[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 132 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9532-S9541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
       Pending:
       Landrieu amendment No. 2365, to amend the Disaster Relief 
     and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008.
       McCain modified amendment No. 2403, to prohibit the use of 
     funds to carry out the Brownfields Economic Development 
     Initiative program administered by the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development.
       DeMint amendment No. 2410, to limit the use of funds for 
     the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport.
       Vitter modified amendment No. 2359, to prohibit the use of 
     funds for households that include convicted drug dealing or 
     domestic violence offenders or members of violent gangs that 
     occupy rebuilt public housing in New Orleans.
       Kyl motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, with instructions to report the same back to 
     the Senate forthwith with Kyl amendment No. 2421 (to the 
     instructions on Kyl motion to commit the bill), relating to 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.


                           Amendment No. 2365

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes evenly divided for a vote with respect to the Landrieu 
amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, it is my understanding that this 
amendment is accepted on both sides. I urge a voice vote.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, nobody has advised us of objections on our 
side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I support the Landrieu amendment.
  The year 2008 witnessed numerous devastating disasters: severe 
wildfires in California, floods in the Midwest, and the one-two punch 
of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike along the Gulf Coast.
  Congress responded last fall by passing a natural disaster 
supplemental, which in addition to providing necessary FEMA and SBA 
funding, provided $6.5 billion in community development block grants to 
support recovery.
  Unfortunately, the language included a restriction that has impaired 
these impacted communities' ability to rebuild.
  This amendment removes that restriction, providing flexibility for 
these funds to be used to their greatest impact in the community, 
helping these communities get back on their feet as quickly as 
possible.
  Without this amendment, many communities will be unable to balance 
their budget priorities, jeopardizing critical projects in the recovery 
process, or worse yet, leading to the abandonment of projects 
altogether.
  Communities across this Nation have been greatly impacted by natural 
disasters over the past several years, including the State of Texas. 
Tax bases have been decimated and many communities are still struggling 
to recover. These devastated communities want to be able to stand on 
their own; however, they don't currently have the resources to do so. 
By providing maximum flexibility of vital Federal funds, as we have for 
previous disasters, we remove one more barrier from their way on the 
road to recovery.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2365) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay 
on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2359

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 2359, 
the Vitter amendment.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. It simply says that no public housing assistance will 
be granted to anyone who is convicted of a crime involving drug 
trafficking, not simple possession but distribution, et cetera, or 
being a member of a violent gang. These are serious adult offenders. I 
don't believe we should use taxpayer funds with housing assistance, 
particularly in public housing projects, in that manner. It 
specifically focuses on New Orleans, LA, only New Orleans, where we are 
pouring massive amounts of Federal dollars to rebuild public housing 
projects in a fundamentally different, better way after Katrina, 
ridding those projects of the crime problem which had previously been 
embedded there. It is very important in terms of that recovery.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 
2359. Our colleague Senator Landrieu spoke at length last night about 
the reasons she opposes this amendment, which is targeted to her city 
of New Orleans.
  I am here as the chairman of the Banking Committee, to share with you 
some of the reasons I believe this legislation could have benefitted 
from a more thorough vetting through the authorizing process.
  While superficially an attractive effort to be tough on crime, the 
proposed amendment is likely to have serious unintended consequences 
while providing no apparent increase in public safety. The proposed 
amendment is overly broad, burdensome, and would present great 
difficulties for Federal, State, and local administrators to actually 
implement.
  Representatives of public housing agencies have raised concerns about 
implementing this legislation. Advocates for low income families oppose 
this amendment.
  Needless to say, we want to ensure the security of families receiving 
housing assistance. That is why current law already provides tools for 
denying or terminating assistance for drug-related and violent crimes 
and activities in public housing and section 8 assistance, which 
appears to be the amendment's objective.
  I have other concerns about things that may or may not have been the 
objective of the amendment.
  This provision only applies in New Orleans, raising questions about 
equal protection and the unfortunate possibility of federal law that 
changes from city to city.
  It is a vast expansion of current Federal law. While Senator Vitter 
describes the amendment as applying to

[[Page S9533]]

rebuilt public housing, it is actually very broad. The bill extends far 
beyond public and assisted housing into all forms of federal housing 
assistance, including homeless assistance, loans, loan guarantees, or 
other assistance provided under a HUD housing program.
  It is administratively burdensome. The legislation would put 
additional screening burdens on housing providers, banks, nonprofits, 
and others who are not currently required to, nor do they have the 
resources to, conduct criminal background checks. These could include 
cities administering CDBG, a homeless shelter whose clients vary night 
by night, or banks processing FHA loans.
  It has unintended consequences, and I will provide some examples.
  It erects barriers to helping the homeless: The language would appear 
to apply to homeless shelters, whose clientele change from night to 
night. Running checks on clients that may only be there for one day or 
sporadically is nearly impossible, and a waste of scarce resources. Do 
we really mean to prohibit assistance for these individuals--many of 
whom are veterans or children--because shelters won't be able to run 
background checks?
  It puts new burdens on banks and homeowners. Every bank originating 
an FHA loan would have to do a criminal background check on the family 
buying the home, or refinancing a home. Can you imagine the burden that 
would create for community banks and homebuyers?
  It puts new burdens on small businesses and State and local 
government CDBG programs. The language could actually require that 
State and local CDBG programs conduct background checks on small 
business owners receiving economic development assistance to ensure 
that they were not a) offenders and b) not residing in federally-
subsidized housing.
  It provides no room for rehabilitation. The amendment bars someone 
from ever getting housing assistance, including FHA loans, if they were 
ever convicted of selling drugs or were a member of a gang, without 
consideration of rehabilitation. What if that happened 15 years ago? 
This amendment would run counter to the goals of the Second Chance Act, 
which this body approved under unanimous consent to help ex-offenders 
get the services they need to become productive members of society.
  In sum, this amendment is superficially attractive. I understand 
that. But the policy is ill-considered. It will unintentionally hurt 
homebuyers, veterans, and children without necessarily providing any 
additional protections. It will create very serious administrative 
burdens for the public and private sector, with no way to pay for those 
burdens. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment--let's approach 
this issue in a more thoughtful way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this amendment would deny housing 
assistance to any New Orleans household with a member of a criminal 
gang or someone convicted of certain drug offenses. Public housing 
authorities already have the ability to deny or terminate housing 
assistance to persons who have committed drug-related and violent 
crimes under current law. This amendment does far more than that. It 
extends to all forms of housing assistance. It is a permanent 
prohibition. If anyone in the family has committed these offenses ever, 
then that entire household would never be able to receive HUD 
assistance, including homeless assistance or even an FHA loan.
  I am concerned that this amendment is targeted to one city, New 
Orleans. We should not be targeting one city or dictating housing 
policy city by city under this bill.
  Importantly, the underlying bill provides funding to help our 
Nation's homeless veterans. Many of those veterans have struggled with 
substance abuse. If this amendment passes, those veterans will not be 
allowed to get assistance.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, we are not talking about drug 
possession, we are talking about trafficking. HUD and the housing 
authority have the ability to negotiate for other family members to 
stay in public housing and not be penalized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2359.
  Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 283 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Landrieu
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 2359) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, if I could have the attention of all 
Senators, a number of Senators have come to me and said they want to 
move quickly through the amendments this afternoon. We can't do it if 
Senators are leaving. I ask all Senators to please stay on the floor as 
we move through these last amendments.
  With that, I believe the next amendment is in order.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I urge all Members to return promptly. I 
know several Members on both sides have other commitments. If we are 
going to make those, we need to keep those 10 minute votes to at least 
15 minutes. Thanks.


                           amendment no. 2410

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is amendment No. 2410 
offered by Senator DeMint.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President.
  This amendment I hope is a beginning or maybe a turning point for the 
Senate where we identify wasteful spending and begin to make some 
progress toward cutting those things that we don't have to do here at 
the Federal level.
  I heard some comments about the amendment yesterday which I don't 
think accurately reflect what the bill does. We do nothing to cut any 
defense spending or defense use of this airport. We do nothing to cut 
any safety aspects such as air traffic control. It is simply for 1 year 
of this appropriations bill which stops the funding for additional 
subsidies to an airport that has received $200 million over the last 20 
years and has as much subsidy per ticket as passengers pay. This has 
been the subject of documentaries on many media sources. We need to 
show America we are listening.

[[Page S9534]]

  Please support this amendment to cut these funds for 1 year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I would urge a no vote on this amendment. 
It sets the wrong precedent and singles out one airport which happens 
to be in Cambria County, PA.
  At a time when we are in the middle of a recession and with the 
unemployment rate in this county at 9.5 percent, and we are going to 
say here in Washington that we are going to vote on something that will 
shut down an airport--it is bad policy. We should allow this decision 
to be made by the Federal authority that should be making the decision, 
which is the Federal Aviation Administration. It is the right thing to 
do to oppose this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 284 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kohl
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Landrieu
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 2410) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2403, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Under the 
previous order, there is 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in 
relation to the McCain amendment.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment prohibits funding for 
brownfields economic development initiatives. In May--and not for the 
first time--the President recommended termination of the brownfields 
economic development initiatives. You can look it up. Even the 
committee this time, in the Record, said:

       The committee does not recommend an appropriation for the 
     brownfields redevelopment program, consistent with the budget 
     request.

  On pages 138 and 139, there is $1.3 million for brownfields 
redevelopment in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. So now we are not 
only going against the President's recommendations, we are going to go 
against the bill itself and give another $1.3 million in pork. All I 
say is you cannot make it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman, 
there is no debate about whether the brownfields redevelopment program 
ought not to exist. It is duplicative and cut out. This is under the 
economic development initiative program, which supports a wide range of 
programs to encourage economic redevelopment, including polluted, 
contaminated, blighted properties. In Waterbury, CT, home of the brass 
capital of our country, dating back to the early 19th century, most of 
the business was military related during the Civil War. There were no 
pollution requirements back then.
  Today those properties are virtually worthless because of the 
contamination. This is a city with a 13-percent unemployment rate. It 
is a hard-working blue-collar town where people put in hard labor every 
day. This is a chance for that community to get back on its feet. That 
is why it is under the economic development program.
  I urge my colleagues to be supportive of a hard-working community so 
we can let them get back on their feet. We urge defeat of the 
amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been previously 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), and the Senator from Lousiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Landrieu
       
  The amendment (No. 2403), as modified, was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Motion to Recommit with Amendment No. 2421

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes, equally divided, prior 
to a vote in relation to the motion to recommit offered by the Senator 
from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, we can save $11 billion without cutting a 
dime from this appropriations bill. It turns out there is duplication 
between spending in the stimulus bill that already passed and this 
bill.
  What we do is simply send the bill back to committee to report back 
forthwith, to rescind the money in the stimulus bill that duplicates 
the Transportation and HUD financing in this bill, except for any funds 
that have already been obligated, which, obviously, we would go ahead 
and spend, and, secondly, any money relating to highway construction. 
That would be totally protected. Beyond that, any duplication in the 
stimulus bill would be rescinded.
  It amounts to about $11 billion. I think that is a great savings we 
can all

[[Page S9535]]

support. As I said, it does not take a dime out of this bill.
  I ask for my colleagues' support. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the bill in front of us provides 
critical resources to the Departments of Transportation and Housing and 
Urban Development for investments in transit, rail, airports, and 
public housing. This is important for investing in jobs in our economy.
  The funding in this bill has a direct impact on every community 
across the Nation. We should not delay this important piece of 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have about 12, 13 seconds. As I said, 
this motion takes absolutely no money from the appropriations bill 
before us. What it would do is identify about $11 billion in duplicate 
funding in the stimulus bill and rescind that. So you would not be 
voting to cut a dime out of this bill if you support my motion.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I urge a ``no'' vote, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 286 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Landrieu
       
  The motion was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.


                        Pipeline Safety Programs

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I wish to join Senator Murray and 
Senator Bond, the respective chairman and ranking member of the 
Transportation, HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy 
concerning the user fee funded pipeline safety programs overseen by the 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am pleased to discuss this issue with my colleagues. 
Pipeline safety programs are very important in my State and help ensure 
that tragic accidents can be prevented. I understand that the pipeline 
safety programs at PHMSA are funded almost exclusively through user 
fees.
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is correct, and in order to better assess the 
current program priorities at PHMSA and to determine how these user 
fees are being allocated across the regulated community, I believe 
PHMSA should provide to the Committees on Appropriations a report that 
discloses the percentage of program funds and State grants that are 
dedicated to each of the following sectors: liquid pipelines, natural 
gas transmission pipelines, liquefied natural gas pipelines, and 
natural gas distribution pipelines.
  Mr. BOND. I thank Senator Cochran for his comments and agree that 
PHMSA should produce a report as soon as possible on this topic. We 
need to ensure that pipeline safety programs are adequately funded and 
that Congress and the regulated industries that support these programs 
understand how they are funded.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I agree with my colleagues and would like PHMSA to 
produce such a report. I thank Senator Cochran for bringing this issue 
to the attention of all Senators.


                          FUNDING ALLOCATIONS

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Murray for her 
leadership on this bill and her commitment to funding improvements in 
our Nation's housing and transportation infrastructure. I rise to 
engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy to clarify the 
State-by-State allocation of Federal-Aid Highway Program funding, which 
is shown in the committee report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the 
Senator.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator. As I noted, page 46 of the committee 
report includes a table that shows the estimated State-by-State 
obligation limitation for Federal-Aid Highway Program funding. This 
information was prepared for the Appropriations Committee by the 
Federal Highway Administration based on current law and the funding 
level provided in this bill. It is my understanding that this table is 
designed to be illustrative rather than determinative of actual funding 
levels. Could the Senator confirm that this understanding is correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. The table included in the 
committee report is illustrative and does not direct the actual 
distribution of the funds provided under this bill.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate that clarification. 
As the Senator knows, I had been concerned because the table indicates 
that the State of Rhode Island is one of only two States, along with 
Maine, that would lose funding under the increased appropriation 
included in this bill.
  I have consulted with the Federal Highway Administration, which has 
produced a new estimate based on more accurate assumptions. That table 
has been shared with the Appropriations Committee staff. Rather than a 
decline of over $5 million, this estimate shows an increase of nearly 
$6 million for the State of Rhode Island. In addition, no State is 
shown to lose funding in fiscal year 2010.
  Would the Senator agree that this new table is a more accurate 
depiction of the distribution federal highway funds?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I agree that the table the Senator refers to reflects 
the Federal Highway Administration's current estimate of how Federal-
Aid Highway Program funding included in this bill would be distributed 
under current law.
  Mr. REED. Again, I thank the chairman for her leadership on this bill 
and for her help in clarifying this matter. For the benefit of all 
senators, I would ask unanimous consent that the Federal Highway 
Administration table we have discussed be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL-AID
                                      HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
       [FY 2010 distribution estimated based on FY 2009 contract authority and the FY 2010 Senate-reported
                                              appropriations bill]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             FY 2010  Senate
                         State-                           FY 2009  enacted         bill            Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Alabama-..............................................      $664,181,764-      $686,900,890-        $22,719,126
Alaska-................................................       290,717,063-       299,809,478-          9,092,415

[[Page S9536]]

 
Arizona-...............................................       672,374,585-       694,856,314-         22,481,729
Arkansas-..............................................       410,847,021-       424,892,224-         14,045,203
California-............................................     3,002,777,749-     3,107,386,662-        104,608,913
Colorado-..............................................       451,065,359-       466,804,480-         15,739,121
Connecticut-...........................................       422,828,746-       437,264,323-         14,435,577
Delaware-..............................................       129,898,054-       134,437,981-          4,539,927
District of Columbia-..................................       126,772,019-       131,372,586-          4,600,567
Florida-...............................................     1,690,108,775-     1,745,663,364-         55,554,589
Georgia-...............................................     1,143,842,745-     1,181,764,488-         37,921,743
Hawaii-................................................       136,011,037-       140,890,088-          4,879,051
Idaho-.................................................       244,839,686-       253,048,264-          8,208,578
Illinois-..............................................     1,121,712,771-     1,160,076,519-         38,363,748
Indiana-...............................................       852,499,523-       880,696,895-         28,197,372
Iowa-..................................................       384,432,661-       397,991,958-         13,559,297
Kansas-................................................       327,579,516-       339,365,197-         11,785,681
Kentucky-..............................................       568,095,523-       587,416,393-         19,320,870
Louisiana-.............................................       555,575,744-       574,865,033-         19,289,289
Maine-.................................................       141,822,084-       146,996,546-          5,174,462
Maryland-..............................................       518,543,985-       536,780,813-         18,236,828
Massachusetts-.........................................       531,894,794-       550,976,349-         19,081,555
Michigan-..............................................       926,977,662-       959,052,590-         32,074,928
Minnesota-.............................................       523,448,534-       541,421,862-         17,973,328
Mississippi-...........................................       389,213,117-       402,777,975-         13,564,858
Missouri-..............................................       762,024,021-       787,964,042-         25,940,021
Montana-...............................................       315,817,904-       326,328,233-         10,510,329
Nebraska-..............................................       244,575,447-       253,237,541-          8,662,094
Nevada-................................................       256,097,971-       264,815,350-          8,717,379
New Hampshire-.........................................       146,151,389-       151,261,615-          5,110,226
New Jersey-............................................       859,742,154-       889,143,627-         29,401,473
New Mexico-............................................       310,184,441-       320,814,509-         10,630,068
New York-..............................................     1,450,156,103-     1,501,247,422-         51,091,319
North Carolina-........................................       930,622,868-       962,100,250-         31,477,382
North Dakota-..........................................       207,347,401-       214,686,636-          7,339,235
Ohio-..................................................     1,147,361,001-     1,186,456,027-         39,095,026
Oklahoma-..............................................       504,786,983-       522,318,817-         17,531,834
Oregon-................................................       372,563,076-       385,730,512-         13,167,436
Pennsylvania-..........................................     1,443,922,086-     1,494,303,625-         50,381,539
Rhode Island-..........................................       163,809,919-       169,786,620-          5,976,701
South Carolina-........................................       548,969,028-       567,442,319-         18,473,291
South Dakota-..........................................       217,374,734-       224,862,704-          7,487,970
Tennessee-.............................................       704,208,483-       728,011,969-         23,803,486
Texas-.................................................     2,868,608,137-     2,964,113,622-         95,505,485
Utah-..................................................       259,427,213-       268,373,350-          8,946,137
Vermont-...............................................       134,115,890-       138,995,286-          4,879,396
Virginia-..............................................       859,531,139-       888,675,696-         29,144,557
Washington-............................................       556,453,022-       576,378,211-         19,925,189
West Virginia-.........................................       350,067,330-       361,686,708-         11,619,378
Wisconsin-.............................................       642,654,090-       663,976,975-         21,322,885
Wyoming-...............................................       215,495,030-       223,007,830-          7,512,800
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal-..........................................    32,700,127,377-    33,819,228,768-      1,119,101,391
Non-Formula programs-..................................     7,999,872,623-     7,287,771,232-      (712,101,391)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total-.........................................    40,700,000,000-    41,107,000,000-        407,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 3288 and to thank my colleagues on the 
Transportation, Housing & Urban Development, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee for their fine work in crafting a bill that 
meets the priorities of the Nation while remaining fiscally 
responsible.
  I would particularly like to thank my colleagues for the provision of 
$150 million for capital and preventive maintenance of the Washington 
Metropolitan Transit Authority's Metro System. The Metro system is 
sometimes known as ``America's Subway'' and for good reason. Many 
Metrorail stations were built at the request of the Federal Government 
and nearly half of all stations are located at Federal facilities. 
Federal employees comprise 40 percent of WMATA's peak ridership. WMATA 
also plays a critical role for ensuring the continuity of Federal 
Government operations during an emergency. The Federal Government's 
interest in Metro is clear.
  I am sure you all recall the tragic Metrorail accident on June 23 of 
this year that took the lives of nine individuals. We cannot allow 
another such tragedy to occur. I appreciate the committee making a 
commitment to the safety of the 100 million passengers who travel on 
Metro each year.
  Mass transit is critically important in Maryland as we look for ways 
of reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions. The committee has funded 
two important mass transit projects in Maryland, the purple line in 
suburban Washington and Baltimore's red line. The purple line is a 
proposed 16-mile light rail or bus rapid transit line extending from 
Bethesda in Montgomery County to New Carrollton in Prince George's 
County. The Baltimore red line is a proposed 14-mile light rail rapid 
transit line extending from the Woodlawn area of Baltimore County, MD, 
through downtown Baltimore City to the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical 
Campus in East Baltimore. Each project will ease traffic congestion, 
reduce carbon emissions, conserve energy, and improve the quality of 
life for many Marylanders.
  Maryland has a number of military installations throughout the State. 
Consequently, several communities will be affected by the upcoming 
round of base realignment and closures, BRAC. I would like to thank the 
committee for taking this into consideration and providing funding for 
BRAC-related improvements at Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George's 
County, near Fort Meade in Anne Arundel County, near Aberdeen Proving 
Grounds in Harford County, and in the vicinity of the National Navy 
Medical Center in Montgomery County. Nearly 50,000 new residents will 
arrive in Maryland as a result of BRAC. I appreciate the committee's 
help to make sure Maryland's transportation infrastructure is well-
prepared for this population influx.
  I would also like to thank the committee for funding two important 
economic development initiative projects in Maryland, the Harriett 
Tubman Underground Railroad Park and Visitors Center and the Maryland 
Food Bank.
  Harriett Tubman was born on Maryland's Eastern Shore. It was from 
there that she escaped from slavery and went on to become one of the 
leaders of the Underground Railroad. Funding for the Harriett Tubman 
Underground Railroad Park and Visitors Center will support the 
continued design, engineering, and site preparation for the joint 
State-Federal Visitors Center at the State park and envisioned Federal 
park. The project is in rural Dorchester County. Tourism is a growing 
part of the economy and is viewed by the State and county economic 
development officials as the economic future of the area. The adjacent 
Blackwater

[[Page S9537]]

National Wildlife Refuge is already a major attraction for eco-
tourists. This Visitors Center will serve as a focal point of a growing 
tourism economy in the region while also celebrating one of America's 
true heroes.
  The Maryland Food Bank provides food to 900 soup kitchens, food 
pantries, shelters, and other community-based organizations across the 
State. These agencies, in turn, feed hundreds of thousands of hungry 
Marylanders each year. Last year, the Maryland Food Bank distributed 
14.3 million pounds of food. The dire state of the economy has placed 
increased demands on the food bank. Critical infrastructure needs must 
be met in order to sustain and expand services to meet the growing 
need. I am grateful that the committee has provided funds through this 
bill to meet those needs. This funding will greatly benefit Maryland's 
hungry families.
  In closing, again let me say how much I appreciate the work of 
Senator Murray, Senator Bond, and their staffs along with the rest of 
the subcommittee. They have in crafted a bill that adequately provides 
for critical transportation infrastructure, addresses housing needs for 
America's most vulnerable populations, and injects economic drivers 
into underserved communities, all while remaining 2 percent under the 
President's requested budget. I find that quite impressive and I 
support this bill.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of 
provisions I authored in the fiscal year 2010 Transportation-HUD 
appropriations bill that would increase safety, save energy, and 
decrease emissions by creating a 1-year pilot project to allow trucks 
weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's interstates. This 
provision also requires an analysis by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation and the State of Maine to study the effects of the 
increase on safety, road and bridge durability, energy use, and 
commerce. The U.S. Department of Transportation will report its 
findings to Congress. This Maine pilot project does not have any impact 
on other States' weight laws and regulations.
  By way of background, let me explain why this pilot project is 
needed. Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed 
to travel on the portion of Interstate 95 designated as the Maine 
Turnpike, which runs from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, 
our capital city. At Augusta, the turnpike designation ends, but I-95 
proceeds another 200 miles north to Houlton. At Augusta, however, heavy 
trucks must exit the modern four-lane, limited-access highway and are 
forced onto smaller, two-lane secondary roads that pass through cities, 
towns, and villages. The same problem occurs for Maine's other 
interstates like 295 out of Portland and 395 in the Bangor-Brewer area.
  Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are already permitted on 
interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York as 
well as the Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight 
limit disparity on various segments of Maine's Interstate Highway 
System is a significant impediment to commerce, increases wear-and-tear 
on our secondary roads, and, most important, puts our people needlessly 
at risk.
  Diverting trucks onto these secondary roads raises critical safety 
concerns. In fact, there have been several accidents, some of which 
have tragically resulted in death, which have occurred after these 
large trucks were diverted onto secondary roads and through smaller 
communities. For example, in May 2007, a 17-year-old high school 
student from Hampden, ME, lost her life when her car was struck by a 
heavy truck on route 9. The truck driver could not see the car turning 
onto that two-lane road as he rounded a corner. Interstate 95 runs less 
than three-quarters of a mile away, but Federal law prevented the truck 
from using that modern, divided highway, a highway that was designed to 
provide ample views of the road ahead.

  A year earlier, Lena Gray, an 80-year-old resident of Bangor, was 
struck and killed by a tractor-trailer as she was crossing a downtown 
street. Again, that accident would not have occurred had that truck 
been allowed to use I-95, which runs directly through Bangor.
  In June 2004, Wilbur Smiths Associates, a nationally recognized 
transportation consulting firm, completed a study to examine the impact 
a federal weight exemption on non-exempt portions of Maine's Interstate 
Highway System would have on safety, pavement, and bridges. The study 
found that extending the current truck weight exemption on the Maine 
Turnpike to all interstate highways in Maine would result in a decrease 
of 3.2 fatal crashes per year. The study also found that the fatal 
accident rate on the secondary roads was 10 times higher than on the 
turnpike, and the injury accident rate was seven times higher.
  While improving safety is the key objective, a uniform truck weight 
limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways also would 
reduce highway miles, as well as the travel time, necessary to 
transport freight through Maine, resulting in economic and 
environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network of local 
roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy 
truck traffic.
  Interstate 95 north of Augusta, ME, where trucks are currently 
limited at 80,000 pounds, was originally designed and built for 
military freight movements to Loring Air Force Base at weights much 
heavier than 100,000 pounds. Raising the truck weight limit would keep 
heavy trucks on the interstates, which are designed to carry more 
weight than the rural State roads.
  The argument that 100,000 pound trucks would cause greater road 
deterioration is misguided. Current Maine law requires that vehicles 
carrying up to 100,000 pounds on State roads be six-axle combination 
vehicles. Current Federal law requires that vehicles carrying 80,000 
pounds be five-axle. Contrary to erroneous assumptions, six-axle 
100,000 pound vehicles are not longer, wider or taller than the five-
axle 80,000 pound vehicles. The six-axle 100,000 pound vehicles, 
which include an addtional set of brakes, allow for greater weight 
distribution thereby not increasing road wear and tear. Further, 
stopping distances and safety are in no way diminished, and preliminary 
data from studies conducted by the Maine State Police support this 
statement. That is why Maine's Commissioner of Public Safety, the Maine 
State Troopers Association, and the Maine Association of Police all 
support this pilot project.

  A higher weight limit in Maine will not only preserve our rapidly 
deteriorating roads, but will provide economic relief to an already 
struggling trucking industry. Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are 
permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and 
New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. 
Maine truck drivers and the businesses they serve are at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  Last year, I met with Kurt Babineau, a small business owner and 
second generation logger and trucker from Maine. Like so many of our 
truckers, Kurt has been struggling with the increasing costs of running 
his operation. All of the pulpwood his business produces is transported 
to Verso Paper in Jay, ME, a 165-mile roundtrip. This would be a 
considerably shorter trip if his trucks were permitted at 100,000 
pounds to remain on Interstate 95. Instead, his trucks must travel a 
less direct route through cities and towns. Kurt estimated that 
permitting his trucks to travel on all of Interstate 95 would save him 
118 gallons of fuel each week. At last year's diesel cost of 
approximately $4.50 a gallon, and including savings from his drivers 
spending less time on the trip, he could have saved more than $700 a 
week, and more than $33,000 and 5,600 gallons of fuel annually. These 
savings would not only be beneficial to Kurt's bottom line, but also to 
his employees, his customers, and to our nation as we look for ways to 
decrease the overall fuel consumption.
  An increase of the Federal truck weight limit in Maine is widely 
supported by public officials throughout Maine, including the Governor, 
the Maine Association of Police, and the Maine Department of Public 
Safety, which includes the State Bureau of Highway Safety, the Maine 
State Police, and the Bureau of Emergency Communications. I have 
several letters of support from these officials and organizations, 
which I will submit for the record with my statement. The Maine

[[Page S9538]]

Legislature also has expressed its support for the change having passed 
resolutions over the past several years calling on Congress to raise 
the Federal truck weight limit to 100,000 pounds in Maine. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important provision in the Fiscal Year 2010 
THUD appropriations bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               State of Maine,

                               Augusta, Maine, September 10, 2009.
     Hon. Daniel Inouye, Chair,
     Hon. Thad Cochran, Ranking Member,
     Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patty Murray, Chair,
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Transportation, HUD and Related Agencies, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Inouye, Cochran, Murray and Bond: As the FY 
     2010 Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill nears debate in 
     the U.S. Senate, I would like to again express my strong and 
     unwavering support for Section 194 of the bill, which would 
     permit the state of Maine to conduct a one-year pilot program 
     to assess the benefits of allowing increased weight limits 
     for heavy vehicles traveling on any part of Maine's 
     Interstate highway system. My support is grounded in my 
     conviction that this pilot will establish that the higher 
     weight limits on Maine's Interstates will improve the safety 
     and efficiency of heavy vehicles operating on Maine Roads.
       Currently, on Maine's Interstate highway system, higher 
     state truck weight limits may be enforced only on Interstate 
     95 beginning in Kittery and on the Maine Turnpike portion of 
     I-95, which ends in Augusta. Lower federal truck weight 
     limits are enforced on all other Maine Interstate highways. 
     As you know, only the United States Congress can change 
     Interstate truck weight limits, and MaineDOT has been working 
     with the Maine Congressional delegation for some time to pass 
     a federal law to rectify this problem. The current situation 
     negatively impacts the safety of Maine's highways, the health 
     of Maine's economy, and the durability of its highways and 
     bridges. Thus, I strongly support inclusion of section 194 in 
     the FY 2010 DOT-HUD Appropriations Bill.
       Maine has a long history of allowing trucks at 100,000-lbs. 
     gross vehicle weight (GVW) to operate on the Maine Turnpike 
     portion of I-95 south of Augusta, with a record of positive 
     economic, environmental and safety outcomes. An extension of 
     this practice to the remainder of the Maine Interstate 
     highway system would divert 100,000-lb. trucks from secondary 
     roads lined with numerous schools, intersections, driveways 
     and traffic lights, and put them on the highway 
     infrastructure that is designed to handle such demands.
       A MaineDOT Engineering Opinion signed in June 2008 by five 
     of our top bridge and infrastructure engineers, including the 
     department's Chief Engineer with more than 50 years of 
     highway engineering experience, stated that, ``. . . it is 
     the professional opinion of the undersigned that Maine's 
     interstate system can support the addition of the 100,000-
     lb. GVW vehicles to Maine's interstate traffic stream, 
     without any noticeable or significant damage to the 
     system's infrastructure.''
       More specifically, MaineDOT study findings indicated that 
     an Interstate truck weight exemption would save the State of 
     Maine between $1.3 million and $2 million annually in bridge 
     and pavement costs. A companion 2004 Maine DOT study of the 
     currently exempted Maine Turnpike estimated that the federal 
     truck weight exemption on that highway, which allows higher 
     state weight limits, saves the state between $2.1 million and 
     $3.2 million annually in bridge and pavement costs. Also, the 
     increased pavement consumption of a six-axle combination 
     truck compared with the five-axle truck is relatively small 
     due to the advantage of adding an axle to offset the weight 
     increase and to the reduced number of trips by the loaded 
     vehicle. A federal truck weight exemption would annually 
     remove an estimated 7.8 million loaded truck-miles of travel 
     from Maine's primary and secondary road system, diverting the 
     traffic to the safer Interstate highway system.
       From an environmental standpoint, the federal truck weight 
     exemption would reduce Maine's and the nation's dependence on 
     foreign oil by eliminating the need to divert to less direct 
     routes, thereby reducing overall fuel usage. In addition, 
     increasing payload capacities reduces the number of truck-
     miles traveled for a given load, thereby reducing fuel usage. 
     Fewer trucks on the road and lower fuel usage also result in 
     lower emissions--a direct environmental benefit.
       Also, the State of Maine just completed a study entitled 
     ``Estimating Fuel Consumption and Emissions in Maine: A 
     Comparative Analysis for a Six-Axle, 100,000-1b. Vehicle.'' 
     The study was prepared by the American Transportation 
     Research Institute. Preliminary findings included significant 
     efficiency improvements and trip-specific emissions 
     improvements in the comparison of two different parallel 
     routes--an Interstate route and a state highway route. 
     Efficiency improvements measured in miles per gallon were 
     determined to be 14-21 percent on the Interstate route. 
     Emissions were also expected to decrease by 6-11 percent for 
     CO2 and 3-8 percent for NOX and MNHC on 
     the Interstate.
       In summary, enacting a federal truck weight limit exemption 
     on the currently non-exempt Maine Interstate highway system 
     would:
       Reduce truck crashes on Maine's highways;
       Reduce the number of trucks necessary to haul a given load;
       Allow heavy truck traffic on the much safer Interstate 
     highway system;
       Divert many through-trucks from congested town centers with 
     schools, gas stations, intersections, crosswalks, etc.;
       Reduce regional transportation costs, making Maine industry 
     more competitive with its neighbors and enhancing interstate 
     and international trade;
       Reduce net fuel consumption; and
       Save $1.3 to $2.0 million annually in infrastructure costs 
     by reducing impacts.
       As Senate action on the FY 2010 DOT-HUD Appropriations Bill 
     moves forward, I want to voice my strong support for Section 
     194, which will promote safer and more efficient truck 
     movement on Maine's highways.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John E. Balducci,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                                   State of Maine,


                                  Department of Public Safety,

                                   Augusta, ME, September 9, 2009.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Maine Department of 
     Public Safety, I am writing in support of your efforts to 
     include a one year pilot program in the FY2010 
     Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 
     Bill to allow trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to operate 
     the entire length of the Interstate Highway here in Maine. We 
     strongly believe that such a program will allow all Mainers 
     to travel more efficiently and especially more safely along 
     our rural roads if this were to occur.
       Last year in Maine, 155 people tragically died on Maine's 
     highways. 23 of these deaths involved large trucks. We also 
     know that of these 23 deaths, more than 80% occurred on our 
     rural roads. We attribute many of these deaths to the fact 
     that large trucks are forced by current Federal law and 
     policy to exit our safe, divided 4-6 lane interstate highway 
     at Augusta, a mere 100 miles into Maine, and travel along two 
     lane rural roads. Many of these trucks are then forced to 
     travel six to eight hours or more along our rural roads to 
     reach their destinations instead of being allowed to travel 
     along the divided highway.
       These roads pass through our villages, our towns, past 
     churches, schools, shopping centers, parks and Little League 
     fields. Unlike our major highway that limits access, thereby 
     cutting down on collisions, these rural roads have thousands 
     of locations where roads cross, people enter from parking 
     lots and private driveways and young children, adults and 
     elderly people walk, bike and run.
       Each time you add an access point to these roads, you 
     increase the potential for a tragic accident to occur. Each 
     time a truck is forced to travel along an undivided highway, 
     the potential for other vehicles to cross over into its lane, 
     to unexpectedly pull out in front of the truck, for a young 
     child to run into the roadway or for a bicycle to swerve into 
     the lane of travel, increases dramatically. Each of these 
     incidents is a tragedy waiting to happen.
       The Maine Department of Public Safety, which includes the 
     State Bureau of Highway Safety, the Maine State Police and 
     the Bureau of Emergency Communications, strongly supports 
     your proposal. State and Federal Motor Carrier statistics 
     that have been gathered over the years tell us that every 
     time you can get a large truck off a small rural road and 
     onto a divided limited access highway, the chance to avoid 
     accidents and prevent death greatly increases. The proposed 
     bill is a smart, practical and well reasoned approach to this 
     problem. The Maine Department of Public Safety wholeheartedly 
     supports your efforts.
       Please feel free to contact me at my office at 207 626 3800 
     if there is any further information I can provide to you in 
     support of your efforts. Thank you for your time and 
     dedication to the efforts to make Maine's roads safer for all 
     of our citizens and visitors.
           Sincerely yours,
                                              Anne H. Jordan, Esq.
     Commissioner of Pubic Safety, State of Maine.
                                  ____

         State of Maine, Department of Public Safety--Maine State 
           Police
                                  Augusta, ME, September 10, 2009.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: I am writing on behalf of the Maine 
     State Police to support your efforts to increase gross 
     vehicle weights on Maine's non-exempt Interstate highway 
     system. The changes you propose will not only benefit the 
     economy of the State of Maine, but will significantly improve 
     the safety of Maine's roads.
       As you know, Maine allows gross vehicle weights of up to 
     100,000 lbs. on six-axle tractor semitrailers on state 
     highways. As a result, when they reach the non-exempt 
     portions of Maine's Interstate highway system heavy 
     combination trucks that would travel on the Interstate system 
     are diverted to the state highway system. This results in 
     100,000 lbs. trucks traveling through busy downtown

[[Page S9539]]

     areas, through population centers, through congested 
     intersections and next to schools and playgrounds.
       A June 2004 report prepared for the Maine Department of 
     Transportation (MaineDOT) concluded that allowing 100,000 
     lbs. trucks on the non-exempt Interstate Highways in Maine 
     would result in fewer crashes. This report indicates that the 
     crash rates on non-Interstate facilities in the study network 
     are more than 2 1/2 times higher than the crash rate on the 
     non-exempt Interstate System. In addition, the fatal crash 
     rate on non-Interstate facilities is nearly 10 times the 
     fatal crash rate on Interstate facilities while 
     incapacitating injury crashes are more than twice as 
     prevalent. National studies have found a strong relationship 
     between road class and crash risk. Findings from these 
     reports indicate that trucks traveling on rural interstates 
     are 3 to 4 times less likely to have a fatal crash than 
     trucks traveling on rural state and county highways.
       Safety is a primary concern of the Maine State Police. 
     Given that the Interstate highway system is the safest road 
     network for heavy vehicle operations, we fully support your 
     efforts to allow 100,000 lbs. six-axle semi-trailers on the 
     non-exempt portion of Maine's Interstate highway system.
           Sincerely,
                                          Col. Patrick J. Fleming,
     Chief, Maine State Police.
                                  ____



                             Maine State Troopers Association,

                                  Augusta, ME, September 11, 2009.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: I last wrote to you in 2005 in 
     support of your efforts to increase the gross vehicle weights 
     to 100,000 lbs. on Maine's non-exempt Interstate highway 
     system. At that time, I wrote in my capacity as Chief of the 
     Maine State Police. After retiring in 2007, I moved into the 
     private sector as a labor consultant providing services to, 
     amongst others, the Maine State Troopers Association (MSTA). 
     It is on their behalf that I write today. I might add that my 
     personal sentiments in support of your efforts have not 
     waivered and if anything have strengthened.
       The statistics continue to support the increase, both from 
     an economic, and to my mind most importantly, a public safety 
     standpoint. The proposed one year pilot program will provide 
     an opportunity for due diligence on the part of policy makers 
     and policy implementers by way of an analytical survey of the 
     results of moving heavy trucks off the secondary roads and on 
     to the Interstate system which was engineered for such 
     traffic. This also will allow for policy decisions to be made 
     based on facts and not simply emotion or speculation.
       MSTA's members are on the front line of Maine's highway 
     safety efforts and are responsible for enforcing State and 
     Federal commercial vehicle laws and regulations. They see no 
     down side to this proposal. And as compelling as the data is, 
     intuitively it just makes sense. While the naysayers believe 
     it will increase risk, no data supports that notion.
       Safety remains the primary concern of Maine's Troopers as 
     it did in 2005. For that reason we offer our support in your 
     efforts to move 100,000 lb. six-axel semi-trailers on the 
     non-exempt portion of Maine's Interstate system. Thank you 
     for your efforts on this important initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Craig A. Poulin,
     Executive Director, MSTA.
                                  ____



             Maine Association of Police, South Portland, ME, 
                                            September 9, 2009.

     Senator Susan Collins,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins, The Maine Association of Police 
     offers and urges support of your efforts to include a one 
     year pilot project in the FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and 
     Urban Development Appropriations bill to allow trucks 
     weighing up to one hundred thousand pounds to utilize the 
     full length of Maine's interstate highway system.
       Currently, federal law prohibits trucks weighing more than 
     eighty thousand pounds from traveling the I-95 corridor from 
     the city of Augusta, north. Because the Maine Turnpike, also 
     designated as I-95, is a private, toll road, this prohibition 
     does not exist from the New Hampshire border to Augusta.
       This inconsistency creates a situation in which commercial 
     vehicles not conforming to the federal weight restriction are 
     forced to leave the interstate system and travel state 
     secondary roads. As law enforcement first responders, this 
     forced departure from the interstate system is of great 
     concern. Given the nature and daily use of secondary roads 
     vital to Maine citizens, this restriction creates an 
     unnecessary risk by forcing these commercial vehicles off of 
     a system that is specifically designed and engineered for 
     this type of commercial traffic.
       The pilot project also provides for the diligent study of 
     the impacts that this temporary change will have on Maine's 
     interstate system to address concerns that many would have as 
     to the long term impact of commercial traffic. An unintended 
     side benefit also provides an opportunity for Maine Law 
     Enforcement to gauge the impact of removing this traffic from 
     secondary roads through crash reporting and other statistical 
     data. It also affords law enforcement a clear venue to direct 
     enforcement and safety operations as they relate to 
     commercial vehicle issues.
       The one year pilot project provided by this current budget 
     takes a common sense approach to address an important issue 
     in Maine that has gone unattended. It provides the 
     opportunity to study the balance between an effective and 
     efficient commerce system, fuel efficiency and environmental 
     impacts, but most of all, the safety of Maine citizens and 
     those who visit our great state. We look forward to the 
     committee's support of your efforts in making this 
     opportunity a reality.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Paul Gaspar,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               September 11, 2009.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Coalition for 
     Transportation Productivity (CTP) and its 120 members 
     nationwide, I am writing to express strong support for 
     Section 194 of the FY 2010 Transportation-HUD Appropriations 
     Bill now pending before the Senate. This provision would 
     enable the state of Maine to conduct a one-year pilot program 
     to test the impact of allowing 100,000 pound, six-axle 
     single-trailer trucks to access Maine's interstate highway 
     network.
       CTP was organized to promote the passage of federal 
     legislation giving each state the option to increase its 
     interstate vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for six-axle 
     trucks if the state determines that the infrastructure of 
     these roads can safely accommodate the heavier loads. Maine 
     officials have determined that their state roads are fully 
     capable of handling these loads. It is important to note that 
     highway safety, environmental performance and economic 
     productivity would all be improved by allowing this pilot 
     program to occur.
       Increasing the interstate weight limit would allow 
     businesses and shippers to carry a specific amount of freight 
     using fewer trucks. This is especially significant for 
     highway safety because accident rates among heavy vechicles 
     are strongly tied to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and 
     consolidating freight would reduce VMTs to make roads safer. 
     It is important to note that since the United Kingdom raised 
     its gross vehicle weight limit for six-axle vehicles in 2001, 
     fatal truck-related accident rates have declined by 35 
     percent. More freight has been shipped, while the number of 
     VMTs to deliver a ton of freight has declined.
       Moreover, the current interstate weight limit often forces 
     trucks to travel on rural roads that often wind through 
     towns, passing schools and private driveways, where accidents 
     are more likely to occur. The provision would put these 
     trucks on better-engineered, divided interstate highways, 
     where they can safely and efficiently transport goods.
       Allowing six-axle vehicles to carry more weight would also 
     yield cleaner air and greener shipping by cutting fuel use 
     and carbon emissions. A 2008 American Transportation Research 
     institute study found that six-axle trucks carrying about 
     100,000 pounds get 17 percent more ton-miles per gallon than 
     five-axle trucks carrying 80,000 pounds. More efficient 
     shipping means a smaller carbon footprint.
       Finally, raising the interstate vehicle weight limit will 
     have widespread economic benefits. At a point when many 
     producers are facing tough economic times and smaller 
     budgets, the provision will enable them to reduce the number 
     of weekly shipments--cutting costs, spurring investment and 
     protecting valuable jobs.
       Futhermore, producers in Maine and across the country are 
     currently at a productivity disadvantage because Canada, 
     Mexico and most European countries now have higher truck 
     weight limits. Harmonizing weight limits with our major 
     trading partners will ease the cost of moving U.S. goods into 
     international markets and stop costly freight consolidation 
     at our ports and border crossings. With Canada's higher 
     weight limits, the provision in Maine would help Northeastern 
     producers compete for market share and efficiently export 
     goods.
       It is a fact that allowing heavier, more efficient trucks 
     to operate on our nation's interstates would improve safety, 
     reduce environmental impact and strengthen the economy. CTP 
     applauds Sen. Collins for introducing the provision.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Runyan,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               American Trucking Associations,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Daniel Inouye,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     U.S Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inouye: The American Trucking Associations 
     supports Senator Collins' efforts to secure a 1 year pilot 
     program in the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation and Housing 
     and Urban Development Appropriations bill that would allow 
     for more productive vehicles to be operated on Maine's 
     interstate highways. The inclusion of this provision will 
     improve safety, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and benefit 
     Maine's economy.
       Under current law, six axle vehicles with a gross vehicle 
     weight of 100,000 lbs are allowed to operate on the Maine 
     Turnpike (I-95) from

[[Page S9540]]

     the New Hampshire border to Augusta, ME. Upon reaching 
     Augusta, however, the federal weight preemption on the 
     Interstate Highway System forces trucks weighing more than 
     80,000 lbs off of I-95 onto smaller secondary roads which are 
     less safe than Interstates. The removal of the federal 
     prohibition would allow trucks on the roads that are best 
     suited for them.
       This pilot project is also an effective strategy for 
     mitigating the impacts of carbon dioxide on climate change 
     due to the reduction in fuel use as a result of fewer trips 
     needed to deliver a given amount of freight. A recent study 
     found that more productive vehicles could reduce fuel usage 
     up to 39% with similar reductions in greenhouse gas 
     emissions.
       Furthermore, the allowance of more productive vehicles on 
     the Interstate will help to alleviate Maine's current 
     economic disadvantage. Jurisdictions surrounding Maine all 
     have significantly higher weight limits on their highways. 
     New Hampshire and Massachusetts both allow trucks up to 
     99,000 lbs. and Canada allows for truck weights greater than 
     100,000 lbs. Maine's inability to allow for higher weight 
     limits has made it a virtual island unto itself.
       ATA encourages the Committee to include the Maine pilot 
     project as part of the final FY 2010 THUD Appropriations 
     bill. This is good public policy and we commend Senator 
     Collins for her efforts to address Maine's needs.

                                             Timothy P. Lynch,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                     Office of Legislative Affairs

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, several of my colleagues offered 
amendments that would prohibit funding for individual transportation 
and housing projects in the underlying bill, including several 
important projects for Connecticut. I question the judgment of my 
colleagues who attack specific programs without regard for the purpose 
these projects serve or the impact they will have in the commuunity. I 
also question the notion that Washington knows better than the 
communities and States which projects will provide critical services, 
stimulate their local economies, and preserve jobs.
  I would like to take this opportunity to explain some of the critical 
funding for Connecticut in this important legislation.
  In my State of Connecticut, home to some of America's most 
frustrating traffic congestion, transit is the future of 
transportation. Investments in sustainable development have resulted in 
the creation of job centers and residential communities built around 
transit stations, all the while serving to clear space on the roads. 
This transportation funding bill includes $4 million for improvements 
to the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail line, which would establish 
both faster intercity and commuter rail service between New Haven, 
Hartford, and Springfield, provide residents of central Connecticut 
with better access to southwest Connecticut, New York City, western 
Massachusetts, and Vermont. It also includes nearly $10 million in 
transit-related projects across the State, including the development of 
the Thompsonville Intermodal Transportation Center in Enfield, a 
passenger rail station in West Haven, the Bridgeport Intermodal Center, 
and expanding transit services and access in Stamford. Transit projects 
such as these connect Connecticut residents with jobs and make it 
possible for the regional economies to grow.
  Sustainable development and livable communities depend on helping 
towns and regions across Connecticut invest in their transportation, 
housing, land use, and economic development needs. That is, for 
example, this bill includes $1.5 million in funding for the city of 
Waterbury for the development of brownfield properties and the 
Naugatuck River Greenway. This community faces a 12.7 percent 
unemployment rate and millions of square feet of unused, factory space 
contaminated by generations of brass production and industrial uses. 
Funding for development of former brownfield sites in Waterbury has 
been a target on this Senate floor. An amendment was offered to strip 
away this project's funding. For Members of this body who have never 
visited Waterbury, I welcome them to walk the streets of this city and 
question whether this community needs Federal assistance to redevelop 
properties that have been long-contaminated, abandoned, and blighted. 
There have been investments on the local and State level to provide 
this city with the tools they need to thrive. It is only just that the 
Federal Government do the same.
  Our ability to foster economic growth through sustainable development 
in Connecticut depends on our ability to have affordable housing and 
assist homeowners struggling to keep their homes in this financial 
downturn. By providing the resources to keep people in their homes and 
assistance to communities to expand affordable housing, we can truly 
strengthen our economy. That is why this bill includes critical funding 
for housing and foreclosure programs across Connecticut. The bill makes 
investments in regions, including funds for the Southeastern 
Connecticut Housing Alliance in Norwich to provide technical assistance 
to communities in New London County to increase affordable housing and 
support for the Urban League of Southern Connecticut to provide for 
foreclosure prevention assistance programs to all of Connecticut. In 
central Connecticut, funding will support foreclosure prevention and 
homeownership initiatives in Middletown.
  This bill provides nearly $17 million for the State of Connecticut, 
representing investments in critical programs and services to help the 
people of my State. This bill supports local officials and 
organizations that know best the needs of their communities. It 
represents jobs and economic growth and I am proud to support it.
  Madam President, I was pleased to join with my colleagues Senator 
Murray and Senator Bond to provide much-needed funding to avoid 
terminations of section 8 housing voucher assistance to families across 
the country. The Census Department's recently released poverty figures 
show that in 2008--before the full brunt of the current recession--
nearly one in five American children lived in poverty. Given the 
challenges confronting the economy and our families, housing assistance 
programs like section 8 vouchers could not be more important.
  Senators Murray and Bond have worked hard in recent years to ensure 
that the section 8 voucher program is adequately funded. Unfortunately, 
initial budget estimates that they received from the Bush 
administration last year proved to be too low to accommodate the needs 
of the program. In recent months, we have seen newspaper accounts of 
section 8 funding shortfalls in communities around the country, with 
families worried that they would have their housing assistance reduced 
or terminated altogether. The funds provided by this amendment will 
help ease the minds of many families.
  I am also pleased that these funds have been identified from within 
the section 8 voucher account itself, so this solution is also budget-
neutral.
  I would be remiss if I did not thank Senators Murray and Bond for 
their good work in assembling this challenging bill. The 
Transportation-HUD appropriations bill is responsible for funding our 
national transportation infrastructure, vital housing assistance and 
funding to combat homelessness, and aid to our hard-pressed cities and 
towns. In this bill, the Senators have been able to provide valuable 
HUD funding increases for priorities such as public housing, section 8 
assistance, and community development block grants. I also appreciate 
the bill's strong funding for transportation, and particularly public 
transportation programs.
  Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues for the $100 million 
they provided for competitive capital grants to transit agencies 
seeking to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. 
Senator Shelby and I worked with the managers to include these grants 
in the economic recovery bill earlier this year. We appreciate their 
continued support for this initiative.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are now on final passage. I urge all 
of our colleagues to vote yes.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I join with my colleague in thanking all 
Members and urging an aye vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. The motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table.
  The question is on the engrossment of the committee amendment and 
third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.

[[Page S9541]]

  The bill was read the third time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield back our time and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, shall the bill as amended pass:
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 287 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--25

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Landrieu
       
  The bill, H.R. 3288, as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
  The chair appointed Mrs. Murray, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, 
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
Johnson, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Specter, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bond, Mr. Shelby, 
Mr. Bennett, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Collins, 
Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Cochran, conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________