Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are working with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and the leadership on both sides to get an agreement worked out on how we proceed on this issue for the remainder of the afternoon. In the meantime, Senator DeMint is here and ready to go on an amendment, and he has a committee markup underway also.

So unless there is objection, I ask Senator Lautenberg, could we let Senator DeMint call up his amendment and go ahead and have a discussion on it?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I may do that, and address some comments to the distinguished majority leader, and maybe even some questions, first of all, I think we have made good progress on the Amtrak bill. The leader was considerate of allowing it to go over until today, and our colleagues have fulfilled their commitments to be reasonable with their amendments, and we believe we are ready to go to Senator DeMint's amendment and get a vote on it at a certain time. I believe we could be very close to going to passage also.

With regard to vitiating the cloture motion on the Children's Health Insurance Program, I can't see any reason why we would object to that, but we ought to continue to try to find a solution. Unfortunately, there has been no real consultation with the leadership on this side of the aisle by those who have been having all of these meetings, and we still have not involved the administration in trying to get a solution that we believe we could all get broad agreement on and avoid going back and forth on bills and vetoes. But to take more time--we still hope you will come up with something that will be supported broadly and signed by the President. But the idea that we would then agree for this to go automatically to the farm bill, we would have to have--

But SCHIP would come back automatically after the farm bill.

After a discussion with our leadership, at this time we would have to object. We don't object to vitiating the cloture vote on the CHIP bill,

but we want to make sure we understand we are not agreeing to automatically going to the CHIP bill after the farm bill. So based on that, I would object at this time.

Mr. President, with regard to Senator Reid's comments, I don't see any problem with vitiating cloture on the so-called CHIP bill, H.R. 3963. If the leader would like to do that, I assume after consultation with Leader McConnell there wouldn't be any problem getting it done.

The problem is, say that after the farm bill you would automatically go to the CHIP bill which would preclude debate time on the motion to proceed, if necessary. To put that after the farm bill without full rights of the minority would be a concern. First of all, we don't know when that might come. It could come 2 weeks from now, right up against a date when we are supposed to be going out for the Thanksgiving period and we don't want to short-circuit that. But if we could work out something where our rights would be protected with regard to the CHIP bill instead of just going automatically to it after the farm bill, it looks as if that is something that could be worked out.

Let me say, if the Leader will yield, you are making an effort, and I think we will need some time to consult with our leader to make sure he is aware of this. I understand the leader doesn't want to have time used that is not necessary. But we have another unanimous consent agreement. We have an amendment that is pending. In the meantime, I will check with Senator McConnell and see what he is thinking.

Mr. President, I believe now we are ready to go forward with the pending DeMint amendment.

Mr. President, we agreed to 20 minutes of debate on the DeMint amendment, once the Senator arrives. I believe we are sending a note to him. He had to go to a markup in the Commerce Committee. He has amendments

he wants to offer. He will be back momentarily to offer those.

In the meantime, I want to respond to some of the things the majority leader was noting. I wanted to do it when he was on the floor, but it is important to try to work through these unanimous consent agreements.

Let me say that on the effort to vitiate cloture on the motion to proceed to the Children's Health Insurance Program, it was noted that it had been requested by Republicans that 2 more days be given to work something out. I note that I don't believe that request came from the Republican leader, Senator McConnell. Members on both sides of the aisle have to recognize that our leaders are our leaders. Our leaders have to be consulted on parliamentary procedure and also on timing. So when one Senator--Senator Hatch--says give me 2 more days but there is no contact or consultation with our leadership on this side of the aisle, that is a problem.

Also, we want to make sure we don't give up our normal rights, the regular order. I am concerned about going to some other issue after the Amtrak bill and then going to the farm bill next week. They have been on the farm bill we don't know how long, and at the last minute we may call up a bipartisan agreement, but it will not resolve the agreements on SCHIP.

We must focus on poor children. I am concerned with the present condition of the bill. My analysis is that this bill costs more than the bill that was vetoed, and fewer children are covered. It has an express lane for illegal children to go into the program. There is a multitude of problems with it. The biggest problem is we are still talking about over $35 billion. Instead of trying to come to a compromise on the money that is necessary to cover poor children first, it is still not going to get adults off the program. My observation has been when you let adults get on a program intended for children, you crowd children out.

There are huge problems in the status of the negotiations, which are going on by a group that has not included the Republican leadership or the administration. I don't know who met with whom, or why, or why not. We ought to work this out. I don't like playing games with a program such as this. I stood on this floor and spoke when this program was created. I believe in it. I thought we were going to focus on poor children and not continue to raise the income levels that were covered to 300, 350, or 400 percent of poverty and put it into the program. We need to look at the formula. Some States, such as mine, run out of money year after year because the formula doesn't deal with the realities of the needs of the poor children.

There are multiple problems with what is going on. I am very concerned, on our side of the aisle, about some of the involvement of some of our people without consultation with our leader.

The incurable attitude around here is evidenced by this bill. You can find a way to fight and have a disagreement or you can find a way to work together. This Amtrak bill is, I believe, on the verge of passing by a wide margin. If the House is smart, they will not put poison pills in it and try to explode it. Let's get real reforms and put some pressure on Amtrak. I want a successful national rail passenger system. Do I want subsidies for individual passengers to be reduced? Yes. Do I want the cost of meals to be subsidized by the taxpayers? No. Do I want a strongly led, effective national rail passenger system? Yes.

Let's try to make that happen. But it is not going to happen instantly. We have to set up a process, require reforms, and give incentives to do better.

One of the things I think is going to help, which some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have referred to, is we are going to have more intercity service as a result of this bill. We have a program specifically aimed to help States set up interservice transportation between not just New York and Albany but sites all over the country where States can do more, where there is a way to get an opportunity to do more to have intercity service.

We have language that will start toward a situation where freight lines can bid to provide the service on these lines. We do it with a pilot program. We don't just say anybody can come in; we say one the first year, two the second year, but we will work toward seeing if others can offer this service more efficiently, effectively, and more cost responsible.

I am very much concerned about how these negotiations are going on on the Children's Health Insurance Program. There is a meeting going on down the hall now that doesn't include the leadership on our side. Fifty staff people have been standing out in the hall. I have a novel idea: I think Senators ought to be involved--men and women of good faith and intellect who understand these problems. We don't have to have our staffs do this for us.

The same is true with Amtrak. Senator Lautenberg and I have worked on this for at least 3 to 5 years. This is the third Amtrak reform I have been involved in. I apologize for the other two not doing everything we wanted them to do. We have made progress. It didn't do as well as it should have. Now we are trying again. I say to the Amtrak leadership and the Department of Transportation, first, we are giving DOT more involvement in what Amtrak does. No President has made Amtrak work the way it should. They don't pay enough attention to it. And it is not partisan; I don't think this administration is or that the previous administration was.

This legislation will help us move in the direction of a national passenger rail system. I don't want to go into great length. I don't have to object when the leader makes a request to lock in the agreement to basically finish Amtrak this afternoon and then do something else this afternoon--we don't know what--and on Thursday and Friday and then come to the farm bill next week. Then to go automatically to a CHIP bill, which we don't know what it is going to be, and we give up our rights of regular order, that is not a good arrangement.

I hope the two leaders will get together and proceed to another bill tomorrow. I don't know what it might be. I represent a farm State. I hope we can get a good farm bill and do it in a reasonable period of time. I worry that we are not wanting to get an agreement on the Children's Health Insurance Program. Some people are saying $35 billion or bust. Others are saying we are not going to go to $35 billion. The President is at $5 billion. The earlier bill the President vetoed was at $35 billion. Now the new bill is $35 billion. Is there not an area between the two? I have done negotiations around here for years, in the House, in the Senate, and in conference. When one side is at 5 and the other is at 35, what is half of that? It is a little over 15. Would that work? What is the solution? Is it 20? How complicated is that?

But we need to put the emphasis on the poor children first, quit this budget creep we always get into, adding more and more children at higher income levels, and now we have adults and other loopholes in this program that I think we need to be very careful about. Can we do it? Absolutely.

I introduced a bill a month ago that was probably in the range of where the compromise ought to be. By the way, it was about double what I thought we needed to do when we started out, but I moved up. I hope the two leaders will get an understanding of what the process is going to be and move forward on all of this legislation.

Mr. President, we are now waiting for Senator DeMint to return.

I will yield the floor so Senator Lautenberg may comment on the bill or on other issues.

Mr. President, I again say to Senator Lautenberg, I have enjoyed working with him on transportation issues--from aviation to highways to highway safety and certainly the rail area and most particularly with regard to Amtrak and the national rail passenger system.

Earlier today, I referred to a ``Parade'' article that will be printed on November 4, 2007. This is a great article. I am going to be quoting some very interesting items that are included in this article because they are so applicable to our debate:

Americans spent about 3.7 billion hours stuck in traffic

last year, burning gasoline whose price had soared by 60

percent.

And probably going up.

At the airports, security lines snake endlessly, runways

are choked, and delays are common. One recent study found

that between January and August 2007, one in four flights

arrived late; 159 flights were kept on the tarmac for more

than 3 hours in August.

I heard a story one time about a friend of mine, a Congressman from Missouri, who went to the airport and wanted to check three bags. He told the attendant: I would like this bag to go to St. Louis, this bag to Kansas City, and this bag to Chicago.

They said: You can't do that. Why would you want to do that anyway?

He said: Well, that is what happened to my luggage last week.

There are certain indignities that go along with this. I don't want to attack airlines. We need to do more in aviation. We need a modern aviation control system. We should be critical when they do things that are indefensible, such as keeping people trapped on a plane on the tarmac.

We need to be thinking about our transportation system in the air in the next generation, how are we going to make it safe, how are we going to deal with congestion. Let's not stand here and complain; let's act on it. That is why I am supporting an FAA reauthorization bill that includes funds for modernization. Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia and I have worked together on that legislation. He has been courageous, staking a tough stand. Everybody wants modernization; nobody wants to pay for it. We have had some serious recommendations, and I am still hopeful that we can resurrect that bill. That is another reason why we need this particular legislation.

``Trains use one-fifth less energy than cars or planes.'' I know this is something the Presiding Officer from Vermont cares a lot about. This makes environmental and conservation sense. They are business efficient, tourist

friendly, and that goes not only for the Senator from New Jersey who came down this very morning, but the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, who said he was in New York City and came down on the train. It cost less, it was very pleasant, and it didn't take as much time.

Why shouldn't we try to do more of that? By the way, it is not just about the eastern seaboard. We want a national passenger rail system. But one of the keys, as I mentioned earlier, is intercity connections. We are not talking about just going north, but talking about an intercity connection between DC and Charlotte, NC. We are talking about Portland and Seattle, Chicago and Detroit. We are talking Miami and Jacksonville. And we provide additional assistance in this bill through the State Capital Grant Program for intercity passenger rail projects.

The grant program makes grants to States or groups of States to pay for the capital cost of facilities and equipment necessary to provide new and improved intercity passenger rail. The Federal match is 80 percent. Projects are selected by the Secretary of Transportation based on economic feasibility, expected ridership, and other factors.

By the way, that is the same arrangement we have with highways. People say: Oh, my goodness, subsidy of a rail passenger system? Well, yes. We have a subsidy for airlines, and we have a subsidy for highways.

I wish we didn't have to have a subsidy. I do hope we do a better job of running Amtrak. I think some progress has been made. I still say former Chairman of Amtrak, David Gunn is a good man and did a lot of tough things and would have done more if he had been able to stay on. I wish him well.

By the way, how much money are we subsidizing Amtrak? Last year, the funding was $1.3 billion, the same as it was 25 years ago. We haven't even accounted for a piece of the inflationary impact.

I want modernization. I don't want the Acela, this nice train running from Washington, DC, to New York and Philadelphia and then have me have to ride some raggedy train from Meridian, MS, that bumps and grinds and drags along and eventually comes to Washington. I want to have something like the Acela, also. We are going to have to have capital improvements. We will have to modernize. We can't tell the people we want you to consider the alternative of rail passenger if it is not on time, if the food has been pulled off the trains, and the equipment is pathetic. It is probably going to be an overnight trip. You have to have some modicum of comfort to take advantage of this alternative.

I have a feeling--and it is not a good one--that we are going to have gridlock and congestion, maybe even safety threats. We are going to have to have a national passenger rail system. I would rather ride on a sleeper or a nice passenger car than in a cargo-type boxcar. That is the way a lot of people have traveled in years gone by, boxcars.

We are trying to do something responsible to make a difference for the American people and deal with our transportation needs in this country.

I do want more transparency. I do want them to cut out the waste. If food costs are being driven by 52 percent labor cost, change it. Raise the cost, do whatever is necessary. But I am tired of people complaining about it and nobody doing anything about it.

I urge the Amtrak board: Get engaged. On transportation, I have urged this administration and the previous administration: Lead us, push the edge. Yet we have had to drag administrations into this area, which is one of the few areas, in my opinion, philosophically, the Federal Government has a role--interstate transportation. You can't do it alone if you are a poorer State, such as Vermont, Montana or Mississippi. It has to be between States, it has to be supported by the Federal Government. It creates jobs. When we build a highway, when we extend a runway, when we improve a terminal and make it safer, make it where the transportation safety administration can do its job, when we lay more railroad track, when we put more trains on that trackage, when we provide good service, jobs are created.

I have absolutely been convinced, in the last 10 years of my career, that transportation is key to future of the country. Infrastructure, yes, industrial sites, water, all that. But lanes, planes, trains, ports, and harbors, if people can't get there, whether it is an individual, a corporate executive or international, multinational company, they are not going to come. If they have to get there on a dirt road--no. They are not going to come. If they can't get decent commercial service, they are not going to come.

This is just a part of the package. It is the kind of thing we can do in a bipartisan way. One of my big problems this whole year is we have looked for ways or issues that we fight over. ``We are defining our base.'' ``We are defining our party.'' Baloney. I didn't come here just to define a party. I think we ought to be trying to find a way to do some things for the American people. It doesn't have to be the grand design of tax policy or budget policy. No, it can be national rail passenger system. It can be something smaller that we can work together on that produces a real result. Let's quit looking for ways that we can fight. There will be plenty of time for that. Let's look for things we can do together that have broad support.

I will be involved when that time comes. I am in and out of here-- around here all the time, on a bipartisan basis, because I just can't stand the idea of just being here and producing nothing. I have been told, in a way, I have some sort of congenital defect; and that is a desire to get things done. I hope that is what the moniker on my tombstone will say: He died trying to get something done, something that people care about in this country.

I am getting a little carried away. I am sounding like a preacher. I apologize. But I am passionate about this. I feel a little offended. Some people are sitting here saying this guy is from Mississippi, what does he care? I care because it is right for our whole country, not just for my State. I don't have a vested interest, thank goodness. Yes, we will have a little Amtrak service, not a whole lot, but we will have a couple of lines that come blowing through my State. We will be glad to have them. We hope they will stop a couple of times and pick us up and take us to New Orleans or take us to Atlanta or take us to Chicago.

But Europe and Japan and other countries have done this. I don't like to emulate those countries in a lot of instances, but if they can do it, you are telling me we can't do it? It is just a matter of us making up our minds that we are going to do this, and I hope we have made up our minds this time and we are going to do something that will really help the national passenger rail system.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me say again to the Senator from South Carolina who just left the Chamber, I appreciate the way he has approached this. He did not come in and condemn it; he looked at it. He had some ideas, and several of them have been accepted. I think he wound up getting five of his ideas that have been accepted. So he has been a constructive force.

I have found a lot of Members assume we are trying to provide money to Amtrak without any reforms. When they

look at it, I think they are surprised at the number of requirements and plans and reform that we do include in this legislation.

But I would be opposed to this amendment. You would have to print on each individual ticket the specific amount of the Government subsidy per passenger for that route. Now, think about it. You know on its face that would take a lot of effort. It is changing. It would cost, I have heard, probably as much as $3 million. I do not want to vouch for that, but there would be some cost. But it is already available. You can get this information through the public Web site. That is available, about what the cost of the subsidy is on these tickets. So it would provide something that is already available. You would have to pay for it. We have a number of other reporting and disclosure requirements included in this bill. I think it is redundant to what we have in the bill.

We are focused on trying to reduce subsidies. The point should not be how much is it now per ticket; the point should be: How much is it aggregate and what are we going to do about it? We have got specific markers in this legislation, the metrics and standards that will be required to get us to a reduced amount of subsidy.

But, again, as I have said earlier, it is a chicken-and-egg thing. You can do it in a responsible and reasonable way and get a result or you can force things that cost money and do not achieve anything.

Also, we are not going to reduce the subsidies until we improve the service, improve the capital stock, and do a better job. That is what I believe this legislation will do. So I urge the amendment be defeated.

I again thank the Senator from South Carolina for being willing to work with us on a number of amendments he had that actually did add improvements to the bill.

With that, I yield the floor. I do not know if there is any time remaining.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly? I have another commitment off the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the Senator's kind remarks. It was a pleasure working with him on this legislation. It has been a long time coming. I appreciate the active involvement he has had, along with other Senators on both sides of the aisle, including Senator Carper of Delaware.

There is a long history of trying to get this passed freestanding through the Senate. We have to give credit to our leadership and to Senator Reid in particular. He had to make this happen. We tried last year repeatedly to get it freestanding or to get a window to offer it. We never could get it agreed to at that time. Senator Reid carved out a pretty big block of time for a Transportation bill. He didn't have to do that. He deserves credit for that.

I also thank my staff, including Anne Marie Turner, who is here with me; Chris Bertram, who has been working with me for years; and Beth Spivey. Our staffs work together great. I am pleased with the Republicans who voted for it and probably all of the Democrats voted for it. I hope the House will act on this expeditiously. This could be a big step in the right direction. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation. I hope we can do more of this sort of thing in the future. I thank the Senator for letting me interrupt his remarks.

Mr. President, regarding the Amtrak legislation, work was done on Friday and it is being worked on now by our staffs. We had additional amendments that were filed this afternoon and we are going through them.

In the meantime, we have cleared on both sides some nine amendments in a variety of areas. Our staffs have worked together, and we have reviewed these amendments. They look constructive to me. They are from both sides of the aisle--from Senators Crapo, Tester, Allard, Bond, DeMint, Sanders, Coburn, and Hutchison. So we will, in a few moments, offer these amendments en bloc for acceptance.

I see that Senator Domenici has left the floor. I appreciate his remarks on the energy legislation. As on so many issues, he has been one of our most thoughtful and committed leaders on a variety of subjects. I used to call him our ``No. 1 utility player.'' Wherever you had a complicated substantive issue, if you needed someone to come and talk about it sensibly, whether it was budget issues, energy issues, appropriations, energy plants, nuclear issues, he has been such a great Member for many years. The Senate will truly miss him upon his retirement. Once again, I thought his remarks a few moments ago were extremely thoughtful and pointed out some of what we need to be doing in the energy policy of this country, and the many problems with trying to get to conference.

The biggest problem in getting to conference is that the two bills are almost irreconcilable. In our bill, we had some very strong requirements with regard to fuel efficiency standards. We knocked out the energy taxes, we refused to put in a high percentage of renewables mandates, and we came out with a bill that had in it something worth having, but we still had some problems.

The House had nothing on CAFE standards, the fuel efficiency standards. They went the other direction on renewables, and they went the other direction on taxes.

We have a real mess on our hands. We need a national energy policy, but we need one that, hopefully, will create more energy for our country and not more dependence on foreign oil.

We will continue to see if we can find ways to work together across the aisle and across the Capitol to see what can be done. We need to do something, but I fear we have created such a hodgepodge, we may not be able to reach agreement on how to proceed.

Amendments Nos. 3475, 3483, 3488, 3485, 3484, 3477, 3476, 3473, 3472,

En Bloc

Mr. President, I have a package of amendments that have been cleared on both sides. On behalf of Senator Lautenberg and myself and the leadership on both sides, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc: Coburn amendment No. 3475, DeMint amendment No. 3483, Hutchison amendment No. 3488, Bond amendment No. 3485, DeMint amendment No. 3484, Crapo amendment No. 3477, Allard amendment No. 3476, Sanders amendment No. 3473, and Tester amendment No. 3472.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following pending amendments be withdrawn: amendments Nos. 3455 and 3464.

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

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

Mr. President, I do not want us to have only those speaking who are opposed to the amendment. I know the sponsor, Senator Sununu, is here and will probably want to speak momentarily in support of his amendment.

Let me say, to his credit, unlike some of our colleagues, he has been involved in this issue for years. As a member of the Commerce Committee, and when we were trying to get it up for consideration last year, he did not just try to block it from coming to the floor, he had some amendments, and we

agreed those amendments should be considered. That is the way to do this.

One of the things I said last night, and I want to expand on a little bit, is this bill may not be perfect, that we can perhaps have more improvements. But here is a case where the people I hear from say this is not a good bill because it does not do enough--not that they are opposed to most of what is in it, or what is in it; they just want to do more. But then you say: ``All right, what do you want?'' and they go silent.

So I think it is a major step in the right direction. If we can find more things that would improve the service, more reforms that would be helpful, I think we ought to consider that.

Mr. President, I ask Senator Sununu, would you like to speak now? I would be glad to defer and let you explain more about your amendment, and then I would follow you, if you prefer, or I can go ahead.

Mr. President, in the interest of fairness, usually we go back and forth. We have had a couple people speaking against the amendment--Senator Hutchison a few moments ago. I say to the Senator, if you wish to speak now, I encourage you to do so, and then we will have speakers on the other side after that.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is yielding me 2 minutes out of the time of the proponents of the amendment? I don't want to mislead anybody here.

Mr. President, that is typical generosity of the Senator from New Hampshire. He is engaged, thinking about this issue and trying to do the right thing.

I also think this is a classic chicken-and-egg deal. We tell Amtrak we want them to do better, but yet we don't offer any reforms, challenges, responsibilities to do better. We throw rocks and say: Why aren't you providing better service at cheaper rates?

I think you need a plan to move toward actually what the Senator from New Hampshire is trying to achieve. The bill before us, S. 294, already requires Amtrak to reduce its total Federal operating subsidy by 40 percent over the life of the bill. The bill gives Amtrak management the flexibility to achieve this goal through cost savings, route changes, revenue growth, or expanded service rather than through mandated route cuts. Additionally, the bill requires improvement plans for each long- distance route that will focus on strategies to increase revenues, ridership, efficiencies, and service quality. These plans must be implemented and achieved in order for them to continue to get Federal routes.

I think some of these routes are going to eventually need to be terminated, but if we do what this amendment would do, it would basically, cold turkey, start eliminating routes very soon, including, to be perfectly honest, the Crescent, which is the train that comes down through the heart of the South, through Meridian, MS, Hattiesburg, down to New Orleans. We need that service.

Also, this would force cuts at a time when we need more rail service, not less. We have ever-increasing air and highway congestion and environmental concerns. The Federal Government provides operating subsidies in all these other areas, but we are saying we want to terminate these long-distance routes. If we want a national rail passenger system, we are going to have to keep some of these routes going at least until we make an effort to make them more cost efficient.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, I thank the Senator for his comments about our efforts on the Amtrak legislation. This is the Amtrak legislation, and I do not think it is the place to have this debate he is proposing. He acknowledges such. In view of that, I would object.

Madam President, first, if I could clarify the agreement that was just enumerated here, at 3:15 then we will move to a vote on the pending Sununu amendment, and prior to that, it will give us a chance on both sides of the issue to make some brief remarks, and Senator Sununu will be back momentarily to make some comments and an explanation of his amendment.

The amendment would modify the bill's competition pilot program to allow an unlimited number of existing Amtrak routes to be open to competition from freight rails that seek to operate passenger trains in exchange for Amtrak's current subsidy.

We have worked on this issue before. Senator Sununu had this amendment the last time this bill came up. We worked out a compromise that is in the bill which is to have a pilot program. Philosophically, I am attracted to this amendment. I do think we ought to have competition. I think it makes sense maybe for the freight lines to provide this passenger service. But this is a major change in what is currently done. So rather than just leaping into this in an uncertain and an unknown way in terms of its impact, results, what would happen to Amtrak, how it would impact the service, the alternative is to go with what we worked out a couple years ago, and that is a competitive pilot program that would allow two routes a year--not two total; it is two a year--to get into this competitive pilot program area, see how it works, find out the details, assess the good and the bad and the costly which could come out of it. That is the preferred way to go. We do say we will have this for the life of the bill, which is a number of years, so it could be up to 10 or 12 routes that may be involved eventually.

This is a new concept, and we believe what we have outlined in the provisions of S. 294 will prescribe it in such a way that it won't cause problems and we can see if it works. It may work. I emphasize, this is something I may want to move toward in the future. But I want us to have a national rail passenger system, No. 1. I want us to quit starving Amtrak and then blasting them because they don't do better even though we know they don't have the money to do the job. I want us to give them clear instructions for reform and to evaluate routes and have better governance. We have put this in the bill. This will be a major plus for Amtrak, to give them more authority.

Some of these routes could be shut down. We had the earlier Sununu amendment that we think could have led to a pretty precipitous shutting down of six or eight of these long-distance routes in other parts of the country. That would have been a mistake. But I do think that, more than likely, over a period of 2 or 3 years, you can't defend an individual subsidy per passenger of $500 or $600.

More and more, as we make this a more attractive entity, deal with the capital needs, improve the trackage that is available for them to use, get better governance, then it will be more attractive for competition to come into play. Maybe States will have more operations, as well as the freight lines.

I understand the goal of Senator Sununu. I appreciate the fact that he is not one who has just been critical. He is engaged. He is thinking about it. He has some ideas. But I urge defeat of this amendment. Let's see how the pilot program works and then, in 4 or 5 years, evaluate what we have seen and perhaps do something more.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Madam President, I yield back my time.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

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

Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg is here, chairman of the subcommittee. He is working with Senator Murray on a couple amendments. We have a couple amendments by Senator DeMint that we have cleared. We are hoping we will have a chance to visit with Senator DeMint or some of his representatives momentarily and maybe clear some other amendments. I thank Senator DeMint for coming over. He actually came over with a block of nine amendments, and we are working through those. Some of them we can certainly accept. We will work through the rest.

Senator Reid was very generous yesterday in agreeing that we wouldn't complete this bill until Senators had a chance to review it and come up with amendments, even as late as Tuesday morning, provided they were germane; otherwise, we could finish this bill this evening.

We have another issue that has been interjected; that is, the Internet tax issue. I know Members on both sides and the leadership are working out when and how we would get to vote on that important issue because next Thursday, if we don't come up with something, the Internet moratorium on taxes will expire November 1. We have to deal with the issue.

I call on my colleagues, if you have amendments of any kind on the Amtrak legislation, come over and offer

them. We will work through them this afternoon. I don't know what the leadership is going to decide with regard to votes later on this evening or tomorrow, but there will not be any votes on Monday, as previously announced by the leadership. So we will have to either deal with these amendments that might come up this afternoon or tomorrow or Tuesday.

After we dispose of the Internet tax, everybody needs to know that this bill can and should and will be finished before sundown Tuesday. That is what the leader, Senator Reid, wants. That is what Senator McConnell wishes to accommodate. It is my intent to work with Senator Lautenberg to drive this bill to conclusion. It is not controversial. What is in here is broadly supported. We had 93 votes last time. We may get more this time. Of the amendments that have been offered, the most an amendment has received was 27 votes. We are going to continue to look for ways to do even more that is positive for Amtrak. But we need to go ahead and be done with this next Tuesday.

I yield the floor to hear any remarks the chairman has.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator DeMint, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendments Nos. 3460 and 3461.

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

Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared on both sides. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr. President, we do have two more amendments by Senator DeMint that I think have been cleared, but we are waiting to have a chance to discuss with Senator DeMint some of the other amendments. We are trying to get sort of an equal amount agreed to as we go forward. But we are trying to clear the deck of some of these amendments, and we are going to continue to work on that. Hopefully, we can dispose of another four or five amendments this afternoon even.

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

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

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

Mr. President, what is the order of business at this time?

Until what time?

Mr. President, while we are in this morning business period and in anticipation of going to the next legislation, I wish to make some opening comments about what happened here and make a plea to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but particularly my own side of the aisle, that we not object to going to consideration of Amtrak legislation.

I have been working on this issue for several years now. I think it is an important issue. It is an important part of our transportation system in America. I believe that for the future development of our country, for the mobility of our country, for the creation of jobs, the maintaining of jobs, for safety, security, and access, we should pay attention to infrastructure in America, and lanes, planes, trains, ports, and harbors. This is critical to our future economic development and to our American lifestyle.

I have been working for years to upgrade and improve the Federal Aviation Administration, the air traffic control system so we can have less congestion in the airways and fewer delays, and modernization. We are still working on that. We did get FAA reauthorization a few years ago. Now it is back up but, unfortunately, stalled right now. We did pass a highway bill a few years ago that had many good things in it. But here is my point: You can only build so many lanes until you can't build any more. You can only have so many planes in the sky until you can't have any more. So what is the other alternative? Trains.

Now, I am not from a State that is hugely dependent on the rail passenger system. We get some of the benefits of it. But part of the problem is we don't have enough access, enough opportunities in that area, or we have delays and problems such as that. Why do we have delays? Because we haven't modernized the Amtrak system. Because we have not worked through the Transportation Department to put in some reforms, decide what is needed in terms of money, and how to get more capitalization. We haven't done the reforms.

I was pleased to be involved the last time we did some Amtrak legislation. That was several years ago. I stood right in this very spot and told my friend John McCain from Arizona if it didn't work and if Amtrak didn't do a better job, I would eat it without salt. Well, I guess I should have probably eaten it without salt later on. It didn't do everything I hoped it would. But what is the alternative? Do we want a national rail passenger system or not? I think we do. I don't mean only on the Northeast corridor, although I love the Northeast corridor. I have been delighted to work with my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, on this legislation, because I want good Amtrak service between Washington and New York City. Frankly, I would rather ride the Acela to New York City than the shuttle, the airline shuttle. You go to the airport; you wait; you are delayed. You get on the train. You ride the Acela. You do your computer. You are not crowded. It is nice, clean. It works. You can get a little something to eat, and you arrive in New York City.

I realize Acela is one of the best in the country, but we need to do more. In fact, putting money in it--and by the way, not enough--year after year we are starving it to death and then we are saying, Why didn't it do better? It is because we haven't given them more opportunities, we haven't had more requirements, we haven't had reforms. I tried for the past 2 years to get this legislation up. We had some objections. We had some Senators who wanted to offer amendments. My attitude is: Fine. If you have amendments, let's go with them. Administration: If you have some reforms, fine, let's do it. But we need to get this thing done.

Now here we are, we have a different majority. Senator Lautenberg is the chairman of the committee. But basically, this is the bill he and I put together 3 years ago. It is time to do it. It is not perfect. It has some reforms in it. It has some requirements in it. By the way, more people are riding Amtrak, and they have more income. They are doing better. If we give them more incentives, if we get them to close some of the routes that are never going to be profitable, they are not going to work, it would be even better than that.

I am not going to give my full opening speech now, even though I sound like it. I am saying to my colleagues, we should not object to the motion to proceed on every bill, and filibuster the motion to proceed. That is bad business. Do it judiciously? Yes. If you want to slow this place down time after time after time after time, yes, we can do that. But I stood here on the floor earlier today and last night and said: If the Senate will do the right thing on this judicial nomination, Leslie Southwick, that will be a step forward to show that this place can work together. We can be civil. We can be less partisan, and there will be some benefits. I am standing right here right now saying this is the next step. Let's not tangle this bill up because we are not ready, or because we may not like it. You don't like it? Vote against it. You want more? Bring your amendments. Let's get this done. I hope my colleagues will not try to block the motion to proceed. Senator Reid is going to ask unanimous consent that we go to the bill, and I hope and pray that if it is objected to, he is going to file cloture and he is going to make us eat it, because we ought to take this up and deal with it. If we want to kill it, shoot it down, but doing nothing is unacceptable.

The Senate has become very proficient at doing nothing; not just this year, but last year and the year before. We paid a price, because we didn't get anything done in the previous 2 years. Are we going to do it again or can we do something for the American people? This is one way we can do it.

So I make that plea and I hope we can get something worked out when we get on this bill. I will not be a party to try to ram it through so quickly people can't get their amendments ready.

I will be glad to yield to my distinguished colleague and leader on this effort now, and to my friend from New Jersey, and I look forward to working with him on this legislation.

Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, I am sorry I went ahead and spoke first, because you are chairman of the committee and you have been providing real leadership in trying to get this legislation brought up. I did it because I wanted to make a plea to my colleagues on this side of the aisle to let this move forward. Let me emphasize that I have no indication there will be objection. They want to take a look at it. They want to make sure they will have a chance to offer amendments or substitutes. I have assured them we will work with them. I believe we are going to be able to clear the hurdles, but I wanted to make a public plea so we could get on this legislation and guarantee the Members that their amendments will be considered and, in fact, in the past, when we worked together, we have accepted amendments and fought some of them, and we had votes. It is a novel idea in the Senate, to have a debate and have a vote.

But I want to say again I have enjoyed working with Senator Lautenberg. This is a lot bigger issue in New Jersey and along the eastern seaboard, I guess, but more and more it is important on the west coast, it is important to the Chicago area, it is important all over America. This is not about one region or the other region, or trying to accommodate business or labor; this is about American people. So I think my colleagues, hopefully, are going to realize that we ought to do something about Amtrak, and this is the way to get it done.

I thank the Senator for his question.

If the Senator will yield, since I have worked with the Senator on this issue, some of my colleagues have taken to calling me Senator ``Lott-enberg.'' I know there is a bit of a regional difference. It is not quite as crowded in our neck of the woods, so you might come on down South and it would be a lot less crowded. However, I would like for them to be able to get there on Amtrak, to be able to catch that train in Washington or in Newark and run on down and come through Atlanta down to Jackson, MS. I think they would enjoy it once they got there. I invite the Senator from New Jersey to take the ride to Jackson, and we will show him around down there.

Mr. President, we are working on when we are going to be

able to get this up. I have a couple of points. One, we have a catch- 22. Our Members want to make sure they have a chance to offer amendments, and we want to do that. At the same time, our leadership on both sides has to pay attention to when and how we get it to a conclusion. I think it is incumbent upon our leadership from the committee to work with Members to get amendments but also not to let this become a punching bag and have Members throwing everything out but the kitchen sink.

I believe we can move this through in a reasonable time. My attitude is, when Senators have amendments, come over and offer them. We will debate them and then have a vote. We will not shove it over until 9 or 10 o'clock tomorrow night. I think there is hesitation on both sides of the aisle, and we have to work through that. But we have done this before. We did this bill 2 years ago, or so, and we got 90-something votes. So we can do that.

Mr. President, one other observation: As I have worked on this, another part of the equation of having a good national rail passage system is encouraging our States to be able to do more on their own and build lines like we have in San Francisco to the L.A. area--there is incentive to do more--and at the same time, not telling poorer States that they have to do way more than they are capable of doing.

Also, a couple of weeks ago, I thought about this bill. I was at Big D's Barbeque at Pocahontas, MS. The City of New Orleans, a sleeper Amtrak train, came whizzing by Big D's Tee Pee. They were ballin' the jack headed to New Orleans. It had about six or eight cars, which is relatively short. But the important thing was that they were going lickity-split.

If we are going to be able to get these trains, in a reasonable way, where they want to go, part of the problem is a problem the freight lines have. If they are going to get off on a side track and let the Amtrak go through, they have to build side tracks. We need more lines all across America. Union Pacific, Burlington Northern, Santa Fe--they need to build more lines across this country. We need to encourage the freight lines to build more capacity, more lines, and more side tracks, so they can work with Amtrak, so that Amtrak is not adding to the cost of doing business of the freight lines. So I am looking at that equation too. We don't want a conflict between Amtrak and freight lines. We want them both to be able to make a profit and deliver the goods and services to the American people.

So we are working on that side of the equation too, to make sure that Amtrak has a way to be on time.

Yes, I think that is right.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. The occupant of the chair, the Senator from Maryland, I suspect, supports this too. I am ready to do business when we get the go-ahead to take up this legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Let me say with regard to the package that was agreed to, the changes, we did work together on that. It was cleared on both sides. I want to thank the leaders for allowing us to move forward on this legislation. It is never easy to go straight to a bill these days. There are Senators who have reservations about going to this particular bill at this time. Some Senators wanted to make sure they were going to have an opportunity to look at the legislation and prepare thoughtful amendments, amendments that might, frankly, improve the legislation, add additional reforms, delete parts of it.

That is all well and good. I understand that maybe some Senators were not aware we were going to try to go to Amtrak today, even though I know an effort was made to try to inform both sides that would be the intent after we dealt with the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the Southwick nomination, and the DREAM Act. Maybe it moved a little quicker than people thought because of some of the earlier actions today.

I want to emphasize this too. While I have been involved in working on this legislation for some 3 years with Senator Lautenberg as chairman of this subcommittee and now as ranking member, and I think there are some good things in here worth having, maybe we can even strengthen it more. That would be positive for the future of Amtrak. I am perfectly willing and anxious to see if there are good ideas of how we can make it even a stronger bill. I want Amtrak to succeed. If we are going to keep it, let's fix it where it will work. I do not think it is wise to continue putting money into a system that is not enough, and then complain because it is not doing the job. We are slowly starving it, using it more, and complaining that it is not doing better. I think we need some reforms. I think we need to have authorization. I think we need to expect more of the Amtrak board. We need to expect good service from Amtrak. I think we ought to provide an opportunity for them to have a way to get the funds to do the job. That is what we are trying to do here.

As I said earlier today, this is not something people in my State are going to feel an immediate impact from. We do have Amtrak service that runs through my State, north and south, from New Orleans to Chicago. We have even had it down along the coast. Probably some people would say: Well, it is not worth it.

I believe we need Amtrak. I believe we need a national passenger rail system. It is a part of the package. I support improving aviation and a modernization of the aircraft control system. I want us to have safety in the airways. I want us to have less congestion. I want us to do what we need to do to modernize the system. I want good passenger airline service. I also want to continue to work to improve highways in this country. But I do not believe that lanes and planes will always be enough. There is a limit to what you can do in the air and on the ground with highways. I think we need passenger rail service also.

This is not something, again, that is going to be critical in my State. But I think it is important for our country. My State will benefit, too, when the rest of the country benefits.

I also think if we are going to have this system, it ought to not be just the Northeast corridor. I think we should continue to work to try to find ways to make other routes profitable, on time, provide good service. That is what we are trying to do here.

Some of my friends look at me and say: Well, why are you trying to do this? This is costing money. It is too overly subsidized. They have union problems, this, that and the other. I admit it has problems. I think we are part of the problem, because we are not engaged in trying to improve the law, give them more power to do what they need to do to make the tough decisions, get outside advice, try to figure

out how to do a better job. That is what we do here.

So this is an area I have worked on for most of my career in Congress, transportation and infrastructure. I believe they are critical to the future of our country. It is about jobs. It is about economic development. It is about opportunity. It is about movement. It is about America.

That is why I have been involved for some time, to the consternation of some of my friends. We have worked on this before. I worked on the last Amtrak reform legislation. I had higher hopes from that legislation than the results we got. But I think we have made some progress. And when you do legislation that does not achieve all you want it to do, my attitude is, come back and try again.

But to show you the amount of support we have, when we brought this up on the reconciliation package in 2005, it got 93 votes. Some people said: Well, it is not enough, or, we can do better. But when they voted, 93 Senators voted for it. That is part of the process.

This time, hopefully, we can get it through here freestanding, get the House to act, let us get to conference, let's bring in the administration. If the administration has recommendations or concerns, great, let us hear them.

My problem with the administration is, they have tried to ignore it. So let's try to get them involved. I am not going to be partisan about this. I do not want to blast Amtrak, I don't want to blast the board or the administration. I want us all to get together. That is part of the effort of what we are trying to do here.

This legislation, S. 294, makes a number of important reforms in Amtrak. It has three major themes: Amtrak reform and accountability; cost cutting; and creating funding options for States.

Now, whether are you from Illinois, California, or Missouri, or whether you are from New Jersey, you ought to like this. And if you are a conservative Republican, did you hear what I said? Cost cutting, reform, and accountability. This is made in heaven.

I think we should get this done, and work in good faith with each other. I think we need to increase the executive branch oversight and involvement in Amtrak. The bill ensures that taxpayer money is used more effectively and it builds on the improvements that have been made in recent years. I think you have to give credit to the fact that David Gunn, when he was the president of Amtrak, made some improvements in his management. He did a good job. He finally wound up leaving because he had other opportunities, and maybe some people were critical of him. But I have to say I think he did a great job, and he moved it in the right direction.

The bill requires Amtrak to develop better financial systems and to evaluate its operations objectively. It forces Amtrak to improve the efficiency of long-distance train service. There are some lines that are losing way too much money. I think the Amtrak officials should look at it and try to make those lines more profitable, put some guidelines on them, put some pressure on them, and if they do not meet them, cut them off. I cannot defend a line that is losing money and is costing $400 a head subsidy for a passenger.

So the bill reduces Amtrak's operating subsidy by 40 percent by 2012 by requiring Amtrak to use its funds more effectively.

But it does not just say ``do it,'' it provides a number of things that will lead to making that possible. The bill promotes a greater role for the private sector by allowing private companies to bid on operating Amtrak lines.

The bill also creates a new rail capital grant program that States can use to start new inner city passenger rail service. There has been a real increase, and that is where we had a lot of boardings, a lot of passengers. They are using that service where that opportunity has existed. This would be the first time that States will have a Federal program they can use for passenger rail, putting inner city passenger rail on similar footing with highway transit and airports, all of which have Federal assistance programs for infrastructure.

Some people complain about the money in Amtrak, and yet if you look at what we have in these other areas, highways and transit and airports, Amtrak is terribly shortchanged. We provide all of this infrastructure in these other areas, and then we are not prepared to do that with the passenger rail system.

States will not have to rely only on Amtrak for their inner city passenger rail service. It gives them more opportunity, more for themselves, and to have a Federal program work with them to achieve that.

Now, while discussing reform, we should not forget there is good news here. Some people will only say: Well, it is still losing money. In fiscal year 2007, there was a record number of 25.8 million passengers who traveled on Amtrak. People are using it and using it more. It is the chicken-and-egg deal. Once you get better equipment, on-time service, better food, going to places people want to go, they will ride. In the past they haven't done it because maybe the equipment was old or they got delayed. As they have provided better service, more people started riding. The boarding ticket revenues increased 11 percent to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2007. Of course, the Acela Express, I guess the old standard of what Amtrak should do, can do--and we use it here in this corridor--had a 20-percent increase in ridership and achieved an on-time performance of 87.8 percent, proving it can be done. Passenger service can be on time. The Acela is so popular that another round-trip between New York and Washington was created in July.

We should not focus solely on the Northeast corridor though. I want to make sure we have some service in the South and the Midwest and the West and in the Northwest. The Capital Corridor operating in California between Auburn and San Jose increased ridership by 15 percent and has an ontime performance of 75 percent. Most notably, the Lincoln service connecting Chicago to St. Louis is up 42 percent. Chicago to St. Louis, that is a tremendous increase. It is a direct result of the State more than doubling its contract with Amtrak. Across the country, States are interested in passenger service, and passengers are responding in record numbers to the better service.

S. 294 is the best mechanism to reform Amtrak. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Read it. It is not a long, complicated bill. But if you have a better idea, come on out here. Let's hear it. Tomorrow we will be ready for business. We will have some amendments. The way I like to do business, with the cooperation of our chairman, if you have an amendment, let's have you offer it. Let's talk about it, and let's vote. Let's don't be setting them aside and piling them up for later on in the day. Let's do business. I think that is one way you get Senators to actually be here and doing work, actually have some votes. I don't want to go on too long.

Let me just run down some of the areas where we have concentrated in this bill. It does provide for management improvement. The bill requires a financial accounting system for Amtrak operations and a 5- year financial plan. Why in the world wouldn't they have that? I don't know. Families have plans for their budgets and what they are going to do in the future. Amtrak ought to do that.

It deals with debt. The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and Amtrak, to negotiate the restructuring of Amtrak's debt within 1 year. This is something Senator Lautenberg has talked about. They can actually save money. Why would they not do that? So we would direct that in the bill.

It does improve corporate governance. It adds the Amtrak president to the Amtrak board, bringing the total number of members of the board to nine. Think about that, the Amtrak president was not on the board. That doesn't make any sense.

It calls for metrics and standards. In consultation with the Surface Transportation Board and the operating freight railroads, the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak shall jointly develop metrics and standards for measuring the performance and service quality of intercity train operations. They should include cost recovery, ontime performance, ridership per train mile, onboard and station services, the whole package.

It does improve the route methodology. It would provide access to Amtrak equipment and services.

States wishing to use operators other than Amtrak would be able to do so

under this legislation. It would improve the Northeast corridor. It would work to improve the long distance routes.

I think we have touched on the very important areas, but the one I think that is going to make the greatest difference is the State Capital Grant Program for intercity passenger rail. When I have talked to Governors and transportation officials, railroad people, they say this is what we need. This could really make a difference. I see the Presiding Officer nodding her head. I suspect her State is one that would have an interest up there in the northwest corner of Washington and Oregon.

So there are significant reforms. This is a good effort. This is the kind of work we ought to do more of in the Senate. We have managed for the last few years to find what we could disagree about, something we could fight about. We haven't taken the time to take up issues that affect real people's lives that we can agree on, that are bipartisan. I appreciate the leader putting this in the agenda. He did it at the request of a number of Senators who care about this. Senator Carper obviously is one of them, Senator Lautenberg, myself, and others. We have been pleading with them. I pleaded with the previous majority leader. Let's get this bill up.

Some people say there are other things more important we could be doing. Why aren't you doing something about health care, more appropriations bills? That is a good question. All I know is, this is an issue that matters. We don't know when we are going to have another incident in America with aviation, or somewhere else, when we need trains. We need good service. I am also working in the Finance Committee to see if we can't get a tax credit so that we can continue to improve the capacity of our freight rail and allow them to build off ramps so the freight trains can get out of the way so Amtrak can run without losing time and money. We are looking at that side of the equation too. I know some of our friends in the freight rail industry are not all that excited about this legislation because we want Amtrak to be on time and to get by the slower moving freight trains. Sometimes that costs them money, and it is an inconvenience for them. After all, Amtrak is running on their tracks. But we will work with the freight lines and make sure their points of view are considered in the process.

I won't go on any longer. I would like for us to get to some amendments that may be available on Amtrak. I know Senator Sununu has some. We will continue tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will not object. I just want to say, we have worked through this, and it is cleared on our side. We have no objection.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I obviously rise in support of the cloture motion and in support of the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to be confirmed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I begin by thanking Senator Reid for allowing this nomination to be called up and even considered. He doesn't have to do that as our leader, but he should be commended by those of us who support Judge Southwick for his willingness to allow the nomination to be debated and considered.

Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the very studied and careful job that Senator Feinstein has done with regard to this nominee. I know it has not been easy, but I also know that she has taken time, she has been patient, she has done her homework. I am sure she has endured criticism. She has shown tonight that she is truly one of the outstanding lions or lionesses, I guess, is the correct word, of the Senate. She has shown courage.

She and I have worked together. Sometimes we have lost when we have worked together, and sometimes we have succeeded. But we have tried to do the right thing for the Senate and for our country. I have nothing but the utmost admiration and appreciation for the position she has taken. I actually am hesitant to proceed after her comments because they were so careful and so well thought out and presented.

I do think that I would like to put a few remarks into the Record tonight,

and I will add additional items tomorrow. I thank Senator Feinstein so much. What she did tonight with regard to this nominee and how she is going to vote tomorrow is the kind of thing, I believe, that will affect in a positive way the nominations of other men and women in the future in the Senate. We have worked together on nominees from California in the past, and I stood against a filibuster then, and I am proud I did. I have voted for nominees, such as Justice Ginsburg, because I thought it was right.

I also have been a party to and have observed conduct in the Senate by my colleagues on this side of the aisle that I am sorry about, I regret. But how do we ever stop the slide downhill by the Republicans and then by the Democrats and then again by the Republicans? When can we rise above that type of personal and partisan attack and consider these nominations and legislation in a more respectful and responsible way?

I believe Senator Feinstein has taken that first step that can lead to other steps, and we will stop this slide I have observed occurring more and more each year for 10 years. Now maybe this is the moment, maybe this will be the catalyst that will lead to other steps on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle so that we will treat these nominations and legislation in a proper way.

I thank the Senator for staying and allowing me to commend her. I hope it doesn't get her into too much trouble, but I admire the Senator very much.

I do want to recognize the remarks made by Senator Specter of Pennsylvania and the thorough job he did in referring to particular cases. I don't want to repeat the cases that have been mentioned here tonight, or go over his whole resume again, but I wish to take a moment to maybe highlight some of the parts of that resume of this very distinguished nominee.

I also want to note the presence of the senior Senator from Mississippi, my colleague Senator Cochran. He and I have been in the Congress for 35 years. We were in the House together. He came to the Senate, and 10 years later I came to the Senate. One of the things I did when I came to the Senate, I sat down and talked to Senator Cochran about how to consider nominees for the Federal judiciary, because he was on the Judiciary Committee. He had some very good, helpful, and simple advice. Basically, he said if they are from your State, certainly if they are personally repugnant, you can vote against them. But basically, he said, if they are qualified by education and by experience and by temperament, you should be supportive. Kind of simple, but it was a thoughtful suggestion to me that came from this experienced member of the Judiciary Committee, and I have tried to do that, and I will continue to do so.

I do believe very strongly that this nominee is obviously well qualified. One of the things that was noted about his outstanding academic record was that he graduated cum laude from Rice University, a well-known and well-respected academic institution. He didn't just graduate with honors, he graduated cum laude, right at the top. He later graduated from the University of Texas School Of Law, where he also had an outstanding record academically.

When he came to the State of Mississippi, he continued that record of success. He worked with one of the most revered members of the Fifth Circuit, Chief Judge Charles Clark, one of the most outstanding jurists I have ever observed in my career of watching our Federal judiciary.

When he went to work for a law firm, he didn't go with just any law firm, he went with one of the State's very best--Brunini, Grantham, Grower, and Hewes, where he became a partner. At every step along his career, he didn't do just well, he excelled in how he handled himself in the positions he had, and he continued that when he went on the court of appeals.

A lot has been made about the fact that he has served in the Mississippi National Guard. He reached the rank of lieutenant colonel. He didn't just serve as a reservist to meetings of the National Guard, he was actively involved with the 155th Separate Armored Brigade. And, of course, he went with the 155th Brigade Combat Team and was mobilized in Operation Iraqi Freedom. So even there he took risks. He was involved in a way at his age that wouldn't ordinarily have been expected. This further shows that he is a unique individual in terms of his education and his experience.

But more than anything else, with rare exception, I have never seen a more qualified nominee to be an appellate court judge; not just a Federal judge, but an appellate court judge. His experience has been in the Mississippi appellate court system, where he presided or participated over 7,000 cases. That point has already been made, but that is an extraordinarily large number of cases for him to be involved with over these several years that he was a member of the appellate court in Mississippi.

In terms of the kind of man he is, let me read one part of one letter from one of the most revered and respected former Governors of our State of Mississippi, a Governor who has a very progressive record of leadership and of civil rights issues, and who has continued until this very day to work for racial reconciliation and heads an organization at the University of Mississippi dedicated to that purpose. This is a Democrat. This is what most people would acknowledge in Mississippi would be one of your more moderate to liberal Democrats. Knowing him, he probably doesn't like those labels, but he has a record of involvement in those areas where this nominee has been challenged or criticized. This is what William Winter, our former Governor, said:

I further know him to be a very intelligent, conscientious,

ethical and hard-working member of the legal profession. I

have a great deal of personal respect for him and based upon

my association with him I believe he will reflect fairness

and objectivity in his approach to all matters which may come

before him as a judge.

I don't know what higher recommendation you could have from our State, from a member of the opposite party, and a former Governor of our State. So he knows the background of this nominee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entirety of the letter of William F. Winter.

Judge Southwick was awarded the Judicial Excellence Award by the Mississippi State Bar Association, and he was rated not just well qualified but unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. This is supposed to be the gold standard. The previous nominee for this position was not given that. He was given a ``not qualified'' rating by the bar association. So they don't just rubberstamp nominees, they look very closely at them.

If there is a question about his temperament, if there is a question about his record on civil rights issues, or anything else, they would have found it and they would have included it in their recommendations. And, by the way, this is the same nominee who, 1 year ago, was unanimously referred by the Judiciary Committee to be a Federal district judge. Now, 1 year later, there are those who question the same record they had a chance to review last year.

Of the opinions he actually authored, there is no criticism of the more than

1,000 decisions where he actually wrote the opinion. I assure you, they were scrubbed and reviewed very carefully. There are two decisions in 7,000 where he concurred but did not write the decision, where questions have been raised.

I know we all make mistakes, and we choose to associate sometimes with situations or people we regret later. I know he would do some of his decisions differently now if he had them to do over again. But this is a long distinguished record, with only a couple of phrases in two decisions that, obviously, are troublesome.

Now, beyond those qualifications, he also has the temperament. He is mild mannered, he is very judicious, he is moderate in his approach to being a judge and in his life; not to say that he won't be conservative in a lot of his rulings. I think he will. But I am talking about demeanor and temperament. Clearly, he has what Senator Cochran and I thought the Senate indicated they desired.

This is the third nominee for this vacancy. The other two didn't make it. We heard what the Senate had to say regarding these past nominees and we came up with a judge we thought met the criteria that was expressed by a lot of our colleagues here in the Senate. But I also want to emphasize this. I have stood on this floor and argued to my own colleagues that we should not set the precedent of filibustering qualified judicial nominees----

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, if my colleague, Senator Cochran, would yield me those 2 to wrap up.

Mr. President, I have argued we should not filibuster Federal judges. One time when I sat in that seat as majority leader, my colleagues actually voted to filibuster a judge and opposed cloture. Senator Hatch and I took to the floor and said we are not going to do this. This is wrong. If you want to vote against him, vote against him, but we are not going to filibuster these judges. Those judges were Judges Paez and Berzon in 2000. We had a second vote, reversed the previous vote which opposed cloture, invoked cloture, and then voted on those nominees. I voted against them both, but I thought they deserved an up-or-down vote.

Here tonight and tomorrow, when we vote, at the very minimum we should not filibuster this nomination. We should allow this judge to have an up-or-down vote. One of the speakers tonight indicated he would vote against him. Fine, if that is what your conscience dictates. But first, we have to deal with this question of should we start down this trail of filibustering qualified judges because we disagree with some philosophical position. We shouldn't do that. If we do it here, we will do it again later. If we do it in this administration, we will do it in another administration. Give the man an up-or-down vote. I believe--I am absolutely convinced--that he will be confirmed.

I will have a few more remarks probably in the morning, but let me say to you, Mr. President, and to my colleagues in the Senate, I have never before done this, but I can vouch on my honor to this institution that I have served for many years now and in leadership positions, this is a good and qualified nominee who will reflect credit on the institution that confirms him and in the court in which he serves.

The judicial confirmation process has always shown strong deference to the opinions of home State Senators. There is good reason for this. Home State Senators are uniquely positioned to know the personalities, qualifications, and reputations of the nominees from their state. The fact that this traditional courtesy of the Senate is being ignored should be cause for concern for every Senator in this Chamber.

I respected this traditional courtesy when I served as majority leader. In the last few years of the Clinton administration, a Republican Senate confirmed a string of highly controversial appeals court nominees who nonetheless had the backing of their home State Senators.

When the controversial nominations of Paez and Berzon where debated in 2000, I filed cloture on both of their nominations. While many on my side of the aisle opposed the nominations, I upheld my promise to bring their nominations to an up-or-down vote.

We are in danger of establishing an ill-advised precedent that could have longstanding negative ramifications on not just the legislative branch but also upon the judicial branch. Should this body block a clearly qualified nominee based on a ``perceived controversy''?

Every Senator in this body needs to understand what is at stake here. This isn't a simple case of controversial nominee being taken down in a partisan fight.

This is a mainstream nominee to a seat that has been declared a judicial emergency, with the strong support of both home State Senators, with a ``unanimously well qualified'' rating from the ABA-- the supposed gold standard for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously for a lower court nomination less than 12 months ago, and a military judge who courageously served in Iraq.

This isn't just about Judge Lesile Southwick. This is about the standard that is being set for the future. Every Senator in this Chamber will have judicial nominees that come from their home State, and they will expect those qualified nominees--with home State Senator support--to be confirmed. Well, that is not the precedent that we are establishing here. Next time, this could be your nominee.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator

from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. President, it is none of my business, but I say to the Senator from Florida that I tend to agree with him. Maybe it is a regional thing. I wish him good luck in his effort to have Florida assume its rightful place.