individuals is influenced by the health 
     of people, animals, and the environment around us. Many 
     trends within this larger, interdependent ecologic system 
     influence public health on a global scale, including climate 
     change. The public health response to such trends requires a 
     holistic understanding of disease and the various external 
     factors influencing public health. It is within this larger 
     context where the greatest challenges and opportunities for 
     protecting and promoting public health occur.
       Scientific evidence supports the view that the earth's 
     climate is changing. A broad array of organizations (federal, 
     state, local, multilateral, faith-based, private and 
     nongovernmental) is working to address climate change. 
     Despite this extensive activity, the public health effects of 
     climate change remain largely unaddressed. CDC considers 
     climate change a serious public health concern.


               Climate Change is a Public Health Concern

       In the United States, climate change is likely to have a 
     significant impact on health, through links with the 
     following outcomes: Direct effects of heat, health effects 
     related to extreme weather events, air pollution-related 
     health effects, allergic diseases, water- and food-borne 
     infectious diseases, vector-borne and zoonotic diseases, food 
     and water scarcity, at least for some populations, mental 
     health problems, and long-term impacts of chronic diseases 
     and other health effects.
       The United States is a developed country with a variety of 
     climates. Because of its well developed health 
     infrastructure, and the greater involvement of government and 
     nongovernmental agencies in disaster planning and response, 
     the health effects from climate change are expected to be 
     less significant than in the developing world. Nevertheless, 
     many Americans will likely experience difficult challenges. 
     Catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes 
     are expected to become more frequent, severe, and costly; the 
     U.S. population is anticipated to continue to age and move to 
     vulnerable locations such as coastal areas, increasing 
     exposures to specific risks; and concurrent challenges such 
     as water scarcity in certain regions could limit our 
     resilience. In addition, climate change is likely to alter 
     the current geographic distribution of some vector-borne and 
     zoonotic diseases; some may become more frequent, widespread, 
     and outbreaks could last longer, while others could be 
     reduced in incidence.
     Heat stress and direct thermal injury
       One of the most likely climate change projections is an 
     increase in frequency of hot days, hot nights, and heat 
     waves. The United States is expected to see an increase in 
     the severity, duration, and frequency of extreme heat waves. 
     This, coupled with an aging population, increases the 
     likelihood of higher mortality as the elderly are more 
     vulnerable to dying from exposure to excessive heat. 
     Midwestern and northeastern cities are at greatest risk, as 
     heat-related illness and death appear to be related to 
     exposure to temperatures much hotter than those to which the 
     population is accustomed.
     Extreme weather events
       Climate change is anticipated to alter the frequency, 
     timing, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events, 
     such as hurricanes and floods. The health effects of these 
     extreme weather events range from loss of life and acute 
     trauma, to indirect effects such as loss of home, large-scale 
     population displacement, damage to sanitation infrastructure 
     (drinking water and sewage systems), interruption of food 
     production, damage to the health-care infrastructure, and 
     psychological problems such as post traumatic stress 
     disorder. Displacement of individuals often results in 
     disruption of health care, of particular concern for those 
     with underlying chronic diseases. Future climate projections 
     also show likely increases in the frequency of heavy rainfall 
     events, posing an increased risk of flooding events and 
     overwhelming of sanitation infrastructure.
     Air pollution-related health effects
       Climate change can affect air quality by modifying local 
     weather patterns and pollutant concentrations, affecting 
     natural sources of air pollution, and promoting the formation 
     of secondary pollutants. Of particular concern is the impact 
     of increased temperature and UV radiation on ozone formation. 
     Some studies have shown that higher surface temperatures, 
     especially in urban areas, encourage the formation of ground-
     level ozone. As a primary ingredient of smog, ground-level 
     ozone is a public health concern. Ozone can irritate the 
     respiratory system, reduce lung function, aggravate asthma, 
     and inflame and damage cells that line the lungs. In 
     addition, it may cause permanent lung damage and aggravate 
     chronic lung diseases.
     Allergic diseases
       Studies have shown that some plants, such as ragweed and 
     poison ivy, grow faster and produce more allergens under 
     conditions of high carbon dioxide and warm weather. As a 
     result, allergic diseases and symptoms could worsen with 
     climate change.
     Water- and food-borne infectious diseases
       Altered weather patterns resulting from climate change are 
     likely to affect the distribution and incidence of food- and 
     water-borne diseases. Changes in precipitation, temperature, 
     humidity, and water salinity have been shown to affect the 
     quality of water used for drinking, recreation, and 
     commercial use. For example, outbreaks of Vibrio bacteria 
     infections following the consumption of seafood and 
     shellfish have been associated with increases in 
     temperatures. Heavy rainfall has also been implicated as a 
     contributing factor in the overloading and contamination 
     of drinking water treatment systems, leading to illness 
     from organisms such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Storm 
     water runoff from heavy precipitation events can also 
     increase fecal bacterial counts in coastal waters as well 
     as nutrient load, which, coupled with increased sea-
     surface temperature, can lead to increases in the 
     frequency and range of harmful algal blooms (red tides) 
     and potent marine biotoxins such as ciguatera fish 
     poisoning.
     Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases
       Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases, such as plague, Lyme 
     disease, West Nile virus, malaria, hantavirus pulmonary 
     syndrome, and dengue fever have been shown to have a distinct 
     seasonal pattern, suggesting that they are weather sensitive. 
     Climate change-driven ecological changes, such as variations 
     in rainfall and temperature, could significantly alter the 
     range, seasonality, and human incidence of many zoonotic and 
     vector-borne diseases. More study is required to fully 
     understand all the implications of ecological variables 
     necessary to predict climate change effects on vector-borne 
     and zoonotic diseases. Moderating factors such as housing 
     quality, land-use patterns, and vector control programs make 
     it unlikely that these climate changes will have a major 
     impact on tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever 
     spreading into the United States. However, climate change 
     could aid in the establishment of exotic vector-borne 
     diseases imported into the United States.
     Food scarcity
       Climate change is predicted to alter agricultural 
     production, both directly and indirectly. This may lead to 
     scarcity of some foods, increase food prices, and threaten 
     access to food for Americans who experience food insecurity.

[[Page S13422]]

     Mental health problems
       Some Americans may suffer anxiety, depression, and similar 
     symptoms in anticipating climate change and/or in coping with 
     its effects. Moreover, the aftermath of severe events may 
     include post-traumatic stress and related problems, as was 
     seen after Hurricane Katrina. These conditions are difficult 
     to quantify but may have significant effects of health and 
     well-being.


                      Climate Change Vulnerability

       The effects of climate change will likely vary regionally 
     and by population. The northern latitudes of the United 
     States are expected to experience the largest increases in 
     average temperatures; these areas also will likely bear the 
     brunt of increases in ground-level ozone and associated 
     airborne pollutants. Populations in mid-western and 
     northeastern cities are expected to experience more heat-
     related illnesses as heat waves increase in frequency, 
     severity, and duration. Coastal regions will likely 
     experience essentially uniform risk of sea level rise, but 
     different rates of coastal erosion, wetlands destruction, and 
     topography are expected to result in dramatically different 
     regional effects of sea level rise. Distribution of animal 
     hosts and vectors may change; in many cases, ranges could 
     extend northward and increase in elevation. For some 
     pathogens associated with wild animals, such as rodents and 
     hantavirus, ranges will change based on precipitation 
     changes. The west coast of the United States is expected to 
     experience significant strains on water supplies as regional 
     precipitation declines and mountain snowpacks are depleted. 
     Forest fires are expected to increase in frequency, severity, 
     distribution, and duration.
       The health effects of climate change on a given community 
     will depend not only on the particular exposures it faces, 
     but also on the underlying health status, age distribution, 
     health care access, and socioeconomic status of its 
     residents. Local response capacity will also be important. As 
     with other environmental hazards, members of certain ethnic 
     and racial minority groups will likely be disproportionately 
     affected. For example, in low-lying coastal communities 
     facing increasingly frequent and severe extreme precipitation 
     events, there could be increased injuries, outbreaks of 
     diarrheal disease, and harmful algal blooms; saltwater may 
     intrude into freshwater tables and infrastructure is likely 
     to be damaged by severe storms, hampering economic recovery. 
     In certain Southern coastal communities with little economic 
     reserve, declining industry, difficulty accessing health 
     care, and a greater underlying burden of disease, these 
     stressors could be overwhelming. Similarly, in an urban area 
     with increasingly frequent and severe heat waves, certain 
     groups are expected to be more affected: the home-bound, 
     elderly, poor, athletes, and minority and migrant 
     populations, and populations that live in areas with less 
     green space and with fewer centrally air-conditioned 
     buildings are all more vulnerable to heat stress.
       Some populations of Americans are more vulnerable to the 
     health effects of climate change than others. Children are at 
     greater risk of worsening asthma, allergies, and certain 
     infectious diseases, and the elderly are at higher risk for 
     health effects due to heat waves, extreme weather events, and 
     exacerbations of chronic disease. In addition, people of 
     lower socioeconomic status are particularly vulnerable to 
     extreme weather events. Members of racial and ethnic minority 
     groups suffer particularly from air pollution as well as 
     inadequate health care access, while athletes and those who 
     work outdoors are more at risk from air pollution, heat, and 
     certain infectious diseases.
       Given the differential burden of climate change's health 
     effects on certain populations, public health preparedness 
     for climate change must include vulnerability assessments 
     that identify the most vulnerable populations with the most 
     significant health disparities and anticipate their risks for 
     particular exposures. At the same time, health communication 
     targeting these vulnerable populations must be devised and 
     tested, and early warning systems focused on vulnerable 
     communities should be developed. With adequate notice and a 
     vigorous response, the ill health effects of many exposures 
     from climate change can be dampened.


             Public Health Preparedness for Climate Change

       Climate change is anticipated to have a broad range of 
     impacts on the health of Americans and the nation's public 
     health infrastructure. As the nation's public health agency, 
     CDC is uniquely poised to lead efforts to anticipate and 
     respond to the health effects of climate change. Preparedness 
     for the health consequences of climate change aligns with 
     traditional public health contributions, and--like 
     preparedness for terrorism and pandemic influenza--reinforces 
     the importance of a strong public health infrastructure. 
     CDC's expertise and programs in the following areas provide 
     the strong platform needed:
       Environmental Public Health Tracking: CDC has a long 
     history of tracking occurrence and trends in diseases and 
     health outcomes. CDC is pioneering new ways to understand the 
     impacts of environmental hazards on people's health. For 
     example, CDC's Environmental Public Health Tracking Program 
     has funded several states to build a health surveillance 
     system that integrates environmental exposures and human 
     health outcomes. This system, the Tracking Network, will go 
     live in 2008, providing information on how health is affected 
     by environmental hazards. The Tracking Network will contain 
     critical data on the incidence, trends, and potential 
     outbreaks of diseases, including those affected by climate 
     change.
       Surveillance of Water-borne, Food-borne, Vector-borne, and 
     Zoonotic Diseases: CDC also has a long history of 
     surveillance of infectious, zoonotic, and vector-borne 
     diseases. Preparing for climate change will involve working 
     closely with state and local partners to document whether 
     potential changes in climate have an impact on infectious and 
     other diseases and to use this information to help protect 
     Americans from the potential change in of a variety of 
     dangerous water-borne, food-borne, vector-borne, and 
     zoonotic diseases. CDC has developed ArboNet, the national 
     arthropod-borne viral disease tracking system. Currently, 
     this system supports the nationwide West Nile virus 
     surveillance system that links all 50 states and four 
     large metropolitan areas to a central database that 
     records and maps cases in humans and animals and would 
     detect changes in real-time in the distribution and 
     prevalence of cases of arthropod-borne viral diseases. CDC 
     also supports the major foodborne surveillance and 
     investigative networks of FoodNet and PulseNet which 
     rapidly identify and provide detailed data on cases of 
     foodborne illnesses, on the organisms that cause them, and 
     on the foods that are the sources of infection. Altered 
     weather patterns resulting from climate change are likely 
     to affect the distribution and incidence of food- and 
     waterborne diseases, and these changes can be identified 
     and tracked through PulseNet.
       Geographic Information System (GIS): At the CDC, GIS 
     technology has been applied in unique and powerful ways to a 
     variety of public health issues. It has been used in data 
     collection, mapping, and communication to respond to issues 
     as wide-ranging and varied as the World Trade Center 
     collapse, avian flu, SARS, and Rift Valley fever. In 
     addition, GIS technology was used to map issues of importance 
     during the CDC response to Hurricane Katrina. This technology 
     represents an additional tool for the public health response 
     to climate change.
       Modeling: Currently sophisticated models to predict climate 
     and heat exist. For example, CDC has conducted heat stroke 
     modeling for the city of Philadelphia to predict the most 
     vulnerable populations at risk for hyperthermia. Modeling and 
     forecasting represent an important preparedness strategy, in 
     that it can help predict and respond to the most pressing 
     health vulnerabilities at the state and local level. Armed 
     with modeling data, we can target response plans for heat and 
     other extreme weather events to the most vulnerable 
     communities and populations.
       Preparedness Planning: Just as we prepare for terrorism and 
     pandemic influenza, we should use these principles and 
     prepare for health impacts from climate change. For example, 
     to respond to the multiple threats posed by heat waves, the 
     urban environment, and climate change, CDC scientists have 
     focused prevention efforts on developing tools that local 
     emergency planners and decision-makers can use to prepare for 
     and respond to heat waves. In collaboration with other 
     Federal partners, CDC participated in the development of an 
     Excessive Heat Events Guidebook, which provides a 
     comprehensive set of guiding principle and a menu of options 
     for cities and localities to use in the development of Heat 
     Response Plans. These plans clearly define specific roles and 
     responsibilities of government and nongovernmental 
     organizations during heat waves. They identify local 
     populations at increased high risk for heat-related illness 
     and death and determine which strategies will be used to 
     reach them during heat emergencies.
       Training and Education of Public Health Professionals--
     Preparing for the health consequences of climate change 
     requires that professionals have the skills required to 
     conceptualize the impending threats, integrate a wide variety 
     of public health and other data in surveillance activities, 
     work closely with other agencies and sectors, and provide 
     effective health communication for vulnerable populations 
     regarding the evolving threat of climate change. CDC is 
     holding a series of five workshops to further explore key 
     dimensions of climate change and public health, including 
     drinking water, heat waves, health communication, vector-
     borne illness, and vulnerable populations.
       Health Protection Research: CDC can promote research to 
     further elucidate the specific relationships between climate 
     change and various health outcomes, including predictive 
     models and evaluations of interventions. Research efforts can 
     also identify the magnitude of health effects and populations 
     at greatest risk. For example, CDC has conducted research on 
     the relationship between hantavirus pulmonary syndrome and 
     rainfall, as well as research assessing the impact of climate 
     variability and climate change on temperature-related 
     morbidity and mortality. This information will help enable 
     public health action to be targeted and will help determine 
     the best methods of communicating risk. CDC can serve as a 
     credible source of information on health risks and actions 
     that individuals can take to reduce their risk. In addition, 
     CDC has several state-of-the-art laboratories conducting 
     research on such issues as chemicals and human exposure, 
     radiological testing, and infectious diseases. This research 
     capacity is an asset in working to more fully understand the 
     health consequences of climate change.

[[Page S13423]]

       Communication: CDC has expertise in health and risk 
     communication, and has deployed this expertise in areas as 
     diverse as smoking, HIV infection, and cancer screening. 
     Effective communication can alert the public to health risks 
     associated with climate change, avoid inappropriate 
     responses, and encourage constructive protective behaviors.
       While CDC can offer technical support and expertise in 
     these and other activities, much of this work needs to be 
     carried out at the state and local level. For example, CDC 
     can support climate change preparedness activities in public 
     health agencies, and climate change and health research in 
     universities, as is currently practiced for a variety of 
     other health challenges.


                               Conclusion

       An effective public health response to climate change can 
     prevent injuries, illnesses, and death and enhance overall 
     public health preparedness. Protecting Americans from the 
     health effects of climate change directly correlates to CDC's 
     four overarching Health Protection Goals of Healthy People in 
     Every Stage of Life, Healthy People in Healthy Places, People 
     Prepared for Emerging Health Threats, and Healthy People in a 
     Healthy World.
       While we still need more focus and emphasis on public 
     health preparedness for climate change, many of our existing 
     programs and scientific expertise provide a solid foundation 
     to move forward. Many of the activities needed to protect 
     Americans from the health effects of climate change are 
     mutually beneficial for overall public health. In addition, 
     health and the environment are closely linked, as strongly 
     demonstrated by the issue of climate change. Because of this 
     linkage it is also important that potential health effects of 
     environmental solutions be fully considered.
       Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this 
     testimony on the potential health effects of global climate 
     change and for your continued support of CDC's essential 
     public health work.
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Administration Spending Priorities

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the past few months we have sent the 
President critical legislation that invests in our country's 
transportation, economy, health and safety needs. Funding these 
priorities will make our country safer, our communities healthier, and 
our economy stronger. Unfortunately, it seems the President doesn't 
share these priorities. He has proposed to this Congress harmful budget 
cuts, and now he says he is going to veto several of these vital bills 
because we are asking for $22 billion more than he requested. He says 
our domestic spending is ``irresponsible and excessive.''
  I personally find that hard to understand when, at the same time as 
he is saying that, he wants $196 billion in emergency spending for the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way, that does not include any 
money for our veterans. In fact, the $22 billion we want to invest at 
home represents less than what the President spends in Iraq in 3 
months. That, not these bills, is what I think is irresponsible and 
excessive. We have to make sure we are not ignoring our needs here at 
home. The appropriations bills have the support of both parties. They 
ensure that our roads and our bridges, our airports, our railways are 
in good condition. They assure that our workers and families are 
healthy and our children have a chance to succeed. They assure that we 
have enough law enforcement officers to keep our communities safe. 
These bills simply restore some of the money the President cut and take 
a modest step forward after years of going in the wrong direction.
  A healthy transportation system is vital to a healthy community. We 
need to ensure that our families can get to school or get to work and 
that goods move from place to place. But when he says no to our bill 
that provides money for transportation and housing and urban 
development, what the President is saying no to is the investments that 
ensure that our communities are strong, that prevent disasters--such as 
the bridge collapse in Minneapolis--from happening in this country 
again.
  I am baffled, frankly, that the President's request for the war 
includes about $200 million for the construction of secondary roads in 
Afghanistan. He wants to spend $200 million on roads in Afghanistan but 
he is upset about our amendment to fix bridges in the United States.
  Clearly, this administration thinks these projects are a priority for 
Iraq and a priority for Afghanistan; otherwise, the President would not 
have included them in his emergency spending bill for the war. So I 
ask, why doesn't the President think the roads and bridges are a 
priority in our country, in the United States?
  At the same time the President is waging war overseas, we are here 
trying to make sure our employers have workers, that our families have 
access to health care, that our children get a good education. Tuesday 
night an overwhelming majority of this Senate voted to spend $11 
billion over the President's request on Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education programs so we could do that. That bill we 
passed would invest in cutting-edge medical research for diseases such 
as Alzheimer's and diabetes and cancer, research that brings hope to 
millions of Americans. In taking that vote the other evening, a 
bipartisan group of Senators agreed to restore funds for education, for 
jobs training, for health systems, when President Bush would have left 
them to cope with yet another year of unfunded mandates and empty 
promises.
  The children's health insurance bill that we approved earlier this 
year also is intended to help millions of our children. That bill, too, 
achieved a majority of support in the House and in the Senate but not 
from the President. Those bills would make Americans healthier and the 
economy more competitive. But the President disagrees. He says these 
programs are ``irresponsible and excessive.''
  But guess what he proposes in his $196 billion request for Iraq and 
Afghanistan. He asks for $25 million for economic development projects 
to foster job creation--in Iraq. And $60 million to fund economic 
projects to sustain development in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
  Let me say it another way. He plans to veto job creation and economic 
development right here at home, but he is asking us to spend millions 
of dollars in emergency funding on similar programs in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  The President says $196 billion that he is requesting for the war is 
necessary to make our world safer. We believe we also need to invest 
more in safety here at home. Our bill funding Commerce, Justice and 
Science programs works hard to ensure that our communities have enough 
FBI agents and police on our streets here at home. Like the other 
programs we want to fund, that bill restores the cuts that the 
President had proposed. Few bills are as important to the safety of our 
communities as that one.
  I am especially concerned that the President is threatening to veto 
that bill because of how it affects my home State and the Nation. Six 
years after 9/11, the administration still has not replaced 2,400 law 
enforcement agents across the country that it reassigned to 
counterterrorism after 9/11.
  In my home State of Washington, we were hit very hard by that. 
According to an investigation by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, our 
Seattle newspaper, we have a critical shortage of FBI agents: 2.1 
agents for every 100,000 residents or about half the national average.
  The shift to counterterrorism has left our law enforcement 
shorthanded. Local police and sheriffs told me that the FBI has 
``virtually disappeared'' from white-collar crime investigations. They 
told me the FBI does not have the resources today to adequately staff 
antigang task forces.
  Criminals have not stopped robbing our banks or dealing drugs or 
stealing identities. An amendment I included in that bill would take 
steps to get more FBI agents into my community and wherever they are 
needed.
  But the President said he is going to veto that bill. In so doing, he 
is going to veto our amendment. If we can spend $10 billion a month for 
the war in Iraq, we should be willing to spend a fraction of that to 
ensure the security of our citizens at home.
  Clearly, the President is the one who is being ``excessive'' and 
``irresponsible.'' This might be an abstract debate about Federal 
funding for the President, but I think all of us know here it is about 
real people; it is about hard-working parents who are searching for a 
way to get health care for

[[Page S13424]]

their own families when it has not been provided by their employers. It 
is about citizens out of traffic jams, and ensuring that our roads and 
bridges are safe to drive on. It is about making sure the people we 
represent can trust that enough law enforcement officers will be there 
to fight crime in their neighborhoods.
  When I travel around Washington State, people tell me they want hope 
and they want change. Whether it is the war in Iraq or gas prices or 
access to health insurance, people today feel a real weight on their 
shoulders. They are looking for a light at the end of the tunnel. By 
vetoing those important bills, and failing to invest in the safety, 
health, and economic future of all Americans, the President keeps 
putting out that light. We are investing $22 billion over last year in 
the future of our country.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support these bills as we move forward 
on behalf of the millions of American children and families who would 
benefit. I hope the President is listening.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader.


                                  Iran

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the bill before us is a very important 
bill for our country. It is the reauthorization of the Amtrak operation 
which serves Illinois and most of our Nation very well. It is one of 
the most successful modes of transportation in terms of growth in our 
country.
  In the last year the ridership on Amtrak in Illinois has doubled. 
Doubled. That is an indication of a commitment, not only from the State 
of Illinois to make that happen, but also with the price of gasoline a 
lot of people are discovering the train again. They are back on those 
trains traveling between St. Louis and Chicago, Quincy and Chicago, 
Carbondale and Chicago, students, families, business people. That is a 
good thing.
  I salute Senators Lautenberg and Lott for bringing this authorization 
bill to the floor. I definitely want it to pass as quickly as possible. 
I hope we will show the support for Amtrak which has been lacking for 
some time in the past but in the future needs to be there.
  I want to discuss an amendment which I am going to offer which has 
nothing to do with Amtrak, and perhaps it will not be allowed at this 
moment in time in the debate. But I will offer it because I think it is 
timely, and I offer it because if it is not allowed on this bill at 
this time, I hope we will have a chance to bring it up in the very near 
future.
  I can recall a little over 5 years ago, on the floor of the Senate, 
when we debated the invasion of Iraq. Those votes are historic and very 
personal. Members who were called on to make those decisions will never 
forget the anguish they face when they have to decide whether to send 
our Nation to war. We know it is the most important vote that can be 
cast. We know even under the best of circumstances Americans will die 
if we go to war. We hope our enemy will be vanquished, but we know that 
innocent people will also die.
  A little over 5 years ago, that decision was made on the floor of the 
Senate to go forward with the invasion of Iraq. There were many of us 
who had serious misgivings about that decision. I was one of 23 
Senators, 22 on the Democratic side, 1 on the Republican side, who 
voted against the authorization of military force.
  I felt the President had not made a strong case for that invasion. I 
felt he did not have a sound plan for an invasion and a victory. I felt 
the American people had been misled; misled about Saddam Hussein, 
misled about weapons of mass destruction, misled about the impact of 
this almost unilateral invasion by the United States into Iraq.
  Well, here we are in the fifth year of the war, over 3,800 Americans 
have been killed, 30,000 injured, more than 10,000 seriously injured, 
with amputations and serious burns, traumatic brain injury. With the 
President's latest request, the spending on the war in Iraq will reach 
three-quarters of a trillion dollars. In 5 years, three-quarters of a 
trillion dollars, $750 billion; money, which if spent in the United 
States on Amtrak, on medical research, on health care, on education, 
would have had a dramatic, historic impact, a positive impact on 
America.
  But, no, it was spent in the course of a war that has no end in 
sight. Our men and women in uniform have shown extraordinary bravery 
and courage under amazing, trying circumstances in the civil war we 
never bargained for.
  When we went to war in Iraq, the President said the reasons were 
clear: first, depose Saddam Hussein; second, to rid our world of his 
weapons of mass destruction; and, third, to protect threats against 
America's security.
  Here we are almost 5 years later with Saddam Hussein gone, no weapons 
of mass destruction, and the only threat to America's security being 
the threat to our own soldiers and occupational forces in Iraq.
  The debate seems to have moved from Iraq to another neighboring 
country, at least in the eyes of the White House, that is, the country 
of Iran. We continue to hear the most bellicose, warlike statements 
coming from the President and Vice President about the potential for 
the invasion of Iran.
  Make no mistake, Iran cannot be ignored. It has fostered a foreign 
policy that supports some of the worst actors in the Middle East, from 
Hezbollah to Hamas. It is pursuing a nuclear program despite 
international condemnation. It has threatened to wipe our strong ally 
Israel off the map. There is plenty of evidence to suggest Iran is 
complicit in supplying training and materials for attacks against our 
soldiers in Iraq.
  Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and I have introduced bipartisan 
legislation, the Iran Counterproliferation Act of 2007. It would 
tighten sanctions against Iran if it does not halt its nuclear 
programs. It stops short, clearly stops short, of calling for military 
action. That is the reason I come today.
  I continue to be concerned that this administration is going to move 
too far, too fast, toward military action against Iran. The positioning 
of some of our battle forces, the statements from Vice President Cheney 
and President Bush trouble me. They trouble me because in August the 
McClatchy Newspapers reported that the Vice President proposed U.S. air 
strikes inside Iran. Earlier this month, President Bush said if we were 
interested in avoiding World War III--these are his words, World War 
III--we ought to be concerned about preventing Iran from gaining the 
knowledge needed to produce nuclear weapons.
  This week, Vice President Cheney said, during an event in Lynchburg, 
Virginia, that the United States and others are ``prepared to impose 
serious consequences'' on Iran. This troubles me. If this 
administration believes it has some authority from Congress for the 
invasion of Iran, I challenge them to show me what that authority is. 
They certainly did not receive that authority with their authorization 
to use military force in Iraq. That was never even considered. There 
has been no action I am aware of since which would given them that 
authority.
  If they think they have some inherent power to launch an invasion of 
another country such as Iran, they are clearly wrong, wrong because of 
this document, our Constitution. The Constitution makes clear in 
article I, section 8, that the power to declare war is vested in the 
American people through their elected representatives in Congress, in 
the House and in the Senate.
  I come to the floor today to remind not only my colleagues but the 
administration that they have solemn constitutional responsibilities. 
Before they initiate any offensive action in Iran, they have to come to 
the Congress for the authority to do so. To do otherwise is, in my 
mind, not only reckless but clearly unconstitutional.
  I want to take a moment to read this resolution I have proposed 
because it is very short. It is two sentences:

       The Senate hereby affirms that Article I, Section 8 of the 
     Constitution of the United States vests in Congress all power 
     to declare war.

  And, paragraph 2:

       Any offensive military action taken by the United States 
     against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before 
     such action may be initiated.

  The wording is concise and limited, and I hope makes a clear point. 
That point is, the Constitution counts. This President, no President, 
has the authority for unilateral invasion of a country. Every President 
has the power to defend America and Americans. But to initiate an 
invasion of Iran at this point in our history would

[[Page S13425]]

be not only a terrible foreign policy mistake, but violate the 
constitutional processes we have set in place, a Constitution we have 
all sworn to uphold.
  I understand that this bill, this Amtrak authorization bill, is 
hardly a bill to debate the constitutional authority to go to war or 
foreign policy on Iran, but I continue to be troubled day in and day 
out with statements by the President and Vice President to suggest that 
we are somehow preparing in any way, shape, or form for offensive 
military action in Iran.
  I know my time is limited. I thank the sponsor of the legislation 
that is now pending, and the Republican minority leader on this 
committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so 
this amendment be might be called up, with the understanding that it is 
not likely to be allowed, but to let my colleagues know I am going to 
introduce this as separate legislation. I hope they will join me in 
cosponsoring it and join me as well in finding the first available 
venue and forum to raise this important constitutional issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, I 
thank the Senator for his comments about our efforts on the Amtrak 
legislation. This is the Amtrak legislation, and I do not think it is 
the place to have this debate he is proposing. He acknowledges such. In 
view of that, I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 
today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Sununu amendment 
No. 3446, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the 
vote; and that the 4 minutes immediately prior to the vote be divided 
as follows: 1 minute each for Senator Lautenberg, myself, and Senator 
Lott, or our designees, and 2 minutes for Senator Sununu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, first, if I could clarify the agreement 
that was just enumerated here, at 3:15 then we will move to a vote on 
the pending Sununu amendment, and prior to that, it will give us a 
chance on both sides of the issue to make some brief remarks, and 
Senator Sununu will be back momentarily to make some comments and an 
explanation of his amendment.
  The amendment would modify the bill's competition pilot program to 
allow an unlimited number of existing Amtrak routes to be open to 
competition from freight rails that seek to operate passenger trains in 
exchange for Amtrak's current subsidy.
  We have worked on this issue before. Senator Sununu had this 
amendment the last time this bill came up. We worked out a compromise 
that is in the bill which is to have a pilot program. Philosophically, 
I am attracted to this amendment. I do think we ought to have 
competition. I think it makes sense maybe for the freight lines to 
provide this passenger service. But this is a major change in what is 
currently done. So rather than just leaping into this in an uncertain 
and an unknown way in terms of its impact, results, what would happen 
to Amtrak, how it would impact the service, the alternative is to go 
with what we worked out a couple years ago, and that is a competitive 
pilot program that would allow two routes a year--not two total; it is 
two a year--to get into this competitive pilot program area, see how it 
works, find out the details, assess the good and the bad and the costly 
which could come out of it. That is the preferred way to go. We do say 
we will have this for the life of the bill, which is a number of years, 
so it could be up to 10 or 12 routes that may be involved eventually.
  This is a new concept, and we believe what we have outlined in the 
provisions of S. 294 will prescribe it in such a way that it won't 
cause problems and we can see if it works. It may work. I emphasize, 
this is something I may want to move toward in the future. But I want 
us to have a national rail passenger system, No. 1. I want us to quit 
starving Amtrak and then blasting them because they don't do better 
even though we know they don't have the money to do the job. I want us 
to give them clear instructions for reform and to evaluate routes and 
have better governance. We have put this in the bill. This will be a 
major plus for Amtrak, to give them more authority.
  Some of these routes could be shut down. We had the earlier Sununu 
amendment that we think could have led to a pretty precipitous shutting 
down of six or eight of these long-distance routes in other parts of 
the country. That would have been a mistake. But I do think that, more 
than likely, over a period of 2 or 3 years, you can't defend an 
individual subsidy per passenger of $500 or $600.
  More and more, as we make this a more attractive entity, deal with 
the capital needs, improve the trackage that is available for them to 
use, get better governance, then it will be more attractive for 
competition to come into play. Maybe States will have more operations, 
as well as the freight lines.
  I understand the goal of Senator Sununu. I appreciate the fact that 
he is not one who has just been critical. He is engaged. He is thinking 
about it. He has some ideas. But I urge defeat of this amendment. Let's 
see how the pilot program works and then, in 4 or 5 years, evaluate 
what we have seen and perhaps do something more.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we are examining an amendment 
offered by Senator Sununu. As we have just heard, we have been through 
this somewhat before. The amendment would open to privatization all of 
Amtrak's long-distance and corridor train routes and give Federal 
funding to private companies to do what Amtrak does with no additional 
contract oversight. We saw something with the British experience--that 
there is potential for disaster when you fully privatize a national 
railroad. In the UK, wholesale privatization of their rail line did not 
work. In the end, safety was compromised for profits, and several died 
in horrific train derailments.
  Our bill does not allow a complete selloff of our entire national 
railroad. It does, however, provide a controlled procedure for 
competitive bidding on a limited number of routes. This competition 
will be allowed only under strong supervision by Federal regulators. 
The Federal Railroad Administration, which also overseas rail safety, 
will start by accepting bids from other railroads interested in running 
passenger trains for one to two train routes. This is an experiment to 
see if the Government can save any money by letting someone other than 
Amtrak try to run passenger train service.
  Railroading in America is a complex operation. Most railroads 
currently in service can trace their roots back 150 years. There are 
comprehensive safety standards that must be met. There are laws that 
apply only to the railroad industry. You have to share limited 
infrastructure with other railroads. Wholesale privatization of Amtrak 
is not in our country's best interest. The traveling public relies on 
the expertise of American railroads for safe and efficient service.
  Under our bill, a limited experiment can be attempted for competitive 
bidding with proper oversight. Expanding it by including the Sununu 
amendment, frankly, could be disastrous. It is hard to imagine that we 
would permit residents in a hospital or medical learning experience to 
go ahead and start doing surgery. Say take a couple of cases, we will 
examine them, and then we will go on to full-time operation with your 
skills. Meanwhile, you don't just throw the whole thing together and 
take a chance that you are right. We have included an opportunity for 
two of these competitive bids to take place in a year and see what the 
results are and then decide whether we go further, instead of throwing 
the whole works in there at one time.
  For obvious reasons, I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against it. We are just now doing a whole reform of Amtrak. We are 
reducing operating costs as a requisite and doing much more to improve 
rail service. It is obvious that rail service is and has to be an 
essential part of our transportation infrastructure.
  I oppose this amendment. I hope my colleagues will stand up and say: 
No, we are going to give Amtrak a chance to operate because we 
desperately need it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S13426]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, we will have a vote shortly on the 
second amendment I have offered. Senator Lautenberg just spoke a little 
bit about the amendment. I certainly want to clarify for the record 
what the intention of the amendment is and what its practical impact 
would be.
  This is not a wholesale privatization of Amtrak--far from it. The 
provision in the legislation allows two routes under supervision, 
oversight as described by Senator Lautenberg, to be put out for 
competitive bid to see if there is another service provider that can 
run the trains on those routes, delivering better service at a better 
cost. That makes good sense--good sense for riders and taxpayers. It is 
not a wholesale privatization by any stretch, especially considering 
the supervision and oversight that would have to be in place for this 
competitive bidding process.
  Senator Lautenberg used the phrase or description about this being a 
learning experience and you don't want to have people in a medical 
environment in a learning experience then suddenly asked to do major 
surgery. I think I understand what he was trying to suggest, but I 
listened to that phrase and it implies to a certain degree that the 
management team at Amtrak is a bunch of amateurs that can't be trusted. 
That is not the case at all. They understand these routes, the 
operation, the nature of the service they are providing. They are in 
the best position to help determine how routes should be put out for 
competitive bid. My amendment simply says there is no reason to limit 
the number to two. Why would we do that? Because we don't trust them? 
We don't think they will do a good job? We don't think they want to 
deliver good service at a competitive cost? Why would we limit them to 
two? My amendment would allow competition in more than two routes. It 
would not mandate it or require it. It wouldn't force anyone's hand. It 
simply would remove a very arbitrary limit on the number of routes that 
can be put out in a competitive bid to companies run more effectively 
and efficiently for riders and taxpayers. That is about as simple as 
you can get. It does make good sense. It doesn't destroy the system. It 
doesn't throw anyone out of work. It doesn't undermine the integrity of 
the reforms that are already in the bill by any stretch. I think it 
simply allows us to get an even better idea of whether those reforms 
have an impact.
  Senator Lautenberg described a process where up to two routes, as 
allowed for in the bill, would be competitively bid. Then the managers 
at Amtrak would look to see how successful it was and be able to go 
from there. That isn't true. In fact, that is just what I am trying to 
deal with. They wouldn't be able to go from there because there is a 
limitation that they could only do two. So if they decided that this 
was very effective, they wouldn't be empowered to use this tool to even 
greater advantage without Congress coming back and changing the law and 
changing the statute. That is not going to happen anytime soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SUNUNU. We have already seen how difficult it is to pass this 
bill as written. I encourage support for my amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we ought to crawl before we walk, to 
use the old adage. We have to learn it firsthand without putting the 
whole thing at risk.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 396 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3456), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg is here, chairman of the 
subcommittee. He is working with Senator Murray on a couple amendments. 
We have a couple amendments by Senator DeMint that we have cleared. We 
are hoping we will have a chance to visit with Senator DeMint or some 
of his representatives momentarily and maybe clear some other 
amendments. I thank Senator DeMint for coming over. He actually came 
over with a block of nine amendments, and we are working through those. 
Some of them we can certainly accept. We will work through the rest.
  Senator Reid was very generous yesterday in agreeing that we wouldn't 
complete this bill until Senators had a chance to review it and come up 
with amendments, even as late as Tuesday morning, provided they were 
germane; otherwise, we could finish this bill this evening.
  We have another issue that has been interjected; that is, the 
Internet tax issue. I know Members on both sides and the leadership are 
working out when and how we would get to vote on that important issue 
because next Thursday, if we don't come up with something, the Internet 
moratorium on taxes will expire November 1. We have to deal with the 
issue.
  I call on my colleagues, if you have amendments of any kind on the 
Amtrak legislation, come over and offer

[[Page S13427]]

them. We will work through them this afternoon. I don't know what the 
leadership is going to decide with regard to votes later on this 
evening or tomorrow, but there will not be any votes on Monday, as 
previously announced by the leadership. So we will have to either deal 
with these amendments that might come up this afternoon or tomorrow or 
Tuesday.
  After we dispose of the Internet tax, everybody needs to know that 
this bill can and should and will be finished before sundown Tuesday. 
That is what the leader, Senator Reid, wants. That is what Senator 
McConnell wishes to accommodate. It is my intent to work with Senator 
Lautenberg to drive this bill to conclusion. It is not controversial. 
What is in here is broadly supported. We had 93 votes last time. We may 
get more this time. Of the amendments that have been offered, the most 
an amendment has received was 27 votes. We are going to continue to 
look for ways to do even more that is positive for Amtrak. But we need 
to go ahead and be done with this next Tuesday.
  I yield the floor to hear any remarks the chairman has.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Very briefly, I join Senator Lott in telling our 
colleagues to come on down if they have something they want to put into 
this bill. We are on the edge of progress, and we ought to move ahead.


        Amendments Nos. 3457, as Modified, and 3459, as Modified

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside, and I call up en bloc the Murray amendments Nos. 3457 and 
3459 and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be modified with the 
changes at the desk; that the amendments, as modified, be considered 
and agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3457 and 3459), as modified, were agreed to, as 
follows:


                    Amendment No. 3457, as Modified

       On page 189, after line 25, add the following:

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. STRATEGIC PLAN ON EXPANDED CROSS-BORDER PASSENGER 
                   RAIL SERVICE DURING THE 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, Amtrak shall, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
     Washington State Department of Transportation, and the owners 
     of the relevant railroad infrastructure--
       (1) develop a strategic plan to facilitate expanded 
     passenger rail service across the international border 
     between the United States and Canada during the 2010 Olympic 
     Games on the Amtrak passenger rail route between Vancouver, 
     British Columbia, Canada, and Eugene, Oregon (commonly known 
     as ``Amtrak Cascades'');
       (2) develop recommendations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security to process efficiently rail passengers traveling on 
     Amtrak Cascades across such international border during the 
     2010 Olympic Games; and
       (3) submit to Congress a report containing the strategic 
     plan described in paragraph (1) and the recommendations 
     described in paragraph (2).


                    Amendment No. 3459, as Modified

       On page 33, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 210A. REPORT ON SERVICE DELAYS ON CERTAIN PASSENGER RAIL 
                   ROUTES.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation shall submit to Congress a report that--
       (1) describes service delays and the sources of such delays 
     on--
       (A) the Amtrak passenger rail route between Seattle, 
     Washington, and Los Angeles, California (commonly known as 
     the ``Coast Starlight''); and
       (B) the Amtrak passenger rail route between Vancouver, 
     British Columbia, Canada, and Eugene, Oregon (commonly known 
     as ``Amtrak Cascades''); and
       (2) contains recommendations for improving the on-time 
     performance of such routes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                     Amendments Nos. 3460 and 3461

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator DeMint, I ask unanimous 
consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up 
amendments Nos. 3460 and 3461.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report en bloc.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. DeMint, 
     proposes en bloc amendments numbered 3460 and 3461.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3460

  (Purpose: To ensure that capital investment grants authorized under 
    section 24402 of title 49, United States Code, may be used for 
                     passenger rail infrastructure)

       On page 63, line 9, insert ``, infrastructure,'' after 
     ``facilities''.


                           Amendment No. 3461

 (Purpose: To direct the Government Accountability Office to conduct a 
    study that compares passenger rail systems in certain developed 
                               countries)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 306. PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM COMPARISON STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall complete a study that compares the 
     passenger rail system in the United States with the passenger 
     rail systems in Canada, Germany, Great Britain, and Japan.
       (b) Issues to Be Studied.--The study conducted under 
     subsection (a) shall include a country-by-country comparison 
     of--
       (1) the development of high speed rail;
       (2) passenger rail operating costs;
       (3) the amount and payment source of rail line construction 
     and maintenance costs;
       (4) the amount and payment source of station construction 
     and maintenance costs;
       (5) passenger rail debt service costs;
       (6) passenger rail labor agreements and associated costs;
       (7) the net profit realized by the major passenger rail 
     service providers in each of the 4 most recent quarters;
       (8) the percentage of the passenger rail system's costs 
     that are paid from general government revenues; and
       (9) the method used by the government to provide the 
     subsidies described in paragraph (8).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the completion 
     of the study under subsection (a), the Comptroller General 
     shall submit a report containing the findings of such study 
     to--
       (1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared on both 
sides. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3460 and 3461) were agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we do have two more amendments by Senator 
DeMint that I think have been cleared, but we are waiting to have a 
chance to discuss with Senator DeMint some of the other amendments. We 
are trying to get sort of an equal amount agreed to as we go forward. 
But we are trying to clear the deck of some of these amendments, and we 
are going to continue to work on that. Hopefully, we can dispose of 
another four or five amendments this afternoon even.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Allard pertaining to the introduction of S. 2241 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.

[[Page S13428]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Subprime Foreclosures

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today the Joint Economic Committee released 
a report highlighting the impact of subprime foreclosures on local 
economies. It confirmed what many of us know: When homes go into 
foreclosure, it is not just the homeowner and the tragedy to that 
family; whole communities suffer. When entire neighborhoods fall victim 
to foreclosures, communities are often devastated.
  Today's report shows that in Ohio, there are more than 293,000 
outstanding sub-prime loans--293,000 in a State of 11 million people, 
perhaps 3 million-plus households; 293,000 outstanding subprime loans. 
Every outstanding loan represents a family, an Ohio family, that is so 
close to losing their home.
  The estimated loss of property value this year in Ohio is more than 
$3.7 billion. The estimated local tax loss, that is local government 
revenue all over the State, this year is more than $31 million. That is 
lost revenue needed to pay for firefighters, for schoolteachers, for 
police officers, and for rescue squad vehicles and their workers. That 
lost revenue means poorer service and less service for those 
communities already suffering from poverty and suffering from the 
foreclosures themselves.

  Two years ago, when Hurricane Katrina's storm surge left thousands 
homeless, Congress and the American people leapt to respond. We were 
moved and ashamed by the images we saw in our newspapers and on 
television. We were moved by the images, and ashamed, frankly, by our 
Government's lack of response. Most of us could not believe this could 
happen in our country. Today, we are witnessing the economic equivalent 
of Katrina in the housing market--a slow moving storm surge that is 
leaving hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people in this 
country without a home. They have lost their homes, they have lost 
their American dream. It started on Lake Erie rather than on Lake 
Pontchartrain, but it has spread to all corners of our country--from 
New York to the Presiding Officer's Florida, from California to 
Minnesota. As today's report shows, subprime lending doesn't just hurt 
families, it hurts entire communities.
  Unfortunately, the response to date in some ways has been worse than 
Katrina. Regulators have been slow to use their authority to act, 
Congress has done next to nothing, and the President, as before with 
Katrina, made a speech and then moved on. The Treasury Department 
sprang into action when Wall Street was looking at losses, but it has 
not applied the same energy or commitment to the thousands upon 
thousands of families in Slavic Village, near Cleveland, in Columbus 
and Lima, in Mansfield and Marion, or Zanesville. Thousands and 
thousands of families in those communities are losing their homes.
  Whole neighborhoods in Cleveland and Dayton and cities throughout the 
State are drowning in foreclosures. Things are going to get worse 
before they get better. We know that, because the adjustable rate 
mortgages are about to reset day after day, week after week, month 
after month in our communities. Almost every day the news brings more 
evidence of how widespread this problem has become for banks--losses in 
Merrill Lynch, layoffs at Bank of America, and huge layoffs at National 
City Bank in my State.
  Even as National City announces the layoff of 1,000 people in Ohio, 
in the first 9 months of this year, since January, 100,000 foreclosure 
filings have already stacked up, with every county in our State 
contributing to that stack.
  Home sales are down, prices are down, and problems are showing up in 
prime markets. But we have yet to see the worst of it. Resets of 
subprime adjustable rate mortgages will peak this fall, ease up a bit, 
and then skyrocket next fall. Throughout the time these mortgages were 
being made, underwriting standards fell further and further. So on top 
of the enormous volume of loans resetting over the next 12 to 15 
months, the likelihood of all those 2-28 loans made in 2006 defaulting 
in 2008 is likely to get worse.
  We are already in record territory when it comes to this year's 
loans, but we have made a start in addressing this crisis. The $200 
million contained in the housing appropriations bill passed by the 
Senate must be maintained or increased in the bill sent to the 
President. And he must sign it. He must do something about this. That 
would be a major first step to helping those neighborhood 
organizations, those not-for-profits. There is a terrific one in 
Toledo, and several in my State and in the State of Florida too. It 
will matter to those people who are about to lose their homes. They are 
delinquent in their payments, perhaps because of the reset and a higher 
mortgage, or because their taxes and insurance were added when they 
didn't know they weren't included, or when they were simply deceived or 
betrayed by fraudulent mortgage brokers.
  This $200 million is not a bailout. It is only to help them 
renegotiate their loans so their delinquencies won't turn into 
foreclosures. And the President, as I said, must sign this bill.
  The regulators need to act and act quickly with strong protections 
for consumers, and Congress must act to codify and build on those 
protections. Mortgage bankers must be held accountable for their 
actions. They can no longer sell loans without regard to whether a 
borrower can afford to pay them back. And banks have to be responsible 
as well. Underwriting standards have to ensure that borrowers qualify 
at the real rate rather than the teaser rate. No more of that. Escrows 
have to be set up for subprime loans, as they are for prime loans, and 
put money aside for insurance and for taxes. No-document loans need to 
become a thing of the past.
  Just because the subprime crisis is less visible than the destruction 
of a hurricane, it is no less damaging. All of us need to respond. Our 
response must be comprehensive and our response needs to happen now.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida.) Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Maytag Plant Closing

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, tomorrow with the closing of the Maytag 
manufacturing plant in Newton, IA, a beloved Iowa institution and an 
icon in the history of industrial America will be gone forever.
  The Maytag brand, synonymous with product quality and reliability, 
will still be attached to rebranded Whirlpool Corporation appliances, 
but do not be fooled, those products will no longer be made by loyal, 
skilled, experienced, Iowa workers. They will be made elsewhere.
  This is a heartbreaking loss to the Newton community, Newton, IA, and 
a loss felt by people across my State of Iowa. Maytag was founded in 
Newton by Fredrick Louis Maytag, in 1893, as a manufacturer of farm 
equipment. Fourteen years later, the company introduced its first 
washing machine, which it produced during seasonal downturns in the 
farm implement business.
  Newton soon became known as the washing machine capital of the world. 
By the time it was acquired by Whirlpool in 2006, Maytag Corporation 
was a $4.7 billion company with 18,000 employees worldwide.
  But the center of its operations, the heart of its operations, was 
Newton, IA, with 2,800 employees. Now, it is all gone. Thousands of 
good-paying jobs and the economic foundation of an entire community.
  For generations, Iowans eagerly went to work at Maytag, and Maytag 
was an integral part of the Newton community. Maytag workers helped to 
build a thriving local economy. The children of Maytag assembly line 
workers and the children of the Maytag executives all went to the same 
high-quality schools.
  When children graduated from high school or from college, many came 
home to Newton to work at Maytag, either on the line or as executives. 
Together, workers and management at

[[Page S13429]]

Maytag built a wonderful community and a wonderful business. Now, in 
what seems like the blinking of an eye, Maytag is gone.
  Why? Well, because it is cheaper to make appliances in foreign 
countries that pay their workers a pittance; that lack labor standards 
and environmental protections. Maytag management was seduced by the 
lure of lower wages; sent jobs from some of their plants to Mexico.
  This, combined with unwise decisions by management to buy a variety 
of companies, significantly weakened Maytag's finances and their 
ability to invest in improvements to their own product lines. That made 
the company a takeover target.
  It is a personal tragedy for the workers of Maytag and elsewhere who 
have lost good-paying jobs, but it is something else; it is a threat to 
the middle-class standard of living in this country, as displaced 
workers are obligated to accept lower paying jobs, often without health 
insurance or pension benefits.
  According to a study by economists at Iowa State University, the 
average income in Jasper County, that is the home of Newton, the 
average income in Jasper County in 2005 was $34,400 a year, again, 
because of Maytag.
  Without the Maytag jobs, the average income will drop by nearly 
$5,000. Let's be clear. As I said, washing machines made elsewhere will 
probably still carry the Maytag brand, but I will always say that the 
heart and soul of Maytag was the Newton community.
  Richard Doak, a Des Moines Register columnist, was intervening a 
Maytag worker years ago when the company was hinting it might close the 
Newton plant. The worker stated:

       If that ever happens, it will be the end of Maytag, because 
     the people of Newton are the essence of the company. We pump 
     blue blood [said the worker, referring to the color of the 
     Maytag logo.]

  Daniel Krumm, the chief executive officer who transformed Maytag into 
a global company said that what he called the Newton ethic, was the key 
to the company's success. By the Newton ethic, he meant an entire 
community that was loyal to the company and took great pride in making 
products of the highest quality.
  Unfortunately, some of Daniel Krumm's successors chose to betray the 
Newton ethic. Some of them chose to cash it in for cheaper products, 
and higher profits made outside the United States.
  This story is all too familiar to skilled workers in the 
manufacturing sector in this country. You might wonder why I am on the 
floor talking about this on this Thursday, October 25. Because 
tomorrow, on Friday, Maytag will shutter its last plant and cease 
operations in Newton, IA. I worked as hard as I could to prevent the 
Whirlpool takeover of Maytag. I worked with State and local officials 
to prevent the closing of the plant in Newton. But in the end, 
regrettably, our efforts were unsuccessful.
  Particularly, I wish to salute the tremendous effort of the officers, 
the plant committee, the department of stewards of United Auto Workers 
Local 997. Under the outstanding leadership of Ted Johnson, the local 
president, they have been on the frontlines throughout the crisis of 
Maytag, fighting to prevent the plant closure; when that failed, doing 
everything possible to help the displaced workers.
  Tomorrow, Friday, will be a sad day in Newton, IA. But there is 
rebirth. Not all of the news from Newton is bad. The Newton ethic 
survives, and the Newton community is resilient. Two companies, Iowa 
Telecom and Caleris, plan to add more than 200 jobs in Newton by the 
end of the year.
  Other businesses are expanding. Community leaders are coming together 
to develop a strategy to rebound from the loss of Maytag. I wish them 
every success, and I will stand ready to continue to assist in any way 
I can.
  Another sad chapter in the continuing decline of our manufacturing 
base in America. Maytag. Who has not seen the ad about the Maytag 
repairman who has nothing to do because Maytag was such a good product?
  Whether it is refrigerators or washing machines, home appliances, 
Maytag always stood for the best in quality. It was the best in quality 
because it was made by dedicated workers, skilled workers who took 
pride in their work. They made good livings. They were middle-class 
families. I said it was always a joy to go to Newton. It was wonderful 
to see the sons and daughters of assembly line workers going to the 
same school as the executives' kids, all working together, going to the 
same churches, belonging to the same clubs, going to the same bowling 
alleys, having this wonderful picnic every year, where the executives 
and their families and the workers and their families all were enjoying 
their annual picnic with their kids.
  They took pride in the products they built. I do not think the people 
in some of these other countries will have that same kind of 
commitment. They are lower paid, they did not have the benefits. At 
some point, we have to take stock of what is happening to our 
manufacturing base in this country and what is happening to us in terms 
of a community and a business that can grow and evolve.
  I know things change, and they have to change, but still, there is no 
reason, there is no reason why Maytag had to leave Newton. There were 
some bad business decisions made. But, again, it is chasing higher 
profits in the short term by shipping our jobs out overseas or to 
Mexico or to other countries.
  And those short-term profits lead to long-term losses for the workers 
and their families and everyone else. So it is a sad day tomorrow in 
Newton and a sad day for all of us trying to work so hard to keep 
Maytag alive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________