Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, and I certainly will not, given that the Senator from Florida has offered the consent on my behalf, I thank him for stepping forward and offering his request.

This is legislation that I coauthored with Senator Clinton. On the House side, there were Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Peter King who introduced companion legislation. It addresses the issue of known traffic accidents. There were 230 children killed last year in nontraffic auto accidents. We worked very cooperatively with Senator Nelson and others on the Commerce Committee to put together a package that could be implemented quickly and effectively to help reduce this unnecessary loss of life.

I thank Senator Nelson for his work on the committee and certainly offer my praise for the work done on the other side. I am pleased to see that this legislation is going to be passed and sent to the President and become law. Again, I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, I begin my remarks this morning by addressing the points made at the close of Senator Corker's remarks. The Senator talked about the need to look at some of our long-term budget problems--Social Security, Medicare, and even our tax structure. There are areas where we can see that the Tax Code is not as simple or straightforward as we want it to be, where we know there are imbalances in the Medicare program, and where we need to address how we are going to pay for future generations who will be retiring.

These are tough and long-term important problems with which we need to deal. Senator Corker mentioned bipartisan legislation that I have cosponsored by Senators Gregg of New Hampshire and Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota to create a bipartisan commission to look hard at these issues. The result will not just be another report. Instead, it will actually prepare legislative recommendations that will be brought to Congress to get an up-or-down vote.

Sometimes that kind of an approach is the best way of dealing with what appear to be intractable problems because such a structure can generate consensus and in some ways force Congress to take action, even if the short-term political issues might discourage action.

I hope that this approach will be adopted. I hope it is an approach that will make an impact because, as I have spoken on the Senate floor and at home in New Hampshire, these are long-term issues that have to be addressed. It takes leadership, but it also takes consensus.

The one point we also have consensus on in the country right now, and certainly in New Hampshire, is that we have witnessed a weaker economy over the last 6 to 12 months. In New Hampshire, just as in any other part of the country, that is felt first by families, by working families who see the slower growth, families who feel the pinch of higher energy prices, families who see credit tightening and are struggling to deal with that slowdown.

We are the strongest country in the world, the strongest economy in the world, but that does not make us immune from the economic cycle. When we see an economic slowdown, we understand we cannot necessarily turn the economy around instantly, but we need to take action. We need to lay the groundwork for near-term economic growth and the groundwork for long-term economic growth. That is what we need to focus on as we debate an economic growth package in the Senate.

We have begun to act with a housing modernization bill, commonly referred to as FHA modernization, that will help States and homeowners modify their mortgages, stay in their homes, deal with the slowdown in real estate prices and reduce the impact of the credit crisis on home ownership. We passed that bill in the Senate last month. The House has also passed its version. This is an area where we need to act quickly to resolve the differences between the two versions and send it to the President for signature.

The issue of timeliness is going to come back on us again and again as we debate this economic package because the one thing we understand and know about any economic package is that if it is going to have an impact, it needs to be done in a timely way. It should focus on the near term. It should include provisions we believe will have an immediate impact on investment and growth, and it should be temporary.

We know that we have to deal with long-term problems about which the Senator from Tennessee spoke, but we also understand the impact that the slowdown is having. We can put together a package that meets the following criteria: focuses on the next 12 months, encourages investment and economic growth, and is done in a timely way.

What should the main provisions of an economic growth package be? It should put money into the pockets of families and do it through a tax rebate. People pay taxes. At the end of the day, every dollar of revenue that is collected by the Federal Government ultimately started with an individual, a family, a worker, whether it is excise taxes on gasoline or income taxes. Even the taxes we levy on businesses ultimately are passed through to consumers in the products and services those corporations sell. As I said, people pay taxes. It is not a mistake to allow a family to keep a little bit more of what they earn, to give them a rebate over the next 12 months to help deal with those energy prices, help deal with their mortgage payments or help invest in items that will make for a better quality of life for them and their children. This needs to be part of this growth package.

Business investment also needs to be a part of this growth package. In New Hampshire, that means small businesses. They are the ones that provide jobs, cover their employees with health care, and are responsible for most of the investment in New Hampshire and across the country. I think one of the most important provisions that is being discussed in this growth package is a way to encourage those small businesses across the country to make new investments in their plant, improve productivity, make investments in their employees, and create new jobs. Jobs are not created in Washington; they are created across the country. Businesses large and small put up capital, take a risk, hire that new worker, train that new worker. That is where the difference is made. This package needs to include very real and meaningful incentives for those businesses to spend, build, create new jobs, and improve productivity.

If we are going to have any impact, though, we cannot stand in Washington and debate. We need to act in a timely way. This cannot be done over a 4-month, 5-month or 6-month protracted debate. If it takes that long, it will be too late to have any impact.

Congress does not often act in a timely way. We know that; we understand that. The key to getting something done soon is to work in a bipartisan way. That means compromise. That means everyone will not have everything in the package they might like to have. We cannot have 535 Members of Congress all writing their own economic growth package. We do have the basis for a bipartisan agreement in legislation that has passed the other body by a very strong bipartisan vote, with Democrats and Republicans supporting the two core principles I talked

about: tax relief for families and individuals and encouraging business investment for small businesses and larger firms that are creating jobs every day.

A bipartisan approach has to be the way this issue is addressed in the Senate. We all understand the rules of the Senate allow unlimited debate and unlimited amendments. This is one case where we need to exercise a little bit of discipline, where we need to exercise a little bit of common sense. We cannot have every Senator offering three, four or five different provisions to this legislation. The bill would collapse under the weight. By delaying passage and implementation, we make it much more difficult for anything we do to have a positive impact.

I hope, as the debate moves forward, we work to keep this growth package in line with the bipartisan agreement that has been established, the framework that has been put together. Such a process does not mean we will not have an opportunity to debate the package or even make some modifications. If we go astray, if we let our own egos and personal needs drive this debate, we will not get this legislation done, and the American people will look at the institution of Congress yet again and be frustrated at its inability to act in a bipartisan way, at our inability to act in a timely way, and our inability to take the steps necessary to make a difference in our economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, across America, those citizens who have on occasion chosen--or been required--to listen to congressional debate have often heard the Senate described as an ``Institution.'' It is a term which has been overused and perhaps misused more than once, but I believe it is quite appropriately applied in observing that with Senator Trent Lott's departure, we have lost a reservoir of institutional knowledge, knowledge which has been of enormous value to Members of every political stripe for many years.

The breadth of Trent Lott's experience--on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers of Congress, as back bencher, and as a member of leadership--has given him an insight into and understanding of the legislative process unique among his peers. We have heard many colleagues describe the effect of that experience when combined with the persuasive personality of the Mississippi gulf coast: No one counted votes better, and perhaps more important, no one enjoyed it more.

Within our caucus, in committee rooms, and on the floor, Trent could rely time and again on the great friendships and professional respect developed through years of hard work. Even more valuable perhaps, he understood the unusual psychology, decisionmaking, and ego unique to Members of Congress. We all perceive the important role these factors play in our work; few have been able to master them to their use.

For Trent, however, counting votes was only the means to a more important end--being an effective Senator. He has long been a strong voice for the State of Mississippi, but he has also developed the habit of finding his way to the center of the legislative storm at the crucial moment when a final deal is struck.

On matters of policy, I have worked both alongside and against Trent--even coming out ahead once or twice. Those rare events have revealed him to accept loss gracefully, negotiate in good faith, and accept compromise without conceding principle. These are traits essential to integrity and stability in governance, but also traits that strengthened his hand for the next battle.

Thus, the experience, the ability, the ``institutional knowledge'' we lose is very real. I count Senator Lott as more than a valued colleague; he is also a valued friend. As a Senator, in my first term, I have always been able to count on Trent for sound and thoughtful advice, which always reflected his sincere concern for the personal well-being, career, and family of all with whom he served. I always took confidence from the fact that he unabashedly placed family at the top of his priorities, and understood that our public service should not take place at our families' expense.

Mr. President, although I am the youngest Member of the U.S. Senate, and still serving in my first term, I am grateful to Senator Lott for his commitment to keeping the Senate strong. The Framers of our Constitution saw the Senate as the legislative body that would maintain an even keel, engage in meaningful debate, and forge legislation through the art of compromise

that addresses the challenges of our day. Through successes and failings, Trent has always been true to this purpose. Most important to him, he has also been true to his constituents, and to his family. I trust that these priorities will continue to guide him, and know they will bring him success for many years to come.

Mr. President, I will speak as in morning business. I thank Senator Reed for giving me the opportunity to speak briefly before his remarks in support of legislation that I do hope the Senate will act on today; that is, legislation to dedicate the post office in East Hampton, NH, in honor of Army Ranger CPT Jonathan Grassbaugh, who was killed in action on April 7 this year in Iraq.

Mr. President, on behalf of Hampstead, New Hampshire middle school students, school board officials, board of selectmen, and residents, I rise to honor a fallen hero, United States Army Ranger Captain Jonathan David Grassbaugh, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 59 Colby Corner in East Hampstead, NH, as the ``Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post Office.''

Jon, as he was called by his family and friends, moved to East Hampstead, NH, from St. Marys, OH, in 1989. He attended Hampstead Central Elementary School and Hampstead Middle School where his mother, Patricia, is principal.

Jon graduated high school from Phillips Exeter Academy, in Exeter, New Hampshire, where he was a four-year honor student in the Class of 1999. Jon left a remarkable impression on the Phillips Exeter community; remembered for his manifestation of the motto ``Non Sibi'' or ``Not for Oneself,'' a Latin phrase inscribed on the Academy's seal. Jon exemplified his passion for life through his persistent dedication to his studies, tireless volunteer efforts in school and the local community, and commitment to the Academy's radio station, Grainger Observatory, and the school's Washington Internship Program.

Jon's illustrious high school years were prologue to a promising future, full of infinite potential. Jon enrolled at Johns Hopkins University where he graduated in 2003, earning a bachelor's degree in computer science from the renowned Whiting School of Engineering.

At a young age, Jon's family instilled in him the importance of volunteerism and service to the United States. Jon's father, Mark proudly served three and a half years as an Army Ranger during Vietnam, and his older brother, West Point Alum and Dartmouth Medical School graduate, Army Captain Dr. Jason Grassbaugh, is currently serving as an orthopedic surgeon in Fort Lewis, WA. Jon continued this family tradition of service, joining the Johns Hopkins Army ROTC Program, and eventually becoming battalion commander his senior year. He also became a proud member of the Pershing Rifles fraternal organization, captained the Ranger Challenge Team, and won the national two-man duet drill team competition.

In a storybook setting, Jon met Jenna Parkinson, a freshman ROTC cadet from Boxborough, MA, during his senior year. Jon and Jenna slowly grew closer, watching movies together during spring break, sharing flights to and from school, and attending the military ball. A few short years later, Jon proposed to Jenna on April 30, 2005, and the young couple subsequently married on June 9, 2006, in a Cape Cod ceremony. Prior to their wedding day, Jon and Jenna filled out a questionnaire for their officiate which asked, ``Where is a sacred spot, a place where you feel most connected, most at peace and most inspired?'' Jon's answer came in three loving words: ``With my wife.''

Following graduation, Jon completed U.S. Army Ranger School in April 2004 and served his country both at home and abroad. He was assigned to the 7th Cavalry in The Republic of South Korea and served as a member of the Army Hurricane Katrina Relief Team. Later, Jon was assigned to the 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, NC, where he and the now U.S. Army 2nd Lieutenant Jenna Grassbaugh would reside.

Shortly after Jon and Jenna were married, he was deployed for a second tour of duty in Iraq. Tragically, on April 7, 2007, Jon was one of four soldiers who died while conducting a combat logistics patrol in Zaganiyah, Iraq. Throughout Jon's distinguished military service, he received a number of accolades and commendations, including: the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Ranger Tab, Combat Action Badge, and Parachutist Badge.

Jon is remembered as a confident and mentally strong leader, whose poise under pressure, intelligence, compassion, and love for God, country and family transcends his passing. His valor on the field of battle was equally as impressive as his undying loyalty to and love for his squadron. One well-known anecdote recalls a combat operation in which Jon had pizza flown by helicopter from 100 kilometers away to where his troops were conducting combat operations in an effort to lift morale. Jon left a legacy that continues to inspire our Nation's future leaders from Hampstead and Exeter, New Hampshire, Johns Hopkins, and those he proudly served beside in Iraq.

On a deep and personal note, for those who had the sincere privilege and honor to meet Jon, it was evident his exuberance for life and new experiences, ingenuity, and academic acumen destined him for greatness. By the time of his death, Jon had achieved more than most individuals do in a lifetime, a testimonial to his family's love and guidance through his young life, and Jenna's warmth and support as he fought for our Nation.

Today, Jonathan Grassbaugh rests in peace at one of our Nation's most hallowed and sacred grounds, Arlington National Cemetery--his rightful place among generations of brave Americans who sacrificed their lives in defense of this country. His loved ones will forever remember him as a loving husband, son, brother, and friend. Let it be known, the citizens of New Hampshire and our Nation are eternally in debt to Jonathan David Grassbaugh, an honorable son of New Hampshire, an American Patriot, and a guardian of liberty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Hampstead, NH, Board of Selectmen's letter of support to dedicate the East Hampstead, NH, Post Office, as the ``Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post Office'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week, I was pleased to support passage of the FHA Modernization Act, S. 2338. This legislation will update the FHA program so that it once again is better able to provide many low-income and first-time homebuyers another option as they try to secure a mortgage for a new home or to refinance an existing mortgage under more affordable terms.

As some consumers experience credit tightening in the home mortgage and other financial markets, a byproduct of issues in the subprime mortgage market, the availability of stable financing alternatives is critically important to reducing the negative effects of the current market turmoil.

While the FHA Modernization Act is not a silver bullet, it represents a responsible step the federal government can take to benefit thousands of borrowers around the country.

Additionally, in the last several days Congress passed a measure, which I cosponsored, that encourages homeowners and their lenders to work out alternative payment plans that prevent individuals from losing their homes. The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, H.R. 3648, will protect taxpayers from an IRS tax bill in the event they have a portion of their mortgage debt forgiven. Under current law, homeowners entering foreclosure or refinancing their mortgage at a lower loan value due to a drop in housing prices, face an unfair and unwarranted tax. The last thing someone struggling to stay in their home needs is a huge tax obligation on income that they never saw. I expect the President to sign this legislation into law in the coming days.

In addition to the legislation recently advanced by Congress, the Federal Reserve proposed a rule this week that would prohibit lenders from making so-called ``no documentation'' loans where a borrower's income or assets are not verified; prohibit lenders from engaging ``in a pattern or practice'' of lending without considering a borrower's ability to repay a loan; restrict prepayment penalties on certain

loans; and require lenders to establish escrow accounts for property taxes and homeowners insurance.

The proposed rule would also restrict ``yield spread premiums'' that exceed the amount a consumer had agreed to in advance; prohibit coercion of an appraiser to misrepresent the value of a home; prohibit certain deceptive advertising practices; and improve certain truth-in- lending disclosures.

While I look forward, as a member of the Banking Committee, to reviewing the Fed's proposed regulations in the coming weeks, the committee should proceed cautiously as it considers more aggressive attempts to address current issues in the housing market. With the housing correction already under way and with the restricted credit availability that we are now experiencing, some of the proposals that have been floated may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating reduced credit availability at exactly the wrong time. Others may unnecessarily use taxpayer dollars to encourage unwise behavior in the future.

Any further legislation in this area needs to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that it will have a positive effect on homeownership in this country, both now and in the future, and not simply rushed through Congress for the sake of political expediency.

One piece of legislation that the Senate Banking Committee should address as soon as possible is GSE reform. The House passed legislation earlier this year that strengthens the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. With the ongoing difficulties in the housing market, now more than ever it is imperative that Congress act to guard against threats to our capital markets and to protect against any possible negative consequences for taxpayers that could arise without proper oversight of these institutions. Fannie and Freddie have had a number of problems over the past several years and are so centrally important to the mortgage market that any further problems could have serious repercussions that could spread throughout our financial markets.

The GSE's regulator needs to be strengthened so that Fannie and Freddie can continue their important role in supporting the mortgage market. Any efforts to enhance their role in the mortgage market must not move forward until fundamental regulatory reform is enacted.

Mr. President, on behalf of Hampstead, NH, middle school students, school board officials, board of selectmen, and residents, I rise to honor a fallen hero, U.S. Army Ranger CAPT Jonathan David Grassbaugh, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 59 Colby Corner in East Hampstead, NH, as the Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post Office.

Jon, as he was called by his family and friends, moved to East Hampstead, NH, from St. Marys, OH, in 1989. He attended Hampstead Central Elementary School and Hampstead Middle School, where his mother, Patricia, is principal.

Jon graduated high school from Phillips Exeter Academy, in Exeter, NH, where he was a 4-year honor student in the Class of 1999. Jon left a remarkable impression on the Phillips Exeter community; remembered for his manifestation of the motto ``Non Sibi'' or ``Not for Oneself,'' a Latin phrase inscribed on the Academy's seal. Jon exemplified his passion for life through his persistent dedication to his studies, tireless volunteer efforts in school and the local community, commitment to the academy's radio station, Grainger Observatory, and the school's Washington internship program.

Jon's illustrious high school years were prologue to a promising future, full of infinite potential. Jon enrolled at Johns Hopkins University, where he graduated in 2003, earning a bachelors degree in computer science from the renowned Whiting School of Engineering.

At a young age, Jon's family instilled in him the importance of volunteerism and service to the U.S. Jon's father, Mark, proudly served 3\1/2\ years as an Army Ranger during Vietnam, and his older brother, West Point alum and Dartmouth Medical School graduate, Army Captain Dr. Jason Grassbaugh, is currently serving as an orthopedic surgeon in Fort Lewis, WA. Jon continued this family tradition of service, joining the Johns Hopkins Army ROTC program, and eventually becoming battalion commander his senior year. He also became a proud member of the Pershing Rifles fraternal organization, captained the Ranger Challenge Team, and won the national two-man duet drill team competition.

In a storybook setting, Jon met Jenna Parkinson, a freshman ROTC cadet from Boxborough MA, during his senior year. Jon and Jenna slowly grew closer, watching movies together during spring break, sharing flights to and from school, and attending the military ball. A few short years later, Jon proposed to Jenna on April 30, 2005, and the young couple subsequently married on June 9, 2006, in a Cape Cod ceremony. Prior to their wedding day, Jon and Jenna filled out a questionnaire for their officiate, which asked, ``Where is a sacred spot, a place where you feel most connected, most at peace and most inspired?'' Jon's answer came in three loving words: ``With my wife.''

Following graduation, Jon completed U.S. Army Ranger School in April 2004 and served his country both at home and abroad. He was assigned to the 7th Cavalry in the Republic of South Korea and served as a member of the Army Hurricane Katrina Relief Team. Later, Jon was assigned to the 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, NC, where he and the now U.S. Army 2nd Lieutenant Jenna Grassbaugh would reside.

Shortly after Jon and Jenna were married, he was deployed for a second tour of duty, in Iraq. Tragically, on April 7, 2007, Jon was one of four soldiers who died while conducting a combat logistics patrol in Zaganiyah, Iraq. Throughout Jon's distinguished military service, he received a number of accolades and commendations, including: the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Ranger Tab, Combat Action Badge, and Parachutist Badge.

Jon is remembered as a confident and mentally strong leader, whose poise under pressure, intelligence, compassion, and love for God, country and family transcends his passing. His valor on the field of battle was equally as impressive as his undying loyalty to and love for his squadron. One well-known anecdote recalls a combat operation in which Jon had pizza flown by helicopter from 100 kilometers away to where his troops were conducting combat operations in an effort to lift morale. Jon left a legacy that continues to inspire our Nation's future leaders from Hampstead and Exeter, NH, Johns Hopkins, and those he proudly served beside in Iraq.

On a deep and personal note, for those who had the sincere privilege and honor to meet Jon, it was evident his exuberance for life and new experiences, ingenuity, and academic acumen destined him for greatness. By the time of his death, Jon had achieved more than most individuals do in a lifetime, a testimonial to his family's love and guidance through his young life, and Jenna's warmth and support as he fought for our Nation.

Today, Jonathan Grassbaugh rests in peace at one of our Nation's most hallowed and sacred grounds, Arlington National Cemetery--his rightful place among generations of brave Americans who sacrificed their lives in defense of this country. His loved ones will forever remember him as a loving husband, son, brother, and friend. Let it be known, the citizens of New Hampshire and our Nation are eternally in debt to Jonathan David Grassbaugh, an honorable son of New Hampshire, an American Patriot, and a guardian of liberty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of Hampstead, NH, middle school students, school board officials, board of selectmen, and residents, I rise to honor a fallen hero, U.S. Army Ranger CAPT Jonathan David Grassbaugh, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 59 Colby Corner in East Hampstead, NH, as the Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post Office.

Jon, as he was called by his family and friends, moved to East Hampstead, NH, from St. Marys, OH, in 1989. He attended Hampstead Central Elementary School and Hampstead Middle School, where his mother, Patricia, is principal.

Jon graduated high school from Phillips Exeter Academy, in Exeter, NH, where he was a 4-year honor student in the Class of 1999. Jon left a remarkable impression on the Phillips Exeter community; remembered for his manifestation of the motto ``Non Sibi'' or ``Not for Oneself,'' a Latin phrase inscribed on the Academy's seal. Jon exemplified his passion for life through his persistent dedication to his studies, tireless volunteer efforts in school and the local community, commitment to the academy's radio station, Grainger Observatory, and the school's Washington internship program.

Jon's illustrious high school years were prologue to a promising future, full of infinite potential. Jon enrolled at Johns Hopkins University, where he graduated in 2003, earning a bachelors degree in computer science from the renowned Whiting School of Engineering.

At a young age, Jon's family instilled in him the importance of volunteerism and service to the U.S. Jon's father, Mark, proudly served 3\1/2\ years as an Army Ranger during Vietnam, and his older brother, West Point alum and Dartmouth Medical School graduate, Army Captain Dr. Jason Grassbaugh, is currently serving as an orthopedic surgeon in Fort Lewis, WA. Jon continued this family tradition of service, joining the Johns Hopkins Army ROTC program, and eventually becoming battalion commander his senior year. He also became a proud member of the Pershing Rifles fraternal organization, captained the Ranger Challenge Team, and won the national two-man duet drill team competition.

In a storybook setting, Jon met Jenna Parkinson, a freshman ROTC cadet from Boxborough MA, during his senior year. Jon and Jenna slowly grew closer, watching movies together during spring break, sharing flights to and from school, and attending the military ball. A few short years later, Jon proposed to Jenna on April 30, 2005, and the young couple subsequently married on June 9, 2006, in a Cape Cod ceremony. Prior to their wedding day, Jon and Jenna filled out a questionnaire for their officiate, which asked, ``Where is a sacred spot, a place where you feel most connected, most at peace and most inspired?'' Jon's answer came in three loving words: ``With my wife.''

Following graduation, Jon completed U.S. Army Ranger School in April 2004 and served his country both at home and abroad. He was assigned to the 7th Cavalry in the Republic of South Korea and served as a member of the Army Hurricane Katrina Relief Team. Later, Jon was assigned to the 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, NC, where he and the now U.S. Army 2nd Lieutenant Jenna Grassbaugh would reside.

Shortly after Jon and Jenna were married, he was deployed for a second tour of duty, in Iraq. Tragically, on April 7, 2007, Jon was one of four soldiers who died while conducting a combat logistics patrol in Zaganiyah, Iraq. Throughout Jon's distinguished military service, he received a number of accolades and commendations, including: the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Ranger Tab, Combat Action Badge, and Parachutist Badge.

Jon is remembered as a confident and mentally strong leader, whose poise under pressure, intelligence, compassion, and love for God, country and family transcends his passing. His valor on the field of battle was equally as impressive as his undying loyalty to and love for his squadron. One well-known anecdote recalls a combat operation in which Jon had pizza flown by helicopter from 100 kilometers away to where his troops were conducting combat operations in an effort to lift morale. Jon left a legacy that continues to inspire our Nation's future leaders from Hampstead and Exeter, NH, Johns Hopkins, and those he proudly served beside in Iraq.

On a deep and personal note, for those who had the sincere privilege and honor to meet Jon, it was evident his exuberance for life and new experiences, ingenuity, and academic acumen destined him for greatness. By the time of his death, Jon had achieved more than most individuals do in a lifetime, a testimonial to his family's love and guidance through his young life, and Jenna's warmth and support as he fought for our Nation.

Today, Jonathan Grassbaugh rests in peace at one of our Nation's most hallowed and sacred grounds, Arlington National Cemetery--his rightful place among generations of brave Americans who sacrificed their lives in defense of this country. His loved ones will forever remember him as a loving husband, son, brother, and friend. Let it be known, the citizens of New Hampshire and our Nation are eternally in debt to Jonathan David Grassbaugh, an honorable son of New Hampshire, an American Patriot, and a guardian of liberty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Gregg's amendment. This is a frustrating issue because there are many factors that contribute to the lack of physicians who serve rural areas of America. We cannot escape the fact that rural areas of America are hard hit by this, especially by a critical lack of OB/GYN physicians.

We have an opportunity to try to address that problem. The cost of providing service in those areas is disproportionately high, in large measure, because of the cost of our liability system.

We can argue what the best way is to address the cost of the liability system. It might be easy to blame insurance companies, but there is no question we ought to look for commonsense approaches to deal with this problem; otherwise, we are not going to increase the coverage and the number of physicians who are practicing in rural America.

We have heard about the impact of State regulation from Senator Hutchison, who spoke about her experience and her State's experience. Many States have taken action to put commonsense controls in place on the overall cost of the liability system, by not limiting physical or economic damages for those who are harmed in malpractice cases, but by simply putting commonsense limits on noneconomic damages.

There are many States that have taken this approach, and it is important to note this amendment would not affect those States that have enacted their own set of laws. This amendment targets States that have made no attempts to address the problem. It targets rural areas of the country where it is most needed, to help those rural areas get better access, better service, to OB/GYN physicians.

While it may be frustrating, as Senator Leahy noted, to see an insurance company that has made a bad investment decision--I am not happy about that, he is not happy about that, that it might have an impact on insurance costs--it is far worse to look at a rural part of America, a rural county, a rural city, a rural town, that has no access to the health care physician services it needs because of spiraling liability costs in the system.

I think this amendment is a good-faith effort to begin to address that problem.

Amendment No. 3822

Mr. President, I wish to take another moment to address a second amendment Senator Gregg has offered. It is amendment No. 3822.

Mr. President, in the last few days, the morning temperature in Manchester, NH, has been about 8 degrees; home heating oil costs are $3.27 per gallon. These are simply the cold, hard facts of winter in New England, 8 degrees and $3.27 per gallon.

As we continue debate this week on a comprehensive energy bill, I hope we keep those numbers in mind. I hope we take a hard look at programs such as LIHEAP, low-income fuel assistance, that can make a difference for families in New Hampshire and across the country.

The Federal Government has limited power to have an immediate impact on energy prices, whether it is a gallon of oil or a gallon of heating oil or natural gas that might heat hospitals. Congress is in a poor position to have an affect on the laws of supply and demand, but we can help those who are most in need during a tough, cold winter; that program, as I indicated, is LIHEAP.

Simply put, LIHEAP funding works. It is administered by the States and local agencies that know and understand the people who need the assistance, and they deliver it in a very effective way. Congress passed the precursor bill to LIHEAP back in 1980, and in 2006, we allocated over $3 billion for LIHEAP.

Last year, under the continuing resolution, LIHEAP funding was roughly $1 billion less, and, unfortunately, the Department of Health and Human Services has only been able to release 75 percent of each State's allocation.

I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Sanders from Vermont, has worked on this issue. We signed letters together in the past, letters addressed to President Clinton, letters addressed to President Bush, letters addressed to conferees and appropriators.

Now we have in front of us an amendment offered by Senator Gregg, and one offered by Senator Sanders as well, that would try to address the problem by adding to this farm bill nearly $1 billion in additional funds for LIHEAP.

If we look at some of the unnecessary funding in this farm bill, it becomes clear to Americans that we absolutely have the resources and the capacity to make those allocations under the current budget framework.

I am pleased to join Senator Gregg as a cosponsor to his amendment that would appropriately fund this program. This has been a bipartisan issue, both in the House and in the Senate. I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this kind of funding a reality, and I think it is a tribute to LIHEAP that the program has been able to maintain bipartisan support through the years.

We are pursuing a number of different ways to add these critical LIHEAP funds to this farm bill, as well as any appropriations legislation we consider in the coming week, and, quite frankly, the people at home do not care how we go about it. They understand it has been awfully cold in New England the past week, and heating oil still costs well over $3 per gallon.

We need to get the job done. I am pleased to support the amendment and I hope it is adopted by my colleagues.

Mr. President, it was 8 degrees in Manchester this morning. Home heating oil costs $3.27 per gallon. These are the cold, hard facts of winter in New England--8 degrees; $3.27 per gallon. As we continue debate this week on a comprehensive energy bill, let's keep these numbers in mind, and let's not pass energy policies that increase the cost of heating our homes in the winter.

The Federal Government has limited power to reduce energy prices in the near future. Taxes and regulations can greatly increase them, but Congress is in poor position to affect the laws of supply and demand. So what are we to do to help those most in need during the long, cold winter?

Fortunately, there is a program in place to help low-income households pay to heat their homes; a program that does a good job getting assistance to those who need it; a program that I have consistently supported during my 11 years here in Congress: the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.

LIHEAP works. It is administered by the States and by local agencies that know the people receiving assistance. Congress passed the precursor program back in 1980, and the program has grown over the years, to $3.2 billion nationwide in 2006.

Last year, under the continuing resolution, LIHEAP funding was roughly a billion dollars less. Because we have provided less money for the program, Health and Human Services is providing less money to States. So far, HHS has only been able to release 75 percent of each State's traditional allocation under LIHEAP.

Since my first year in Congress, I have consistently supported funding for LIHEAP. I have asked President Clinton and President Bush to support

LIHEAP. I have asked Republican appropriations chairmen and Democratic appropriations chairmen to increase support for LIHEAP. I have asked Health and Human Service Secretaries to release contingency funds in response to heat waves in the summer and cold snaps in the winter. And today, I have joined the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, as a cosponsor of an amendment to the farm bill that would provide an additional $924 million for LIHEAP this year. The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, has introduced a bill that would provide a billion dollars in emergency funds for LIHEAP, and I am a cosponsor of that legislation as well.

I have joined colleagues from both parties in requesting additional support of LIHEAP in the Omnibus appropriations bill that is now being drafted, and I have joined colleagues from both parties in seeking a meeting with Director Jim Nussle at the Office of Management and Budget in order to press for support for this vital program.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program has broad bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. We are pursuing a number of ways to get this increased assistance out to people who are having trouble heating their homes.

Quite frankly, these folks don't really care how we go about it. They just know that it was 8 degrees this morning in Manchester and that heating oil costs $3.27 per gallon.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Without objection, Mr. President, if I can respond to Senator Lott, I am happy to speak whenever the Senator feels he has made all the points he needs to make, at least in the current time frame. I wish to speak for 10 or 15 minutes or so on the amendment, and we can move from there. I know we have been allotted 2 hours, but I hope and I think we will not have to take all the time.

Mr. 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 rise to speak on the amendment I offered last night. This is an amendment that addresses the most basic question of fiscal responsibility. ``Fiscal responsibility,'' ``fiscal responsibility''--we hear this phrase all the time from politicians, whether you are inside the beltway from Washington or outside the beltway. I am sure at times people listening to the debate turn the other way because they hear everyone using this particular phrase as it seams to mean something different to everyone. But I say it is a most basic question of responsibility. Because we are not talking about how high the tax burden should be, or even how much or how large the Federal budget should be; we are not talking about whether we should spend money in a particular area so much as we are asking how much we should subsidize a money-losing proposition; how much money should the taxpayers be asked to spend on a business that is losing money.

Amtrak is a business, and Amtrak is losing money. We are in a position to be able to look at different parts of that business and try to identify exactly how much money they are losing in particular areas, and ask that simple question: What is fair? What is right? How much Federal funding should be used to subsidize a passenger on a particular train in the Amtrak system?

I would like to think my colleagues are willing to stand up and say the amount of money we should subsidize a passenger on a long-distance train is less than $1 billion per passenger. I think we can get agreement on that. Sometimes I am not sure if we could get agreement on that, but I think we could get agreement we should not provide a subsidy of $1 billion per passenger on every long-distance train Amtrak runs. That is a good starting point.

I would like to think we could get agreement the subsidy for every passenger on every long-distance train Amtrak runs should not be $1 million per passenger. In fact, let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion we can at least--at least--agree the maximum subsidy should not be $1,000 for every single passenger.

This is a basic question of fiscal responsibility. How big should that subsidy be?

Well, let's look at, first, how big the subsidy is today. There are 15 long-distance routes. Mr. President, 15 percent of Amtrak ridership consumes 43 percent of the total Amtrak budget. That is well in excess of $1 billion. The revenue generated? Less than $400 million. By the Commerce Committee estimates, that means there is as much as $900 million in losses--losses--for these 15 routes. The average per- passenger subsidy is in excess of $200 for everyone riding these trains. Now, I say ``as much as $900 million'' because no one knows how much is being lost today.

We have heard about all the fiscal reforms in this package, and we hope they better enable us to understand how much money Amtrak is losing, but the last time any clear audit was done on these long- distance trains was in 2004 by the Inspector General. Let's look at what the Inspector General audit found in 2004.

At that time, the losses were $475 million. They have only gone up since then. On the 15 routes, of course, the losses vary. On some routes they are higher than others. I think the lowest was for the Auto Train that runs from Orlando to Washington, DC. The subsidy per passenger was about $26. Given the importance many place on having a national system, and recognizing we provide different types of subsidies to aviation service, and even to our highways in different ways--mass transit as well--a subsidy level of $15 or $20 or $25 may well be justified. But that is the lowest subsidy level on any of the routes. The highest subsidy levels? In some cases, the Sunset Limited, at $286 per passenger; the Southwest Chief, at $198 for every passenger running on that train; the California Zephyr, at $140 per passenger.

Where are we going to draw the line? Perhaps those who will support any of these long-distance trains no matter how much they are losing can stand up and say: Well, look, the good news is it is not $1 million per passenger. That is not good enough. It certainly is not good enough when we are taxing working families across America to provide these subsidies.

It begs the question whether you could buy airline tickets for the amount that gets lost on any one of these routes. I think in many cases you could pay the airfare. I had my staff look today at what they might pay for an air ticket for the route of the California Zephyr. It certainly is lower than the cost of the train ticket. It is even lower than the cost of the subsidy. As compared to the Southwest Chief, the air ticket is lower than the cost of the train service and even lower than the subsidy--the cost to taxpayers for every passenger running on this system--and so on down the line.

Now, I understand Amtrak has improvements they wish to make, that this bill has budget reforms and auditing reforms and costs management reforms that hopefully will improve these numbers. But we have to draw the line somewhere. All my amendment says is: draw the line at $200-- $200 per passenger--on any given train route. Next year, we lower that to $175; in the third year of the bill, $150. I think if you ask any American: ``Should we provide a subsidy of $150 per passenger,'' they would say: Of course not. That is ridiculous.

We all feel there is some real value in train service, that Amtrak has great potential--a potential to be more successful, more financially successful, and to attract a different ridership. This amendment would not affect any of the corridor routes that serve the southern part of the country, the central part of the country, the west coast of the country, the Northeast part of the country. It would not affect any of those corridor routes. The corridor service is 46 percent of the ridership in the country. This amendment would not affect the Northeast corridor. That is nearly 40 percent of the ridership in the country.

So the vast majority of people who enjoy or depend on service through Amtrak would not be affected. In fact, the vast majority of the riders on the long-distance routes would not be affected because today, at least according to the Inspector General's audit, there is only one route that is in excess of the $200 subsidy level. There are only two that are in excess of the $175 level.

So if there is a real belief this bill is going to address these concerns and this problem, even the strongest supporters of long- distance service should

be willing to support this amendment because, if nothing else, it will provide a real incentive, an honest incentive, to improve the performance of these routes.

You would like to think it can be done. I would like to think it is not impossible to run these routes without losing $150 and $200 per passenger. Maybe it is not. But if it is not possible, the American people should be told it is not possible today--not in 3 years or 5 years or 10 years.

All the amendment would do is ask for some basic level of fiscal responsibility, to set some threshold as to the amount we are not willing to spend on these per-passenger subsidies. I hope those who feel most strongly about this legislation and about Amtrak can recognize this can only provide incentives for their performance, improvements they argue they want so very much. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment, for no other reason than because I think it is pretty hard to defend a vote against it when we have families across America who are working hard, paying taxes every day, who could certainly use the $200 in subsidy per passenger, or the $150, or the $100, to spend themselves. Those are taxes we don't need to collect if we are not running these routes at such incredible losses.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time we control.

Mr. President, do I control the time on our side, or do I need to request the time to be yielded?

How much time do I have remaining?

Thank you, Mr. President.

First, for any Senator who stands up and states that I believe there should only be service in the Northeast is wrong. It is wrong in substance, and I think it is wrong in the spirit of the debate on this floor because I certainly never suggested that. In fact, I suggested the opposite: No. 1, that this amendment doesn't affect the corridor services on the gulf coast, on the west coast, in the Northwestern part of the United States in any way, shape, or form; No. 2, that this only affects long-distance lines that lose more than $200 per passenger; and No. 3, that the goal of having a national service is a good one, provided that the level of cost and subsidy can be maintained.

The suggestion was made earlier that I want to get rid of long- distance trains. Again, no--only those losing more than $200 per passenger. In fact, to the point of the line that was mentioned previously in debate, the Empire Builder; according to the statistics of the Inspector General's review in 2004, it wouldn't be affected by this amendment either. The Empire Builder lost $94 per passenger in 2004. I hope the performance has been improved a little bit since then, but even if it hasn't, even if this is one part of our economy that has seen no improvements in productivity since 2004, no reduction in costs since 2004, no improvements in marketing and ridership since 2004, the Empire Builder wouldn't be affected because it lost less than $200 per passenger. In fact, the Empire Builder wouldn't be affected in the year 2009, when that subsidy threshold drops to $175. It wouldn't be affected in 2010, 2011 or 2012, because over the 5-year period, we only bring the cap down to $100, and the Empire Builder would still be below that figure in what it loses per passenger. In fact, in addition to the Auto Train, which I mentioned earlier, the Coast Starlite, the City of New Orleans, the Silver Service, all of those cost taxpayers less than $100 per passenger.

Now, is a subsidy of $80 or $90 per passenger; a loss of $80 or $90 per passenger; good? Is it that easy to justify to a family as they pay their taxes on April 15? I would be hard-pressed to justify that to people in my State of New Hampshire. But regardless, those routes are unaffected by this amendment. In fact, there are many others--several others--whose cost per passenger is in the range of $100 to $125, according to the Inspector General's report in 2004. I would hope and I would think they can improve performance by the 10 percent or 12 percent or 15 percent necessary to get below that $100 cost per passenger as well. Maybe they can't. We can't forecast the future. But I think we can set an honest and a reasonable limit on what subsidies we are willing to provide.

Again, I can't state it plainly enough. This amendment doesn't affect 85 percent of the routes and ridership of Amtrak, the people who ride from all over the country--North, South, East, and West. It doesn't affect any of those long-distance routes, and there are probably close to half of them that have a subsidy level of less than $100 today. For any of those that meet the performance benchmarks, they would be unaffected as well. I hope my colleagues can support the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Alabama, whatever time he needs to consume.

We have no objection.

Mr. President, is it true that I have plenty of time left?

In New Hampshire, 11 minutes is plenty of time. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey to finish his remarks.

Mr. President, I wasn't aware this was a negotiation as opposed to an act of solidarity with my colleague on the other side of the aisle. I will be happy to reserve Senator Lautenberg's two minutes for the end.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we reserve two minutes on each side for the end of this debate. I have a couple of minutes of comments, and then if there are speakers on the other side, we may still have another couple of minutes to yield to them as well.

Excellent. I will be happy to reserve those two minutes for the other side.

Mr. President, let me use my portion of time to conclude my remarks. I wish to address some of the points Senator Lautenberg made in his presentation.

First, it was suggested that under 2007 data, four routes would have to be shut down if my amendment were made the law of the land. I find that surprising and maybe a little problematic for a couple of reasons. First, I am not aware of any Inspector General audit that was done for 2007, which would be required under the amendment. The only IG audit of which I am aware, the most recent one, was in 2004, and that indicated only one route did not meet this threshold. So, first, I don't think there is any data to make that assertion that four routes would be closed.

Second, if that were the fact today, that means the situation has gotten worse over the last three years; that it has gotten worse and that the costs are trending in the wrong direction, and that is something about which we should all be concerned and, in fact, alarmed.

Third, it was suggested that closing four routes, if that were the case, would be a sudden and massive reduction in the capacity of the system. In fact, even if four routes were affected, we are talking about 1 to 2 percent of ridership.

The phrase ``making people pay their own way'' was also used. It does nothing of the sort. As I indicated, I think there is an opportunity for providing some support or subsidy level, certainly in the medium term. This would by no means require anyone to pay their own way because it would still allow in the first year subsidies up to $200 per passenger and in the second year subsidies up to $175 per passenger. Only in Washington would a $200 subsidy be called ``paying your own way.'' That is just not right.

Finally, it was suggested that closing one of these routes would isolate parts of America. I think the idea that eliminating a long- distance train would isolate people in America in this day and age, given all the ways we have to travel, to communicate, and to reach out to one another, is ridiculous.

This is a common-sense amendment. This is not the grim reaper for national train service. This amendment only says if a route is losing more than $200 per passenger, we should not continue to operate that service. I suppose it is a little bit like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer: Maybe once you really get going, you are reluctant to stop because you think the next time you hit yourself in the head it might not feel quite as bad. At a certain point, we need to draw the line. I think $200 per passenger is a pretty reasonable line to draw. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time. I am happy to yield Senator Lott 2 minutes.

As the Senator may not be aware, we have a unanimous consent agreement, and having consumed all the time on the opponents' side, I offered to share an additional 2 minutes so that Senator Lott can conclude his remarks.

Mr. President, we are approaching 12:15, which is the time for the vote. I wish to conclude first by responding to some of the remarks and the observations made by the Senator from Mississippi.

First, there was mention of the Crescent, which is one of the 15 long-distance trains. Under the 2004 Inspector General's audit, the Crescent lost $114 per passenger in coach class. At that rate, they would not be affected in 2008 by this amendment. They would not be affected in 2009 by this amendment, or 2010 or 2011. They might be affected in 2012 if they have failed to improve any performance on the basis of cost over a 4-year period. I don't think that is Draconian. I don't think that is too much to ask. I hope the Senator from Mississippi and others will support that kind of improvement in performance, and I think it can be achieved.

To that point, the Senator from Mississippi said: We need to do better; we need to have a plan for doing better. From what I have heard, he and many others believe this bill is the plan to do better, and I think in many parts it is a plan to do better. I support that concept. I support a blueprint for improving financial reporting, standards of accounting, and cost performance.

What my amendment simply does is tell people honestly and directly: How much better do we expect you to do? What is the minimum we expect you to do? We expect ridership or routes not to lose $1 million per passenger, or $500,000, or $1,000, or $500 per passenger, and I think it is reasonable to say we expect you not to lose $200 per passenger. That is what we are asking. That is how much better we expect you to be for only those routes which are not meeting that standard today.

It is a reasonable standard. It is an understandable standard. Under the 2004 data, it would affect one of the 15 routes. It might affect more than one. It might affect two or three more routes 2 or 3 years from now if they have failed to improve. But when we are asking families across America to fill out their tax forms every April 15 to provide resources to our country to fulfill important obligations, I don't think we should be asking those families to subsidize passengers on Amtrak at $200 per person.

It is reasonable, and I hope my colleagues will support a commonsense amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I recognize I did not prevail in that amendment, but I appreciate that debate and the managers allowing me time on the debate. I do have another amendment. I told them I would try to move my amendments, so I have another amendment I wish to offer.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Amendment No. 3454

I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

I would be pleased to describe the amendment prior to it being offered.

Mr. President, this is one of the two amendments I filed in committee, but did not offer on the bill, because I wanted to allow a vote and debate on the floor rather than delay us unnecessarily in committee.

This is an amendment that addresses the question of competing on different routes within the Amtrak system. Under this legislation that is before us today, there is an allowance to have two routes competitively bid each year.

The managers think that is a good idea. I think that is a good idea. But I do not see why there needs to be a legal restriction on the number of routes that could be bid or sent out to bid under competition. This does not mandate that bids be put out to competition, but it certainly would allow that.

That is what my amendment is intended to do. At this time, I yield to wait for the copies to be distributed in a timely way.

Mr. President, at this time I believe copies have been distributed.

Amendment No. 3456

(Purpose: To remove the limitation on the number of Amtrak routes

available for competitive bid)

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, ask unanimous consent that any pending amendment be set aside, and ask for the immediate consideration of this amendment.

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

I do.

I have submitted the amendment to the bill manager and to the clerk and asked that it be considered.

Mr. President, I apologize again to the bill manager for not having a copy for him.

As was clear from the reading of the amendment, if nothing else was clear, it is a brief amendment. It strikes the line of the bill that would have placed a limit on the number of routes that could be allowed for a competitive bid.

That means it allows for an operator to offer to run that route at an effective cost with particular service goals in mind in order to provide service at or above the current quality of service at a lower cost. I think it would be a mistake to place an arbitrary restriction on the number of routes that could be competitively bid.

Certainly decisions about putting routes out to bid, or which routes are put out to bid, how they are done, would still be in the hands of the management team at Amtrak. I think that is as it should be. I appreciate the opportunity to offer the amendment. I ask that my colleagues support it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order regarding my amendment No. 3456.

Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, have I been recognized?

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

Amendment No. 3452

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

What an Internet tax moratorium does is prevents States, cities, and towns from placing taxes on the cost of Internet access, whether it is for consumers, small businesses, large businesses--it doesn't matter. The Internet is a national and global system for communications. It is a national system for commerce and for business, and it should be protected from multiple taxation, from local taxation for a number of reasons.

First, it is interstate commerce and, frankly, if there are going to be taxes levied, that interstate commerce and interstate communication should be the responsibility of Congress.

Second, because those taxes would only discourage broadband deployment, it would raise costs for consumers and certainly have an impact on businesses that rely on Internet access as part of doing business.

We were supposed to have a markup in the Commerce Committee. The bill was pulled from the markup. This is not something that just came up. We implemented a ban on Internet taxes in 1998 that lasted for 5 years. We extended it in 2003 for another 4 years. This is something that has received bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. Over 240 Members of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, support making this ban on Internet access taxes permanent.

Given that we have seen no action and that the prohibition expires on November 1, less than a week from today, I am sure a lot of people across the country are wondering why is Congress so dysfunctional. Why has Congress not acted on something that has such broad bipartisan support that is going to expire in less than a week?

I cannot answer that question, but I can try to do something about it, and that is why I offered an amendment to this bill that would make that ban on Internet access taxes permanent. The way it does that is by taking legislation that passed the House by a very strong bipartisan vote, 405 to 2, and making that 4-year proposal a permanent proposal. We take the same approach to technical definitions, the same approach to grandfathering that existed for some States that taxed the Internet in the past, and simply make that legislation permanent.

There is also a second-degree amendment that was offered to my amendment--an amendment to my amendment--that would say we should not make this ban permanent; we should only make it 4 years. I think that is a mistake. Given that we have already extended the ban on Internet access twice, given that it has bipartisan support, given that we have been able to see how this law works and has worked effectively over the last 9 years, I don't think we need to keep passing short-term extensions. And, frankly, short-term extensions, whether they are 1 year, 2 years, or 4 years, is something the American public looks at, and it is baffling why we cannot find it within ourselves the discipline, the will--whatever it takes--to make a good idea the permanent law of the land. It is high time we do that when it comes to banning Internet access taxes.

Senator Wyden spoke earlier about this issue and suggested that the technical language in the bill passed by the other body was not perfect. That should come as a surprise to no one. There is no such thing as absolutely perfect legislation. But it was certainly good enough to get all but two Members of 435, all but two Members to vote for the legislation. It was certainly good enough to offer the same language as an amendment to my bill.

To suggest that this language is fatally flawed is very much mistaken. But even if it were an issue that needed to be addressed, it will have to be addressed whether we pass a 4-year extension or a permanent extension. So to use that as an excuse to oppose making the Internet tax ban permanent, I think, is a mistake. It simply is wrong.

I would like to see the clearest possible language when it comes to service providers that are providing different kinds of Internet services but might not be providing Internet access as well. I even had an amendment ready to offer in committee to improve this language. As I indicated, Mr. President, we didn't have any amendments in committee because we didn't have any votes in committee because we didn't have any bill offered before the committee for a markup.

So that is where we find ourselves. We have a proposal in front of us in the way of an amendment to make permanent the ban on Internet access taxes using language that has been supported in a very strong bipartisan way in the House of Representatives, and we have an amendment to my proposal that would say: No, let's not make it permanent; let's do another short-term extension.

We have filed a cloture petition to bring debate on this particular issue to a close. That vote will happen tomorrow. And if cloture is invoked, we will have a vote on both amendments.

I have no problem voting on alternatives. And I have said this in different situations on different legislation in the past. What is most frustrating, as a Member of the Senate, is when there are procedural maneuverings used to prevent us from offering an amendment, having a vote on any given alternative. I do not mind voting on bills or legislation that I don't support. If you don't support something, you vote no and explain to people why you don't support it.

So we have both of these amendments before us, a cloture vote that will occur to bring debate to a close, and have the votes. And I certainly hope we vote cloture so we can have the votes and move forward on this very important issue.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, and I am happy to view the statement that was made in the form of a question so I can respond. That is what we will have if we invoke cloture tomorrow. We will have a vote on a 4-year extension and a vote on making the ban permanent. We can certainly have further discussions about the procedures and proposals off the Senate floor rather than negotiate a process or a procedure in a colloquy format, but I am sure the Senator from Delaware can appreciate the frustration that has put us in this position, given that no bill was offered in committee, no bill was offered in the Finance Committee, and in fact the legislation was pulled.

So I am pleased we are in a position now where tomorrow we will have exactly what the Senator from Delaware prescribes, and if there are other alternatives or proposals, I am certainly happy to listen to them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the interest of the Senator from Delaware in the issue, and I want to take the opportunity to respond to a couple of issues.

First, on the substantive issues: The Congress--the Federal Government--tells the States what they can or can't do on taxes all the time; not in every area, to be sure, and we shouldn't in every area. And if this permanent ban on Internet taxes passes, Internet-related businesses will still pay property taxes, payroll taxes, and business income taxes, but the network itself, access to the global network itself, will not be subject to taxes.

This is not that dissimilar from the fact that we prevent States from levying their own export taxes because it affects international trade and global commerce, and even interstate commerce. We don't allow States to arbitrarily tax flights from their State to other States or across the country for the same reason--because we view that as interstate commerce and an interstate transportation system. We even have restrictions on States' ability to impose tolls on interstate highways, all for the same reason.

So to suggest that we should never tell States how to handle matters of taxation is incorrect. We do it all the time. And we should do it on matters of interstate commerce, which is the responsibility--the constitutional responsibility--of the Congress.

Second, back to the issue of technology changing. Well, of course, technology changes things. And we may and do have to modify legislation from time to time with regard to evolving technology. Regulations or laws affecting the Federal Communications Commission--the FCC--laws regarding regulations of video, phone, Internet protocol services, we want to make sure they keep pace. But that doesn't mean every law we pass in these areas should be temporary, especially in matters of taxation, because the way we tax goods and services affects our entire economy.

Anyone who has worked in the area of technology is familiar with the R&D tax credit. The Congress continually passes 1- and 2-year extensions of the research and development tax credit, even though it passes almost unanimously in both Chambers every time. The American public looks at that and they wonder if our goal is to just make a little bit of extra work for lobbyists. It is wrong to deal with our Tax Code on such a short-term basis, whether it is the research and development tax credit or Internet access taxes.

Finally, a couple of points about process. How easy it is to stand up on the Senate floor and say: Well, let's do the collegial thing and just take care of this next week. We had the Internet tax moratorium on the floor a few years ago. It made the moratorium permanent. The opponents of making the Internet moratorium permanent said: We are not quite ready. Could we take care of this next week or maybe the week after? And in good faith that bill was taken from the floor. Then the opponents of making the ban permanent prevented us from bringing the bill to the floor for another 9 months. Maybe it was even longer.

So it is easy to come and say we should take care of this next week, but the fact is that next week the moratorium expires. On November 1, the moratorium expires. Why can't we take care of it this week, with the votes that are currently pending, currently before us--not just for my amendment but for an alternative, an amendment to my proposal? I think that is more than fair.

Again, I will be happy to talk about alternatives. And since we were first scheduled to have a debate and markup on this legislation in the Commerce Committee, no one has come to me and proposed specific alternatives other than the amendment that has been offered to my proposal. And just now Senator Carper said: Well, maybe not 4 years, maybe 6 years. And I know he means that in good faith, but there are other leaders, on the Commerce Committee and others, who have an important role to play that will also have to be part of those discussions, and none of them have approached me directly with an alternative.

So I hope we can resolve this. I hope my colleagues will support making the Internet tax moratorium permanent and support me in voting for cloture tomorrow morning so we can have those votes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, we will have a vote shortly on the second amendment I have offered. Senator Lautenberg just spoke a little bit about the amendment. I certainly want to clarify for the record what the intention of the amendment is and what its practical impact would be.

This is not a wholesale privatization of Amtrak--far from it. The provision in the legislation allows two routes under supervision, oversight as described by Senator Lautenberg, to be put out for competitive bid to see if there is another service provider that can run the trains on those routes, delivering better service at a better cost. That makes good sense--good sense for riders and taxpayers. It is not a wholesale privatization by any stretch, especially considering the supervision and oversight that would have to be in place for this competitive bidding process.

Senator Lautenberg used the phrase or description about this being a learning experience and you don't want to have people in a medical environment in a learning experience then suddenly asked to do major surgery. I think I understand what he was trying to suggest, but I listened to that phrase and it implies to a certain degree that the management team at Amtrak is a bunch of amateurs that can't be trusted. That is not the case at all. They understand these routes, the operation, the nature of the service they are providing. They are in the best position to help determine how routes should be put out for competitive bid. My amendment simply says there is no reason to limit the number to two. Why would we do that? Because we don't trust them? We don't think they will do a good job? We don't think they want to deliver good service at a competitive cost? Why would we limit them to two? My amendment would allow competition in more than two routes. It would not mandate it or require it. It wouldn't force anyone's hand. It simply would remove a very arbitrary limit on the number of routes that can be put out in a competitive bid to companies run more effectively and efficiently for riders and taxpayers. That is about as simple as you can get. It does make good sense. It doesn't destroy the system. It doesn't throw anyone out of work. It doesn't undermine the integrity of the reforms that are already in the bill by any stretch. I think it simply allows us to get an even better idea of whether those reforms have an impact.

Senator Lautenberg described a process where up to two routes, as allowed for in the bill, would be competitively bid. Then the managers at Amtrak would look to see how successful it was and be able to go from there. That isn't true. In fact, that is just what I am trying to deal with. They wouldn't be able to go from there because there is a limitation that they could only do two. So if they decided that this was very effective, they wouldn't be empowered to use this tool to even greater advantage without Congress coming back and changing the law and changing the statute. That is not going to happen anytime soon.

We have already seen how difficult it is to pass this bill as written. I encourage support for my amendment.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to stand up tonight, after Senator Carper, which is very appropriate, to talk about this success. The Senator from Delaware has described, I think very clearly, the strength of this legislation, the value of the legislation, and the importance of the legislation.

We really do have a responsibility to act in our role as a Congress to prevent Internet access taxes. Because this is a national--and, in fact, global--communications network. It is a national and global network for commerce and business as well. That is our responsibility under the Constitution to make sure there are not unnecessary, undue burdens on interstate commerce and trade.

So what we have done tonight is to take legislation that was passed in the House and really improve it dramatically. Senator McConnell indicated we have nearly doubled the length. We added clarification language as to what could and could not be taxed, and how the grandfathered States that were taxing prior to 1998 would be treated.

We also added explicit language to make sure that Internet services, such as e-mail and instant messaging, could not be taxed. This is an important issue for me and many others, particularly Senator Wyden from Oregon, who spoke about it today on the floor of the Senate.

It is important that consumers know that Internet access is not going to be taxed, first and foremost, because taxes raise the price of something. I do not think Congress wants to be in the position of allowing the price and the cost of Internet access for every consumer in America to go up. We do not want to be in the position of raising the cost of Internet access as well because it would affect the pace of investments and the incentives to make investments.

Anytime you tax something, you are going to get less of it. This ban on Internet taxes is extremely important. I would like to make the ban permanent. I think the time has come to make it permanent. After passing it in 1998, and extending it in 2001 and 2004, to look at yet another short-term extension does not seem to make as much sense to me as making the ban on access taxes permanent. But at the same

time, we need to recognize that a 7-year extension is the longest extension we have ever had, and that alone I think should make us very proud of the work that was done, and it was bipartisan.

A lot of members of the Commerce Committee worked very hard on this issue. Senator Carper certainly spent a lot of time on this issue. We haven't always agreed on every aspect of the legislation, but we can agree, and we have agreed, on this 7-year extension tonight.

I do want to make special mention of Senator Inouye, one of the Senators who was mentioned earlier as well. He is the chairman of the Commerce Committee. It was very frustrating to me that we never had a chance to vote on this legislation in the Commerce Committee, but he and his staff didn't stop working on the issue, and they put in a tremendous effort today to work through all of the details that are required. Even if it only takes the Senate 32 seconds to make a unanimous consent request to pass the final product, that 32 seconds has behind it hours and hours of work by many Members of the Senate and many more staff members. So I appreciate Senator Inouye's work and the work of the staff as well.

I am pleased we are sending this to the House tonight, but also pleased to note that we are doing it before the expiration of the current moratorium. The last extension was passed in 2004 and expires on November 1, or next Thursday. It is not that often, unfortunately, that Congress does something in a fairly timely way. So to pass this legislation tonight in advance of that expiration date adds a little bit more satisfaction, knowing we did the right thing, and that we did it on time. I am pleased to support the legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, we are moving on into the early hours of the evening, and I appreciate the work that the bill managers, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Lott, have done on this legislation.

I am a member of the Commerce Committee as well, and there is no question that there was strong support for this legislation when we voted on it last year. As Senator Lautenberg indicated, it was a 93-to- 6 vote. I am sorry to say, at least from his perspective, I was one of the six who voted ``no.''

Despite the work that has gone into this legislation, I do think it has some real weaknesses. Both Senators Lott and Lautenberg touched on some of those weaknesses in their opening remarks--that at times Amtrak has not delivered the kind of quality service we would expect; at times they have not delivered, year after year, the kind of financial results we would hope for and

expect as taxpayers who are providing the subsidies and the support for Amtrak.

Since its creation well over 25 years ago, the Federal subsidies have amounted to over $20 billion. Amtrak was originally created with the intention of becoming self-sufficient. There was an Amtrak reform bill passed in 1997, recommitting to this goal, and yet it still has not happened.

As a taxpayer and as a Senator, it causes me great concern we have not done better--better both in terms of performance on the service and the quality side--but also on the financial side.

There was discussion of the Northeast Corridor. The Northeast Corridor does provide for a great opportunity to serve millions of people running from my State of New Hampshire all the way down to Washington, DC, and beyond--some of the more densely populated areas where it makes the most sense to have a train service. But even in the Northeast Corridor, the operation is not what we would want.

I think it is fair to expect more; not just in the financial oversight that is in the legislation, not just in some of the new programs that are in the legislation, but, for example, in the long- distance train service. For the long-distance train routes--I think there are 15 or 16 now--they lose $200 per passenger. That is not acceptable.

I have a couple amendments I will be offering. One deals with that huge per-passenger subsidy, to say if we are losing $200 per passenger--every single passenger: a $200 subsidy--on some of those long-distance routes, we should not continue to operate that route.

There are some proposals for allowing route competition. I think that is also a good idea, but one we can build on and expand on, allowing more and different routes to be offered on a competitive basis.

So I think there are ways to improve the bill that we need to take a look at, and that I hope are at least part of the debate.

I do not necessarily expect to win on all of those amendments, but I think it is important we be realistic about some of the weaknesses that are in the system.

I also want to address an issue that was spoken about early this evening by Senator Alexander. He discussed at some length the Internet tax moratorium and what that would mean to American consumers.

Right now, we have a ban on Internet access taxes. You cannot levy an access tax on the Internet for consumers, or for businesses, for that matter. Everyone talks about the importance of broadband to our economy. Without question, the Internet is important to our economy, not just because it gives us information or brings data into our homes, but because it represents a national--in effect, a global--network for communication and for commerce.

That is something that is the responsibility of Congress to protect-- to protect from onerous regulation, to protect from taxes that would discourage long-term investment that would raise costs for consumers or businesses.

We have had that ban on Internet taxes in place, and I think it is important we make that tax ban permanent. Unfortunately, after introducing legislation at the beginning of this year, we have not had a single vote on this issue. We have not voted on it in the Commerce Committee or any subcommittee. They have not voted on it in the Finance Committee. We have not had a vote on it on this floor.

Many of us have been trying very hard to get a vote to make this Internet tax moratorium permanent. The moratorium expires on Halloween, of all days. On that day, because the ban will no longer be in effect, States, cities, towns, and counties would be in the position to levy new taxes on Internet access. That is not right. It is not good for consumers. It is not good for the economy. It is not good for the communication system, the data system, and the commerce system we have come to count on with the Internet.

A number of Senators--Senator Wyden; Senator McCain; Senator McConnell; Senator Lott and numerous House Members, such as Anna Eshoo from California--have worked very hard on making this ban permanent. For those who have listened to this debate from around the country, I am sure they wonder why it is we cannot do anything in a consistent way. We have research and development tax credits that lasts only for a year. We have a death tax that is repealed in 2011 and comes back from the dead in 2012. And we have a ban on Internet access taxes that only lasts 4 years. It ought to be made permanent for the sake of consistency.

While I do not want to cause any unnecessary delay in underlying legislation, I think that addressing the Internet tax moratorium is something that is important.

Amendment No. 3452

For that reason, Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk at this time and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, this legislation would simply take what has already been done in the House--which is to pass a 4-year extension--and to make it permanent. A lot of good work was done in the House to strengthen the current moratorium and ban on Internet access taxes. Unfortunately, despite the fact there were over 240 Democrats and Republicans who supported this legislation, it did not receive an up-or-down vote to make the ban on Internet taxes permanent.

So what we do is take the House language in this amendment and make it permanent. It provides clarification with regard to services and technologies that are dealt with and not dealt with. If you are an Internet business, you still pay property taxes and payroll taxes. You pay business income taxes. But the Government should not be allowed to levy a tax on access to the Internet for the consumers themselves.

There are certain States that are affected by grandfather clauses that were included in the House language. We maintain that language. All we do is fully extend it permanently so that if you are a consumer you know the Internet will not be taxed. If you are a small business, you know your cost of Internet access will not go up. If you are doing business over the Internet, you know there will continue to be investments in the infrastructure necessary to increase broadband deployment.

I think at the very least we should have an opportunity to vote on making this Internet tax moratorium permanent. I think it is a commonsense approach. We can always come back and look at the technical issues associated with the language if it needs to be modified in 5 years or 10 years or 15 years. That is what Congress does. But we should say, once and for all, we are not going to tax Internet access at the Federal level, at the State level, at the local level.

Madam President, I thank you for the consideration and yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Republican leader for his remarks and for the support he has provided to us. He is not a member of the Commerce Committee. He has a lot of other duties in the Senate, but he has taken a great interest in this issue, as I think most any legislator would, because the Internet is something we all understand, we deal with, we work with at one level or another. Our families, our friends, our neighbors, and businesses we may have worked for before, depend on it in different ways.

Everyone understands when you tax something, you raise its cost; when you tax something, you end up getting less of it--especially in the long run.

Some people stood up and said: Well, there are some States that have some taxes on the Internet, but there has still been broadband deployment in their State. That may well be, but you

cannot argue with the economic fact that when you tax something, you raise its cost; and when you raise its cost, you create a barrier to investment. Those are economic facts of life we cannot change, and those are the economic factors that make implementing a permanent ban on Internet taxes so important.

Opponents of making this ban permanent have also suggested it is an unfunded mandate to tell States they cannot tax the Internet, that it is an unfunded mandate because if we allow them to tax, they could raise money, but because we are telling them they cannot tax Internet access, they cannot raise that money, so there is a cost.

I think that is classic Washington-speak, a classic inside-the- beltway mentality, that if we prevent a State from imposing taxes, we have to compensate the State for that. That is plain wrong. If that were true, then we should be compensating every State in the Union because we do not allow them to arbitrarily impose taxes, fees, and tolls on every mile of interstate highway in the country, or because we do not allow every State in the Union to impose unique taxes on any flight or aviation that comes into or leaves their State. We do not allow that because we recognize our aviation system is a national system, because we recognize our interstate highway system is a national system. We do not allow States to tax exports for the same reason. And yet, we do not call those examples unfunded mandates. We do not compensate the States for these activities because the Federal Government has recognized these are important facets to interstate commerce that need to be dealt with in a systematic and uniform way at the Federal level. So I think it is an enormous mistake and very misleading to refer to this as an unfunded mandate.

The second objection that some have made is they recognize: Well, the technologies may change, so defining what is Internet access or data service or voice service--those definitions may have to be modified, as we have modified them over the last 6 or 8 years since the first ban on Internet access taxes was first put in place in 1998.

But if the fact that technology may change is a reason for not legislating or not making something permanent, we could use that as an excuse not to do anything ever or at least to do every bill on a 1- or 2-year basis. Especially in an area where we are dealing with investment and taxation, it is counterproductive at times to do such short-term legislation because those in the economy who are taking risks, making investments, creating jobs and economic opportunity for other people, will not be able to calculate and estimate what long-term returns and benefits might come from a given investment. They do not know what the tax rate will be or they do not know what the regulatory burden will be. As a result, you get fewer investments in that area. So we know that technology, services, and the approach to the Internet that businesses take may change in the future, but Congress can always and should always revisit laws, rules, or regulations, whether it has to do with Internet access or any other area.

So this is a piece of legislation whose time has come. I hope we can get expeditious consideration and approval because I think this is something that has been shown to have bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.

At this time, I would like to turn my attention to another amendment I mentioned earlier in my remarks, and that has to do with the long- distance train routes. As I said, I think there are 14, 15, or 16 routes in operation now. None of these long-distance train routes make any money. They do not make any operating profit. They all lose money. They all lose money at different levels. Some of the long-distance routes, by GAO accounting estimates, lose as much as $200 per passenger. That means there is a Federal taxpayer subsidy, not of $1, or $10, or $20, or $40, but $200 for every passenger riding that route over the course of a year. That is a level of cost and subsidy which just can't be justified; especially at a time when we are trying to deal with difficult Federal priorities.

Today and throughout this week, there has been a lot of discussion about SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and the fact that SCHIP is an important program. I agree. I supported the legislation here in the Senate. Its goal is to provide coverage for lower income families who aren't covered by Medicaid, but may not be covered at their place of employment by a health care policy. As we are having a debate about providing that funding and targeting it to the most needy, whether it is health care or any other high-priority initiative, it is so hard to justify running trains across the country that have a subsidy of $200 for every passenger riding that train through the year.

So what I would propose is that we set a standard of $200. If your per-passenger subsidy through the course of a year is less than $200, we will allow the train to operate. Now, we hope it improves. We hope the reforms that were described at the beginning of the evening work-- improve the management, reduce the costs, improve the efficiency, and improve the performance. But if they do not, and that subsidy level remains above $200 over the course of a year, that route should not remain in operation. Then, in subsequent years, we bring that threshold down, and the second year after this amendment would be in effect, the threshold would be $175. So if you have to subsidize passengers at $170 for every passenger who rides that train in a year, you can remain in operation, but if it is more than $175, that route would have to be closed. So on over the lifetime, until at the end of the authorization period for this bill we would have a cap of $100 subsidy per rider. I think that is still too high, but I certainly don't think it is too much to ask in an authorization bill of this type.

Amendment No. 3453

Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendment and send this amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I thank you for the time. The amendment I

have just submitted is as I have described, and I hope this is an idea and an approach which can be incorporated into the legislation. I think it is common sense. I know a lot of Members of the Senate believe strongly that we should have long-distance trains, with long routes across the country. I would like to see those routes maintained and sustained as well, if it can be done in an economically reasonable way.

But the last years have shown that for some of these routes, the passenger levels are so low, the costs of operating are so high, they just can't compete. They can't compete with buses, they can't compete with automobiles, and they can't compete with airplanes in terms of cost and efficiency. So I think a step like this is long overdue. Again, I thank the bill managers, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Lott, for their time and consideration and for allowing me to offer these amendments this evening.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of an amendment to address the problem on fisheries failures in New England.

In November 2006, the New England Fishery Management Council imposed new regulations on groundfishing, known as Framework 42. Under these strict new rules, the number of days allowed to fish was effectively cut in half. These hardworking fishermen don't catch twice as many fish, and they don't get paid twice as much, but they are only allowed to work half as much. This is not to suggest efforts to rebuild the fisheries are not necessary or important, they are. But we must also address the impact of the regulations we impose.

As a result of Framework 42, the States of Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire are seeking the declaration of a commercial fisheries failure. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which we worked so hard to reauthorize last year, allows the Secretary of Commerce to assist coastal communities hit by both natural disasters and regulatory burdens. Unfortunately, no funding has been provided in the past and there is no funding in the CJS bill for this purpose.

This amendment, cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Snowe, and Collins, would provide $15 million for fisheries disaster assistance. It does not dictate how or where this money would be spent. It does not interfere with the Secretary's ability to determine when fisheries failures are declared. It does ensure that fishermen and fishing communities that may be eligible for assistance under the Magnuson- Stevens Act have resources available.

We sometimes romanticize life on a New England fishing boat. But in truth, it is a difficult and dangerous way to earn a living. The New England groundfishing industry has accepted strict limits as part of our effort to rebuild a fish population that has helped feed us for 500 years. When they shouldered this regulatory burden, Congress said that there would be help. This amendment provides the financial resources to meet this obligation.

nasa workforce

Madam President, I rise today in favor of the Sanders amendment, No. 2905, to the Department of Defense authorization bill, which would establish a pilot program aimed at providing essential care and services to National Guard soldiers returning home from duty.

Back in the fall of 2004, the New Hampshire National Guard was one of the first Guard units to recognize the unique difficulties encountered by guardsmen and women returning from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In response, the Guard led the way in addressing these concerns by establishing its own reunion and reentry program, which employs innovative solutions to cope with the difficult transition to life at home.

Under the reentry program, soldiers and their families receive multiple counseling sessions and an introduction to the array of services available to them within the first 36 hours of returning home. The program works to ensure that servicemembers and their families recognize that they are not alone and that the Guard is committed to providing the care and assistance they need after returning from deployment.

This program has proven to be enormously successful, and has become a model for other States, due in part because it removes the burden of seeking and requesting care from the individual soldier. I am proud of the leadership role New Hampshire's National Guard has taken in combating this very serious problem.

I am pleased the Senate adopted the Sanders amendment to provide support that will allow other States to establish programs similar to New Hampshire's.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary organization with a membership consisting of the best and the bravest America has to offer. On Saturday, September 29, 2007, we honor the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, more commonly known as the VFW, by celebrating the organization's 108th birthday.

The VFW is defined by a record of service and commitment to our country and our veterans. From initially fighting to protect our freedom overseas, to later ensuring that veterans have the compensation and care they deserve back home, the 2.3 million members in approximately 8,400 Posts worldwide deserve our thanks and recognition.

Since 1899, when a group of 13 Spanish-American War veterans convened to advocate for the benefits then denied to their comrades in arms, the VFW has worked tirelessly to protect the rights of fellow veterans while continuously honoring the service of those who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our way of life.

One of the many privileges I have in serving New Hampshire is working with representatives of the Granite State's VFW Auxiliary Posts. Never losing sight of the organization's mission or obligations, the straightforward approach of members serves as a breath of fresh air. They ask direct questions and expect direct answers. New Hampshire's VFW members should be proud of their representation.

Nationally, the VFW is committed to its mission to ``honor the dead by helping the living'' through veterans' service, community service, and steadfast advocacy of a strong national defense. This dedication can be witnessed through the organization's work to create the Veterans Administration, its efforts to establish numerous memorials in memory of those who have served, and its devotion to improving the educational, health, and other benefits owed to returning veterans. Moreover, the VFW's efforts in the community, annually providing more than 13 million hours of volunteerism and donating $2.5 million in college scholarships, further endears the organization and its members to all Americans.

At a time of ongoing conflict abroad, the VFW welcomes our returning servicemembers with support, guidance, and camaraderie as they readjust to life on the home front. Additionally, as they continue to serve the communities around them, VFW members act as role models whose experiences and commitment to service provide a beacon of light in today's society. For their longstanding and continued contributions, the VFW and its members deserve our immense respect and sincere gratitude.