Floor Statements

I agree.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20 minutes for debate with respect to the DeMint amendment, No. 3467, prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that the remaining pending amendments be withdrawn; that no other amendments be in order other than a managers' package of amendments that has been cleared by both managers and leaders; that upon disposition of these amendments, the bill, as amended, be read for a third time, and at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the DeMint amendment; and that upon disposition of the DeMint amendment, all postcloture time be considered yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on the passage of the bill; further, that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3963 not occur prior to 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 31 or at a time determined by the two leaders on Wednesday.

Mr. President, I want to start off this discussion by saying how much I appreciate working with Senator Lott and with other Members of the Senate in terms of the amendments. They were offered and considered, but we moved with a degree of dispatch, indicating to me that this is a bill that is wanted by a significant majority of the Senate. That is representing what we believe is a significant public opinion about whether Amtrak ought to be brought up to date and be part of the transportation system that can help relieve other transportation modes of the congestion, pollution, et cetera, that we face constantly in our country right now.

I think the amendment that has been offered by Senator DeMint is not one of those amendments we would accept--the notion that each ticket a

passenger carries should identify the amount of subsidy that goes into that passenger's ride. I think it is wasteful and I don't see any benefit to travelers or taxpayers. Can you imagine the complication that is involved here? You don't know how many passengers are going to be on that leg and the subsidy has to be divided among the number of passengers. How far is each passenger going to travel? That would also indicate a part of the subsidy. You cannot take a mathematical formula and apply it to this percentage or to this particular passenger's ride.

We all know what is afoot here. I generally agree that transparency is good when it comes to Federal taxpayers' dollars. But this amendment is not needed. It carries the request that Amtrak publish subsidies on its Web site. It already publishes subsidies information per route on its Web site every month as part of its financial report--the general information related to those routes, not individual subsidies per ticket.

Amtrak also provides details on every dollar and dime of its finances to the Department of Transportation and the Congress on a continuous basis. The DeMint amendment would provide travelers with redundant information and, frankly, waste Federal funds.

As I indicated in my earlier comment, it would also be logistically almost impossible to do what this amendment calls for--to determine the subsidy for each rider and print this information on a ticket. These numbers change depending on how far a passenger rides the train. Even if they did not, Amtrak would have to redesign its online reservations and ticketing system for customers to get this information. One doesn't have to have been in the computer business, as I was, in order to know it would take an incredible amount of time and energy to get the software up to date and get the information in on time for it to be printed with any degree of accuracy on the ticket. It is the kind of added cost and redtape that taxpayers are disdainful of.

We don't require the same printing burdens on the airlines, and we have provided some $20 billion to that industry in the last 6 years.

Americans already understand our Nation's passenger rail system requires subsidies, just as rail systems in other countries. What American travelers care about is receiving high-quality and convenient rail service as a result of that subsidy, and this amendment is not going to do anything to help us in those areas.

Senator Lott has indicated he and I have worked on transportation issues for many years. Finally, the public is so immersed in congestion, in lost time, in delayed and missed appointments, and with the price of gasoline going up as it is--I recently saw a prediction from someone engaged in the oil industry in the Far East that oil was going to be up to $200 a barrel in the not-too-distant future. Do we want to continue to subject the American public to these outrageous costs for this fuel, or do we want to try to achieve some balance in our transportation systems? Trains are much more economical, reduce congestion, reduce pollution, and can establish a level of reliability we can't get out of the aviation system.

We talked about whether we might abandon food and beverage service on the rail lines. We took a vote and it was soundly defeated. But as I listened to the debate, I wondered whether next we would be debating separate charges for the oil and bearing grease that is used on the wheels of the train cars and locomotives, and maybe we can separate out further expenses, maybe paper used in hand towels and items of that nature and reduce the number of those used. We cannot deal with such small matters if we want to get onto doing something that helps the country function more efficiently.

This bill has truly got bipartisan support. We see it not only in the leadership that our friend the Senator from Mississippi applies so skillfully, but there were quite a number of colleagues on the Republican side who joined in to get this bill as far as it is.

We have almost miraculously come to a consensus that says after years of working towards this goal, we are going to get to a positive conclusion toward the reauthorization of Amtrak. It doesn't mean all the problems were solved by a long shot, but it does say we want rail to be as well treated as well as our other means of transportation. We spend some $40 billion each year on our highways, and aviation, unlike Amtrak, is a for-profit business, and we are still giving subsidies to the airlines each and every year and, as I mentioned, over $20 billion since 9/11.

When we look at the possibilities of rail service and see that in Europe, for instance, from Brussels, Belgium, to Paris, France, is 200 miles, about the same distance we are from New York City, they do it in 1 hour 25 minutes. Here, if we use an airplane, we can be sure that one out of four flights is going to be late in departure and usually late on arrival.

If we could get Amtrak to improve its service so we can reduce the amount of time it takes--I had the good fortune this morning to take a 7 o'clock train out of New York City. I live in New Jersey, but it was convenient for me to get to the terminal in New York City. I arrived 2\1/2\ hours later, city to city--New York City to Washington, DC. We didn't shake, rattle, and roll all the time. It was nice; if you wanted to have a coffee or write or read, it was reasonably comfortable to do that. That is what rail passengers deserve all across this country-- adequate service.

We are anxiously awaiting a vote on the next amendment, which has been ordered, and final passage on the Amtrak bill.

I thank my friend, Senator Lott, for his cooperative manner and his leadership throughout the issues we have faced in this body almost all the years I have been here. We have served together a long time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Lott was speaking about the larger assignment that we have in front of us rather than simply a party allegiance. There is no doubt that long before we were Republicans and Democrats, we were Americans. If we keep that focus in mind, I think we can help our country achieve some of the goals that we need to examine.

Look at the conditions that have overtaken America--I will use that word--and look back at the population. In 1970--1971, when AMTRAK was taken over as a quasi-public corporation, the country had 200 million people. Now, barely 35 years later, we have 300 million in this country of ours. Imagine, 100 million more people, and we are still depending on a rail system that was largely developed far earlier than the 1970s.

I think Senator Lott was absolutely right when he spoke about our need to bring the aviation system up to date as well. We have narrowed the separation between airplanes to one thousand feet vertically. That is not designed to scare anybody because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) can handle it, but the FAA does say we are squeezing whatever spare air we have to fill the airspace. When we look at the lighter jets coming into service, it is expected that there will be some 5,000 new very light jets in the sky in the next 10 years. We see the planes are filled constantly and ways have to be figured out to make air service more reliable.

I repeat something that has been said many times: One out of four flights is late today. One of the airports that suffers from these delays is my favorite

airport, and that is Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey. We have to learn different ways to do things because, as has been said, the air time to fly from Newark or LaGuardia--I live in between because I live in that part of New Jersey near the Washington Bridge, so I live midway in between. So I can go to either airport for service.

But what has happened is I have been on the airplane many times going up from here to our region and I hear the pilot say: Good evening, the weather is fine, the flying time to Newark Liberty Airport is 38 minutes. Since there are no weather delays we should enjoy our trip up there, and I hope we will be able to close the door soon and get on our way.

In this particular flight that I am thinking of, the pilot closed the door, we were pushed out with the truck to get into place, and the pilot said: Oh, we just learned air traffic in the New York area is fairly heavy, and our takeoff time is an hour from now.

An hour from now, for a 38-minute flight. I looked at my watch many times and couldn't wait for the hour to pass. The pilot gets on the air and says: We have just been advised that we have 23 minutes longer than expected.

By the time that 38 minutes flying time got through, it was 3 hours of time passed.

I just told the story about taking a train down this morning from New York Penn Station, and it was 2 hours and 35 minutes. I was in the city, so I didn't have to travel a half or three-quarters of an hour to get to the airport, and then to be there a half hour or 45 minutes early, so the time consumed just doesn't balance out.

We have to get on with this opportunity to improve our transportation systems because we are being forced into it. We have not planned adequately enough to accommodate travel in our country. We have to act, because we know things are going to worsen, not get better automatically.

As we deal with problems--the occupant of the chair, the Senator from Vermont, and I--we are dealing actively with global warming because of emissions that come from cars, from buildings, from industrial sources, from all kinds of greenhouse gas sources that are creating global warming. Global warming threatens our families directly. It is said by the most auspicious scientific advisory groups--the National Academy of Sciences, the Union of Concerned Scientists, National Science Foundation--they are saying: Get on with it. You have a 10-year window during which time you can do something about arresting the growth of global warming that will make life quite different on our planet than we are used to.

When we see ecological disturbances, like male fish in the Potomac River carrying eggs--not the female fish--that is an ominous sign. When we see polar bears on floes that are ragged, watching as the ice melts from under their feet, it is an ominous sign. When we understand that, if the ice melts--and the occupant of the Presiding Officer's chair and I and other Senators were in Greenland not too long ago and watched ice melt, not in little rivulets but almost like waterfalls, and the forecast is that if that ice melt continues at the pace it is, within 50 years the seas can be 20 feet higher than they are. We have to get on with it.

This is an opportunity to make a contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases and arrest the momentum of global warming. That rail bill we have is an essential factor in that area.

How about the experience this country has had in these last years when two nuclear energy plants were built, one in New Hampshire and one in Long Island, NY, that had to be virtually abandoned because there was no sensible evacuation route. Rail makes a difference. If rail had been used in Louisiana at the time of Katrina, a lot more people could have escaped some of the fear and the anxiety and the deaths and illnesses that struck people as a result of that terrible storm. Let's get on with it.

We have a commitment under the regular order of business to vote at 4 o'clock on an amendment that talks about showing the subsidy per ticket, offered from our colleague from South Carolina, to make certain that we identify how much we are spending on a subsidy.

We are not saying the same thing has to be done on an air ticket. Aviation is essential. Airlines helped connect this country. We are able to get coast to coast, long distances, in a relatively short time. We subsidize these for-profit companies. They are businesses. Amtrak is a not-for-profit company, so we are going to have to subsidize it. I think now what we are saying is we are stepping up to the plate and getting on with it.

I hope my colleague from South Carolina will be able to join us because the time now will be charged to the time allotted for debate. I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum while we wait and ask the time for debate under the quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. President, we have about 6 minutes left. I suggest we divide it between us so that we have a couple of minutes to respond to the Senator.

Mr. President, we need a couple of minutes. I ask unanimous consent to extend the period prior to the vote for 5 minutes so we can prepare the managers' amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, under the order, there is consent for a managers' amendment to be in order. That managers' amendment is at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the three amendments be considered en bloc and modified, if applicable; that the amendments be agreed to as modified, if modified; and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been ordered, I believe. They have not?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I must say how satisfying it is that the Senate has done what America has asked us to do. I can't tell you how involved personally I have been in this for many years. Since my relatively early days in the Senate, going back decades, I have been interested in what we could do to make Amtrak an integral part of the transportation system, to make Amtrak easier and more reliable for the American people. They asked us to do this, to give them relief.

I wish to say to Senator Lott how much I have appreciated working with him--not only now, but we have done so for a number of years. We have the satisfaction of seeing this bill pass and we hope on its way to becoming law. With 70 votes, this is a clear message about what the representatives of the American people are saying.

I thank Senator Lott. It has been a pleasure working with him. As I am sure he agrees, I look forward to having more opportunities to do things in a bipartisan nature to help the American people. They asked us for relief and we are giving it to them--relief from traffic congestion, relief from lines at the airports, and relief from planes lined up on the tarmac. Today, the Senate has said to American travelers: You will have another choice, and the choice is passenger rail.

I am pleased to note the wide margin by which the Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act of 2007 has been approved in the Senate. The bill is going to speed passenger rail service in the United States into the 21st century.

There are many people I wish to thank in addition to my friend and colleague from Mississippi, the minority whip, Senator Lott, who has had a long-standing commitment to passenger rail service.

I also wish to thank Senator Inouye, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for giving me the privilege of pursuing and managing this legislation. His confidence has always been appreciated by me.

I thank the majority leader, Harry Reid, for his leadership and decisiveness to work to bring our bill to the floor, and I thank his staff for their support. In particular, the floor staff, including Lula Davis, Marty Paone, Tim Mitchell, and Trisha Engle. On the Republican side, everybody was cooperative. I thank David Schiappa, Laura Dove, and Jodie Hernandez.

I also thank all of our cosponsors of the bill. I particularly wish to focus on Senator Carper's help and his hard work and constant support for Amtrak, along with all of our cosponsors' dedication and commitment to improving travel in America.

I thank Alex Kummant, the CEO of Amtrak, and his government affairs staff, including Joe McHugh and Caroline Decker.

I thank my staff, of which I am very proud. They are always there, no matter what the hours or the intensity of the work are. They are there with their support, their knowledge and research and their constant concern for making sure we do things right. My staff includes David Matsuda, Dan Katz, Doug Mehan, and Meg Slachetka.

Yes.

Not at all. I, too, thank Anne Marie Turner of Senator Lott's staff. She was always there, and I could tell by the expression on her face at a given moment whether we were on the right or wrong track in talking about Amtrak. I also thank Chris Bertram and Beth Spivey of his staff as well.

I thank the staff from the Senate Commerce Committee, including Stephen Gardner, who is always so helpful and has extensive knowledge about transportation. Chairman Inouye was so gracious in making sure we were supported with the assistance of Mr. Gardner. Also, I thank Melissa Porter, who is on loan as a detailee from the Federal Railroad Administration; Shira Bergstein, from Senator Inouye's majority staff; Betsy McDonnell and Dan Neuman, from Senator Gordon Smith's and Senator Stevens's Committee minority staff.

Getting legislation passed by this body takes a lot of work, and these folks are to be commended.

Everyone knows our highways are jammed. We don't have to tell them that from here. All they have to think about is what time they get out of work and what time they get home and what time do they have to leave in the morning to get to work on time. In New Jersey, the most densely populated State in the country, we spend 300 hours commuting by car every year. Fifteen percent of that time is wasted sitting in traffic, creating pollution, creating anxiety, anger, frustration, and bigger bills as gas prices go up at the same time.

With more than 220 million vehicles on the road and the population projected to pass the 400 million mark before 2050, congestion will remain a major challenge if cars and trucks remain the dominant mode of travel.

I mentioned earlier in this debate that our population in 1971, when Amtrak was developed as a government corporation, was 200 million. Now, barely 36 years later, we are 300 million. We haven't made much progress in upgrading our rail systems even after our country has grown by 100 million people.

And now we are feeling the effects. Our skies are becoming jammed as more planes take to the air. Last year was the worst year for flight delays since 2000. One in four planes were late.

For travelers who fly, for instance, between Washington and the New York/New Jersey area, a 36-minute flight often becomes 2 or more hours because of delays getting off the ground and, once there, getting off the plane. I once flew up to LaGuardia Airport, and we waited an hour to get to the gate.

The airlines have admitted this and have revised their schedules to reflect that now this 36-minute flight should be expected to take 2 hours: 36 minutes in the air, and the rest of the time admiring the landscape, which is pretty dismal when you see all these planes lined up on the tarmac like cars in traffic.

Between lines of cars on the highways and long lines at the airports, America's travelers need and deserve another choice. The answer is a world-class passenger rail system.

Riding a train saves people money. The national average cost per gallon of gasoline is over $2.80 a gallon. I have even heard estimates that we will see oil at $200 a barrel before too long.

When you look at all the benefits to travelers, we see that riding a train can save time, money, and congestion in other modes of transportation.

For instance, rail service often delivers passengers directly to where they need to go, as train stations are more frequently located in city centers. I can tell my colleagues from personal experience, since I road the train as recently as this morning, that riding the train was a pleasurable experience. It gave me a chance to read, to communicate, and even nod off for a couple of minutes. It was really a nice way to travel. Passengers can work on laptops, talk on the phone, walk around on the train, and generally be productive.

Riding the train also helps secure our country's future by improving the environment. Amtrak trains are on average 17 percent more fuel efficient than passenger airlines, and 21 percent more fuel efficient than passenger cars, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Furthermore, trains produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than cars, trucks, and planes, and per mile locomotives emit about 50 percent less carbon dioxide than airplanes and still less than automobiles.

Trains also save lives. If there was ever a moment that demonstrated how much America needed a passenger rail system, it was in the wake of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. On 9/11, when our airports were shut down, Amtrak was able to get travelers back to their families.

On 9/11, airports were shut down. Amtrak was able to get travelers back to their families. During Hurricane Katrina, trains could have helped evacuate persons from those affected cities if our Government was better prepared to employ them. Trains sat idly by waiting for passengers to come aboard to be taken away from the center of the hurricane, but they could not get to the train. The Government wasn't there to lend a hand.

There is great enthusiasm for passenger rail service in America. Amtrak's record ridership of 26 million passengers last year can attest to that fact. The potential of new railcars in our country is enormous. Efficient rail service between Chicago and other Midwest cities, such as St. Louis, Detroit, and Cleveland would revolutionize the way people travel in an entire vital region of our country.

Likewise, a proposed passenger rail line serving Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Washington, and points in between would allow people options besides braving Interstate 95 traffic.

If we foster passenger rail service that is viable, reliable, and comfortable, many will choose rail as an alternative, and Amtrak's record ridership has proven that fact.

Today's action by the Senate is a victory for anyone who is tired of sitting in traffic or waiting in an airport and for people who work so hard to make a living and often live far away from work, far away from their homes. I remember a conversation I had with a man who worked in New York City who bought a house 50 miles away from his job. His thought, he said, for him and his family, in addition to seeing some green space, was that he would save money, he would be able to put his children in a house with some room. Now when I see the same man, he is distraught because of the cost for gasoline. The cost for the time lost in traffic outweighs the advantages he

thought he would have. That is not an uncommon situation.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their support and look forward to completing this legislation in this Congress and getting it signed into law.

I look forward to hearing from our colleague, Senator Carper from Delaware, who worked so hard and has for many years. He is a frequent user, as they say of Amtrak, that is. We appreciate his hard work and the opportunity we shared to work together to get this legislation considered and passed today in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 30, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

During the Executive Session, Committee members will markup the following agenda items: S. 2045, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Reform Act of 2007; S. 2096, Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007; S. 1580, the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2007; S. 1853, Community Broadband Act of 2007; S. 1675, Local Community Radio Act of 2007; H. Con. Res. 225, Honoring the 50th anniversary of the dawn of the Space Age, and the ensuing 50 years of productive and peaceful space activities; and the nomination of Mr. Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General--Designate, United States Department of Commerce (PN 908)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 30, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing entitled ``Protecting the U.S. From Drug Resistant Tuberculosis: Reinvesting in Control and New Tools Research'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 30, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Role of Local Law Enforcement in Countering Violent Islamist Extremism.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 30, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, with cloture filed, we are hopeful we will be able to move with dispatch to the support and approval of S. 294, the Amtrak bill.

I wish to start this morning by thanking our colleague and my cosponsor and longtime Amtrak supporter, Senator Trent Lott, for the opportunity to work together to move this bill along. His support is essential, and I know he is pleased with the progress we have made this morning up to this point. Today is our third day on the bill. Yesterday we made very good progress. We were able to work through a number of amendments, some of which we were able to agree to and some of which we disposed of with votes. Now, this morning, cloture has been filed, which should put us on a schedule to finish this bill early next week. It is very important that we do so for the future of America's transportation systems.

Whether it is to reduce congestion on our roads or at our airports, or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that puts us at risk of global warming--our society and our world--or to give people another safe mode of transportation during an emergency, rail is critical. We cannot neglect the contribution it makes in the event of a calamity or disaster, whether it comes from a terrorist attack or from an erratic act of nature such as a storm or forest fires, and all of the things we see that call at times for evacuation.

Our bill, by authorizing $2 billion a year for Amtrak in the States over the next 6 years, will make all of that much easier for America to deal with the problem of a decaying infrastructure. It provides funding for Amtrak's capital needs as well as State grants for passenger rail.

While Amtrak had record ridership and revenues last year, our bill requires changes at Amtrak to make sure these funds will help the railroad to continue moving in the right direction. It would require Amtrak to reform its operations, to reduce its Federal operating subsidy by over 40 percent over the life of the bill.

We worked very hard to forge this bipartisan compromise plan. Last Congress, our plan was approved by the Senate as an amendment to the budget bill by a vote of 93 to 6. I hope that early next week we will get a strong vote in support of our bill so we can be one step closer to making it law.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be delayed until we finish this discussion.

Mr. President, I wish to respond to Senator Bond's amendment, but I first ask the Senator from Missouri whether the delay he experienced this morning was due to congestion on the highways?

I just wanted to see whether there was any personal direct experience with congestion on the roads. I don't think there is a city or a town in this country, a highway that doesn't experience incredible pressure from its expanded use; will the Senator agree?

I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his suggestion that we expand rail service all across this country.

That was the interpretation. The Senator said there wasn't rail service available in lots of places. I take the positive side of that statement and say let's get on with our task of providing service.

While I appreciate the Senator's perspective, I believe there is no need for this amendment. It covers some of the same debate we have already voted on as part of the discussion. This amendment establishes a new mission for Amtrak and sets a new standard by which Amtrak and operating subsidies for Amtrak services should be judged. While I can agree with the general principles of the mission statement, it largely covers issues already contained in existing Federal law related to Amtrak and is, therefore, redundant.

We have seen Amtrak getting expanded use, but we have to look at what has happened in our society, what the conditions are that have put so much pressure on Amtrak. When we look at the growth in population alone, since Amtrak became a quasi-government corporation, the population of this country has expanded by 100 million people in barely over 35 years. It was never thought that our aviation system would be so strained because of inadequate infrastructure, and whatever the reasons, that it cannot be relied upon. One out of four flights is late, appointments are missed, crowding is standard, our highways are jammed. Maybe in some parts of the country we don't see the congestion we see in many of the metropolitan areas. But highways are notoriously slow-moving now because of expanded traffic.

So Amtrak has been under the same pressure. And thank goodness we have Amtrak in existence. We have seen more rapid service from Amtrak and more riders--over 26 million passengers in the last year. So when we look at Amtrak's performance, we have to consider under what conditions it operates. I think it is fair to say that Amtrak was never financed at the level it should have been to be an up-to-date, modern railroad in this country.

I have had the opportunity, as we know, to ride one of the French trains, TGV, in which a trip of just over 200 miles from Paris to Brussels, where our NATO headquarters exists, is 1 hour 20 minutes. If anything similar to that could ever be achieved with Amtrak, we would reduce the congestion in the sky substantially. It is so crowded in the air these days, separations are narrowed, and we are expecting over 5,000 new light jets into our system in the next 10 years.

We have to look at the expectations Amtrak has had to live with over this period of time. Insufficient capital, that is where it all started, and it has continued to make it very difficult for Amtrak to produce the kind of service we want. I believe they ought to be responsible for maintaining the quality of service, for providing the data that is required on what progress has been lacking. Current law already requires Amtrak to minimize Government subsidies and provide high-quality rail service.

I believe the real goal of this amendment is to reduce or eliminate Federal operating support for long-distance routes and other services where current infrastructure problems or ontime performance limits the service quality. Of course, as I said earlier, these problems resulting from insufficient capital expenditures and also hosting freight railroad delays are addressed by this bill.

Most of the accountability Senator Bond desires is already in our bill through requirements of a 5-year plan, through the reduction of the operating subsidy by 40 percent. Our bill calls for changes that are significant as we attempt to put them in place. That is where we are going.

While the Senator's amendment also requires the Secretary to eliminate funding for any route not meeting Amtrak's long-distance plan required under the bill, S. 294 already gives the Secretary this authority. But our bill preserves some flexibility for the Secretary to continue a long-distance route if Amtrak could not implement a plan or did not meet the goals of a plan for legitimate reasons or events beyond Amtrak's control. Heaven forbid if we have another serious hurricane or terrorist attack. The Secretary should have the ability to take these situations into consideration when judging whether Amtrak meets the requirements demanded under the law.

I look forward to debating this amendment further. I certainly am open to discussion with the Senator from Missouri on his amendment. But as it is currently drafted, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for asking this question at this moment because I have here existing law, which is continued in S. 294. Here, in existing law, it says the purpose of the management is:

By using innovative operating and marketing concepts,

Amtrak shall provide intercity and commuter rail passenger

transportation that completely develops the potential of

modern rail transportation to meet the intercity and commuter

passenger transportation needs of the United States.

The first goal is to:

use its best business judgment in acting to minimize the

U.S. Government subsidies, including--

And it lists a number of these things which I will submit for my colleague and friend to take a look at and see if these questions are not already dealt with.

Yes, we have to be more diligent. There is no doubt we have to fill the board of Amtrak's open positions. We have not done that. We want to expand the board to a more significant body of opinion. We are doing all kinds of things.

I have an affection for the State of Missouri, having been a soldier there many years ago and trying to dig foxholes in the Ozark Mountains. We know what steels the spine of those people who live in Missouri now. It is the depth and the quality of the rock upon which most of Missouri is built. That is why the railroad contributes so much, for instance, from Chicago to St. Louis, Kansas City to Kansas City.

But in the final analysis, I think it is important to note a significant difference between business operations. I was fortunate enough to run a fairly large company; but business to business. However, it is clearly stated that Amtrak is a not-for-profit organization. When we look at what happens with good business operations and think of the subsidy that has been given to the airlines--it was as a result of a terrible calamity in American history, 9/11--but over $20 billion has been given to the airlines, for-profit businesses. They are doing very well right now, I might add, and still getting subsidies.

I think, in fairness, we will have a chance to look at this further. We are pressed by several things, not the least of which is that there are others who would like to be included in the debate. I will be happy to loan the Senator from Missouri my copy of the existing law, if he would like to borrow it for a while.

Mr. President, I understand we are ready to go to morning business.

Mr. President, for those who served with him, the death of Paul Wellstone 5 years ago was such a shock because not only did Paul represent intellect and vigor, he also, because of his enthusiasm and high energy level, represented a youthful picture. He looked like a young guy, college-age person. When he spoke, he did it with such energy that everybody would hear him or listen to him. If you didn't hear him, he would make sure you heard him because he was never bashful about sticking up, about talking about things he believed in. There was very little he did not believe in that would engage him so--I will use the term--furiously in his presentation.

So it is appropriate we remember a distinguished Member of the Senate, who served only a short time, and was on his way for another term. But his impact was enormous. I think in many ways he created a picture of courage and right that serves as a model for things we generally do here.

I, as so many here did, regarded him as a friend. I did not see him unable to talk to people on the Republican side of the aisle or otherwise. No matter how vigorous his arguments were, no matter how energetic his presentation was, the fact is, he would dismiss any difference as a part of a normal process. He would continue on with his insistence that what he did was right, but he was never righteous about it.

We will always think of him when we think of what is right to do in the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

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.

Surely.

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.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

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. 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.

I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

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.

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----

How much time do we have left?

That is good. We have no time left. We had, I thought, a minute or two before the vote.

I thank the Senator. May I take that at the end of the Senator's presentation?

I am touched by the generosity of the Senator from New Hampshire.

I am concerned, Senator Lott wanted to say a couple of words.

That is a satisfactory arrangement, and I consider it to be very fair.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Objection.

We object.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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.

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.

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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.

I ask unanimous consent that Michael F. Burke, a fellow in the office of Senator Cardin, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, the obvious obstinacy at getting this on the floor seems to ignore the fact that you almost can't get anyplace from here or there without enormous delays, without enormous congestion, and with pollution problems, et cetera. Is it understood, I ask the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, how difficult it is for the country right now? You can't get an airplane that will leave on time or arrive on time with any degree of certainty. I, for instance, travel from here up to Newark or to LaGuardia Airport, both of which are convenient to my home in New Jersey, and a flight that takes 36 minutes of air time takes 2\1/2\ hours to get there, more often than not.

So do the Senator's friends understand that this is a crisis moment for this country of ours? We have seen incidents so many times where the absence of a rail system--for instance, we threw away billions of dollars some years ago because nuclear powerplants that were built, ready to operate, couldn't get a license to go because there weren't satisfactory evacuation routes and it had to be by rail because the highways were unable to provide for it.

If we look at Katrina and we see how much better we could have done if rail was sufficiently employed down there, and we didn't get it, and people were jammed and stuck in there.

There is no difference in what--when you cross the aisle, when you ask the question: Do we want to get things operating better? Do we want to facilitate our corporations to operate efficiently? Do we want to provide the jobs that go along when you have facilities for travel in place? Would people do better if they could travel by rail rather than have to get in a car and pay who knows what for gasoline? It is predicted that oil is going to go up to $200 a barrel one of these days. Well, Heaven forbid that does come. We are not going to close shop and say we will go home and rest.

Do the Senator's colleagues recognize that those who don't want to let us get this train of theirs started, do they realize that these problems are in front of us, I ask?

Mr. President, I want to respond to what my friend from Mississippi has said. We have worked together in the past and we have gotten things done in the past. We know that Amtrak finally has come into its place. We have a lot of work yet to do when you think about what travel is like these days in all forms. The highways are too congested. The airways are getting even more congested. The expectation is that delays are going to become even longer. So I hope those who want to discuss it and those who want to amend it--the Senator is right, we should consider amendments. As a matter of fact, I think it is good if we do hear from people and see what problems they foresee. But we can't get it done unless we talk about it, unless we prepare for a vote.

Are we about to say to the American people: No, continue to suffer? Stay stuck in traffic? Stay stuck at the airports? Time will take care of it? All you have to do is spend more time away from home, away from your job and away from things you might enjoy.

American people, get used to spending more time away from home in useless activities, such as listening to an idling engine or listening to the car radio or something like that. We cannot function this way.

Now the time is upon us where we have to do something about this. I believe this is an opportune time. I know a lot of colleagues on that side of the aisle want to see this happen. After all, we touch 40 States across the country. Wherever you look and see where there has been new or upgraded rail service, people are responding to it: On the west coast, and some of the routes out of Chicago--people are responding to it, and they are getting on trains.

I use the trains frequently. The other day I got on an Amtrak train here, and it was a full train with barely a seat left. So people are demanding it. If we look at the example that exists, let's say in Europe or in Japan, and see what happens. When I wanted to take a plane one time from Brussels, where a NATO meeting was ongoing, to go to Paris, I tried to get a flight. They said: You cannot get an airplane from here because we go by train--200 miles in 1 hour and 20 minutes. Imagine what it would do for travel in this country and business progress.

So I am ready whenever my colleague and our friends on that side of the aisle are ready. I am told we are all set here and ready to go.

In response, A, I would like to do it; and, B, I wonder if people realize how many new lines are being dreamt up--I say ``dreamt'' up because unless we get the base going, nothing else is going to happen.

I hear from colleagues in other States besides mine who say, you know, we could use train service here or there. We have seen something in New Jersey that exemplifies the value of rail service. We had a line open from the southernmost tip of our State to Trenton, our State capital. The ridership, at first, was very low. Before you knew it, we began to see buildings, factories, warehouses, et cetera, being built along the transit way. And now the area is beginning to prosper where it was just dead and nothing was going on. That is what we have seen.

There is a lot of talk about something called transit villages. In New Jersey, the most crowded State in the country, we don't think about villages really, but we have transit villages centered around a rail hub. People know they can get back and forth, and companies know employees can get back and forth to work and they can run an efficient operation.

So this is a point in time when opportunity presents itself, and we ought not to miss it. If we cannot see it, we ought to let the public see that. Certainly, at this point in time, we ought to be able to discuss it. We should not have any obstruction to bringing the issue to the floor of the Senate. Let's get out in this public forum and have a discussion and see what we can do or whether there are problems that can be dealt with or maybe we can go to some other kinds of travel--I don't know what kind, but we at least ought to take the one nearest to us that is the best option.

With that, I yield the floor.

The Senator from Mississippi remembers that yesterday we had a hearing on freight railroads, and that traffic is going to be up some 44 percent by 2020. They are concerned about how to get it done. At the same time, we have to provide for passenger rail service. This is a good time for all sides to get together and start moving.

Does the Senator remember this bill was processed on the Senate floor last year? We had a vote that was 93 to 6. I lost a year. It was actually in 2005.

The vote was 93 to 6, I remind everybody. This was popularly supported, totally understood. We were on our way to the next station, and it just didn't work out. Things were a little tumultuous, to put it mildly. Now there is a cooler moment to think about it and present it. We have time available on the floor, and I think to waste it would be a terrible loss when we can discuss this important problem with a solution for the country.

Mr. President, our bill has been sent to the desk, and I want to start off by saying that I am pleased, obviously, that the Senate is considering S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007.

The first thing I want to do is to say thanks to my friend and chief cosponsor of the bill, Senator Trent Lott. We have worked together on matters related to transportation in the past, and there is no question that he understands the potential for passenger rail, and his long- standing efforts to improve our country's transportation systems are well known and deeply appreciated.

Like him, I believe this is a critical moment--with delays, unavailability of reliable planning for work, personal opportunity to spend time with kids and family or other activities of choice. Anyone who spends any significant time on our roads does not need reminders that highway congestion is a major problem. In almost every city and town of any size throughout our country, it is experienced.

A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute showed that highway congestion costs our country over $78 billion per year, including $4.2 billion in lost productivity and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel and an indeterminable loss in the quality of our lives. These things all cascade upon us.

Congestion, however, isn't just limited to our roads. One in four flights was late last year at our airports. At Newark Liberty International Airport, it is almost one in two flights. Other metropolitan regions are experiencing worsening delays. The DOT finally had to cap the number of flights at Chicago's O'Hare Airport a couple of years ago and is considering doing the same thing for Newark and Kennedy Airport in New York. Even airlines are throwing in the towel. The 38 minutes in the air between here and New York City is now scheduled to take almost 2 hours, gate to gate. It is on the schedule-- 38 minutes of flying time and almost 2 hours to make the trip. It is outrageous. Coupled with long security lines, these delays make air travel increasingly stressful and inconvenient. How about those who are stranded in airplanes, for sometimes as long as 9 hours--stuck in an airplane without the amenities that necessarily should be there, like food and potable water and working restrooms and so forth?

Everyone knows what a difficult day going to the airport can be, or that air travel can be like. Further, everyone knows that the high price of gas has created economic hardship for so many Americans. Some experienced voices are predicting that oil prices in the future, not too distant, can be as high as $200 a barrel, more than twice the current price. One reason why the United States is addicted to oil, as President Bush puts it, is because the Government has not provided other options for travelers. Where reliable rail service is available, people will run to the trains.

Our Nation's passenger railroad, Amtrak, has enjoyed record ridership over the past several years and set a new company record of almost 26 million passengers in the last year. More travelers take the train between Washington and New York City than fly on all the airlines combined between these cities. Amtrak is so popular in the Northeast because people can count on being on time; it is reliable service and it is economical and comfortable.

We see similar results outside of the Northeast corridor, where frequent and reliable passenger service is available. I can tell you from personal experience that riding the train can be a pleasurable experience. Passengers can use their laptops, talk on the phone, have a bite and be productive and not be exhausted when they get there.

Additionally, in most instances, rail service delivers passengers directly to where they need to go in the heart of a city. What a difference that is. You don't have to spend a half hour or an hour to get to the airport a half hour or an hour before the plane takes off so you are ready when the flight is ready to leave. Good passenger rail service is not only good transportation policy, but it is something people in this country are rushing to use.

Everyone is aware now also of the danger of pollution. In the battle against global warming, which is enveloping our country, with erratic weather raising havoc, rail is one of the most effective weapons. To move one passenger a mile, Amtrak emits slightly more than half of the carbon dioxide that airlines do and less than cars as well. Americans want a cleaner option in the air and the water for their children, grandchildren, and future generations than this constant assault on healthy air and water.

In a time where conserving energy and reducing our dependency on foreign oil has never been more important, passenger rail service offers significant fuel-saving benefits. In a time when oil imports continue to expand while prices rise, the quality of life in America is being substantially eroded by these high prices. According to the Department of Energy, airlines on the average consume over 20 percent more energy than Amtrak to move a passenger one mile, while we search for ways to fight against poisoning our atmosphere.

Passenger rail is not just a matter of convenience. It is also an important security asset. One of the lessons we learned on 9/11 was that our country cannot afford to rely on any single mode of transportation. When our aviation system shut down that terrible day, September 11, and for days thereafter, Amtrak was a principal way to reunite thousands of travelers with their families. We also saw chaotic evacuations during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, with resulting floods, with evacuating motorists stuck for hours and some without cars were left behind altogether. Some investigations showed that with better preparation, passenger trains could have been used to help move thousands out of harm's way.

It is clear that rail service can help move our citizens to safety during emergencies, but you can't do it without the trains and the track that are part of the system. Other nations around the world understand these benefits and, unfortunately, we have been lagging behind. I will never forget a trip I took from Paris to Brussels. There are 18 trains a day between these two cities. You cannot get an airplane that goes between the two. The 210-mile trip takes about 85 minutes. Think about it, 210 miles taking 85 minutes, with trains leaving practically every hour. If you go to Union Station here and travel approximately 210 miles, it is a 3-hour or 2\3/4\-hour train ride. We can do so much better.

The Europeans are not better at these things than we are. They are not smarter than we are. But from Spain to Germany, they have simply made the wise decision to invest in passenger rail. These investments extend worldwide.

Taiwan recently opened its $15 billion, 208-mile rail line this year, where riders can travel its length, 208 miles, in 90 minutes-- approximately the length of the trip between Washington, DC, and New York City.

The benefits of these systems are obvious to anyone who travels there. We need the same world-class system in this country. The potential of new rail corridors in our country is enormous. Higher speed, more frequent rail service between Chicago and other Midwestern cities, such as St. Louis, Detroit, and Milwaukee, would revolutionize the way people travel in an entire region of our country.

Likewise, expanded rail service between Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, and Washington would allow people options besides having to brave traffic and trucks on Interstate 95.

I am reminded that the train service between Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, called the Cascades line, is enjoying tremendous ridership, over 600,000 passengers each and every year. It is an invaluable asset. We see something similar in California between San Diego and Los Angeles, where over two and a half million people took the train this past year.

There is enthusiasm for passenger rail service in America, and States are planning rail corridors throughout the country. They are prepared to spend their limited funding for rail projects. But our Federal policies encourage them to build more roads. That is why we need to pass this bill that Senator Lott and I have presented. Our bill paves the way for an improved modern passenger rail network. It authorizes funding for Amtrak's capital needs as well as State grants for passenger rail. We already make a significant investment in roads. We spend $40 billion a year. By comparison, we spend almost half that amount on airports and air traffic control towers. Our bill will start to address this investment gap by authorizing nearly $2 billion a year for Amtrak in the States that participate over the next 6 years.

A yearly average of $237 million of this money will be used to create a new State grant program for rail projects. Our Amtrak bill also funds the rehabilitation of Amtrak's Northeast corridor and mandates that Amtrak work with the Department of Transportation and the States to develop plans to do so.

Our bill also requires changes at Amtrak--Senator Lott pursued this diligently--to make sure these funds will help the railroad continue moving in the right direction.

While we had record ridership and revenues last year, we can still improve its efficiency and management practices. That is why our bill would require Amtrak to reform its operations to reduce its Federal operating subsidy by 40 percent over the life of the bill. It also, at the suggestion of the Department of Transportation's inspector general, will allow the Federal Government to refinance Amtrak's $3 billion in outstanding debt.

With this bill, we are hitting so many of the areas of concern: it not only addresses the funding, but it also helps the management to focus on getting this railroad in a condition that it should be in.

One of these major reforms is for Amtrak to develop a new financial accounting system, which will provide more transparency into the company's financial management and better cost controls.

Most importantly, the Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak bill focuses on improving service for passengers. I learned when I was in the private sector that if you provide a good product, people will buy it. We will require new standards for service quality--on-time performance, onboard and station services, cost recovery, connectivity, to name a few. The public is going to know what Amtrak is doing and would be kept apprised of their performance through quarterly reports from the Federal Railroad Administration.

Our bill also addresses the problem of train delays. On many routes outside the Northeast, freight trains delay Amtrak riders from reaching their destination on time. It is against the Federal law. As we know in the airline industry, delays frustrate passengers and hurt the company's bottom line. Our bill would authorize the Surface Transportation Board to issue fines to freight railroads that delay Amtrak trains. We all have to share the system and share it efficiently.

Some have suggested another provider could be more efficient than Amtrak. I doubt this claim, but our bill does authorize a program to allow a freight railroad to bid for Amtrak's subsidy on up to two long- distance or State-supported corridor routes. So we are saying, even if there is some skepticism on our part, the bill authorizes the States to go ahead and work with the freight railroad to bid for an Amtrak subsidy, on up to two long-distance or State-supported corridor routes.

I repeat that because it is very significant. We want the States to participate, and we want to open as much of a change in policy as can be done with practical output. This pilot program could allow freight railroads to maximize efficiencies because they own the tracks already. As many Northeast corridor States have called for more involvement in how that essential corridor is run, this bill will improve governance by giving Northeast States, such as New Jersey, a bigger voice in infrastructure and operations decisions.

The State will join a newly formed commission that will develop recommendations about the short- and long-term capital investments, among other things.

And speaking of governance, our bill restructures Amtrak's board of directors by ensuring a bipartisan nine-member board of qualified members. That gives an opportunity to bring more people into the management decision process, and we think it will be a much more efficient and involved board. One board member, nominated by President Bush, actually told me at his Senate confirmation hearing that he had never even been on an Amtrak train. Well, it does not suggest he is going to be working with knowledge in hand that is significant or helpful to the company.

Currently there is a seven-member board, no qualification requirements, and for years the Administration had taken the position that the board need not be bipartisan at all. Well, it was originally structured as a bipartisan board to give all sides to the principal parties to be able to be engaged in this process.

We worked hard to forge this bipartisan compromise plan. Last Congress, our plan, which was nearly identical to this one, was approved by the Senate as an amendment to the budget bill by a vote of 93 to 6. That tells us this is a well thought-out plan.

There are only slight changes to our bill from the last Congress, and we will have a managers' amendment to address other minor modifications. Our

Nation's passenger rail programs have not been reauthorized for a decade, and the result is chaos in our transportation system.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this Amtrak bill, to provide millions of Americans with more transportation choices. It is fair to say that the public has agreed with this change in droves. They are sick and tired of being delayed, paying more for fuel, and including a more polluted atmosphere at the same time. It is time to make this change.

Amendment No. 3451

Madam President, I send a managers' amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell.) The clerk will report.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment will strike the title on security which has already become law this year. It adds a study on trip time in the Northeast corridor, and makes several technical corrections.

I yield the floor to my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Lott.

Madam President, once again, it is obvious to all that Senator Lott understands what we have to do to get things done around here, and that it can't be all one way because each of us does represent a different State. We are brought here to bring in the opinions of the people whom we serve, our constituents, so we do get a mix of views. Sometimes I wish we didn't, but for the most part that is life in the real world.

The thing we sometimes fail to see is, when we do something for the infrastructure, when we do something for rail service, it is in the national interest, even though there are currently many more riders in the very densely populated Northeast corridor. The fact is, as I related before, other places around the country are examining rail service as an alternative to their own congestion and pollution problems. When we look at something called essential air service, it is essential. That is why it is done. The Government does subsidize its existence because communities need that. So it is with rail service.

Interestingly enough, only four States have no contact with Amtrak. One of them is Hawaii, which involves a very long train ride. The other is Alaska. We have heard Senator Stevens talk about having a railroad that goes to Alaska. But otherwise we have 46 States that have contact with Amtrak. Some of them are more active than others. But as was said by our colleague, Senator Lott, some of these States don't have the traffic or they are not en route enough. The mission is to get as many States involved with Amtrak, with rail service as we can, national rail passenger service.

We look at ways of improving the management of Amtrak, that which we would with any business. I spent much of my life in business before I came to the Senate. Businesses run differently than government. But there are some principles that are the same; for instance, investments in product. If you don't put the money in, you don't get the money out. What we found here is, since the creation of Amtrak, which goes back to 1971--1971 was the creation of the Amtrak quasi-government corporation. It had been in private hands under different names for many years and never succeeded. Why? The thing that is obvious; that is, with rail passenger rail service, there is going to always be some assistance required from government, just as there is for the aviation system and the highway system. As a matter of fact, we spend more on highways in a year than we have spent on Amtrak since its creation, never having quite put in enough resources to bring the infrastructure up to the level it should be related to the period of time we are talking about.

In Germany, there was a program to establish a rail system that cost about $70 billion in a 10-year period. China now is establishing a passenger rail service which could cost up to $200 billion. And here we are in the most powerful nation in the world playing catchup. We are not talking about insignificant sums of money, but we are talking about substantial opportunities for us to improve what we are doing with this bill that will run almost $2 billion a year for 6 years, plus some additional funding in another bill raised by bonding authority. Senator Lott has been very helpful in the Finance Committee to get this system up to where it ought to be. Whenever we look for opportunities to improve life in America, certainly this looms high on the horizon.

We have made it clear that we are ready to accept amendments. We would like them brought to the floor this evening or tomorrow. But we will not be able to stay here and not see any response, if there isn't enough interest by fellow Members to come down and bring us their amendments.

I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to committee amendments be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments; that the pending managers' amendment be considered and agreed to and considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments; that the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments; that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of this agreement.

As Senator Lott well knows, this is kind of professional language for the institution.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Carper, which is No. 3452.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 294 on Thursday, October 25, there be 2 hours of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Sununu amendment No. 3453, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Lautenberg and Sununu or their designees, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, another 2 months have passed, and more American troops lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is only right that we take a few moments in the U.S. Senate to honor them. Outside my office here in Washington, we have a tribute called ``Faces of the Fallen.'' Visitors to the Senate from across the country have stopped by the memorial. I encourage my colleagues to come see this tribute on the third floor of the Hart Building.

I last came to the Senate floor to honor our fallen troops in early August. Since that time, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 182 troops in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, including in Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten. So today I will read their names into the Record:

PO3 Mark R. Cannon, of Lubbock, TX

SPC Chirasak Vidhyarkorn, of Queens, NY

SGT Randell Olguin, of Ralls, TX

GYSGT Herman J. Murkerson Jr., of Adger, AL

SGT Robert T. Ayres III, of Los Angeles, CA

SGT Zachary D. Tellier, of Charlotte, NC

SSGT Donnie D. Dixon, of Miami, FL

James D. Doster, of Pine Bluff, AR

SPC Ciara M. Durkin, of Quincy, MA

Randy L. Johnson, of Washington, DC

SPC Mathew D. Taylor, of Cameron Park, CA

PFC Christopher F. Pfeifer, of Spalding, NE

PO2 Charles Luke Milam, of Littleton, CO

SSGT Zachary B. Tomczak, of Huron, SD

CPL Anthony K. Bento, of San Diego, CA

SSGT Kevin R. Brown, of Harrah, OK

Matthew D. Blaskowski, of Levering, MI

SPC David L. Watson, of Newport, AR

SPC Joshua H. Reeves, of Watkinsville, GA

CSM Jonathan M. Lankford, of Scottsboro, AL

CAPT (Dr.) Roselle M. Hoffmaster, of Cleveland, OH

SPC John J. Young, of Savannah, GA

PFC Luigi Marciante Jr., of Elizabeth, NJ

CPL Graham M. McMahon, of Corvallis, OR

SGT Edmund J. Jeffers, of Daleville, AL

PFC Christian M. Neff, of Lima, OH

SPC Aaron J. Walker, of Harker Heights, TX

SPC Joseph N. Landry III, of Pensacola, FL

SPC Nicholas P. Olson, of Novato, CA

SPC Donald E. Valentine III, of Orange Park, FL

SPC Matthew J. Emerson, of Grandview, WA

SPC Brandon T. Thorsen, of Trenton, FL

SSGT Michael L. Townes, of Las Vegas, NV

SSGT Terry D. Wagoner, of Piedmont, SC

CPL Todd A. Motley, of Clare, MI

CPL Jonathan Rivadeneira, of Jackson Heights, NY

PFC Christopher M. McCloud, of Malakoff, TX

CPL Terrence P. Allen, of Pennsauken, NJ

SGT John Mele, of Bunnell, FL

SSGT Yance T. Gray, of Ismay, MT

SSGT Gregory Rivera-Santiago, of St. Croix, VI

SGT Michael C. Hardegree, of Villa Rica, GA

SGT Omar L. Mora, of Texas City, TX

SGT Nicholas J. Patterson, of Rochester, IN

SPC Ari D. Brown-Weeks, of Abingdon, MD

SPC Steven R. Elrod, of Hope Mills, NC

SSGT Courtney Hollinsworth, of Yonkers, NY

CPL Carlos E. Gilorozco, of San Jose, CA

LCPL Jon T. Hicks Jr., of Atco, NJ

CPL Travis M. Woods, of Redding, CA

CPL Javier G. Paredes, of San Antonio, TX

PFC Sammie E. Phillips, of Cecilia, KY

LCPL Lance M. Clark, of Cookeville, TN

SGT Alexander U. Gagalac, of Wahiawa, HI

CAPT Drew N. Jensen, of Clackamas, OR

SPC Marisol Heredia, of El Monte, CA

CPL Ryan A. Woodward, of Fort Wayne, IN

CPL Christopher L. Poole Jr., of Mount Dora, FL

CPL Bryan J. Scripsick, of Wayne, OK

SSGT John C. Stock, of Longview, TX

SGT Michael J. Yarbrough, of Malvern, AR

SGT Lee C. Wilson, of Chapel Hill, NC

SPC Jason J. Hernandez, of Streetsboro, OH

SPC Thomas L. Hilbert, of Venus, TX

PFC Mykel F. Miller, of Phoenix, AZ

SGT Joel L. Murray, of Kansas City, MO

SPC David J. Lane, of Emporia, KS

PVT Randol S. Shelton, of Schiller Park, IL

CPL Keith A. Nurnberg, of McHenry, IL

1st SGT David A. Cooper Jr., of State College, PA

SSGT Delmar White, of Wallins, KY

CPL William T. Warford III, of Temple, TX

SPC Dane R. Balcn, of Colorado Springs, CO

SPC Rodney J. Johnson, of Houston, TX

MSGT Patrick D. Magnani, of Martinez, CA

SPC Christopher G. Patton, of Lawrenceville, GA

SGT Kevin A. Gilbertson, of Cedar Rapids, IA

PVT Justin T. Sanders, of Watson, LA

SPC Travis M. Virgadamo, of Las Vegas, NY

1stSGT Daniel E. Scheibner, of Muskegon, MI

SSGT Andrew P. Nelson, of Moorhead, MN

SSGT Jason M. Butkus, of West Milford, NJ

SPC Edward L. Brooks, of Dayton, OH

CPL John C. Tanner, of Columbus, GA

CAPT Erick M. Foster, of Wexford, PA

Maj. Henry S. Ofeciar, of Agana, Guam

MSGT Scott R. Ball, of Mount Holly Springs, PA

SGT Jan M. Argonish, of Peckville, PA

1stSGT Rocky H. Herrera, of Salt Lake City, UT

SGT Cory L. Clark, of Plant City, FL

SGT Bryce D. Howard, of Vancouver, WA

SGT James S. Collins Jr., of Rochester Hills, MI

PFC Thomas R. Wilson, of Maurertown, VA

LCPL Rogelio A. Ramirez, of Pasadena, CA

SSGT Nicholas R. Carnes, of Dayton, KY

SGT Joshua L. Morley, of Boise, ID

SPC Tracy C. Willis, of Marshall, TX

LCPL Matthew S. Medlicott, of Houston, TX

1stSGT Daniel E. Miller, of Rossford, OH

1stSGT Scott M. Carney, of Ankeny, IA

1stSGT David A. Heringes, of Tampa, FL

PFC Edgar E. Cardenas, of Lilburn, GA

1stSGT Adrian M. Elizalde, of North Bend, OR

1stSGT Michael J. Tully, of Falls Creek, PA

SSGT Sandy R. Britt, of Apopka, FL

CAPT Corry P. Tyler, of GA

CWO Paul J. Flynn, of Whitsett, NC

SGT Matthew L. Tallman, of Groveland, CA

SPC Rickey L. Bell, of Caruthersville, MO

CAPT Derek A. Dobogai, of Fond du Lac, WI

SSGT Jason L. Paton, of Poway, CA

SGT Garrett I. McLead, of Rockport, TX

CPL Jeremy P. Bouffard, of Middlefield, MA

CPL Phillip J. Brodnick, of New Lenox, IL

CPL Joshua S. Harmon, of Mentor, OH

CPL Nathan C. Hubbard, of Clovis, CA

SPC Michael A. Hook, of Altoona, PA

SPC Jessy G. Pollard, of Springfield, MO

SPC Tyler R. Seideman, of Lincoln, AR

PFC Omar E. Torres, of Chicago, IL

PFC Donovan D. Witham, of Malvern, AR

CPL Willard M. Powell, of Evansville, IN

SPC George V. Libby, of Aberdeen, NC

SSGT Paul B. Norris, of Cullman, AL

SPC Kamisha J. Block, of Vidor, TX

CAPT Michael S. Fielder, of Holly Springs, NC

1st Lt. Jonathan W. Edds, of White Pigeon, MI

SGT Princess C. Samuels, of Mitchellville, MD

SPC Zandra T. Walker, of Greenville, SC

SSGT Robert R. Pirelli, of Franklin, MA

SPC Alun R. Howells, of Parlin, CO

SSGT Eric D. Cottrell, of Pittsview, AL

CPL Juan M. Lopez Jr., of San Antonio, TX

PFC Paulomarko U. Pacificador, of Shirley, NY

CWO Christopher C. Johnson, of MI

CWO Jackie L. McFarlane Jr., Virginia Beach, VA

SSGT Sean P. Fisher, of Santee, CA

SSGT Stanley B. Reynolds, of Rock, WV

SPC Steven R. Jewell, of Bridgeton, NC

SSGT Alicia A. Birchett, of Mashpee, MA

CPL Shawn D. Hensel, of Logansport, IN

SSGT William D. Scates, of Oklahoma City, OK

SGT Scott L. Kirkpatrick, of Reston, VA

SGT Andrew W. Lancaster, of Stockton, IL

SPC Justin O. Penrod, of Mahomet, IL

SGT Michael E. Tayaotao, of Sunnyvale, CA

1st SGT Jeffrey D. Kettle, of Madill, OK

SSGT Jesse G. Clowers Jr., of Herndon, VA

SGT Charles B. Kitowski III, of Farmers Branch, TX

SPC William L. Edwards, of Houston, TX

PVT Alan J. Austin, of Houston, TX

SPC Jordan E. Goode, of Kalamazoo, MI

SSGT Joan J. Duran, of Roxbury, MA

CPL Reynold Armand, of Rochester, NY

SPC Donald M. Young, of Helena, MT

SSGT Jacob M. Thompson, of North Mankato, MN

SGT Nicholas A. Gummersall, of Chubbuck, ID

CPL Juan M. Alcantara, of NY

CPL Kareem R. Khan, of Manahawkin, NJ

SPC Justin R. Blackwell, of Paris, TN

PFC Jeremy S. Bohannon, of Bon Aqua, TN

SGT Jon E. Bonnell Jr., of Fort Dodge, IA

SPC Christopher T. Neiberger, of Gainesville, FL

1stSGT Travis S. Bachman, of Garden City, KS

SGT Bradley W. Marshall, of Little Rock, AR

SPC Daniel F. Reyes, of San Diego, CA

SPC Charles E. Leonard Jr., of Monroe, LA

PFC Matthew M. Murchison, of Independence, MO

SGT Dustin S. Wakeman, of Fort Worth, TX

CPL Jason K. Lafleur, of Ignacio, CO

SPC Jaron D. Holliday, of Tulsa, OK

LCPL Cristian Vasquez, of Coalinga, CA

Tech. SGT Joey D. Link, of Portland, TN

SPC Braden J. Long, of Sherman, TX

MSGT Julian Ingles Rios, of Anasco, Puerto Rico

SSGT Fernando Santos, of San Antonio, TX

SPC Cristian Rojas-Gallego, of Loganville, GA

SPC Eric D. Salinas, of Houston, TX

SGT Taurean T. Harris, of Liberty, MS

SPC Zachariah J. Gonzalez, of IN

PFC Charles T. Heinlein Jr., of Hemlock, MI

PFC Alfred H. Jairala, of Hialeah, FL

To date, more than 3,800 American men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. And more than 440 have lost their lives in Operation Enduring Freedom, including in Afghanistan.

This list includes five soldiers from NJ: PFC Luigi Marciante Jr. of Elizabeth, NJ, CPL Terrence P. Allen, of Pennsauken, NJ, LCPL Jon T. Hicks Jr., of Atco, NJ, SSGT Jason M. Butkus, of West Milford, NJ and CPL Kareem R. Khan, of Manahawkin, NJ.

We will not forget them and the Nation will not forget their sacrifice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 363, H.R. 995.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, as if read, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 3564 has been received from the House and is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, October 25; that on Thursday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business for 60 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first portion and the Republicans controlling the final portion; that at the close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 294, as provided for under a previous order.

Mr. President, if there is no further business, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so I might call up an amendment.

I call up amendment No. 3350, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, before I speak on my amendment, I offer my personal thanks to Senators Harkin and Specter for their hard work in putting together an excellent bill. It puts more resources, in particular, into the well-being of our most precious asset: our children.

I was pleased to join Senator Harkin and Senator Specter as a member of the subcommittee in providing more of the resources needed for health and education programs that have been shortchanged by this administration over the last several years.

The best part of this bill is that we have a chance to help children live longer, healthier, and more productive lives. The worst part of it is that, despite all of its benefits, the President said he intends to veto the bill.

This bill increases Head Start funding by $200 million. Today in New Jersey, more than 14,000 children depend on Head Start for their early education. This bill also recognizes growing concerns about the terrible conditions of autism. It is a growing problem. Studies have shown that 1 in 94 children in New Jersey will be born with or carry autism in their lives. From 1991 to 2005, the number of cases diagnosed as autistic went from 234 in 1991 to 7,400 cases in 2005, a mere 15 years. To see an increase such as this must be paid attention to. These numbers are alarming.

I congratulate our committee for this welcome addition for funding autism detection. Families across America are ever more anxious about this health threat. Also alarming are the statistics on another health problem in our country. We have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. America sees 19 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases, and almost half of them strike young people. That is why Senator Snowe from Maine and I are offering an amendment to make sure our young people get the truth about their health, so they don't become one of these statistics. America's young people should expect the truth from their doctor, they should expect it from their parents, and they certainly should expect it from a government-funded program. We cannot expect young people to make life-changing decisions if they get the wrong information from the Government. We have a responsibility to give them the most accurate information available when communicating with them.

Right now, the Federal Government is falling down on the job. We have given out hundreds of millions of dollars for abstinence-only education. The fact of the matter is these programs are not successful. If we are going to spend as much as a dime on them, we must be good stewards of the people's tax dollars and make sure the information being given out is complete and truthful. Yet we have found case after case of incorrect and potentially harmful information being taught in these programs.

In 2004, a report found that of the 13 most common federally funded abstinence programs, 11 have unproven claims and basic scientific errors. In fact, the office in the Department of Health and Human Services in charge of these programs doesn't even bother to check whether they are providing accurate medical or scientific information. It is time to change this policy. Young people have a right to complete and accurate information that protects their health and may save their lives.

The amendment Senator Snowe and I are offering would make sure they get it right. Our amendment says Federal money is not to be spent on inaccurate and deceptive information. Millions of children in New Jersey and across this country deserve no less.

We have seen misstatements made about the failures of contraception. What does that mean? It means diseases are more likely to be transmitted. It also means the number of teen pregnancies could increase based on misinformation.

The Senate had approved this amendment in the 2006 appropriations bill. I hope and urge that we pass it again this year. What is more, I commend the leadership of this committee, Senators Harkin and Specter, for constructing a bill that is going to help our young children better off in their lives.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.