John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday South Dakotans were saddened to learn that former South Dakota Gov. Walter Dale Miller passed away on Monday evening. Governor Miller served as South Dakota Governor for just 20 months-- from April 1993 to January 1995--but during his brief tenure, he steered South Dakota through a number of challenges and provided a sense of stability and calm during a period of upheaval. In the wake of Governor Mickelson's tragic death, Governor Miller led the State in grieving and secured funding for a memorial to the Governor and the seven other South Dakotans who died when their plane crashed as it was returning to our State. When inmates at the State penitentiary rioted less than a month into his tenure, Governor Miller succeeded in ending the standoff without loss of life. When the Great Flood of 1993 struck the Midwest, he led South Dakota's response and worked tirelessly to help those who were affected. And when a Supreme Court decision shut down South Dakota's video lottery, resulting in a sudden revenue loss, Governor Miller ensured that South Dakota's most important needs were met. In all, Governor Miller spent nearly 30 years serving South Dakota in State government--first in the State legislature, then as Lieutenant Governor, and finally as Governor. In every office he held, he served with a commitment and integrity that were recognized by South Dakotans of all political persuasions. I always felt a particular kinship with Governor Miller since we both hailed from western South Dakota, which we in our State like to call West River. The Governor was from Meade County, and I grew up in a little town called Murdo. I think for many South Dakotans, Governor Miller embodied the West River cowboy: independent, self-reliant, and courageous, with a deep and abiding love of the wide open spaces that still characterize South Dakota's landscape. I know that is how I, along with many other South Dakotans, will remember him. I want to offer my deepest condolences to Governor Miller's wife Pat and to the Governor's children. You are all in South Dakotans' thoughts and prayers. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise on a subject of urgency and importance to our Nation's economy. The looming deadline for implementing a new railroad safety technology known as positive train control, or PTC, could soon wreak havoc on our Nation's transportation system. This havoc would not just affect the millions of Americans who board commuter trains every day but also Americans who depend on critical freight rail deliveries. These services could be interrupted because--despite years of warning--implementation of PTC has not kept pace with an overly ambitious schedule set by Congress. Let me explain how we got here. Seven years ago, following a deadly Metrolink passenger train collision in California caused by an engineer who was texting and failed to react to track signals, this body passed legislation mandating the installation of PTC, an innovative safety technology on over 60,000 miles of rail lines. Though a meaningful and important safety upgrade, PTC is not a panacea. It will not make a difference when rail tracks are damaged or in situations when people trespass on tracks or at highway rail crossings where the most accidents occur, but PTC can and will have an impact in preventing three specific accident scenarios; first, the technology will prevent train-on-train collisions when both trains and the track they are traveling on have fully functioning PTC systems installed; second, the system will prevent accidents or derailments caused by excessive train speeds like the deadly Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia earlier this year; and, third, the technology will help protect individuals working on railroad tracks from being hit by a train accidently routed onto the wrong track. PTC systems operate by relying on ground-based computer systems, equipment installed on train locomotives, satellites and wireless radio spectrum-based communications coming from a network of thousands of towers being built along rail tracks. A PTC system can help certain trains automatically communicate with one another and sense if operator instructions--namely speed--are appropriate for where the train is operating. Because it isn't effective unless all trains are linked together on a network, PTC will be required on all passenger and freight trains that travel on rail tracks that carry passengers or certain hazardous materials regardless of what an individual train might be hauling. Our colleague, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, championed the legislative provision that put this requirement in place back in 2008. The legislative mandate was forward-looking and set an aggressive schedule for fully implementing the technology. Seven years later, both freight and commuter railroads have made substantial progress in implementing positive train control, but there have been some unexpected delays in implementing the technology. The Federal Communications Commission halted the construction of necessary communications towers for over a year in 2013 over concerns about historic preservation and potential impacts on tribal lands. There have also been delays in regulatory approvals, problems in obtaining necessary communications spectrum, and many difficulties that come with building a new technology. The complexity of a positive train control system falls somewhere in between a new version of computer operating software and driverless cars. Any of us who have had a just-released version of software installed on our computer know about bugs that have to be worked out, and like driverless cars, when lives are at stake, you have to get the technology right before relying on a system as advanced as PTC. Over $5.5 billion in private funding has already been spent on implementing PTC. The debate on the need, costs, and benefits is long over. When this body voted in 2008 to mandate full and certified implementation of PTC by December 31, 2015, there were concerns that the timeline was too aggressive. Those concerns have steadily grown. Both the independent Government Accountability Office and the Federal Railroad Administration, which regulates railroad safety, have warned for years that the deadline set by Congress was unrealistic. Some saw great value in keeping this overly aggressive deadline in place. It was a way of maintaining pressure on freight and commuter railroads to move aggressively. At the end of the day, the thinking went that if railroads did not meet the deadline, they would be subject to financial fines, and these penalties would motivate to quickly finish work on PTC. If the pressure didn't work, these individuals assumed things could go on much as if the law hadn't been put in place at all, and freight railroads could just continue to haul critical shipments of products like chlorine and fertilizer, which would pose greater public hazard if hauled on highways. There was even a naive belief that commuter railroads run by State and local governments could get exempted from fines mandated under the law. Some believed commuter railroads could continue to move passengers instead of adding to the congestion and safety risks on our Nation's roads, but over the past month, these myths have been put to rest as the real consequences of failing to meet the legal deadline for positive train control implementation have come into focus. Both freight and commuter railroads have informed Congress, regulators, and even stockholders that an inability to comply with the PTC mandate could halt some freight and passenger services by January 1, 2016. In fact, the effects would be felt weeks earlier when it comes to the shipment of hazardous materials such as anhydrous ammonia, a critical fertilizer for our Nation's crops, because it takes time to move tank car traffic off the rail network. The Obama administration--in testimony before the commerce committee this month--noted that the law leaves no possibility of exempting publicly owned commuter railroads that do not meet the PTC deadline from fines, but the threat of Federal fines is only one worry for railroads among other much larger consequences of missing the PTC deadline. Remember, the vast majority of passenger rail service relies on track owned by freight railroads. To run commuter rail service on freight lines in compliance with the PTC mandate, not only must commuter rail trains and tracks be fully equipped but all freight tracks and freight trains that run on them must also be properly equipped. There are approximately 40 railroads, mostly commuter railroads in the United States, that will be affected by the December 31, 2015, deadline for certified implementation of positive train control. I asked them to tell us about their situations in dealing with the upcoming mandate. I will tell you what we heard. Not one railroad said they have met the legal obligation for implementing PTC. I will repeat that. Not one railroad, commuter or freight, told us that after 7 years of work, and with 3 months to go before the legal deadline for full implementation of positive train control, that they have been certified by the Federal Railroad Administration as compliant with the requirement. We had one railroad, Metrolink in California, that would go so far as to express that they were ``cautiously optimistic'' that they could meet the end-of-the year deadline for implementing PTC, but neither Metrolink nor any other railroad advised us against the legal deadline for positive train control. Some commuter railroads bluntly told us they saw no option for continuing passenger service after December 31 without action by Congress to extend the deadline. Last week, the board of directors of Metra in Chicago, with over 70 million riders annually, voted in favor of a resolution to shut down on January 1, 2016, if the deadline is not extended. Our Nation does not have the transit bus capacity to move these displaced riders. This will dramatically increase the number of people who are stuck in traffic each day and decrease the safety of our transportation system. Sarah Feinberg, the Acting Administrator for the Federal Railroad Administration, testified last week that she had not recently spoken to a railroad that planned to continue operating on January 1, 2016. Why are railroads so concerned about running over the legal deadline for PTC? Railroads point out that, regardless of fines, their insurance would not cover an incident if the railroad had knowingly violated a safety law regulation like operating in noncompliance with the PTC mandate. They also point out that Federal law provides individual workers with the right to refuse instructions that are counter to Federal safety laws or regulations. In effect, railroad workers across the country would have an individual right, and protection from consequence, to refuse to participate in the operation of trains in noncompliance with the PTC mandate. Different railroads have different concerns. Freight railroads have expressed some varying ideas about how they interpret the law. But, remember, railroads are interconnected. Let me explain a common view we have heard and how it will affect the Nation's interconnected rail system and economy more broadly. The PTC mandate applies only to routes where there is passenger travel or shipment of certain hazardous materials, such as chlorine used for water reservoir purification. Under normal circumstances, freight railroads are bound by something called the common carrier requirement. This means that freight railroads can't refuse to haul a specific cargo such as chlorine simply because it is unprofitable or inconvenient, but railroads argue that this common carrier requirement cannot be reasonably interpreted as requiring them to haul cargo on tracks if doing so would violate Federal law. Dan Elliott, the Chairman of the Federal Surface Transportation Board, which regulates railroad business practices, added weight to these concerns. In a letter to me this month about the situation, Mr. Elliott stated to me that the ``common carrier obligation is not absolute.'' He informed us that he ``cannot predict'' how regulators would rule on specific railroad decisions to exclude cargo or passenger traffic in order to comply with the PTC mandate. So how do we avert this safety and economic disaster? The independent experts at the Government Accountability Office who studied this issue and released a report told us that the railroads would need an additional 1 to 5 years to meet the requirements of the implementation. They documented the immensely complex technological challenges associated with new PTC components. This report and the letters I received from both railroads and regulators about the positive train control deadline are posted on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Web site: commerce.senate.gov/ptc. The Senate acted in July by passing a provision on the multiyear highway reauthorization bill that would extend the deadline on a case- by-case basis. The Senate's bill, which passed by a vote of 60 to 34, took the best parts of legislation to extend the deadline that had been put forward by the Obama administration, by Senator Feinstein, who championed the PTC requirement, and by Senators Roy Blunt and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who saw this problem coming some time ago and have worked with me to prevent it. Under the bipartisan Senate plan, the Secretary of Transportation gets the legal authority to approve or disapprove requests for extensions submitted in plans where railroads show how and when they will meet the full requirements of PTC implementation. If approved, this essentially becomes a contract, and railroads will face consequences if they do not adhere to it, including fines. Under no circumstance could the Secretary approve a date for full PTC installation that is later than 2018. The Secretary also has the authority to identify and require changes to deficient schedules that do not show safe and successful implementation as soon as practicable. The proposal is specifically designed to maintain pressure on railroads to install and implement PTC systems without undue delay. It also recognizes that review by regulators after installation, which is necessary to achieve legal certification of full PTC implementation, may take additional time. Of serious concern to the many commuters and shippers who rely on railroad transportation, the deadline for congressional action on the PTC mandate is actually well before December 31 of 2015. Without a legal extension, railroads will have to begin preparations weeks in advance to operate under the assumption that no change would be made. This will mean railroads will be contacting customers such as water treatment facilities by Thanksgiving to cancel critical shipments. It will mean contacting passenger and commuter rail customers to have tickets refunded because passenger railcars will have to be cleared off the rail system before January 1. To avoid this calamity, not to mention the other backups that such changes could have on a vast rail network, we need to pass an extension into law before these cancellations begin. Working on a bipartisan basis, we can help our constituents avert a transportation calamity that would have a much more serious impact on our economy than last year's west coast ports slowdown. This is about helping millions of Americans who are dependent on railroads for their livelihood and essential deliveries. We have a responsibility to act. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation have received from railroads and officials that I have with me here today, which I think explain very clearly what the consequences are if this body fails to act before these deadlines are upon us.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This legislation would protect unborn children who have reached the age of 20 weeks--that is 5 months of pregnancy--from being killed by abortion. Five months into a pregnancy, babies are sucking their thumbs, they are yawning and stretching, they are actively moving around, they respond to noises, and they feel and respond to pain. The scientific evidence on this point is incontrovertible. Five months into a pregnancy, unborn babies feel pain. Their stress hormones spike, and they shrink from painful stimuli. In fact, some scientific evidence suggests that babies of this age feel pain more keenly than adults since some of the neural mechanisms that inhibit pain don't fully develop until after birth. Babies are regularly born weeks or months early in this country and with medical care survive and often thrive. A Time magazine article from May 2014 that highlighted the tremendous advances that have been made in the treatment of premature babies noted that 76 percent of babies born at 25 weeks of pregnancy--or about 6 months--will go on to leave the hospital. A May 2015 article of the New York Times entitled ``Premature Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks if Treated, Study Finds'' highlighted a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reporting on successes in treating extremely early premature births. One baby mentioned in the New York Times article, Alexis Hutchinson, was delivered at 22 weeks and 1 day. She weighed 1.1 pounds at delivery. Today, the Times reports, ``aside from being more vulnerable to respiratory viruses, Alexis is a healthy 5-year-old girl.'' Let me repeat that. Alexis Hutchinson, who was born at 22 weeks and 1 day--or approximately halfway through her mother's pregnancy--is today a healthy 5-year-old girl. Yet, under the laws of this country, a baby of the very same age can be killed by abortion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 15,000 late-term abortions are performed each year in the United States. Many of those babies could have survived if instead of being aborted they had been born in a hospital and given medical care. Late-term abortion procedures are so brutal, it is difficult to even talk about them. Americans would rightly shrink in horror from performing one of these procedures on an animal. How, then, are we allowing these procedures to be performed on our children? Right now only seven countries in the world allow elective abortion after 5 months of pregnancy. It is hard to believe the United States is one of them. Among those countries are China and North Korea. Unfortunately, our country is on that list. I suggest that might not be the company we want to keep when it comes to protecting human life. A society is measured by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members, and we have been failing some of ours. But we have a chance with this legislation to start fixing that today. Ultimately, it is very simple: That unborn baby--the one with the fingers and toes, who sucks her thumb and responds to her mother's voice--that unborn baby is one of us, and as such she deserves to be protected. I hope the United States Senate will vote in support of protecting our unborn and vote in favor of this legislation when we have that opportunity tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, back in May, Congress passed and the President signed legislation guaranteeing Congress the chance to take an up-or-down vote on any nuclear deal with Iran. It was widely debated here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Votes were held, and in the Senate, 98 Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed that we should pass legislation requiring that Congress have a voice-- and through Congress the American people have a voice--in something that is so important to America's national security interests. Yet here we are 4 months later, and the same Democrats who voted for that at the time and joined Republicans--98 Senators voted for the American people to have their voice heard on this-- these same Democrats have now chosen to stifle the voices of the American people by refusing to allow an up-or-down vote on the President's nuclear agreement. Twice now, when we attempted to move to a final vote on the deal, only four Democrats broke ranks with their colleagues and stood up to the President. That is a deeply disappointing result, especially given the stakes on this agreement. I would have to say that in some ways I suppose if you are trying to protect your President from having to make a decision about whether to sign or veto this legislation--maybe they were pushed into that position by the administration--but the fact is, this is something that was voted on in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, overwhelmingly supported, and sent to the President. The President of the United States reluctantly signed it into law, but the understanding was from that point forward that when this was actually brought to the floor of the Senate, there would be an open debate and there would be a vote. All that I think is simply expected by the American people is an opportunity to be heard from, in the form of an up-or-down vote, through their representatives in the Senate. I would think that even if Democrats in the Senate object to the vote that we would have on a resolution of disapproval and want to support the President's position, that they would allow it to be voted on and let it go to the President. If the President is so proud of this deal--and clearly he is--why would he not then want the opportunity to veto a resolution of disapproval coming from Congress on this? I think, clearly, Democrats in the Senate are doing their best to try and protect the President from having to make that decision, notwithstanding the President's assertions that this is a wonderful deal for our country, a wonderful deal for our allies. Of course, the facts tell an entirely different story. A nuclear-armed Iran is a direct threat to the security of the United States and our allies in the Middle East, and the American people deserved that chance to have their voices heard. I wish to take just a moment to read some of the statements that have been made by Iran's Supreme Leader over the past few weeks. This is directly from the Twitter feed of the Ayatollah Khamenei. Speaking to Israel, he said: ``You will not see the next 25 years.'' That is the Supreme Leader of Iran speaking to Israel. He adds: ``God willing,'' there will be nothing of the ``Zionist regime'' in the next 25 years. Again, this is coming directly from the Twitter feed of the Iranian Supreme Leader. Of the United States, he says something he has said before: ``U.S. is the Great Satan.'' That is exactly as I said coming directly from the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, in Iran. So I challenge my colleagues in the Senate to reflect on those statements. Think about them. Not only do they demonstrate Iran's hostility toward the United States and Israel, but they demonstrate another key point when it comes to this agreement; that is, Iran is playing the long game. President Obama and Secretary Kerry may be thinking in terms of the next few months, may be thinking about their own legacy, but the Iranian regime is thinking in terms of years and decades. While this deal may slow down Iran in the near term, in the long term it legitimizes Iran's nuclear enrichment and drastically shortens its breakout period for a bomb. Under this agreement, in 10 years, Iran will transition from its current IR-1 centrifuges--which is about, they say, 1960s technology-- to the large-scale production of IR-2m centrifuges, which are four or five times faster than what Iran has today. In addition, this deal gives Iran the option of building still more advanced IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges down the road, which are 15 times faster at enriching uranium. In other words, without once violating this agreement in a decade, Iran will have reduced its breakout period for a bomb from a few months to a few weeks. This agreement also allows Iran to keep its fortified nuclear facilities, and it gives Iran access to conventional weapons and ballistic missiles capable of delivering a warhead far beyond Iran's borders. Plus, under this agreement, Iran will have full access to international markets and the materials and technical components it needs to build a bomb, material that right now it can only access through black-market channels. Iran is playing the long game, and in the long term this is a very good deal for Iran. Let's be clear about Iran's intentions regarding its nuclear program. Iran is not simply interested in pursuing a nuclear enrichment program for its civilian energy needs. Iran is interested in building a bomb. Make no mistake about it, if Iran were only interested in producing electricity, it wouldn't need a nuclear enrichment program. Look at other countries that use nuclear power to produce electricity. Sweden, for example, currently has 10 functioning nuclear powerplants, but it does not have a domestic nuclear enrichment program. Finland has four nuclear powerplants, but it does not conduct its own nuclear enrichment. Ukraine, which voluntarily gave up its post-Soviet nuclear arsenal in the 1990s, has 15 nuclear powerplants. It does not conduct its own nuclear enrichment. Mexico, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Spain, Switzerland, and South Africa--all these countries have nuclear powerplants, but none of these countries conducts its own nuclear enrichment and none of these countries needs to conduct its own enrichment because the fuel can easily be obtained in the world market, where there is actually a surplus of enriched uranium. No one worries that these countries are on the verge of building a bomb because their intentions are clear. They are only interested in the electricity they can obtain from nuclear power, and for this they don't need to enrich their own uranium. Another striking example can be seen on the Korean Peninsula. South Korea, a thriving democracy, has 23 operating nuclear powerplants. Yet it does not have a commercial enrichment program or even a spent fuel reprocessing facility. North Korea, on the other hand, chose to pursue an undisclosed illicit nuclear enrichment program, and North Korea has produced a nuclear bomb. Based on Iran's behavior, is Iran trying to be more like South Korea, with its multitude of powerplants and no enrichment capabilities, or North Korea, which fails to provide its population with electricity but still built a nuclear bomb. If Iran wants a peaceful, civilian, nuclear energy program, it does not need to be enriching uranium. Plain and simple, the only reason Iran needs a nuclear enrichment program is if it is interested in developing a nuclear weapon. If Iran wanted to silence all of its critics, if it wanted to prove that it is operating in good faith, it could halt its nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow and halt its domestic enrichment program altogether. If President Obama had reached a deal that would accomplish this, the Senate would not have sought a vote upon a resolution of disapproval. Instead, Republicans and Democrats alike would have been supporting the agreement praising the success of the negotiations, but that is not what happened. Instead, the President agreed to a deal that validates Iran's enrichment program, allows it to maintain its nuclear facilities, and explicitly permits Iran to continue researching and manufacturing advanced centrifuges. In other words, in a few short years, this deal gives Iran everything it would need for the speedy development of a nuclear weapon. If Iran genuinely wants a peaceful nuclear energy program, it can put everyone's concerns to rest and dismantle its uranium enrichment structure. Short of that, Iran is telegraphing to the world that it wants a nuclear bomb. Mr. President, I wish to shift gears for just a moment and address an assertion that Secretary Kerry has made numerous times throughout this debate. As we all know, one of the major points of contention surrounding this deal is the side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, that remain a secret. The nuclear deal grants inspections at Iran's known nuclear sites, but the details of these inspections are being kept secret between the IAEA and Iran. Secretary Kerry has asserted that keeping these side agreements secret is standard practice for the IAEA, but is that really the case? Are private agreements between Iran and host countries the norm? I wanted to find out. So last week I sat down with the former Deputy Director of the IAEA, Olli Heinonen, and discussed the policies and procedures of the IAEA with him at length. Mr. Heinonen is an expert on this topic, having served with the IAEA for 27 years and personally inspected, I might add, sites in Iran in the past. He was able to tell me that keeping side agreements a secret is not standard for the IAEA. It is an exception that has periodically been used to protect proprietary information for commercial reasons. Let me repeat that. In contrast to what Secretary Kerry is claiming, refusing to disclose these side agreements is not the IAEA's normal procedure; it is an exception. When commercially sensitive information is not at risk, the IAEA's practice is to make the details of the agreements public. So then why is the IAEA keeping its side agreements with Iran a secret? So far as we know, no proprietary concerns exist, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that these agreements have been kept a secret because they outline a weak inspections regime that would be unlikely to stand up to scrutiny, and the limited information that has been leaked so far backs up this conclusion. According to leaked documents made available to the Associated Press, the side agreements with the IAEA allow Iran to collect its own samples, with cameras recording the process. Iran will then deliver these samples to the IAEA to be tested for radioactive material. If that is true, there is reason to be deeply concerned because a process such as that would give Iran the opportunity to hide its nuclear activities from the IAEA. It is like having the fox guard the hen house. One of the agreements made by Secretary Kerry when the discussion of the 24-day waiting period for inspections of undisclosed sites came up was that traces of radioactive material could not be hidden in 24 days. That was the Secretary's argument. Samples taken from surfaces, where activities involving radioactive materials have taken place, will still have radioactive traces after the materials themselves are taken away. That has been the argument that has been made by Secretary Kerry. The Secretary is right about that. Traces of radioactive material do remain, but what the Secretary doesn't mention is that those traces can be hidden. If tabletops, floors or walls are painted over with certain materials--not just once but several times--samples taken from their surfaces will not reveal radioactive material, and that makes allowing Iran to take its own samples very dangerous, even if cameras are present. If inspections are intrusive enough--meaning actual human IAEA inspectors are walking through a facility looking not only for illicit activity but for signs of someone trying to cover up such activity--it is pretty easy to identify newly painted surfaces and to know that something is amiss. That is the difference between actual inspections by the IAEA and having Iran collect samples and having cameras cover it. If, as reports suggest, the IAEA has agreed to allow monitoring by camera instead of sending inspectors into the facilities, it will be very difficult for the IAEA to pick up on efforts to hide illicit activities, such as repainting surfaces. If the IAEA's secret side deals allow Iran to conduct its own inspections, then it is no wonder Iran wants to keep such deals a secret. Given the possibility that these secret side deals significantly weaken the inspections regime authorized by this agreement, it is imperative that the contents of these deals be made public. In addition, if these agreements are not made known, the IAEA will be setting a dangerous precedent that could undermine its credibility moving forward. If Iran gets off the hook on inspections and the IAEA allows this, what happens next time there is a rogue regime pursuing an illicit nuclear program? Well, I will tell you what is going to happen. That nation will ask for the same inspections deal Iran got. If the White House is serious on any level about preventing future nuclear proliferation, it needs to consider very carefully what it is doing right now because right now the White House is establishing a precedent that if a country is belligerent enough and hostile enough and pursues a nuclear program in violation of international agreements, eventually the international community will validate that country's nuclear program and possibly even allow the country to conduct its own inspections. That is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set. I understand that Senators have different ideological foundations from which we form our views and that sometimes political pressures come into play when Senators are looking at legislation, but it is very unfortunate that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to ignore the text of this agreement and cast their vote on ideological grounds. The truth is that this agreement will provide a hostile nation which has an expressed hatred of the United States and Israel with a clear path to a nuclear bomb, and I am deeply disappointed that Senate Democrats could not even allow a vote on a deal of this magnitude--a deal that will shape the situation in the Middle East for years to come. As we move forward, Republicans will do everything we can to protect our country and our allies from the worst consequences of this agreement, starting with Leader McConnell's amendment to require a show of good faith from Tehran before congressional sanctions are lifted. I hope Democrats will join us. They still have that chance. I really do hope they will. This is that important. It is important to America's national security interests. It is important to our allies in that region of the world. This agreement is a bad agreement. It needs to be rejected. At a minimum, it needs to at least be voted on by the people's elected representatives of this country--something 98 Senators agreed to do just 4 months ago, and now all of a sudden, because the President evidently doesn't want to have to deal with a decision about whether to veto this resolution of disapproval, Democrats have dug in here in the Senate and are preventing the very thing 98 of us as Senators voted to allow to happen just 4 months ago. That is wrong. The American people deserve better. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. THUNE. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding, en bloc.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Custer State Park Buffalo Roundup. The Buffalo Roundup will be celebrating its 50th anniversary on September 25, 2015. The exciting and historical event is accompanied by an arts festival, a buffalo wallow chili cook-off, concerts, and more. Taking place in the beautiful Custer State Park, located in the Black Hills, the Buffalo Roundup is a spectacular event. Each year, thousands of visitors watch as a herd of approximately 1,300 bison is driven into corrals by cowboys on horses, all-terrain vehicles, and pickup trucks. Following the roundup, the bison are sorted for sale and medical evaluations. Millions of bison roamed the Great Plains hundreds of years ago, but in the 1800s the bison population dwindled to less than 1,000. Custer State Park purchased 36 bison in 1914 as part of an effort to conserve the bison population, and the herd was often gathered for culling and inspection. It was not until 1965 that the roundup became an annual event. The Buffalo Roundup is integral to maintaining a healthy bison herd in Custer State Park. At its largest, the herd included 2,500 bison. Once the bison are in the corrals, they are vaccinated, branded, and sorted for sale. Several hundred bison are sold each year in order to prevent overgrazing and preserve the grasslands. I offer my congratulations to the Custer State Park Buffalo Roundup on its 50th anniversary and wish them prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Iran nuclear deal. We are here today because several months ago Senators Corker and Cardin, the respective chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee worked out an agreement to allow us to have this debate voted on here in the Senate, and there were 98 votes in support of allowing a vote on the Iranian nuclear agreement. In fact, it went to the President's desk, and the President then signed it into law. That set in place a process, which is where we end up today. I certainly hope our colleagues who voted for this allow us to have that debate. It is an important debate. It has serious consequences for America's national security interests, and it certainly is something that shouldn't be minimized in any way. The American people need to have their voices heard in this discussion, which will take place if we are allowed to get on that resolution here in the U.S. Senate. So I would hope that our colleagues on the other side--there was some discussion I read reporting of statements made by the President or by members of his administration, statements made by some of our colleagues here that perhaps they might block us from even proceeding to this resolution. I think that would be a big mistake. It would be a tragic outcome with respect to something that is this important to America's national security. It certainly is something which the American people deserve and have a right to have their voices heard. So I am looking forward to this discussion. I hope throughout the course of the next few days we will have a chance to air this out because it is clear that one of the greatest threats to our national security is the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Unfortunately, President Obama's Iran nuclear deal, which is really a nuclear concessions deal, increases rather than decreases that possibility. There are numerous reasons to be concerned about a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. That is well documented. It has been talked about a lot. Iran actively supports Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which pose an immediate threat to our ally Israel. Iran incites regional instability, supporting the Houthis in Yemen and the Assad regime in Syria. Iran continues to commit human rights abuses against its own people, and Iran has a history of taking extreme measures to hide its nuclear enrichment program from the international community. In response to Iran's nuclear activities 9 years ago, in 2006, the U.N. and the United States began to impose sanctions on Iran's nuclear enrichment program. These sanctions were dramatically increased in 2010. The sanctions targeted Iranian businesses and financial institutions as well as members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps or IRGC, who were responsible for killing hundreds of Americans and froze Iranian assets that would have been used by Iran to support terrorism throughout the region. This had a tremendous impact, effectively bringing Iran to its knees. Thanks to the pressures the sanctions exerted on Iran's economy, Iran's leadership was under immense pressure to negotiate with the United States and its allies. In 2013 Iran agreed to engage in talks regarding its nuclear program. However, soon after Iran agreed to come to the negotiating table, the Obama administration inexplicably began making concession after concession, with Iran giving up very little in return. The result--a weak deal that is highly unlikely to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. We have already heard from many of my colleagues why this agreement is a bad deal. Once this deal goes into effect, right off the bat Iran will have access to roughly $140 billion, which even President Obama and Secretary Kerry acknowledge would be partly used to finance terrorism. The deal will also increase access to conventional weapons, allowing Iran to defend its nuclear infrastructure from military strike. By lifting the ban on ballistic missiles, Iran will be able to purchase a delivery system capable of carrying a nuclear warhead well beyond the confines of the Middle East. The deal will also allow Iran to continue its research and development into advanced centrifuges, permitting Iran to modernize its enrichment infrastructure and reducing the breakout period for a nuclear weapon to a few weeks instead of months. The outcome of this agreement will be a more prosperous, better armed, more dangerous Iran, exerting its regional influence and continuing to sponsor terror. All of that will be achieved without Iran violating the terms of the agreement. However, if Iran does decide to cheat, this deal will make that more possible. To begin with, for suspicious sites not currently on the list of Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran gets 24 days' notice before inspections can take place. Even more concerning, however, is the information leaked recently that the secret International Atomic Energy Agency agreement with Iran will allow Iran to provide its own soil samples to inspectors from enrichment sites such as the facility at Parchin. Think about that. The regime which has broken these agreements in the past and cheated in the past--again, well documented--will be able to furnish its own soil inspections. Unfortunately, instead of acknowledging this when it was raised in committee, Secretary Kerry took on the role of apologist for Iran, defending the deal by saying that private agreements with the IAEA are the norm. However, if the leaked information regarding soil samples is correct, this calls into question the entire credibility of the inspections regime. For this reason and many others, I strongly oppose President Obama's nuclear arms concession agreement with Iran, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. By rejecting this agreement, we can negotiate a better deal--one that will actually stop Iran's nuclear program and prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. It is unfortunate that when we have the majority of the American people clearly opposing this deal that the President is not only willing to veto their opposition but to call doing so a victory. I would like to expand a little bit of detail on some of the national security concerns with this nuclear agreement with Iran. Since the Iran agreement was first announced in July, the Obama administration has repeatedly stated that we should at least give this deal a try, arguing that if Iran breaks its side of the agreement and pursues a nuclear weapon, we will have the same military options down the road that we have today. However, that is not true. We will not have the same options in the future that we have today. Right now, if a situation arose where Iran entered a breakout period and was pursuing a nuclear weapon, the United States or our allies in the region could conduct a targeted air strike on Iran's enrichment facilities. For example, if we knew that Iran was using its nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow to enrich weapons-grade uranium, we could utilize our air superiority with bunker-buster bombs. Obviously, we would prefer to avoid a military strike, but if needed, we have that option, and Iran knows this. However, under this agreement, in 10 years' time, Iran will have faster, far more efficient centrifuges that can operate in significantly smaller facilities that can be placed deeper underground with increased levels of fortification, making a military strike much more complex. Right now Iran is using IR-1 centrifuges, which are basically 1960s technology; but under this agreement, starting around year 8, Iran can begin testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges. In fact, as stated in page 10 of Annex 1, after the agreement has been in place for 8\1/2\ years, Iran can construct up to 30 IR-6 centrifuges and 30 IR-8 centrifuges. Why is this so significant? IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges are far more advanced and estimated to be up to 15 times more efficient than the IR- 1 centrifuges that they are using today. By increasing the efficiency of the enrichment process, Iran can significantly reduce the breakout period that is necessary to create a bomb. On page 17 of Annex 1 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, under the section titled ``Centrifuge Manufacturing,'' the agreement states that at the end of year 8: Iran will commence manufacturing of IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges without rotors through year 10 at a rate of up to 200 centrifuges per year for each type. The administration has repeatedly asserted that even if we destroyed Iran's enrichment facilities with an air strike, we can't turn back time and erase Iran's nuclear enrichment know-how. While that may be true, we absolutely can and should prevent Iran from increasing its nuclear expertise, but this deal doesn't do that. Instead, it ensures Iran's knowledge will increase by solidifying its ability to develop more advanced centrifuges. Because these IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges are so much more efficient in speeding up the uranium enrichment process, they will make it far easier for Iran to conceal and protect its nuclear program. Referring once again to the facility at Fordow, when Fordow was first constructed, it was built to contain 3,000 IR-1 centrifuges, which meant that the facility had to be significant in size. IR-8 centrifuges, however, are estimated to be 15 times more efficient than the IR-1 centrifuges used at Fordow, which means that by using IR-8 centrifuges, Iran could replicate the enrichment capability of a facility like Fordow with a building containing not 3,000 centrifuges, but only 200 centrifuges. Such a facility can be the size of a house. By reducing the size of the facilities by this magnitude, Iran could build many Fordows in multiple locations, hiding them more easily and putting them deeper underground. Such facilities could be built within existing mines, making them extremely difficult to find. As mentioned before, this agreement guarantees Iran will have the manufacturing capacity it needs to build these advanced centrifuges. Even within the parameters of this agreement, Iran could manufacture 200 IR-6 centrifuges and 200 IR-8 centrifuges per year starting around year 8. Since Iran would already have the manufacturing capacity for building IR-8 centrifuges, it would merely need to ramp up the production beyond the terms of the agreement and in a short period of time it could have operating enrichment facilities in multiple locations throughout the country. By the time these violations had been discovered and conformed, the advanced centrifuges would likely be in place, and Iran would have likely enough enriched uranium for a bomb. But there is much more to it than that. Currently, according to publicly available sources, Iran's air defense capabilities consist of domestically produced, short-range surface-to-air missiles and Russian made, longer range SA-2 and SA-5 surface-to-air missiles, as well as a few Chinese CSA-1s. These systems are vulnerable to electronic countermeasures and pose very little threat to American or even Israeli aircraft. However, that is not where Iran's air defenses will be in 10 years. Under this agreement, the ban on conventional weapons sales to Iran will be lifted after 5 years. Russia has already agreed to sell Iran four batteries of S-300 vehicle-launched surface-to-air missiles. Depending upon the sophistication of these S-300 missile systems, they may be able to engage aircraft up to 200 miles away. As we saw last month with Iran unveiling its new solid-fuel missiles, Iran's domestic military infrastructure will not remain static. Over the next decade, as Iran acquires more and more increasingly advanced weapons systems, its area denial capability will make airstrikes even more difficult. Will a future American President, therefore, have the same military options that we have today, as President Obama and Secretary Kerry claim? The answer is no. We will still have military options available to us, but the calculus for carrying out a targeted airstrike will be much different down the road. Therefore, it is not realistic for President Obama to claim that future Presidents will have the same military options against Iran we have today. And the more the realistic possibility of a military strike decreases, the more likely Iran will be to violate the terms of the agreement and go after a bomb. In 10 years' time, under this agreement, our best hope for Iran not attaining a nuclear weapon will be the Iranian Government voluntarily deciding it doesn't want one. That is not something I am willing to bank on. Madam President, I also want to speak for a moment about Iran's support for terrorism and the idea put forward by President Obama that Iran will spend most of the soon-to-be-acquired economic wealth on its own economy. Even if we assume Iran's military spending remains what it is today as a percentage of Iran's budget, what would that mean going forward? Well, there are many estimates on how much Iran spends on its military. Some experts put the figure at around $10 billion per year, while others estimate the figure to be closer to $15 billion or even higher. In addition, of the amount spent on Iran's military, about 65 percent is spent on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps--the IRGC. In the first year of this agreement, between unfrozen assets and increased revenue from oil sales, Iran is expected to see an initial influx of around $140 billion. Now, using conservative numbers, if Iran's military spending stayed the same in this coming year as a percentage of GDP, it would increase to almost $15 billion, with $9.5 billion going to the IRGC. One of the main national security concerns we have regarding the IRGC is that Iran uses it to support terrorist organizations. Iran is the main supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, both of which have provoked conflicts with Israel in recent years. In addition, Iran's support of instability in the region is well known, with the Iranian Government providing funding to the Houthis in Yemen and military assistance to Assad in Syria. Many of our own casualties in Iraq were the result of Iranian-made bombs provided to insurgents by the Iranian Quds Force. Last summer, the missiles being launched at Israel out of Gaza were primarily imported from Iran. It is no wonder Israel has been so opposed to this deal. Even the Iron Dome system, which proved so successful during the last Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can be overwhelmed if enough missiles are fired at once. And now Iran, a country bent on Israel's destruction, is going to see a huge increase in military spending. Even the Quds Force commander, Qassem Suleimani, the man responsible for supplying Iraqi insurgents with bombs that killed U.S. soldiers, will see United Nations and European Union sanctions lifted as a result of this deal. President Obama keeps arguing that the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran far outweighs the short-term impact of Iran's increased support for terrorism. As we have discussed, I don't think this agreement prevents Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. But even if my colleagues disagree with me on that point, are we really willing to trade the lives of our allies in the short term to try to achieve this goal? That is not a risk I am willing to take. In urging my colleagues to vote against this deal, I would also like to speak for just a moment about what would happen if Congress is able to stop this deal? The President keeps saying a ``no'' vote on this deal will lead to war. Well, that is unrealistic and a clear attempt by the President to garner support for the agreement by stoking people's fears. Iran is very aware of its own military limitations, and it knows what the outcome of such a war would be. For Iran, in the short term, a much more realistic response would be for it to try to keep its side of the agreement in an attempt to gain United Nations and EU sanctions relief. However, despite this attempt, the United States could double down on the U.N. sanctions that were in place prior to the December framework and threaten to use secondary sanctions against foreign businesses who wish to do business with Iran. Given the size of the U.S. economy compared to Iran, this is a powerful deterrent. Since Iran's economy is already hurting, maintaining sanctions would provide more leverage for the P5+1 to get a better deal. However, another plausible outcome following congressional rejection of the deal would be for Iran to try to capitalize on congressional disapproval by seeking to divide Russia and China from the West to undermine the multilateral sanctions regime. Iran could try to achieve this by implementing certain commitments from the agreement but not others. But even if China and Russia wish to do business with Iran, they both still have an incentive to try to achieve the original goal of the negotiations. It is not in China's interest for a nuclear-armed Iran to cause greater instability with global energy prices, and Russia doesn't want an Islamist regime in its backyard, which is prone to regional conflicts, acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities. These scenarios I am describing have already been echoed by a chorus of experts who have pointed out the flaws in this agreement and offered alternatives. The vote this week is not--is not--a choice between supporting a bad deal or going to war. The vote this week is an opportunity to reject a bad deal in order to achieve a better outcome. That is what we ought to be doing, and I hope we get the chance to get on this resolution and that we have the chance to get a full debate here in the Senate where the people's voices can be heard. I hope when it is all said and done, Members here in the Senate will come to the same conclusion I and many of my colleagues have, which is that this is a bad deal for our country, it is a bad deal for our allies in the region, and there is a much better outcome that can be achieved if the Senate will reject this bad deal and get us back to negotiations where we can achieve a better outcome. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Chloe Christensen, an intern in my Rapid City office as well as my leadership office at the Senate Republican Conference, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Chloe will begin attending George Washington University this fall where she will major in international affairs. Chloe is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Chloe Christensen for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, while Republicans were campaigning last fall, we promised the American people that if they put us in charge, we would get the Senate working again. That wasn't a campaign slogan. That was a commitment. I am proud to report that we are delivering on that promise. The first 7 months of the 114th Congress have been some of the most productive the Senate has had in a long time. We have passed more than 70 bills to help strengthen our economy, reform our government, protect some of the most vulnerable, and strengthen our national security. We passed bipartisan legislation to authorize the Keystone Pipeline, a valuable infrastructure project that would support more than 42,000 jobs during construction and invest $5.3 billion in the U.S. economy, all without spending a dime of taxpayer money. We passed a bipartisan bill to strengthen our efforts to eradicate human trafficking in this country and to help its victims. This legislation, which passed the Senate with unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans and was signed into law in May, gives law enforcement new tools to target traffickers, including increased access to wiretaps, and it significantly expands the resources available to trafficking victims as they seek to rebuild their lives. As negotiations with Iran over a nuclear agreement were repeatedly extended and as reports of significant compromises emerged, Democrats and Republicans alike grew concerned that the administration would fail to negotiate a deal that would be strong enough to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. To address these concerns, the Senate passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. This legislation, which passed the Senate with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans and was signed into law by President Obama, was designed to ensure that the American people, through their elected representatives, would have a voice in any deal with Iran. Without the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act there would be no opportunity for an up-or-down vote on this deal in Congress and no way to prevent the President from immediately waiving the sanctions that Congress put in place. Congress is currently reviewing the final agreement announced by the President, an agreement that has been greeted, I might add, with bipartisan skepticism. We will be holding a vote on this deal in September. Increasing access to jobs and expanding opportunities for American workers is a priority of the Republican-led Congress. In May, with the support of 14 Democrats, the Republican-led Senate passed legislation to reauthorize trade promotion authority, which is key to securing trade deals that are favorable to American workers and businesses. Since 2009, increasing exports have accounted for more than 1.6 million new jobs in the United States. Manufacturing jobs that depend on exports pay an average of 13 to 18 percent more than other jobs in the economy. Thanks to the bipartisan trade promotion authority legislation, the administration now has a key tool to negotiate trade agreements that will create more good-paying jobs for American workers and open new markets for products labeled ``Made in the U.S.A.'' After taking up bipartisan legislation to protect our economy, the Senate turned to another key Republican priority; that is, supporting our military men and women. The National Defense Authorization Act, which we considered in June, passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support. In addition to authorizing the funding our military needs to defend our Nation, this bill contains a number of reforms that will expand the resources available to our military men and women and strengthen our national security. Among other things, this legislation targets $10 billion in unnecessary spending and redirects those funds to military priorities such as funding for aircraft and weapons systems and modernization of Navy vessels. It implements sweeping reforms to the military's outdated acquisitions process by removing bureaucracy and expediting decisionmaking. That will significantly improve the military's ability to access the technology and equipment it needs. It replaces the outdated military retirement system with a modern system that will extend retirement benefits to 75 percent of our servicemembers. During the month of July, the Senate built on its bipartisan achievements with two important pieces of legislation: the Every Child Achieves Act and the DRIVE Act. The Every Child Achieves Act, which passed the Senate by an overwhelming margin, reauthorizes Federal K-12 education programs and revokes problematic Federal mandates such as those that resulted in the phenomenon of overtesting. This legislation restores control of education to those who know students the best, such as parents, teachers, and local school boards. The DRIVE Act, which passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan margin, is notable because it is the first Transportation bill in almost a decade to provide more than 2 years of funding for our Nation's infrastructure needs. Around the country, hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on the funding contained in Transportation bills. When Congress fails to provide the necessary certainty about the way transportation funding will be allocated, States and local governments are left without the certainty that they need to authorize projects or make long-term plans for transportation infrastructure. That means that essential construction projects get deferred, necessary repairs may not get made, and jobs that depend on transportation are put in jeopardy. The DRIVE Act will give States and local governments the certainty they need to plan for and commit to key infrastructure projects. Every bill I have discussed today passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support. One major reason for that is Senate Republicans' commitment to opening up the legislative process here in the Senate. Under Democratic control, the legislative process of the Senate had almost ground to a halt. Instead of being developed in committee, bills were frequently drafted behind closed doors, and not only the minority party but many rank-and-file Democrats were shut out of the process. When Republicans took control of the Senate in January, we changed all that. We opened up the committee process and debate on the floor. We made it a priority to ensure that every Senator--every Senator--both Democratic and Republican, has an opportunity to make his or her voice heard. During 2014, the Democratic leadership allowed just 15 amendment rollcall votes in the entire year--2014. Republicans allowed more than 15 amendment rollcall votes in our first month. So far this year, we have allowed more than 165 amendment rollcall votes, and we still have 5 months to go in the year. The Republican-led Senate has accomplished a lot over the past 7 months. But we know that we have a lot more to do. As the 114th Congress continues, we will continue to fight for the American people's priorities. We hope the Democrats here in the Senate will continue to join us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to speak to the highway bill today, legislation before us that hopefully by tomorrow we will report out of the Senate favorably and send it to the House of Representatives. My understanding is that the House will, sometime in September, report out their own version of the highway bill, hopefully a multiyear bill, in which case we would go to conference with them and hopefully get something we can get to the President on his desk that would be more than a short-term extension, but instead be something that provides the certainty that those who are involved in building roads and bridges and making sure that freight and people move across this country will have the infrastructure in place to do that, and that we can get about the process of creating jobs and growing our economy, which is what infrastructure is all about. I want to speak specifically to some of the rail provisions in the legislation. I want to say that thanks to the leadership of Senators Wicker and Booker and the bipartisan contributions of the members of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the legislation before the Senate today includes critically important provisions from the bipartisan Rail Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act that our committee passed by voice vote last month. This bill reauthorizes Amtrak through fiscal year 2019, while increasing rail safety, improving infrastructure, cutting redtape, and empowering local officials. Following the tragic May 12 derailment of Amtrak 188 in Philadelphia that resulted in eight fatalities, Senator Wicker and Booker added additional rail safety provisions that were approved by the committee. The bipartisan rail bill that passed in committee and is included in the multiyear transportation bill before the Senate today would also advance the deployment of positive train control technology for averting accidents. I am proud to note that we recently amended the multiyear transportation legislation to expand this authorization. Never before has the Senate authorized robust, dedicated, and mandatory funding for positive train control implementation. The amendment accepted by the Senate earlier today would authorize $199 million in PTC grants and loan financing for commuter railroads in fiscal year 2016. This is the highest single-year authorization for PTC ever. Using the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, commuter railroads will be able to leverage this funding for $2 billion in loans, necessary to cover the PTC capital needs. In addition to advancing the deployment of PTC, the Wicker-Booker bill would require speed limit action plans for all passenger railroads to address automatic train control modifications, crew communication practices, and other measures to prevent overspeed derailments while positive train control is being implemented. It would also require grade crossing action plans to improve State grade crossing safety efforts, and it would consolidate grant programs to focus resources on critical safety and infrastructure needs. Building on the work of the commerce committee's ranking member, Senator Nelson, the bill would increase the rail passenger liability cap for inflation from the $200 million level set in 1997 to $295 million, with inflation adjustments every 5 years. The bill applies a new higher cap retroactively to the date of the Amtrak accident in Philadelphia, thereby raising the potential compensation available to victims and their families. This legislation also includes a measure from Senator Peters to require a thorough examination of Amtrak's postaccident response following the Philadelphia derailment, ensuring a close look at whether Amtrak addressed the needs of families and passengers involved in tragedy. Senator Peters' work will make meaningful improvements to Amtrak's emergency preparedness going forward. As we worked on the legislation before our committee's adoption, I included a requirement for all passenger railroads in the Nation to install inward- and outward-facing cameras on their locomotives. This fulfills an outstanding recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board. These cameras will not only help with accident investigations, a need that we saw following the Philadelphia derailment, but they will help monitor each passenger railroad's compliance with critical safety requirements. Last week I received a letter from NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart stating: I applaud the recent passage of the passenger rail safety bill. I was pleased to see the inclusion of recommendations regarding inward and outward facing audio and image recorders. Thank you for your support of the NTSB. The bill also includes extensive contributions from Senator Blumenthal to improve passenger rail safety, including redundant signal protection to increase roadway worker safety, potentially preventing tragedies such as the one in West Haven, CT, in 2013. Senator Blumenthal also made important contributions on provisions covering alerters, signage, and track inspections. The bill includes his proposal for the Federal Railroad Administration to increase oversight of needed safety improvements at Metro-North. I call my colleagues' attention to the following document: the Federal Railroad Administration's ``Operation Deep Dive Report'' outlining the safety concerns at Metro-North and setting forth specific directed actions. The bill before the Senate would require the FRA to follow up on that report and its recommendations. I also call my colleagues' attention to Emergency Order No. 29, which was issued after terrible derailments in the Bronx, Bridgeport, CT, and West Haven, CT. This bill would apply the emergency order's speed limit action plan framework to the entire passenger rail network, reducing the risk of future overspeed derailments. I would also like to include a statement from Senator Blumenthal following the news that 13 current and former Metro-North employees had been accused of cheating on licensing exams. The statement reads: ``My amendment was accepted into the bill, which was voted out of the committee favorably, and I urge the Senate to take up the measure swiftly so we can ensure Metro-North is implementing true safety reforms.'' I echo Senator Blumenthal's statement on Metro-North, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. THUNE. APTA wrote: ``These funds are of critical importance as commuter railroads address the $3.5 billion in costs associated with installing PTC systems.'' The National Association of Railroad Passengers wrote: ``Just as important as the level of the authorization is the structure of the eligibility . . . RRIF could potentially be used to leverage the amount provided by the DRIVE Act by a factor of ten.'' The Senate has an important opportunity to advance deployment of positive train control and help commuter railroads get over the finish line. In sum, this is a national rail safety and infrastructure improvement bill. Amtrak provides service to over 30 million per year, with stops in over 500 communities and in 46 States. New York has about 6 million riders, Pennsylvania about 3 million, and States such as Florida, Virginia, and Washington all have over 1 million riders. This bill also improves the safety of commuter railroads, which collectively have nearly 500 million boardings per year. Metro-North, serving New York, Connecticut, Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey Transit each have 80 million boardings per year. These passengers deserve the critical safety and infrastructure improvements put forward in this bipartisan legislation. The failure to pass this bipartisan DRIVE Act, which includes these passenger rail investments and safety improvements, would be a significant loss to the traveling public who utilize passenger rail systems across the country. I would simply conclude by adding that this is a copy of all the letters of support we have received regarding provisions in this legislation, regarding the legislation in its entirety, and I encourage Members of the Senate to support it. In addition to the letters I have already included, there are literally probably hundreds of letters in here from organizations that are impacted, affected by, and benefit from provisions in the DRIVE Act. So I hope when this comes to a final vote, which I believe it will sometime tomorrow, that we will demonstrate in a big bipartisan fashion our support for this legislation, not only for what it does for roads and bridges but what it does for freight transportation in this country and specifically many of the things I have just mentioned that we have included as part of the rail provisions in this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, one of the freight railroads that collectively have spent over $5 billion in private funds on implementation, recently sent a letter to the Surface Transportation Board that stated the possibility that ``if Congress has not extended the deadline for PTC operations, as of January 1, 2016, neither passenger nor freight traffic would operate on BNSF lines that are required by Federal law and regulation to have an interoperable PTC system as of that date.'' Critically, as I have noted, this extension is now paired with robust, dedicated, and mandatory funding for PTC implementation among commuter railroads. Recently, the American Public Transportation Association, or APTA, surveyed its commuter railroad members and found that over 50 percent were deferring maintenance to install PTC and only 29 percent had a shot at installation by the end of the year. That is why APTA, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, and rail labor support the inclusion of this critical funding in this underlying measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the American Public Transportation Association.

Mr. THUNE. Transportation for America wrote that the committee- reported legislation would be an important step forward in creating a transportation program that will boost the Nation's economy and ensure future prosperity. It also stated that the bill would improve the safety of our Nation's rail system. Building on the work of the commerce committee, the multiyear Transportation bill also includes a bipartisan extension to the PTC deadline. The bipartisan extension is a rigorous case-by-case approach, with enforceable milestones and metrics. The Secretary of Transportation approves or disapproves of the dates in a railroad's updated implementation schedule, including the hard end date for implementation. Under no circumstances can the Secretary approve a date for full installation and activation that is later than 2018. The Secretary also has the authority to identify and require changes to deficient schedules that do not show safe and successful implementation as soon as practicable. Multiple government reports, including from the Government Accountability Office, the DOT, and the FRA, have concluded that the vast majority of railroads will not meet the December 31, 2015, deadline for PTC implementation. This extension will not delay safe and successful implementation of positive train control technology. Rather, it offers a realistic approach to ensure this important technology is implemented as quickly as possible without risking shutdowns of rail service that will not meet the current deadline no matter what the law says. This proposal is not novel. Senate bill S. 1006, with original cosponsors Blumenthal, Schumer, and Gillibrand, would extend the deadline to 2018 on a case-by-case basis in 1-year increments. Despite good-faith efforts from railroads, the Blumenthal extension recognizes the deadline in current law simply is not attainable. Similarly, in its GROW AMERICA proposal, the administration requested giving the Secretary of Transportation discretion to extend the deadline on a case-by-case basis without any constraints on the dates the Secretary may approve. We follow this model but add explicit constraints on installation and activation by 2018, while allowing the Secretary discretion in overseeing testing to ensure that PTC works as intended. Recently, railroads from across the country explained the potential disruption caused by the current unattainable deadline. Virginia Railway Express, or VRE, wrote to me stating that ``VRE commuter rail operations could be suspended after December 31, 2015'' and has requested more time to ensure that PTC works as intended. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the July 28, 2015, letter from Virginia Railway Express.

Mr. THUNE. I urge the Senate to ensure Metro-North and other railroads improve safety by voting in support of the bill before the Senate. Working with Senator Cantwell, who has been a strong advocate for crude-by-rail safety, we have also included in the bill new requirements for real-time train information to aid emergency response officials in the event of an accident. Senator Baldwin worked last week to ensure emergency officials have advance notice of crude oil and ethanol unit trains traveling through their jurisdictions. This bill also includes a provision for comprehensive oilspill response plans to ensure railroads are prepared and have resources positioned to respond to worst case scenarios, another priority from our colleague from Washington State, Senator Cantwell. Further, aiding emergency response efforts, Senators Booker and Menendez included provisions that prohibit the withholding of train information from first responders. Their work will also examine the sufficiency of response information carried by train crews addressing issues raised in relation to the 2012 derailment in Paulsburo, NJ. Senator Manchin worked to ensure tank car owners and shippers annually report on their compliance with the new tank requirements requiring stronger oversight for those important safety upgrades. In addition, Senator Manchin and I have agreed on the need for a real- world derailment test of electronically controlled pneumatic, or ECP, brakes. As this testing moves forward, the existing Department of Transportation requirements will be kept in place unless the real-world testing and evaluation show the requirement is not justified. Enhancing the bill's grade crossing safety provisions, Senator Gardner added stronger oversight of the Federal Railroad Administration's actions pertaining to the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings. Senator Klobuchar included timely provisions to help address issues with the blocking of crossings as a result of idling trains. The bill also incorporates the work of Senator Roy Blunt, whose TRAIN Act, cosponsored by Senators Manchin, Heller, and myself, will streamline the permitting process for rail improvements, making our critical infrastructure dollars go even further. Senator Daines included provisions to improve Amtrak's operations through the study of new station development options where Amtrak would turn a profit, potentially increasing private sector investment in our Nation's passenger rail system. The reforms extend to project financing, and Senator Booker's embedded RRIF bill, cosponsored by Senators Heller, Carper, and Kirk, will create a faster and more flexible RRIF Program. I also applaud Senator Kirk for his contributions to the RRIF reform bill, improving the loan process and facilitating more timely and transparent decisions. These RRIF loans can be used for safety improvements, including positive train control. It also explains why its inclusion in the broader surface transportation bill is strongly supported by Transportation for America, the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, the American Public Transportation Association, and the Southern Rail Commission. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statement from Transportation for America.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I thank Senator Leahy for his interest in these matters, and I am pleased we were able to work out an agreement to strike these provisions and move forward with consideration of the DRIVE Act. I look forward to working with you and Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on any future proposals to amend the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. THUNE. For the reasons you stated, I agree that if enacted into law, nothing in Section 32003 exempts or is intended to exempt information under the Freedom of Information Act. I would, however, just offer two comments to explain to my colleague the rationale for and limits of the modified provision. First, the commerce committee has received information from several objective sources, including the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General, and the law enforcement community, identifying concerns with the accuracy of the scoring analysis performed by FMCSA as part of the CSA program. As noted by GAO, the manner in which scores are calculated under the program ``creates the likelihood that many SMS scores do not represent an accurate or precise safety assessment for a carrier.'' Accordingly, the bill proposes to withdraw this potentially misleading analysis from public review temporarily, until the program is reviewed and corrected. Nevertheless, as underscored by subsection 32003(c), the underlying ``[i]nspection and violation information'' submitted to FMCSA under the program ``shall remain available for public viewing.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senator from Oklahoma for his great work on this legislation. He has been a fierce advocate for transportation funding, for doing highway bills on more than a short-term basis. As he has mentioned numerous times, since 2009 we have had 33 short-term extensions--patches, if you will--which make it very difficult to run a highway program. The Senator from Oklahoma has been, as I said, a fierce and persistent advocate that one of the responsibilities we have around here is to make sure we are building the infrastructure in this country that keeps our economy competitive, that allows people and freight to move in an efficient way and to ensure our economy is strong and vibrant. I can tell you, as someone who represents a rural State in the middle of the country, the supply chain we have between our highways and bridges, our railroads, our ports, is critically important for us to get our products, the things we raise and grow in South Dakota, to the marketplace. Agriculture is our No. 1 industry. It drives our economy. It is incredibly dependent upon transportation. So a strong, vibrant, robust economy depends upon transportation. Obviously, we want to have a system that is safe, and that is one of the issues I want to speak to with regard to this bill as well. I appreciate the great work Senator Inhofe and his team, working with Senator Boxer, have done on this bill. We are going to continue to debate this. I hope we can bring it to a close. As the Senator from Oklahoma pointed out, if we did that, we would have an opportunity to at least put it before the House and give them a chance to act on it, whether they choose to or not. I would certainly hope the House of Representatives would take a hard look at this bill and consider taking it up and moving it because there has been a lot of work that has gone into it. We have a deadline ahead of us, and if we don't do this, we are going to be stuck with yet another--the 34th--short-term extension, which just kicks the can down the road and makes it more difficult for those who are in the position of having to make decisions about planning and designing our infrastructure in this country to do that. Obviously, there are a lot of people and a lot of jobs that depend upon the decisions that come out of Washington with regard to this bill. So I, too, encourage our colleagues in the Senate to move as quickly as we can to complete action on the Senate bill and to allow the House of Representatives to take a chance at considering it and perhaps getting this issue resolved and a long-term bill in place. These bills are nothing new in the Senate. The bill before us today is notable because it is the first Transportation bill, as I mentioned, in almost a decade to provide more than 2 years of funding for our Nation's infrastructure needs. Since 2009, Congress has passed more than 33 short-term funding extensions. That is an average of approximately five funding extensions a year. That is not a good way to manage our Nation's infrastructure and it wastes an incredible amount of money. Around the country, hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on funding contained in transportation bills. When Congress fails to provide the necessary certainty about the way transportation funding is going to be allocated, States and local governments are left without the certainty they need to authorize projects to make long-term plans for transportation infrastructure. That means essential construction projects get deferred, necessary repairs may not get made, and the jobs that depend on transportation are put in jeopardy. My home State of South Dakota has been forced to defer important construction projects thanks to the lack of funding certainty. No individual or business would start building a house or an office building if it could only promise a contractor 3 months of funding. In the same way, Congress can't expect a State to begin construction of a new bridge or highway without the certainty that their project is going to be fully funded. The highway bill before us--the DRIVE Act--reauthorizes transportation programs for 6 years and provides 3 years of guaranteed funding. All 3 years of funding have been paid for without raising the gas tax and without adding a dime to the deficit. This bill will give States and local governments the certainty they need to plan for and commit to key infrastructure projects. The bill will also help to strengthen our Nation's transportation system by increasing transparency in the allocation of transportation dollars, streamlining the permitting and environmental review processes and cutting redtape. Mr. President, over the past few years of Democratic control, the public has grown increasingly skeptical of Congress being able to function. When Republicans took the majority in January, we promised the American people we would get the Senate working again, and we have been delivering on that promise. This Transportation bill is another major legislative achievement and the result of hard work by several committees that put together key provisions to spur important infrastructure investment and safety improvements. Republicans and Democrats alike got to make their voices heard in this process, and the resulting bill is stronger because of it. As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I had the opportunity to work on the commerce section of the bill. Our focus was on enhancing the safety of our Nation's cars, trucks, and railroads, and the bill we produced makes key reforms that will enhance transport safety around the country. Over the past year, the commerce committee has spent a lot of time focused on motor vehicle safety efforts. Last year was a record year for auto problems, with more than 63 million vehicles recalled. Two of the defects that have spurred recent auto recalls--the faulty General Motors ignition switch and the defective airbag inflators from Takata--are responsible for numerous unnecessary deaths and injuries, at least 8 reported deaths in the case of Takata and more than 100 deaths in the case of General Motors. Indications point to the Takata recalls as being among the largest and most complex set of auto-related recalls in our Nation's history, with more than 30 million cars affected. Given the seriousness of these recalls, when it came time to draft the highway bill, one of our priorities in the commerce committee was addressing auto safety issues and promoting greater consumer awareness and corporate responsibility. The commerce section of the DRIVE Act now triples the civil penalties the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can impose on automakers for a series of related safety violations--from a cap of $35 million to a cap of $105 million--which should provide a stronger deterrent against auto safety violations such as those that occurred in the case of the faulty ignition switches at General Motors. Our portion of the bill also improves notification methods to ensure that consumers are made aware of recalls. In the wake of the recall over the GM ignition switch defect, the inspector general at the Department of Transportation published a scathing report identifying serious lapses of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, the government agency responsible for overseeing safety in our Nation's cars and trucks. The concerns raised included questions about the agency's ability to properly identify and investigate safety problems--a concern that is further underscored, I might add, by the circumstances surrounding the Takata recalls. In addition to targeting violations by automakers, our portion of the highway bill also addresses the lapses at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identified in the inspector general's report. In its typical fashion, the Obama administration claimed NHTSA's problems could be solved by simply throwing more money at the agency, but based on the expert testimony from the inspector general, it is clear money alone is not going to solve the problem. We need to ensure that the agency fixes what is broken before we provide a significant increase in funding authorization with taxpayer dollars. Our bill makes additional funding increases for NHTSA's vehicle safety efforts contingent on that agency's implementation of reforms called for by the inspector general, ensuring that this agency will be in a better position to address vehicle safety problems in the future. I appreciate that NHTSA's current administration and Administrator have pledged to implement all of these recommendations. Another big focus of the commerce committee this year has been rail safety. Nearly half of the commerce section of the DRIVE Act is made up of a bipartisan rail safety bill put together by the Republican junior Senator from Mississippi and the Democratic junior Senator from New Jersey. Their work on important rail and Amtrak reform was almost ready for a committee markup at the beginning of May, but after the tragic train derailment in Philadelphia, these two Senators opted to delay the markup and then added even more safety provisions to the bill they crafted. Their bill, which passed the committee with unanimous support from committee members of both parties, include provisions to strengthen our Nation's rail infrastructure and smooths the way for the implementation of new safety technologies. Our transportation infrastructure keeps our economy and our Nation going. Our Nation's farmers depend on our rail system to move their crops to the market. Manufacturers rely on our Interstate Highway System to distribute their goods to stores across the United States. All of us--all of us--depend on our Nation's roads and bridges to get around every single day. For too long, transportation has been the subject of short-term legislation that leaves those responsible for building and for maintaining our Nation's transportation system without the certainty and the predictability they need to keep our roads and highways thriving. I am proud of the bill we have on the floor before us. I hope we can pass this legislation as soon as possible and work with the House to develop a final bill that will allow us to fund our Nation's transportation priorities on a long-term basis. We can't afford to continue this path we have been on of passing short-term extensions--33 already in the last 5 years, more than 5 a year--and all the uncertainty that comes with that. That jeopardizes jobs across this country that are related to construction of these projects. It jeopardizes the planning and engineering and design work that our departments of transportation across the country do, and it puts at risk all of the transportation infrastructure that moves the freight, that moves people across this country, which our economy depends on. So I simply want to say that as a Member who represents a rural State, South Dakota--where we have 77,000 square miles, home to 800,000 people--we depend heavily on roads and bridges to get to and from our destinations. We have people who drive long distances to work. We have people who come into our State every single year. This time of the year we will have a million or so people descend upon a little town in South Dakota called Sturgis, which will be the place where the annual motorcycle rally is hosted. We have people who come by the thousands to our State every single year to visit the Black Hills and Mount Rushmore. We depend upon a good, viable, robust transportation system. As I mentioned earlier, we are an agricultural economy which drives the jobs in our State that keeps our Main Streets going. That agricultural economy depends upon getting those things we raise and grow to the marketplace. That means good highways, railroads, ports-- all the things that are essential to make sure our agricultural producers can get the things they raise and grow to the places and destinations they need to get to. This is truly important work we are doing. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his hard work. I certainly hope we can push this across the finish line soon, so we will be able to present it to the House of Representatives, notwithstanding the statements that have been made there. Perhaps they can look at this body of work and think, as we do, that this gives us an opportunity to put something on the books, the longest term bill we have had literally now in 10 years, and do something important for our economy and for jobs. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Matthew Vander Woude, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Matthew is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, Matthew is attending Pepperdine University, where he is majoring in economics. Matthew is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Matthew Vander Woude for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Brady Glissendorf, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Brady is a graduate of St. Thomas More High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, Brady is attending the University of Notre Dame, where he is majoring in political science and economics. Brady is a dedicated worker who been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Brady Glissendorf for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.