Stop the $35 billion Funding
Everyone who took part in the long fight to block the DM & E railroad expansion project should take satisfaction in achieving that result.
Frustrating a powerful federal bureaucracy is an extraordinary accomplishment. It required a prolonged and diligent effort by the community and that effort eventually received significant support from some members of Congress.
One further step is needed. We should not forget that the proposed $2.3 billion loan to the DM&E was made possible only because Congress had previously approved $35 billion in funding for the Federal Railroad Administration for unspecified future projects.
The $35 billion appropriation bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D, who was a highly paid lobbyist for the DM&E prior to his election to the Senate. The $35 billion total was 10 times the funding that had been allocated to the FRA previously.
As often happens in Congress, the $35 billion appropriation was approved without debate in the House or Senate and with very little discussion. It is impossible to know precisely how the next step occurred, but it appears that the FRA appreciated Thune’s generosity and saw fit to reward him by considering the DM&E’s request for an excessively generous loan to finance its expansion into the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
The original $2.5 billion loan request by the railroad was 100 times greater than the average loan of $23 million that had been made to each of 12 other railroads at that time. The $2.5 billion total was later reduced to $2.3 billion.
This particular DM&E project is dead (we hope) but that fact gives members of Congress an opportunity to prove that they learned something from this regrettable episode. Congress should review its approval of the $35 billion funding bill and members should ask themselves why the FRA’s funding should have been increased tenfold without any explanation or any justifiable reason.
The right thing for Congress to do is to rescind the $35 billion funding bill (which is still in effect) and to ask the FRA to submit a modest request for funding more in line with its past record. Certainly that action is justified at a time when the U.S. is facing huge deficits as a result of two costly wars and when increased funding is desperately needed for health care and many other purposes.
Under those circumstances, it makes sense to retrieve most of the $35 billion that has been allocated to the FRA and to apply that amount to urgent financial needs.
Doing so would also be an object lesson for members of Congress, reminding them of their obligation not to approve huge appropriations without debate or meaningful discussion.
The public has every reason to be grateful that prolonged and resourceful protests have blocked the $2.3 billion loan to the DM&E. There are also good reasons for taking action that might discourage such reckless spending in the future.
By rescinding the earlier $35 billion funding authorization for the FRA, Congress can teach that agency and others to avoid future reckless and unwarranted spending of the kind that the DM&E originally proposed.
