To prohibit any funds under the Act from being used for a parking facility as part of the Joslyn Art Museum Master Plan, in Omaha, Nebraska.

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, THE JUDICIARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 3058, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the
Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and
Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and
independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Reed amendment No. 2077, to provide for appropriations for
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Dorgan amendment No. 2133, to restrict enforcement of the
Cuban Assets Control Regulations with respect to travel to
Cuba.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, my colleague from Michigan has an
amendment that is a good amendment. Let me say that my colleague from
Washington, Senator Murray, and I are hoping to finish business today.
I know there are a number of amendments out there that people wish to
bring up. We have been able to accept a significant number of them. If
you have an amendment pending, please come down this morning and talk
to us. I hope we will stay around however long it takes to finish up
all of these matters and have a final vote. This bill has to go to
conference, if we are to provide 2006 appropriations for the very
important agencies covered by this legislation. This is going to be a
difficult bill to conference, and we must have this bill finished,
ready for the floor, I would hope before the end of this month so that
they can get out from under a continuing resolution. But we must get it
finished before Thanksgiving. It is vitally important. I urge Members
to come to the floor. If they don't want to act on all of their
amendments, that will be fine with us. We need to get this bill
finished.

Congratulations to the Houston Astros

On a personal note, I conclude by saying our congratulations to the
Houston Astros, who are a magnificent team. They did well. We are
looking forward to a great battle between them and the White Sox, a
central time zone World Series which many of us in the heartland think
is going to be good. The St. Louis Cardinals were magnificent for over
100 games. But Busch Stadium, twice now, has failed us in October. We
are going forward today, blowing up the stadium, and I wish I were
there to participate. But I wish my colleagues the best, and we are
ready to go.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 2149

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] proposes an
amendment numbered 2149.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide resources to the Administration so that the
Administration can enforce existing trade agreements and obligations
related to trade violations involving currency manipulation,
counterfeiting of manufactured products, and pirating of intellectual
property)

On page 277, line 18, strike ``activities;'' and insert the
following: ``activities; pursuant to section 3004(b) of the
Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination
Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304(b)), not to exceed $1,000,000 is
for the Secretary of the Treasury, in conjunction with the
President, to implement said subsection as it pertains to
Governments and trade violations involving currency
manipulation and other trade violations;''.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to thank both our distinguished
chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Bond, and distinguished ranking
member, Senator Murray, for their leadership on this important bill and
for their words of support for my amendment.
This amendment addresses the need to make sure that we are enforcing
our trade laws so that we have a level playing field for businesses and
workers in America with all of our trading partners. It designates and
authorizes a specific amount of money that would allow us to do that.
In my home State of Michigan, this is absolutely critical for us
right now, as we see all of the challenges in the international
marketplace. We need to make sure that we are giving every business,
every worker, a level playing field, and we are doing everything we can
to enforce our trade laws so that we have the opportunity to be
exporting our products and not our jobs.
That should be the goal of all of us. I appreciate the fact that
there is a willingness to support my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. We
worked with her on her original amendment. I think this amendment is
now a good amendment. Obviously, the objective is one that we all
share, and I believe with this modification, the concept that my
colleague has put forth is a good one. We are willing to accept it on
this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this amendment is acceptable on our
side as well. We are ready to go forward at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2149.
The amendment (No. 2149) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, if there is not someone else wishing
to speak, I will expand on what is happening as it relates to Michigan
now and why this is so important as an amendment.
I thank colleagues for working with us and helping us to modify the
amendment and to accept it today.
What is important for all of us, but particularly in Michigan now, as
we are the heart and soul of manufacturing, is, as we see our
President, our

[[Page S11604]]

Secretary of Treasury, moving forward in discussions with China and
Japan--the President is going next month to China and Japan--that we
send with him the strongest possible support, which this amendment
does, for us saying we need to enforce all of our trade laws. We need
to make sure we are leveling the playing field, and we are giving every
possible fair advantage to American workers and to businesses.
Unfortunately, we have our trading partners--some of our trading
partners right now--who are, in fact, violating our trade laws which is
costing us jobs at home, especially in the great State of Michigan.
This amendment will send a very important message that we want things
like illegal trade practices regarding currency manipulation to stop.
The President's upcoming trip is a very important time. Currently,
Chinese and Japanese trade policies are costing us jobs, including our
middle-class families, because of the fact that they peg their currency
in a way that means it costs us more to sell to them than it costs them
to sell to us. In my State, I have heard from so many businesses saying
that the cost differential has made a huge difference in their being
able to successfully compete on bids for contracts or to sell their
products. We know that has been happening, and we need to stop it. We
need to enforce our trade laws.
We also need to crack down on the counterfeiting of American
manufactured goods. We need to stop the pirating of intellectual
property. We have the great brainpower. We are developing all the new
ideas and the new patents. It is not right--in fact, it is illegal--for
other countries to be able to take that information and make products
that compete and undercut us and cost us jobs.
Last week, Delphi, which is our Nation's largest autoparts supplier,
declared bankruptcy, threatening 15,000 jobs in Michigan and more than
33,000 across the country. In terms of assets, this bankruptcy is the
largest ever in the United States, surpassing the reorganizations of
Kmart and WorldCom. The Delphi bankruptcy should serve as a wake-up
call to all of us in the Congress, in the administration, and in the
country, to the fact that we can no longer tolerate unfair trade
practices and that we need to tackle the cost of health care and what
is happening on pensions and make sure our workers do not lose their
pensions in the process of all of this happening.
Unless we put a stop to the unfair trade practices, our economy will
continue to spiral downward, and I believe we are in jeopardy of losing
our way of life. I don't say that lightly. I don't say that to be
melodramatic. But when we have people working at Delphi being told that
now in order to compete internationally, they have to take possibly a
63-percent pay cut--that has been in the news, possibly a 63-percent
pay cut--we are not talking about just cutting back on wages. We are
talking about changing one's entire way of life. In the great State of
Michigan we make things and we grow things, and we do it very well. We
have been at the forefront of the economic engine of our country, just
as all manufacturing has been. But if we are going to say it is
acceptable now for people to make $10 an hour and that somehow we can't
help it, we are going to lose manufacturing in this country, and we are
not looking at what we can do to save our way of life.
We have to say that every trade agreement is one that creates a race
up, not a race down, and that we are going to enforce every trade
agreement. We are going to make sure other countries are not stealing
our patents, are not creating counterfeit parts, are not manipulating
their currency or doing other things that cause us to have a
disadvantage in the marketplace and to lose jobs.
I believe so strongly about what needs to happen as it relates to
manufacturers. I have concerns when I hear comments such as: We are not
going to be able to manufacture anymore. We will have to do something
else.
An economy has to be based on making things, creating things, not
just a service economy. We have to have a foundation based on
manufacturing. Has manufacturing changed? Of course, it has. I invite
any colleague to come join me on any plant floor, and they will see
something that is clean and quiet and computerized, with highly skilled
workers. Of course, it has changed. Of course, it is high tech. But it
is still there, and it needs to be there. If we are not serious about
enforcing our trade laws, creating the right kind of trade laws, we are
going to lose it and our way of life. That is not acceptable. That is
why there is nothing more important to me than fighting for our jobs
and our manufacturers and making sure that we maintain the high
standard of living that has created this great country. That is what
this is all about.
Let me mention one area that is so important to Delphi. That is the
area of counterfeit autoparts. We know that right now, according to our
auto suppliers nationally, we are losing $12 billion every year to
counterfeit autoparts. That equates to about 200,000 jobs. We need to
say in the strongest possible terms that we expect that to stop. It is
a jobs issue. It is a safety issue. It needs to stop. We can do that.
We are not in a weak or hopeless situation. We have the ability to
stand up, to say to our trading partners: It is not acceptable. We will
use every tool possible to stop counterfeit autoparts. We will use
every tool possible to stop currency manipulation, to stop the stealing
of our patents.
That is what my amendment addresses, sending that word and--not just
a word--creating an action. We are beyond just talk. We have to have
action because every day we do not have action, the great people in my
State are under the threat of losing their jobs, their pension, and
their way of life.
I thank my colleagues again for supporting this amendment. We are at
a place in time, in the history of the country where we have to take
very seriously what is happening to our great industries that have
created the ability for folks to have a good standard of living, to
have the home and the car, in my great State the cottage up north, the
boat, to send the kids to college, and pay into a pension all their
life and know it is going to be there.
That is what is threatened today in our country by policies that
don't get it. We have to have trade policies that work for American
jobs and American workers. We have to have enforcement of those trade
policies. We have to tackle the cost of health care and change the way
we do it to get it off the backs of our businesses. And we have to make
sure that people who have worked all their lives and pay into a pension
will be able to have that when they retire.
I thank my colleagues, again, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

Global War on Terrorism

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will take a few minutes to talk about
some events that are extremely important--not on this bill--but I think
it is important to follow up some excellent remarks made by my
colleagues from Colorado and South Carolina yesterday--I have a great
professional and personal interest in it--and that is to recognize a
milestone in a very significant event in the global war on terror, the
war against Islamofascism.
This is extremely significant, and yet I do not believe the media has
given it the attention it deserves. The milestone is an achievement
that the world would not have thought possible 2 years ago, and it
occurred this past Saturday, on October 15, as the people of a free
Iraq voted in a national referendum on their national constitution.
This is a significant milestone no matter the outcome of the vote,
the people of a free Iraq have voted on a framework of a nation. That
is a significant milestone against tyranny in our time.
It is my hope that the constitution will pass, and years from now the
people of Iraq and their children and grandchildren will know that this
was a time when the nation was founded in freedom, similar to our
forefathers, who were children in 1776, told their children and
grandchildren after them.
The vote on the referendum occurred with surprisingly little
violence. It drew an encouraging voter turnout. This proves that the
Iraqi people and U.S. forces continue to make great strides toward
peace and toward defeating both terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. I
say terrorists and insurgents because both are active in Iraq, and

[[Page S11605]]

they are distinct groups. While there remains some Sunni Baathists who
would like to bring back Saddam and who could generally be called
insurgents, there is an ever-growing number of terrorists flooding into
Iraq to fight what they see as the ultimate jihad, legitimated by their
extremist interpretation of Islam. Iraq has become their Armageddon, as
will become evident from my remarks in a few moments, and they are
simply terrorists.
With regard to the referendum, I commend U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad
for his tenacity and efforts in the constitutional process in his final
days leading up to the referendum that enabled Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds
to come together for a vote. Early reporting indicates the constitution
will pass, but we have to wait until all the votes are counted to make
the final call. I believe the constitution's passage will deal a heavy
blow to the Sunni Baathist insurgents who are waging an ``all or
nothing'' fight to regain control of Iraq. It now seems more clear than
ever that the insurgents have to join in the political process if they
are going to have any hope of a future in mainstream Iraqi civil and
political society.
While I am pleased to see some moderate Sunni elements joining the
political process, we must be watchful of violent groups that may try
to expand their sphere of influence by establishing political platforms
in order to legitimize their sinister ideologies. We have seen this
happen before in other areas of the world, such as Sinn Fein in the
Irish Republican Army. As the saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you;
fool me twice, shame on me.
Let us not be shamed by militants who momentarily trade in black
handkerchiefs that hide their faces for fine suits simply to gain a
stake in the political power of their nation.
Critics of this administration, along with other naysayers, are
convinced that several of the constitution's provisions are politically
divisive because they grant the Kurds and Shi'a unfair advantages over
the Sunnis regarding Iraq's oil and other resources. I note that our
very own United States operated under the Articles of Confederation for
about 7 years, until we were able to draft and ratify a constitution,
and that Constitution has been modified, and significantly so, over the
years.
We are often too impatient in our fast-paced, modern world, but let
us not forget that democracy takes time and requires patient,
deliberate action. Until Iraq's liberation in April 2003, Iraq suffered
under a ruthless dictator whose kleptocratic regime offered its people
little more than fear and terror. Now, for the first time in over 30
years, we can say that the Iraqi people are courageously embarking on
their own journey toward political self-determination and individual
freedom, and for that I applaud them and am greatly satisfied.
On Tuesday of this week, the Wall Street Journal had an op-ed piece
by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. It is titled,
``With Freedom Comes Politics.''

Iraqis now see the fruit of foreign investment. A year ago
in Baghdad, Iraqis drank water and soft drinks imported from
neighboring countries. Now they drink water bottled in plants
scattered across Iraq. . . .
Cameras and reporters do not lie, but they do not always
give a full perspective. Political brinkmanship devoid of
context breeds panic. Beheadings and blood sell copy, but do
not accurately reflect Iraq. Political milestones give a
glimpse of the often-unreported determination that Iraqis
and longtime visitors see daily. Bombings and body bags
are tragic. But they do not reflect failure. Rather, they
represent the sacrifice that both Iraqis and Americans
have made for security and democracy. The referendum,
refugee return, real estate and investment show much more
accurately--and objectively--Iraq's slow and steady
progress.

Madam President, I will insert that article in the Record because
that exactly reflects the views of the young men and women I know who
are serving in Iraq. They see our national television too often focuses
on ``if it bleeds, it leads.'' If there is a tragic loss of an American
life, that is the only headline, nothing about the progress. But there
is progress being made, and this election showed it.
My satisfaction with the progress in Iraq is not without reservation.
I bring to my colleagues' attention a significant event with positive
and negative implications. This is the intercept of a letter written on
July 9 by Osama bin Laden's principal deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to al-
Qaida's foremost lieutenant on the ground in Iraq, Abu Mus'ab al-
Zarqawi. The letter was obtained by U.S. forces in a raid in Iraq this
summer but only released by the Government on October 11 in order to
avoid the compromise of ongoing operations.
The letter provides a broad look at al-Qaida's global strategy and
plans for operation Iraq. The letter underscores that al-Qaida will not
relent in pursuing its Sunni extremist agenda and reveals that al-Qaida
views its jihad in Iraq as the focal point in its efforts to create an
extremist global ``caliphate.''
President Bush has rightly called this Islamofascism. This is a war
that will go on even after Iraq is stable.
Zawahiri writes to Zarqawi:

God has blessed you and your brothers, while many of the
Muslim mujahedin have longed for that blessing . . . and that
(blessing) is Jihad in the heart of the Islamic world . . .
he has blessed you with the splendor of the spearhead of
Jihad.

Zawahiri's recipe for creating this Sunni extremist state is in this
order: evict the Americans from Iraq, create an Islamic extremist state
in Iraq, swallow up Iraq's neighbors, and then destroy Israel. It goes
on and on from there.
The letter reads like a Sunni extremist epistle written by a father
figure to a young leader among the faithful. Zawahiri applauds
Zarqawi's enthusiasm and acts of terror that have advanced their jihad.
Yet he cautions Zarqawi to remember the power of world opinion and the
subtleties of political influence and media persuasion. Similar to an
expert teacher, Zawahiri commends Zarqawi for his enthusiasm and past
deeds. Yet he gently persuades him to alter his tactics toward a better
way.
Zawahiri asserts in his letter that while Zarqawi's violent tactics
are justified, they do not play well in the media. And while he doesn't
object to beheadings on any moral grounds, he notes ``a bullet to the
head'' is more efficient and doesn't invite such negative press. He
references Algerian brethren who are with him who worry that the war in
Iraq could go the way of the Algerian jihad in the late nineties when
the radicals lost their support among the general Muslim population due
to their brutal acts of torture.
In addition, although Zawahiri describes the Shi'a as ``cooperating
with the enemies of Islam,'' he criticizes Zarqawi for attacking the
Iraqi Shi'a in ways that will hurt al-Qaida in the media, and he
recommends Zarqawi avoid opening too many fronts in the jihad.
He also stresses that political warfare is needed in order to draw in
the social elites to support their push for an Islamic extremist state.
In effect, Zawahiri recommends that the wolf put on sheep's clothing
in order to mask the wolf's true brutality. To me this is troubling
because it illustrates that we are at war with an enemy who is astute,
deceptive, and wise in the ways of the world and the American media and
its ability to influence American public opinion. It underscores that
this enemy cannot be negotiated with and will never reform its way or
be deterred from its path of violence. The only option we have with
such an enemy, according to what we have seen, who want to slaughter
American women, men, and children, is to eliminate it. There is no
other choice. That is why we must flush the terrorists out and hunt
them down.
There are some notable positives in Zawahiri's letter. The letter
demonstrates that America's efforts in the war on terrorism have been
effective in hurting al-Qaida and in disrupting its ability to attack
the United States and its interests. Zawahiri's statements reveal that
due to the pressure he feels in areas around him, he cannot depart his
remote location, a location so remote that he complains of a lack of
access to contemporary news reporting on Iraq. He also reveals that he
is running out of funds and asked Zarqawi for $100,000 in order to open
up new communications lines that have been shut down due to the
apprehension of al-Qaida operatives this past summer.
Finally, he also expresses concern over Pakistani military operations
in the tribal area and references the current Pakistani Army offensive
in northern Waziristan.
Well, Allah be praised. We are at a crossroads in the war on terror
because

[[Page S11606]]

we are at the point where our enemy believes we are about to tuck tail
and run in Iraq. But we must press on. Al-Qaida is convinced that
America will abandon Iraq. Zawahiri writes that al-Qaida must begin
preparing now for what he likens to ``the collapse of American power in
Vietnam--they ran and left their agents.''
Running is no option. We must fight on. So I ask today that we
continue our support for our troops who are in harm's way, for the
intelligence officials and aid workers deployed throughout the globe in
the frontlines on the war on terror, and I ask that we forget not that
our struggle is a fight to the death, for that is how our enemy sees
it. And with every suicide bomber who takes more innocent life
provides, they prove to us that they are prepared to die. May we
recommit ourselves to this fight to show the world that we are prepared
to fight so that we, our allies, and peace-loving peoples of the world
may live.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article I
referenced called ``With Freedom Comes Politics'' be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

With Freedom Comes Politics

(By Michael Rubin)

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 18, 2005.]

On Oct. 15, Iraqis demonstrated that their desire to
determine the future through the ballot box was the rule
rather than the exception. Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen; Sunnis,
Shiites and Christians--all braved threats of violence to
vote. The vast majority voted in favor of the constitution.
But whatever their positions, Iraqis considered their
decision carefully. The referendum campaign was active.
Dueling commercials and newscasts sought to sway the Iraqi
vote. Such is the nature of politics in a country no longer
subject to state-controlled media.
Some read the constitution. They voted for or against
federalism. Some marked their ballot on the basis of how
closely they wished religion to be mixed with government.
Others did not read the document but learned about it on
television, in newspapers and even by text messaging, the
latest medium employed by Iraqi politicians to reach
constituents. Security, rather than content, was a
determinant for some. They voted ``yes'' to avoid the chaos
of failure and the prolongation of occupation.
The referendum capped a constitutional drafting process
over which Western commentators and diplomats had been quick
to panic. They misunderstand that with freedom comes
politics. The same U.S. senators who debated the ``nuclear
option'' for judicial nominees failed to recognize political
brinkmanship among their Iraqi counterparts.
Many U.S. policy makers worry that disgruntled Sunnis may
turn to violence if their demands aren't met. But there is no
evidence to support the conventional wisdom that insurgent
violence is tied to the political process. Insurgents have
not put forward any platform. By denying the legitimacy of
the state, pan-Islamic rhetoric is a greater affront to Iraqi
nationalism than the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi
soil. It is no accident that Iraqi Sunnis have started
killing foreign jihadists.
Nevertheless, implying violence to be the result of demands
not met is an old Middle East game. And in this game, Iraqi
factions have played the Western media and policy makers like
a fiddle. White House pressure, for example, led U.S.
officials to amend the political process in order to augment
the Sunni presence in the Constitutional Drafting Commission.
Acceding to such demands is not without cost. Because Iraq's
Sunni leaders are more Islamist than their Shiite
counterparts, the increased Sunni presence eroded the rights
of Iraqi women in the constitution's final draft.
Some critics still maintain that the ``yes'' vote may
exacerbate conflict. What is needed is consensus, they say.
On Sept. 26, for example, the International Crisis Group
released a statement criticizing ``a rushed constitutional
process [that] has deepened rifts and hardened feelings.
Without a strong U.S.-led initiative to assuage Sunni Arab
concerns, the constitution is likely to fuel rather than
dampen the insurgency.'' This NGO bemoaned the referendum as
little more than an opportunity for Iraqis ``to embrace a
weak document that lacks consensus.''
But consensus is not always possible. Though Sunnis are
perhaps 15% of Iraq's population, they believe themselves to
be 50%. Any agreement acceding to their inflated sense of
power would automatically disenfranchise the remainder of the
population. With the collapse of apartheid in 1994, white
South Africans had to confront their minority status. Iraqi
Sunnis must face the same reality. The process may be
painful, but justice, democracy and long-term stability
demand it continue.
Even without consensus, the constitution represents the
type of social and political compromise lacking through the
Arab world. Members of the Constitutional Drafting Commission
and Iraqi power brokers spent months debating and canvassing
constituents. Any politician living outside the U.S.-
controlled Green Zone--Jalal Talabani, Abdul Aziz Hakim and
Ahmad Chalabi, for example--had his parlor filled with Iraqis
from different cities and of various ethnic and sectarian
backgrounds until the early hours of morning. These Iraqi
petitioners voiced interests and demands diametrically
opposed to each other. Consensus was not always possible, but
compromise was. As with the constitution, the nature of
compromise is a result ideal to none but fair to all.
The referendum result again demonstrates that American
policy- and opinion-makers are more pessimistic than are
Iraqis. Part of the problem is that Pentagon officials and
journalists alike chart Iraq's success through misguided
metrics. Counting car bombs does not demonstrate progress or
lack thereof in Iraq. Objective indicators show that Iraqis
have confidence that did not exist prior to liberation.
According to an Aug. 16, 2002, commentary in the Guardian--
a British newspaper that often opposes U.S. foreign policy--
one in six Iraqis had fled their country under Saddam.
Millions left because of war, dictatorship and sanctions.
Today, several hundred thousand have returned; only the
Christians still leave. If Iraq were as chaotic as the media
implies, it would export refugees, not resettle them.
Other indicators suggest Iraqis have confidence in their
future. The Iraqi dinar, freely traded in international
currency markets, is stable.
When people fear for their future, they invest in gold;
jewelry and coins can be sewn into clothes and smuggled out
of the country. When people feel confident about the future,
they buy real estate. Property prices have skyrocketed across
Iraq. Decrepit houses in Sadr City, a Shiite slum on the
outskirts of Baghdad, can easily cost $45,000. Houses in
upper-middle-class districts of Mansour and Karrada can cost
more than 20 times that. Restaurant owners spend $50,000 on
top-of-the-line generators to keep open despite the frequent
blackouts. In September 2005, there were 40 buildings nine
stories or higher under construction in the Kurdish city of
Sulaymani. Five years ago, there were none. Iraqis would not
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on real estate if they
weren't confident that the law would protect their
investment.
Iraqis now see the fruit of foreign investment. A year ago
in Baghdad, Iraqis drank water and soft drinks imported from
neighboring countries. Now they drink water bottled in plants
scattered across Iraq. When I visited a Baghdad computer shop
last spring, my hosts handed me a can of Pepsi. An Arabic
banner across the can announced, ``The only soft drink
manufactured in Iraq.'' In August, a Coca-Cola executive in
Istanbul told me their Baghdad operation is not far behind.
Turkish investors in partnership with local Iraqis have built
modern hotels in Basra.
Cameras and reporters do not lie, but they do not always
give a full perspective. Political brinkmanship devoid of
context breeds panic. Beheadings and blood sell copy, but do
not accurately reflect Iraq. Political milestones give a
glimpse of the often-unreported determination that Iraqis and
longtime visitors see daily. Bombings and body bags are
tragic. But they do not reflect failure. Rather, they
represent the sacrifice that both Iraqis and Americans have
made for security and democracy. The referendum, refugee
return, real estate and investment show much more
accurately--and objectively--Iraq's slow but steady progress.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. I would like recognition to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. First of all, let me align my words with the words from
the Senator from Missouri on the war on terror. He is absolutely right.
This is a war for our survival. It is focused in three or four areas in
the world today, but if we don't win, it will be in many more areas
throughout the rest of the world.
The sacrifices are great for our men and women who are serving our
country and those in ancillary roles, but that is what our country has
been made of--of sacrifice to preserve freedom.
I wish to speak first before I offer some amendments to this bill
about something that has been troubling me and the people from Oklahoma
and many of the people across this country for a long time. The
question is, Why should we be troubled? Because all change starts with
a distant rumble, a rumble at the grassroots level, and if you stop and
listen today, you will hear such a rumble right now. That rumble is the
sound of hard-working

[[Page S11607]]

Americans who are getting increasingly angry with out-of-control
Government spending, waste, fraud, and abuse. It is the sound of
growing disillusionment and frustration of the American people. It is
the sense of increasing disgust about blatant overspending and our
ability to make the tough choices people on budgets have to make each
and every day, our inability to make priorities the No. 1 priority
rather than spending our children and grandchildren's future. That is a
rumble of frustration that is getting louder. In fact, I hear it right
now. That is because I am listening for it. We should all listen for
it. If we don't, the voters will decide the changes that will come. And
I can't say that I blame them.
Politicians have been trying to buy reelection by sanctioning more
and more spending for years. Since 2000, discretionary spending in this
country outside of defense and outside of homeland security has grown
by 33 percent, and that does not include any of the $400 billion in
emergency designations that have been passed by the Congress and signed
by this President. We have the very great prospect that the spending
over the last 5 years and the next 3 years will be the greatest growth
in Federal spending ever in our history in terms of percentage increase
and speed and velocity of spending increases. And we will have made it
possible when we should have been fighting it every step of the way.
I am not here to remind us about the Alaska bridge to nowhere,
although I will have an amendment on that later, or the countless
earmarks and pork projects that sail through this Chamber every year.
Everybody knows about that. Many of them are great projects, they are
needed, they are necessary. They just may not be in the best priority
for our Nation at this time.
That is what I am hearing. What I am here to tell you is that the
rumble against spending is getting louder. People are fed up. All
across the country, Americans are rising up against Government
overspending. They are tired of hearing about perpetual budget crises
when tax revenues keep rising faster and faster. They are tired of the
dishonesty of the budget process where we say we have a $320 billion
deficit, and yet the debt to our children and grandchildren rises by
$600 billion because everything is done in an emergency and does not
follow the appropriations and budget process.
They know that for every dollar of increasing tax revenues, we have,
both Republicans and Democrats, found a way to spend another $1.25.
That is the crisis. It is a spending crisis. It is a lack of oversight
crisis. It is a crisis of our will. Do we have the willpower to stop
overspending, to make the hard choices about priorities that the
American people expect of us? If we don't, the people certainly do.
That is why there is a rumble building across this country. The people
are tired of waiting for us to do the right thing. They know it will
not happen, so they are working at the grassroots level to get the job
done themselves.
People are working to change the rules in States all across this
country. A group called Americans for Limited Government is one of the
groups leading that charge. In my home State, they are working with the
local group called Oklahomans in Action to put the stop overspending
initiative on the ballot. There are similar efforts in the works in
Nebraska, Nevada, Maine, Michigan, and dozens of other States. And
committees full of outraged citizens are forming as we speak because of
our inability to control the ever-growing appetite of the Federal
Government and the State governments. The stop overspending initiative
is simple but powerful. It puts a cap on how fast governments can grow.
It holds the elected representatives accountable to the same budgeting
standards that work in the real world, the standards that families,
businesses, and individuals have to live by every day. And most
importantly, the stop overspending initiative is a tool for American
citizens to regain control of their State governments. I personally
applaud this initiative.
In the coming year, millions of people in a dozen States will be
using these initiatives to change the rules of their State government
and to show their State representatives and State senators and assembly
men and women who is really in charge. These groups are getting an
incredible response, and the reason why is simple: The American people
are absolutely furious at the waste, fraud, abuse, and out-of-control
spending they see every day, not just here in Washington but in their
own State government.
We need to wake up. I say let us change first. Let us find our will.
No more low-priority projects in the face of half-trillion-dollar
deficits, no more exorbitant bridges to nowhere. Speaking of bridges,
that is where this Congress will be, on a bridge to nowhere if we do
not gain control of ourselves. And if the voters finally rise up and
reject us as the Congress that spends too much, we will have gotten
what we deserve. You don't need to take my word for it. Just take a
minute and listen to the voices of the people we represent. They are
ready to rumble. They are getting louder. Are we listening?

Amendment No. 2084

(Purpose: To require that any limitation, directive, or earmarking
contained in either the House of Representatives or Senate report
accompanying this bill be included in the conference report or joint
statement accompanying the bill in order to be considered as having
been approved by both Houses of Congress)

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2084.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 2084.

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Any limitation, directive, or earmarking contained
in either the House of Representatives or Senate report
accompanying H.R. 3058 shall also be included in the
conference report or joint statement accompanying H.R. 3058
in order to be considered as having been approved by both
Houses of Congress.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this amendment has been voted on twice
in the Senate. It has been accepted by two other subcommittee chairmen.
It is a very simple amendment that the American people want. It says we
ought to know what we are voting on. When a bill comes from the House,
it has certain earmarks and special things in it. The Senate produces a
bill based on that bill that goes to conference, and earmarks and
additional things are placed in that bill as well as the House original
earmarks.
It comes back out in a conference report for us to vote on, but there
is no clarity to list in that conference report where the earmarks, the
actual items that have been directed by Members of Congress, are
going.They are in there. Can you dig them out? It takes about 4 days to
dig them out.
This is a very simple amendment. All it says is we ought to know what
we are voting on. It is not to say the earmarks are bad or good, it is
to say they ought to be out there so we can discuss them. If somebody
has an earmark, that Senator ought to be proud enough to stand up and
defend it if there is criticism of it. It is about good government,
about shining a light on government so we know in fact what we are
voting on when we vote on a conference report on an appropriations
bill.
I have been told by the chairman that this is probably acceptable. I
await his response. At the last vote on this amendment it passed by 55
to 39 on the Agriculture appropriations bill. It was accepted by
unanimous consent to the Military Construction bill, as well as the
Department of Defense appropriations bill. This amendment has been
endorsed by several outside groups, and it is included in ratings of
Congress by the American Taxpayers Union.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, we would like to consider this amendment.
I ask it be set aside until we see how the operations work with the
rest of the amendments. This may be relevant to the others. I ask
unanimous consent we set this amendment aside temporarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 2087

(Purpose: To limit the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
funding for conferences)

Mr. COBURN. I call up amendment No. 2087 and ask the pending
amendment be set aside.

[[Page S11608]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 2087.

On page 348, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

SEC. 321. LIMITATION ON FUNDING FOR CONFERENCES.

Of the funds made available for the Department of Housing
and Development under the heading ``Management and
Administration, Salaries and Expenses'' in this title, not to
exceed $3,000,000 shall be available for expenses related to
conferences, including for conference programs, staff time,
travel costs, and related expenses.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a very simple amendment. In the
history of HUD, in 2001 they spent $3 million on conferencing. Last
year they spent $13.9 million on conferences around the country.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table showing
the dollar amounts spent on HUD conferences from 2002-2006.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of Housing

and Urban Development,

Washington, DC, September 29, 2005.
Hon. Tom A. Coburn, MD,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
Government Information, and International Security,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of Secretary Jackson, thank
you for your letter requesting information on conferences
sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
and other conferences in which HUD has participated.
Enclosed is a report providing the amount of funding HUD
has spent on conferences; a listing of conferences HUD has
participated in; and an estimate of what the Department
expects to be expended on conferences in Fiscal Year 2006.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide this
material to you. Thank you for your interest in HUD.
Sincerely,
Steven B. Nesmith,
Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations.

HUD SPONSORED AND PAID CONFERENCES
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate                                Actual
Categories             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005         2005         2004         2003         2002         2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries & Overtime (1100)........   $6,360,929   $6,855,877   $6,329,342   $5,517,003   $1,892,353     $837,878
Travel (2100).....................    1,465,925      829,800    1,082,860      849,493      707,924      371,972
Rent & Communication (2300).......       23,930       12,819       27,007        4,340          107        4,073
Printing (2400)...................      177,250       58,577      164,466       36,320       45,040       13,464
Contractual Services (2500).......    2,092,211    1,786,362    2,361,454    2,223,791    1,852,935      198,213
Office Supplies (2600)............       34,479        3,430       65,712        1,528        3,818          826
Equipment (3100)..................        5,000        3,750        3,000  ...........  ...........        4,045
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&E Totals........................   10,159,724    9,550,615   10,034,141    8,632,475    4,502,177    1,430,471
Program Funds.....................    2,200,286    4,357,678    2,636,826      292,077    1,201,532    1,730,274
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................   12,360,010   13,908,293   12,670,967    8,924,967    5,703,709    3,160,745
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. COBURN. I also note, with the advent of modern technology and
video conferencing, 90 percent of these conferences could have occurred
without travel costs, without hotel costs, without face-to-face
meetings. In fact, we didn't use the technology available. We spent
tons of money traveling around the country holding conferences, not
necessarily that were bad in their content or their intent but which
were wasteful in the way they were arranged. Also, I suggest that a
400-percent increase in conferences in one area, one agency of the
Federal Government, shows that either they were doing a very poor job
in 2001, or it is out of control.
This is a very simple, straightforward amendment. Before Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita struck, 737,000 Americans were identified as being
homeless as reported by HUD. Earlier this month, the Acting Director of
FEMA told the Senate committee that between 400,000 and 600,000
displaced households in Louisiana and Mississippi alone will need long-
term housing.
With the problems before us today, certainly we can use the latest
technology and trim back the excessive growth in conferencing that is
used by the Housing and Urban Development Department.
I urge the adoption of the amendment by unanimous consent.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, we share the concerns of the Senator from
Oklahoma. I think there are more efficient ways for HUD to conduct its
conferences. Therefore, on our side we accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are able to accept this amendment on
our side as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2087) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the ranking member, the Senator from Washington,
for that.

Amendment No. 2091

(Purpose: To prohibit any funds under the Act from being used for the
Seattle Art Museum in Seattle, Washington for the construction of the
Olympic Sculpture Park)

I have an amendment numbered 2091. I know this is important to the
Senator from Washington. I call it up and ask unanimous consent to set
aside the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 2091.
On page 348, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

SEC. 321. SEATTLE ART MUSEUM.

None of the funds made available for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under the heading ``Community
Development Fund'' in this title, shall be available for the
Seattle Art Museum in Seattle, Washington for the
construction of the Olympic Sculpture Park.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, in our country today we face the largest
natural disaster we have ever seen. We have already allocated $62
billion for that--which we did not pay for. It is totally going to be
paid for by our children and our grandchildren. We will not pay a penny
of that.
We have a war going on for which we are going to have to provide
additional supplemental spending, of which we will pay for none in
terms of the supplemental, which debt we will transfer to our children.
This is probably a very worthwhile project, but this is about
priorities. I think it is probably a great project. In the State of
Washington alone there are 17,590 homeless people, and we are going to
take money from Housing and Urban Development and we are going to build
a sculpture park. I think that is not the right priority. It may be a
good idea, but the priority is certainly out of line with what the
fiscal needs are, and certainly out of line with the expectations of
the American people on how we are spending their money.
A little background: The Seattle Art Museum just received a $300,000
grant from the Getty Museum in Los Angeles. It is a well-established
museum, well-funded, with good assets. The question is not whether we
should be building a sculpture park. The question

[[Page S11609]]

is, Is the time to do it today? In a time of war, in a time of deep,
true budget crisis, $600 billion--that is what our real increase in
Federal debt was ending September 30. It increased $600 billion--should
we spend half a million dollars on a sculpture park? I think not. I
think most Americans would say not. I think some people who are very
closely aligned with this museum, the Seattle Art Museum, would agree
with that, but I think the vast number of Americans would say now is
not the time to do that.
I also remind our fellow Members that if you read the Constitution,
there are great difficulties--regardless of what our history has been--
justifying, looking at the Constitution and saying this is a role for
the Federal Government. That rumble I spoke about--these are the types
of things the American people see that we do not need to spend money
on, when we are asking them and their children and their grandchildren
to have a lower standard of living in the future because we are not
responsible today.
It is probably a great project, but not now, not at this time, and
not with Federal money. When we have so many people hurting in
Mississippi, so many people hurting in Louisiana, so many people
hurting in Alabama, we are going to take funds from them? That is where
it is going to come from. It is going to come from them because we are
going to spend more to pay for those problems that we are encountering
in those three States from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and we are
going to take it away and say we are going to charge it to our
grandchildren.
We have a credit card going right now. We need to stand up and say
certain things we cannot do right now. They are not bad ideas. It is
just that now is not the time.
I ask unanimous consent this amendment be agreed to. If not, I ask
for a vote on this amendment at the proper time.
One other thing I would like to say. Seattle, WA, is ranked No. 2 in
the Nation for food insecurity. What is more important, feeding people
and housing people, or building a sculpture park? It is hard to figure
out how in the world we can say that is a more important priority and
take a half million dollars out of HUD and spend it on something that
is such a low priority.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I see the Senator from Oklahoma has
essentially proposed five amendments which all seek to do the same
thing, amendments Nos. 2089, 2090, 2091, 2092, 2093. These essentially
are targeted at economic development initiatives.
I wonder if we might have a full debate on all of them and combine
them into one amendment so we could spare our colleagues having to have
rollcall votes on five? Through the Chair, I ask if the Senator from
Oklahoma would voluntarily agree to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri does have the floor
at this time.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will be happy to talk with the Senator
later about that. Let me continue with some of the comments that I have
in general, that are applicable to all these amendments.
Within this budget, in our committee and other committees, we have
identified at the request of many Senators in the States, including the
State of Oklahoma, including the States of Alaska, Washington,
Missouri--priorities in the report to be eligible for funds under the
Economic Development Initiatives Account, subject to Department review.
My colleague, who is the author of this amendment, proposes that these
are necessarily bad. I suspect, if we looked State by State, we would
have 100 different definitions of how precisely to prioritize these
initiatives.
The suggestion here is that Senators should not have any say in what
is important in their States. My profession is serving the people of
Missouri. I have been doing it for 27 years now. I do not have the
skills or the expertise that the author of this amendment does. He, as
I understand it, is a fine obstetrician. His commitment is to a high
humanitarian calling, serving people in the obstetrics field. Certainly
that is a fine profession.
I envy his ability to deliver assistance and deliver babies. We need
professionals of this type. That is his profession. My profession is
very different. I don't have the skills of a physician or an engineer
or a physical scientist. My job, my profession, is serving the people
of Missouri. And as I have said, I do it proudly, this being my 27th
year, I believe. In that time, I have found that if you listen to the
people of Missouri you learn a lot. You learn about the needs of
veterans. We have done things nationwide to serve veterans. I have been
honored to be recognized by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
We have found out how important children's hospitals are, and we have
worked to help children's hospitals. I am very grateful for the
recognition from children's hospitals, and from in-home health care,
which is very important, and from early childhood education, for which
my initiatives have won national acclaim.
In addition to these matters that affect the entire Nation, I have
committed myself to trying to build strong communities throughout
Missouri.
I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma practices medicine,
which is a wonderful practice, and does so with skill and provides a
tremendous benefit. But do you know what I do when we have time off? I
travel around the State. I meet with community leaders, local elected
officials, concerned citizens, people who are trying to build a
stronger community. Do they need a community health center? I have
helped them get community health centers. Do they need something to
help create jobs? Do they have projects which are properly supported by
Federal funds that we make available through the Economic Development
Initiative? Yes, in many instances they are. Do they have projects
which require ground transportation which are properly funded by the
rail transportation funds we have in this bill? Do they need water and
sewers? I have been through many small communities. I hate to tell you
that you can in the summer tell by the smell that they do not have an
effective wastewater treatment system. They have waited in long lines
for public health treatment, and we have helped them get the water
treatment systems they need. This, I believe, is a legitimate function
of the Federal Government--deciding where the highest priorities are.
When I am up here working, I have a dedicated staff back home who
visits every county in the State at least once, and many others several
times a year. I visit every county in my State and every city in my
State every term I serve in office. I hear from them--leaders in the
community, the people who are concerned about the particular problems
and how best to solve those.
That is where I come back and say that from the EDI funds, from a
portion roughly about 5 percent of the community development block
grants, we will designate some of these high-priority needs which must
be met for the good of the community and where we can help meet them
through the addition of Federal funds targeted to those areas.
I believe it has been successful. The people of Missouri think it is
successful. I know the Senator from Washington does the same thing. The
Senator from Washington listens to her people. She knows how to build a
strong community in the State of Washington. I believe that is her job.
I wouldn't propose to go in and tell her what is a good use of the
Economic Development Initiative or community development block grants
in Washington. She has to answer to the people of Washington. Far be it
for me to tell her what is good for the State of Washington.
When the Senator from Oklahoma asked me for something that is a high-
priority project in his State, if it fits within the guidelines, I am
happy to help that Senator determine what is best in Oklahoma. But I
don't need a Senator from Oklahoma telling me what is good in Missouri
or telling the Senator from Washington what is good for the State of
Washington. We believe our job is to serve and represent and listen to
the people of our States. I believe a vast majority of the Senators in
this body know their job is to

[[Page S11610]]

serve their States, whether it is a vote on national legislation,
whether it is a vote on something that is very important to their
people, whether it is national, or whether it has to do with a specific
activity within their State that they want to support. I think that is
our job. That is our profession. We stand for reelection based on how
well we serve our people. I am grateful for the tremendous honor and
privilege I have been given by the people of Missouri. They know I am
not a physician; they know I am not a physical scientist, but they know
I am here to serve and represent them.
The suggestion appears to be that none of us as Members, those of us
who work through our State and who listen to the people of our State,
should have any say in what their priorities are. That suggests that
the Senators are not in touch with the priorities of their own State. I
don't believe that is true generally. I know it is not true in
Missouri. I believe it is not true in Washington. My colleague can
speak to that.
It might be that some Senators are too busy to understand or consult
with their communities. But I understand what my State's needs are. I
aggressively consult with leaders in my State. It might be some
Senators believe that maybe the bureaucrats at the agencies understand
their States better than the Senators themselves. I do not believe that
should be the case because I spend more time in the State than I do
here. I travel as many miles as I can squeeze into a schedule.
The amendments from the Senator from Oklahoma don't save money. They
just say that a Senator shall not be able to determine what is a
priority need in his or her State. Do you know something? I happen to
think a Senator who is doing his or her job probably has as good an
idea and should have a better idea of what is an important priority
than some bureaucrat in HUD who will otherwise be spending that money.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BOND. I will finish shortly and then I will be happy to answer
questions.
Again, I am not afraid to say that I know more about the needs of my
State than the ``U.S. Department of Anything.'' I will be happy to be
judged on that.
I know we ought to be reducing budget spending. According to the
Budget Committee, we have defeated attempts to waive the Budget Act and
have achieved reductions and savings of some $170 billion this year
alone. I have provided recommendations to our Budget chairman for
making significant reductions. We are waiting for the leadership and
the reconciliation bill to decide how we save money.
But this amendment and the others like it makes excellent headlines
and they will be welcomed by some newspaper editorials, some talk radio
show hosts, but it would be a better headline if the Senator were
actually attacking a project in his State. If he thinks that
appropriations for museums is so bad, what about the money in there for
the Ponca City Indian Museum? Does he feel that is an appropriate
priority for the State of Oklahoma? He can answer that. I think that
would make an even better headline.

But I am not interested in getting headlines for something that
doesn't save money in the budget. I am more interested in what people
say, what the Cape Giradeaux Southeast Missourian or the Joplin Globe
or the St. Joe News Press say about what the needs are in their State--
not what somebody in New York or in California says about the projects.
I know my colleague from Washington surely will have something to say
about that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Missouri a couple
of questions.
Has he or any of his staff ever received requests from me for any
earmark or any project whatsoever?
Mr. BOND. No.
Mr. COBURN. Has any other appropriations chairman ever received an
appropriations request or earmark from me from any other area?
Mr. BOND. I have no knowledge.
Mr. COBURN. The answer to that is no.
The Senator said earlier to me privately that this is a battle about
philosophy. I agree; it is. The oath we take has no mention of our
State. The oath we take is to defend the Constitution and do what is in
the best interests of the country as a whole. It is a philosophical
difference.
I am somewhat hurt by the inference that I don't listen and I don't
travel. I traveled 4,500 miles, I have done 67 townhall meetings, and
the biggest criticism anybody ever has of me is that I work too much--
not too little. I listen to the people of Oklahoma. The campaign
promise I made to the people of Oklahoma who sent me here by a 12-point
advantage was that I will bring nothing home to Oklahoma until the
budget is balanced. That is the philosophy the American people are
looking for. There is no priority if we continue to steal the future of
our children.
I had no idea the Ponca City Indian Museum was in there. You will get
an amendment quickly to get that out. I had no knowledge it was there.
My senior Senator must have put that in there. I have no problems with
the same standard being applied to Oklahoma as it is to everyone else.
This isn't a water treatment program. This is a sculpture park. All I
am saying is it may be a good idea. There are hundreds of other things
I would love to take the time to discuss on the Senate floor--and I
will if you all insist on having a debate about every earmark in the
appropriations bill. I will be happy to afford the Senator that
courtesy, and we will spend a lot more time on appropriations bills.
But what we need to talk about is the priorities in this country of how
we get out of the financial mess we are in.
Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to yield in a moment.
I understand the importance of Senators directing the bureaucracy.
The problem is the bureaucracy is too big. Instead of us doing the
oversight we need to be doing to control the bureaucracy so they have a
priority, we supersede it because we don't want to do the hard work of
oversight, of holding them accountable. We need to be doing oversight.
We need to be looking at every individual.
I will match my service as Senator, both for my constituency and my
service in terms of my field representatives and the work they do. I
will match my service in terms of traveling and listening in Oklahoma.
I have been in every area of Oklahoma the first 9 months of this year--
every area. I have missed four counties.
The implication that I don't listen, the implication that I don't
work in my Senate position I take offense to. I will tell that to the
Senator from Missouri. Nobody will outwork me in my job; nobody. I will
do what is necessary to do what I believe the people of Oklahoma sent
me here to do, which is to help turn around the ship that is going to
drown our grandchildren financially.
We can try to relate the sculpture park to a water treatment plant,
but everybody in the country knows there is no connection between those
two. There are necessities of life, there are priorities, and actually
the debate is about priorities. It is not about whether a Senator
should be directing things. I haven't said don't direct anything. I
said there are earmarks that should not be in this bill because they
are not proper at a time when we have such financial difficulties. If
we were in surplus, I wouldn't be here mentioning even one of these
projects, not one. But we are not in surplus.
We can deny the fact that the true add to the debt was $.6 trillion--
$600 billion. That is $2,000 per man, woman, and child this year that
we added to their debt; $2,000 for every little baby I might deliver,
or every grandmother I might care for.
To correct the Senator, I am an obstetrician but I am also an old-
time GP. I care for Medicare, I care for little kids, I care for old
people, nursing home people, and I listen. I tell you that when I
practice medicine on Monday mornings before I come up here, I get an
earful. What I am hearing is, shape up, start doing the priorities we
want you to do. Make the tough decisions.
It is easy for me to earmark something in Oklahoma, isn't it? If I
come to the Senator--maybe not after this discussion this morning, but
normally--this may have something to do

[[Page S11611]]

with the St. Louis Cardinals last night. I don't know. My condolences.
They are the best team in baseball. I give my condolences to the
Senator. I am sorry the Cardinals aren't there. I hope that will impact
his collegiality today as we go through all these amendments.

However, the American people expect Congress to start doing a better
job about priorities. I didn't say anything about cutting out all
community development block grants. I haven't said anything about that.
The amendments I will have today are very specific amendments. I try
to run from the press. I am not trying to get in the press. What I am
trying to do is start down a road that says if we want to be here and
govern, we ought to start listening to the overall trend of the
American people and our oath of office. What is that oath? That oath is
to follow the Constitution and follow that Constitution to represent
this country in its best long-term--not short-term, not for me to get
reelected, but what is in the best long-term interest of our country.
How can anyone say today, with $600 billion added to our
grandchildren in terms of debt, with a war going on, with Katrina going
on, with a hurricane coming to Florida, that we ought to spend half a
million building a sculpture park in Washington State? I can't see that
anybody would agree to that. It is a wonderful idea, but not now. There
are other ways to build this--contributions, State funds. There is a
potential that this will still get built even if we do not send money,
but that ought to be a priority the people of Washington State make,
not that we make, to take the Federal taxpayer dollars from the rest of
the country and say we are going to do that.
I yield to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, before I turn it over to the Senator from
Washington, as I said to the Senator, we have a difference in
philosophy. I commended him publicly for his tremendous service to
Oklahoma--specifically the fact that he continues his practice of
obstetrics. However, we have very different philosophies on how we
serve our people.
If he has told the people of Oklahoma how he is going to serve
Oklahoma, that is fine. I have told the people of Missouri how I am
going to serve Missouri. I believe I am living up to that. Now, I don't
say that he isn't living up in any stretch of the imagination to the
pledge he made to the people of Oklahoma. What I am saying is, I am not
going to tell the people of Oklahoma how their Senator should behave. I
expect the Senator from Oklahoma would not be telling the Senator from
Missouri how to behave.
If he is talking about saving money, this does not cut the budget.
The CDBG pot is 8 percent lower. The Senator may or may not have been
in private sessions when I proposed a major means of reducing the
budget to be considered by the Committee on the Budget. We are staying
in line with what the Committee on the Budget has proposed. The
Committee on the Budget may come back with a recommendation, which I
will be for if it cuts everything fairly.
We are talking about how money is actually spent, economic
development initiatives. Yes, they can go to things like parks if they
have them in communities. And the question is, Who makes those
decisions? Well, for those decisions in Missouri, I spend enough time
and my people spend enough time that I want a say in how funds are
spent because I talk to and listen to those people. I hear what their
requests are. It is a small fraction of the Federal money that goes to
the State.
But I am proud of the progress we have been able to make by
supporting local initiatives through EDI funds. HUD bureaucrats make
some good decisions. If we cut all these out, they will make all the
decisions. They may make some good ones, they may make some bad ones,
but in Missouri, I can make those better than a bureaucrat. That is
what we are talking about. We are not going to save a nickel. If any of
these are agreed to, we will distinguish between the philosophies of
service.
The Senator from Oklahoma has eloquently stated his philosophy. He
believes we ought to restrain spending. And I agree: we ought to
restrain spending. The question is, How do you prioritize the spending
in the budget? That is where we have a disagreement.
We will have an opportunity for our colleagues to determine which
philosophy they agree with. Do you want the bureaucrats solely to make
the decisions, or should Senators be able to influence a small portion
of those? That is the question, quite simply. It is not about saving
money it is about who makes those decisions. We have two very different
philosophies.
I have great respect for my colleague from Oklahoma. He has offered a
different philosophy to his people in being elected than I have offered
to my people in Missouri who have elected me.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator that we ought to
be involved in where the money is spent. As a matter of fact, we ought
to be so involved that we ought to write the bills much more
specifically, all the way down to the job and the title. One of the
things we do not do--we leave too much open to bureaucrats.

In contrast for a minute, I agree this will not reduce the spending.
But $500,000 that is going to go for a sculpture park means $500,000
that will not go for a water treatment plant or will not go for housing
for somebody who has a need for housing. It will not accomplish the
positive benefits the HUD bill is designed to accomplish in the first
place.
I thank the Senator from Missouri for his debate. I again request a
vote on this amendment. I am willing to allow the Senator from
Washington to debate this with me as well, and after that, I will
suggest the absence of a quorum so we can discuss the other amendments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bond in
strongly opposing the Coburn amendment and the numerous other
amendments he has filed with the same type of philosophy, as he calls
it, in the Senate.
I join with my colleague from Missouri, the chairman of this
committee. I, like him, go home every single weekend to Washington
State, which is 2,500 miles away from the Nation's Capital. I, like the
Senator from Missouri, do not believe the bureaucrats sitting in
Washington, DC, know what is happening on the ground in my home State
2,500 miles away from here. I am out there. I am out in every
community, talking to people, listening to them, knowing what their
concerns are, knowing what they are developing within their own
communities, within their own cities, within their own capabilities, to
help stimulate the economy and to do good things. It is my job to be
their partner in that. I tell them that all the time. You get it going
on the ground here, you develop the projects, you get the consensus
within your own communities, and I will do what I can to get some small
part of help from the Federal Government. That is how I, like most
Senators in the Senate, am sent projects.
Last year, I was in Yakima Valley and talked to our farmers out
there. This is a remote community. They are struggling with putting
together a clinic. I talked to them. They developed the ideas at the
local level and put together a building, a job training center, to
assist our State's large farmworker community to help further their
education and acquire some critical new skills. This was an important
project for them. I was able to come back here and partner with
$500,000 from the Federal Government to help stimulate that project to
make sure it was going to succeed.
Another time, I was traveling in King County, talking to community
leaders there who were working to fund a Greenbridge community center
in the heart of an exciting Hope VI project that is bringing affordable
housing and economic development to one of the poorest communities in
King County. I came back here. It is my job to represent a State that
is thousands of miles away from here, and I flew back and said I will
do my part to help with this important project. And we were able to get
$500,000.
Today, the Senator from Oklahoma has targeted another project that I
sat down and discussed with local community leaders. I didn't come up
with this. This came from the heart of my local community because they
are working very hard in an urban core in the city of Seattle to turn a
brownfield into a hub of activity. It is a project

[[Page S11612]]

that is stimulating jobs and investments. That is exactly what this EDI
program is intended to do. We didn't need to cut investments to clean
up brownfields to produce jobs. We need more projects like this.
If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to look for a culprit for the
fiscal situation in this country, he should look into the billions and
billions of dollars in tax cuts that have been granted to
multimillionaires in this country, and he should look at additional tax
cuts his party wants to implement in future years if he wants to find
incredible savings.
To take apart a Senator's projects, who worked very hard, as I have
and as the Senator from Missouri has, the Senator from Rhode Island,
the Senator from Mississippi, and the Senator from Nebraska have done
with their projects and numerous other Senators who have gone home like
we have, listened to the leadership in their communities, heard their
projects, filtered through them as we have had to because we do not
have a lot of money in these accounts, and said these are the ones we
will partner with you at the Federal level and put into this bill.
The Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, under the leadership of my
capable colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, has been respectful and
responsive to requests of Senators who have come up with projects.
Contrary to the representation that some Members have made in the
Senate, these EDI projects we are talking about are not the centerpiece
of our efforts of community development in this bill. In fact, they are
far from it. The funding for these EDI projects that the Senator from
Oklahoma is targeting amounts to less than 8 percent of the overall
funding we provide in this bill for HUD's community development fund.
In fact, my colleagues should remember that President Bush's budget
looked to take the Community Development Block Grant Program out of
this bill and fund it in the Department of Commerce while cutting its
funding by more than a third. Senator Bond and I fought to continue the
funding for the CDBG Program in our bill because we all heard from our
local communities how important these funds were for development across
the country.
The Senator from Oklahoma now comes to the Senate with a series of
amendments targeting a few States to pick out individually named
projects and eliminate those projects' funding. We are not going to go
down that road. There are criteria that pertain to the funding for the
project that I have, for the project the Senator from Oklahoma has, the
project from Nebraska, the project from Missouri, the project from
Mississippi, the project from Rhode Island, and the other projects on
which he has amendments. There are criteria for these. They are not
random. These funds have to be used for capital expenses rather than
operating costs. None of the funds are dedicated to for-profit
entities. The vast majority are dedicated to projects in
underprivileged communities.
I don't care if it is my project, Senator Bond's project, Senator
Nelson's project, Senator Chafee's project, or the other projects that
the Senator from Oklahoma has randomly picked to target, the Senators
that have EDI projects in this bill--and that, by the way, is almost
every Senator in this Senate--are going to have to stand together. We
are not going to watch the Senator pick out one project and make it
into a whipping boy.
Now, it is true that Senator Bond and I allow Senators to allocate
EDI funds to those projects in their States that they think make best
use of the funds. We do not make any apology for that practice.
As the Senator from Missouri has said--which I agree with, I do not
think the bureaucrats at the Department of Housing and Urban
Development know better than I do--a Senator from a State thousands of
miles away from here, who goes home every single weekend and is on the
ground talking to community leaders in every county and every city in
my State, and hearing from them what they think is important.
We do not choose these projects randomly sitting on high from back
here. We go out and talk to our community leaders. They tell us this
project, the one the Senator has decided to target, is a project, as I
said, that is turning a brownfield into a hub of an urban center, into
a center of activity, and it is critical for their economic
development.
When the community leaders come together, and they have a consensus
for it, and they have built the funding for it in the State, it is my
job, I believe, to represent my State, which is thousands of miles away
from here, and to come back and be an advocate for them.
I don't know that the bureaucrats at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development ever take the opportunity to go out and sit on the
ground in my State. It is my job to do that. I take it seriously. And I
am happy to come back here and fight for them, such as most of the
other Senators have done who have given us EDI projects in this bill
this year--next year or the following year.
There is not a lot of money in these accounts. We allocate them
correctly. I sat across the table from the Senator from Missouri in the
Budget Committee for many years, and I can vouch for him that he is not
someone who spends money randomly. He and I have disagreed, in fact, on
budgets and spending over the years, but I do know that he takes his
job seriously, to make sure we spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely. He
votes, every time, for a budget where most of the time I say I am
willing to spend more than he does. He cuts those budgets. And we have
done so this year.
It is a very tight budget year. Our committee is operating within the
confines of that budget. I commend my colleague from Missouri for doing
so because I know how many requests we got for funding within this
bill. It was a tough year. I watched him work his way through a bill,
telling Members of the Senate that he could not fund all their
projects. But he has moved this bill forward under the confines of that
budget.
It is our job to make sure that every Senator has the ability we have
to go home to their States, listen to their community leaders, and then
be their partner in the Senate for this small amount of EDI funding
that is available. These projects in this bill have to fall under the
criteria that the EDI funds do so, and we make sure they do.
I hope the Senate will not go down the road of cherry-picking
individual projects that Senators have come to us and have championed
on behalf of their constituents who do not live here in Washington, DC.
I hope we do not go down the road deciding we know better than home
State Senators about the merits of the projects they bring to us.
As the old saying goes: What is good for the goose is good for the
gander. And I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for
individual projects, your project may be next.
So, Mr. President, when Members come down to the floor to vote on
this amendment, they need to know if they support stripping out this
project, Senator Bond and I are likely to be taking a long, serious
look at their projects to determine whether they should be preserved
during our upcoming conference negotiations.
We must not and we will not go down the road of picking on one
Senator or another on the floor of the Senate. I urge a no vote on this
amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what we heard was a cultural difference.
What we heard is: If you vote for this amendment, anything that you
have in this bill may not be preserved in conference. Now think about
that. I want the American people to hear that. If we tend to think that
a sculpture park is not as high a priority as housing people who are
homeless, and we vote to take that out, the threat has now been made
that if you vote that way, then you will not be able to do something
that may be a higher or lower priority.
I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Washington. I know
she travels hard. I know she works well into the night to represent the
constituency of the State of Washington.
This is a start to forcing us to make priorities. I am happy she is
here to defend this. She believes it is more important than housing. I
think that is fine. She does not believe the guidelines of the CDBG are
appropriate to

[[Page S11613]]

give the State of Washington what it needs.
But I believe it is important we start putting in front of the
American people what we are doing. I believe, with a $600 billion
addition to the debt for this last year alone--being passed on to our
grandchildren--which is $2,000 per man, woman, and child, it is time we
changed. There is nothing personal about it. There is nothing about
anything intended toward the Senator from Washington. It is about a
real assessment the American people need to know. Is this more
important than housing the 17,590 people who are homeless in the State
of Washington? That is the kind of priority I think we need to make.
The other thing I would say is, if we have a problem with the
bureaucracy, we have all the power in the world to change that. We have
the power right here to change that. So we can either change the
bureaucracy so it reflects the views of the people of this country or
we can go about it the wrong way and have to control it by taking a
very small percentage of the budget. We get two bad results from that.
We get poor priorities. And, No. 2, we are not doing our job in
controlling the bureaucracy.
So I am prepared to ask that this amendment be set aside and continue
with another amendment in a moment. But at this time, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have spoken with the parties, and we
believe we have come to an agreement to have a vote at 12:20, with the
time equally divided between the Senator from Oklahoma and--how much
time does the Senator from Oklahoma want?
Mr. COBURN. Ten minutes.
Mr. BOND. Ten minutes for the Senator from Oklahoma, 10 minutes for
the Senator from Nebraska, and I will reserve 5 minutes for the Senator
from Rhode Island. I will take that time on his behalf if he is not
able to make it. So that will make a vote at 12:15 in relation to the
amendment or the amendment, as modified.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.

Amendment No. 2093

(Purpose: To prohibit any funds under the Act from being used for a
parking facility as part of the Joslyn Art Museum Master Plan, in
Omaha, Nebraska)

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2093 and ask that
it be considered and read.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the pending
amendment will be set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 2093.
On page 348, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

SEC. 321. JOSLYN ART MUSEUM.

None of the funds made available for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under the heading ``Community
Development Fund'' in this title, shall be available for a
parking facility as part of the Joslyn Art Museum Master
Plan, in Omaha, Nebraska.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, again, this is not an amendment about this
being a bad idea. I am sure this is a parking lot that is needed. The
purpose of this amendment is to talk about priorities.
The number of homeless people in Nebraska is 3,268. This is an
amendment that spends, I believe, $950,000 to build assets for a
private museum that was started in 1931. Again, no doubt this is
needed. In this time of $600 billion that we added this last year to
our grandchildren's debt, in this time of war, in this time of
hurricanes times two in the gulf and one coming to Florida again, the
fact that we would spend close to $1 million on a parking facility
instead of putting that to the area where we meet more human needs, to
me, seems to be the wrong priority.
Fiscal year 2004 reports by the Joslyn Art Museum showed they had a
net surplus that year alone of $1,998,000. They have assets of $66
million and working capital of $6.5 million.
The question I am raising with this amendment is, Is this the right
priority at this time? It is not whether this is a legitimate effort on
the part of those who are associated with the Joslyn Art Museum master
plan in Omaha, NE, to expand. They spent $3.5 million purchasing an
additional football field so they would have additional expansion. But
at a time when we are at war, at a time when we have the greatest
natural catastrophe that has ever hit this country, and at a time when
we have fiscal deficits that are as far as we can see, and an oil
crisis, an energy crisis affecting us, the question is whether this is
the right place to spend our money.
I understand if this money is not spent on this, it will be spent on
something else. And I know this does not cut the money from the overall
appropriations bill. But there is a grant process for this. We control
the grant process. We control the requirements for the grant process.
We can, as a legislative body, direct that the grant process is open,
competitive, and fair.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, apparently the Nebraska-
Oklahoma game, which is to be played later this month, is occurring
today.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Oklahoma and his
desire to watch the Treasury and to establish priorities, but I will
put up my credentials for watching the priorities and for watching the
spending as well.
The Community Development Fund Program has been put in place to deal
with this priority. In Washington, DC, there can be many priorities.
The business of the Senate, the business of government runs on numerous
tracks, not a single priority. There are many priorities, and it is up
to us to balance those priorities. But in balancing the priorities, we
must keep in mind that the community development funds are designed so
that Members of the Senate can go home and listen to the communities as
to what they need and what will work best for their development, for
their particular needs. It is an opportunity to get away from what
happens in Washington so very often: nameless, faceless, hired
bureaucrats who make a decision about what a community needs rather
than the elected officials who, in consultation with the communities,
are then able to help establish those priorities.
There are many priorities, and this is a priority as well, a priority
for one of the crown jewels of the plains, the Jocelyn Museum, an art
museum that is largely funded by private funds, as my colleague has
suggested. But I think that partnerships between public and private
entities are not only commonplace but necessary in order to continue to
have the fabric of life that this represents.
This is not choosing against other priorities. I think my colleague
knows that the Katrina victims will be taken care of. I think he knows
that other priorities will be met, but that we must, in fact, balance
all the priorities that we are faced with in deciding here in
Washington, DC.
In assisting communities with their development, these funds were
made available for projects just like this one and the other ones that
are in question in Washington and Rhode Island. So to suggest there is
something inappropriate about this in terms of priorities is
unfortunate. It is unfortunate for a number of reasons.
No. 1, we are not here challenging decisions made for grants that
might be established by the bureaucracy which, on their face, seem to
have more credibility even though, in my opinion, they have less
credibility.
In addition, we have to recognize that this priority has met the test
of what is necessary to help this private institution in dealing with a
public school to make available for that public school athletic
facilities and an exchange--once again, a public-private partnership
that was created.
That public-private partnership preceded this public-private
partnership, and this is an opportunity to continue those kinds of
relationships.
I go to Nebraska and I listen to my communities. I listen to the
leaders. And based on what they tell me their needs are, I am able to
come back and

[[Page S11614]]

try to establish these kinds of funds available, then make them
available for those needs.
I object to singling out one or two or three of these projects as
though there is something inappropriate about their priority. There is
nothing inappropriate about their priority.
I reserve what remains of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my
colleague from Nebraska. As a matter of fact, I am worried about his
football team hurting the Oklahoma football team this year. But I will
say, we view priorities differently. What about the priority of our
grandchildren? I will say it again. This last year, through our
leadership, $2,000 per man, woman, and child was added to the debt of
this country. That is a loadstone around a 2-year-old child. Last year
we added $1,700.
The reason for these amendments is to get us to start thinking about
choosing priorities. The Senator from Nebraska was not here when I gave
my opening statement. I am not trying to pick on Nebraska. I am trying
to pick on our process. The fact is we can change every aspect of how
the grant-writing process goes if we want to and we can make it work.
The reason we do not trust bureaucrats is we do not hold them
accountable because we do not do the work we need to do to create the
change in the bureaucracy. So first I would offer no personal offense
to my friend from Nebraska. He does have my respect. But when a private
institution is worth $66 million, has a cash working capital of $6.5
million and has $1.998 million in the bank, we are going to take a
priority that says this money we are going to spend here rather than on
something that has a better priority. That is all I am saying. I am not
saying this is bad. I am saying there should be a better priority for
our spending.
My hope is by going through this process we will all start looking. I
believe this is a sincere effort on the part of the Senator from
Nebraska to do what he thinks is great for Nebraska. My feeling is--and
there is lots I would like to challenge in the spending that goes
through our earmarks--and I have said before the Senator came on the
floor, if we were in surplus I would not be talking about any of these.
I think the difference is we are not. So when we direct programs for
institutions that have the assets to pay for it themselves, our
grandchildren do not get great value. That is my only point.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Point of inquiry: How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise again to deal with the
question about priorities. There are many priorities we must face as a
country. We do have priorities to deal with Katrina. We have priorities
to deal with the cost of the war. We also have to deal with the
priorities that deal with the fabric of life for Americans wherever we
live and whatever we do.
One of the ways in which we try to establish those priorities is by
talking to the people who send us here, the people who pay the taxes
that are sometimes redistributed in ways that will raise questions
about priorities.
I do not think there is any question but what the priority this
raises is an important priority as part of the community development
funds. It has been a long-established practice to set aside these funds
for similar situations as the ones that are called into question today
by my colleague from Oklahoma.
There is nothing wrong with calling these priorities into question,
but to single them out with respect to all the other priorities he may
have in mind is unfortunate because it only draws attention to one,
two, or three of these projects as though these are all by themselves
the priorities that are being dealt with.
These community development funds are broad based. They apply to
virtually every State. I have not checked to see what Oklahoma might
get or what my other colleagues might get, but I do believe it is far
better for the Members of the Senate to go home and listen to their
communities and listen to their leaders and come back with this type of
an approach, rather than continuing to see the grant process that the
bureaucracy continues to provide and is not held accountable in the
same way this is being held accountable. I will be held accountable and
my colleagues will be held accountable for trying to do the right
things for our States, for the people and for the fabric of life in
those communities and in those States.
I say today that I hope our colleagues will recognize the importance
of these community development funds and the grants they represent
because a good part of why we are here is to take care of
responsibilities back home. That is why we go home on weekends, to find
out what is necessary in those communities.
Others will always have some question about whether it is this
priority or that priority. We have to make those choices. In my
opinion, this has been a good choice.
I yield back the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 2093, as Modified

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my EDI
amendment to include the three projects, Washington, Nebraska, and
Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2093), as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place insert the following:

JOSLYN ART MUSEUM.

None of the funds made available for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under the heading ``Community
Development Fund'' in this title, shall be available for a
parking facility as part of the Joslyn Art Museum Master
Plan, in Omaha, Nebraska.

STAND UP FOR ANIMALS.

None of the funds made available for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under the heading ``Community
Development Fund'' in this title, shall be available for
Stand Up for Animals in Westerly, Rhode Island for building
construction.

SEATTLE ART MUSEUM.

None of the funds made available for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under the heading ``Community
Development Fund'' in this title, shall be available for the
Seattle Art Museum in Seattle, Washington for the
construction of the Olympic Sculpture Park.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will spend a few moments talking about
the last of these three that are going to be considered. This is
another project where we are spending $200,000 for the construction of
an animal shelter when we cannot even shelter the people properly in
Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
Now, $200,000 could go a long way to provide temporary housing right
now for the people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. This is
$200,000 toward a $2.2 million facility to house 120 cats and 45 dogs,
with a dog obedience school and classroom settings for youth.
If one looks at HUD's Web site, the mission is to increase
homeownership, support community development, and increase access to
affordable housing free from discrimination. It does not say anything
about animals in it and, at best, it is a satirical exaggeration of the
goal.
This funding has been proposed for this organization despite the fact
that this is a 501(c)(3) organization that has already received
$900,000 in charitable contributions.
I remind the Senate there are 7,814 people in Rhode Island who do not
have homes at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Unfortunately, Senator Chafee is tied up. We are expecting
momentarily to get a full explanation. Our debate has focused on the
difference in philosophy. The Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from
Washington, the Senator from Rhode Island, and I all have the ability
to establish priorities in the economic development initiatives. They
are important initiatives and important priorities that can be set by
Senators.
In the case of the provision for the Senator from Rhode Island, this
happens to be construction of a building that is very important for the
quality of life in the town of Westerly, RI.

[[Page S11615]]

Many people have different needs and one of the beauties of that is the
people from those communities can talk directly to their Senator and
tell their Senator what is important.
In this instance, the Senator from Rhode Island listened to the
people. He listened to his constituents. He determined this was a
priority. There is going to be a lot of other money that is going to be
handed out by HUD bureaucrats under the economic development initiative
for construction. What is wrong with the Senator from Rhode Island
saying here is one pressing need that is very important for the Senator
from Rhode Island because it is important to his constituents?
I reserve the balance of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally to all sides.
Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2158 to Amendment No. 2133

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that we return to the
consideration of Dorgan amendment No. 2133 for a moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is pending.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment
numbered 2158 to amendment No. 2133.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking
minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the
involvement of parents in abortion decisions)

Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Child
Custody Protection Act''.
(b) Transportation of Minors in Circumvention of Certain
Laws Relating to Abortion.--
(1) In general.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 117 the following:

``CHAPTER 117A--TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS IN CIRCUMVENTION OF CERTAIN
LAWS RELATING TO ABORTION

``Sec
``2431. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws
relating to abortion

``Sec. 2431. Transportation of minors in circumvention of
certain laws relating to abortion

``(a) Offense.--
``(1) Generally.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line,
with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and
thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law
requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion
decision, in force in the State where the minor resides,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both.
``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, an
abridgement of the right of a parent occurs if an abortion is
performed on the minor, in a State other than the State where
the minor resides, without the parental consent or
notification, or the judicial authorization, that would have
been required by that law had the abortion been performed in
the State where the minor resides.
``(b) Exceptions.--
``(1) The prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply if
the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor
because her life was endangered by a physical disorder,
physical injury, or physical illness, including a life
endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the
pregnancy itself.
``(2) A minor transported in violation of this section, and
any parent of that minor, may not be prosecuted or sued for a
violation of this section, a conspiracy to violate this
section, or an offense under section 2 or 3 based on a
violation of this section.
``(c) Affirmative Defense.--It is an affirmative defense to
a prosecution for an offense, or to a civil action, based on
a violation of this section that the defendant reasonably
believed, based on information the defendant obtained
directly from a parent of the minor or other compelling
facts, that before the minor obtained the abortion, the
parental consent or notification, or judicial authorization
took place that would have been required by the law requiring
parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, had the
abortion been performed in the State where the minor resides.
``(d) Civil Action.--Any parent who suffers harm from a
violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief in
a civil action.
``(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
``(1) a `law requiring parental involvement in a minor's
abortion decision' means a law--
``(A) requiring, before an abortion is performed on a
minor, either--
``(i) the notification to, or consent of, a parent of that
minor; or
``(ii) proceedings in a State court; and
``(B) that does not provide as an alternative to the
requirements described in subparagraph (A) notification to or
consent of any person or entity who is not described in that
subparagraph;
``(2) the term `parent' means--
``(A) a parent or guardian;
``(B) a legal custodian; or
``(C) a person standing in loco parentis who has care and
control of the minor, and with whom the minor regularly
resides, who is designated by the law requiring parental
involvement in the minor's abortion decision as a person to
whom notification, or from whom consent, is required;
``(3) the term `minor' means an individual who is not older
than the maximum age requiring parental notification or
consent, or proceedings in a State court, under the law
requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion
decision; and
``(4) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia
and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the
United States.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 117 the following new
item:

``117A. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws
related to abortion...........................................2431''.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2093, as Modified

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma has modified his amendment to include the provisions dealing
with the States of Washington, Nebraska, and Rhode Island. Is this
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Washington and
myself, I move to table the amendment as modified and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 13, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]

YEAS--86

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--13

Allen
Burr
Coburn
DeMint
Ensign
Feingold
Graham
Hagel
Kyl
McCain
Sessions
Sununu
Talent

[[Page S11616]]

NOT VOTING--1

Corzine

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we thank our colleagues.
Mr. President, as far as procedure, there are a number of issues that
will be debated. There may be additional amendments offered, but for
the convenience of our colleagues, there are not going to be any votes
until 2:30. I propound a unanimous consent request that at 2 p.m. there
be 30 minutes equally divided in relation to Reed amendment No. 2077;
provided further that the Senate then proceed to a vote in relation to
the amendment, with no second degrees in order to it prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. The floor is now open for debate and
further amendment as requested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 2077

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I take a moment of the Senate's time to
reiterate my very strong support for the amendment offered by my
colleague and friend, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and my colleague,
Senator Kerry, and myself on increasing emergency funding for the
LIHEAP program. This program is a lifeline to many poor individuals on
fixed incomes in my state of Massachusetts and across the nation. It is
the help and assistance that is provided to low-income, elderly and
disabled households to defray the steep costs of home heating. The
average LIHEAP household has an income of less than $10 thousand. These
individuals are trying to make ends meet.
According to the Energy Information Administration of the Energy
Department, this year natural gas prices for heating one's home will
increase by almost 50 percent over last year, home heating oil will
increase 32 percent, electricity will increase 5 percent. In
Massachusetts, the current average price per gallon of heating oil is
$2.51. This is an increase of 30 percent over the average price per
gallon last October.
These aren't just abstract numbers. They represent huge burdens on
real people. Just last week, Mayor Menino and I met with low-income
seniors at the Curtis Hall Community Center in Massachusetts. These
families are caught between a rock and a hard place about how they are
going to pay their heating bills. Are they going to cut back on food?
Are they going to cut back on prescription drugs which are so
necessary? Are they going to try and continue to put the temperature
level down to such a low degree that it threatens their health and
well-being? Those are the cruel choices they are faced with today.
So many senior citizens are looking into the future, they are looking
at the impact of sky-rocketing heating bills over the course of the
winter, and they are frightened and scared. They are wondering who is
going to give them some help and assistance.
Our amendment increases emergency funding for the LIHEAP program by
$3.1 billion. This funding on top of the President's budget request for
$2 billion would bring the program to $5.1 billion -the level
authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Funding for LIHEAP has been stagnant for more than a decade. It has
seen significant loss in terms of purchasing power. We have a program
that has been stagnant for over 10 years, the program has lost
purchasing power, and absolutely dramatic increases in heating bills.
We need to provide help and assistance to low income families. This
amendment provides that much needed assistance.
I hope we have broad support. This is an essential amendment. We can
talk about food; we can talk about medicines. We ought to put heat
right in that same category.
I will mention some of the low income individuals struggling to
survive: Wilhelmina Mathis of Dorchester. Wilhelmina is 71 years old
and lives alone. She keeps her thermostat set at 60 degrees to save
money. She hopes the Federal Government will come through with more
LIHEAP money before she runs out of a way to pay her heating bill. She
says:

I turn down the thermostat as low as I can and sometimes I
turn it off and put on extra sweaters. I don't know now much
longer I can keep doing this.''

Jacqueline Arroyo of Roxbury, MA, is a single mom who lives in
Roxbury with her baby daughter Jessica. She is a nurse who lost her job
in August 2004 and has been working temporary jobs ever since. Her
salary has not been enough to cover all of her bills. Her electricity
bill is now $4,000, and she worries about how she will pay off the debt
before this winter.
Emory Baily has MS, and it is hard for him to get around. Now the
comfort of his home is in jeopardy. Any day the heating oil will run
out. The assistance he receives from LIHEAP has run out as temperatures
begin to fall.
In Boston, a 79-year-old man lives with a sick wife. He worked hard
on a loading dock most of his life and retired with a pension, but he
has a hard time paying all the bills. He receives LIHEAP benefits, but
the fuel oil assistance has been exhausted. We are not even halfway
through the winter.
In Haverhill, MA, a single mother lives with her 18-year-old son, who
is handicapped, her 19-year-old daughter, and her daughter's child, who
has a medical condition. Both mother and daughter are employed as
school bus monitors. They have little or no income over the summer.
Their rent is $950 a month. Their last gas bill was $1,729. Because
they could not pay their gas bill, their gas was shut off. Even if they
qualify for $600 in LIHEAP assistance, the gas company may refuse to
reconnect the service unless the family comes up with another $400 to
$800 toward the back pay.
These are typical families. This is the issue we have before the
Senate. It is truly a life-and-death situation. It certainly deserves
the support of our colleagues in the Senate. I hope that will be
reflected in the vote at 2:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is Coburn amendment No.
2091.

Amendment No. 2065

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 2065.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Levin, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Specter,
Mr. Brownback, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Hagel, and Mr. Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 2065.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To extend certain apportionments to primary airports)

On page 229, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
(c) Section 47114(c)(1)(F) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``and 2005'' each place it appears in
the text and in the heading and inserting ``, 2005, and
2006''.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment I offer on behalf
of myself, Senator Specter, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Levin,
Senator Stabenow, Senator Brownback, Senator Rockefeller, Senator
Harkin, Senator Durbin, Senator Hagel, and Senator Santorum. This is a
bipartisan amendment which tries to assist many of our smaller airports
around the country.
Under the current formula in the statute, airports that have at least
10,000 boardings each year are called primary airports. Those airports
receive entitlement of $1 million per year from the FAA's Airport
Improvement Program. The nonprimary airports--those that do not have
the 10,000 annual boardings--receive only $150,000.
In the wake of September 11, many airports saw their annual boardings
plummet. There were a number of these smaller primary airports, many in
rural areas, that faced the temporary loss of their $1 million annual
entitlement.

[[Page S11617]]

Vision 100, which is Public Law 108-176, gave certain primary
airports 2 years--fiscal year 2004 and 2005--to regain that minimum
10,000 boarding level. During that time, they retained the annual $1
million entitlement they had been receiving. These airports are
designated as virtual primary airports in the statute. The 2-year grace
period in Vision 100 for the virtual primary airports expired on
September 30, just a few weeks ago.
The amendment I am offering today to the legislation before the
Senate gives the virtual primary airports 1 additional year--fiscal
year 2006--to regain a level of 10,000 boarding. Many of the virtual
primary airports saw substantial increases in their boardings in fiscal
year 2004. There are 10 fewer airports that need this extension for
fiscal year 2006 than would have needed it or that did need it in
fiscal year 2005.
This is the right thing to do. This is important to many of our
States. I have a list of all the airports that will be adversely
affected if we do not agree to this provision. One of those airports is
in my home State in Roswell, NM, that is in danger of losing this
funding if we do not extend this for 1 additional year.
This is a bipartisan bill. We have 11 cosponsors of the legislation.
It is good legislation. The policy is good. We have gone to the
Congressional Budget Office and they have indicated there is no score
attached to this bill. This is not a money issue. There is not going to
be an increased burden on the taxpayer. I very much urge my colleagues
to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from New Jersey.

Amendment No. 2077

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take a couple minutes to
talk about the amendment to fully fund the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, what we call LIHEAP.
Americans have already been slammed by outrageously high gas prices.
The average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gas in New Jersey is
now $2.65. That is 37 percent higher than a year ago.
For an average New Jersey motorist, a tank of gas now costs about
$46, which is $12.50 more than a year ago. That extra $12.50 for every
tank of gas adds up to a cost of more than $400 a year for the average
motorist--a new cost for their transportation needs with their cars.
It is affecting our quality of life. Driving to work or taking your
children to school is not a luxury, nor is a visit to the doctor, nor
is a visit to a shop. These things are all necessities. That is a
terrible mistake because we have to make sure we do not misunderstand
or misquote the importance of this extra cost to the average family. It
is particularly onerous for those who do not have the choice of using
transit.
Families have sacrificed substantially. They have cut back on lots of
things. According to a new survey by AARP, almost 40 percent of
Americans over the age of 50 have had to reduce their visits with
family and friends because of high gas prices.
I have even spoken to people who run businesses that are not on a
transit route or a bus route of any kind. They tell me their business
has fallen off substantially. And people who work there--a lot of
people with very modest jobs--have been very seriously affected.
Forty-one percent of the people the AARP was talking about have cut
back on spending. That includes food and medicine.
Gas price increases have been a heavy blow, and now we are about to
get hit again by higher home heating costs. According to all
predictions, heating oil and natural gas prices will increase more than
gasoline prices have increased.
Now, some people can lower their thermostats by a few degrees; and
those who can, should. But heating a family home is not a luxury. It is
a necessity, like putting food on the table. It is a level of comfort
that is required to be met that cannot be ignored. That is why we have
to support LIHEAP.
Last week, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said increasing the support
for LIHEAP is ``not on the agenda.'' Not on the agenda? That is hard to
understand. Maybe someone with a lofty position such as the Secretary
can discard it as a noncritical situation. But if a child shivers at
home while he or she tries to study or while they sit there with their
families to have some conversation--maybe what this Government of ours
ought to do is ship out blankets to everybody, or shawls they can wrap
around their shoulders. You tell the senior citizen who has to choose
between buying medicine or paying the heating bill that the Government
is not going to help them through this crisis.
Helping families heat their homes should be near the top of our
agenda. The Secretary's statement is outrageous. It is a sad commentary
on the priorities of this administration. I don't think any Member of
this body would walk into a modest-income family home and turn off
their heat in the middle of winter. But voting against this amendment
is going to have the same effect for thousands of low-income families.
We cannot leave American families out in the cold. We have to support
the Reed-Collins LIHEAP amendment and give families a helping hand
through what some suggest is going to be a fairly cold winter. With
weather as erratic as it is, we cannot tell what is going to happen.
So, Mr. President, I hope we will be able to adopt this amendment.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for as much time as I shall consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Fiscal Condition Of The Country

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about a
recent report in the Washington Post about the fiscal condition of the
country. This was an article that appeared Saturday in the Washington
Post, reporting on the budget deficit. It had this very hopeful
headline: ``Federal Deficit Fell in Past Year.'' While that is true, I
think it is largely misleading as to the financial condition of the
country.
When I went into the article, I read this paragraph:

The 2005 deficit was the third-largest ever. But it was not
only markedly smaller than the record $412.85 billion
[deficit] for 2004, it was also well below the forecasts for
the year issued in February. As a proportion of the economy--
it equaled about 2.6 percent of gross domestic product--the
deficit was within bounds that most economists consider
manageable, and far from the levels of the 1980s, when the
deficit reached nearly 6 percent of GDP.

I think if the average person were to read that, they would think:
Gee, things are headed in the right direction. The deficit is down. The
deficit is, as a share of GDP, gross domestic product, well below where
it was in the 1980s.
The problem with this report is, I think it is completely misleading
to the American people as to our true fiscal condition. Why? Well,
first, because the deficit calculation that is used so broadly by the
press--and I am not singling out the Washington Post here. I would also
point the finger at almost all of the mainstream media that continually
refer to the deficit and never talk about the debt.
Here is the difference. While it is true the deficit last year was
$319 billion, that is not the amount by which the debt increased. This
is a critically important difference people need to understand. The
debt last year did not increase by $319 billion, the advertised
deficit. The debt increased by $551 billion.
I find repeatedly, when I go around my home State of North Dakota,
there is great confusion about the deficit and the debt. Most people
believe the increase in the deficit matches the increase in the
debt. But that is not the case. The debt is increasing by much more
than the reported deficit.

Here is the biggest reason why: Social Security funds that are being
used to pay for other things. In effect, the Social Security trust
funds are being raided consistently, repeatedly, in order to pay other
bills. If any private sector entity tried to do what is being

[[Page S11618]]

done here, they would be on their way to a Federal institution, but it
would not be the Congress. It would not be the White House. They would
be on their way to a Federal penitentiary because it is a violation of
Federal law to take the retirement funds of employees and use them to
pay operating expenses. That is exactly what is going on here.
It happened last year to the tune of $173 billion. It is not included
in the deficit calculation. Why not? Because that is borrowing of one
Government entity from another Government entity. So they don't include
it in the deficit, but it is included in the increase in the debt.
Every penny of this has to be paid back.
What is happening is, the general fund of the United States is, in
effect, borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund. It is
using that money to pay other bills--not using it to pay down debt, not
using it to prepay the liability, it is using it to pay other bills. It
is adding to the debt. So last year the debt increased not by $319
billion, which we read in every press report. You didn't read in any
press report that I can find, not one, that the debt increased by $551
billion last year.
When you then correct for what has been left out, instead of an
operating deficit of 2.6 percent of GDP, which was reported in the
story by the Washington Post on Saturday, which is, they say, within
acceptable bounds of most economists--most economists say about 2.5
percent of GDP is the danger point--when you make an adjustment for
what the debt increased by, what you see is an operating hole in the
United States of 4.5 percent of GDP, far beyond what most economists
say is acceptable. In fact, in the European Union, to become a member,
you have to have an operating deficit of 3 percent of GDP or less. The
United States wouldn't qualify under that standard because in truth our
operating deficit is now well in excess of 4 percent of GDP.
The other thing that is important to understand, the article
referenced the deficit as a share of GDP was higher back in the 1980s,
not much higher, and in most years not higher when you put in the
calculation of the money being taken from Social Security. Here is the
pattern of Social Security surpluses that are being used. You can see
back in the 1980s there was almost no money being used from the Social
Security trust fund. Back in those days, you can see we were running
very small surpluses. In fact, until 1983, we weren't running any
surpluses in Social Security. Then they were very modest, but most of
this time well below $50 billion. Look at where we are now. We are up
here now, $170 billion a year. That is a profound difference in the
calculation. Nobody seems to pay any attention to it. This gives you a
very different look at the true fiscal condition of the country.
In addition to that, back in the 1980s, you had time to get well
because the baby boomers were not going to retire for over 20 years.
Now there is no time to get well because the baby boomers are poised to
retire. That is not a projection. The baby boomers are alive today.
They have been born. They are living. They are going to retire. They
are going to be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. We are
headed for a train wreck.
What we get from the mainstream media are these happy talk reports
that the deficit is down. No attention is paid to the increase in the
debt. No attention is paid to where this is all headed. This is serious
business.
This chart shows, going back to 1980, the relationship between
spending and revenue. The red line is the spending line as a percent of
GDP in the United States. The green line is the revenue line as a
percent of GDP. Let's stop there and ask, Why do we use that
calculation? Why aren't we showing in dollar terms the relationship
between spending and revenue over a long period of time? The reason is
very simple: Economists tell us, if you use gross domestic product, you
then take out the effects of inflation and real growth, so you are
comparing apples to apples. That is what we are trying to do here, get
a sense of what is happening to our spending, what has happened to our
revenue over an extended period of time.
This chart shows that the spending level of the United States, back
in the 1980s and for much of the 1990s, was significantly higher than
it is today. You can see the spending line back here. This goes back to
1980. Through the 1980s, the spending line--and much of the 1990s--was
well above where it is today, even though in the 1990s spending came
down each and every year as a share of gross domestic product. Now we
have had this uptick in spending, quite a substantial increase as a
share of gross domestic product, but still we are well below where
spending was in the 1980s and for much of the 1990s.
Ninety-one percent of the increase in discretionary spending was from
three factors: Defense, homeland security, and rebuilding New York. So
the spending line has had a substantial increase but still well below
where Federal spending was as a share of our national income going back
to the 1980s and 1990s.
Look at the revenue line. The revenue line back in the 1980s was
approaching 20 percent of GDP. Then there were the tax cuts, and it
went down to just over 17 percent of GDP. Then it kind of jiggled and
jagged around here. And then in the 1990s, as the spending line came
down each and every year, the revenue line went up each and every year.
So that in the year 2000, revenue was at a historic high, about 20.9
percent of GDP.

Look what has happened to the revenue line since 2000. The revenue
line has collapsed. Revenue last year was the lowest as a share of
gross domestic product since 1959. Anybody who is serious about doing
something about the deficit has to address both the spending line and
the revenue line. Very often our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle only want to talk about the spending line. They vote for all the
spending, but they don't want to address the revenue side of the
equation. They don't want to cut the spending to meet the revenue line,
and they don't want to raise the revenue to meet the spending line.
What we have here is a complete lack of responsibility. There are a
lot of speeches about fiscal responsibility, but there is no reality of
responsibility. Our Republican friends want to focus on the spending
side, and indeed we need to focus on the spending side, although they
voted for this increase in spending. These have not been Democratic
budgets. These are not Democratic spending bills. Our Republican
friends are in charge of the Senate and the House and the White House.
They are responsible for every dollar of increase in spending. Every
dollar they voted for. But they don't want to be responsible to match
their spending with revenue. They don't want to cut the spending to
match the revenue line, and they sure don't want to raise the revenue
to match the spending line. They are happy passing it off to our kids,
just tack it on to the debt. They say they are fiscally responsible.
No. This is not fiscal responsibility.
What is most alarming is where all this heads. While it is true we
have had an uptick in revenue in the last year--very welcome--we see
that we are still way below the spending line. This is before the baby
boomers retire.
Somebody may be listening and will say: Well, Senator Conrad is
giving a passionate speech to raise taxes. No, don't misunderstand me.
I am giving a speech about making this all add up. We either have to
cut the spending down to the revenue line or we have to raise the
revenue line to our spending appetite or some combination. That means
we either have to cut spending down to the revenue that we are willing
to levy or we have to be willing to raise the revenue line or some
combination.
By the way, the first thing we ought to do on revenue is not a tax
increase on anybody. The first thing we ought to do is focus on the tax
gap. That is the difference between what is owed and what is being
paid. That tax gap now is over $350 billion a year. The fact is, the
vast majority of Americans pay what they owe. But increasingly,
individuals and companies aren't paying what they owe. The Revenue
Service says that has now reached $350 billion a year, money that is
owed that is not being paid. There has been precious little being done
about it.
The hard reality, what is so different from the 1980s and now, is
this demographic tsunami that is coming at us. This is a representation
of the increase of people eligible for Social Security

[[Page S11619]]

and Medicare. We are under 40 million now eligible for Social Security
and Medicare. We are headed for 81 million. It profoundly changes
everything. The President's budget that claims it is going to reduce
the deficit over the next 5 years misses the point. The only way he
gets to cutting the deficit in half is he leaves out some items--war
costs past September 30, the cost to fix the alternative minimum tax. A
5-year budget hides the larger truth. The larger truth is the
President's long-term plan makes this whole situation much worse. Why?
Because the President's tax cuts absolutely explode right beyond the 5-
year budget window.
We used to do 10-year budgets. Then the President changed to a 5-year
budget. I believe the key reason for that change was he knows what
these numbers show, just as I do. He and his people know exactly what
is going to happen beyond the 5-year budget window. The cost of his tax
cuts explode. This is going to happen. The 10-year cost of the
President's tax cuts are $1.8 trillion. Here is what happens right
beyond--the dotted line is the end of the 5-year budget window. Here is
what happens to the President's tax cut proposal right beyond the 5
years. It explodes. It is not just that cost that explodes; it is also
the cost to fix the alternative minimum tax which, by the way, there is
not a penny in the President's budget to deal with. The alternative
minimum tax, the old millionaire's tax, now is becoming very rapidly a
middle class tax trap. Three million people were affected last year. It
is going to be 30 million people affected 10 years from now, if we
don't do something.
It costs $774 billion to fix, and not a penny of it is in the
President's budget. Again, the same pattern, right beyond the 5-year
budget window, this dotted line, the cost of fixing the alternative
minimum tax skyrockets.
What is the answer that we get on the budget? We get what is called
reconciliation, and we are told this is a deficit reduction plan. No,
it is not. There is no deficit reduction in this plan.
This increases the deficit. Why? Because while it is true it has $35
billion of spending cuts, it also has $70 billion of tax cuts. And so
the combined effect is to actually increase the deficit. What sense
does this make when we have a debt crisis looming? The debt increased
$551 billion last year. The forecasters are telling us it is going to
increase $600 billion this year--or more. And the answer is a
reconciliation package cloaked as deficit reduction that actually
increases the deficit.
I don't know how anybody can, with a straight face, claim this is
what the country needs.
This is the increase in the debt over the next 5 years of the
President's budget plan. You take the President's budget plan. You
adjust it for the war costs he has left out--not Kent Conrad's
projection of the war costs, the projection of the Congressional Budget
Office--you put in the cost to fix the alternative minimum tax and the
President's budget policy, the debt of the country is going to go up
$3.4 trillion over the next 5 years. And our colleagues are out here
talking about cutting spending $35 billion. It is farcical. It is
farcical.
They talk about fiscal responsibility. They are sending off a plan to
increase the debt $3 trillion, and they run out here with a plan to cut
$35 billion of spending. And by the way, that is not deficit reduction
because they are also going to cut taxes $70 billion, so they are
actually going to make the deficit worse, in the face of $3 trillion of
additional debt before the baby boomers retire. Come on. This is what
is happening to the debt under this plan--this budget plan that was
passed in the Senate before Katrina. This is what it is going to do to
the debt. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers. This is what's going to
happen to the debt. It is going to go up $600 billion a year each and
every year for the next 5 years--more than $600 billion. It went up
$550 billion last year. You talk about building a wall of debt--and all
at the worst possible time before the baby boomers retire.
Now, the Comptroller General of the United States has come to us and
said, You have an utterly unsustainable situation on your hands. You
are running these massive deficits, huge explosion of debt before the
baby boomers retire and guess what. You have a shortfall in Medicare
alone of $29.6 trillion. You have a Social Security shortfall that is
projected at $4 trillion. In those two alone, that is $33 trillion of
unfunded liabilities.
Is anybody paying attention? Does anybody understand where this is
all headed? This is a train wreck. That is where we are headed--a train
wreck. And what is the answer? To come out here with a package that
increases the deficit some more? They have got to be kidding. They have
got to be kidding.
Mr. President, I do not believe this $4 trillion of shortfall in
Social Security. I think that is a very bad estimate. I think the
shortfall in Social Security is much less. Why? Because the assumption
behind this projection is that the economy is only going to grow 1.9
percent a year for the next 75 years. Over the previous 75 years, the
economy grew at 3.4 percent a year. If the economy were to grow in the
future as it has in the past, 80 percent of the Social Security
shortfall would disappear. Eighty percent would disappear. If the
economy grows in the future as it has in the past, 80 percent of the
Social Security projected shortfall would disappear. So I think it is a
very pessimistic forecast.
On the other hand, the shortfall in Medicare that is seven times,
more than seven times the projected shortfall in Social Security, I
think that is, unfortunately, realistic because it is based on two
basic assumptions. No. 1, the retirement of the baby boom generation.
And that is no projection. They have been born. They are alive today.
They are going to retire. They are going to be eligible. And No. 2,
medical inflation is running well ahead of the underlying rate of
inflation, and all of us know that is true. So the Medicare shortfall
is much more likely to come true than the Social Security shortfall.
And the hard reality is we already can't pay our bills. The hard
reality is we are already mushrooming the debt in a way that is utterly
unsustainable. Senator, when you say the increase in the debt is
unsustainable, what do you mean? Here is what I mean. Foreign holdings
of our debt have gone up 104 percent in the last 4 years.
It took over 200 years of American history to run up an external debt
of $1 trillion. In the last 4 years, we have managed to more than
double it.
Is anybody listening? Is anybody paying attention? Is there anybody
who is writing these news columns who is connecting the dots? Is
anybody paying attention to what is going on here with the fiscal
condition of the country? Does anybody care? And what do we get from
the mainstream media? Happy talk; the deficit went down. Debt went up,
the deficit went down.
Yes, it went down to the third biggest ever. And the size of the
deficit completely masks the true seriousness of our fiscal condition
because it misses how much the debt increased. The debt increased by
$551 billion. The result is--here it is--we are borrowing more and more
from abroad--more than a 100-percent increase in the foreign holdings
of our debt in 4 years.
Does anybody believe that is a sustainable course? I do not. And here
it is. Here is the result. We owe Japan $684 billion. We owe China
almost $250 billion. We owe the United Kingdom over $170 billion. And
here is my favorite, the Caribbean Banking Centers--the Caribbean
Banking Centers. We owe them over $100 billion. Where do they get their
money? We owe them over $100 billion. We owe South Korea almost $60
billion.
Mr. President, it is an utterly unsustainable course. The Comptroller
General of the United States has told us it is unsustainable. The head
of the Congressional Budget Office has told us it is unsustainable.
Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, has told us it is
unsustainable. We are building up massive debt before the baby boomers
retire, and the mainstream media run their stories saying the deficits
have improved.
There is no attention to what has happened to debt, no attention to
the train wreck that is coming. It is really a disconnection from
reality that does not serve our country well. The American people
deserve better. The American people deserve to be told honestly how
deep this ditch is and how much it is going to take to fill it in
because we cannot continue to run around the

[[Page S11620]]

world with a tin cup asking more and more countries to loan us more and
more money. To have foreign countries increase their holdings of our
debt by over 100 percent in 4 years is utterly unsustainable. It is
reckless and it is wrong. It has to be stopped. To have our colleagues
come out on this floor with a reconciliation package that makes it all
worse is profoundly irresponsible, profoundly.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, are we under a time limit right now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The debate will begin at 2 o'clock on the Reed
amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am going to speak on the Reed amendment,
and I ask to be recognized to speak at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2077

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
amendment offered by Senators Collins and Reed to add $3.1 billion in
emergency funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I
emphasize this is, indeed, emergency funding, not to come out of
something else but emergency funding because it really is a crisis.
During the cold winter months, LIHEAP is indispensable for low-income
families, people with disabilities, and seniors on fixed incomes. Last
Friday, I held a roundtable discussion in Hiawatha, IA, to hear
firsthand from some of these citizens. They are not just concerned
about high home heating costs this winter, they are right now almost in
a state of panic. They told me they face a choice between staying warm
and cutting back on necessities, such as medical care and prescription
drugs.
Their testimony is backed up by hard data. According to a statewide
Iowa survey, more than 20 percent of households receiving LIHEAP report
going without medical care or prescription drugs. More than 10 percent
reported going without food in order to pay their heating bills, and
those numbers are going to skyrocket this winter.
Last winter, about 86,000 Iowa households received an average of $317
in LIHEAP assistance. Most years, everyone who applies gets some level
of assistance, but this year we are headed for big problems. As I
learned in Hiawatha, the applications for home heating assistance have
jumped by 50 to 70 percent this year. The director of the local
Community Assistance Program that administers LIHEAP in that part of
Iowa told me that LIHEAP funds are likely to be exhausted by mid-
January, right in the dead of winter. Community services agencies all
across America are being deluged with calls from panicked senior
citizens and others who don't know how they are going to pay their
bills or heating bills. Many have had their utilities cut off and
cannot make past-due payments to get them turned back on. Others are
being threatened with cutoffs just as we head into winter. This is
something I learned in Hiawatha, but not too many people here know. The
Catch-22 situation is this: If your gas or electricity has been cut
off, then you do not qualify for LIHEAP. Let's say you are someone who
has a past bill that you have not paid; they say, We are not going to
deliver your home heating oil, you cannot qualify for LIHEAP.
So we are facing a real crisis. We know what the price of fuel oil
has done and what the price of natural gas has done. In Iowa, I heard
that heating oil has doubled since last year, and natural gas has gone
up by almost 50 percent. It will not be unusual to have a $400 or $500
increase in an average heating bill this winter. For an elderly person,
a low-income family, and people with disabilities, that is not a
problem, it is a catastrophe. It boggles my mind that in the face of
this overwhelming need, President Bush's budget proposed to cut LIHEAP
funding by nearly 10 percent.
We have been given abundant warning that local LIHEAP funding will be
running out, as I said, as early as the middle of January. But earlier
this month, we voted down an amendment to provide a boost in emergency
funding. Last week, a reporter asked the Secretary of Energy, Mr.
Bodman, if the administration plans to ask Congress for more funding
for LIHEAP, given the big runup in energy costs. Secretary Bodman
answered:

At least at this point in time, that's not on the agenda.

LIHEAP may not be on Secretary Bodman's agenda, and it may not be on
the President's agenda, but it is on the Senate's agenda. We have an
obligation to do the right thing, to make sure our senior citizens and
those with disabilities are not left out in the cold.
Again, we have to do the right thing. We have to do what is fair. We
know what has happened to the price of heating oil and natural gas and
electricity. We know from the past how many people use LIHEAP and
depend on it. It does not take a genius to calculate that we have to
come up with more money this year or people are going to get cut off.
What are we going to do? Are we going to wait until January when all of
a sudden we get reports about people being cut off? And we will not
even be here; we will be out of session. I suppose we will come back
the third week of January.
We can do better than this. We have to do better. America can do
better than this. We are a better people than that. We need to support
this amendment to provide this emergency funding so those who need the
help the most are not left out in the cold. People are concerned. They
are worried. They don't know what they are going to do. The least we
can do today is say: Don't worry, we are going to put the money in for
LIHEAP; you are going to be able to buy your gas, pay your electricity
bills, and stay warm this winter.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 30 minutes of debate equally
divided on the Reed amendment.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his
eloquent and, to me, very persuasive remarks about the need for
supporting this amendment. This is something we know is going to
happen. Everyone understands energy prices are soaring out of sight.
Last year, we did not have sufficient resources for LIHEAP with prices
that were much cheaper. This year we know we are not going to have
sufficient resources.
So we have come together on a bipartisan basis. Senator Collins,
Senator Snowe, Senator Smith, Senator Coleman--many of my Democratic
colleagues have come together to do what should be obvious to all of
us: raise the level of LIHEAP funding to accommodate these huge
increases in prices. It is very simple, I think--I hope.
I hope we are in a process of beginning to understand all of the
demands that are being placed on low-income Americans, and particularly
seniors. They received the Social Security increase of about $65 a
month. Most of that was taken up automatically by increased payments to
their Medicare Program, and whatever little is left is going to be
swallowed up by these rising energy prices.
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program needs $5.1 billion just
to maintain the status quo. The appropriation to date, what the
President supports, is $2 billion. Now, $2 billion was inadequate last
year; it is grossly inadequate this year.
I understand our colleague, the Senator from Missouri, has indicated
in terms of concept of the program he supports it, and I appreciate
those remarks. We might have a debate about whether this is the
appropriate vehicle to place this amendment, but, frankly, time is
running out; floor time is running out, and unless we are able to
appropriate these funds immediately, we are going to have a real issue
of getting

[[Page S11621]]

them to deserving people throughout this country.
Last winter Congress provided $2.2 billion. Again this year they have
already cut that in the budget to $2 billion. That is the
administration's request. It was insufficient last year. In Rhode
Island, 12,146 households, including the elderly, received utility
termination notices. The average balance of those who were disconnected
was over $1,000.
Today, my State and other States are struggling to get these people
reconnected using LIHEAP funds to get them back on the utility grid.
That is even before we have had the first cold days of winter.
A Rhode Islander receiving $400 from LIHEAP last year could buy
approximately 235 gallons of heating oil, almost a full tank, but at
$2.60 a gallon, which is the price that is being paid today--in fact,
in many cases that is a pretty good price; in fact, it is much higher--
$400 will only buy 150 gallons of oil. That is a little over half a
tank and may last in a very cold New England winter about 2\1/2\ weeks.
This year, with even higher energy prices facing Americans and more
Americans living in poverty, the administration and the House have
simply come forward with $2 billion. It is absolutely inadequate. We
know it. We have an opportunity today to make it so that at least it
will buy as much this year as it did last winter.
The average price for heating oil is $2.65 per gallon. That is 65
cents higher than it was last year this time. The average price of
propane is $1.95 per gallon. That is 32 cents higher than last year.
The average price for natural gas is $15.25 per million cubic feet.
That is $2.32 higher than last year.
What we have seen consistently, what we all recognize, what we see
every day when we pass the gasoline station, is extraordinarily high
energy prices. How can we reasonably fund this program with less
dollars than we did last year with these soaring prices? We are just
trying to maintain what we have.
Frankly, last year a significant number of households that would
qualify because of income could not receive assistance because those
funds were insufficient.
I believe we have to increase the LIHEAP funding to its fully
authorized level of $5.1 billion. This bipartisan amendment would do
that by increasing the appropriation by the sum of $3.1 billion. I hope
my colleagues will join us and support this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Who yields time?
The time will be deducted equally from each side.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
Reed amendment for the purposes of my offering an amendment, and I will
speak for about 6 or 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, who would that time be charged to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That time will be charged to the majority
side.
Mr. REED. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

Amendment No. 2160

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment to this
bill regarding the report of the independent counsel on Mr. Cisneros. I
know there has been much talk about the need to bring to a close the
independent counsel's work, and I agree.
I tell my colleagues, as a radio announcer would say, about the rest
of the story. The independent counsel completed his investigative
activities February 2003. The counsel completed and filed his report
under seal to the Special Division August 2004. That is very important
for every one of us to understand as we consider this amendment. The
investigative work is completed. The report is completed.
So what is the holdup in getting this report out to the Congress and
to the public? It is not the independent counsel; rather it is the
lawyers of the individuals named in the report who have been engaged in
one sole pursuit: to foot-drag every inch of the way filing every
motion they can to delay, delay, delay. This foot-dragging by the
lawyers has been going on for months. It is because of this foot-
dragging that the independent counsel has had to continue its work. It
has to respond to the mountains of pleas and motions that are filed by
these lawyers.
I would like to make another point, and that is that the amendment
does two things: It provides that the report will be released and
published in 60 days, and by extension that the independent counsel
will close up and wind down his office within 90 days of publication of
the report and can only be extended by a finding of the court and the
publication by that court of an exact time of when it will be shut
down.
In addition, under my amendment it makes it clear that the
independent counsel shall not perform any investigative or
prosecutorial task in the remaining time period after the report is
published.
I have had some discussions with my friend, Senator Dorgan from North
Dakota, on this subject on the side as I was preparing this amendment,
and he has also spoken very eloquently on this subject in a previous
day's debate a few weeks back. I want him to know I agree with the
concerns that he has that we must see the end of the independent
counsel.
My first amendment reflected the same sentiment for closing the
office once the report is published. But, unfortunately, as I was
looking into the matter more closely, it is not straightforward to just
shut down the independent counsel's office. The independent counsel,
after publication, needs a short period of time to evaluate claims for
attorney's fees, transfer records to the archivist, respond to
congressional inquiries and possible litigation.
My hope, and I believe the hope of the independent counsel, is that
barring the unforeseen, this all can be accomplished within the 90 days
I have within my amendment.
So I want to assure my friend from North Dakota I share his concerns
about runaway and unnecessary spending, and would join him in watching
this matter closely and will be with him if we are not moving forward
at a reasonable pace to bring this operation to an end.
Setting aside the matter of closure, I want to focus on one last
point: The contents of this report and why they are so vital. I hope I
have a good reputation among my colleagues for doing the constitutional
job of oversight that each one of us has been assigned, to make sure
that the laws are faithfully executed. I hope I have a reputation of
doing oversight work regardless of what political party might be in
charge of the executive branch of Government.
While Mr. Cisneros' name is there, and it is natural to see this
through a partisan lens, let me assure my colleagues that is not the
case. The media reports are giving very credible commentary that the
independent counsel's report discusses problems at the Office of
Criminal Investigation in the Internal Revenue Service and the
Department of Justice. These matters do not involve Mr. Cisneros but
raise extremely important questions about the administration of the Tax
Code.
As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I take with great
seriousness accusations of inappropriate activity at the Internal
Revenue Service, and also as a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee, similar accusations at the Department of Justice. However,
as my colleagues know, I cannot legislate or conduct oversight based on
whispers or rumors. I need the final report. The American taxpayers
have a lot of money in this report. We are talking about millions of
dollars. They deserve a right to see this investigation and what their
tax money was spent for. More importantly, they deserve for there to be
sunshine exposing problems in our Government and for legislators to be
informed so that we can take appropriate action, in my case, within the
Senate Finance Committee that I chair, or within the Judiciary
Committee on which I serve.
In conclusion, this is a vitally important amendment. It will give
Congress a report that will provide tremendous insight into problems in
the administration of the Tax Code and other governmental misconduct.
The amendment will also bring closure to the work of the independent
counsel, a

[[Page S11622]]

matter of concern to many and expressed eloquently, as I have said
before, by the Senator from North Dakota. I think we provide a
reasonable timeframe of 90 days after the report is published to wind
down this office, with only the court allowed to continue the
office. Further, the amendment also limits the work of the independent
counsel to the clerical work of closing the office. My amendment, then,
prohibits those things that tend to make things go on and on and never
stop--investigations and prosecution.

This may not be a perfect solution to getting this report out that
has cost millions of dollars, but it is a fair compromise and one that
I think will get the job done. Ideally, the report would just be
released, but there are people who maybe do not want this report
released--consequently all the legal action that has been holding it up
for the last several--now, let's say at least 14 months.
I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 2160.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 356, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
Sec. 408.(a) The division of the court shall release to the
Congress and to the public not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act all portions of the final
report of the independent counsel of the investigation of
Henry Cisneros made under section 594(h) of title 28, United
States Code, except for any such portions that contain
information of a personal nature that the division of the
court determines the disclosure of which would cause a
clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy that outweighs the
public interest in a full accounting of this investigation.
Upon the release of the final report, the final report shall
be published pursuant to section 594(h)(3) of title 28,
United States Code.
(b)(1) After the release and publication of the final
report referred to in subsection (a), the independent counsel
shall continue his office only to the extent necessary and
appropriate to perform the noninvestigative and
nonprosecutorial tasks remaining of his statutory duties as
required to conclude the functions of his office.
(2) The duties referred to in paragraph (1) shall
specifically include--
(A) the evaluation of claims for attorney fees, pursuant to
section 593(l) of title 28, United States Code;
(B) the transfer of records to the Archivist of the United
States pursuant to section 594(k) of title 28, United States
Code;
(C) compliance with oversight obligations pursuant to
section 595(a) of title 28, United States Code; and
(D) preparation of statements of expenditures pursuant to
section 595(c) of title 28, United States Code.
(c)(1) The independent counsel shall have not more than 90
days after the release and publication of the final report
referred to in subsection (a) to complete his remaining
statutory duties unless the division of the court determines
that it is necessary for the independent counsel to have
additional time to complete his remaining statutory duties.
(2) If the division of the court finds that the independent
counsel needs additional time under paragraph (1), the
division of the court shall issue a public report stating the
grounds for the extension and a proposed date for completion
of all aspects of the investigation of Henry Cisneros and
termination of the office of the independent counsel.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask the time be charged to each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask how much remains of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I will make a few additional comments in the
remaining time with respect to the LIHEAP program and this legislation.
This is a very simple amendment. It adds $3.1 billion. It would bring
it up to the level that was authorized in the Energy bill which we
considered on this floor several weeks ago, recognizing the
authorization levels had to be raised given the increase in prices,
given the need for more Americans to access the LIHEAP program.
The energy costs to the average family using heating oil this winter
are estimated to hit about $1,500, and that is a significant increase,
about $400 over last year. Natural gas could hit over $1,000, an
increase of $350. Propane prices are projected to hit $1,400 for the
average prices for the whole year of heating, an increase of about
$325.
This is particularly burdensome for low-income families and families
in poverty. In fact, families who live in poverty spend over 20 percent
of their income on heat. That is in contrast to other families, middle-
and upper-income families who spend about 5 percent during a heating
season. So this is a huge impact, in fact, a more aggravated impact, on
low-income Americans.
Frankly, the choice for many seniors is very stark: to heat or to
eat. A RAND study pointed out that low-income households reduce their
food expenditures by roughly the same amount as their increases in fuel
expenditures. They cut back on eating to heat their homes. It doesn't
take a RAND study to suggest why that is the case. It is hard for a
senior or for anyone who lives in a home where the temperature is 50 or
45 degrees. You can put on sweaters and extra blankets but at some
point you have to keep the energy flowing as best you can. They will,
in fact, as the studies indicate, avoid eating to heat their homes.
Our LIHEAP program in Rhode Island, as so many programs across the
country, is under tremendous stress and strain. Last year they served
26,000 families, but if the President's proposal goes through with $2
billion, they will only be able to service about 21,000 families. So
5,000 families will not get anything; 21,000 families lucky enough to
qualify will receive resources, but it will be not as adequate as it
was last year to buy heating oil, particularly because the price has
gone up so much. So it is again a situation I find difficult to
understand, why we cannot summon the will to do something which is so
obviously necessary.
This is no innovative program. This is no controversial program. I
dare say everyone on this floor would say it is a good program, it
makes sense, it helps people who need help, particularly at a time when
prices are surging as they are. Yet I hope we can come together and
recognize we need something more than words. We actually need the
appropriations to help keep these people whole, keep them, literally,
warm this winter.
We have all been out to our communities. We have all visited with
seniors. I visited with a senior from Rhode Island, a veteran of the
U.S. military who is 88 years old--part of that great generation of
World War II. He receives LIHEAP support. Frankly, this year even if he
receives the same amount of money, it will not buy the same amount of
fuel oil and it will be colder in his home. As has been said so often
on this floor, and it has to be repeated, we can do much better. We
could do much better for an 88-year-old veteran of the U.S. military
forces who last year got a little help and this year will get less
help. We can do better and we should do better.
We need to fully fund LIHEAP up to the authorized level of $5.1
billion. I think we have to do more, going forward on other energy
projects. But let's at least begin with adequately funding the LIHEAP
Program.
I hope my colleagues will join my cosponsors, Senator Collins,
Senator Snowe, Senator Smith, Senator Coleman on the Republican side,
and many others on the Democratic side to ensure that this amendment is
passed and we can at least guarantee minimum warmth for our seniors and
low-income families across this country.
With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous
consent the time be divided equally between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.

[[Page S11623]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Missouri
made a motion under the Congressional Budget Act 1974. I move to waive
the applicable sections of the act, for the consideration of the
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive section 402(b)(5)
of the House Concurrent Resolution No. 95 with respect to the Reed
amendment No. 2077.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Sununu
Talent
Wyden

NAYS--46

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Stevens
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Corzine

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained. The emergency designation is removed.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I formally raise a point of order that the
amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would inquire if the Senator from North
Dakota is prepared to move forward with his amendment?
Seeing no other Senators seeking recognition, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant
legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2133

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I take the floor to withdraw an amendment,
but I will not withdraw it for the moment. I will say a few words and
then ask that the amendment be withdrawn. I do not need consent to do
that as sponsor of the amendment because the yeas and nays have not yet
been ordered.
If there were a high school or college student listening, I think it
would be a good lesson for them, particularly if they are interested in
political science, to understand where we are at this moment from a
parliamentary standpoint and why I am withdrawing the amendment I
offered yesterday.
Incidentally, this will not be the last my colleagues see of this
amendment. We have had it on the floor before. It has been passed by
the Senate before, as a matter of fact, dropped in conference. We will
not have an opportunity to vote on it now because of the parliamentary
circumstances.
So let me describe what it is. First of all, the amendment is germane
and relevant to this appropriations bill. I have the right and did
offer an amendment yesterday that prohibits the expenditure of funds in
this appropriations bill by an organization called OFAC, the Office of
Foreign Assets Control, which is a relatively small Federal office deep
in the bowels of the catacombs of the Treasury Department. The job of
the Office of Foreign Assets Control is to try to track down and
intercept the money that supports terrorism, to go find the money that
supports Osama bin Laden, to go find the money that supports terrorism.
Well, the Office of Foreign Assets Control does more than that now.
In fact, my understanding is they have more people in the Office of
Foreign Assets Control tracking Americans who travel to Cuba to take a
vacation than they do tracking the money that goes to support terrorism
for Osama bin Laden's network.
So let me describe what they do because, as you know, in this
country's zeal to punish Fidel Castro--we are going to slap around
Fidel Castro; we don't like him; it is a communist country; he is a
communist leader; we don't like him; he sticks his finger in our eye
repeatedly--we have slapped an embargo for 40 years on Cuba. We also
decided if American people travel to Cuba, they shall be fined. So we
have restricted the freedom of the American people to travel in order
to slap around Fidel Castro.
If you get on a plane today someplace and travel to Cuba, and you do
not have a license, here is what is going to happen to you. By the way,
you won't be able to get a license because they are offered down at the
Office of Foreign Asset Control and over at the State Department, and
if you apply for a license to travel to Cuba, they will say no.
But I will give you an example. Kurt Foster went to Cuba. He was
under suspicion of having taken a vacation in Cuba. And be darned if he
didn't take a vacation in Cuba. He didn't know it was illegal. But he
got back to this country and, boy, they tracked him down.
Those folks at the Office of Foreign Assets Control, they have that
magnifying glass and the cap with brims on both sides, and they scour
around to figure out if there is an American who has gone to Cuba.
They found this guy, Kurt Foster. All right. He purchased an airline
ticket to Cuba and failed to declare Cuba as a country visited, and
they fined him $7,500. Then he used a credit card while in Cuba, and
they fined him $1,000. Then he paid for lodging, food, and drinks while
in Cuba--he spent $175 there--and they fined him $10,000 for that. Then
he brought back a box of cigars and 27 other Cuban goods at $10 each,
and that was a $520 fine.
So Mr. Kurt Foster was fined $19,020 by our U.S. Government. Why?
What was the transgression? He visited Cuba. God forbid this man should
visit Cuba. But Kurt Foster, that is a man without a face.
Let me just put a face on this issue, as I did yesterday. This is a
picture of Joni Scott. I met Joni Scott. She came to my office. She is
a wonderful young woman, a missionary, someone with great zeal in her
faith.
She went to Cuba to distribute free Bibles on the streets of Havana,
Cuba. This wonderful young American woman wanted to distribute free
Bibles in Cuba. She did not know you had to have a license. She came
back. Our Government tracked her down. They are going to slap a big
fine on her for distributing free Bibles in Cuba. That is Joni Scott.
Here is Mrs. Slote. I have also met Mrs. Slote. As you can see, she
is about 76, 77 years old in this picture. She is a senior Olympian.
She is wearing a bicycling outfit because she likes to bicycle. Joan
Slote actually answered an advertisement in a Canadian cycling
magazine. So she joined a Canadian cycling group on a tour of Cuba on
bicycles. She didn't know it was illegal for an American to travel to
Cuba. She came back. Her son had brain cancer, was dying, and she was
attending to her son.

[[Page S11624]]

In the meantime, our sleuths down at the Treasury Department tracked
her down. They were going to slap a $10,000 fine on her, but she didn't
get it because she was not home. She was attending to her son who was
dying of brain cancer.
So then, the next effort by the U.S. Government was to attach her
Social Security. They were going to take her Social Security away. Why?
Because she bicycled in Cuba.
These folks in this picture are disabled marathoners, folks in
wheelchairs, folks with lost limbs. They are people with the kind of
spirit that is in the Special Olympics, who are disabled marathoners.
Their big deal was going to be done in Havana, Cuba, the international
event. They raised the money. They trained. They looked forward, with
great hope, to go to this international event. Guess what. This country
denied the opportunity for them to travel to their international event.
Why? Because it was in Cuba.
I have no brief for the Castro government. That is not my purpose.
This man, as shown in this picture, by the way, is a Cuban. He came
to this country legally. He is an American citizen. He joined the
Marines. He went to Iraq and is a hero. This man has a Bronze Star for
serving this country. Both his sons are still in Cuba. One of them was
desperately ill. He came back from fighting in Iraq, where he earned a
Bronze Star because of his heroism. Then he wanted to visit his sick
son in Cuba, and his Government said: You don't have the freedom to do
that. You can't see your son.
That is what his Government said. You fought for freedom in Iraq, but
you don't have the freedom here to travel to Cuba to see your son.
I offered a bipartisan amendment yesterday for myself, Senators
Craig, Baucus, and Enzi, two Democrats, two Republicans. That amendment
has passed the Senate previously. The amendment simply said: No funds
may be used in this appropriations bill to enforce the travel
limitations on the American people traveling to Cuba. Once again, what
we have done is, we have decided to restrict the freedom of the
American people in order to slap around Fidel Castro--not much of a
bargain in a democracy.
Senator Murray is from the State of Washington. I know a man from the
State of Washington who, after his father was cremated, took his
father's ashes to Cuba because his father wanted his ashes dispersed on
the grass in the church where he had ministered in Cuba before coming
to this country. When his father died, his compliant son did what he
was requested to do. He went to Cuba to distribute his father's ashes.
Our Government--God bless those folks in OFAC with those tiny little
glasses and that magnifying glass tracking American citizens--tracked
him down and levied a fine for taking his father's ashes to Cuba.
Now I offer the amendment. The Senate has previously agreed to the
amendment. Sufficient votes exist in the Senate to agree to the
amendment. Yesterday a colleague, following the rules of the Senate,
came and offered a second-degree amendment. What is the second-degree?
It is about abortion. So the reason I say this is an interesting lesson
for people involved in political science is, we now have an amendment
that deals with the issue of the freedom of the American people to
travel to Cuba second-degreed with an amendment dealing with abortion.
My colleague Senator Ensign offered this second-degree amendment, the
Child Custody Protection Act, related to the transportation of minors
and circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion. It is an
interesting lesson in how our system works around here.
We will offer this again. One of my colleagues was intending to offer
a second-degree so we wouldn't have this mischief, but that second-
degree didn't get offered. So the result is, another colleague comes
over and offers an abortion amendment on a very simple, germane, and
relevant amendment dealing with the subject of travel to Cuba.
One of the things that makes the American people a little less than
ecstatic about the way we work here is things that ought not use any
brainpower at all, such as deciding to penalize Americans, taking away
the freedom of the American people to travel because we don't like the
Cuban government. We don't do that with China. China is a communist
government. We say the best way to move people toward better human
rights and democracy is through trade and travel. So we encourage
people to go to China. Vietnam is a Communist country. We do the same--
engagement, trade, and travel. But we say with respect to Cuba, what we
have to do is restrict the freedom of the American people. That is
unbelievably ignorant as a public policy.
We will change it one day, and there are sufficient votes in the
Senate to change it. But because there is now a second-degree amendment
dealing with abortion attached to the amendment, I will withdraw the
amendment this afternoon and simply tell my colleague who offered this
that he will have delayed this a bit. But inevitably, I and my
colleagues will come to the floor. We will have a sufficient
opportunity to prohibit this kind of legitimate but certainly strange
mischief with a second-degree amendment on abortion attached to a Cuba
travel amendment. It is going to happen. We are going to vote on this
and we will, as we have in the past, vote to eliminate the restriction
of the American people's right to travel.
I know why this is happening. This is all about politics. It is about
politics in Florida and politics in New Jersey and perhaps a couple
other areas, but mostly Florida and New Jersey. It is reaching out to
those people who block the vote because the tougher you sound on Cuba,
the better for them. So the President, about 3 years ago, decided to
tighten it up even further, shut it down. Family vacations, family
opportunities to interact, to send money home, he has tightened it all
down.
Incidentally, there is an amendment that was passed that is now law
offered by myself and then-Senator John Ashcroft. Talk about odd
fellows; Senator Ashcroft and I together offered an amendment that
became law that finally opened up a bit the ability of our country to
sell food into Cuba. We had been unable to even move food into Cuba.
Senator Ashcroft and I offered the amendment. It is now law. We can do
that. The administration is now trying to shut that down. I fixed that
in this subcommittee at the subcommittee level. I have a provision in
this bill that shuts down the administration's opportunity to play
mischief with the opportunity for our farmers to sell food into Cuba.
It is immoral to use food as a weapon. We know that. This isn't rocket
science.
I wanted to explain as I withdraw this amendment for the moment why I
am forced to withdraw it: because the majority slaps an abortion
amendment on an amendment dealing with the American people's right to
travel. It is unbelievable. It is within the rules, but still
unbelievable.
Those who have gained a few days respite on this will not apparently
have to vote today when I withdraw the amendment, but they will vote.
When they vote, the Senate will approve the underlying amendment that
I, Senator Craig, Senator Enzi, and Senator Baucus have offered.

Amendment No. 2133, Withdrawn

With that, I withdraw the amendment No. 2133.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2165 To Amendment No. 2065

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect
to amendment No. 2065, and I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 2165 to amendment No. 2065.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S11625]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make a perfecting amendment)

At the appropriate place, add the following:
Section 144(g)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``for the
construction of a bridge joining the Island of Gravina to the
community of Ketchikan in Alaska'' and inserting ``for the
reconstruction of the Twin Spans Bridge connecting New
Orleans, Louisiana, and Slidell, Louisiana'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
(b) Item number 14 of the table contained in section 1302
of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat.
1144) is amended--
(1) by striking ``AK'' and inserting ``LA''; and
(2) by striking ``Planning, design, and construction of
Knik Arm Bridge'' and inserting ``Reconstruction of Twin
Spans Bridge connecting New Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana''.
(c) The table contained in section 1702 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144) is
amended--
(1) in item number 406--
(A) by striking ``AK'' and inserting ``LA''; and
(B) by striking ``Planning, design, and construction of a
bridge joining the Island of Gravina to the Community of
Ketchikan'' and inserting ``Reconstruction of Twin Spans
Bridge connecting New Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana'';
(2) in item number 2465--
(A) by striking ``AK'' and inserting ``LA''; and
(B) by striking ``Planning, design, and construction of
Knik Arm Bridge'' and inserting ``Reconstruction of Twin
Spans Bridge connecting New Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana'';
(3) in item number 3323--
(A) by striking ``AK'' and inserting ``LA''; and
(B) by striking ``Earthwork and roadway construction
Gravina Access Project'' and inserting ``Reconstruction of
Twin Spans Bridge connecting New Orleans and Slidell,
Louisiana''; and
(4) in item number 3677--
(A) by striking ``AK'' and inserting ``LA''; and
(B) by striking ``Planning, design, and construction of
Knik Arm Bridge'' and inserting ``Reconstruction of Twin
Spans Bridge connecting New Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana''.
(d) Item number 2 of the table contained in section 1934 of
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat.
1144) is amended--
(1) by striking ``AK'' and inserting ``LA''; and
(2) by striking ``Improvements to the Knik Arm Bridge'' and
inserting ``Reconstruction of Twin Spans Bridge connecting
New Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana''.
(e) Sections 1949, 4410, and 4411 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144) are repealed.
(f) No funds made available under this Act shall be used to
plan, design, or construct, in the State of Alaska--
(1) the Knik Arm Bridge; or
(2) a bridge joining the Island of Gravina to the community
of Ketchikan.
(g) Nothing in this section or an amendment made by this
section affects the allocation of funds to any State other
than the States of Alaska and Louisiana.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have offered a second-degree amendment
that deals with a subject that has been on everyone's mind. It has been
in every newspaper in the country. It is about almost $500 million for
bridges in the State of Alaska that, although they may be needed, are
priorities, as we have discussed today, that are very low on the totem
pole in terms of the needs of the country.
I would also state, as I have earlier today, that we find ourselves
in a significant difficulty as a nation. We had the worst natural
disaster to hit our country we have ever experienced. We are in a war.
We added $600 billion to our national debt this last year. That is not
our national debt. That is our children's and our grandchildren's
national debt. That is over $2,000 per man, woman, and child. In this
country this year we added to what they are going to have to pay back,
compounded at 6 percent over the next 30 years, $30,000 to $40,000.
I think it is important for us to look back at history a little bit
to help us get redirected in terms of our priorities. There was a
President who faced tremendous difficulties in our Nation. His name was
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He made a lot of great decisions for our
country--enabled us to win World War II through his leadership. But
less well known is FDR's decision to slash nondefense spending by over
40 percent between 1942 and 1944. Among the programs that were
eliminated entirely were FDR's own prized creations. By 1944, such
pillars of the New Deal as the Civilian Conservation Corps, the
National Youth Administration, and the Work Projects Administration had
been abolished. In 1939, those three programs had represented one-
eighth of the Federal budget. Roosevelt and the Congress of his day
knew what to do in an emergency. Indeed, he chose to begin the
reordering of budget priorities long before Pearl Harbor.
In October 1939, 1 month after Hitler invaded Poland, Roosevelt wrote
Harold Smith, his budget director, ordering him to hold budgets for all
Government programs at the present level and below if at all possible.
The next month he told him the administration would not undertake any
new projects, even laudable ones. He told reporters that the next year
his policy would be to cut nonmilitary programs to the bone. He kept
his word. Between 1939 and 1942 spending for nondefense programs was
cut by 22 percent. Everyone realized that no matter how popular or
deeply entrenched the program, the Nation's priorities had to change.
I believe we find ourselves as a nation at that point in time again.
With the catastrophe we have seen to our gulf coast, with the war in
Iraq, with the energy crisis, and with the budget deficit, it is time
for us to change our priorities.
The second-degree amendment does not save the amount of money I
wanted it to save, but it does save $75 million, and it takes that $75
million and sends it to the Lake Pontchartrain Bridge. It eliminates
two bridges that should be very low priority in terms of the
infrastructure of this country. All the money that is not taken from
those bridges can be reprogrammed, portions of it can be reprogrammed
to the State of Alaska for things they and their elected
representatives would deem might be more important.
I think it is important also to know what the people of Alaska think.
I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record quotes from letters to
the editor and editorial opinions from the major newspaper in Alaska on
the status of these two bridges.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Letters to the Editor from Alaskans--Alaskans Call to Give Bridges
Money to Hurricane Victims

``Thinking about the immense disaster in the Gulf states,
it occurred to me that the most effective thing that
Ketchikan residents could do to help would be to return the
money earmarked for our Gravina Bridge.''--Dave Person,
Ketchikan, Stories in the News, Sept. 3, 2005.
``We must all seriously demand that our Alaska
congressional delegation take immediate steps to recall and
to redistribute the millions of dollars now earmarked for
non-essential and highly questionable and controversial new
Alaska bridges, which include a Lynn Canal road.''--Alan
Munro, Juneau, Juneau Empire Letters, Sept. 7, 2005.
There is no free federal money; what we Alaskans get is
money that some other state--and its people--don't get. Even
those many of us who've recognized that our congressional
delegation has brought in more than our fair share have found
it easy to turn our heads and let it be. But now we have a
vivid picture of the devastation that can come to others when
we ``win'' the funds for nonessential and even controversial
projects that others desperately needed for survival.''--
Doreen Ransom, Anchorage, Anchorage Daily News Letters, Sept.
25, 2005.
``I'm embarrassed to see the town of Ketchikan become
synonymous with a $300 million bridge,'' . . . Troll said he
believes that, if there were an election right now on using
the money for the bridge or for building up the New Orleans
levees, almost everyone in town would say no to the bridge.--
Ketchikan artist Ray Troll, in ``Bridge to Nowhere? National
spotlight has Ketchikan uncomfortable'', Sean Cockerham,
Anchorage Daily News, Sept. 18, 2005.
``The decent thing--that is, the American thing--for
Alaskans and our congressional delegation to do would be to
send these ill-gotten half-billion dollars south to address
the real needs of millions, rather than squandering them here
on corporate welfare ``legacy'' projects that line the
pockets of a few.''--John Doyle, Anchorage, Anchorage Daily
News, October 7, 2005.

[[Page S11626]]

``This money, a gift from the people of Alaska, will
represent more than just material aid; it will be a symbol
for our beleaguered democracy.''--Art Weirner, Anchorage
Daily News Letter, Sept. 13, 2005.
``Alaska's lone congressman can take some gut satisfaction
in telling critics of his transportation bill plums for
Alaska to ``kiss my ear.'' But he'd be wise to lend an ear to
what the rest of the country is grumbling about Alaska.
A touch of grace may do more for Alaska than a crude
invitation. After all, the state just announced that
Permanent Fund dividend checks of $845.76 will be going to
every Alaskan this fall. That's $510 million, about $60
million more than the federal money assigned to the Knik
Arm Crossing and the Ketchikan Bridge to Gravina
Island.''--``Kiss what? Did he mean, kiss my earmark,'',
Anchorage Daily News Editorial, Sept. 24, 2005. ``Amen . .
. send our bridge money to New Orleans.''--Bobbie
McCreary, Ketchikan, Stories in the News, Sept. 6, 2005.
____

[From the Anchorage Daily News]

Alaskans Who Sent Delegation to D.C. Owe Hurricane Survivors an Apology

As Alaskans view from afar the physical destruction and
social devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, we should be
mindful of the distorted priorities promoted by Rep. Don
Young and Sen. Ted Stevens. While they pork-barreled hundreds
of millions of dollars to build boondoggle bridges in
Anchorage and Ketchikan to benefit their friends and
political contributors, they and their partners in the Bush
administration repeatedly cut the funds requested by the Army
Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency and
state and local governments for projects that could have
prevented the New Orleans disaster.
Sen. Stevens and Congressman Young should be ashamed of
their greed and corruption that has harmed so many and
brought disgrace on our nation. Our entire congressional
delegation has also argued on behalf of their energy-industry
friends against overwhelming scientific evidence of the
human-caused global warming that is exacerbating the
destructiveness of storms and destroying our fragile Alaska
ecosystems.
Alaskans owe an apology to the people of New Orleans, to
Alaska Native people and to the nation for their selfish
shortsightedness in sending these scoundrels to Washington
and voting to keep them there.
____

Let's Donate a Bridge to Victims of Katrina

September 3, 2005.
Thinking about the immense disaster in the Gulf states, it
occurred to me that the most effective thing that Ketchikan
residents could do to help would be to return the money
earmarked for our Gravina bridge. I would assume that most
Ketchikan residents would agree that thousands of suffering
fellow citizens and billions of dollars of destroyed economic
and social infrastructure are of higher priority than our
ability to drive to the airport.
Dave Person,
Ketchikan, AK--USA.
____

[From the Anchorage Daily News, Sept. 13, 2005]

Just Say No to Pork, Alaska--Vote Ted Stevens, His Pals Out of Office

If we are to control federal spending, we must get a handle
on local, parochial interests. People keep telling me that
Alaska is a very conservative place as far as fiscal issues
go. Well, to me that means keeping governmental spending
under control.
Do your part, Alaska, and vote Ted Stevens and his pigsty
of friends out, and say no to pork. Quit being selfish and
expecting your politicians to bring home the bacon.
Joe Hardin.

Mr. COBURN. I will quote a few of those, if I might. The first is
from Dave Person, Ketchikan, the very place where 50 people live and a
$230 million-plus bridge is going to go to service them. So you can get
perspective on this, $230 million for 50 people, where there is a ferry
service already running every 15 to 20 minutes that takes 7 minutes to
cross, is enough money to buy each one of them a Learjet. Think about
that for a minute--a bridge longer than the Golden Gate for 50 people
to a small area in Alaska. That is enough money to buy every one of the
inhabitants a speedboat to cross any time they wanted. They could cross
and leave the speedboat for somebody else to pick up and buy a new one
the very next day and still not spend this much money.
So the fact is, it is the priorities we have in our country that are
askew today. The priority of spending almost one-half billion dollars
on bridges to a very small section of the population needs to be
addressed.
What this amendment does is prohibit and directs no money to be spent
on these bridges. That does not mean Alaska will not get the same
amount of money. It will get the same amount of money less $75 million,
and it directs $75 million to go to the twin span bridges of I-10 that
were knocked out during Hurricane Katrina.
My hope was that I could move all the money, but under the technical
ways we run bills and under the formula of the Transportation
Department, that is not possible. I believe the American people would
like to see all of that. But let me quote Dave Person from Ketchikan:
Thinking about the immense disaster in the Gulf States, it occurred to
me the most effective thing we can do as residents of our island would
be to return the money earmarked for our Gravina Bridge.
This is the people of Alaska, with compassion. They know what is
right. They know what we should be doing.
Here is another citizen from Alaska: I am embarrassed to see the town
of Ketchikan become synonymous with a $300 million bridge. If there
were an election right now on using the money for the bridge or
building up the New Orleans levees or repairing a bridge in New
Orleans, almost everyone in town would say no to the bridge. Anchorage
Daily News.
And: The decent--that is, the American thing--for Alaskans and our
congressional delegation to do would be to send these one-half billion
dollars south to the real needs of millions, rather than spending them
here in Alaska on legacy projects that benefit a few.
Anchorage Daily News, September 13, 2005:

This money, a gift from the people of Alaska, will
represent more than just material aid; it will be a symbol
for our beleaguered democracy . . .
I would assume that most Ketchikan residents would agree
that thousands of suffering fellow citizens and billions of
dollars of destroyed economic and social infrastructure are
of higher priority than our ability to drive to the airport.

The I-10 twin span bridge in Louisiana is a 5.4-mile stretch of
Interstate 10 over Lake Pontchartrain. It connects New Orleans with the
city of Slidell. The twin span serves as the major route into New
Orleans for interstate commerce, resident mobility, and working
commuters. Storm surge from Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage
to both spans of the bridge, knocking 435 concrete segments out of
alignment. Each segment weighs 309 tons. The eastbound span was
repaired with several undamaged segments from the westbound span and
was just opened to two-way traffic. The westbound span is not scheduled
to be open until at least January. The Louisiana Department of
Transportation plans to solicit bids on replacement of the twin-spin
bridge in the spring of 2006. Each three-lane span will be elevated to
a height to avoid the type of damage that Katrina caused. The
preliminary estimate of construction cost is $500 million and it will
take 3 years to build. The recently enacted Transportation bill
included the $223 million for the Ketchikan Bridge and to Gravina
Island, a total of $229 million, or $452 million for two bridges. The
merits of both these projects have been questioned, wildly questioned,
including by citizens of Alaska. The Ketchikan Bridge has been called
the bridge to nowhere--$4,460,000 per resident to build a bridge that
already has an adequate, safe, effective, and efficient ferry service.
This bridge will be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller
than the Brooklyn Bridge. The Gravina Bridge would replace the 7-minute
ferry, as I have mentioned.
The second Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge, is designed as a 2-
mile toll bridge across the Knik Arm Waterway in Anchorage to Fort
McKenzie, and the Matanuska Valley.
No more than a few dozen individuals live in the area the bridge will
serve. According to the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, the project
will cost $400 to $600 million. Using the estimates from a decade ago,
the project would cost $1.5 billion when adjusted for inflation.
Before it is said and done, this bridge will probably require another
$1 billion of taxpayer money--well within the massive transportation
bills we will be passing over the next years. But the question I ask is
if repairing a vital interstate bridge in Louisiana, used by thousands
and thousands and thousands of drivers every year, hundreds of
thousands of drivers, should be a higher priority than constructing two
massive bridges of dubious value and little merit. We are now at $8
trillion in debt as a nation, and $600 billion of that came this last
year. It is time we think about priorities.

[[Page S11627]]

It is my understanding this amendment is going to be vigorously
opposed by the home State Senators. This has nothing to do with my
respect for them but has everything to do with my respect for our
country and our desire to change the way we put our priorities on
spending. If you think about the unfunded liabilities that are coming,
$37 trillion on Medicaid and Medicare, another $8 or $9 trillion on
Social Security, a debt that is soon to reach, by 2009, 2010, $12
trillion, how much more can we give to our kids, our grandchildren?
Is it not a time when we at this point, in consideration of
everything that is in front of us, the problems, the magnitude of the
problems, the structural deficit we have, make the hard choices about
picking winners and losers that affect the most people? But more
importantly, isn't it about time we change the whole attitude about how
we operate in terms of cutting spending? The American people want to
help the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. There is no
question. They also want to help the people of Alaska, but the Alaskan
people have already said they are willing to help with this. We ought
to do this. It is only $75 million that will go toward the cost, but
that is $75 million that won't get transferred in emergency spending
for our children and our grandchildren. It is something that is the
right thing to do. It is something that is the timely thing to do. And
it is something we ought to do not for right now but for our children
and our grandchildren.
I also would note that this still gives tons of flexibility to the
State of Alaska. There are two types of money in the highway bill,
discretionary money and program money. This only takes away
discretionary money and limits the program money on these two bridges,
for anything that comes out of discretionary will be than more than
paid for by this elimination.
With that, I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe before long, when they complete a
markup, that the Senator from Alaska--probably both Senators will be
here. They will have an opportunity to speak, and I am confident we
will hear a very different side of that story. I do not presuppose to
speak for the Senators from Alaska, but let me tell you my own personal
observations on the situation.
No. 1, it certainly would not have been my priority. Right now, there
are about 50 people on the island to which Ketchikan would be
connected. The island has an airport on it. They view this as a major
economic development area for the community of Ketchikan.
The town has been devastated because of the Federal cutoff of timber
sales which used to be the major industry in Ketchikan, so they are
looking to develop alternative sites. Ketchikan is right on the side of
a very steep mountain. It is essentially one long narrow main street.
Once you go off the main street, you are going up the hill. Not a great
place for economic development.
I was there, and I spoke with the leaders in the town. They view this
as their salvation. They think this is extremely important to their
continued economic development. Nevertheless, I see some real problems
with it because that bridge would go across an inlet which is a major
floatplane landing area for floatplanes coming in and out of Ketchikan.
In addition, large cruise ships 250 feet tall come through there. They
would have to build a bridge over that.
I am not sure this would make sense. But the fact remains, this is
not a decision which is being made by people from Missouri and
Washington and other places. I did not like it, but I am an outsider.
The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee made it a top priority. It is telling the people of Alaska
that we are going to take away highway money, which was paid into the
highway user trust fund, and put it into obviously a badly needed
reconstruction project in Louisiana, which is going to be funded by the
emergency appropriations bills that will be coming before us.
Secondly, I happen to believe that the money is not going to be spent
unless the people of all of Alaska and their leaders are convinced it
is the right place to spend it. Why do I know that? When I first came
to Washington, I thought it would be a great idea to build a small road
someplace. I put an earmark, a modest amount, in a bill for work on a
little highway. The department of transportation in Missouri did not
agree with it. That money never got spent. Roads get built, bridges get
built in areas where the State transportation authority, whether it be
the commissioner or the Governor, wants them to be built.
There is a study ongoing as to whether this bridge is needed, whether
a tunnel would be more efficient, or whether a speedier ferry system
would work out. The ferry is charming--not really fast going across
from the airport to Ketchikan, but it will get you there. What is the
best way to handle it? My own personal view is that the people of
Alaska will make that decision. I question whether they would move to
go ahead with that bridge. We will have an amendment, which is being
prepared, that will say the bridge should not be built until the badly
needed bridge between New Orleans and Slidell is built, during which
time I believe the Alaska transportation authority is studying it
before it would even begin to be built. I believe that is a more
appropriate way to deal with this question.
I have heard lots of people complaining about this bridge, but,
again, most of them do not know the situation in Ketchikan. While I
question it, it is not my job to say what the transportation priorities
of Minnesota are or Alaska or Washington or other States. It raises a
question in my mind, and I understand why my colleague raised it.
I think before we move on this amendment, we will want to hear from
the Senators from Alaska and look at an alternative amendment which I
believe would satisfy most people's questions to make sure a badly
needed bridge in Louisiana is completed and also that nothing goes
forward on the Alaska bridge until there is a study completed and the
transportation authority in Alaska makes a decision.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 2160, as Modified

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Grassley amendment be taken up. We can handle it in about 2 or 3
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and
ask that my amendment be modified, which I have the right to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does have a right to modify his
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 356, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
Sec. 408.(a) The division of the court shall release to the
Congress and to the public not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act all portions of the final
report of the independent counsel of the investigation of
Henry Cisneros made under section 594(h) of title 28, United
States Code, except for any such portions that contain
information of a personal nature that the division of the
court determines the disclosure of which would cause a
clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy that outweighs the
public interest in a full accounting of this investigation.
Upon the release of the final report, the final report shall
be published pursuant to section 594(h)(3) of title 28,
United States Code.
(b)(1) After the release and publication of the final
report referred to in subsection (a), the independent counsel
shall continue his office only to the extent necessary and
appropriate to perform the noninvestigative and
nonprosecutorial tasks remaining of his statutory duties as
required to conclude the functions of his office.
(2) The duties referred to in paragraph (1) shall
specifically include--
(A) the evaluation of claims for attorney fees, pursuant to
section 593(l) of title 28, United States Code;
(B) the transfer of records to the Archivist of the United
States pursuant to section 594(k) of title 28, United States
Code;
(C) compliance with oversight obligations pursuant to
section 595(a) of title 28, United States Code; and
(D) preparation of statements of expenditures pursuant to
section 595(c) of title 28, United States Code.
(c)(1) The independent counsel shall have not more than 45
days after the release and publication of the final report
referred to in subsection (a) to complete his remaining
statutory duties unless the division of the court determines
that it is necessary for the

[[Page S11628]]

independent counsel to have additional time to complete his
remaining statutory duties.
(2) If the division of the court finds that the independent
counsel needs additional time under paragraph (1), the
division of the court shall issue a public report stating the
grounds for the extension and a proposed date for completion
of all aspects of the investigation of Henry Cisneros and
termination of the office of the independent counsel.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that
Senator Dorgan be added as my only cosponsor on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 15 seconds I wish to say that I
appreciate very much the accommodations Mr. Dorgan has made and the
fine dialog we had in bringing a compromise to my amendment. I
compliment him on the work he did on this issue 2 or 3 months ago on a
similar amendment. I appreciate very much the cooperation we have had.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with my
colleague from Iowa. He offered a similar amendment to the one I
offered some months ago. We have worked out a modification of that
amendment. I believe it advances the right interest here.
Let me describe what this does. It deals with an independent counsel
and the funding for an independent counsel and the report that should
be published by that independent counsel. This independent counsel was
for investigating former Secretary Cisneros where some money allegedly
had been paid to someone else, lying to the FBI, et cetera. So an
independent counsel was created. That was nearly 11 years ago. That
independent counsel is still working, spending at the rate of about $2
million a year.
In 1995, the charge existed which caused the independent counsel to
be created. In 1999, Mr. Cisneros pled guilty. In 2001, Mr. Cisneros
was given a Presidential pardon. It is all gone, but the independent
counsel is still working nearly 11 years later.
I previously offered an amendment that had passed the Senate but then
died in conference that would just shut off the money. My colleague
from Iowa has perhaps even a more thoughtful amendment, but it is one I
fully support and am pleased to join him on today.
The reason I am is that the columnist, Mr. Novak, wrote that the
purpose of the original amendment was to prevent a report from being
filed. Mr. Novak is never in doubt but not always right. My interest
was not in a report at all. The report, I understand, is with the
three-judge panel. I think everybody ought to see the report.
This amendment says 60 days from enactment, the report must be made
public with proper safeguards, as the Senator from Iowa has outlined in
his amendment, and 45 days after that, the funding stops for the
independent counsel.
It is the right thing to do. My colleague from Iowa is someone who
looks out after the taxpayers' dollars on a range of issues, and I have
joined him on many of them. I am pleased to stop the funding for an
independent counsel that has been in business 11 years and seems to be
able to do everything except stop spending money.
Let's get the report. The subject of the report pled guilty 6 years
ago and was the recipient of a pardon 4 years ago. It is time to stop
the funding. That is what the amendment does.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor with my colleague from the State of
Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have followed this discussion for a long
time. This independent counsel has been working on this investigation
since I was a very junior Member of the U.S. Senate. Not only has my
hair gotten gray, but I think the independent counsel has gotten a lot
grayer as well. Not only does the clock keep running, but the expense
keeps running.
At the same time, there were very serious allegations raised to the
independent counsel, and those, I gather, have had findings attached to
them, whether they were accurate or not, and it is time we brought this
to a close and find out what the independent counsel found because it
goes to the operation of the Department of Treasury and other agencies
in the Federal Government. If he found a problem, it is time we go
about fixing the problem.
I know the Judiciary Committee and the Finance Committee are very
much interested in this. Our committee is interested in it.
I thank my colleague from Iowa and my colleague from North Dakota. I
ask to be added as a cosponsor because all good things come to an end,
and even independent counsel investigations come to an end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 2160, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2160), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and ranking
member of the subcommittee for the work they have done on this bill and
one thing in particular that is of concern to me and my constituents,
which is Amtrak funding. I would like to, in particular, thank the two
leaders for their outstanding support of Amtrak. It is a vital and
important part of the transportation infrastructure of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, in particular, and southeastern
Pennsylvania benefit greatly from the relief of congestion off our
highways which are incredibly congested. Amtrak provides great service
up and down the Northeast corridor. We happen to be right in the middle
of that corridor in Philadelphia. Philadelphia is now the second
busiest station, second only to New York, on that corridor, and it is
vitally important that sufficient funds are available. The $1.45
billion that is in this bill is $250 million more than last year, which
we appreciate, and almost $300 million more than what the House has
appropriated in their bill.
I wished to come and thank the chairman and ranking member of the
committee. I think the fact that we have not seen any Amtrak amendments
to increase the funding shows we have worked very hard together to get
a good, solid number to go into conference, with the hope that we can
get good, strong support for this vitally important part of
southeastern Pennsylvania's transportation network.
I want to again thank the chairman and ranking member for their
excellent work.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the highway reauthorization bill recently
passed the Congress. It was several years in the making and the result
of a compromise. Now one of our colleagues feels it is his
responsibility to rewrite portions of that bill to achieve his goals,
not those that are expressed in the law itself.
Unfortunately, the manner in which the Senator wishes to do this has
no impact on his constituency or any other constituency except Alaska.
I fought for statehood as a member of the Eisenhower administration. I
have been here now almost 37 years. This is the first time I have seen
any attempt by any Senator to treat my State in a way differently from
any other State. It will not happen. It will not happen.
I can remember many times when other Senators have stood on the floor
and used parliamentary devices that kept people up for 2 to 3 days.
This is not the way to treat a State. We are a sovereign State. If the
Senate wishes to take part of the highway money and share it with New
Orleans, we would be happy to join any other State. We

[[Page S11629]]

would be happy to make a fair contribution in any other program. We
have already notified our State that many of the things we have been
able to get funding for in the past may not be available now for a
period of time until we build the area affected by Katrina or Rita.
Our State suffered the largest disaster in America preceding Katrina,
the 1964 earthquake. I remember it well. I remember being a young
lawyer and being forced to borrow money to keep the doors of our law
firm open; to borrow money to repair my home that was destroyed by that
earthquake partially; to borrow other money to help in terms of the
concepts of rebuilding in that area.
Our State faced that recovery, and I think we understand what the
people of New Orleans and the Katrina and Rita areas face. We now have
another such storm coming upon us.
The amendment that is before us now will affect only Alaska. It will
help Louisiana. We want to help Louisiana but not solely at the expense
of Alaska. That is not a way to treat a sovereign State. This is
something on which I think every Senator must examine his or her own
conscience. What would they do if they were faced with the proposition
that only their State's allocation of funds under a protective program
would be taken and given to another State at the time of disaster?
This is not the way to meet a disaster need, to turn to the
smallest--we have the smallest allocation per area of any State in the
Union for roads. We only have a very small road system. The reason is
that so much of our State has been withdrawn, and it is not possible to
build roads through the Federal lands that are set aside for parks,
wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas. We are
limited, and we must build bridges so that we can tie together two
areas that are inaccessible otherwise.
That is because of withdrawals and set-asides of lands in our State
that are owned by the Federal Government.
I ask my friend--and he is my friend--from Oklahoma, how would he
explain to his people at home, if he went home after the Senate had
taken money away from his State previously authorized by law and signed
by the President?
That is not the way to treat a sovereign State. These funds that are
necessary for bridges in Louisiana must be provided. That is a given.
After the disaster in Florida, when I was the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, notwithstanding the opposition of the
administration, I assisted the delegation from Florida to obtain money
to rebuild their bridges and roads. That was from the General Treasury.
That may have caused a deficit. We tried our best to offset it, and I
think to a major extent we did offset it.
The request that has been made now to offset gulf coast spending
using the highway bill money, only that allocated to the State of
Alaska, is unacceptable to this Senator.
I am now President pro tempore of the Senate, the second oldest
Member of the Senate, the fourth in service in the Senate, and I again
say to my friend from Oklahoma I have never seen it suggested to single
out one State and say, You pay for a disaster that happened 5,000 miles
away.
We want to shoulder our fair share of the burden. We will do so.
Those who want to look at this amendment as some sort of amendment that
should be adopted because of misleading stories in the press, I warn
you, it could happen to you, too. These bridges are necessary. Just
take the one across the Knik Arm near our largest city of Anchorage.
Anchorage is surrounded by water on two sides and by a military
reservation on one side and a national forest on the other. There is no
way to expand. Across this Knik Arm is land owned by the State and by
private people that we could expand to. We have been trying to get a
bridge across there for as long as I can remember. But because we are a
small State, it is hard to do.
The time came when one of the Members of our delegation was chairman
and he kept pressing and pressing and finally convinced his colleagues
that bridge should be funded in a way that takes a sizable portion of
our State's funding under formula money, and a portion of the so-called
above-the-line money, money for grants for special projects, and made
it possible that the Knik Arm bridge could be built.
The other bridge is in the southeastern area. It is the largest
forest in the United States and is practically all withdrawn,
practically all owned by the Federal Government and set aside for
wilderness areas or nonpublic uses. There is one portion available to
us, but it takes a bridge to get to it. That is State land and private
land, the only land, really, in that kind of area that can be developed
because all the rest of it is owned by the Federal Government and set
aside, with the exception of some Native lands that are a little bit
farther away.
We can argue about the needs. That argument should have been made at
the time the highway bill passed. The highway bill allocated money for
those. It comes out, not from the Treasury, but out of funds paid by
people who buy gasoline and people who buy parts for cars, people who
buy various things that require them to contribute to the highway fund.
I have come quite often to the floor and described my State to the
Senate. I remind the Senate, we have half the coastline of the United
States. We are one-fifth the size of the whole United States. We have
more withdrawings for parks, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic areas,
wilderness areas than all the rest of the States put together. We need
bridges because we need to get from one private area to another private
area.
When I first came to the Senate, funds were allocated to a State
based on the amount of land that was Federal land in a State that was
withdrawn. That was dropped after Congress, in its wisdom, withdrew so
much of Alaska. If we had the old formula, I can tell you, the Senator
from Oklahoma wouldn't even understand the money we would get because
more than half of the Federal land in Alaska is withdrawn, and the
Federal Government will own, in any event, almost two-thirds of Alaska
no matter what happens in the future.
To have a representative of the Federal Government say Alaska doesn't
need bridges, take them away from them and repair those bridges that
went down in the disaster is absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong.
I remember as a young man in California when someone suggested there
ought to be a bridge, what we call the Golden Gate, over the San
Francisco Harbor. People said: You can't do that. That is a bridge to
nowhere. I remember those words, ``a bridge to nowhere,'' a bridge up
in Marin County where hardly anybody lived. It was a place for cows and
ranchers. Today what is it? It is a thriving part of the great State of
California.
How about the bridge from New Orleans to Baton Rouge--absolutely
going into wilderness. No one ever expected it to develop. That is part
of the area that suffered from the disaster because it was so heavily
developed.
How about the bridges that cross island to island going down the Keys
in Florida? I remember as a young man going overseas, going to the edge
of that area. You couldn't travel by road. You had to have a boat like
you do in Alaska. You still have to do that in Alaska. There are no
bridges between Alaskan islands. But go to Florida and where are they?
It is a beautiful drive. Every one of those bridges was paid for by
highway money.
There were those who said at the time: That is a waste of taxpayers'
money. It wasn't taxpayers' money anyway. It is highway-user money, and
highway-user money should be used for disasters only on the basis
considering what the impact is on the highway system itself.
I have a unique role in my State because I not only served in the
Eisenhower administration, trying to urge the admission of Alaska to
enter the Union, but it was my honor to come here after Alaska had only
been a State for 10 years. In December I will have been here 37 years,
as I said.
I come to warn the Senate, if you want a wounded bull on the floor of
the Senate, pass this amendment. I stood here and watched Senator Allen
teach the Senate lesson after lesson after something was done to
Alabama that he didn't like.
I don't threaten people; I promise people. I came here and swore to
uphold the Constitution of the United States. I came here to represent
a

[[Page S11630]]

State that is an equal member of this Union. Notwithstanding how many
people are there, we are to be treated the same as any other State. On
the floor of the Senate we are equal to any other Senators, my
colleague and I. This amendment is an offense to me. It is not only an
offense to me, it is a threat to every person in my State. We came here
to have the same rights, the same privileges that were made available
to any other State and to the people who live in those States. While we
are one-fifth the size of the United States, we only have 13,485 miles
of road. That is less than King County, WA. Why? Because the Congress,
in its wisdom, has withdrawn so much of our land, as I said, that you
can't build roads.
Oklahoma is one-eighth the size of Alaska. It has almost 10 times as
many roads.
If the concepts involved in this bill were applied to States as the
Nation moved westward, we would still have wilderness beyond the
Mississippi. I really cannot understand this. Roads are the lifeblood
of this country. That is what made us free, having the ability to move,
having the ability to use individual transportation, having the ability
to drive from Oklahoma to Alaska if you want to. I urge the Senator
from Oklahoma to try to do that. When I first came here I drove home
when I went home every year because I couldn't afford to fly. In those
days we got about seven trips, I think, annually. That didn't apply
to our families at all.

The problem I want to leave with you is this: 70 percent of our State
is accessible only by air or by sea. Within our State we have to have
different types of transportation. My colleague, Senator Murkowski, has
pioneered now a concept of trying to build some rural roads to connect
villages so we will reduce some of the Federal costs of supporting
those individual villages. Each has an airport, each has a school, each
has a clinic. These are redundant facilities. We can build better ones.
One could have a good school, one could have a good airport, one could
have a good fire department. We could do better for them and save money
if we had more road money. But we do not get it.
We do not get it because of the donor theory that came to this Senate
about 15 years ago, which says for the people who pay in these taxes,
it goes back to the States in which they paid the money--not where they
live, but where they paid the money. So the States that are fortunate
enough to be on interstate highways where people stop to buy gasoline,
they get more money than the States where they don't stop for gasoline.
It makes less sense than anything I have ever known.
In any event, we live under that system. We have needs. We are still
a developing area. We are the last frontier of the United States. These
bridges may go nowhere, as far as some people here are concerned, but
they are very important to our future.
I think it was the Memorial Bridge in Milwaukee that was first called
the bridge to nowhere, the Daniel Webster Hoan Bridge. That now serves
as a major north-south connector between downtown Milwaukee and the
neighborhoods in that city.
The Astoria Bridge on the Columbia River was referred to as a bridge
to nowhere. It connects Astoria, OR, to what was once an empty shore.
It now carries 6,000 cars a day, over 2 million people a year. We
deserve the same right to grow.
Currently, the bridge will serve military families who live in the
Anchorage area and pay very high costs. Because of the cost of land,
the rent is very high. That is because of the lack of land to expand.
They will go across to the Matanuska Valley and have a better place to
live.
All I want to do is put the Senate on notice. I have been asked
several times today if I will agree to this version or that version of
the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. No. No, I will not, unless
it treats all States the same way.
We are here to ask you, those of us from Alaska, to believe that
fairness is fairness; equality is equality. Being a member of the 50
States is being a State with the right to be treated equally to any
other State. That is why the two of us are here, to assure that
happens. Praise God I have the energy to do what I may have to do, to
prove to the Senator from Oklahoma I mean what I say. This amendment is
not going to pass.
The Senate is warned. It is wrong to do this to any State. It is
wrong to put colleagues in a position where we have to go home and
explain why we couldn't prevent an amendment in which what is being
done to our State has never been done to another State--never.
This is not the time to start this process. I urge my friend from
Oklahoma to reconsider this, reconsider what he is getting us into. The
amendment may pass, but if it does the bill will never be passed. If it
does, I will be taken out of here on a stretcher.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my
colleague, the senior Senator from Alaska. He has delivered, obviously,
a very passionate statement on behalf of the issue in front of us. But
even more than that, he gives us the historical perspective of what we
in Alaska have been fighting for since statehood, what we in Alaska
have continued to fight for almost 50 years after the fact of
statehood, and that is a simple recognition that we are part of the
United States and that we deserve to be treated with the same level of
respect accorded to all of the other 49 States.
We are told not to take this amendment personally, but it is very
difficult to stand here as an Alaskan and not take this personally. So
I rise with my colleague to speak very strongly in opposition to a
measure that is going to isolate us, that is going to pinpoint one
State above everybody else to say: You are responsible; it is dollars
directed to your State that we will now redirect to the devastation in
the gulf area.
Alaskans are not hesitant to step up to the plate and help. We do it
day in, we do it day out. We want to continue to be able to do that.
But when we are singled out as one State, saying, Your project is not
worthy; of all the other projects out there we are going to go after
yours, it is not the time to be sitting back and saying we can
compromise on this, we can make a deal.
There has been a great deal of discussion about this bridge. Let us
speak first to the bridge in Ketchikan. It has been referred to on this
floor as a bridge to nowhere. There have been references to media
accounts about the community of Ketchikan and the project they have
been working on for years and years. What I am hearing repeated in the
Chamber and what I have seen in letters to us as Senate colleagues is a
repetition of what we hear in the media, the same tired, worn-out facts
that quite honestly aren't true, don't hold water, and yet get
repeated. And the inaccuracies and the misrepresentations just make our
job that much more difficult. It is as if we are legislating by the
media, and we are better than that. It is our obligation to know and
understand the facts that are real and to know and understand the
implications and the impact of our actions.
I wish to talk about a couple of the facts that Members of this body
need to know. If, in fact, what we intend to do here, if, in fact, this
amendment is intended to provide for reconstruction of the twin-span
bridge, it is eligible for emergency repair funds. Negotiations for its
repair are already underway between the State of Louisiana and the
Federal agency. I am confident that this bridge will be repaired
without needless damage to the project from any other State. And if, in
fact, there is a funding mechanism that we need to resolve to help make
this happen, I am certainly willing to participate in that. I think all
of us would be willing to participate. If we need to do something to
make this project move forward with the funding mechanism, we can help
with that.
The second fact, if this is being proposed as an amendment that is
going to save money, people need to know that it swaps an earmark for
our project in Alaska--the two bridges--to an earmark for a project in
Louisiana. The project is going to be completed anyway whether or not
this amendment is going to be considered. What we are essentially doing
is taking the money from the Alaska project, we are directing it to
allow the project, but we are reducing Louisiana's ability to have any
kind of spending flexibility at a time when they need it the most. Let

[[Page S11631]]

us make sure that what we are proposing here is actually going to meet
the needs of those in Louisiana.
The third fact--this is where we need to get into the discussion
about the bridges and what they are because the reference to the bridge
in Ketchikan as being a bridge to nowhere is offensive. It is a bridge
to the future for the people of Ketchikan, AK.
I was born in Ketchikan. I spend a fair amount of time going back and
forth between Anchorage and Ketchikan and have done so for years. I was
in Ketchikan this past weekend. I wasn't guided by occasional letters
to the editor; I was guided by talking to the people in Ketchikan who
ask: Where are we on the bridge? They are asking me: Lisa, where are we
on the bridge? We put the money in the transportation bill finally,
after so many years of waiting, how are we going to move forward on it?
They are concerned because they are getting copies of the articles that
are in the New York Times and in other publications around the country
calling it a bridge to nowhere, and they are saying: Don't these people
understand who we are and what we need? That is the problem. Most of
you don't understand who we are up there and what we need.
We need basic infrastructure. Senator Stevens has spoken to that. If
we had a terrible disaster hit us in Alaska, we would not face a lot of
the repairs to the infrastructure because we don't have the
infrastructure in the first place to repair.
The arguments that have been made or the statements that have been
made about a bridge that will connect to 50 people do not acknowledge
any understanding about Ketchikan and what it is and what kind of a
community it is and what it has to respond to.
Those of you who have been to Alaska because you have been up on a
cruise ship enter through Ketchikan. We call it Alaska's First City.
You enter into the Tongass Narrows. As you come in, you see a community
that is smashed up literally against a rocky terrain, a long,
stretched-out community with islands dotted all around you. People ask:
Why do you need this bridge? We need the bridge because on the other
side of Ketchikan is the potential for this community to grow and
thrive, despite some of the actions of the Federal Government, and the
policies that have been made over the years, whether they relate to
timber or farm fishing, have practically shut down the community. But
we are coming back. We have a thriving maritime industry we are helping
to grow and to cultivate. But we have a community of some 13,000 to
14,000 people in Ketchikan. It is 6 blocks deep and 16 miles wide.
We can't expand to the south and the east because we are bordered in
by the Misty Fjords National Monument on the north, and we are hemmed
in by the Behm Canal. The only place that Ketchikan has an opportunity
to expand is right across the Tongass Narrows on Gravina Island.
Gravina Island has a sloping area. It is wide open. But the best thing
that Gravina Island has is some 20,000 acres of private, municipal, and
State lands that can make a huge difference in providing economic
opportunities for this area. We can't grow in any other direction in
Ketchikan. We have to go across the narrows.
Right now, across the narrows, we have the airport. This is an
airport that doesn't just serve the 13,000 or 14,000 residents of
Ketchikan; this airport is the cargo hub for southeastern Alaska. You
have FedEx and UPS coming in there. You have all of the aircargo coming
into the southeastern part of the State.
You also have a small logging operation, one of the few that is
hanging on after the policies we have implemented here in Congress. But
we have a business that employs 50 to 100 people. Every day, those
people are not able to get into their car and drive to work. They take
a ferry to work and have to figure out how to do it on the other end.
The airport is also incredibly important to our military over there.
Every nuclear sub that goes on Pacific patrol is tested for stealth at
the Navy facility in Behm Canal. We have technicians coming into the
airport. We have our Ketchikan Coast Guard base. It is at this base
that they maintain most of the aid to navigation in the State of
Alaska. The Forest Service certainly has a very large presence there.
Ketchikan's hospital is a regional center. We get many of the patients
visiting Ketchikan from the surrounding areas.
On top of that, we have a tourist industry where this summer the city
of Ketchikan welcomed some 800,000 passengers into that community--800-
some-odd thousand passengers that occasionally need to get off those
cruise ships. Some of them have medical issues. Some of them need to
use our airport.

We have an airport that is serviced by a ferry. But that ferry isn't
the answer to everything we need. When we have some extreme tides, they
can't utilize that ferry. What does that mean if you have a Medivac
going out to the airport when you can't get the ambulance over there?
You can't get to the other side with the vehicles we need. In fact, we
have a ferry service, but is it what we need? Is it what we were
promised when the airport was put back there in 1973? The promise at
that time was, we will connect you across the very narrow channel of
water to the community of Ketchikan. The people of Ketchikan have been
waiting for 30 years.
Some people are making the assumption that just because we happen to
have a chairman on the House side chairing the Transportation
Committee, that all of a sudden any great idea, any project that we
want as a delegation we were going to be able to snap our fingers and
get. This is something that has been in the works for 30 years. Ask the
people of Ketchikan how much money, time, and energy they have spent in
the various studies, discussing dialog, debating, fighting. It is not
something that just came up because we could have it; it is something
that we as a community have been working together and pulling together
for a long time.
Now to have a colleague come in and say that because there is
something that has happened in another part of the country and because
we need to find ways to pay for it, we are going to make a
determination that we are going to pluck this money and we are going to
take this project and anything that the community has put into it,
anything the State has put into it, is now thrown out the window, that
is not it.
The local government in Ketchikan has been working on a balanced
plan--a use development plan--where we are talking about private homes
over there, businesses, industrial facilities, harbors, green spaces to
enhance the environmental value. We are trying to plan for our growth
and development, but you can't have the growth and you can't have the
development if you do not have access. Access is our State's biggest
challenge.
As Senator Stevens has mentioned, the biggest State in the Union has
the smallest number of roads. People look at it and say, It just
doesn't make sense in Alaska where you have a limited number of people,
and yet we spend so much money on Alaska. It must be wrong, you must be
taking too much. The sad fact is, folks, we are a long way from the
rest of the country, and it costs more. That is a reality. That is a
reality of doing business up there. But because our transportation
costs might be more, might be higher, might be greater, does that mean
our projects are worth any less, have any less value?
There was a statement made by my colleague from Oklahoma. He said it
is important to know what the people of Alaska are thinking, and he
read a couple of letters to the editor that were published in the
Ketchikan Daily News and a couple of letters which were published in
the Anchorage Daily News. I do not know about the rest of my Senate
colleagues, but I do not make my policy decisions based on a couple of
letters to the editor.
I will ask at the appropriate time to have printed in the Record a
copy of a letter that the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce has posted on
their Web site speaking about Ketchikan's ``bridge to the future,''
refuting many of the allegations that have been out there. I wish to
read one quick passage because it kind of sums up the position of the
people from Ketchikan.

Statements like ``The Bridge to No Where'', and serves only
50 people'' simply are not supported by the facts. The bridge

[[Page S11632]]

will provide road access to Ketchikan's International Airport
which serves approximately 130,000 passengers annually and
employs 180 people daily. In August, the shuttle ferry ride
required between the airport and Ketchikan serviced 31,000
passengers. In addition to the airport, there is a viable
sawmill employing 50-100 people who will not have to take a
daily boat ride back and forth to Gravina Island for work.
During extreme ocean tide levels, the ferry is incapable of
transporting vehicles, including typical safety vehicles such
as fire trucks! The Alaska Department of Transportation
evaluation indicates over the long run the bridge is cheaper
to build and maintain than providing inadequate ferry
service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce,

Ketchikan, Alaska.
Re Ketchikan's Bridge to the Future.

It is quite heartening to see how quickly American
citizens, businesses, and communities pull together to help
others when a natural disaster strikes such as the recent
hurricanes in the Gulf Zone. Ketchikan, Alaska's future home
of the now famous Bridge to the Future, and home to over
13,000 real people, held a Katrina hurricane relief fund
raiser and netted over $18,000. This contribution is only
from the fundraiser, and does not include many more donations
given by and through our local businesses and churches. This
has demonstrated the community's giving and compassionate
nature despite of the Ketchikan's loss of thousands of family
jobs, loss of small support businesses, and a 20 percent drop
in school enrollment, due to the needless reduction of a wood
fiber supply from the nation's largest Federal forest and its
resultant closure of our local pulp mill, historically
Ketchikan's largest employer.
It is equally disheartening to see how quickly anti-
development and fiscal conservative groups are jumping on the
bandwagon to use the hurricane disasters to attack federal
funding of transportation projects, feathering their desire
to stop modern-day development in Alaska. The continual
spreading of misleading and false statements to gain
emotional and/or political support for their objectives seems
to be normal practice for these anti development groups and
the news media. Whether seeking to stop the construction of a
bridge and u1timately any economic development within the
community of Ketchikan or for grasping for an audience, the
use of misleading and false statements is not only wrong, but
just plain destructive.
Statements like ``The Bridge to No Where'', and ``serves
only 50 people'' simply are not supported by the facts. The
bridge will provide road access to Ketchikan's International
Airport which serves approximately 130,000 passengers
annually and employees 180 people daily. In August, the
shuttle ferry ride required between the airport and
Ketchikan--serviced 31,000 passengers. In addition to the
airport, there is a viable sawmill employing 50-100 people
who will not have to take a daily boat ride back and forth to
Gravina Island for work. During extreme ocean tide levels,
the ferry is incapable of transporting vehicles, including
typical safety vehicles such as fire trucks! The Alaska
Department of Transportation evaluation indicates over the
long run the bridge is cheaper to build and maintain than
providing inadequate ferry service.
Beyond the existing international airport, there are 20,195
acres of private, borough, and state-owned land to be served
by the bridge access road. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough has
an approved balanced land use development plan that provides
for private homes, commercial businesses, industrial
complexes, harbors, and green space. In a state where there
is only 1 percent private land and 99 percent untaxable
federal, state, and native corporation land, it is
challenging for local governments to fund local needs. As
every State developed ``Bridges to No Where'' were built,
seen by those States as Bridges to the Future. Today,
those bridges are merely seen as normal transportation
infrastructure. As the final frontier, Alaska is stuck in
the time warp of the mid-1900's, where infrastructure
deemed normal in the continental U.S. is viewed as
extravagant for Alaska. Ketchikan, Alaska, has worked for
over 30 years to achieve funding of a bridge similar in
many respects to the hundreds of bridges in the Gulf Coast
that connect communities to surrounding small islands
filled with residential homes and businesses.
Ketchikan has been promised a bridge to the airport since
it went into operation in 1973. How much longer do we have to
wait?
The statement ``It's pretty obvious that, at least on the
grass-roots, everyday-citizen level, there's a consensus that
the money could be better spent on the Gulf'' made by the
coordinator for the Alaska Transportation Priorities Project
(a group hatched and coordinated by the anti-development
environmental groups in Alaska) is clearly untrue,
inaccurate, and not the feeling of the citizens of Ketchikan
who supported the Gravina Bridge in a referendum vote by a
margin 2 to 1. There may be consensus among the anti-
development groups, but we are grass-roots, everyday-citizens
also. The majority of our community continues to support our
``Bridge to the Future''.
I applaud the Alaska Congressional Delegation and the
others in the Nation's Congress for recognizing that Alaska
is a developing State, and their ability to help Alaska's
delayed infrastructure development through the Federal
Transportation Bill.
Sincerely,

Blaine Ashcraft,

Business Manager, Greater Ketchikan
Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in addition to the airport, we have the
sawmill.
My point is, at some point in time, those back here who do not know
and understand Alaska need to listen to those of us who live in Alaska,
who work in Alaska, and who raise our families in Alaska, to know and
understand what the priorities are of Alaskans and allow us to address
those. That is what we are trying to do with the 12 projects that are
the subjects of this amendment. I have been speaking about the
Ketchikan project, and I want to stick with this for a few more minutes
until I turn to the Knik Arm Crossing. We in Alaska are willing to do
our share. I made that statement earlier. The citizens in Ketchikan,
when they saw the aftermath in Katrina, didn't sit back and say, Well,
we got ours. We are a long way away from the gulf, we don't need to
worry about it. Private people have been dipping into their pockets, as
they have all across the country, but we had a fundraiser in Ketchikan
a couple weeks ago. We had fishermen, businessmen, housewives,
teachers, shipfitters, booksellers, doctors, and clerks, raised almost
$20,000 out of this little community of about 14,000 people.

We are willing to step up. Alaskans are willing to step up. Believe
me, this week we have had an opportunity to talk about that as we dealt
with the issue of ANWR in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
yesterday. We want to help out. We are prepared to do it. But let us
prioritize those projects within the State of Alaska that have the
support and that will allow our State to develop as every other State
in the Union has been allowed to develop. Ketchikan is asking for
nothing more than exactly the same type of bridge connection that other
communities all across the country have. However, Ketchikan and most of
the other communities in my State are stuck in this time warp, a mid-
1900s time warp, where transportation systems that are old hat or
accepted and part of the landscape in the rest of the country are still
the future to the State of Alaska. What we are trying to do is to
bridge into the future.
Now I turn, for a minute, to the Knik Arm Crossing because we have
not given as much attention to that. Maybe it is because the media
hasn't dubbed it or given it a catchy little name such as ``Bridge to
Nowhere.'' As Senator Stevens has indicated, again, we are a victim of
our own geography. We are hemmed in by the mountains, the ocean, Cook
Inlet, military land, and national forest lands. We don't have any
place to grow. This is Alaska's largest community. We need to be able
to go across the water so we can have the opportunity, as a community,
as a State, and as a regional hub, to further our growth and
development.
The comment was made on the Point MacKenzie--one side is Anchorage
and the other side is Point MacKenzie--we have about 12 residents
there; again, making us look like we are just going to build bridges
because we have the ability to build bridges and we do not care where
we are placing them. People that make statements such as this need to
look at the facts. First, look at a map. Look at what we have over
there. We have a community, the fastest growing part of the State is up
there in the Mat-Su Valley. We have tens of thousands of commuters
coming into Anchorage from the Mat-Su Valley every day that could be
aided by a bridge across the water. To suggest we have 12 families that
we are somehow helping out and connecting defies the facts. It is
offensive to me. There has been some suggestion this is a project that
we are taking up because we can. People need to understand this is
something we have been looking at and studying for a good 30 years.
I cannot tell the number of projects--actually, I can tell the number
of projects, and I am going to. We have, over the past, probably 10, 20
years, so studied this bridge, so evaluated this

[[Page S11633]]

bridge, that the people in south central are asking, What's wrong? Why
can't we get the bridge moving? We had the Point MacKenzie Area Which
Merits Special Attention Plan in 1993; the Point MacKenzie Port Master
Plan in 1998; the Regional Port of Anchorage Master Plan in 1999; the
Anchorage 2020 Plan in 2001; the Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions Freight Mobility Study in 2001; the Matanuska
Susitna Borough Economic Development Plan in 2002; the Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions Long Range Transportation
Plan Amendment in 2002; the Regional Transportation Planning
Organization Resolution Supporting the Knik Arm Crossing as a Regional
Transportation Priority Project in 2003; the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Assembly Resolution Adopting the Knik Arm Crossing as the Number One
Regional Transportation Priority, 2003; and then the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Rail Corridor Study, June 2003. And there have been more
updates since then.
This is something we have been working on for a long time. To suggest
this is pork, this is fluff, this is servicing 12 families or 50 homes,
we need to have everyone look at the factories and understand that
Alaska will never achieve its full potential as a State unless we have
access.
Taking away these two projects from the State of Alaska and saying
this is what we are going to do to help with the reconstruction efforts
in the gulf, to single out one State, we start taking it very
personally.
If the suggestion were made to our colleagues that everybody gives a
little bit, everybody gives a little bit on your transportation
projects, that is okay. As one of the 50 States, we can deal with that.
We can certainly accept that. But to see we are looking at one State--
first it was one project, now it is two projects--this Senator cannot
accept, will not accept a proposal like that.
I appreciate the efforts of so many that have been working so hard as
we try to find offsets, as we try to do the work necessary to rebuild
the gulf region. But we need to recognize, again, we worked on a
transportation authorization bill, a 6-year plan. This bill was 6 years
in the making. What went into it, went into it with thought and study
and the support of those people who would benefit from it. And the
people that will benefit from the bridges in Ketchikan and the bridge
in south-central are not only the people of Alaska but all of the
tourists we serve, all of the military we serve, all of the people that
rely on Alaska for your energy needs, for your commerce needs. It is
not about providing service and assistance to a few. Let Alaska come
into this century when it comes to transportation infrastructure. Don't
take from us our ability to grow, as all of the other States in the
lower 48 have been allowed to do, having been provided the Federal
funding. Don't deny Alaska.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I find myself in a strange position, as I indicated to
the Senator from Oklahoma. Earlier today, I indicated to the Senator
that I would suggest a series of second-degree amendments. I had under
consideration second-degree amendments. It is my understanding now the
amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is filed as a second-degree
amendment to the Bingaman amendment, am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. It is a second-degree
amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a small Bible to start reading, a
few editorials from my State concerning this bridge and some of the
comments that have been made in other States. I am willing to try to
work out a system so that all States contribute to assisting our sister
State in Louisiana and recognize their prior need for money, but I am
entirely unwilling to take money from Alaska only. I think the Senate
ought to have that on notice. I will suggest the absence of a quorum,
and I will object to taking it off until we have some way that the
Senate might consider an alternative to the Senator from Oklahoma or
until a quorum is present and the Senate decides otherwise than what I
have decided.
I will put the Senate on notice--and I don't kid people--if the
Senate decides to discriminate against our State and take money only
from our State, I will resign from this body. This is not the Senate I
came to. This is not the Senate I devoted 37 years to. If one Senator
can decide he will take all the money from one State to solve a problem
of another, that is not a union. That is not equality and is not
treating my State the way I have seen it treated for 37 years.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment to be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2162

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have 12 amendments that have been cleared
on both sides of the aisle. We thank the sponsors of these amendments
for working with our staff and the relevant committees for clearing
these amendments. I call up on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island
amendment No. 2162. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. It
requires the Department of the Treasury to submit a report on the
application of Treasury regulations on arbitrage bonds to the reserve
funds held by EPA clean water and safe drinking water State revolving
funds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Reed of Rhode
Island, proposes an amendment numbered 2162.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a legal basis for the application of arbitrage
bond regulations to reserve funds held by the Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water State revolving funds)

On page 293, after line 25, add the following:

SEC. __. APPLICATION OF ARBITRAGE BOND REGULATIONS TO CERTAIN
STATE REVOLVING FUNDS.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a report
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate to provide a legal basis for
the application of section 1.148-1(c) of the United States
Treasury Regulations (regarding arbitrage bond regulations)
to the reserve funds held by the Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water State revolving funds which generally contain
replacement proceeds but not bond proceeds.

Mr. BOND. It has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2162) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2174

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of
myself and Senator Murray and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Mrs.
Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 2174.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 384, after line 13, insert the following:
Sec. __. The Administrator of General Services shall
require that all credible sustainable building rating systems
that award credits for certified wood products in the rating
system be included in the published building design criteria
or specifications of any solicitation for offers issued by
the General Services Administration (GSA) for construction of
a Federal building or courthouse: Provided, That the
Administrator may only consider sustainable forest management
certification programs that are currently in use in the
United States and consistent with the Federal Government's
goals of environmental stewardship: Provided further, That
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall report to the relevant congressional
committees of jurisdiction on the appropriateness of
individual forest management certification programs for use
within GSA's sustainable

[[Page S11634]]

building program, including a schedule for incorporating any
additional such programs into the system through regulations.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment relates to the GSA's rating
system. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2174) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2146, as Modified

Mr. BOND. Next, I call up amendment No. 2146 with a modification on
behalf of Senator Ensign.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Ensign,
proposes an amendment numbered 2146, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for free individual tax electronic preparation and
filing services by the Internal Revenue Service)

On page 293, after line 25, add the following:
Sec. __. The Internal Revenue Service shall provide
taxpayers with free individual tax electronic preparation and
filing services only through the Free File program and the
Internal Revenue Service's Taxpayer Assistance Centers, Tax
Counseling for the Elderly, and volunteer income Tax
Assistance Programs.
Mr. BOND. Under the Ensign-Allen-DeMint amendment, the language
requires the IRS to continue the Free File Program, which was created
in 2002 as a public/private partnership between the IRS and a group of
tax software companies called the Free File Alliance. This partnership
has increased electronic tax filing by improving access to filing and
making tax preparation and filing easier for taxpayers.
This language is not meant to disrupt or override current
negotiations or the new agreement.
It is critical that the Free File Program and other IRS taxpayer
services continue to evolve to meet the needs of taxpayers across the
Nation.
I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2146) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2105, 2106, 2108, as Modified, and 2120 En Bloc

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 2105, 2106, 2108,
and 2120. I send up a modification to amendment No. 2108 on behalf of
Senator Voinovich. I ask that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:

amendment no. 2105

(Purpose: To modify the designation relating to a certain project in
the State of New York)

On page 276, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 1__. Item number 4596 of the table contained in
section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law
109-59; 119 Stat. 1144) is amended by striking ``Corning
Preserve improvements Phase II'' and inserting
``Transportation Center, Corning, NY''.

amendment no. 2106

(Purpose: To modify the designation relating to a certain project in
the State of New York)

On page 276, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 1__. Item number 512 of the table contained in section
3044 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law
109-59; 119 Stat. 1144) is amended by striking ``Corning, NY,
Phase II Corning Preserve Transportation Enhancement
Project'' and inserting ``Transportation Center Enhancements,
Corning, NY''.

amendment no. 2108 as modified

(Purpose: To modify certain projects relating to highways in the State
of Ohio)

On page 436, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
Sec. 8___. The table contained in section 1702 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144) is
amended--in item number 4620, by striking ``Grading, paving,
roads, and the transfer of rail-to-truck for the intermodal
facility at Rickenbacker Airport Columbus, OH'' and inserting
``Grading, paving, roads, and construction of an intermodal
freight facility at Rickenbacker Airport, Columbus, Ohio'';
and
(2) in item number 4651, by striking ``Grading, paving,
roads for the transfer of rail to truck for the intermodal
facility at Rickenbacker Airport'' and inserting ``Grading,
paving, roads, and construction of an intermodal freight
facility at Rickenbacker Airport, Columbus, Ohio''.

amendment no. 2120

(Purpose: To make technical corrections to the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users)

On page 436, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
Sec. 8___.(a) The table contained in section 1702 of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144)
is amended in item number 4632 by striking ``Construct 1,100
foot bulkhead/riverwalk connecting Front and Maine Ave.
public rights-of-way'' and inserting ``For roadway
improvements and construction of 1,100 foot bulkhead/
riverwalk connecting Front and Maine Ave. public rights-of-
way''.
(b) The table contained in section 3044 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144) is
amended in item number 516 by striking ``Dayton Wright Stop
Plaza'' and inserting ``Downtown Dayton Transit
Enhancements''.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2175 and 2176 En Bloc

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have amendments on behalf of myself and
the Senator from Washington making technical corrections, having a
division A and division B in this bill. I send to the desk two
amendments and ask for their consideration en bloc. These are technical
changes to the bill, and I believe both of them are agreeable on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Mrs.
Murray, proposes amendments numbered 2175 and 2176 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 2175

On page 216, after line 23, insert the following:

DIVISION A--TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, THE JUDICIARY, HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

amendment no. 2176

On page 436, line 11, strike ``Act'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``division''.

Mr. BOND. They have been cleared on both sides. I ask for their
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments (Nos. 2175 and 2176) were agreed to en bloc.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2177 and 2178 En Bloc

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk two amendments, one on
behalf of myself and one on behalf of Senator Reid of Nevada. Mine is
technical in nature; the other deals with a heliport. I ask for their
immediate consideration en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
No. 2177.
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Reid,
proposes an amendment numbered 2178.

[[Page S11635]]

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 2177

(Purpose: To improve the bill)

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. __. Section 14711(c) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by--
(1) striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (1) and
inserting ``;'';
(2) striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) inserting the following after paragraph (2):
``(3) be substituted, upon the filing of a motion with the
court, for the State as parens patriae in the action.''.

amendment no. 2178

(Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of certain public land in Clark
County, Nevada, for use as a heliport)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __.(a) In this section:
(1) The term ``Conservation Area'' means the Sloan Canyon
National Conservation Area established by section 604(a) of
the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural
Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2010).
(2) The term ``County'' means Clark County, Nevada.
(3)(A) The term ``helicopter tour'' means a commercial
helicopter tour operated for profit.
(B) The term ``helicopter tour'' does not include a
helicopter tour that is carried out to assist a Federal,
State, or local agency.
(4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
(5) The term ``Wilderness'' means the North McCullough
Mountains Wilderness established by section 202(a)(13) of the
Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural
Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2000).
(b) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the County, subject
to valid existing rights, for no consideration, all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcel
of land described in subsection (c).
(c) The parcel of land to be conveyed under subsection (b)
is the parcel of approximately 229 acres of land depicted as
tract A on the map entitled ``Clark County Public Heliport
Facility'' and dated May 3, 2004.
(d)(1) The parcel of land conveyed under subsection (b)--
(A) shall be used by the County for the operation of a
heliport facility under the conditions stated in paragraphs
(2), (3), and (4); and
(B) shall not be disposed of by the County.
(2)(A) Any operator of a helicopter tour originating from
or concluding at the parcel of land described in subsection
(c) shall pay to the Clark County Department of Aviation a $3
conservation fee for each passenger on the helicopter tour if
any portion of the helicopter tour occurs over the
Conservation Area.
(B)(i) Not earlier than 10 years after the date of
enactment of this Act and every 10 years thereafter, the
Secretary shall conduct a review to determine whether to
raise the amount of the conservation fee.
(ii) After conducting a review under clause (i) and
providing an opportunity for public comment, the Secretary
may raise the amount of the conservation fee in an amount
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, but by not
more than 50 percent of the amount of the conservation fee in
effect on the day before the date of the increase.
(3)(A) The amounts collected under paragraph (2) shall be
deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the United
States.
(B) Of the amounts deposited under subparagraph (A)--
(i) \2/3\ of the amounts shall be available to the
Secretary, without further appropriation, for the management
of cultural, wildlife, and wilderness resources on public
land in the State of Nevada; and
(ii) \1/3\ of the amounts shall be available to the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management, without further
appropriation, for the conduct of Bureau of Land Management
operations for the Conservation Area and the Red Rock Canyon
National Conservation Area.
(4)(A) Except for safety reasons, any helicopter tour
originating or concluding at the parcel of land described in
subsection (c) that flies over the Conservation Area shall
not fly--
(i) over any area in the Conservation Area except the area
that is between 3 and 5 miles north of the latitude of the
southernmost boundary of the Conservation Area;
(ii) lower than 1,000 feet over the eastern segments of the
boundary of the Conservation Area; or
(iii) lower than 500 feet over the western segments of the
boundary of the Conservation Area.
(B) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall establish a special flight rules area
and any operating procedures that the Administrator
determines to be necessary to implement subparagraph (A).
(5) If the County ceases to use any of the land described
in subsection (c) for the purpose described in paragraph
(1)(A) and under the conditions stated in paragraph (2)--
(A) title to the parcel shall revert to the United States,
at the option of the United States; and
(B) the County shall be responsible for any reclamation
necessary to revert the parcel to the United States.
(e) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of the
conveyance under subsection (b), that the County pay the
administrative costs of the conveyance, including survey
costs and any other costs associated with the transfer of
title.

Mr. BOND. I ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments (Nos. 2177 and 2178) were agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the votes.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2179

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of
Senators Durbin and Obama and ask its immediate consideration. This
amendment requires the Secretary of HUD to report on a housing project
in the State of Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Durbin, for
himself and Mr. Obama, proposes an amendment numbered 2179.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to
report to Congress on certain properties in Joliet, Illinois)

On page 406, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 724. REPORT ON EVERGREEN TERRACE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall conduct a study and prepare a report that
describes the progress, if any, in improving the living
conditions of the tenants of the Evergreen Terrace I and
Evergreen Terrace II housing complexes located in Joliet,
Illinois, by the owners of such complexes.
(b) Interim Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall submit to Congress an interim report on the
findings of the study required under subsection (a).
(c) Final Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall submit to Congress a final report that
describes--
(1) the findings of the study required under subsection
(a); and
(2) any conclusions and recommendations of such study.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2179) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2180

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk on behalf of Senator
Murray an amendment on Midway Atoll and ask that it be considered
immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mrs. Murray, proposes
an amendment numbered 2180.

The amendment is as follows:
On page 432, line 22, strike ``2006.'' and insert ``2007.''
On page 433, line 5, strike ``$6,000,000'' and insert
``$10,000,000''.
On page 433, line 9, insert after ``upgrades'' the
following: ``, including the replacement of the fuel farm
facility''.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment makes small revisions to
the provision in the bill mandating the continued operation of the
emergency landing field at Midway Island Atoll in the Pacific.
The bill before us, for the third consecutive year, requires a cost-
sharing agreement between the appropriate Federal agencies for the
continued operation of this critical airfield.
This amendment would clarify that among the costs that must be
covered by the Federal agencies are the necessary capital costs for the
replacement of the aged fuel farm on the island.
I am not aware of any objection on either side. I ask for adoption of
the amendment.

[[Page S11636]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2180) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Stevens now be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment which is
relevant to the Coburn amendment No. 2165; provided further, that the
Coburn amendment No. 2165 be further modified to be drafted as a first-
degree amendment; I further ask consent that there be 5 minutes equally
divided in the usual form, and that following that time, the Senate
proceed to a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 2165, to be
followed by a vote in relation to the Stevens amendment; provided, that
no second-degree amendments be in order to either amendment prior to
the votes. I finally ask unanimous consent that if either of the
amendments does not achieve 60 votes in the affirmative, that amendment
be automatically withdrawn; provided further, that following these
votes, the Bingaman amendment No. 2065 be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2181

(Purpose: To ensure reconstruction of the Twin Spans Bridge)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Ms.
Murkowski, and Mr. Frist, proposes an amendment numbered
2181.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec.__. No funds provided under Section 1702 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144) for the
construction or reconstruction of any bridge shall be
expended until nonemergency funds have been made available
for the repair of the Twin Spans Bridge connecting New
Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the first
amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma will be considered
first.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2165, as Modified

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the purpose of my amendment does not have
that much to do with Alaska as it does with priorities in our country.
We put forward $600 billion of debt to our children last year ending
September 30. We have a war going on. We have the largest natural
catastrophe we have ever seen in our history. We have a hurricane
coming on Florida. We are at war. It is time we reassess the priorities
we utilize in this body as we think about our obligations at home.
The purpose of my amendment is to move $125 million out of above-the-
line money--not program money, not formula money--to be used for this.
I understand there is going to be another amendment. My hope is the
American public will see how we are spending money and encourage us to
spend it in a way that is more frugal and consistent with the heritage
we have in the country, and that is making sacrifices today for the
future of our country and for the next generation.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not have a better friend than my
colleague from Oklahoma, but it does not mean we always agree with each
other. I have had a policy in voting for amendments on bills that I
have adhered to for a long time, and it is if a Senator has a bill or
an amendment that takes authority from an elected official and places
it in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat and it does not save money,
then I think it is not good policy. Unfortunately, I think that is what
this does.
My good friend Senator Coburn and I have talked about this. I know it
is a difficult thing for a lot of people to understand. Many people are
watching this. I happen to be the person with the No. 1 most
conservative rating in the Senate and yet I am not about to put myself
in a position where I am going to take authority away from someone who
has to stand for election in a particular State and give it to someone
who does not have to stand for election, period.
I do not think that is a good idea. If it were something that saved
money, I would have a different position on it, but in that respect I
will oppose this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 11 seconds.
Mr. COBURN. Was Senator Inhofe's time taken from my time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not.
Mr. COBURN. I would say to my friend, whom I love dearly as a friend
and a brother, this amendment is about changing the priorities in this
country. We can reject that or we can accept it. I gave a speech this
morning about the rumble that is out there in this country. We need to
listen to that rumble. The rumble is the American people want us to
start doing a better job of prioritizing how we spend money. I respect
his position on this. I have no ill feelings that he will oppose me on
this amendment.
This is an amendment that is good for the country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma who has just
spoken, who is the author of this amendment, has indicated we need to
be making sacrifices. I do not think anyone in the State of Alaska
feels we should not be contributing, but we do not feel in the State of
Alaska that it should be coming entirely from one State. This amendment
puts the sacrifice on one State.
I urge rejection of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would add to my colleague's comment to
say this concept is a concept that every State should think about
because if it can be done on a bridge, why not do it on any type of
event where a Senator would like to have money for their State, but
they say take it from another State because they do not need it. I made
a statement earlier today that in my 37 years I have never seen this. I
have never seen a request that money for a disaster be taken solely
from a project in one State to help a disaster in other States.
We are a disaster-prone State. We have more disasters than any other
State in the Union. Remember our 1964 earthquake. We have tsunamis. We
have all types of disasters. But we have never tried to take moneys
from other States to meet our costs.
I urge the Senate not to start this process.
I yield back the time.
Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to Coburn amendment No. 2165, as
modified.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCAIN).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 15, nays 82, as follows:

[[Page S11637]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

YEAS--15

Allard
Allen
Bayh
Burr
Coburn
Conrad
DeMint
DeWine
Feingold
Graham
Kyl
Landrieu
Sessions
Sununu
Vitter

NAYS--82

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Corzine
McCain
Schumer
The amendment (No. 2165), as modified, was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my colleagues, Senator Murkowski, Senator
Frist, and I offered the second amendment establishing the principle
that if this type of money is to be made available to an area of
disaster, it would come equally from the projects that are authorized
under the highway bill and above the line area for bridges.
In view of this vote taken, I would be willing to withdraw this
amendment. I understand there is objection to that. There is already a
unanimous consent request that the amendment be presented.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. STEVENS. Again, I say some Members voted the way they did on the
Coburn amendment because of the presence of this amendment and wish to
be recorded in favor of this amendment.
I yield my time.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of my
colleagues, tomorrow we are starting on the appropriations bill of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It is a very complex
bill. We are advised preliminarily that there will be many amendments
offered. Senator Harkin and I sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter
urging all Members who have amendments to have them ready to file.
I have consulted with the majority leader. I have long advocated that
if we have quorum calls and amendments not ready to go, that we go to
third reading and final passage. I am not sure how effective that
approach will be, but I am going to try it. I have been talking about
it for a long time. The majority leader is encouraging on it.
But I want to put everybody on notice that we are going to press very
hard and also on the vote on 15 and 5.
Again, I am not the majority leader. I know that. Whether it will be
enforced is another matter. But this is a tough bill, and there are
many people who are working on it who need to go back to the
confirmation process of Harriet Miers.
We have a lot of work to do. I want to be as emphatic as I can--that
if you have amendments, get them ready because I will press for third
reading.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, has there been time set aside to speak in
opposition to the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes in
opposition to the pending amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.
Mr. BAUCUS. Objection.
Mr. STEVENS. The time hasn't expired yet.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Wasn't there time
on both sides for that amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was prior to the first vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that there be
equal time for anyone to speak for 2 minutes, at least. I have 2
minutes on my side.
I ask unanimous consent to allow 2 minutes for the Senator from
Illinois on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
Understand what this amendment says: No bridge in the highway bill
can be built until this bridge in Louisiana is built from non-emergency
funds, financed from non-emergency funds. If they take any part of the
$60 billion that we have already put in FEMA to put into construction
of this bridge, it doesn't count. It has to be nonemergency funds.
So understand that it is slowing down the construction of bridges
everywhere until we appropriate more money for financing this bridge in
Louisiana.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), and the Senator from New
York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 61, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]

YEAS--33

Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Coleman
Cornyn
DeMint
Dole
Feingold
Frist
Graham
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Vitter
Warner

NAYS--61

Akaka
Alexander
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Talent
Thune
Voinovich
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Baucus
Corzine
Enzi
McCain
Schumer
Thomas
The amendment (No. 2181) was rejected.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S11638]]

Amendment No. 2065

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 2065
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2065) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only
amendments in order will be those that are accepted to be in the
managers' package. There is a Leahy-Coleman amendment, two amendments
from Senator Landrieu. We have two amendments we are going to accept
from Senator Coburn. We have an amendment we are accepting from Senator
Bill Nelson.
Is there objection?
Mrs. MURRAY. And Bingaman.
Mr. BOND. And Senator Bingaman's amendment. It is done?
Mr. REID. Bingaman is done.
Mr. LEAHY. Leahy-Coleman.
Mr. BOND. The Leahy-Coleman amendment will be one of them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are going to try to resolve these
amendments as quickly as possible. I know everyone wants to get out of
here.
I suggest that perhaps Senator Landrieu can address her amendments
very quickly. I am going to talk with Senator Leahy and Senator
Coleman, and see if we can resolve those.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Louisiana wants to
speak in a moment. I want to make an inquiry of the majority leader, if
I could. It will only take a moment.
I don't know where Senator Snowe is. We were talking a moment ago.
She is the chairperson of the Small Business Committee. I am the
ranking member. We have been making a bona fide, bipartisan effort to
try to get the Small Business Hurricane Relief and Reconstruction Act
into law. It has been sitting up in the conference and is sort of stuck
at the moment.
The problem is that--Mr. President, could we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we have order, please. Will Senators
take their conversations off the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the administration has set up two major
pieces of relief for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, totaling $62 billion,
but not one penny of that $62 billion is designated for small business,
even though there are several hundred thousand small businesses that
are in need of relief in the region.
Only 84 out of some 20,000-plus requests--only 84 requests--for loans
or grants have been approved by the Small Business Administration. So
this is becoming an incredibly backed-up, serious restraint on the
ability of small businesses to get back on their feet in the injured
areas.
I know Senator Snowe is deeply concerned about it. I know a lot of
colleagues are very deeply concerned about this. Is there a way we
could try next week to break this out? It has passed 96 to 0 here in
the Senate. We desperately need to get this help to those businesses in
the communities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, to my distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts, are you talking about the small business reauthorization
or the Katrina-focused legislation?
Mr. KERRY. This is the Katrina small business hurricane relief and
reconstruction bill. What is it? It is S. 1807.
Mr. FRIST. The Senator's question, that it has passed the Senate or
is being considered?
Mr. KERRY. It passed the Senate 96 to 0.
Mr. FRIST. The question to me is what, again?
Mr. KERRY. The question is whether--I know the chairman wants to make
this happen--if we could try to break this out and pass it separately,
pass it in the House, and get this immediate assistance into the hands
of the small businesses. It would make an enormous difference,
obviously.
Mr. FRIST. Obviously, we need to focus on small business. We know how
important that is in terms of both the flexibility and the release of
regulations. The focus on small business is part of that rebuilding and
renewal in a smarter way. I would be happy to talk to the Senators who
are involved to see how we could address it.
I am not going to make any commitment at this point in time, but the
Senate has spoken in terms of a very significant vote on the floor. I
will be happy to talk to my colleagues about how we can, in some way,
accelerate that next week.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if I could, will the majority leader
yield for a question?
I ask the majority leader and the Senator from Massachusetts, did
they know that today the report came out from the Small Business
Administration, which the chairman knows, the Senator from Maine, Ms.
Snowe, that 53,900 businesses have applied for help, and that only 58
businesses have received checks to date?
Let me repeat, 53,900 businesses have asked for help, and, to date,
58 in the whole region--from Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and
Alabama--have received help--58 businesses. So I think the Senator from
Massachusetts raises a good point.
Did you know there is some urgency, Mr. Leader, about this situation?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. She is
right about the number that received checks. I think it was a total of
84 that received approval. But that is out of tens of thousands, as we
have heard.
The problem is, if you are going to bring the communities back, you
are going to have to get these small businesses up on their feet
because they are the heart of that kind of recovery.
So again, I think it is a bipartisan initiative. And my hope is--I
look forward to talking with the leader and seeing how we can expedite
this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, again, we are absolutely committed to
addressing the concerns of both of the Senators in a bipartisan way. I
will make it very clear, the legislation and the amendment the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is talking about did pass in a
bipartisan way here. We need to continue to address the problem--a very
real problem--to promote small business as a big part--a big part, a
huge part--of the rebuilding and renewal that we all know needs to be
accelerated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, while the managers are making final
decisions about the package, could I have 4 minutes to speak about an
amendment I am going to offer but not ask for a vote on?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to ask for
order, if I could. I have an amendment I am going to speak about but
not ask for a vote on. I would appreciate my colleagues' focus for a
moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order.
Ms. LANDRIEU. The amendment I was going to offer to the underlying
HUD appropriations bill is part of a blueprint for action that our
delegation--Republicans and Democrats--from Louisiana has asked the
Congress to consider. Not only would this work for Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas today, but if something like this were
in law, it could work for every city and every State in the event that
some catastrophic event occurred, where hundreds of thousands of homes
were destroyed and people were displaced.
My amendment, which I am not going to ask for a vote on but will
offer at some time, would provide for a 6-month deferral from
mortgages--not a waiver of mortgages, not a forgiveness of mortgages,
but 6 months for Americans, for families to get their legs underneath
them, until they can figure out what their insurance is going to cover
and not cover, where their children might go to school, where they
might find a job. These are Americans who have worked hard, played by
the rules, invested in their home--which is their largest asset--and,
in the blink of an eye, it is gone.
In the United States of America, in the year 2005, we do not have in
place a system to give them a break--not for

[[Page S11639]]

a month, not for 2 months, not for 3 months.
The average savings on a mortgage would be $4,317 in Louisiana,
$4,740 in Alabama, $4,131 in Mississippi, and $4,875 would be a 6-month
average mortgage. The families in my State could use this extra money.
No administrative costs, no contractors, no fraud, no waste, no abuse,
simple, 6-month deferment on mortgages, put 6 months at the end of your
mortgage, give people some cash and breathing room.
It is a sound amendment. Our delegation thinks it is good. We cannot
pass it tonight, but I think we have to have a better system of help
for Americans who get caught in storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, or, for
heaven's sake, a terrorist attack. The system we have in place is not
working: $62 billion to FEMA, $43 billion sits in a bank. Nobody is
getting money. Nobody is getting help. People are stuck in hotels.
There is no plan for housing. I could go on and on.
We need to do better. I will withdraw this amendment at this time,
but we will offer it again to give people hope, 6 months of a break
until they can figure out whether they can rebuild, come back, or move
to another place.
I thank my colleagues for their patience.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we need to see the amendments from Senator
Landrieu. I believe with modifications we can accept them. If she would
share them with us, we would be happy to do that.
I would ask my colleagues, the Senator from Vermont and the Senator
from Minnesota, about the time they will need. They have an amendment I
would love to be able to accept, providing more money for CDBG and
other worthwhile activities. Unfortunately, there is not money to
rescind. We were presented with a major rescission package by the
administration, but neither the Department of Housing and Urban
Development nor the Office of Management and Budget could justify any
of those rescissions. We have taken the maximum rescissions we believe
are feasible. This additional funding for CDBG is predicated on
providing more offsets, plus it is $200 million above the budget. I
regret that I will have to raise a Budget Act point of order. I ask
what time limit they would need to speak on this amendment. I regret I
must tell them that I will have to raise a Budget Act point of order.
May I inquire through the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will tell the distinguished senior
Senator from Missouri, first off, that he and the distinguished senior
Senator from Washington State have been doing a wonderful job in moving
this bill. It is a difficult bill. I know. I have watched it being put
together in the Appropriations Committee. I know the two of them have
worked extraordinarily hard. I mean to commend them, whether the
distinguished Senator supports me and the Senator from Minnesota or not
in our bipartisan amendment, number 2157, to restore funding to the
Community Development Block Grants, Section 8 Housing Vouchers, and
Public Housing Capital and Operating Funds. I think all of us should
commend them for the work they have done and want to work with them to
look for alternatives that will make our amendment acceptable to them.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. I think the chairman will probably
be pleased that I do.
Mr. BOND. If the Senator will withhold, the Senator from Louisiana is
prepared to offer another amendment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am not going to offer another amendment. I just
wanted to offer the amendment to be placed in the Record and withdraw
it because I have already spoken about it. I thank the managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been printed in the Record.
Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while we have the distinguished senior
Senator from Missouri and the distinguished senior Senator from
Washington and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota on the floor,
let me propose this: We could spend the next several hours on our
bipartisan amendment to restore funding to the Community Development
Block Grants, Section 8 Housing Vouchers, and Public Housing Capital
and Operating Funds, and there are enough of our 40 bipartisan
cosponsors willing to speak that it would take several hours to do it.
We would then end up on a 60-vote point of order, which may or may not
go through. I know from nearly 30 years on the Appropriations Committee
how it works. I have watched for decades the work of the distinguished
Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from Washington
State. I know how hard both of them have worked to accommodate the
needs of Senators from both sides of the aisle, and certainly in this
case, when the key cosponsors are both Republican and Democrat. I see
my friend from Minnesota on the floor. I have truly appreciated all the
work Senator Coleman, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Graham and Senator Reed
have put into crafting this amendment with me. I also thank our 35
other cosponsors, who strike a broad swath of the political spectrum.
Might I suggest this, though: That we withhold our amendment and work
to ensure that in conference we increase funds for these important
community development and housing programs. I am on Appropriations. The
Senator from Missouri is as well, of course, as is the Senator from
Washington State. With Senator Coleman, we are all agreed on the need
for Community Development Block Grant Programs, Section 8, HUD public
housing. Between now and the time of conference, we will work closely
together with the leaders of the Transportation-Treasury-HUD
Appropriations subcommittee to see if we can increase these various
areas. Would that make sense to the distinguished chairman?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the suggestion of my friend from Vermont is
a very good one. I think he knows--and he serves on our committee--that
trying to fund these very vital programs is a top priority of my
ranking member and of mine. We are in a position where we have not been
able to identify any more dollars. We will look forward to working with
them and their staffs. We will work in conference with the House to try
to add money because these are high-priority programs. Community
development block grants, public housing, Section 8, these are vitally
important. Right now we can't find them. I would be put in a very
awkward spot of having to raise a Budget Act point of order. I would
appreciate the opportunity to work with the Senator from Vermont, the
Senator from Minnesota, and other Senators. I know I speak for my
colleague from Washington. We will work with the other original
cosponsors of this amendment to try to accomplish that. I thank him
very much for his understanding and willingness to work with us.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have worked with both the Senators from
Missouri and Washington State for years. I know they have commitments
to all these programs and have always worked in a bipartisan way. I
would be willing to accept those assurances. I ask my chief cosponsor,
the Senator from Minnesota, how he feels about this commitment from the
chairman and ranking member of the TTHUD Appropriations subcommittee?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the champions of CDBG and Section 8 are
the ranking member and chairman of the committee. We are in an awkward
position. We are all trying to get to the same place. I accept those
assurances. These programs are vitally important. We had over 68 votes
for supporting full funding for CDBG when it first came up this year.
We are all marching down

[[Page S11640]]

the same path. I appreciate the work that the chairman and the ranking
member have done and their commitment to look for more money when we
get to conference.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we will withdraw the amendment. If it is at
the desk, we withdraw it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

Amendments Nos. 2182; 2080; 2122; 2083, as Modified; 2183; 2184; 2185;
2186; 2187; 2188; 2167, as Modified; 2168, as Modified; 2189; 2084;
2103; 2119, as Modified; 2190; 2150, and 2173 En Bloc

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as part of a managers' package, I send to
the desk amendment No. 2182 from Senator Levin on the use of funds for
Federal contracts with expatriate agencies; amendment No. 2080, Senator
Santorum, to modify provisions relating to certain Federal contracts;
amendment No. 2122, to allow disabled and nondisabled tenants to keep
their Section 8 contracts for properties postforeclosure by Senator
Schumer, as modified; amendment No. 2083, as modified, by Senator
DeWine, to appropriate $6 million for the new car assessment program;
an amendment on behalf of Senators Frist, Dole, and Boxer to provide
funding for Habitat for Humanity; an amendment on behalf of Senator
Murray relating to the Spokane region high-speed rail corridor study;
an amendment on behalf of myself to eliminate the GSA authority to
retain proceeds from the sale or other conveyance of real and personal
property; an amendment on behalf of Senator Nelson making
appropriations for the Department of Treasury for the Financial Crimes
Unit; an amendment on behalf of Senator Lott and Senator Lautenberg
relating to Amtrak; an amendment on behalf of Senator Lautenberg on the
owners and operators of airports certified under section 44476; two
amendments on behalf of Senator Landrieu, one to make funds available
for conducting a study and submission of a report relating to
catastrophic hurricane evacuation plans and another amendment to set
aside funds to provide grants to local governments to address increased
transportation demands in communities that have experienced significant
population growth; an amendment on behalf of Senator Coleman to improve
the safety of all-terrain vehicles; and on behalf of Senator Coburn, we
wish to include amendment No. 2084. Senator Coburn has an amendment on
improper payments, and I would ask that he or his staff provide us
copies of those amendments and that they be included in the managers'
package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri should note that
both of those amendments are already pending.

Amendment No. 2091 Withdrawn

Mr. BOND. I ask that amendment 2091 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there objection to considering the specified amendments en bloc?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are working our way quickly toward
final passage. I just wanted to take a minute and thank our chairman,
Senator Bond, from Missouri, who has done a remarkable job with a very
complex bill that has numerous agencies with it, the first time the
Senate has considered a bill with Transportation and HUD and Judiciary.
I wish to compliment him and his staff and thank all of our staffs for
the tremendous work they did in moving this bill forward.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington. Her
cooperation and her very active involvement have made all of this
possible. We appreciate it. We will talk about our staff later.
I call up amendment 2103 on behalf of Senator Burns requiring air
carriers to honor tickets for suspended air passenger service, and I
call up modified amendment No. 2119 on behalf of Senator Stevens and
Senator Ensign and ask that be considered and adopted.
We have the Coburn amendment, improper payments. I call up amendment
2150 on behalf of Senator Snowe relating to certified service station
employees, the Federal Aviation amendment, and ask that be included in
the managers' package, and amendment 2173 on behalf of Senator Coleman
relating to purchase card payments to Federal contractors and ask that
be included.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 2182

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for Federal contracts with
expatriated entities)

On page 293, after line 25, add the following:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF FEDERAL CONTRACTS WITH
EXPATRIATED ENTITIES.

(a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any
Federal Government contract with any foreign incorporated
entity which is treated as an inverted domestic corporation
under section 835(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 395(b)) or any subsidiary of such an entity.
(b) Waivers.--
(1) In general.--Any Secretary shall waive subsection (a)
with respect to any Federal Government contract under the
authority of such Secretary if the Secretary determines that
the waiver is required in the interest of national security.
(2) Report to congress.--Any Secretary issuing a waiver
under paragraph (1) shall report such issuance to Congress.
(c) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any Federal
Government contract entered into before the date of the
enactment of this Act, or to any task order issued pursuant
to such contract.

AMENDMENT NO. 2080

(Purpose: To modify provisions relating to certain Federal contracts)

On page 276, after line 24, add the following:
Sec. 18__. Section 112(b)(2) of title 23, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``title 40'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``title 40.'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (B);
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) as
subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively;
(4) in subparagraph (E) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)),
in the first sentence, by striking ``subparagraph (E)'' and
inserting ``subparagraph (D)''; and
(5) by striking subparagraph (G).

AMENDMENT NO. 2122

(Purpose: To allow disabled and non-disabled tenant to keep their
section 8 contracts on their properties post foreclosure)

On page 338, line 15, strike ``and is occupied primarily by
elderly or disabled families''.
On page 338, line 19, insert ``, and the contract for such
payments shall be renewable by the owner under the provisions
of section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note)'' after ``in
the property''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2083, as Modified

(Purpose: To appropriate an additional $6,000,000 for the New Car
Assessment Program with a corresponding off-set in Department of
Transportation salaries and expenses)

On page 248, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
Sec. 133. For an additional amount for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration under the heading ``Operations
and Research'' $6,000,000, to carry out the provisions of
section 10307(c) of Public Law 109-59.

amendment no. 2183

(Purpose: To fund Habitat for Humanity)

On page 310, line 16, after ``tribal area'', insert the
following: ``, and of which $5,000,000 shall be for capacity
building activities administered by Habitat for Humanity
International''.

amendment no. 2184

On page 253, after line 22, insert the following:
``Sec. __ Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
made available to the Federal Railroad Administration for the
Spokane Region High Speed Rail Corridor Study on page 1420 of
the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of
Conference for Public Law 108-447 (House Report 108-792)
shall be made available to the Washington State Department of
Transportation for track and grade crossing improvements
under the Bridging the Valley project between Spokane County,
Washington and Kootenai County, Idaho.''

amendment no. 2185

(Purpose: Eliminate GSA authority to retain proceeds from sale or other
conveyance of real and personal property)

On page 383, state line 21 and all that follows through
line 6 on page 384.

amendment no. 2186

(Purpose: To provide the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the
Treasury should place al-Manar on the Specially Designated Global
Terrorist list)

On page 293, after line 25, insert the following:
Sec. 221. It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
the Treaury should place al-Manar, a global satellite
television operation, on the Specially Designated Global
Terrorist list.

amendment no. 2187

(Purpose: To modify the provisions on grants to the National Passenger
Rail Corporation)

On page 250, line 9, strike ``Provided, That,'' and all
that follows through page 252, line 17,

[[Page S11641]]

and insert ``Provided, That the Corporation may impose a
passenger service surcharge on each ticket issued equivalent
to 5 percent of the value of said ticket for all tickets
issued for travel in the Northeast Corridor, or route
segment, between Washington, DC and Boston, MA and equivalent
to 2 percent of the value of said ticket price for all
tickets issued for travel on a route outside the Northeast
Corridor, the proceeds of which shall be used for capital
investments: Provided further, That the Corporation shall not
impose said surcharge if it finds that such a surcharge shall
have a deleterious impact on ridership and revenues: Provided
further, That of the funds provided under this section, not
less than $5,000,000 shall be expended for the development
and implementation of a managerial cost accounting system,
which includes average and marginal unit cost capability:
Provided further, That within 30 days of development of the
managerial cost accounting system, the Department of
Transportation Inspector General shall review and comment to
the Secretary of Transportation and the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, upon the strengths and
weaknesses of the system and how it best can be implemented
to improve decision making by the Board of Directors and
management of the Corporation.''.

amendment no. 2188

(Purpose: To ensure that airports improve their runway safety areas,
and for other purposes)

On page 227, line 7, strike the period and insert the
following: ``Provided further, That not later than December
31, 2015, the owner or operator of an airport certificated
under 49 U.S.C. 44706 shall improve the airport's runway
safety areas to comply with the Federal Aviation
Administration design standards required by 14 CFR part 139:
Provided further, That the Federal Aviation Administration
shall report annually to the Congress on the agency's
progress toward improving the runway safety areas at 49
U.S.C. 44706 airports.''

AMENDMENT NO. 2168, As Modified

On page 276, after line 24, add the following:
Sec. 1__.(a) In addition to amounts available to carry out
section 10204 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(Public Law 109-59) as of the date of enactment of this Act,
of the amounts made available by this Act, $1,000,000 may be
used by the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of
Homeland Security to jointly--
(1) complete the review and assessment of catastrophic
hurricane evacuation plans under that section; and
(2) submit to Congress, not later than June 1, 2006, the
report described in subsection (d) of that section.
(b) Section 10204 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(Public Law 109-59) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting after ``evacuation plans'' the following:
``(including the costs of the plans)''; and
(B) by inserting ``and other catastrophic events'' before
``impacting'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``and local'' and
inserting ``parish, county, and municipal''; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``safe and'' before
``practical'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``States'' the
following: ``and adjoining jurisdictions'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(D) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the availability of food, water, restrooms, fueling
stations, and shelter opportunities along the evacuation
routes;
``(6) the time required to evacuate under the plan; and
``(7) the physical and mental strains associated with the
evacuation.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2167, As Modified

On page 219, line 14, insert after ``$15,000,000'' the
following: ``, of which $2,000,000 may be made available to
provide a grant to the Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development to establish a program under which the
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development shall
provide grants to parish and municipal governments in the
State of Louisiana that experience a significant spike in
population because of an unexpected influx of hurricane
evacuees, as determined by the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development, to quickly implement smart
and innovative plans to alleviate traffic congestion and to
address increased transportation demands in the affected
communities''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2189

(Purpose: To improve the safety of all-terrain vehicles in the United
States)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, it is unlawful for any manufacturer or wholesale
distributor to distribute in commerce in the United States
any new assembled or unassembled ATV unless--
(1)(A) with respect to an ATV designed for use by single
operator only, such ATV complies with any applicable
provision of--
(i) the American National Standard for Four Wheel All-
Terrain Vehicles - Equipment, Configuration, and Performance
Requirements developed by the Specialty Vehicle Institute of
America (American National Standard ANSI/SVIA-1-2001);
(ii) a revision of such Standard; or
(iii) a mandatory rule promulgated by the Consumer Product
Safety Commission; or
(iv) such alternative standard that may be accepted by the
commission; or
(B) with respect to an ATV designed for use by an operator
and passengers, such ATV complies with any applicable
provisions of any future American National Standard developed
for such vehicles or such alternative standard that may be
accepted by the commission;
(2) with respect to an ATV, it is subject to or covered by
a letter of undertaking or an ATV action plan that is sent
not more than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act--
(A) applies to such ATV;
(B) includes actions to promote ATV safety; and
(C) has been approved by the Commission and is
substantially implemented at the time of the distribution in
commerce of such ATV; and
(3) such ATV bears a permanent label certifying that it
complies with the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2).
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) ATV.--The term ``ATV'' means any motorized, off-
highway, all-terrain vehicle designed to travel on 4 wheels,
having a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and
handlebars for steering control and does not include a
prototype of an motorized, off-highway, all-terrain vehicle
or other off-highway, all-terrain vehicle that is intended
exclusively for research and development purposes.
(2) Commission, distribution in commerce, to distribute in
commerce, united states.--The terms ``Commission'',
``distribution in commerce'', ``to distribute in commerce'',
and ``United States'' have the meaning given those terms in
section 3(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
2052(a)).
(c) Violation of CPSA.--Any violation of subsection (a)
shall be considered to be a prohibited act within the meaning
of section 19 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
2068) and shall be subject to the penalties and remedies
available for prohibited acts under the Consumer Product
Safety Act.
(d) Effective Date.--This section shall become effective 90
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 2103

(Purpose: To extend the suspended service ticket honor requirement)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ------. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT FOR AIR CARRIERS TO
HONOR TICKETS FOR SUSPENDED AIR PASSENGER
SERVICE.

Section 145(c) of the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended by striking ``November
19, 2005.'' and inserting ``November 30, 2006.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2119, As Modified

(Purpose: To amend section 40128(e) of title 49, United States Code, to
clarify the Lake Mead exemption to the prohibition of commercial air
tour operations over national parks)

On page 230, after line 22, insert the following:
Sec. 109. Section 40128(e) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes
of this subsection, an air tour operator flying over the
Hoover Dam in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area en route
to the Grand Canyon National Park shall be deemed to be
flying solely as a transportation route.''.
Nothing in this provision shall allow exemption from
overflight rules for the Grand Canyon.

AMENDMENT NO. 2190

(Purpose: To ensure fiscal integrity of the payments made by Federal
agencies and to prohibit the use of funds until the Department of
Housing and Urban Development has reported specific actions taken to
estimate improper payments in the community development block grant
program as required under the Improper Payments Information Act of
2002)

On page 406, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 724. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT RISK
ASSESSMENT.

(a) Estimate.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall estimate improper payments for the
community development block grant program under title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5301 et seq.) pursuant to section 2 of the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-300).
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall report to
Congress on specific actions taken to estimate improper
payments in the community development block grant program to
comply with section 2 of the Improper Payments Information
Act of 2002, including a schedule for full compliance with
such Act within fiscal year 2006.
(c) Failure to Report.--If the Secretary fails to report to
Congress on specific actions taken to estimate improper
payments as required under subsection (b), funds for the

[[Page S11642]]

community development block grant program shall be halted
until such report is submitted.

AMENDMENT NO. 2150

(Purpose: To assist certain flight service station employees of the
Federal Aviation Administration)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __.(a)(1) This section shall apply to an employee of
the Federal Aviation Administration, who--
(A) would be involuntarily separated as a result of the
reorganization of the Flight Services Unit following the
outsourcing of flight service duties to a contractor;
(B) was not eligible by October 3, 2005 for an immediate
annuity under a Federal retirement system; and
(C) assuming continued Federal employment, would attain
eligibility for an immediate annuity under section 8336(d) or
8414(b) of title 5, United States Code, not later than
October 4, 2007.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and
ending October 4, 2007, an employee described under paragraph
(1) may, with the approval of the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration or the designee of the
Administrator, accept an assignment to such contractor within
14 days after the date of enactment of this section.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (c), an employee
appointed under paragraph (1)--
(A) shall be a temporary Federal employee for the duration
of the assignment;
(B) notwithstanding such temporary status, shall retain
previous enrollment or participation in Federal employee
benefits programs under chapters 83, 84, 87, and 89 of title
5, United States Code; and
(C) shall be considered to have not had a break in service
for purposes of chapters 83, 84, and sections 8706(b) and
8905(b) of title 5, United States Code, except no service
credit or benefits shall be extended retroactively.
(4) An assignment and temporary appointment under this
section shall terminate on the earlier of--
(A) October 4, 2007; or
(B) the date on which the employee first becomes
eligibility for an immediate annuity under section 8336(d) or
8414(b) of title 5, United States Code.
(5) Such funds as may be necessary are authorized for the
Federal Aviation Administration to pay the salary and
benefits of an employee assigned under this section, but no
funds are authorized to reimburse the employing contractor
for the salary and benefits of an employee so assigned.
(b) An employee who is being involuntarily separated as a
result of the reorganization of the Flight Services Unit
following the outsourcing of flight service duties to a
contractor, and is eligible to use annual leave under the
conditions of section 6302(g) of title 5, United States Code,
may use such leave to--
(1) qualify for an immediate annuity or to meet the age or
service requirements for an enhanced annuity that the
employee could qualify for under sections 8336, 8412, or
8414; or
(2) to meet the requirements under section 8905(b) of title
5, United States Code, to qualify to continue health benefits
coverage after retirement from service.
(c)(1) Nothing in this section shall--
(A) affect the validity or legality of the reduction-in-
force actions of the Federal Aviation Administration
effective October 3, 2005; or
(B) create any individual rights of actions regarding such
reduction-in-force or any other actions related to or arising
under the competitive sourcing of flight services.
(2) An employee subject to this section shall not be--
(A) covered by chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code,
while on the assignment authorized by this section; or
(B) subject to section 208 of title 18, United States Code.
(3) Temporary employees assigned under this section shall
not be Federal employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title
28, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Federal
Tort Claims Act). Chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the Federal Tort Claims Act) and any
other Federal tort liability statute shall not apply to an
employee who is assigned to a contractor under subsection
(a).

AMENDMENT NO. 2173

(Purpose: To require that purchase card payments to Federal contractors
be subjected to the Federal Payment Levy Program and to require
improved reporting of air travel by Federal Government employees)

On page 406, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 724. PAYMENTS TO FEDERAL CONTRACTORS WITH FEDERAL TAX
DEBT.

The General Services Administration, in conjunction with
the Financial Management Service, shall develop procedures to
subject purchase card payments to Federal contractors to the
Federal Payment Levy Program.

SEC. 520. REPORTING OF AIR TRAVEL BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.

(a) Annual Reports Required.--The Administrator of General
Services shall submit annually to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report on all first class and business
class travel by employees of each agency undertaken at the
expense of the Federal Government.
(b) Contents.--The reports submitted pursuant to subsection
(a) shall include, at a minimum, with respect to each travel
by first class or business class--
(1) the names of each traveler;
(2) the date of travel;
(3) the points of origination and destination;
(4) the cost of the first class or business class travel;
and
(5) the cost difference between such travel and travel by
coach class fare available under contract with the General
Services Administration or, if no contract is available, the
lowest coach class fare available.
(c) Agency Defined.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), in this section, the term ``agency'' has the meaning
given such term in section 5701(1) of title 5, United States
Code.
(2) The term does not include any element of the
intelligence community as set forth in or designated under
section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
401a(4)).

____________________