[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27253-27262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2006--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to 1 hour of debate in relation to the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 3058, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD bill; provided 
further that Senator Coburn be in control of up to 30 minutes of 
debate; I further ask consent that the two managers have up to 15 
minutes each and that following the use or yielding back of the time, 
and when the Senate has received the conference report, it then be 
agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of today, November 18, 2005.)
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank all or our colleagues. This has been 
a long and interesting path that we have trod.
  Today I stand in support of the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, 
Judiciary, and Independent Agencies fiscal year 2006 appropriations 
bill. This bill also includes the District of Columbia fiscal year 2006 
appropriations act. Before getting into the details of the bill, I 
thank Chairman Knollenberg and his ranking member, Mr. Olver, on the 
House side. Particularly, I express my sincere appreciation to my 
ranking member, Senator Murray, for her hard work, thoughtful and 
bipartisan approach to crafting a good bill, and her unwavering 
commitment to getting the bill done on an expedited schedule as 
mandated by the leadership. As all who follow this place know, we have 
had some bumps on the road over the last several days which forced both 
House and Senate staff to work throughout a number of nights this week 
while completing a blitzkrieg schedule in order for us to be able to 
vote on this measure today. Despite these bumps, we have completed our 
work, and I compliment Congressman Knollenberg on his commitment and 
perseverance to work with me to overcome these problems.
  I do express my sincerest gratitude and thanks to our excellent 
staffs; on the Senate side, on the subcommittee, on my side, Jon 
Kamarck, Paul Doerrer, Cheh Kim, Lula Edwards, Josh Manley, and Matt 
McCardle; on Senator Murray's side, Peter Rogoff, Kate Hallahan, 
William Simpson, Diana Hamilton, and Meaghan McCarthy.
  Obviously, we extend our thanks as well to the House side staffers.
  Now, Mr. President, the staff had to work extremely hard, in a 
bipartisan manner, to make our recommendations and instructions a 
reality. This is not a simple bill. Yet it is likely a Rube Goldberg 
machine with many complex moving parts.
  This bill is the first real appropriations product of a new 
subcommittee that grew out of the reorganization of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee earlier this year. It is a substantial and 
complex bill that will have a significant and positive impact on every 
State and community in the Nation as it covers, among other things, 
every mode of transportation, financial services, and IRS requirements 
as guided by the Department of Treasury; it funds the Federal 
Government's role in housing and economic role under HUD; it funds the 
Executive Office of the President, Federal judicial system, and funds 
other related agencies such as the General Services Administration, 
Office of Personnel Management, and the Postal Service.
  I believe that given the circumstances and our budget allocation, 
this is a good bill. We started with a budget that was severely 
underfunded in many of the important programs in the bill. These are 
programs which historically have been strongly supported by Members of 
this body. Thankfully, in most cases we have been able to restore many 
of the cuts and shortfalls, perhaps not as much as some Members would 
want and certainly some areas not as much as I want. But I think all 
Members will understand and appreciate our efforts to fund the programs 
and activities that enjoy the greatest support.
  I wish to express a very special thanks to our chairman, Senator 
Cochran, who demonstrated his understanding and sensitivity to the 
needs of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee.
  While we received significantly less budget authority for the 
conference, without Chairman Cochran's help the House would have 
demanded a much harsher and unrealistic reduction in our allocation, 
with the results we saw that happened in regard to the Labor-HHS fiscal 
year 2006 funding bill yesterday in the House.
  In particular, despite our fiscal limitations, we have worked 
diligently to ensure the transportation programs in this bill are 
adequately funded. One of my highest priorities in fashioning this bill 
was to provide the needed funding for the safety, construction, and 
maintenance of our highways, transit systems, and airports. Funding for 
our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and especially for our 
highways and road network, creates jobs and promotes economic growth. 
More importantly, it continues the continued maintenance and growth of 
our economic infrastructure by which we serve markets throughout the 
Nation and ultimately the world. The transportation system is the heart 
and arteries by which we pump our goods and products which guarantee 
our current and future prosperity in the national and international 
marketplace, and we cannot afford to shortchange this system.
  We also removed the designation on the Alaskan bridges. The funds 
remain with Alaska to meet their priority needs. These bridges were 
grabbing unreasonable and unwarranted attention which was beginning, in 
many ways, to undermine the very good work and the very necessary 
projects in this highway bill.

[[Page 27254]]

  In addition, this bill provides $14.4 billion for the Federal 
Aviation Administration, which is approximately $400 million more than 
the request. This recommendation includes $14.3 million to hire safety 
inspectors and restore inspector staffing levels on an accelerated 
basis. It also adds $4 million to restore engineering and inspector 
staffing at the Office of Certification so that new equipment and 
technologies can be approved for use in aviation and our Nation can 
retain its leadership in aviation. I am pleased also to announce that 
the bill does not cut the Airport Improvement Program, as proposed in 
the budget request.
  I am also happy to report we have been able to fund Amtrak at $1.315 
billion, while making some incremental steps to reforming how Amtrak 
conducts its business. These reforms are critical, and it is my hope 
that these improvements will move to jump-start the efforts of Senator 
Lott, Senator Stevens, and others to pass a truly comprehensive reform 
package.
  Mr. President, I was troubled by the administration's demand of 
Amtrak reform with a budget request of $360 million. A $360 million-a-
year appropriation would likely jolt Amtrak directly into bankruptcy, a 
costly financial and emotional blow to the Nation and send Amtrak into 
chaos. Many Members, including the occupant of the chair, our 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and Members throughout the 
Senate asked us to take strong action to avoid that problem. 
Thankfully, we were able to scrape enough funds together to ensure the 
continued existence of Amtrak, although it meant a number of other 
programs were underfunded, and when we received finally the recommended 
reforms at Amtrak from the administration, we were able to include 
them.
  Mr. President, I also should touch on another issue in the conference 
report, and that is the ongoing efforts to improve protection consumers 
have from being preyed upon by rogue household movers. I think we all 
know they are a small group of fly-by-night companies that purport to 
pack and transport family household possessions and then stealing them 
and holding them hostage for exorbitant fees or make unreasonable 
demands. This could be a devastating blow.
  In this past year's highway bill, additional requirements on movers 
were included, along with new provisions granting State officials, 
particularly attorneys general, new authority to help police the 
Federal law. Part of the problem has been the lack of the Federal 
enforcement. The Federal agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, has not had sufficient resources, and the U.S. 
attorneys, with the notable exceptions of the Miami and New York-New 
Jersey agencies, have also not made these crimes a priority; thus, the 
ideas of expanding cops on the beat by giving authority to State 
agencies and, thus, my work to make sure that while we expanded 
responsibilities, we did so in a reasonable and consistent way.
  First, we provided additional resources to the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration to help them do their job better. We restored $1 
million to the Education and Outreach Program in order to help them 
train State officials as to how to look and find the risky carriers. We 
also reiterated our support for the strong State-Federal partnership 
which had been included in the highway bill to ensure effective 
Federal-State cooperation.
  Where we and some of our colleagues part company is on the scope and 
the venue. I strongly believe that Federal law should be enforced in 
Federal court, and thus the key provisions in the conference report 
will ensure that that will occur. There will be Federal enforcement on 
the major interstate activities. State law violations will continue to 
be enforced in State court. Federal law violations will continue to be 
enforced in Federal court.
  In order to ensure that the States target those typical rogue movers 
who seem to be too small for U.S. attorneys and thus are slipping 
through the cracks, the language makes clear that the responsibilities 
of the State agencies are focused on what carriers they have 
jurisdiction over. Namely, these are the highest risk, fly-by-night 
carriers or carriers who meet one or more of the following: The carrier 
is unregistered; or the license of the carrier or broker has been 
revoked for safety or lack of insurance; three, the carrier is unrated 
or received a conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating by DOT; or 
the carrier has been licensed for less than 5 years.
  This then accomplishes all the goals we have been discussing--tougher 
Federal law, additional consumer protections, State attorneys general 
and other State agencies have been granted the authority to be a cop on 
the beat to help enforce the Federal law. Their targets are the fly-by-
night rogues and their venue is the Federal court and they are being 
asked to help enforce Federal law.
  Now, Mr. President, moving on to some of the other areas in the bill, 
for the Department of the Treasury, this bill provides $11.7 billion 
for 2006. This amount is about $50 million above the budget request and 
some $475 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. We think it 
is very important to provide resources for Treasury's efforts to fight 
the war on terrorism, and we provided full funding for the Treasury's 
Office of Terrorism and Financial intelligence. I know how important 
the Treasury's Antiterrorism efforts are, and I strongly believe they 
play a vital and unique role in cutting off financial assistance to 
terrorist organizations.
  Next, to help close the so-called tax gap, where those people who pay 
taxes as they should voluntarily have to carry a heavy burden for the 
small percentage who do not, we have provided $10.7 billion for the 
IRS, including $6.9 billion for tax enforcement. This amount is $443 
million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. These additional 
funds will help ensure there will be less fraud and that honest 
taxpayers will have a greater level of confidence in our tax system.
  We also have provided full funding for IRS's modernization efforts 
through their Business Systems Modernization Program. This program is 
correctly IRS's highest management and administrative priority.
  For the Federal judiciary, the bill includes a total appropriation of 
$5.7 billion, a 6-percent increase over the previous year, and this 
represents the funding necessary to meet the judiciary fiscal year 2006 
funding needs.
  For HUD, the bill provides some $38.2 billion for fiscal year 2006, 
an increase of $2.1 billion over the request. These additional funds 
include almost $4.22 billion for the Community Development Fund and 
CDBG, which was slated for elimination through a reduction of over 30 
percent of its funding and a consolidation of its activities along with 
other programs into a new grant program within the Department of 
Commerce.
  The bill also increased the Senate-proposed rescission of ``excess'' 
section 8 funds from $1.5 billion to $2.05 billion. After further 
review of the account, we firmly believe we have identified a one-time 
savings from section 8 that allowed us to increase the rescission to 
$2.05 billion.
  In addition, I am happy to report we have adequately funded HUD 
programs at a minimum of last year's level which is generally higher 
than the request.
  The bill basically funds the Executive Office of the President at the 
requested level. We have fully funded the High Intensity Drug Program 
at $127 million; whereas, the budget would have funded it at 100 
million in the Department of Justice. This is a critically important 
program that has been successful throughout the Nation at helping to 
root out and eradicate methamphetamine production, marijuana, and 
ecstasy use, as well as heroin and cocaine importation. This program 
has been especially important in Missouri, where methamphetamine 
production and use have reached almost epidemic proportions.
  Mr. President, as I prepare to close, I wish to express my sincerest 
thanks to the ranking member of the full committee who has been a great 
friend and mentor of mine and who has helped Senator Murray and me as 
we have worked through this by gaining the necessary funds.

[[Page 27255]]

  I also thank--I feel his presence immediately behind me--the chairman 
emeritus of the Appropriations Committee whose birthday we celebrate, 
with very best wishes and, fortunately, no songs on the Senate floor. 
He has been of great assistance to us.
  I must say, one of my last thank yous is to my chief of staff, Julie 
Dammann, who has served me since I arrived in this body. I was going to 
say in 1897 but it was 1987. She has been with me for these years and 
has become very well known and respected. This will be her last bill 
and, as on all the other bills, not only was the appropriations staff 
working day and night, but we were communicating by BlackBerry in the 
middle of the night. She was working on the details with the 
appropriations staff and others. She was communicating with Senators' 
offices. We only came to the floor today because she had worked with 
other Senate offices, as Senator Murray and her staff had, to clear 
away objections which might be raised.
  So it is with great thanks that I note the contributions to this, her 
last appropriations bill, of Julie Dammann and wish her all the best.
  I also note that my partner, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. 
Murray, has been working extremely hard on this. She helped clear the 
way of the remaining problems. I cannot think of how she could have 
been more helpful or more productive in this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Bond, in supporting the conference report on the 
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary 
and Independent Agencies Appropriations for fiscal year 2006.
  This bill is the product of many hours of hard work since the Senate 
passed the bill on October 20. First, I want to express my sincere 
gratitude for the cooperative spirit that my colleague, Chairman Bond, 
along with our House colleagues, Chairman Knollenberg and Congressman 
Olver, brought to bear during our conference negotiations.
  I am pleased to say that the conference agreement, like the Senate-
passed bill, restores many of the more punitive cuts that were included 
in the President's budget for transportation, housing and drug law 
enforcement.
  We have funded airport grants at $3.55 billion rather than accept the 
President's proposal to cut this program by half a billion dollars.
  While the President sought to move the Community Development Block 
Grant program to another department and cut it by more than a third, 
this bill restores most, but not all of the annual funding for CDBG.
  While the President's budget effectively zeroed out Amtrak and 
proposed to eliminate rail service in our country, this conference 
agreement provides Amtrak with a $100 million increase and includes 
many of the reforms that were agreed to and included the bill reported 
by the Senate committee.
  This is a good bill that addresses many of the urgent needs facing 
our country. It includes critical investments in our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure and provides much needed housing 
assistance to our most vulnerable.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I recently announced a major railroad 
initiative in three different cities in my home State of South Dakota--
Sioux Falls, Huron, and Rapid City. This particular project is the 
result of legislation I authored as part of the recently enacted 
Transportation reauthorization bill. My amendment was improved and 
incorporated in large part through work with Senator Lott, who chairs 
the Senate Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant 
Marine Subcommittee. I believe the changes that Senator Lott and I 
made, both during Senate consideration as well as conference 
deliberations, will have a major positive impact on my State's rail 
infrastructure needs and I think significantly alleviate some of our 
Nation's rail infrastructure problems.
  Much of the language that ended up in the final Railroad 
Rehabilitation Improvement Financing--or RRIF--program originated from 
past legislation that Representative Don Young introduced. Building on 
Representative Young's bill language, Senator Lott and I made a number 
of changes to that legislation, but it provided a very solid foundation 
upon which to build.
  The South Dakota project itself actually involves a major national 
initiative to build a second rail line into the capacity-strapped 
Powder River Basin, PRB, of Wyoming. The Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern 
Railroad DM&E, announced this project in 1997 and filed an application 
with the Surface Transportation Board, STB, in February 1998 to obtain 
regulatory approval. That process will be concluded in the near future, 
which I hope will allow the DM&E railroad to apply for a RRIF loan to 
finance construction of the project.
  This project is strongly supported by virtually all of South Dakota's 
existing rail shippers and by the agriculture and economic development 
organizations throughout the State. It is also supported by the vast 
majority of communities served. And at the press events I participated 
in earlier this month--as noted in the Rapid City Journal article that 
I will later ask to be made part of the Record--even many of the 
landowners directly affected by the construction support it. I have 
supported this project since it was first announced in 1997, when I was 
serving in the House of Representatives, and have supported the project 
ever since in both the public and private sectors. It is incredibly 
important to the future of my State.
  But on a national scale, it is also extremely important to our 
country's entire capacity-constrained rail system and to our national 
energy policy in particular.
  Our national energy policy specifically states that:

     [d]emand for clean coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin is 
     expected to increase because of its environmental benefits. 
     However, rail capacity problems in the Powder River Basin 
     have created a bottleneck in the coal transportation system . 
     . . There is a need to eliminate bottlenecks in the coal 
     transportation system.

  The new RRIF legislation requires the Secretary to prioritize 
projects that:

       (8) would materially alleviate rail capacity problems which 
     degrade provision of service to shippers and fulfill a need 
     in the national rail system.

  The national ``need'' criteria of the legislation was written 
specifically with this nationally articulated energy policy ``need'' in 
mind.
  The new RRIF legislation also requires the Secretary to prioritize 
projects that:

       (7) enhance service and capacity in the national rail 
     system.

  Mr. President, as the National Energy Policy clearly notes, there is 
an overwhelming rail capacity problem in Wyoming's PRB. The Powder 
River Basin corridor is one of the most heavily traveled rail corridors 
in the world. Over 400 million tons of coal per year are shipped out, 
virtually all of it by rail. That number is expected to exceed 500 
million tons soon, and to grow beyond that if capacity allows. It is 
therefore clear that, if completed, this 1,300-mile project in the West 
and Midwest would have a material impact on rail capacity in this 
region and throughout the country.
  We also have a critical rail capacity problem throughout the entire 
United States. What happens in the PRB profoundly affects capacity 
elsewhere. It also affects the movement of grain and industrial 
commodities and general merchandise intermodal traffic. When this 
incredible flow of coal traffic increasingly merges with all this other 
rail traffic as it continues its flow eastward, it has a big impact. 
First and foremost, immediate and obvious traffic congestion occurs the 
further ``downstream'' into the traffic flow you go. The train of 
merchandise goods making its way from the west coast to Chicago has to 
pull off to the siding to allow another train to pass. Or less obvious, 
perhaps because of a crew or locomotive power shortage, the railroad

[[Page 27256]]

will have to dedicate limited and locally available resources to one 
train over the other. This has a cascading effect because it makes it 
hard to recover when too many of your sidings are being used to park 
trains instead of being used for a quick meeting point so they can pass 
in the opposite direction.
  A less obvious problem is the drain on resources from other regions 
to accommodate spot problems. Right now, for example, we are seeing a 
rail capacity shortage across the board. In addition to the long haul 
traffic that is mixed into these heavy haul coal lines, areas of the 
country that never come into direct physical contact with these lines 
are affected by their congestion problems. When those lines ``bottle 
up'' as they are doing now, it takes more locomotive power and more 
people to move trains. So resources are shifted. For example, we have 
dozens of loaded grain trains standing today with no power to move 
them. Grain orders are a month or more behind in my State and 
throughout the Midwest today. Locomotive power and other resources are 
being diverted to the PRB and elsewhere to address problems there, and 
our farmers are suffering as a result. The same can be said for 
virtually every traffic commodity out there today--including coal and 
general merchandise traffic.
  With the completion of this new rail line to serve a heavy traffic 
area, it will relieve pressure on one of the biggest problem spots, 
which in turn relieves pressure on the system throughout the country. 
This project will not only add more physical track to our system and 
greatly improve existing track, it will also result in more locomotives 
and equipment and people. Across the board, this project will relieve 
pressure on the rail system from northeast corridor to the southwest 
reaches of the United States.
  In a very basic sense, the national railroad system is well beyond 
its capacity today. There is not a railroad in this country that is not 
backed up on its orders. We have more traffic to move than the system 
can handle. And, adding to that, the U.S. Department of Transportation 
projects that railroad freight traffic demand generally will rise 55 
percent by the year 2020. We need to add capacity. That requires major 
investments of the kind envisioned in our new RRIF legislation.
  The changes made to that program did more than authorize the amount 
that can be loaned. The improvements were specifically tailored to 
encourage large-scale investment of the type envisioned by the DM&E 
project. After all, a large-scale investment is needed if we want to 
have a material impact on the national capacity problem. For that 
reason, I think this project is critically important to the country. I 
hope others will follow suit and develop projects that are national in 
scope. Nothing is more important to our national rail system in my view 
than this basic need for capacity.
  On a related issue, the rail industry has gone through a massive 
consolidation on a national scale. Thousands of miles have been torn up 
in recent decades and are never to be recovered. This has certainly 
increased efficiency on single line segments up to this point. But in 
the process, at least from a national rail system perspective, we have 
lost important redundancy in the system. If we have a problem in one 
area, it quickly ripples through the rest of the country because of 
traffic backups that have nowhere else to go. We need more pressure 
relief valves, and more alternatives that allow the national system a 
little more flexibility to recover from spot problems. We have seen 
melt down after melt down in the national rail system. That problem is 
never going to get better unless we have some alternative emergency 
routings developed. The DM&E project will also be of great help in 
providing a fairly dramatic pressure relief valve for this critical 
part of the national rail system. So on many levels, from a national 
rail system perspective, this project reaches well beyond its immediate 
track geography.
  Going on to other aspects of the new RRIF program, perhaps the most 
significant change we made was in regard to the valuation and treatment 
of collateral. This legislation requires the Secretary to use the more 
realistic ``going concern'' valuation instead of ``net liquidation'' 
value the Secretary has used in the past in relation to collateral. 
This is important because collateral value is a critical component of 
the credit risk premium calculation. This language is intended to 
ensure that the Secretary applies a ``going concern,'' or market value, 
to the collateral when determining whether and to what extent a credit 
risk premium is required. In short, the question becomes, what could 
the government reasonably expect to get for the value of the collateral 
if it were sold as a `going concern' business? In the past, the 
Secretary has used a ``net liquidation'' or ``scrap'' valuation 
approach. But in the real world if we are facing a default situation 
under the RRIF Program, the Secretary is not going to ``scrap'' the 
collateral. He is going to sell it for its highest and best use value. 
So that is the way it should be valued when considering collateral 
during the application process. This is consistent with private sector 
lending practices. It provides protection for the Government, and also 
encourages greater rail infrastructure investment by avoiding 
artificial credit risk premium payments when they are not necessary. It 
also requires the Secretary to take into consideration what the value 
will be after giving effect to the improvements that will be made with 
the loan. That of course will be discounted based on the overall cost 
of capital for the project.
  Along those same lines, another feature that was added to the 
original Young RRIF language was to provide for the loan repayment 
schedule ``to commence not later than the sixth anniversary date of the 
original loan disbursement.'' The intent was that this discretion 
should be used for those large-scale projects that require several 
years of construction before revenues are generated and where the 
revenue ``ramp up'' may be gradual. This is a pretty standard feature 
in large private sector loans, but under the former law the Secretary 
did not have any flexibility to do that. Under the new law, interest 
would accrue and compound during this period. It was primarily my 
intent to provide a reasonable breathing period so that a solid revenue 
flow would be established before payments would be required.
  Senator Lott and I also added a provision to the RRIF improvements to 
allow the Secretary to charge, and for the FRA to collect and retain, a 
fee to evaluate loans. This provision was included because we want the 
process to be efficient, and not be a drain on the government. The best 
solution was to allow the Secretary to hire help and charge the cost to 
the applicant. It is hoped that this will make it easier to expedite 
these loans, and the expectation is that FRA will undertake best 
efforts to keep these fees to a minimum. The point here is to help 
expedite the process and give FRA a little more flexibility to get the 
job done quicker. The former RRIF Program was notorious for the amount 
of time it took to process. There was a particularly bad history there, 
which I think the FRA has already improved substantially. This, 
hopefully, will give them the tools they need to take the next step.
  The $35 billion authorization level was in Representative Young's 
original legislation, as was the provision that prohibited the 
Secretary from limiting the size of a single loan, and the 90-day 
review period. Those were important provisions that we wanted to retain 
because they all go to this concept of encouraging major new rail 
infrastructure investment in this country, and I appreciate the efforts 
by the Senator from Mississippi and his staff to retain them and add my 
language to them.
  In closing, the original RRIF Program got off to a very slow start, 
owing in large part I think to a certain degree of resistance from OMB. 
I am very hopeful that everyone recognizes this effort as a good faith 
attempt by Congress to send a clear message that we are trying to 
encourage major rail infrastructure investment in the United States 
rather than think up reasons to not do it. This is a program that is 
very much in the national interest. As former director of the South

[[Page 27257]]

Dakota Rail Division, I believe strongly in the importance of and 
urgent need for major rail infrastructure investment in this country. I 
think most Members of Congress feel the same way, and I hope our 
colleagues in the administration receive this message and will support 
our recent action to strengthen the RRIF Program. I hope they will now 
join in the effort to make RRIF a strong engine for rail infrastructure 
investment as was originally intended and as we directed in the 
recently enacted legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that articles describing the 
proposed rail project--which appeared in the November 6, 2005 editions 
of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, and the Huron Daily Plainsman, and the 
Rapid City Journal--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Argus Leader, Nov. 6, 2005]

                 In DM&E, Backers See Jobs, Prosperity

                          (By Peter Harriman)

       Rail boss Kevin Schieffer and Sen. John Thune toured South 
     Dakota on Saturday announcing a plan to seek a $2.5 billion 
     federal loan to reconstruct 1,300 miles of line in three 
     states and reach Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal fields.
       The reaction in their wake ranged from the dogged 
     determination of opponents to continue fighting the scheme to 
     the ecstatic embrace of shippers and communities that foresee 
     an economic development bonanza.
       ``This is huge for us, huge for us,'' said Lisa Richardson, 
     executive director of the South Dakota Corn Utilization 
     Council and South Dakota Corn Growers Association.
       Having clearance to seek the loan is a quantum leap for the 
     Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad and Schieffer, its 
     chief executive officer. Yet it's seen as a smaller piece of 
     a bigger puzzle. At a Sioux Falls news conference Saturday, 
     Schieffer developed that theme.
       ``The end game is not building a railroad,'' he said. ``The 
     railroad is the means to an end.''
       The project would create 3,000 construction jobs over three 
     years and permanently employ 2,000 new DM&E workers and 
     create as many new jobs for contractors working for the 
     railroad.
       But Schieffer said: ``The direct jobs here are the tip of 
     the iceberg. The real action is in the economic 
     development.''
       Schieffer said the railroad's presence already has 
     attracted new businesses. The DM&E's presence in Brookings 
     brought Rainbow Play Stations and 500 jobs to that community. 
     If the railroad can transform itself into the nation's 
     newest, most technologically advanced Class I carrier, ``I 
     see dozens and dozens if not hundreds of Rainbow Play 
     Stations springing up along the line,'' he said.


                $286.4M projected in revenue first year

       With a $2.5 billion capital investment, the DM&E will 
     create for itself a railroad with metaphors at both ends of 
     the line. In recounting the railroad's history, Schieffer 
     said the DM&E's acquisition of a sister line several years 
     ago gave it an eastern terminus at railroading's Rome. ``For 
     railroads, Chicago is Rome. All roads lead there,'' he said.
       He also called the Powder River Basin coal fields ``the 
     Holy Grail'' of railroading.
       Pursuit of the Holy Grail has kept the DM&E project wrapped 
     in controversy. The goal of expanding to Wyoming is to let 
     the DM&E grow beyond its status as the country's largest 
     Class II regional carrier and join the Union Pacific and BNSF 
     railroads in hauling vast quantities of low sulfur coal to 
     power plants in the Midwest and East. North America has seven 
     Class I railroads, based on annual revenue of $200 million. 
     When the project is complete ``absolutely and immediately we 
     will become the first Class I that has built itself into a 
     Class I since the classes were established,'' Schieffer said. 
     In asking the federal Surface Transportation Board for a 
     permit to become the third carrier into the Wyoming fields, 
     the DM&E projects coal hauling revenue of $286.4 million in 
     the first year alone.


             Critics observe absence of private investment

       But spirited opposition has formed in places such as 
     Brookings and Pierre, along with Rochester in southeastern 
     Minnesota. Critics there don't want to see mile-long coal 
     trains traveling through their towns. Some landowners in West 
     River South Dakota and in Wyoming don't want 280 miles of new 
     rail bisecting their ranches. Other criticism rises from the 
     Oglala Sioux Tribe that worries rail construction will 
     threaten culturally sensitive sites.
       Environmentalists fear noise and air pollution from the 
     coal trains and additional air pollution in the East from the 
     increased use of coal to generate electricity.
       The announcement that the DM&E is seeking the huge federal 
     loan that it thinks it is uniquely qualified to get didn't 
     weaken the resolve of prominent longtime opponents nor prompt 
     them to view the project more kindly.
       ``It doesn't change the fact that's not a viable coal 
     line,'' said Nancy Darnell of Newcastle, Wyo. She is a member 
     of the Mid States Coalition for Progress that sued the 
     Surface Transportation Board over its decision to allow the 
     DM&E expansion. The DM&E applied for the permit in 1998.
       ``Schieffer had seven years to get financing in a vibrant 
     economy from an industry with a lot of money floating around, 
     and basically nobody was willing to invest in it,'' Darnell 
     said.
       ``Private industry was not willing to put any money into 
     it. Nothing but stupid money would put money into the DM&E, 
     and the federal government tends to be incredibly stupid. 
     That's why it's the financing of last resort,'' she said. 
     ``Rebuilding the railroad in South Dakota for hauling grain, 
     that might have been something different. But to build the 
     PRB project and expect to haul coal is totally stupid.''
       On Saturday, Thune and Schieffer said the Powder River 
     Basin project would address a transportation bottleneck 
     identified in the 2001 U.S. energy plan. The plan states 
     there is not enough rail capacity to move Wyoming coal to 
     power plants farther east at the rate it is needed. Because 
     it deals with that need, the DM&E's $2.5 billion loan request 
     to the Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad 
     Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program would be 
     given high priority, Thune and Schieffer said.
       This will not stop the Mid State's Coalition from trying to 
     block the loan, Darnell promised.
       ``We'll certainly look into it. That will be a stone that 
     will not be left unturned,'' she said.


               Lawsuits, other barriers could delay start

       The news the DM&E might have broken the longstanding logjam 
     on project funding left some opponents scrambling. Raymond 
     Schmitz is the attorney for Minnesota's Olmstead County. The 
     county, city of Rochester and the Mayo Clinic there all have 
     opposed the DM&E's effort to haul coal through Rochester.
       ``It is my understanding the city and Mayo Clinic will be 
     taking whatever steps they can to continue their 
     opposition,'' Schmitz said Saturday. ``Whether the county 
     board elects to do anything actively at this point is a 
     decision they have to make. The county's position to this all 
     along has been the impact of this on the county was way out 
     of proportion to any benefit the county might realize.''
       Schieffer praised Thune for including in the 2005 federal 
     transportation bill provisions that make it possible for the 
     DM&E to get a federal loan for its reconstruction and 
     expansion.
       ``Obviously, at this point, we don't know what that 
     legislation says,'' Schmitz acknowledged. ``It was carefully 
     buried in the transportation bill. Whether there is a vehicle 
     to raise the issue is something that is going to have to be 
     explored.''
       When the Surface Transportation Board approved the DM&E 
     project in 2002, the Mid States Coalition sued the STB, 
     claiming its decision was flawed. The U.S. 8th Circuit Court 
     ruled the STB decision was essentially sound. The court did, 
     however, require the board to further analyze the 
     environmental effects of rail vibration and horn noise, and 
     of potential increased coal consumption, before drafting a 
     final environmental impact statement and issuing a final 
     decision of approval. That review is ongoing. It might allow 
     opponents to at least slow the railroad's progress toward 
     securing a loan, since regulatory issues must be resolved 
     before the Federal Railroad Administration can consider a 
     DM&E loan application.
       ``I don't see where they can do anything until they finish 
     that EIS process,'' said Sam Clauson, a South Dakota Sierra 
     Club delegate in Rapid City. ``The final EIS is due out this 
     fall. There's an appeal period on that We're going to 
     probably appeal it.''
       Schieffer said he hoped to complete the loan application 
     this year or early next and have a decision from the rail 
     administration on the loan by next spring. That would let 
     construction begin next year.
       Even as they laid out a future for South Dakota as an El 
     Dorado of economic development spinning off the DM&E's 
     ambitious project, Thune and Schieffer acknowledged the 
     ongoing controversies and promised to resolve them.
       ``Those are legitimate concerns. This is a small state. 
     We're neighbors,'' Schieffer said. 'We need to work these 
     things out, and we will.''
       Thune said of the project: ``Yes, it's great for South 
     Dakota. But it is not unanimously supported. There is some 
     work to do, there are some issues to address.''
       Issues indeed. Fred Seymour lives on Derdall Drive near the 
     DM&E tracks in Brookings.
       ``Nobody has a keener idea of the situation than me. I 
     expect if the railroad comes through town you will see 
     property values drop by 40 percent,'' he said. Seymour was 
     one of the earliest to call for the railroad to bypass 
     Brookings with its coal trains. But as the project has 
     dragged on, the momentum of opposition has slowed, he said.
       ``In my view, the people who opposed the railroad have 
     gotten older and gotten

[[Page 27258]]

     crankier and have perhaps not promoted their own interests 
     too well,'' he said. He anticipates within a month Brookings 
     will resolve its differences with the DM&E, and from his 
     vantage near the tracks he predicts with what sounds like 
     cynical satisfaction ``I would expect the DM&E is coming 
     right through here.''
       Opponents did not rule the day as Schieffer and Thune made 
     their way to news conferences in Sioux Falls, Huron and Rapid 
     City.


               Potential windfall for ethanol and farmers

       News that the DM&E project has taken a long step toward 
     becoming real also was widely praised Saturday. Schieffer 
     said the railroad will build an operations center in Huron, 
     which has struggled to attract new business. Huron lawyer Ron 
     Volesky said Friday he is seeking the Democratic nomination 
     for governor, and he hailed the DM&E announcement that it has 
     potential financing for the Powder River Basin project.
       ``That is terrific news for Huron,'' he said. ``I have 
     always been a big supporter of the expansion project, and I 
     am very pleased to see these positive developments come 
     about.''
       At the same time, Volesky said, as governor he would try to 
     broker compromise between the DM&E and its opponents. ``The 
     governor has responsibility as the political leader of the 
     state to help where he can to bring about as much consensus 
     as possible,'' he said.
       Gov. Mike Rounds could not be reached for comment Saturday. 
     But he endorsed the DM&E project Friday and said: ``I will 
     continue to work with the DM&E to help make this proposal a 
     reality and address outstanding concerns at the state 
     level.''
       The state's burgeoning ethanol industry has almost swamped 
     its existing rail facilities, which lends urgency to a DM&E 
     expansion, according to Ron Lamberty, vice president for 
     market development for the American Coalition for Ethanol.
       ``What we had was not built for this,'' he said. A project 
     such as the DM&E's ``is probably something that's a necessity 
     in the long term,'' he said.
       Richardson of the corn growers association peers toward the 
     horizon Lamberty identified and sees an even brighter future. 
     A rebuilt DM&E will aggressively compete with the state's 
     dominant commodity carrier, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, 
     and will result in lower shipping rates for farmers, she 
     said.
       And there is this: ``I was visiting with some people in the 
     ethanol industry who said we will see coal-fired plants in 
     the next 18 months,'' Richardson said. At some point, Wyoming 
     coal hauled by the DM&E could provide the energy to distill 
     ethanol from South Dakota corn at new ethanol plants built 
     here, she suggested.
       ``It's huge. Huge,'' Richardson said of the DM&E's improved 
     prospects for securing money for its Powder River Basin 
     project. ``We really hope it happens.''
                                  ____


              [From the Rapid City Journal, Nov. 6, 2005]

                   DM&E Loan Could Help S.D. Economy

                             (By Jan Kaus)

       Rapid City.--If a $2.5 billion federal loan request by the 
     Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad is approved, 
     construction on South Dakota's largest railroad project could 
     begin as early as next year, according to DM&E president 
     Kevin Schieffer.
       That announcement came in a news conference Saturday at 
     Rushmore Plaza Holiday Inn, where Schieffer and Sen. John 
     Thune, R-S.D., spoke to a group of several dozen people about 
     the financing that only recently became an option--in a 
     transportation bill that expands railroad rehabilitation 
     funding.
       The plan would allow DM&E to build or rehabilitate more 
     than 1,300 miles of rail, the majority of which would be in 
     South Dakota.
       ``The impact it could have on the whole state is huge,'' 
     Thune said Saturday, calling the railroad infrastructure ``an 
     economic development magnet.''
       ``Who even knows the kinds of industry we could bring in? 
     Literally, the sky is the limit in terms of what this could 
     mean,'' Thune said.
       He said that it would not only provide thousands of jobs in 
     South Dakota, but would also address a pressing national 
     need--affordable and abundant energy.
       ``Forty percent of the country's electricity is fueled by 
     coal,'' Thune said.
       Schieffer added: ``And it's not just about coal. This is 
     about wheat, cement, clay out of Belle Fourche, timber and a 
     lot of other things.''
       Although most who spoke Saturday were in support of the 
     railroad, property owner Veronica Edoff said she doesn't see 
     where the proposal is going to be fair to people who, she 
     said, are giving up everything to put money in DM&E pockets.
       Other landowners, including Leonard Benson and Richard 
     Papousek said the company has been more than willing to 
     negotiate and work with the ranchers.
       Wall Mayor Dave Hahn thanked Thune and Schieffer for what 
     the railroad could do for the state and its people, drawing 
     the only applause of the evening.
       Thune said it would enable South Dakota to diversify and 
     grow the economy in a way no single industry can. After the 
     recent battle to save Ellsworth Air Force Base, he said, that 
     need is more obvious than ever.
       ``There's a lot of work ahead of us yet, but I can tell 
     you, it's a lot further along that it was yesterday,'' 
     Schieffer said.
       Schieffer emphasized that the funding is a loan--not a 
     grant or taxpayer-funded program.
       ``We would have to pay it back, but the key thing is that 
     it would be stretched over a longer period of time.''
       Thune called the project ``hands-down the biggest single 
     investment ever made in South Dakota.''
       The Federal Railroad Administration has 90 days to decide 
     whether to approve the loan after the application is filed. 
     The project would likely take about three years to build, 
     Schieffer said.
                                  ____


             [From the Huron Daily Plainsman, Nov. 6, 2005]

                           Committed to Huron

                           (By Roger Larsen)

       They came to hear when seven long years of waiting for the 
     start of a project unprecedented in state history in terms of 
     scope and jobcreating significance would be over.
       Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad President Kevin 
     Schieffer couldn't specifically say when the first spike in 
     the $2.5 billion expansion and reconstruction project will be 
     driven into the ground.
       But he could tell them something nearly as promising.
       ``We feel very good about where things are right now,'' 
     Schieffer told a Huron crowd estimated at 250 on Saturday.
       And for the first time since the project to access the 
     Powder River Basin coal fields in eastern Wyoming was 
     proposed in 1998 there is also this:
       Thanks to a change in the law that now allows the DM&E to 
     seek the $2.5 billion in federal loans, Schieffer is in a 
     position to say that if the application is approved some 
     construction would start in 2006.
       Until now, there has been no specific timetable. As each 
     year has passed, there has been hope the next one would bring 
     construction crews to the region. But the largest hurdle has 
     been a lack of private financing, and that is no longer the 
     problem.
       Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., authored a provision in the 
     recently passed highway bill that expands the Railroad 
     Rehabilitation Infrastructure Financing program from $3.5 
     billion to $35 billion.
       Of that, $7 billion is set aside for Class II and Class III 
     railroads.
       Based on the traffic load, DM&E is one of 50 Class II 
     railroads in the country.
       Project completion would make it the sixth Class I 
     railroad.
       While financing can now be sought in terms of a loan, ``it 
     doesn't mean it's going to get done, doesn't mean it's 
     approved, doesn't mean it's a done deal,'' Thune cautioned.
       ``But it does provide a financing option that was not 
     available prior to the passage of that legislation which 
     works for this project,'' he said. A federal funding source 
     means the project has expanded from a $1.4 billion pricetag 
     to $2.5 billion, with new west and east branches, Schieffer 
     said.
       Huron would be home to an operations center, where cars and 
     locomotives are fueled and serviced. The area would see 300 
     to 500 new railroad jobs, based on traffic loads, and there 
     would be 3,000 to 5,000 construction jobs over three years in 
     three states.
       Other servicing facilities would likely be near Wall, the 
     Wyoming border and New Ulm, Minn.
       ``There's a lot of moving parts to this thing,'' Schieffer 
     said.
       ``Facilities will change and move as time goes forward so 
     its hard to pin anything down with any certainty but one 
     thing isn't going to change.
       ``Huron, South Dakota is going to be the operational 
     heartbeat of this enterprise when it's done and that is 
     something that's not going to change.''
       He said that decision is based on personal and political 
     commitments.
       An enthusiastic crowd of 250 at Saturday's presentation one 
     of three Thune and Schieffer hosted in the state will keep 
     the project on track.
       ``There's a lot of incentive to keep this thing going, but 
     just remembering pictures like this provides more incentive 
     than I can ever convey to you,'' Schieffer said.
       Throughout seven years of ups and downs, ``Huron has been a 
     steady rock of support,'' he said.
       Thune's background and knowledge of railroad issues put him 
     in a unique position to understand DM&E's needs. He served as 
     South Dakota Railroad Authority director and worked on 
     railroad issues while on former Sen. Jim Abdnor's staff.
       Thune has also been on board since the early days, 
     Schieffer said. ``It's easy for him and it's easy for me to 
     stand in front of this crowd today because there's such 
     enthusiastic support for it,'' he said. ``Seven years ago, 
     that man stood in front of a crowd about this big, but most 
     of them were angry landowners who were opposed to the 
     project,'' Schieffer said.
       He said Thune listened to them, empathized with them and 
     pledged to make

[[Page 27259]]

     sure the DM&E acted responsibly. But he also told them they 
     must understand the project is too important to the state not 
     to be built.
       ``That took courage and some leadership. That's the kind of 
     thing that's always been there, just like Huron,'' Schieffer 
     said.
       There are still hurdles to overcome. Opposition still 
     exists west of the Missouri River, as well as in Pierre and 
     Brookings.
       ``We've got issues still to address up and down the line,'' 
     Schieffer said. ``I think some of them will be successful and 
     we'll still be able to do things and some we won't.''
       The regulatory issues are pretty much over and don't have 
     to be revisited with the new application for funding.
       Schieffer said he doesn't want to raise false expectations, 
     ``but this legislation is very potent stuff.''
       Railroads like the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern 
     had made use of federal funds in the past, but the law had 
     expired and when it was renewed the rules were changed so 
     DM&041E didn't qualify.
       Not only does the Thune provision set the clock back so the 
     railroad qualifies, if it meets the criteria the secretary of 
     transportation must give it priority and preference to make 
     the project happen.
       Instead of an open-ended time frame, the government must 
     make a decision on the loan application within 90 days of its 
     filing, which is expected in a couple months. Sometime in the 
     second quarter of next year, the fate of the project should 
     be known.
       Schieffer said he thinks the DM&E project is the only one 
     in the country that fits the criteria. Applicants must be 
     able to prove their projects will have a material impact on 
     rail capacity in the country and will serve a compelling 
     national need.
       ``This is the only rail project I know about out there that 
     will have a material impact on the rail capacity in this 
     country and there is a very clear national need in the 
     federal energy policy.
       ``We have a very strong case to make,'' Schieffer said. 
     ``We still have to make it, we still have to get it 
     through.'' But the legislation gives the railroad a great 
     advantage.
       ``It is absolutely everything we have hoped for,'' he said.
       Debate in the country has been raging about not having 
     enough energy, generation and transmission, Thune said.
       ``We would be prime positioned to benefit from some utility 
     plants and additional power generation that could result if 
     this railroad project is built,'' he said.
       The project would create a synergy between transportation 
     and energy, he said. Low sulfur coal is in great demand 
     because of the environmental benefits.
       ``We get 40 percent of our electricity from coal,'' Thune 
     said. ``The Powder River Basin has literally unlimited 
     reserves of coal resources.'' Competition in the basin would 
     also relieve bottlenecks, he said. By 2020, it's estimated 
     there will be a 55 percent increase in rail traffic in the 
     country.
       In answer to a question, Schieffer said without the need 
     for private investors ``this gives us control of our destiny 
     much more.''
       He said greater independence would mean the DM&E could 
     become a publicly traded company.
       There has also been concern that the DM&E will forget its 
     ag producers and shippers. But the project has strong support 
     from commodity groups, and service will not only improve, but 
     will expand.
       ``They know what it means to them,'' Schieffer said. ``It's 
     going to be a huge benefit.''

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, Congress has a moral obligation to make 
difficult decisions about spending priorities as we fight the war on 
terror, recover from natural disasters, and struggle to shore up 
Medicare and Social Security. Last year in fiscal year 2005 our 
national debt increased by $538 billion, or $1,738 per man, woman and 
child in this country.
  The American people, therefore, are justifiably outraged when 
Congress engages in an earmark spending free-for-all. Pork projects 
tend to be allocated outside of the regular priority-setting debate 
that governs the rest of the budget process. This is wrong. Members of 
this body should not be asking what right one Senator might have to 
question another Senator's projects. Instead, we should be listening to 
the American people who are asking what right we have to force them to 
finance questionable projects in all 50 States. Every pork project 
should be balanced against other national priorities. Pork is not a 
civil right for politicians.
  This bill contains more than 1,100 earmarks. Some of those earmarks 
inc1ude: $150,000 for the Alaska Botanical Garden in Anchorage, Alaska 
for expansion and renovation of its infrastructure; $750,000 for the 
construction of the Tongass Coast Aquarium; $100,000 to the city of 
Guntersville, for renovations to the Whole Backstage Theater; $250,000 
for the Greenville Family YMCA for child care facility acquisition, 
renovation, and construction in Greenville, Alabama; $200,000 for the 
Hayneville Lowndes County Library Foundation for construction of a new 
library in Hayneville, Alabama; $250,000 for the Cleveland Avenue YMCA 
for facility expansion in Montgomery, Alabama; $150,000 to the El 
Dorado Public Schools in El Dorado, Arkansas for the expansion of a 
recreational field; $200,000 for Audubon Arkansas for the development 
of the Audubon Nature Center at Gillam Park in Little Rock, Arkansas; 
$350,000 to the City of Douglas, Arizona for facilities renovation of 
the Grand Theater; $350,000 to Valley of the Sun YMCA in Phoenix, 
Arizona for facilities construction of a YMCA; $250,000 to the City of 
Banning, CA for city pool improvements; $350,000 to the City of 
Beaumont, CA for the construction of the Beaumont Sports Park; $350,000 
to the City of E1 Monte, California for construction of a community 
gymnasium; $250,000 to the City of Lancaster, California for 
installations related to the baseball complex; $150,000 to the City of 
Long Beach, California to develop an exhibit to educate the public on 
the importance of ports; $200,000 to the City of Placerville, 
California for Gold Bug Park renovations; $100,000 to the City of San 
Bernardino, California for Renovations to National Orange Show stadium; 
$125,000 to the City of Tehachapi, California for design and 
construction of a performing arts center; $350,000 to the City of 
Yucaipa, California for development of the Yucaipa Valley Regional 
Sports Complex; $250,000 to the Lake County Arts Council in Lakeport, 
California for renovation of the Lakeport Cinema to a Performing Arts 
Center; $175,000 for the San Francisco Fine Arts Museums, CAY for M.H. 
de Young Memorial Museum construction; $350,000 to the City of 
Bridgeport, Connecticut for relocation of the Music and Arts Center for 
the Humanities to a now-vacant department store; $300,000 to the 
University of Hartford in Hartford, Connecticut for facilities 
construction and renovation of the Hartt Performing Arts Center; 
$250,000 for the Town of Southbury, CT, for renovations to the Bent of 
the River Audubon Center; $200,000 to Lake County, FL for construction 
of a library; $96,300 to the City of Coral Gables, Florida for the 
renovation of historic Biltmore Hotel; $200,000 to the City of Ft. 
Myers, Florida for the redevelopment of Edson & Ford Estates; $200,000 
to the City of Hollywood, Florida for the construction and development 
of the Young Circle Arts Park project; $100,000 to the City of 
Pensacola, Florida for construction of the YMCA of Greater Pensacola; 
$125,000 to the City of Treasure Island, Florida for construction of 
beach walkovers; $250,000 for Miami Dade County, Florida for the Miami 
Performing Arts Center; $75,000 to the City of Tybee Island, Georgia 
for a new facility for the Georgia 4-H Foundation; $300,000 for the 
Kauai YMCA to construct facilities; $150,000 to Seguin Services in 
Cicero, Illinois for construction of a garden center; $80,000 to the 
City of Beardstown, Illinois for construction of the Grand Opera House 
Beardstown Historical Society; $250,000 to the City of Joliet, Illinois 
for repairs to Rialto Square Theater; $250,000 to the City of Peoria, 
Illinois for design and construction of Africa exhibit at Glen Oak Zoo; 
$500,000 for the City of Muncie, Indiana to revitalize the downtown 
urban park; $250,000 for the Learning Collaborative to implement the 
Web Portal Technology Development Initiative in Daviess County, IN; 
$150,000 to Hardin County, Kentucky for renovation of an historic state 
theater; $150,000 to Powell County Fiscal Court in Powell County, 
Kentucky for the construction and development of a park; $100,000 to 
the City of Louisville, Kentucky for construction of a playground in 
Shawnee Park; $600,000 for the Kentucky Commerce Cabinet to develop a 
visitor center at the Big Bone Lick State Park; $500,000 for the 
Audubon Nature Institute for the Audubon Living Science Museum and 
Wetlands Center in New Orleans, Louisiana; $100,000 to Greenfield 
Community College in Greenfield, Massachusetts for a feasibility study; 
$280,000 for the City of North Adams, MA for the renovation

[[Page 27260]]

of the historic Mohawk Theater; $260,000 for the City of Lawrence, MA 
for the redevelopment of the Lawrence In-Town Mall site; $200,000 for 
the American Visionary Arts Museum, Maryland $350,000 to the City of 
Saginaw, Michigan for renovation of the YMCA of Saginaw; $250,000 to 
Walsh College in the City of Troy, Michigan for a library expansion; 
$500,000 to the City of Cape Girardeau, Missouri for the construction 
of a new school for visual and performing arts at Southeast Missouri 
State University; $200,000 to the City of Meridian, Mississippi for the 
construction of the Mississippi Arts and Entertainment Center; and 
$750,000 to the City of Pontotoc, Mississippi for construction of the 
Pontotoc County Sportsplex.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to congratulate subcommittee 
Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Murray for successfully concluding 
this conference report. I would like to note that this is the first 
time this subcommittee, as currently constituted, has brought a 
conference report to the Senate and, in my view, this report is a 
worthy achievement and I intend to support it.
  I note, in particular, the strong title on Transportation funding in 
the report. We all worked very hard to pass a Transportation 
authorization bill earlier this year that maintains a balanced 
transportation program, ensuring adequate funding for both our Nation's 
highways and transit programs. In my view, both of these components are 
extremely important to the future economic growth of our country, and I 
am happy to note that the conference report being brought to us this 
afternoon is largely faithful to the provisions included in SAFETEA-LU.
  The report's provisions regarding Federal employees are also to be 
commended. The report includes language that will help Federal 
employees to compete on a more level playing field with contractors in 
cases where Federal agencies decide to consider contracting out jobs. 
The report ensures pay parity for all Federal employees--military and 
civilian alike. It also provides over $125 million to consolidate the 
FDA at White Oak, and ensures that 68 Taxpayer Assistance Centers, 
including 4 in Maryland, will remain open until after the inspector 
general completes a report to determine the impact proposed closures 
would have on both employees and clients. I thank the managers of the 
bill for their hard work on these important issues.
  I also want to talk about the appropriation for the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, HUD. At the outset, I want to express my 
appreciation to Senator Bond for his commitment over many years to 
maintaining strong and effective housing programs. Senator Murray, who 
has not served as Ranking Member on the Subcommittee dealing with HUD 
issues until this year, has proven to be a very valuable addition to 
this effort and has shown a deep understanding of, and commitment to, 
these important programs.
  The key problem that the Conferees faced in putting together this 
report is that they were not given enough money to fund the housing 
programs at a fully adequate level. For example, the HOME and CDBG 
program, both very flexible programs, used to build and rehabilitate 
housing, create new homeowners, and create new jobs, suffer modest cuts 
in the report.
  Public Housing, the Nation's basic housing program for the poor, is 
inadequately funded as to both its day-to-day operations, and its long-
term capital needs. The funding figures are very close to last year's 
appropriations--and I recognize that this was no easy task for the 
conferees--but we need more to maintain our basic investment in this 
fundamental program. HOPE VI is cut by nearly one-third, though I 
commend the managers for getting this much, given the administration's 
repeated efforts to kill the program altogether.
  Finally, I want to express my deep disappointment that the conference 
report adopts the funding formula for renewal of section 8 vouchers put 
forward by the House instead of the far more effective formula adopted 
by the Senate in the bill we passed earlier this year.
  Section 8 is the largest housing program funded the Federal 
Government, serving over 2 million low-income people. On the positive 
side, the conference report we are considering today does provide an 
increase in funds over last year that will help to restore at least 
some of the vouchers that were lost.
  On the other hand, by adopting the House formula voucher renewals, we 
are likely to see the loss of thousands of valuable housing vouchers in 
fiscal year 2006. For several years, voucher funding for each housing 
authority has been allocated based on the prior year's cost and 
utilization of vouchers at each housing authority around the country. 
The Senate would have used as a base for this calculation the most 
recent 12-month period. By contrast, the House formula, which has been 
adopted by this report, uses only a 3-month snapshot. As you might 
expect, the Senate provision gives a much more accurate picture of both 
the housing authority's voucher utilization and costs by taking a 
broader picture of the data. In addition, the data that would be used 
under the Senate provision would be more up to date, ensuring a more 
accurate outcome.
  Projections based on data from HUD confirm this view. Under the House 
formula, some housing authorities will get millions of dollars of 
voucher funds beyond what they can legally use, while others will not 
get enough to fund even vouchers that are currently in use. At a time 
of such tight resources, this kind of planned waste is simply 
inexcusable.
  I want to emphasize that the Senate managers fought for the more 
sensible Senate language. It is unfortunate that the House, with the 
strong support of HUD, prevailed in this case. Earlier this week, a 
senior official at HUD said in the New York Times. ``Lack of Section 8 
Vouchers for Storm Evacuees Highlights Rift Over Housing Program,'' 
November 8, 2005, ``The housing voucher program is something we believe 
in. But we have to make sure the money's well spent.''
  I regret to say that HUD objected to the Senate provision which would 
have produced a demonstrably more effective and efficient allocation of 
section 8 funds. In the end, despite the efforts of the chairman and 
ranking member, HUD and the House prevailed. This concerns me greatly. 
I certainly hope that HUD does not come back next year and use the 
wasteful results of this ineffective system for which they advocated, 
as a rationale to provide less funding for fiscal year 2007.
  Despite this significant disappointment, I want to, again, indicate 
my support for the overall package.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we will hear plenty of self-congratulatory 
statements on this floor today about this conference report. And I am 
sure that there are probably many provisions that in fact have merit.
  I cannot let the Senate consider this conference report, however, 
without highlighting some particularly egregious provisions which were 
literally inserted at midnight. These specific provisions were not 
included in either the House or Senate appropriations bills, they were 
never discussed during any of the meetings of the Conference Committee, 
nor were they subject to hearings by either the authorizing committees 
with jurisdiction, nor by appropriations committees.
  I think we should call these provisions the ``Leave the Victims of 
Unscrupulous Moving Companies Behind Act.''
  Consumers have fewer rights in trying to seek recourse when they are 
victims of fraud or outright theft than when they deal with a dishonest 
interstate moving company. The consumer has no ability to use State or 
local laws or consumer protection regulations. That is because Federal 
law preempts State and local action in this area. The only recourse a 
defrauded consumer has is to try to enforce the Federal regulations by 
going to Federal or State court. This is expensive and in most cases 
extremely impractical. Let me explain.
  One of the most common forms of abuse is what is commonly called 
``hostage goods.'' This abuse was described by the Department of 
Transportation's Inspector General at a hearing I held in

[[Page 27261]]

the Commerce Committee to look at this problem. Let me quote from his 
testimony:

     . . . household goods moving fraud is a serious problem, with 
     thousand of victims who have fallen prey to these scams 
     across the county. Typically, an unscrupulous operator will 
     offer a low-ball estimate and then refuse to deliver or 
     release the household goods unless the consumer pays an 
     exorbitant sum, often several times the original estimate. In 
     one case, for example, a New York husband and wife in their 
     seventies were quoted a price of $2,800 to move their 
     household goods to Florida. Once the movers had loaded about 
     half of the goods, the foreman advised the couple that unless 
     they paid the new price of $9,800 they would never see their 
     property again. Fearing that the moving crew might physically 
     hurt them, the couple paid the vastly inflated fee.

  In such a case, trying to find an attorney and then proceed to courts 
while all your worldly possessions are on a truck heading to Florida is 
not especially practical.
  This is not an isolated incident. Since 2001, consumers have filed 
over 10,000 official complaints with the Department of Transportation. 
Since 2000, the Inspector General has investigated allegations of fraud 
associated with approximately 8,000 victims.
  In the recently completed highway bill, Congress included provisions 
to try to tip the scale back a little bit to the side of the consumer. 
The provisions that were included in the highway bill conference report 
were almost identical to the provisions in the Senate passed bill and 
to the provisions that were included in the highway bill that passed 
the Senate in the last Congress. The basic point of these provisions 
was to allow State attorneys general and State consumer protection 
officials to intercede on behalf of consumers and enforce Federal law 
and regulations dealing with moving companies.
  The appropriations conference report we are considering today 
basically puts these proconsumer provisions on a hold for a year, and 
allows State officials to intervene in only the most limited of 
circumstances.
  Finally, let me be clear. Most of the companies and individuals 
engaged in the moving industry are hard-working and honest. It is a 
small minority of companies that engages in unscrupulous behavior and 
it is these companies that need to be reined in.
  Unfortunately, this conference report allows unscrupulous movers to 
continue to defraud consumers with little practical recourse for our 
constituents that have been mistreated.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my disappointment and 
frustration with provisions included in this conference report that 
severely weaken critical consumer protection law for those that ship 
household goods using commercial movers.
  As the ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Affairs, 
Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee, as a former State attorney 
general, and as a leading member of the Committee's Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee for motor carrier issues, I must express my 
outrage that this conference report undermines the consumer protections 
for victims of unscrupulous movers that were part of the transportation 
bill, known as SAFETEA-LU, signed into law less than 4 months ago.
  These provisions were inserted despite commitments I received to the 
contrary. We had an agreement that we would not seek to modify the 
household goods consumer protection language within the Commerce 
Committee's jurisdiction beyond an amendment that was offered as part 
of the floor consideration of this appropriations bill in the Senate.
  Instead, over the objections of myself, Senator Inouye, Senator 
Stevens, Senator Lott, and the leadership of the House Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, this new language was forced into the 
conference report in order to protect a few big moving companies from 
increased public accountability.
  Adding insult to injury, provisions that were specifically rejected 
during the conference on the transportation bill this summer were 
included in addition to language that goes well beyond those items and 
further undercuts the work Congress did to aid consumers who face 
fraud, extortion, and abuse at the hands of unregulated moving 
companies.
  As a former State attorney general, I know the public benefits from 
local and State officials who are dedicated to protecting consumers. 
Over the past year, picking up on work begun by Senator McCain, and 
working with Senators Lott, Inouye, and Stevens, I have tried to find 
ways to assist the many citizens from all across this country who have 
been victimized by moving companies and have nowhere to turn.
  The most outrageous situation is when a moving company holds all of a 
consumer's possessions until they pay thousands of dollars in excess of 
the original estimate for the move. This practice, known as ``hostage 
goods,'' is extortion, plain and simple. And it leaves consumers 
helpless in a strange city, with none of their possessions and no 
recourse.
  I say helpless because, although there are some Federal laws to 
protect consumers when shipping their goods in interstate commerce--
protections we enhanced with the passage of SAFETEA-LU--the Department 
of Transportation, DOT, is simply not suited to police the 1.5 million 
interstate moves that occur each year.
  In 1995, the predecessor of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, FMCSA, assumed the regulatory duties of the household 
goods moving industry previously carried out by the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. Until recently, FMCSA had a total of 3 personnel assigned 
to handle all of the consumer complaints for the entire Nation and 
could do little about them. I understand that FMCSA has received nearly 
20,000 consumer complaints since January 2001. They have taken little 
action in this area because FMCSA contends that its limited resources 
must be focused on truck safety, the agency's primary mission.
  States, which want to get involved and already oversee consumer 
protections for the intrastate movement of household goods with little 
controversy, have been told by the courts that they have no 
jurisdiction in this area, since it involves interstate commerce. The 
net result is that moving companies operating in interstate commerce 
face no regulation of their commercial behavior, and therefore, 
continue to take advantage of consumers.
  To address this glaring problem, SAFETEA-LU created a partnership 
with the states by allowing them to enforce certain Federal consumer 
protections rules as determined by the Secretary of Transportation--a 
model that works well in other areas.
  It is so disheartening that only a few months after these new 
authorities were put in place--before they could even take effect and 
be put to use to protect consumers--these provisions have been reopened 
and basically gutted on behalf of a few big moving companies that want 
to keep operating without real oversight.
  The household goods provisions added to this conference report will: 
limit a State attorneys general's ability to initiate an action to 
enforce Federal household goods consumer protection law to only cases 
involving new moving companies or those who egregiously violate Federal 
motor carrier safety regulations. The effect of this provision is to 
totally insulate most movers, particularly larger and more-established 
moving companies, from even the threat of action by a State, regardless 
of how outrageous their violation of Federal consumer protection law 
may be.
  Further, the provisions will: apply these same enforcement 
limitations to State authorities that already regulate intrastate 
movers and require that the State consumer agencies enforcing Federal 
household goods consumer laws bring their cases in Federal courts only, 
where they would languish on average for 3 more years. What are 
consumers supposed to do while everything they own is being held 
hostage by a mover during those 3 years?
  I believe these provisions go well beyond anything the Commerce 
Committee would ever have agreed to, had we the opportunity to consider 
these directly. The only thing positive I can

[[Page 27262]]

say about them is that they are set to end after Fiscal Year 2006.
  This language is an affront to all authorizing committees that--after 
years of discussion--agreed upon these provisions. It is wrong that 
those who did not get what they wanted--were rejected both in the 
Senate and in conference--can then hijack the consumer protection 
provisions that this Congress approved in July.
  The passage of the SAFETEA-LU household goods language signaled 
Congress's willingness to stand up for the consumer and correct an 
injustice that occurs far too often. It is sad that this conference 
report seeks to undo this achievement and make it significantly more 
difficult for our citizens to get the recourse they deserve.
  State attorneys general and State consumer protection agencies are 
much more likely than the Federal Government to doggedly pursue justice 
for their citizens in these cases. A letter from the National 
Association of Attorneys General on January 21, 2004, proves this 
point, by indicating the association's full support for State 
enforcement of Federal household goods consumer protections. The 
letter, signed 48 State attorneys general, specifically rejects 
complaints from the moving industry against this new authority.
  In conclusion, let me say that I appreciate the work of the other 
House and Senate appropriations conferees and my colleagues on the 
Senate Commerce Committee for trying to keep these provisions out of 
their bill. It is unfortunate that they ended up being included, and I 
plan to work to see that they are overturned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized for a few 
minutes and that the time not come out of the time that is currently 
allotted on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Thanking the Senator from West Virginia

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret seriously that I was not here at 
the beginning of the statement made by the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I was in an interview, as a matter of 
fact. My staff came to tell me the Senator was speaking about the 
article I gave to him that my daughter Lily wrote. I have come to the 
floor to thank him for his courtesy and generosity in speaking about 
that article.
  Lily is one of my six children, the last of my children. As the 
Senator from West Virginia indicated, she is in law school at Boalt 
Hall. She wrote her thesis at Stanford about the history of this 
Capitol. I gave a copy of that thesis to the Librarian of Congress, 
James Billington, and he passed it on to the National Capitol 
Historical Society. They determined they would print part of it in 
their current bulletin, which pleased me very much.
  I shared that with the Senator from West Virginia, as any proud 
father would, particularly with the Senator from West Virginia because 
of our great friendship and the time we have been here together. He is 
the senior Senator on his side of the aisle, and I am now the senior 
Senator on this side of the aisle. I will forever be his junior in 
terms of not only age but service and the admiration I have for him.
  I knew Senator Byrd would be interested in the way Lily described 
this Capitol, its history, and its importance to this country. It is a 
beautiful article, I think, and I am doubly proud of her and extremely 
pleased that he would take the time and do us both the honor of putting 
that article in the Record.
  I invite my friends and colleagues to read that article. Lily had a 
different life than most of my other five children. She literally grew 
up here from the time she was a very small baby, and came to the Senate 
quite often and sat on my shoulder when we were in conference meetings.
  Senator Byrd has always been very gracious about coming to her 
birthday parties which we held here during the 8 years I was the whip 
on this side of the aisle. All of our family has such a great 
admiration for the Senator and for his great history.
  I think many people do not realize that he is not only the most 
senior Senator, but he is the only Senator who went through both the 
university level and law school level while serving in the Congress. He 
has a prodigious memory. I think of times when, for instance, we were 
at the U.S.-British Parliamentary Conference when I encouraged the 
Senator to tell us some of his memories of serving in the Capitol when 
we were with our fellow legislators from the Parliament of Britain. We 
have great memories of that.
  I also have a memory of the time when we were in West Virginia when 
one member of the Parliament made the mistake of saying that Americans 
didn't know much about the history of our mother country and those who 
have served Britain and their monarchy. Senator Byrd proceeded to tell 
us in detail about every single person who ever served in that 
position, including the husbands and wives of the monarchs of Britain.
  I have so many great memories of service with Senator Byrd. I have 
already ordered a copy of the transcript and the tape of this 
presentation to send to Lily. I can think of no nicer birthday present 
to me than that the Senator from West Virginia would honor my daughter 
and the article she has written about the place we both love, the 
Capitol of the United States.
  I thank the Senator very much for his courtesy.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield 
briefly--and I am not going to keep my friend from Texas waiting. He 
has been standing and waiting to be recognized.
  It was a pleasure, may I say to my friend, to call to the attention 
of Senators this beautiful article written by Senator Stevens' daughter 
Lily. She is a really precocious child. I have watched her from almost 
day one. I admire her. She is a well-bred woman. She is the flower of 
womanhood. She is seeking always to enlarge her mind and doing a great 
job of it.
  I am pleased the Senator feels that he rejoices that her article has 
been mentioned by me. I want to assure him that he is entitled to every 
plaudit I can bring to bear on this subject. I hope he conveys my love 
and my admiration to his daughter Lily.
  And may I say to the Senator, ``Thou art my guide, philosopher, and 
friend,'' as the Pope once said. I mean every word of that. I treasure 
our friendship, I say to Senator Stevens, and may his beautiful 
daughter continue to do her work and complete her studies and go on to 
higher things. She is a fine model, and many of us can learn from her 
efforts to improve herself. I will certainly do that myself. I thank 
the Senator. I thank him very much.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator twice honors me. I do thank 
the Senator very much. Those of us who have had the privilege of 
serving here more than a short time develop relationships that I think 
the rest of the body and perhaps the country don't understand. Very 
clearly my commitment in terms of friendship and devotion to my friend 
from West Virginia is equal to his for me. I am very pleased and proud 
to have that relationship with him.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that after I 
am recognized, Senator Coburn and Senator DeWine be recognized for up 
to 30 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________