To require the development of a strategic plan to facilitate expanded cross-border passenger rail service on the Amtrak Cascades route during the 2010 Olympic Games.

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.

____________________