Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Indian Housing.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

subcommittee on water and power

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs has postponed the oversight hearing scheduled for Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Indian Fianancing Act Amendments of 2005, originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I'm pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron Dorgan, on this bill.

The Indian financing act amendments, amends the Indian finance act of 1974 to clarify that non-profit tribal entities are eligible for the BIA Loan Guaranty program. The amendments also raises the limit on the amount of loans to $1.5 billion from $500 million.

I look forward to working with my respective colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this legislation.

Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is nearly identical to the amendment that was adopted unanimously last week during debate on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. It is another attempt to reign in wasteful spending, particularly during this time when portions of our country along the gulf are enduring the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina--indeed, a national tragedy.

As our Nation continues to manage the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Congress and the administration must do what it can to help the hundreds of thousands of victims of one of the worst natural disasters in our history. And now, another hurricane is gaining momentum which could cause even more serious destruction to the region.

The costs of the recovery and relief effort will be enormous. We have already appropriated more than $62 billion, and that is likely a mere downpayment on the yet to be determined total expenditures that will be required. Indeed, we live in times of great need and limited resources.

Americans are being called to sacrifice, and so many are selflessly contributing what they can to the recovery efforts--they are donating money, opening their homes, or offering other useful assistance. Congress needs to do its part too. To the extent that it is possible, we should pay for this effort now rather than pass on even more debt to future generations. We should also make better use of taxpayers' money by eliminating wasteful spending, and that is what this amendment is about.

This year's Agriculture appropriations bill, and particularly its accompanying report, contain numerous questionable earmarks, the majority of which warrant further review, particularly given the circumstances that have arisen since the bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee in July.

Here are just a few examples: $2,000,000 for the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center; $50,000 earmarked to study the shiitake mushroom; $300,000 for USDA research at the Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory to accurately measure gaseous emissions from agriculture operations; $200,000 for grapefruit juice/drug interaction research in Winterhaven, FL; $140,000 to the University of Nevada Reno to conduct a feasibility study for a cooperative sheep slaughter facility; $1,000,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket pest control in the State of Utah; $24,066,000 above the budget request for boll weevil pest management; $1,150,000 above the budget request for grasshopper pest management; $300,000 for biological weed control in Sidney, MT; $300,000 for the healthy beef initiative, Little Rock, AR; $200,000 to study sudden oak death in Oregon; $600,000 for cranberry production assistance in the States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin; $6,000,000 for the construction of the Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory in Bowling, KY; $1,000,000 for multiflora rose control in the State of West Virginia; $1,500,000 for the construction of the Center for Grape Genomics in Geneva, NY; $100,000 earmarked for animal identification and tracking in the State of Washington; $100,000 for brown tree snake management in Hawaii and Guam; $248,000 to reduce beaver damage to cropland and forests in the State of Wisconsin; and $400,000 earmarked for preventing blackbird damage to sunflowers in North and South Dakota.

Certainly I must not be the only one who questions these kinds of earmarks. We simply cannot afford ``business as usual'' around here.

The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I am proposing would allow for a redirection of the funding for any of the earmarks that have not been authorized, have not been requested by the President, or are not related to the impact of Hurricane Katrina to be used for recovery efforts. This would occur if the agency or Department head determines, after consultation with the appropriate congressional committees--and this would mean authorizers as well as appropriators--that such an earmark is not of national significance or is not in the public interest. Since almost all of these earmarks are in the report language, which is not something I can amend, this amendment at least sends a strong message to the agencies that they will be held accountable for reviewing these directives and ensuring they are only funded if found to be in the public interest.

I hope the amendment can be easily adopted and not take much of the Senate's time, particularly since a similar provision was agreed to last week. In a time of national catastrophe, it is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress to take quick and decisive action to help those in need. It is not appropriate to continue the practice of wastefully earmarking scarce funds in the face of such a great tragedy. This should be a time of sacrifice for the sake of our suffering citizens.

Mr. President, despite high gas prices, despite a swelling $331 billion deficit, despite our military operations overseas, and despite our domestic emergencies, pork continues to thrive in good times and bad. The cumulative effect of these earmarks erodes the integrity of the appropriations process and, by extension, our responsibility to the taxpayer.

I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for agreeing to accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading the amendment in its entirety for the benefit of my colleagues. I thank the chairman for his agreement to accept this amendment on a voice vote, and I thank him for his assistance. I understand it has been agreed to by the Democratic side.

Mr. President, the sense-of-the-Senate amendment is simple, and it is very modest. It is an attempt to rein in wasteful spending, particularly during this time when portions of our country along the Gulf are enduring the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina--indeed a national tragedy. As the Nation continues to manage the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it is imperative that Congress do what it can and what it must to help the hundreds of thousands of victims of one of the worst natural disasters in our history. I think all of us in this body have said that time after time. Congress must do all that is necessary to fund the essential relief and recovery efforts and help those in need.

The cost of the recovery and relief effort is enormous, and will continue to be, and it should go without saying that we live in times of great need and limited resources. In these times, Americans are called to sacrifice, and Congress needs to make sacrifices of its own. To the extent that it is possible, we should pay for this effort now rather than pass on even more debt to future generations.

We should also make better use of taxpayers' money by eliminating our spending on matters of questionable merit or which are nonessential in order to better assist the victims of Katrina. These are times when Members of Congress need to deny themselves a few of the comforts of political office and refrain from directing tax dollars to special projects in their States. These projects might help political campaigns, but they do not necessarily benefit the country as a whole. Regrettably, as far back as I can recall, Congress has found ways to fund thousands of unauthorized projects of questionable merit through appropriations bills. Perhaps some of these dollars would have been better spent on activities that might have limited the impact of this tragedy. We are now hearing information that a great deal of money was spent in Louisiana on projects that were less necessary perhaps--and I emphasize ``perhaps'' because a thorough investigation needs to be completed--that should have been spent on more important protection of levees and other wetlands and other more meritorious projects.

This year's Commerce, State, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill, H.R. 2862, is relatively restrained compared to recent bills that have moved through the Senate.

I congratulate the subcommittee chairman from Alabama and the ranking member.

Still, the legislation contains several examples of the types of provisions that magically appear in too many of the appropriations bills that benefit parochial interests, with little regard to the merits, at the expense of national priorities.

I make this statement and propose this sense-of-the-Senate amendment in the hope that my colleagues appreciate that we are now adding perhaps $100 billion, or even $150 billion, additionally to the deficit, which is already projected to be the third highest in history, some 300-and-some billions of dollars.

For example, H.R. 2862 contains several earmarks that funds initiatives that some, including myself, might

consider to be of less-than-pressing importance. Among them is a $10 million earmark for the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, and a $1.75 million earmark for something called the Hawaii Humpback Education Program.

I have no idea what the Hawaii Humpback Education Program is. I would imagine it has a lot to do with whales.

I don't know what the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board is, except that I know it continues to receive earmark funding in the multimillions of dollars every year, as I examine appropriations bills.

The bill also provided needed funding for grants to the Small Business Administration, and they are needed funds for grants. Unfortunately, this bill recommends that the SBA direct funding to 53 specific programs named in the committee report.

I want to talk about that for a second.

The committee report has no enforcement of law, but the appropriations committees have made it very clear to the various agencies that they do have, in their view, the enforcement of law.

So we have the worst of all worlds here; we have it in a committee report which cannot be removed by amendment, and, yet, at the same time, even though it technically doesn't have the force of law, it is made clear to the agencies that are affected that they will pay a heavy price if they do not carry out the dictates of the committee report.

It is imperative, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, that the SBA grants be awarded on the basis of need and merit and for no other reason.

The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I propose would allow funding for earmarks that have not been authorized, have not been requested by the President or not related to the impact of Hurricane Katrina to be redirected to recovery efforts.

In other words, the $1.75 million earmark for the Hawaii Humpback Education Program would be directed to the recovery and rescue efforts associated with Hurricane Katrina.

This would occur when the Agency or Department head determines, after consultation with the appropriate congressional committees, that such an earmark is not of national significance or is not in the public interest.

Now there will be arguments in consultation with these appropriation committees that they are of national significance or in the public interest. I argue that determination should be made on the basis of the scenario which I described earlier.

I expected this amendment to be easily adopted and not take much of the Senate's time. But after discussion with the appropriators and their staff, I thank the manager and the minority, the Democratic leader and their staff, for modifications to the amendment. I hope this sense-of-the-Senate amendment will be taken seriously.

I could propose the impossible: that no earmarks be permitted in any appropriations bill, period. But I am not proposing the impossible. Or I could propose what is suggested almost daily by the press, that Congress turn in its pork. Many are rightly calling into question the thousands of projects in the highway bill and suggesting the related project funding should more wisely be transferred to recovery efforts. The amendment isn't proposing that, either. But perhaps next time that will be the proposal I offer, particularly given the dire situation in the gulf. We cannot even agree to preclude funding for projects not found to be in the public interest.

I repeat, it is a modest proposal. I hope my colleagues overwhelmingly adopt it for the sake of the tens of thousands of Americans who have lost almost everything and are relying on their Government for necessary support as they struggle for what will be a long and difficult time. I also hope we keep in mind future generations of Americans who will be inheriting this deficit which is now going to be probably one of the largest in history.

I call upon the appropriators and the leadership to pay careful attention to the funding measures yet to be debated and to do their part to ensure that we are living up to our obligations to those who are suffering, even if it means it comes at some of our personal political expense.

In a time of national catastrophe it is the responsibility of the Congress to take quick and decisive action to help those in need. It is not appropriate to continue the practice of earmarking scarce funds in the face of such a tragedy. This should be a time of sacrifice for the sake of our suffering citizens. I repeat, it is a modest proposal.

I found a curious thing happen in the last few days. Newspapers ranging from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Times all editorialized in the same fashion.

I ask unanimous consent New York Times editorial entitled ``Bring Out Your Pork,'' and Washington Times editorial called ``Pork and Hurricane Relief,'' and from the Wall Street Journal entitled ``A `Moronic' Proposal'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is interesting. I don't think in all my years I have seen all three of these different periodicals coming from somewhat different philosophical bases all editorializing in the same fashion. The Wall Street Journal says:

Some public-spirited folks in Bozeman, Montana, have come

up with a wonderful idea to help Uncle Sam offset some of the

$62 billion federal costs of Hurricane Katrina relief. The

Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports that Montanans from both

sides of the political aisle have petitioned the city council

to give the feds back a $4 million earmark to pay for a

parking garage in the just-passed $286 billion highway bill.

As one of these citizens Jane Shaw told us, ``We figure New

Orleans needs the money right now a lot more than we need

extra downtown parking space.''

Which got us thinking: Why not cancel all the special-

project pork in the highway bill and dedicate the $25 billion

in savings to emergency relief on the Gulf Coast? Is it

asking too much for Richmond, Indiana, to give up $3 million

for a hiking trail, or Newark, New Jersey, to put a hold on

its $2 million bike path?

And in the face of the worst natural disaster in U.S.

history, couldn't Alaskans put a hold on the infamous $454

million earmark for the two ``bridges to nowhere'' that will

serve a town of 50 people? That same half a billion could

rebuild thousands of homes for suffering New Orleans

evacuees.

It goes on:

We're hearing all sorts of bad ideas about how to offset

the $62 billion of spending already authorized for Hurricane

Katrina relief. Cancel the Bush tax cuts, raise the gasoline

tax by $1 a gallon, increase deficit spending, and sharply

cut spending on national defense in the war on Iraq. In

Washington, it seems, everything is expendable except for the

slabs of bacon that are carved out of the federal fist to

ensure re-election.

The glory of what is happening in Bozeman is that taxpayers

are proving to be wiser about priorities than their

politicians. We like the suggestion by Ronald Utt of the

Foundation Heritage that, when the new levee is built to

protect the Big Easy from future storms, it should bear a

bronze plaque stamped: ``Proudly Brought to You by the

Citizens of Alaska.''

In the Washington Times, today:

Congress appropriated $51.8 billion in emergency-relief

money for Hurricane Katrina's victims, and suspended the

normal rules and procedures so the bill would not get

entangled in special interests or endless debate. That made

sense; lives were at stake and the money was needed at once.

But Congress can listen now to those who want to cut

discretionary spending so money can be spent for

reconstruction in the Gulf states. Congress could erase half

that total with the transportation bill earmarks.

The New York Times says:

Fair warning to the suffering Gulf Coast masses: Congress

is already talking of concocting ``economic stimulus'' and

``job creation'' packages as hurricane recovery tools. That

sounds useful, but unfortunately those terms usually signal

that the House and Senate are about to use the crisis of the

moment to roll out wasteful tax cuts for well-off and pork

barrel outlays for the hometown voters. Hurricane Katrina

cries out to Congress for something other than business as

usual.

Imagine what would happen if each member of Congress

announced he or she would give up a prize slab of bacon so

the government would be able to use the money to shelter

hurricane victims and rebuild New Orleans? The public would--

for once--have proof that politicians are capable of setting

priorities and showing respect for the concept of a budget.

It's time to put New Orleans first.

As I said, this is a very modest proposal. I hope we can, as we go through our appropriations bills--and there are numerous bills coming up, including an additional relief package for New Orleans--that we will be able to exercise fiscal restraint. If we would leave the earmarks out of the report language and out of the bills, then this sense-of-the-Senate amendment would be irrelevant.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have watched the news coverage, along with so many Americans, during these past 2 weeks and have been shocked and saddened by the devastation in the gulf coast region. It continues to amaze me that an act of nature can bring about such destruction and ruin the lives of so many.

My deepest sympathies and prayers go out to the residents of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and I know that as a country we will come together, as we are, to assist these residents and help them rebuild their lives. In my home State of Arizona, I am proud to report that valley residents have welcomed over 1,000 residents of New Orleans.

This was a tragedy of great proportions that caught local, State, and Federal officials unprepared. Like many Americans, I, too, have been concerned about the local, State, and Federal initial response to this disaster. It was unacceptable and inadequate. I know there will be an appropriate time for a comprehensive review of the local, State, and Federal response efforts to determine what went wrong and what went right. The oversight investigations being held by Senators Collins and Lieberman are a very important undertaking. I believe Congress and the Nation have a lot to learn from Hurricane Katrina.

One thing already evident is that the country's local, State, and Federal first responders remain unable to communicate with each other during an emergency response. We saw the horrors brought on by the lack of communication on 9/11 when New York's fire, police, and port authority officers were unable to talk with one another when responding to the collapse of the Twin Towers. I have now been told that the first responders in Louisiana experienced similar problems because New Orleans and the three nearby parishes all use different radio equipment and frequencies. In addition, Federal officials use entirely different communications systems than localities, which hindered relief efforts.

I read that New Orleans officials had purchased equipment that would allow some patching between local and Federal radio systems, but that the equipment was rendered useless by flooding. Nonetheless, short-term solutions to link incompatible systems are not the right approach to this critical problem. The better approach is for this Nation to get serious about public safety communications by developing and funding an interoperable communications system for all local, State, and Federal first responders.

The Federal Government needs to, one, develop a comprehensive interoperable communications plan and set equipment standards; two, fund the purchase of interoperable communications equipment; and three, provide public safety with additional spectrum so first responders can communicate using the same radio frequencies and equipment in the event of an emergency.

Congress has taken some steps toward achieving an interoperable communications system for local, State, and Federal first responders. Last year, I offered an amendment that was enacted as part of the intelligence reform bill that authorized the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Interoperability and Compatibility, otherwise known as SAFECOM. SAFECOM assists local, regional, State, and Federal agencies in developing interoperable communications plans and accelerating interoperable communications equipment standards. They are in the process of doing so, and I urge them to move forward expeditiously.

Congress has also begun to fund the purchase of interoperable communications equipment for localities. Some 50,000 local, State, and Federal agencies make independent decisions about communications systems and use various frequencies. This is unacceptable and a waste of Government resources. The Department of Homeland Security has already spent over $280 million for the purchase of interoperable communications equipment. The Senate-passed Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill would provide over $2.6 billion for localities to purchase interoperable communications equipment. This bill is currently in conference with the House.

Obviously, interoperability will come with a cost. Some estimate as much as $15 billion. But even this may be a small price to pay in order to save thousands of lives in the event of another disaster.

Let's remember that Congress also provided additional spectrum for first responders in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. So after spending millions of dollars in funding in additional spectrum for our Nation's first responders, why are we not better off than we were on 9/ 11 when it comes to interoperable communications? Because the spectrum Congress provided to first responders in 1996 is being held hostage by television broadcasters, even though broadcasters have now been given new spectrum.

It was almost 20 years ago that broadcasters began their journey toward becoming spectrum squatters. In 1987, broadcasters first asked the FCC to look into the potential of digital television technology and whether additional spectrum would be necessary. Upon the broadcasters' request, Congress provided new spectrum in 1996 to the broadcasters for free. I have often referred to this as the great $70 billion taxpayer giveaway. In return, broadcasters promised to give back their current spectrum by December 31, 2006, and make it available to first responders for interoperable communications.

But before the ink was dry on the Telecommunications Act of 1996, broadcasters persuaded certain Members of Congress to include an exception to the December 31, 2006, date in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Last year, during a Commerce Committee hearing, then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell testified that this exception could result in the first responders not receiving this spectrum for ``decades or multiple decades.'' As evidenced by the tragedies from Hurricane Katrina, we cannot wait decades. Broadcasters are blocking access to spectrum for first responders who serve over 50 percent of the country.

Providing first responders access to this spectrum is one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission

and remains a top priority for Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton. I introduced legislation last year to implement this recommendation, and it was voted out of the Commerce Committee. I then added the provisions, an amendment to the intelligence reform bill last fall, to provide this spectrum to first responders. Unfortunately, this language was removed in conference and replaced with a ``sense of Congress'' that such legislation be voted on during the first session of the 109th Congress.

Senator Lieberman and I reintroduced our legislation to provide spectrum to first responders. Yet Congress has yet to act this year as envisioned by the sense of Congress. S. 1268, the Spectrum Availability for Emergency Response and Law Enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services Act, otherwise known as the SAVE LIVES Act, would provide first responders with the spectrum by January 1, 2009. Upon introduction, I suggested this date is a compromise between public safety organizations, equipment manufacturers, localities, and broadcasters. However, after watching citizens suffer during recovery efforts in New Orleans, I believe this date should be moved up to January 1, 2007, as originally contemplated by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Yet here we are 9 months into the first session with another horrible disaster having taken place, and Congress has yet to take up the SAVE LIVES Act or any other legislation providing first responders their promised spectrum.

To what level of crisis must this country endure before we act? Is the devastation from Hurricane Katrina still not enough to bring action? Chairman Stevens has stated his intention to include such legislation in the Commerce Committee's response to budget reconciliation. I will be watching to see if the broadcasters find a way to once again delay the hand off of this spectrum to first responders. I will do all I can to move our legislation.

In 1997, the President of the National Association of Broadcasters stated on ``The News Hour with Jim Lehrer'' that broadcasters' use of spectrum allocated to first responders was merely a ``loan to facilitate an orderly transition.'' Mr. Fritts, this ``loan'' has gone on long enough. Congress must now call in your ``loan.'' You got your spectrum, now give the first responders their spectrum.

I will conclude by sharing 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean's comments as stated on CNN's Late Edition this past Sunday:

[w]hat's frustrating is it's the same thing over again. I

mean, how many people have to lose their lives? It's lack of

communication, our first responders not being able to talk to

each other. . . . Basically it's many of the things that,

frankly, if some of our recommendations had been passed by

the United States Congress . . . could have been avoided. But

on the ground, the people that get there first can't talk to

each other because the radio communications don't work. They

haven't got enough what's called spectrum. So there is a bill

in Congress to provide first responders spectrum. The bill

has been sitting in Congress, nothing has been happening, and

again, people on the ground--police, fire, medical

personnel--couldn't talk to each other. That's outrageous and

it's a scandal and I think it cost lives.

I couldn't agree more.

I want to end by thanking all of the first responders who are assisting in rescue efforts in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. They are heroes and make me proud to be an American. For over 2 weeks now, they have slept very little and eaten very little, but done so much for a region in need. In appreciation, we owe them better communications systems so that when they are called upon to assist in the next disaster, they have the tools necessary to protect themselves and those they are working to protect.

Mr. President, at times we come to the floor of the Senate not to debate policy but to mark the death of fellow Americans. I am deeply saddened to note that this is one such occasion.

By some estimates, Hurricane Katrina has taken what may be thousands of lives throughout the southeastern United States. The storm not only ended lives but it also displaced hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. They have now been scattered throughout the Nation, hoping to one day return to the homes and lives they were forced to leave behind. Our work to help the victims of this national

tragedy has just begun, and Congress must do all that is necessary to fund essential relief and recovery efforts and help those in need.

Mr. President, while the Nation's attention is rightly focused on the ongoing tragedy in the South, I would also like to say a few words about the passing of a great American. After a long and extraordinary life, William Rehnquist died this past weekend. The 16th Chief Justice of the United States leaves us with an unmatched legacy of service to our Nation.

Born 80 years ago in Milwaukee, WI, William Rehnquist lived a truly remarkable life. Like many in his generation, he served in World War II and was stationed in North Africa. With the support of scholarship money from the G.I. Bill, Justice Rehnquist attended college at Stanford University. He then went on to earn his law degree from Stanford Law School. At law school, the Chief Justice began to establish his reputation as a brilliant legal thinker and an able scholar. He graduated at the top of his class, just ahead of Sandra Day O'Connor.

After clerking for Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Rehnquist married his late wife Natalie Cornell and moved to Phoenix, AZ. There, Justice Rehnquist and Nan raised their three children--James, Janet, and Nancy--while he built a long career as one of Arizona's leading attorneys.

In 1969, Chief Justice Rehnquist became a public servant as an assistant U.S. attorney general. Two years later, he was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court. After being confirmed by the Senate, he took his seat as an Associate Justice of the Court--at 47, he was the Court's youngest member. In 1986, President Reagan nominated and the Senate confirmed Justice Rehnquist as the Chief Justice of the United States.

During his 33 years on the Court, Justice Rehnquist gained respect for his sharp intellect, his strong sense of fairness, and his profound devotion to the Court and to public service.

The Chief Justice's extraordinary legal career was surpassed only by the courage that he showed in his final year of life. During that time, he battled bravely against thyroid cancer. Through radiation and chemotherapy treatments, he continued to serve on the Court and stated that he would continue to perform his duties as Chief Justice as long as his health permitted. He did just that, with the dignity and dedication that characterized his tenure on the Court.

William Rehnquist truly was first among equals. May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, I am afraid that the heralded passage of this energy bill against years of failure by the Congress to legislate a comprehensive energy policy has created a false sense of accomplishment in Washington today. As my colleagues are well aware, oil prices are hovering near the infamous $60 per barrel mark; the greenhouse effect is beginning to have a substantial measurable impact on the global climate; and American families are being gouged at the pump while their tax dollars are carelessly spent on Federal subsides for big oil and gas companies. As leaders, we cannot claim that we have successfully addressed these real-life challenges by enacting this latest incarnation of special interest influence in policymaking.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Senate conferees for keeping out a few of the most objectionable provisions that prevented passage of the bill during the last Congress, particularly the MTBE liability waiver and the proposed drilling in ANWR. They took the right action in preventing the inclusion of those provisions. Unfortunately, after all the time and effort spent on this issue during the past several years, when it comes to solving America's pressing energy problems, this bill simply does not go far enough. It will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it won't assure the growing threat of global warming is addressed in a meaningful way, and it wont effectively reduce the price of gasoline at the pump.

The estimated cost of this energy bill has ballooned far beyond the original $6.7 billion in the President's proposal. The conference agreement provides an estimated $14.5 billion in corporate subsidies and tax credits. And the tax package provides more than twice as many incentives to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries as it does to energy efficiency and renewable energy--a significant change from the Senate-passed bill.

Indeed, big oil, coal and gas companies seem to be disproportionally favored under this bill as most of the tax breaks going to traditional industries. Only about 36 percent of the estimated tax package would go to renewable energy and cleaner burning vehicles. Even then, some of the programs to promote renewable energy and alternative fuels are questionable. A loan guarantee program that would cover up to 80 percent of the cost of developing new energy technologies was scored at $3.75 billion for the first 5 years. These

loans carry a 20- to 60-percent risk of default according to the CBO, and after the 5 years there are no limits on the amount of loans that can be guaranteed, thus leaving the taxpayer to cover the losses when such endeavors fail. Perhaps more alarming, the estimated costs of the bill are estimates at best, and don't take into account some of the hidden costs associated with program authorizations and future tax credit extensions.

And then there is the ambiguous realm of alternative fuels for vehicles. Rather than addressing the gas mileage interests of consumers, this energy conference report would boost ethanol production by requiring 7.5 billion gallons of the corn-derived fuel be added to the domestic gasoline supply by 2012. This is double the current ethanol mandate and while it will be a boon for the ethanol producers, it will have a negligible effect on oil imports. While I fully recognize and support efforts to promote clean energy sources, the costs also need to be weighed against any presumed benefits. And at this juncture, the beneficiaries are still the producers, not the consumers and not the environment.

Let me mention some of the more ``interesting'' provisions in the conference report:

Section 134. Energy Efficiency Public Information Initiative. Authorizes a total of $400 million, $90 million for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, for the Secretary of Energy to carry out a national consumer information program to encourage energy efficiency through disseminating information to the American public addressing, among other things, the importance of proper tire maintenance. I am fully aware that it is important to rotate your tires, and to take other actions to preserve energy, but do we really need to spend almost half a billion on such a campaign?

Section 138. Intermittent Escalator Study. Requires the GSA to study the advantages and disadvantages of employing intermittent escalators in the United States. I can't imagine many of my colleagues would support removing ``Senators Only'' features in the Capitol Complex and be content to wait for an elevator to intermittently show up, but maybe the rest of the American public is more patient.

Section 207. Installation of Photovoltaic System. Authorizes $20 million for the GSA to install a photovoltaic system, as set forth in the Sun Wall Design Project, for the Department of Energy headquarters building. Of all the sunny places in this country where solar power is viable, the Energy Department Building in DC would not be the first place that comes to mind.

Section 208. Sugar Cane Ethanol Program. Establishes a new $36 million program under EPA that is limited to sugar producers in the States of Florida, Louisiana, Texans and Hawaii for 3 years.

Section 224. Royalties and Near-Term Production Incentives. Under this section, all monies received by the U.S. on all lands except for the State of Alaska, from sales, bonuses, rentals and royalties on leased Federal lands or geothermal resources shall be paid into the Treasury of the U.S. and a percentage of such funding is then partially redistributed to the State within the boundaries of which the revenues were generated. But in the case of Alaska, seems that they will get to keep all of the monies generated.

Section 237. Intermountain West Geothermal Consortium. Establishes an Intermountain West Geothermal Consortium that focuses on building collaborative efforts among universities in the State of Idaho, other regional universities, State agencies and the Idaho National Laboratory, must be hosted and managed by Boise State University, and have a directed appointed by the Boise State University. Why do we need a federal law to promote collaboration at Boise State?

Section 244. Alaska State Jurisdiction Over Small Hydroelectric Projects. Amends the Federal Power Act with respect to certain authorities for the State of Alaska, allowing the State to completely ignore any recommendations received from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State fish and wildlife agencies concerning conditions for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife in constructing small hydroelectric projects.

Section 245. Flint Creek Hydroelectric Project, located in Granite and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana. The bill basically extends the project's permit for an additional 3 years. And, notwithstanding other laws and regulations regarding payment to the U.S. for the use of Federal lands, such payments surrounding this project would be specified in the bill. I can only assume this payment is less than what would otherwise be required.

Section 354. Enhanced Oil and Natural Gas Production Through Carbon Dioxide Injection. Establishes a $3 million demonstration program solely for 10 projects in the Willistin Basin in North Dakota and Montana and 1 project in the Cook Inlet Basin in Alaska.

Section 356. Denali Commission. Authorizes $55 million annually for fiscal years 2006-2015 for a seven-member commission created in 1998 comprised entirely of Alaska interests to support Alaska interests. This funding would be used to carry out energy programs.

Section 365. Pilot Project to Improve Federal Permit Coordination. Establishes a pilot that only the States of Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico can participate in.

Section 412. Loan to Place Alaska Clean Coal Technology Facility in Service. This section authorizes a direct Federal loan for up to $80 million for a plant near Healy, Alaska. One of the few protections under this section for the American taxpayer is extremely lax. It states that prior to providing the loan, the Secretary determine that ``there is a reasonable prospect that the borrower will repay the principal and interest on the loan.'' That sure doesn't sound like the type of stringent criteria and risk assessment that would be weighed by many lending institutions that I am aware of. And why does this particular facility merit a Federal loan over other clean energy technologies?

Section 416. Electron Scrubbing Demonstration. Directs the Secretary to use $5 million to initiate, through the Chicago operations office, a project to demonstrate the viability of high-energy electron scrubbing technology on commercial-scale electrical generation using high-sulfur coal.

Section 628. Decommissioning Pilot Program. This section authorizes $16 million for a pilot program to commission and decontaminate the sodium cooled fast breeder experimental test site reactor located in northwest Arkansas.

Section 755. Conserve by Bicycling Program. Provides $6.2 million to establish a pilot program to be known as the ``Conserve by Bicycling Program'' and study the feasibility of converting motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips, including whether such factors make bicycle riding feasible: weather, land use and traffic patterns, the carrying capacity of bicycles and bicycle infrastructure. I find it difficult to support spending $6.2 million to encourage Americans to ride bicycles when we are running a deficit of $368 billion this year and a 10-year projected deficit of $1.35 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Section 756. Reduction of Engine Idling. Authorizes $139.5 million to study the environmental impact of engine idling from heavy-duty vehicles and locomotives at truck stops, ports of entry, rest areas and private terminals. Is there any doubt that engine idling may be contributing to air quality problems? Do we need to expend almost $140 million on such a study? It might be cheaper to pay the truckers and engineers to shut off their engines.

Section 955. Department of Energy Civilian Nuclear Infrastructure and Facilities. Requires the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan for facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory to avoid duplicative efforts at other national laboratories and establish or consider plans to establish or convert various areas into user facilities.

Section 980. Spallation Neutron Source. Requires the Secretary develop an operational plan for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN, to ensure the facility is employed to its full capability. It further authorizes the Spallation Neutron Source Project at Oak Ridge at $1,411,700,000 for total project costs.

Section 997. Arctic Engineering Research Center. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to provide annual grants, worth $18 million total, to ``a

university research center to be headquartered in Fairbanks''--that must be the University of Alaska-Fairbanks according to its Web site-- to establish and operate a university research center to research improved performance of roads, bridges, residential, commercial, and industrial structures in the Arctic region.

Section 1511. Renewable Fuel. The section authorizes a total of $12 milliom--$4 million for 3 years--for a resource center to further develop bioconversion technology at the Center for Biomass-Based Energy at the Mississippi State University and the Oklahoma State University.

Section 1811. Coal Bed Methane Study. Directs the DOE and EPA to collaborate with the NAS on a study on the effect of coalbed natural gas production on surface and ground water aquifers in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah.

Now that we know a little about some of the provisions contained in the conference agreement, let's talk about one very important issue that is not addressed--an issue of worldwide significance: global warming.

Earlier this month, the leaders of the G8 nations met and issued an agreement with respect to climate change. The agreement among the G8 nation states that: ``We will act with resolve and urgency now to meet our shared and multiple objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions [.]''

This agreement followed the joint statement that was issued in June in which the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and national academies from other G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, China, and India, which concluded that: ``The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.''

It is very disappointing that the climate change provisions in the conference report fail to address the necessary commitment for taking urgent actions and making substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The conference report requires the Department of Energy to develop greenhouse gas intensity technologies and strategies. Such requirements are a waste of time and effort as we already know that using the greenhouse gas intensity does not work. How do we know it doesn't work? We know because the Department of Energy has shown us and because climate change science tells us that the climate system does not respond to greenhouse gas intensity, but rather to greenhouse gas concentration levels in the atmosphere.

Recently, the Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy released a statement indicating that preliminary data for the year 2004 revealed that energy-related carbon emission intensity fell by 2.6 percent, while energy-related carbon dioxide emissions grew by 1.7 percent. This is an early reality check for those who argue that we can control greenhouse gas emissions by only controlling carbon emission intensity.

Again this clearly shows how our efforts to address climate change are misfocused and without substance. If we continue down this path, the $5 billion per year that we are currently investing in the climate change science and technology programs will not provide the return on investments that the American people deserve.

Furthermore, if you look at any credible scientific report on climate change, it speaks of the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate system, not the impact of greenhouse gas intensity. In all the hearings that we have held in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee over the past few years, I don't recall a single scientist indicating that if we control our greenhouse gas intensity, then we can mitigate the impacts of climate change.

If we are to address climate change consistent with the sense-of-the- Senate resolution passed by this body just over a month ago, then we must pursue solutions that will truly have an impact on the climate system, not those that are no more than ``smoke and mirrors.'' Of course, the conferees failed to agree to even include the modest resolution in the final conference agreement.

If it weren't for the pressing need to show the American public that we are acting in at least some way to address our Nation's energy problems--action that every person is reminded of every time they pay yet a higher price at the pump--I doubt many of my colleagues would be so rushed to pass this bill. Quite frankly, it seems as though the Congress is grasping at straws to address our energy quandary, unwilling or unable to use the foresight necessary to plan for a future America that is less reliant on foreign oil, cleaner under renewable energy generation, or leading in cutting-edge energy efficiency technology. And in our failure, the American people will be disappointed.

Mr. President, the Interior appropriations conference report before us today is a very important piece of legislation. This conference report contains over $26.2 billion to fund the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Indian Health Service, among many others. This represents an increase of approximately $500 million over the administration's budget request. While I appreciate the importance of funding the programs in this legislation, I am disappointed that we have once again exceeded the requested level of spending.

One bright note of this bill is the correction of the funding shortfall for the Department of Veterans Affairs' health care programs that was only recently brought to the attention of Congress. I am pleased that we have all acted quickly to provide an additional $1.5 billion in emergency funding for the VA.

This bill contains several accounts which are designated as ``Congressional Priorities.'' I fully recognize that Congress has a responsibility to fund important projects, but we need to follow the proper process in doing so. To put it simply, if there is a congressional priority that is not included in the administration's request, we should get it authorized through the appropriate committee and then set aside the necessary funds.

It has become standard practice around here to forgo the authorizing process and simply do everything on appropriations. That is wrong and it needs to stop. Congressional priorities should be subjected to the scrutiny of public hearings and debate--they should not be held up as some type of sacred cows that are not to be questioned. We can no longer afford to fund every pet project simply because a Member of Congress considers it to be imperative.

Let me highlight a few of the projects that are contained in this bill: $1.2 million for eider and sea otter recovery at the Alaska Sea Life Center; $200,000 for landscaping at the Gettysburg Military Park in Pennsylvania; $200,000 for the George Washington Memorial Parkway right here in the Washington, DC, area; $450,000 for the Automobile National Heritage area in Detroit, MI; $150,000 for the Actors Theatre in Kentucky; $150,000 for the Black Horse Tavern in Pennsylvania; over $6 million to rehabilitate bathhouses at the Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas; $2.5 million for the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Commission; $11.1 million for the Old Faithful Inn at Yellowstone National Park; $5.3 million for Sleeping Bear Dunes in Michigan; $200,000 for a diamondback terrapin study. That's one expensive turtle; $400,000 to survey and monitor the ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas; $150,000 for the Alaska Whaling Commission; $98,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission; $200,000 for maple research in Vermont; $1.8 million for restoration of the Long Island Sound; $4 million for water system technology in Kentucky, New Hampshire, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Illinois, and Mississippi. Interesting--what is it that all of these States have in common? The answer is that they are all represented by a member of the Appropriations Committee; $350,000 for a tree planting program in Milwaukee, WI; $500,000 for the Hinkle Creek watershed study in Oregon; $500,000 for a

hardwood scanning center at Purdue University in Indiana; and $400,000 for a wood technology center in Ketchikan, AK.

Another troubling aspect of the appropriations process is the way in which we have become complacent with the routine violations of the rules of both the Senate and the House that occur on these bills. The rules of both bodies clearly state that it is not in order to legislate on an appropriations bill. Senate rule XVI states, ``The Committee on Appropriations shall not report an appropriation bill containing amendments to such bill proposing new or general legislation . . .'' And House rule XXI states, ``A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill.'' Sadly, these directives are routinely ignored in this process by the inclusion of legislative language and policy changes on appropriations bills.

Let me point out just a few examples of these violations that are contained in this conference report: Language prohibiting the closure of the underground lunchroom at Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico. Language prohibiting the demolition of a bridge between New Jersey and Ellis Island. Language authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands for the operation of Ellis, Governors, and Liberty Islands. Language prohibiting the demolition of structures on the Zephyr Shoals property in Lake Tahoe, NV.

So as not to be viewed as unappreciative, I would like to comment on one aspect of this measure with which I was pleased. In this bill, there is over $3.2 billion for the State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program. These funds are earmarked for 257 various projects around the country. Last year, this same account contained 667 earmarks. I have long been critical of the number of earmarks contained in this section, and I commend the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for their restraint in this area.

I am, however, still concerned with the number of earmarks contained in this and many of the other annual appropriations bills. Mr. President, the process of earmarking funds in appropriations bills has simply lurched out of control. According to a report issued by the Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 1994 there were 4,126 earmarks in the then 13 annual appropriations bills. That number grew to 14,040 earmarks in fiscal year 2004. That is an increase of 240 percent in just 10 years.

It is clear that, with our ever-growing mandatory entitlement spending coupled with our shrinking discretionary accounts, we are on the road to fiscal disaster. At a conference in February 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this:

If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for

deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term

budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do

nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more

than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half

times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both

unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the

longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and

the less transition time we will have.

Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans?

Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that:

(T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one

certainty is that the resolution of this situation will

require difficult choices and that the future performance of

the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be

easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources

or raising financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to

determine how best to address the competing claims.

It falls on the Congress, my friends. The head of the Government's chief watch-dog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real trouble.

The time has come to stop the practice of earmarking unauthorized funds and let the cabinet officials responsible for the various agencies of our government determine where and how our dwindling discretionary funds are to be spent. If we in the Congress are not willing to do our jobs and authorize our spending priorities, we should at least be willing to trust the President's Cabinet, who we voted to confirm to their positions, to do their jobs and appropriately fund their respective agencies' needs without our interference.

Mr. President, this is a remarkable piece of work. I want to assure my colleagues that I will not take a half hour, but I will take a few minutes to talk about some of the interesting and egregious and remarkable aspects of this bill.

There is an old saying about evil, and that is, if you do not check it or reverse it, then it just continues to get worse. I have to say, I haven't seen anything quite like this, although I have seen some pretty bad things in the years that I have been here.

It is $286.4 billion, terrifying in its fiscal consequences and disappointing for the lack of fiscal discipline it represents. I wonder what it is going to take to make the case for fiscal sanity here. If you had asked me years ago, I would have said that the combination of war, record deficits, and the largest public debt in the country's history would constitute a sufficient perfect storm to break us out of this spending addiction--and I would have been wrong. I think we can weather almost any storm thrown at us. This week's expenditures, I think, are a pretty good example.

I mentioned before, we are all the beneficiaries of the foresight of President Eisenhower and the Congress that helped to shepherd the original highway bill legislation. I have carried it to the floor before. It is about that thick. It has two demonstration projects in it.

This is just a small example of some of the provisions in this bill, which are unnumbered pages. The conferees didn't even have time to number the pages. I have no idea how many billions are in here. Some, I am sure, are very good projects. Many of them are interesting. Some of them are entertaining. Just glance right here: Parking facility in Peoria, IL, $800,000. A parking facility in a highway bill.

The original bill as proposed by President Eisenhower and adopted by the Congress had two demonstration projects. Now we have a lot. No one has counted them yet. No one has counted these projects because we have not, of course, had time because they have been stuffed in late, in the middle of the night.

Not surprisingly, my colleagues have come to me and begged: Please make this short; I have a plane to catch. Please don't take too long; I have a plane to catch. I have to get out of here.

Of course, it is just a coincidence that we happen to be considering this legislation just before we leave.

How do we celebrate? Let me count the ways.

Section 1963, Apollo theater leases. The section would

require the Economic Development Administration to lease and

improve the Apollo Theater, in Harlem, New York.

The Apollo Theater in Harlem, NY.

Midway Airport, directs the Coast Guard, in consultation

with the Department of Transportation, to make grants or

other funding to provide for the operation of Midway Airport.

This is not an airport bill; this is a highway bill.

Expands the authority of the State of Oklahoma in

environmental matters to extend over ``Indian country''

within that State.

Let me say that again.

Expands the authority of the State of Oklahoma in

environmental matters to extend over ``Indian country''

within that State.

I don't know what that costs. But what in the world is it doing on a highway bill?

Requires for Treatment as a State under EPA regulations, an

Indian Tribe in Oklahoma, and the State of Oklahoma, must

enter a cooperative agreement to jointly plan and administer

program requirements.

What is that all about? No one has ever brought it to my attention as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. I admit it is a long- neglected committee--at least until recently.

Eligibility to Participate in Western Alaska Community

Development Quota Program. Designates a community to be

eligible to participate in the Western Alaska Community

Development Program established under the Magnuson-Stevens

Act.

It may be worthwhile. I have no clue. What in the world does it have to do with a highway bill?

This is one of the most remarkable I have ever seen. I have been talking about these for years and years, but this is truly remarkable. This is a ``technical adjustment.''

This section would overturn a decision by the 9th Circuit

Court of Appeals.

It overturns a court decision in a highway bill, and legislates a settlement between the parties that would authorize $4 million to be provided, tax free, to the Alaska Native fund. That $4 million is going to be spent to be provided tax free to the Alaska Native fund, in a highway bill.

This section was not in either the Senate-passed or the House-passed bill. Neither one. So right there it is in violation of the rules of the Senate and the Congress. It wasn't in either bill.

This ``technical adjustment'' is neither technical nor an adjustment, but it is a bailout for Hawaii and a blatant giveaway to the Alaska Native population. In 2000, the General Services Administration donated to Tanadgusix Corporation, called TDX, which is an Alaska Native corporation, a World War II decommissioned dry dock under the condition that it be transported from its holding area in Hawaii and placed in Alaska.

The TDX agreed to this condition. However, after receiving title, TDX began operating the dry dock in Hawaii. GSA attempted to enforce the contract. TDX sued the Government. A Federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had both ordered TDX to tow the dry dock to Alaska. Additionally, the Department of Justice has filed a false claim suit against TDX for its illegal use of the dry dock.

None of this seems to matter to the conferees who require the dry dock to be sold, so long as the buyer agrees to operate the dry dock outside the United States to protect the ports in Hawaii and Alaska from competition.

The conferees also require the Government to compensate TDX with $4 million tax free.

Why? Again, what in the world does this have to do with highways? And why should we be bailing out corporations and overturning court decisions? It is only $4 million. We are talking about $280-some billion. But this is a bailout for Hawaii and a tax-free gift to Alaska.

Conferees also have tax cuts. Do you know in this bill we have tax cuts, repeal of special occupational taxes on producers and marketers of alcoholic beverages? We don't want people to drink and drive on highways, so I guess there is some connection to the highway bill, repeal their alcohol taxes.

There are income tax credits for distilled spirits wholesalers. Income tax credits for distilled spirits wholesalers in a highway bill.

Caps on excise tax on certain fishing equipment. I guess you have to drive on a highway to go fishing. Maybe that is it.

There are tax breaks for luxury transportation. We don't want to leave our big donors out of this bill. Tax breaks for luxury transportation, exemption from taxes on transportation provided by seaplanes and certain sightseeing flights. I guess you could land a seaplane on a highway--although that is hard, as an old pilot, I have to say. Exemption on taxes on transportation provided by seaplanes and certain sightseeing flights.

I might add to my colleagues, we have had a couple of hours to examine a 2,000-page bill.

Section 1114, Highway Bridge Program. The section contains

bridge construction or improvement projects totaling $100

million for the fiscal year.

We are getting up there a little bit now.

These include $12,500,000 per fiscal year for the Golden

Gate Bridge, $18,750,000 per fiscal year for the construction

of a bridge joining the island of Gravina to the community of

Ketchikan in Alaska.

Let me tell you that once again: $18,750,000 per fiscal year. We figure it is about $80 million. It could be a lot more than that. Guess how many people live on the Gravina Island? Fifty; five-zero. I don't know what that works out to per capita, but it is about a million- something per person at least.

. . . and $12,500,000 per fiscal year for the State of

Missouri for construction of a structure over the Mississippi

River to connect the City of St. Louis, MO, to the State of

Illinois.

National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program.

Directs the Department of Transportation to establish and

implement a program for highway construction in corridors of

National significance to promote economic growth and

international or interregional trade pursuant to criteria in

the section.

It lists 33 earmarks for 24 States totaling $1.95 billion--B--billion dollars.

Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Program.

It is always interesting when you see the words ``pilot program.''

Directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a

freight intermodal distribution pilot grant program

authorized for a total of $24 million. A portion of the

funding must be used for the following projects:

Short-haul intermodal projects, Oregon $5 million; the

Georgia Port Authority, $5 million; the ports of Los Angeles

and Long Beach, California, $5 million.

Ports--ports, my friends, not highways, ports.

Fairbanks, Alaska [of course] $5 million.

Just throw that in.

Charlotte Douglas International Airport Freight Intermodal

Facility, North Carolina, $5 million.

South Piedmont Freight Intermodal Center, North Carolina,

$5 million.

Development of Magnetic Levitation Transportation Systems.

Authorizes a total of $40 million for MAGLEV deployment and

earmarks 50 percent of the funding made available each year

for a MAGLEV project between Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada, and

50 percent for a project east of the Mississippi River.

So we are going to have $40 million for MAGLEV deployment and half of it goes to Nevada and half of it goes for a project east of the Mississippi River.

``Project Authorizations,'' this section would fund 5,173 projects, totaling $14.8 billion.

Here is my favorite so far: $2,320,000 to add landscaping enhancements along--get this--the Ronald Reagan Freeway. I wonder what Ronald Reagan would say: $2,320,000.

In my youth, I have watched Ronald Reagan deride this kind of activity on the part of Congress. He used to get a pretty good response.

$480,000 to rehabilitate a historic warehouse on the Erie

Canal in the town of Lyons, New York.

A historic warehouse. I hope we all have a chance to visit it sometime.

$600,000 for High Knob Horse Trails, construction of horse

riding trails and associated facilities in High Knob area of

the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia;

$2,560,000 for the Daniel Boone Wilderness Trail in

Virginia. These funds would be used for acquiring the site;

designing and constructing an interpretive center, and for

the enhancement of the trail corridor;

$120,000 for the Town of St. Paul--restoration of Hillman

House to serve as a trail information center;

$400,00 to rehabilitate and redesign Erie Canal Museum in

Syracuse, New York;

$2,400,000 for the National Infantry Museum Transportation

Network in Georgia;

$960,000 for transportation enhancements to the Children's

Museum of Los Angeles;

$1,200,000 for the Rocky Knob Heritage Center in Virginia;

$1,600,000 for the Blue Ridge Music Center in Connecticut.

So we can listen to music as we are traveling on the highways.

$200,000 for the deer avoidance system to deter deer from

milepost markers in Pennsylvania and New York;

$1,280,000 for the Cultural and Interpretive Center in

Richland, WA;

$1,200,000 for the planning and engineering of the American

Road, the Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn, MI;

$1 million for the Oswego, NY pedestrian waterfront

walkway;

$400,000 for the Uptown Jogging, Bicycle, Trolley Trail in

Columbus, GA;

$2 million for Ketchikan, AK, to improve marine drydock

facilities;

$3 million for dust control mitigation on rural roads in

Arkansas.

Dust control mitigation on rural roads. Good luck. And

$850,000 for the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor

Center in Louisiana;

$5 million for the Grant Tower reconfiguration in Salt Lake

City, UT.

I guess we don't know what the problem with the present configuration of the Grant Tower is in Salt Lake City.

Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities, which would set aside $20 million for the construction or refurbishment of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities and, guess what, of this amount $10 million would be earmarked for, guess where, Alaska. And $5 million would be earmarked for New Jersey. Way to go, New Jersey. And $5 million would be earmarked for Washington.

It authorizes such sums as may be necessary for 465 earmarked projects totalling $2,602,000,000, and the big winners are Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

Going-To-The-Sun Road in Glacier National Park in Montana. Authorizes

$50 million for a project to be 100 percent federally funded to reconstruct a road in Glacier National Park. I am sure no one else with a national park in their State has need for roads that would outdo this one.

Bear Tooth Highway in Montana. Upon request by the State of Montana, the Secretary shall obligate such sums as necessary to reconstruct the Bear Tooth Highway. I think this might fit nicely into the $3 million we provided a few years ago on another appropriation bill to study the DNA of bears in Montana so they could use the Bear Tooth Highway.

The Great Lakes ITS implementation: $9 million to continue ITS activities in the Milwaukee, Chicago, and Gary, IN, area.

There is a lot more.

The Knik Arm Bridge funding clarification: Directs the DOT to provide all funds earmarked for the Knik Arm Bridge to provide the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, $229.45 million. The Knik Arm Bridge, a name that is hard to pronounce, I admit, will be renamed Don Young's Way.

Another section in the legislation: Traffic circle construction, Clarendon, VT--$1 million for the State of Vermont to plan and complete construction of a traffic circle at a specified location.

Three million dollars--$3 million--to fund the production of a documentary--get this: $3 million to fund the production of a documentary about infrastructure that demonstrates advancements in Alaska, the last frontier.

Statewide transportation funding. This section would fund ferry projects, including $25 million for projects in Alaska and Hawaii, and extension projects utilizing ferry boats, ferry boat terminals, or approaches to ferry boat terminals; $2.5 million for the San Francisco Water Transit Authority; $2.5 million for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Ferry System; $1 million for the Governor's Island New York ferry system, and $1 million for the Philadelphia Penn's Landing ferry terminal.

The Department of Transportation is going to provide grants to the Oklahoma Transportation Center to study motorcycle accident investigation methodology, $1,408,000. And then, of course, $1 million for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for a wood composite products demonstration project at the University of Maine.

Well, anyway, that is how we are doing the grand plan, and I would point out to my colleagues there are, according to the information I have, 30 donor States that are losers and there are 20 States that are winners. Some States have as much as 526 percent return on every dollar that is sent to Washington, and others have as low as 92 percent. Some have 206 percent, 218 percent, 207 percent, 227 percent.

I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record. I think my colleagues would be interested to see how they came out on this.

What is so harmful in this is, because I happen to represent, as do some other Senators, fast-growing States, it is the rapidly growing States that are penalized the most here: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia. The fastest growing States are the ones that are receiving the smallest amounts of money, and it is obviously very unfair. I think we all know what the answer is. Let the States keep the dollars they collect in the form of taxes and spend it within their own State. I think the answer is that simple.

This is how this Congress administers the money of the American people, Mr. President. In the 1950s when President Eisenhower's ``Grand Plan'' was being formulated, the country focused on building a unified transportation system to improve the safety, security, and economy of our Nation as a whole. Now, Congress circles transportation funds like sharks. Instead of serving the public good, this Congress slices and dices the Treasury's money to fill up the pork barrel. And we do so with grand speeches and lofty language, with no trace of shame or irony.

We live in the Era of the Earmark, Mr. President. In 1982, the transportation bill included 10 earmarks costing $386 million. In 1987, the bill included 152 earmarks, with a cost of $1.4 billion. By 1991, the bill included 538 earmarks--costing taxpayers over $6 billion. Our most recent transportation bill, TEA-21, included 1,850 earmarks with a price tag of more than $9 billion. The legislation that we are voting on today eclipses those numbers. I am told that SAFETEA-LU includes over 6,300 earmarked projects totaling over $20 billion.

Some Members of Congress may be happy to associate their names with this legislation--the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for example has made sure that this legislation renames the Knick Ann Bridge in Alaska ``Don Young's Way.'' The bridge would also receive more than $229 million. I want no part of this, Mr. President. This legislation is not--I emphasize not--my way of legislating.

And I'm sure that if we had adequate time to review this conference report we would find more pork and more inappropriate provisions. But, of course, we will once again go through this process too quickly for a proper evaluation. This conference report is over 2,000 pages long--and over six and one-half inches high--and yet we've had less than a day to review it. And that doesn't even include the statement of managers, which sits in a box in the cloakroom--making it difficult for any member to read.

Fiscal prudence is crucial. But even if the conferees had excluded pork from this legislation, that alone would not make it adequate. Equity is also essential, and--unfortunately--the conference report that is before us still retains a grossly unfair feature of past legislation.

This conference report perpetuates the historical discrepancy between donor States and donee States. Remarkably, not only does the bill continue this disparity, it actually exacerbates it. Whereas the bill that was passed last year by the Senate would have increased, at least theoretically, every State's rate of return to 95 percent in the final year of the bill--2009--the substitute amendment before the Senate only promises a rate of return of 92 percent in 2008 for those States. Until then, many States will linger at a rate of return of 90.5 percent in the first year and less than 92 percent thereafter while others receive more--in some cases much more--than what they contribute to the Highway Trust Fund.

As if that weren't enough, this year's bill would actually propose to create further disparities between States. Though ``Equity'' is in the title of the legislation, the number of donor States would increase from 28 under current law to 30. In addition, 16 States would linger at the bottom of the barrel through 2009. Some may argue that these so- called super-donor States should be satisfied with the fact that they are scheduled to move from a rate of return of 90.5 percent to one of 92 percent in 2008. I would suggest that this is a meager improvement over current law and nothing to cheer about. After all, many other States are set to receive significantly higher rates of return. While a State like Ohio is expected to receive 92 percent in 2009, Alaska will receive a rate of return of almost 530 percent in the final year. 530 percent on top of the hundreds of earmarks and special provisions that are in this conference report.

Mr. President, I fully recognize that during the years when the Federal Government was building the Interstate system, a redistribution of funding between the States may have made sense. Clearly, it would have been very difficult for the State of Montana, for example, with fewer than a million people, to pay the full cost of building its share of the Intestate system. But, Mr. President, that era is over. Congress declared the construction of the Interstate system complete in 1991. Yet here we are, almost 15 years later, and donor States are still expected to agree to the redistribution of hundreds of millions--if not billions--of dollars to other States regardless of the already enormous transportation needs of donor States.

That's not where this story ends, though. The rate of return formula is based on the authorized funds that are ``below the line''--that is, that count towards the calculation of the rate of return. There is a significant amount of funds that is ``above the line.'' These funds are not counted in the rate of return calculation. It's above the line that more mischief takes place. For example, $100 million is earmarked for the Alaska Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement project above the line. This means that Alaska's rate of return significantly understates the amount of Federal funding that Alaska receives under this legislation. The race for pork that takes place above the line also explains why some States that are nominally donor States might be happier with this legislation than one would expect. For example, California will receive over $1 billion in funding for earmarked projects above the line-- that's well over the average annual funding that California receives below the line.

In closing, I note that the conference report exceeds the funding level requested by the President of $284 billion by over $2 billion.

I am sorry. I would like to yield 2 minutes of time and yield back the rest of my time after yielding 2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Ensign and Kyl in introducing the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2005. This bill would remove the arbitrary restrictions that prevent Americans from having an array of options for nonstop air travel between airports in western States and LaGuardia International Airport ``LaGuardia'', and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, ``Washington National''.

LaGuardia restricts the departure or arrival of nonstop flights to or from airports that are farther than 1,500 miles from LaGuardia. Washington National has a similar restriction for nonstop flights to or from airports 1,250 miles from Washington National. These restrictions are commonly referred to as the ``perimeter rule.'' This bill would abolish these archaic limitations that reduce consumers' options for convenient flights and competitive fares.

The original purpose of the perimeter rule was to promote LaGuardia and Washington National as airports for business travelers flying to and from East Coast and Midwest cities and to promote traffic to other airports by diverting long haul flights to Newark and Kennedy airports in the New York area and the Dulles airport in the Washington area. However, over the years, Congress has rightly granted numerous exceptions to the perimeter rule because the air traveling public is eager for travel options. Today, there are nonstop flights between LaGuardia and Denver and between Washington National and Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Seattle. Rather than continuing to take a piecemeal approach to promoting consumer choice, I urge Congress to take this opportunity once and for all to do away with this outdated rule.

As many in this body know, I have been fighting against the perimeter rule for years. I continue to believe that Americans should have access to air travel at the lowest possible cost and with the most convenience for their schedule. Therefore, I have always advocated for the removal of any artificial barrier that prevents free market competition. Last I co-sponsored legislation to repeal the ``Wright Amendment'' which prohibits flights from Dallas'' Love Field airport to 43 States. This week I am proud to come together with colleagues once again to eliminate another unnecessary restraint through the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2005.

Some opponents, mainly those with parochial interests, have criticized me over the years for my efforts to remove the perimeter rule for Washington National, particularly because such removal would allow flights between Phoenix and Tucson and Washington National. Due to such criticism, I made a pledge in 1998 that I would not take such flights if they were made available. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Aviation Administration granted an exemption for two nonstop flights per day between Washington National and Phoenix. I have never taken these flights. Instead I have routinely used connecting flights or flown out of Dulles International Airport. Being a frequent flier and having flown from both Dulles and Kennedy in the past few months, I can assure my colleagues, that both airports have enormous business and no longer need to be ``fed'' long haul traffic to promote airport usage.

In fact, a 1999 study by the Transportation Research Board stated that perimeter rules ``no longer serve their original purpose and have produced too many adverse side effects, including barriers to competition . . . The rules arbitrarily prevent some airlines from extending their networks to these airports; they discourage competition among the airports in the region and among the airlines that use these airports; and they are subject to chronic attempts by special interest groups to obtain exemptions.''

That same year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, stated that the ``practical effect'' of the perimeter rule ``has been to limit entry'' of other carriers. The GAO found that airfares at LaGuardia and Washington National are approximately 50 percent higher on average than fares at similar airports unconstrained by the perimeter rule. Such an anticompetitive rule should not remain in effect, particularly where its anticompetitive impact has long been recognized. For this reason, I will continue the struggle to try to remove the perimeter rule and other anticompetitive restrictions that increase consumer costs and decrease convenience for no apparent benefit.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Ensign and Kyl in introducing the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2005. This bill would remove the arbitrary restrictions that prevent Americans from having an array of options for nonstop air travel between airports in western States and LaGuardia International Airport ``LaGuardia'', and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, ``Washington National''.

LaGuardia restricts the departure or arrival of nonstop flights to or from airports that are farther than 1,500 miles from LaGuardia. Washington National has a similar restriction for nonstop flights to or from airports 1,250 miles from Washington National. These restrictions are commonly referred to as the ``perimeter rule.'' This bill would abolish these archaic limitations that reduce consumers' options for convenient flights and competitive fares.

The original purpose of the perimeter rule was to promote LaGuardia and Washington National as airports for business travelers flying to and from East Coast and Midwest cities and to promote traffic to other airports by diverting long haul flights to Newark and Kennedy airports in the New York area and the Dulles airport in the Washington area. However, over the years, Congress has rightly granted numerous exceptions to the perimeter rule because the air traveling public is eager for travel options. Today, there are nonstop flights between LaGuardia and Denver and between Washington National and Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Seattle. Rather than continuing to take a piecemeal approach to promoting consumer choice, I urge Congress to take this opportunity once and for all to do away with this outdated rule.

As many in this body know, I have been fighting against the perimeter rule for years. I continue to believe that Americans should have access to air travel at the lowest possible cost and with the most convenience for their schedule. Therefore, I have always advocated for the removal of any artificial barrier that prevents free market competition. Last I co-sponsored legislation to repeal the ``Wright Amendment'' which prohibits flights from Dallas'' Love Field airport to 43 States. This week I am proud to come together with colleagues once again to eliminate another unnecessary restraint through the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2005.

Some opponents, mainly those with parochial interests, have criticized me over the years for my efforts to remove the perimeter rule for Washington National, particularly because such removal would allow flights between Phoenix and Tucson and Washington National. Due to such criticism, I made a pledge in 1998 that I would not take such flights if they were made available. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Aviation Administration granted an exemption for two nonstop flights per day between Washington National and Phoenix. I have never taken these flights. Instead I have routinely used connecting flights or flown out of Dulles International Airport. Being a frequent flier and having flown from both Dulles and Kennedy in the past few months, I can assure my colleagues, that both airports have enormous business and no longer need to be ``fed'' long haul traffic to promote airport usage.

In fact, a 1999 study by the Transportation Research Board stated that perimeter rules ``no longer serve their original purpose and have produced too many adverse side effects, including barriers to competition . . . The rules arbitrarily prevent some airlines from extending their networks to these airports; they discourage competition among the airports in the region and among the airlines that use these airports; and they are subject to chronic attempts by special interest groups to obtain exemptions.''

That same year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, stated that the ``practical effect'' of the perimeter rule ``has been to limit entry'' of other carriers. The GAO found that airfares at LaGuardia and Washington National are approximately 50 percent higher on average than fares at similar airports unconstrained by the perimeter rule. Such an anticompetitive rule should not remain in effect, particularly where its anticompetitive impact has long been recognized. For this reason, I will continue the struggle to try to remove the perimeter rule and other anticompetitive restrictions that increase consumer costs and decrease convenience for no apparent benefit.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on Monday I offered an amendment that would prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the custody or control of the U.S. Government. I was pleased that Senators Warner, Graham, and Collins joined as original cosponsors, and Senators Chafee and Alexander have also joined as cosponsors.

After I offered the amendment, I agreed to modify it at the manager's request to include a Presidential waiver--section (b) of the pending amendment. It is now clear, however, that this would be inconsistent with the overall intent of my amendment, which is to ensure that there is full compliance with our treaty obligations, including with the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment included in the Convention Against Torture, which was signed by President Reagan and ratified by the Senate.

For this reason, I have filed a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 1556 that would strike the waiver. When the Senate resumes consideration of the Defense authorization bill, I will either modify the pending amendment, seek action on the second-degree amendment, or simply file a new amendment without the waiver. In short, I will offer for consideration--and seek passage of--a statutory prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, without a Presidential waiver.

Mr. President, once again, I am proud to join my friend Senator Feingold as a co-sponsor of legislation that will require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports in electronic form. This bill will finally remove the exemption the Senate has given itself from an important requirement of campaign finance disclosure laws that apply to everyone else, including candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Political Action Committees (PACs).

Political committees active in Federal elections must submit their quarterly financial reports for disclosure by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Anyone interested can nearly instantaneously download the reports from the FEC website and conduct computer searches to learn about the contributions and expenditures of individual candidates for the House, non-Senate national party committees and PACs. The current problem is that they cannot do the same for Senate candidates and parties because of the Senate's insistence on paper rather than electronic filing. The FEC must do more processing of Senate paper reports than of House electronic ones. This involves printing or copying the Senate reports, up to 10,000 pages a day at times, hand- coding transactions that cannot be automatically processed, the keypunching the data into the electronic database. House electronic reports do not need the same treatment. The end result is that in contrast to the House, information from the Senate paper reports are often not available until well after the election has occurred.

Because of this problem, it is impossible for voters to be well- informed about the campaign finance information of their Senators and Senate candidates. If a voter wants to consider the nature of the campaign finance support received by a Senate candidate and compare that support to Senate legislative votes as a factor in deciding for whom they will cast a vote, they simply cannot do so due to the antiquated nature of the reporting system.

To address this problem, our legislation requires Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate. Within 24 hours of receipt of those reports, the Secretary is required to forward those reports to the FEC. The FEC, in turn is required to make those reports available on the Internet within 24 hours as they do other reports. Therefore, electronic versions of Senate reports will be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing.

Electronic reports are not only transmitted instantly but are more accurate than paper submissions because software can easily correct mistakes. On the other hand, hand entering of data is always prone to error. Furthermore, the data in electronic reports can be rapidly searched via the Internet for answers to specific questions. Voters will no longer have to go through the time consuming process of reading pages and pages filed by Senate candidates or Senate party committees to figure out the major donors and their employers, and the major recipients of campaign spending. Instead, they can downlown a filed report from the FEC website onto their personal computers and quickly locate the information they need. This creates effective public disclosure.

The Senate's current failure to provide its constituents with electronically disclosed, timely information is unconscionable. Senate filings should follow the same criteria as other campaign finance reports. There must not be a separate standard for the Senate. Ironically, while they do not currently file electronically, Senators and Senate candidates already use electronic software in compiling their paper reports. If Senators and Senate candidates can use technology to run their offices and websites, why can't they use it to better inform their own constituents about how their campaigns are funded? Our constituents have a right to that information.