John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, we will have a vote shortly on the second amendment I have offered. Senator Lautenberg just spoke a little bit about the amendment. I certainly want to clarify for the record what the intention of the amendment is and what its practical impact would be. This is not a wholesale privatization of Amtrak--far from it. The provision in the legislation allows two routes under supervision, oversight as described by Senator Lautenberg, to be put out for competitive bid to see if there is another service provider that can run the trains on those routes, delivering better service at a better cost. That makes good sense--good sense for riders and taxpayers. It is not a wholesale privatization by any stretch, especially considering the supervision and oversight that would have to be in place for this competitive bidding process. Senator Lautenberg used the phrase or description about this being a learning experience and you don't want to have people in a medical environment in a learning experience then suddenly asked to do major surgery. I think I understand what he was trying to suggest, but I listened to that phrase and it implies to a certain degree that the management team at Amtrak is a bunch of amateurs that can't be trusted. That is not the case at all. They understand these routes, the operation, the nature of the service they are providing. They are in the best position to help determine how routes should be put out for competitive bid. My amendment simply says there is no reason to limit the number to two. Why would we do that? Because we don't trust them? We don't think they will do a good job? We don't think they want to deliver good service at a competitive cost? Why would we limit them to two? My amendment would allow competition in more than two routes. It would not mandate it or require it. It wouldn't force anyone's hand. It simply would remove a very arbitrary limit on the number of routes that can be put out in a competitive bid to companies run more effectively and efficiently for riders and taxpayers. That is about as simple as you can get. It does make good sense. It doesn't destroy the system. It doesn't throw anyone out of work. It doesn't undermine the integrity of the reforms that are already in the bill by any stretch. I think it simply allows us to get an even better idea of whether those reforms have an impact. Senator Lautenberg described a process where up to two routes, as allowed for in the bill, would be competitively bid. Then the managers at Amtrak would look to see how successful it was and be able to go from there. That isn't true. In fact, that is just what I am trying to deal with. They wouldn't be able to go from there because there is a limitation that they could only do two. So if they decided that this was very effective, they wouldn't be empowered to use this tool to even greater advantage without Congress coming back and changing the law and changing the statute. That is not going to happen anytime soon.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I submitted to the desk a small technical modification of the amendment I offered that would strike the prohibition on allowing multiple routes to be competitively bid under the Amtrak system. In the legislation, there is competitive bidding allowed but for only two routes. I don't think we need to have such an arbitrary restriction. The technical modification makes sure the right portions of the bill, the right lines of the bill are referenced in the amendment. It is not a substantive change. Amendment No. 3452 Mr. President, I also wish to address my amendment that deals with Internet taxes. I offered this amendment last night, and I offered it on this legislation because we have been unable to get a vote anywhere in the Senate on Internet tax moratorium. What an Internet tax moratorium does is prevents States, cities, and towns from placing taxes on the cost of Internet access, whether it is for consumers, small businesses, large businesses--it doesn't matter. The Internet is a national and global system for communications. It is a national system for commerce and for business, and it should be protected from multiple taxation, from local taxation for a number of reasons. First, it is interstate commerce and, frankly, if there are going to be taxes levied, that interstate commerce and interstate communication should be the responsibility of Congress. Second, because those taxes would only discourage broadband deployment, it would raise costs for consumers and certainly have an impact on businesses that rely on Internet access as part of doing business. We were supposed to have a markup in the Commerce Committee. The bill was pulled from the markup. This is not something that just came up. We implemented a ban on Internet taxes in 1998 that lasted for 5 years. We extended it in 2003 for another 4 years. This is something that has received bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. Over 240 Members of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, support making this ban on Internet access taxes permanent. Given that we have seen no action and that the prohibition expires on November 1, less than a week from today, I am sure a lot of people across the country are wondering why is Congress so dysfunctional. Why has Congress not acted on something that has such broad bipartisan support that is going to expire in less than a week? I cannot answer that question, but I can try to do something about it, and that is why I offered an amendment to this bill that would make that ban on Internet access taxes permanent. The way it does that is by taking legislation that passed the House by a very strong bipartisan vote, 405 to 2, and making that 4-year proposal a permanent proposal. We take the same approach to technical definitions, the same approach to grandfathering that existed for some States that taxed the Internet in the past, and simply make that legislation permanent. There is also a second-degree amendment that was offered to my amendment--an amendment to my amendment--that would say we should not make this ban permanent; we should only make it 4 years. I think that is a mistake. Given that we have already extended the ban on Internet access twice, given that it has bipartisan support, given that we have been able to see how this law works and has worked effectively over the last 9 years, I don't think we need to keep passing short-term extensions. And, frankly, short-term extensions, whether they are 1 year, 2 years, or 4 years, is something the American public looks at, and it is baffling why we cannot find it within ourselves the discipline, the will--whatever it takes--to make a good idea the permanent law of the land. It is high time we do that when it comes to banning Internet access taxes. Senator Wyden spoke earlier about this issue and suggested that the technical language in the bill passed by the other body was not perfect. That should come as a surprise to no one. There is no such thing as absolutely perfect legislation. But it was certainly good enough to get all but two Members of 435, all but two Members to vote for the legislation. It was certainly good enough to offer the same language as an amendment to my bill. To suggest that this language is fatally flawed is very much mistaken. But even if it were an issue that needed to be addressed, it will have to be addressed whether we pass a 4-year extension or a permanent extension. So to use that as an excuse to oppose making the Internet tax ban permanent, I think, is a mistake. It simply is wrong. I would like to see the clearest possible language when it comes to service providers that are providing different kinds of Internet services but might not be providing Internet access as well. I even had an amendment ready to offer in committee to improve this language. As I indicated, Mr. President, we didn't have any amendments in committee because we didn't have any votes in committee because we didn't have any bill offered before the committee for a markup. So that is where we find ourselves. We have a proposal in front of us in the way of an amendment to make permanent the ban on Internet access taxes using language that has been supported in a very strong bipartisan way in the House of Representatives, and we have an amendment to my proposal that would say: No, let's not make it permanent; let's do another short-term extension. We have filed a cloture petition to bring debate on this particular issue to a close. That vote will happen tomorrow. And if cloture is invoked, we will have a vote on both amendments. I have no problem voting on alternatives. And I have said this in different situations on different legislation in the past. What is most frustrating, as a Member of the Senate, is when there are procedural maneuverings used to prevent us from offering an amendment, having a vote on any given alternative. I do not mind voting on bills or legislation that I don't support. If you don't support something, you vote no and explain to people why you don't support it. So we have both of these amendments before us, a cloture vote that will occur to bring debate to a close, and have the votes. And I certainly hope we vote cloture so we can have the votes and move forward on this very important issue. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, have I been recognized?

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

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

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I apologize again to the bill manager for not having a copy for him. As was clear from the reading of the amendment, if nothing else was clear, it is a brief amendment. It strikes the line of the bill that would have placed a limit on the number of routes that could be allowed for a competitive bid. That means it allows for an operator to offer to run that route at an effective cost with particular service goals in mind in order to provide service at or above the current quality of service at a lower cost. I think it would be a mistake to place an arbitrary restriction on the number of routes that could be competitively bid. Certainly decisions about putting routes out to bid, or which routes are put out to bid, how they are done, would still be in the hands of the management team at Amtrak. I think that is as it should be. I appreciate the opportunity to offer the amendment. I ask that my colleagues support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I recognize I did not prevail in that amendment, but I appreciate that debate and the managers allowing me time on the debate. I do have another amendment. I told them I would try to move my amendments, so I have another amendment I wish to offer. Mr. President, what is the pending business? Amendment No. 3454

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, let me use my portion of time to conclude my remarks. I wish to address some of the points Senator Lautenberg made in his presentation. First, it was suggested that under 2007 data, four routes would have to be shut down if my amendment were made the law of the land. I find that surprising and maybe a little problematic for a couple of reasons. First, I am not aware of any Inspector General audit that was done for 2007, which would be required under the amendment. The only IG audit of which I am aware, the most recent one, was in 2004, and that indicated only one route did not meet this threshold. So, first, I don't think there is any data to make that assertion that four routes would be closed. Second, if that were the fact today, that means the situation has gotten worse over the last three years; that it has gotten worse and that the costs are trending in the wrong direction, and that is something about which we should all be concerned and, in fact, alarmed. Third, it was suggested that closing four routes, if that were the case, would be a sudden and massive reduction in the capacity of the system. In fact, even if four routes were affected, we are talking about 1 to 2 percent of ridership. The phrase ``making people pay their own way'' was also used. It does nothing of the sort. As I indicated, I think there is an opportunity for providing some support or subsidy level, certainly in the medium term. This would by no means require anyone to pay their own way because it would still allow in the first year subsidies up to $200 per passenger and in the second year subsidies up to $175 per passenger. Only in Washington would a $200 subsidy be called ``paying your own way.'' That is just not right. Finally, it was suggested that closing one of these routes would isolate parts of America. I think the idea that eliminating a long- distance train would isolate people in America in this day and age, given all the ways we have to travel, to communicate, and to reach out to one another, is ridiculous. This is a common-sense amendment. This is not the grim reaper for national train service. This amendment only says if a route is losing more than $200 per passenger, we should not continue to operate that service. I suppose it is a little bit like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer: Maybe once you really get going, you are reluctant to stop because you think the next time you hit yourself in the head it might not feel quite as bad. At a certain point, we need to draw the line. I think $200 per passenger is a pretty reasonable line to draw. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time. I am happy to yield Senator Lott 2 minutes.

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

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

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

Mr. SUNUNU. We have no objection.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. President. First, for any Senator who stands up and states that I believe there should only be service in the Northeast is wrong. It is wrong in substance, and I think it is wrong in the spirit of the debate on this floor because I certainly never suggested that. In fact, I suggested the opposite: No. 1, that this amendment doesn't affect the corridor services on the gulf coast, on the west coast, in the Northwestern part of the United States in any way, shape, or form; No. 2, that this only affects long-distance lines that lose more than $200 per passenger; and No. 3, that the goal of having a national service is a good one, provided that the level of cost and subsidy can be maintained. The suggestion was made earlier that I want to get rid of long- distance trains. Again, no--only those losing more than $200 per passenger. In fact, to the point of the line that was mentioned previously in debate, the Empire Builder; according to the statistics of the Inspector General's review in 2004, it wouldn't be affected by this amendment either. The Empire Builder lost $94 per passenger in 2004. I hope the performance has been improved a little bit since then, but even if it hasn't, even if this is one part of our economy that has seen no improvements in productivity since 2004, no reduction in costs since 2004, no improvements in marketing and ridership since 2004, the Empire Builder wouldn't be affected because it lost less than $200 per passenger. In fact, the Empire Builder wouldn't be affected in the year 2009, when that subsidy threshold drops to $175. It wouldn't be affected in 2010, 2011 or 2012, because over the 5-year period, we only bring the cap down to $100, and the Empire Builder would still be below that figure in what it loses per passenger. In fact, in addition to the Auto Train, which I mentioned earlier, the Coast Starlite, the City of New Orleans, the Silver Service, all of those cost taxpayers less than $100 per passenger. Now, is a subsidy of $80 or $90 per passenger; a loss of $80 or $90 per passenger; good? Is it that easy to justify to a family as they pay their taxes on April 15? I would be hard-pressed to justify that to people in my State of New Hampshire. But regardless, those routes are unaffected by this amendment. In fact, there are many others--several others--whose cost per passenger is in the range of $100 to $125, according to the Inspector General's report in 2004. I would hope and I would think they can improve performance by the 10 percent or 12 percent or 15 percent necessary to get below that $100 cost per passenger as well. Maybe they can't. We can't forecast the future. But I think we can set an honest and a reasonable limit on what subsidies we are willing to provide. Again, I can't state it plainly enough. This amendment doesn't affect 85 percent of the routes and ridership of Amtrak, the people who ride from all over the country--North, South, East, and West. It doesn't affect any of those long-distance routes, and there are probably close to half of them that have a subsidy level of less than $100 today. For any of those that meet the performance benchmarks, they would be unaffected as well. I hope my colleagues can support the amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU. How much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. 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. SUNUNU. 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.