[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21579-21586]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendments Nos. 2370, 2371, and 2372

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have decided to come to the Chamber in 
my capacity as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee 
to address a number of Coburn amendments that he has either laid down 
or intends to lay down, and I hope we can work to defeat these 
amendments, as I understand them, and I want to say why.
  We have a very important relationship with our States when it comes 
to transportation and highway programs, and we work with them on many 
aspects of transportation. We have something called the Transportation 
Enhancement Program. It is a TE program. It was created in 1991 in the 
ISTEA bill, and one of the purposes was to encourage investments in 
many areas that have been overlooked. I want to give you an example of 
those.
  Since 1992, because of this TE Program, over $11.5 billion has been 
made available to the States for some very important purposes that deal 
with safety, that deal with making sure our highways are kept in a 
condition we want to see them kept. I will give more examples of the 
funding. But over that period of time, that $11.5 billion has created 
399,000 jobs. Let me repeat that. This special program Senator Coburn 
wants to strip--and he wants to strip parts of it--is responsible for 
399,000 jobs since 1992. I am here to say--because I know my friend, 
Senator Murray, agrees with me--of all the times not to visit more job 
losses on our people, it certainly is now. Jobs are key, and the Coburn 
amendment is a jobs killer.
  Let me tell you about the various areas that fall under this program 
he is taking the ax to.
  Environmental mitigation. This includes projects that address water 
pollution due to highway runoff. We just read a front-page story in the 
New York Times where we see terrible water pollution affecting our 
children. They had a picture of a child who has been drinking water 
that really has not been tested in the right way according to the law. 
This child's teeth all have to be capped because his teeth rotted. So 
we want to make sure we do not let that runoff get into waterways.
  Also, we hear about wildlife mortality. Anyone who has seen the 
result of a crash between a car and, let's say, a deer on a road knows 
this is a horrific situation for all parties, and it is a matter of 
life or death for drivers and their passengers. That is what some of 
this money is used for and that is what our friend, Senator Coburn, 
wants to take the ax to, as far as I understand it.
  Then there are facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists and safety 
and educational activities for pedestrians. Residents of my State are 
strong supporters of spending transportation funds on bicycle paths and 
pedestrian facilities. We all know walking and biking are forms of 
transportation which should not be cut but, rather, encouraged.
  Other categories of TE, the transportation enhancements, that it is 
my understanding Senator Coburn wants to cut: Acquisition of scenic 
easements

[[Page 21580]]

and scenic history sites, including historic battlefield sites. Does he 
think that little of the history of the country that he wants to take 
an ax to this, scenic or historic highway programs, including the 
provision of tourist and welcome center facilities? Again, tourism is 
one of the things we need to build up. There are many millions of jobs 
related to tourism, landscaping, and other scenic beautification. We 
all know and take pride in our communities. Highway beautification, to 
me, is a key part of our quality of life--historic preservation, 
rehabilitation, and operation of historic transportation buildings.
  We have seen some of those. We have seen them in places as far flung 
as New York to places in St. Louis, MO, to San Francisco, CA--
preservation of abandoned railway cars, including conservation and use 
of the cars for pedestrian or bike trails; inventory control and 
removal of outdoor advertising and archeological planning and research. 
Senator Coburn would have us believe that transportation enhancements 
are a low-priority project. These are investments that put hundreds of 
thousands of Americans to work. These are investments that improve 
safety, prevent pollution, save fuel, and improve the quality of life 
for millions of Americans.
  I wonder if Senator Murray and I can engage for a minute here through 
the Chair.
  What is the timing of when these amendments will be voted on? Can the 
chairman tell me?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from 
California, the Senator from Oklahoma has offered a number of 
amendments. We are hoping to debate them this afternoon and vote on 
them tomorrow morning.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I ask, through the Chair, if the chairman of the 
subcommittee would allow me to be heard for a minute before we have a 
vote on any of these amendments that deal with transportation 
enhancement programs.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we will make sure, as we put together the 
order for tomorrow, the Senator can be heard before the votes occur.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2366, As Modified

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2366, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2366, as modified.

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

(Purpose: To permit Amtrak passengers to safely transport firearms and 
                  ammunition in their checked baggage)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Funding Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, amounts made available in this Act for the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) shall immediately 
     cease to be available if after March 31, 2010, Amtrak 
     prohibits the secure transportation of firearms on passenger 
     trains.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``secure 
     transportation of firearms'' means--
       (1) if an Amtrak station accepts checked baggage for a 
     specific Amtrak route, Amtrak passengers holding a ticket for 
     such route are allowed to place an unloaded firearm or 
     starter pistol in a checked bag on such route if--
       (A) before checking the bag or boarding the train, the 
     passenger declares to Amtrak, either orally or in writing, 
     that the firearm is in his or her bag and is unloaded;
       (B) the firearm is carried in a hard-sided container;
       (C) such container is locked; and
       (D) only the passenger has the key or combination for such 
     container; and
       (2) Amtrak passengers are allowed to place small arms 
     ammunition for personal use in a checked bag on an Amtrak 
     route if the ammunition is securely packed--
       (A) in fiber, wood, or metal boxes; or
       (B) in other packaging specifically designed to carry small 
     amounts of ammunition.

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 
2366, as modified, which I have offered on behalf of millions of law-
abiding gun owners across the country.
  Earlier this year, I offered an amendment to the budget that would 
have limited certain budget opportunities to Amtrak, unless this 
federally subsidized agency enacted policies to accommodate passengers' 
second amendment rights. The amendment I offered passed by a bipartisan 
vote of 63 to 35, but it was not included in the final version of the 
legislation when it returned from conference.
  Therefore, I am here on the floor to try again. In our country today, 
airline passengers may transport firearms and ammunition in secure 
checked baggage when declared during the check-in process. But, on the 
other hand, Amtrak passengers are not permitted to do likewise. This 
means that sportsmen who wish to use an Amtrak train for hunting trips 
cannot do so because they are not allowed to bring a firearm in checked 
luggage--something that is done every day at airports across our 
country.
  I want to emphasize that this amendment only deals with secured and 
checked luggage, as checked baggage on Amtrak trains. Law-abiding gun 
owners should not be penalized for seeking alternative means of travel. 
At one time, Amtrak accepted firearms in secure checked baggage, but 
this policy was changed in 2001.
  The commonsense amendment before us today is straightforward. It 
simply says that if Amtrak continues to deny the right of gun owners to 
securely transport firearms in checked luggage, the rail line will no 
longer receive a Federal subsidy of $1.55 billion. At the request of 
the leadership of the committee, I have modified my amendment to make 
it effective only after March 31, 2010, in order to give the agency 
adequate time in which to comply with this amendment.
  I want my colleagues to know that the amendment before us today 
mirrors current TSA requirements to check a firearm for air travel. I 
must say these requirements are detailed and strict. For example, 
should my amendment pass, the following requirements must be met:
  No. 1, a passenger who wishes to transport a firearm must be 
travelling on a route that accepts checked luggage.
  No. 2, the passenger must declare the firearm before boarding the 
train.
  No. 3, the firearm must be unloaded and stored in a hard-side 
container that is locked, as is required on the airlines.
  No. 4, only the passenger can have the key or combination for the 
container.
  This was done successfully by Amtrak prior to 2001, without incident. 
Regional rail lines, such as Alaska Railroad Corporation, allow 
firearms, as I am trying to do in this amendment, and that is done 
currently in Alaska Railroad Corporation, again, without incident.
  It is sometimes much more convenient for sportsmen to travel by rail, 
particularly in rural and remote parts of the country. The Alaska 
Railroad Corporation knows there is no need to show prejudice to lawful 
American sportsmen. That is why their travellers may transport firearms 
in checked luggage, and that is why we are asking nothing more than 
that and nothing less than that of the government-controlled Amtrak 
system.
  I might also add that spending is certainly out of control in 
Washington, and it is hard for me to imagine Congress considering 
providing over $1.5 billion to Amtrak, while the rail line 
intentionally limits its revenue and chooses not to receive passenger 
miles from this specific and law-abiding segment of travelers.

[[Page 21581]]

  Americans should not have their second amendment rights restricted 
for any reason, particularly if they choose to travel on America's 
federally subsidized rail line.
  A vote in support of this amendment is a vote in support of the 
second amendment and for the right of gun owners across America. I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2376

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2376.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2376.

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

 (Purpose: To affirm the continuing existence of the community service 
 requirements under section 12(c) of the United States Housing Act of 
                                 1937)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec_. None of the funds made available in this Act shall be 
     used to restrict implementation or enforcement of the 
     community service requirements under section 12(c) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437j(c)).

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, my amendment, No. 2376, is very simple and 
straightforward. To understand it, we need to go back a little bit, to 
1998. In 1998, Congress passed the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act, a law requiring all able-bodied people living in 
public housing to perform 8 hours per month of community service, with 
the idea that individuals who are getting this benefit from all of the 
other taxpayers should give back, should contribute to the community as 
some partial repayment for the very significant benefit they are 
getting. I think that concept had--and I certainly hope it still has--
widespread consensus, bipartisan support. It has been the law since 
1998.
  Unfortunately, some folks in Congress--I believe a minority, but some 
folks in Congress--want to throw this basic, straightforward community 
service requirement out the window. In fact, in 2001, these proponents 
actually got language included in the VA/HUD appropriations bill which 
temporarily, for that one fiscal year, did do away with this community 
service requirement. It was just that 1 year. That is the only year 
since 1998 where the requirement was thrown out the window, but it did 
happen in that year.
  Unfortunately, those same folks, like-minded folks, have made the 
attempt again, and in this year's VA/HUD appropriations bill on the 
House side, before a lot of advocates for the community service 
requirement were able to take notice, a similar amendment doing away 
with the community service requirement was passed through the House by 
voice. Again, this slipped through. The advocates of the community 
service requirement did not notice; otherwise, they would have demanded 
a rollcall vote. But it did slip through by voice.
  It is very important that we correct that and preserve the community 
service requirement in the Senate version of the bill so we can also 
preserve it in the final version of this appropriations bill. This is a 
very basic, straightforward idea with which I believe the huge majority 
of the American people agree. It is simply saying: If you are getting a 
benefit from the taxpayer, you are getting free or highly subsidized 
public housing, and you are able-bodied, then you should help repay for 
that benefit by simply devoting 8 hours per month--not per week, 8 
hours per month--to community service.
  I want to emphasize a few things. No. 1, this applies to fully able-
bodied recipients of the benefit only. Exempted residents, for 
instance, include those who are 62 years old or older, those who are 
disabled and can certify they cannot comply with the requirement, 
caretakers of a person with a disability, those engaged in work 
activities or are exempt from work activities under TANF, family 
members in compliance with TANF, or the State welfare program's work 
requirements. That is separate, and they would be exempt and are exempt 
from this.
  Still, according to the Congressional Research Service, after you 
take all those exempt individuals out, HUD estimates there are 
approximately 100,000 to 150,000 households that include folks who 
would have to meet this requirement.
  I believe, when you consider the requirement, 8 hours of community 
service per month, when you consider the exemptions for folks over 62, 
for folks who have any disability, for folks who are not able-bodied in 
any way, this public service requirement is truly minimal and 
thoroughly reasonable. I believe that is why it passed into law in 1998 
with broad public and bipartisan support. I believe that is why we 
should retain it in law today and make sure the House attempt to throw 
that requirement out the window is not successful.
  Public housing authorities are given broad discretion in implementing 
and enforcing this requirement. There is no absolute penalty for not 
meeting this requirement. Folks are not immediately thrown out of their 
public housing. All of this has been done in an as modest, frankly, and 
absolutely reasonable way as possible. I urge my colleagues, Democrats 
and Republicans, to retain this important part of present law, to 
retain this commonsense approach that a wide majority, a broad majority 
of the American people support. I certainly hope this amendment could 
be accepted or, if not, retained by a good vote on the floor of the 
Senate that is overwhelming and bipartisan.
  With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold the request for a 
quorum call?
  Mr. VITTER. I will.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Louisiana offers an amendment that 
makes sure the community service requirement for people living in 
public housing remains in effect. This includes part of the existing 
law and is currently being enforced by public housing authorities. What 
the amendment of the Senator does is simply restate current law. I will 
be happy to accept it. If the Senator is willing, we can take it on a 
voice vote at the present time. I am willing to move forward with it.
  Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to consider that offer and get back to 
the distinguished Senator. My only concern is we have as much 
ammunition as possible to retain this provision in conference, which a 
very good rollcall vote could perhaps give us. That is my only concern, 
since the House version of the bill has taken this language out. I will 
be happy to consider that offer and personally follow up with the 
distinguished Senator.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Again, we are happy to accept the amendment right now. 
If the Senator wants to have a vote, if we can work out a time to do 
that, I am happy to do that as well.
  Mr. VITTER. I yield my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to give actually 
a little bit of a history lesson, to look back and also look forward. I 
ask my colleagues to join me in looking back some 300-and-almost-75 
years. Roughly

[[Page 21582]]

at that time the first Swedes and Finns sailed to America on a couple 
of boats, one of which was called the Kalmar Nyckel.
  The first Swedes and Finns came to shore--actually, they came up the 
Delaware Bay, up into the Delaware River, and they took a left turn at 
an uncharted river and decided to name it after the child Queen of 
Sweden, naming the river the ``Christina River.'' They landed their 
boats at a place which we now call The Rocks and decided to name that 
area the ``Colony of New Sweden.'' The first Swedes, the first Finns in 
America came ashore in what is now really Wilmington, DE. For the first 
year, they never called it Wilmington, they called it the Colony of New 
Sweden.
  They came by ships, and for about the next 300 years, a lot of ships 
were built along the banks of the Christina River, especially during 
the period from 1945 to 1946 during the heart of World War II. Among 
the ships that were built there were destroyer escorts, troop landing 
ships, and a variety of other ships that helped to win the war, helped 
to win World War II.
  When World War II was at its most robust, fullest form, we had 10,000 
people who worked on the banks of the Christina River building those 
ships. A few years after the war ended, what had been a vibrant 
shipbuilding area along the Christina River dried up, the activity went 
away. The war was won, and what had been a vibrant shipbuilding area 
became, over time, a decaying industrial wasteland with relatively 
little new activity.
  In the 1960s, I-95 was built up the northeast corridor of our 
country, the mid-Atlantic part of our country, and it literally cut 
Wilmington, DE, in half. Off to the right, to the east of I-95, was the 
Christina River, and add to that the northeast corridor, the Amtrak 
main lines between Washington and Boston. The main line of Amtrak also 
sat between I-95 and the Christina River and served to make it 
difficult for people even to access the river, almost hard for them to 
even know it was there.
  I became Governor in 1993, and toward the end of that year, I was 
visited by a former Governor, Russ Peterson, and by a former president 
of the University of Delaware.
  They said: We have been thinking of an idea. We have actually been 
working under the direction of a joint resolution signed by former 
Governor Mike Castle to think about what the potential could be for 
development along the Christina River and the Brandywine Creek not far 
away. We haven't finished our job. We have had a good start on it, but 
we need more time. We are about to run out of time under the joint 
resolution. We wonder if we can have a little more time to think it 
through.
  I said: Hey, look, I am up to my eyeballs in alligators. I have been 
Governor for less than a year. You guys take as much time as you need.
  They went away, and I wasn't sure I would ever see them again or talk 
to them again. As it turns out, in about 6 months they came back, and 
they said: Do you remember our coming in and talking to you?
  I said: Yes, I remember that.
  They said: We have gone back and done more work on a vision, if you 
will, of what the Christina River, this industrial wasteland along 
either side of the river, of what it could be, and we would like to 
share that with you today.
  I said: Have at it.
  By that time, I had been Governor about a year and a half, things 
were settling down, and I was ready to listen. They had these big 
architect renderings of a riverfront that certainly looked nothing like 
the Christina River, didn't look at all like an industrial wasteland. 
There was a river that was pristine, with parks, walking paths, boats 
out on the river, museums, restaurants, places for people to live, 
places for people to work, theaters, museums. And I never will forget--
I looked at them. I was blown away by the vision.
  I said to former Governor Peterson: Who is going to make all of this 
happen?
  He looked me right in the eye and he said: You are.
  I said: Why me?
  He said: Well, because you are the Governor.
  I said: Well, I love this vision, and let's see if we can't help to 
realize it.
  I think that conversation was in 1994. Anybody who today takes the 
train up the northeast corridor and stops at the Wilmington train 
station would say we have made a lot of progress. The place is cleaned 
up. We actually have walking paths along the river. We have parks. We 
have beautiful places where people live and condominiums and apartments 
as well as other homes. We have restaurants and we have museums. We 
have hope--that is what I am here to talk about today--for a children's 
science museum along the riverfront. But it is a vision that has been 
realized. A lot of people come there to eat at restaurants along the 
riverfront. And the river itself is being cleaned up, the water quality 
is being cleaned up, and the environmental hazards, and so forth, the 
waste that was left there has been for the most part cleaned up.
  Probably in another month or so, less than a month or so, we are 
going to open a 250-acre wildlife refuge named after former Governor 
Peterson, built in partnership with the DuPont Company and the Nature 
Education Center. People will come and just enjoy, literally on the 
outskirts of the city, a large, urban wildlife refuge with walking 
paths and see what might have been some 100 years ago or 50 years ago 
in that place.
  About 10 years ago, when I was nearing the end of my time as 
Governor, my second term, a group of citizens in our State came to see 
me, and they said they were exited about the riverfront and what was 
happening there.
  They said: You know, Delaware does not have a children's museum.
  I think every other State does. We do not. In fact, it turns out 
there are about 250 children's museums across the country.
  They said: We are interested in having a children's museum to go with 
all of the other attractions on the riverfront.
  We talked about it for some time, and I said: I like the idea. I like 
the concept. But to tell you the truth, I would be a lot more 
interested in it if it were a children's science museum.
  At the time, I was trying to figure out, how do we get kids 
motivated, excited about science, how do we get them excited about 
careers in science? It is all well and good, the State is big in 
tourism, big in financial services, we have had a great history with 
the chemical industry, shipbuilding at one time. But in our Nation and 
in my State, we need more scientists, we need more engineers, we need 
more people who have facility in mathematics and who are going to go 
out and become inventors, create things, things of value that will help 
us, among other things, create jobs in the 21st century. Whether it is 
in clean energy or conservation or wind, solar, new ways to create 
nuclear power, we need people with those credentials too.
  It starts very young. We have adopted, in my State, rigorous academic 
standards for math and science, English and social studies, with a real 
focus on the math and science. We say: This is what we expect you to 
know and learn and be able to do. And we are going to measure students' 
progress on that. Most every State has done that. As I said earlier, 
most every other State has decided it is going to have its own 
children's museum.
  I told the folks who presented their idea to me about a decade ago: 
If you want me to be involved, if you want me to be as excited as you 
are, I want to change the focus not just to be a children's museum in 
Delaware, I want it to be a children's museum that focuses on science. 
I want young kids in the target audience of 6 to 12 to come here and 
leave here excited about wanting to be astronauts or wanting to be 
environmentalists or wanting to create new ways to harness the energy 
of the Sun or the wind or to find ways to deal with spent fuel rods 
from nuclear powerplants. That is where my interest is.
  Over time, the focus of this concept, this idea of the children's 
museum, has turned to focus on science, and to date I am told we have 
raised over $11 million for the project. We actually have

[[Page 21583]]

picked out the building. I think they have a lease or a sort of a 
contract on a large structure right at the bend of the Christina River 
there in Wilmington, which is where Kahunaville used to be. Kahunaville 
sort of conveys the idea of a good time, and for many years, people 
went there and had a really good time. It was a great nightclub with 
some big acts over the years. Bob Dylan performed there and Hall and 
Oats, all kinds of people over the years. It is no longer a nightclub; 
it is an empty building, and it is a large empty building that actually 
lends itself to being, we think, a terrific site for a science museum 
for the kids of Delaware.
  So far to date we have raised, as I said, over $11 million. To date, 
the Federal Government has provided about $250,000. So out of over $11 
million, less than 3 percent has come from the Federal Government.
  I have asked for an appropriation, a directed appropriation, of about 
another $198,000, and I appreciate very much the support of the 
Appropriations Committee to include that amount. If it is included in 
what we have already appropriated, it would be about $450,000 out of a 
budget of roughly $11.5 million--roughly 4 percent of the total 
project. A lot of the money is going to come from the private sector, a 
fair amount from local sources, State and local sources, as well.
  I will give you a flavor of the kinds of exhibits we are going to 
have there. I will mention the names of some of the sponsors. The 
DuPont Company has been great, and it is a wonderful environmental 
company. It has agreed to help sponsor over the next couple of years an 
exhibit that focuses on environmental issues, I think largely focusing 
on estuaries. We have a big estuary in the Delaware Bay and not far 
away in the Chesapeake Bay. This will really excite our kids about the 
water and preserving the quality of our water and improving the quality 
of our water. AstraZeneca is going to help us create an exhibit on the 
human body, something interactive that the kids can really get into and 
enjoy and learn from. One of our larger banks, JPMorgan Chase, is going 
to help us with a project to focus on financial literacy. If there is 
anything that would help us all, young and old, that is, I think the 
events of the last year or two have pointed this out. We will have 
exhibits that focus on clean energy, whether it is wind, solar. We will 
have ways to use wind and solar, to show and demonstrate how we rely on 
those. We will have an exhibit that will focus on conservation, smart 
grid, to show how we can be better consumers, smarter consumers. We 
will have some focus on, among other things, nuclear energy and show 
how we actually create electricity from nuclear power. Those are some 
of the dynamics.
  Our vision is, that when the kids leave the children's science museum 
on the banks of the Christina River, they will be juiced, they will be 
excited, and they will want to come back. But just as importantly, when 
they go back to class the next day or the next week, they will be 
thinking about their math assignments and even their science 
assignments a little bit differently and trying to provide a 
connection: How is what I am learning in my classroom relevant to what 
is going on in our world? How is it relevant to what I might be doing 
as a life work later on when I am finished with school and go out into 
the world?
  We need more scientists, we need more engineers. I know we need both 
of those. We need people who have a lot of expertise in math. We need 
people who are going to invent things to help us make this a better 
world. And for what I think is a fairly modest investment on behalf of 
the Federal Government--about 4 percent of a much bigger project--I 
think this is a very good investment, and not just for kids in Delaware 
but for the kids who are going to graduate from the schools and go on 
and do things in their life to help all of us in Delaware and across 
the country and maybe even around the world.
  Those are some of the reasons I have asked for this appropriation. I 
am grateful to the Congress for supporting this a year ago. When we 
asked for about $250,000, it was included. With this money, if we are 
successful in gaining this appropriation, we will be able to go forward 
and hopefully actually open the Delaware children's science museum in 
the spring of next year, which would be a very good thing, not just for 
us in Delaware, not just for those who visit Delaware, but I think, on 
a broader scale, for a lot of folks in our country.
  I see I have been joined by the former Governor of Virginia, in whose 
State I visited a number of those children's museums, those science 
museums. I remember taking our boys, when they were between the ages of 
6 and 12, to a couple of them around the country. Just remember, we 
have one who is a mechanical engineer, at a 4-year college up in 
Boston, and his little brother--now a very big brother--he is really 
good in math and a bunch of other things as well, and I think maybe a 
little bit of that came from those visits all those years ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my colleague and good friend 
from Delaware for his compassionate interest, not only in what sounds 
like a very worthy project in Delaware, but his constant commitment to 
making sure we are always looking over that next horizon, whether it is 
in education or energy issues he has been involved with as a Member of 
Congress and as a Governor, and now as the senior Senator from 
Delaware. The project he describes sounds like a good one, and I hope 
it gets favorable consideration from the Senate. I welcome the chance 
to support him.
  I wanted to take a moment to talk about a project that is already in 
this very important 2010 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. I 
commend the subcommittee chair, the Senator from Washington, and the 
ranking member for their good work on this bill. There is a certain 
amount of celebration in this bill for us in the greater Washington 
region because this Transportation appropriations bill is actually the 
culmination, in many ways, of an effort that has been ongoing for close 
to 50 years. Even when your dad served in the other body, one of the 
things I know he probably experienced was flying into our region, 
particularly flying into Dulles, and he might have found it difficult 
to get from Dulles into greater Washington.
  One of the most remarkable things that has always stunned me as a 
Virginian, and as a long-time resident of the national capital area is 
that we have never had rail or metro linkage from our international 
gateway airport out at Dulles into our Nation's capital. With this 
legislation, with actions taken earlier this year, we finally have in 
place a financing arrangement and the beginnings of construction for 
the long overdue Dulles Metrorail project.
  The Dulles metrorail project is part of a 50-year plan that started 
with the construction of Dulles Airport. Throughout that time, there 
was always a reserve. Anybody who made that drive--and I know the 
Presiding Officer has made that drive many times--has seen the corridor 
in the middle of the road. That corridor has been reserved for 
ultimately building out rail, from the existing Washington metro 
system, all the way to Dulles.
  This is a project that my predecessor, John Warner, worked on for 
years. It was one of his proud accomplishments, finalizing Federal 
support for this project. I commend his efforts in the past. It is a 
project I have been involved with for over 20 years, first when I was 
on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, when we had to preserve that 
corridor for a metrorail project. I recall, back in the late 1980s and 
early 1990s, efforts to try to take away that right-of-way so it could 
be used for additional highway construction. There was always a need to 
say: No, we have to reserve that. At some point, we will finally get 
metrorail to Dulles. This has now become a reality.
  It was a project I worked on as Governor. There were a number of 
times we tried to put together a very complex financing arrangement in 
order to make sure all the partners, State and local and Federal, would 
step to the plate and do what was right but also do

[[Page 21584]]

what was terribly important to the national capital region: making sure 
our international gateway airport is linked to the capital. I am proud 
to report that earlier this year in March, Secretary LaHood and former 
Senator Warner and myself, Governor Kaine, Congressman Frank Wolf, who 
has been a long-time supporter, got together and signed the final 
funding arrangement that committed the Federal Government, the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, and local communities on this critically 
important project.
  It is needed for a variety of reasons. It is needed not only to link 
international and domestic passengers who come into Dulles to visit our 
Nation's capital, but this corridor has rapidly become the economic hub 
of all northern Virginia. Dulles Airport currently serves about 24 
million passengers each year. Population in the Dulles corridor is 
expected to increase by 50 percent and employment to increase by 47 
percent by 2030. As someone who I know travels that corridor on a 
regular basis, you have seen how it has been built up, and there will 
continue to be the expansion of a great deal of economic activity for 
all northern Virginia and for the entire Washington area, particularly 
in the high-tech sector.
  This past March, the full funding agreement was signed, and $900 
million over the period of the whole project was committed from Federal 
funds. But let me make clear it is not only the Federal Government that 
is stepping up on this critically important project. The Commonwealth 
of Virginia has committed to be a major partner in funding. The 
localities have stepped forward in terms of funding. There have been 
very creative activities in terms of creating a special taxing district 
of our local property owners in the region who will benefit from this 
metrorail extension. They have skin in the game as well. The State is 
contributing some of the toll revenues from our toll road in the 
corridor. This is a project, even during these difficult economic 
times, where the State, the localities, and the Federal Government have 
stepped up in a major way.
  It will be enormously beneficial to our whole region. It will be 
enormously beneficial to the Commonwealth and to our Nation's capital 
in terms of the millions of visitors who come in from all over the 
country and the world. They will have the opportunity not only to take 
one of those increasingly expensive cabs, but also simply to jump on 
the train and come into Washington.
  There is also another very important reason for continuing this 
project. The Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project is an important 
multimodal project with critical homeland security implications. 
Expanding metrorail into the Dulles corridor is terribly important in 
terms of evacuation opportunities, should the capital ever be under 
assault. It is obviously terribly important in economic development 
activities, in terms of tourism activities. This project is crucial to 
the well-being of the whole national capital region.
  As a matter of fact, earlier today I was out in Tysons Corner, one of 
our major development areas on the way out to Dulles rail. Although we 
were caught in some pretty dreadful traffic, it was a little bit of a 
mixed blessing. Part of the traffic was because construction has 
actually started on some of the rail stops in the Tysons area that will 
ultimately relieve not only traffic congestion but will, obviously, 
decrease greenhouse gases. So this project has added benefits as well, 
an issue I know is very important to the Presiding Officer in terms of 
dealing with climate change.
  I know there are others in this body who perhaps have raised 
questions about some of the projects that are included in this 2010 
Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. This is one of those projects I 
can't imagine anyone being critical of. This has been 50 years in the 
making. Enormous time, effort, and resources have gone into it. The 
fact that the final funding agreement has now been signed and we 
actually have broken ground is a time to celebrate. The $85 million 
included in this year's appropriations funding for the downpayment and 
first installment of what is going to be a critical Federal funding 
stream is a very worthy sum that is going to provide benefits for this 
region and for our capital for many years to come.
  I, again, commend the chair of the Appropriations subcommittee, my 
colleague and friend, the Senator from Washington, for her great work 
on not only this particular Dulles metrorail project, which I believe, 
as a frequent flier in and out of Dulles, I hope she will be the 
immediate beneficiary of as well, but to all members of her 
subcommittee. I thank them for their good work on this bill, this 
important project, and the many other projects in this legislation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senate Appropriations Committee has 
reported all 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2010, and the 
Senate has considered and passed 4 of those bills. I expect passage of 
the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill we are now 
considering will be the fifth. I am pleased the full Senate has had the 
opportunity to consider and debate the policies and priorities embodied 
in these bills. All Senators have had the opportunity to question the 
managers and to offer amendments, if they wanted to do so.
  By next week, I expect the House and the Senate will be convening 
conference committees to complete action on the bills that have already 
passed the Senate. It is a fact, however, there are only 2 weeks 
remaining in this fiscal year. We will probably need to pass a short-
term continuing resolution to keep the remainder of the government 
running beyond September 30. While we anticipate we will be able to 
pass such a resolution, I think it is important we complete action on 
the remaining appropriations bills as soon as possible.
  We have sent a letter, dated March 24, to the majority leader of the 
Senate--suggested by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. 
Corker, back last March--and in that letter we requested the leadership 
``allocate an appropriate amount of time for the Senate to consider, 
vote, and initiate the conference process on each of the 12 
appropriations bills independently through a deliberative and 
transparent process. . . .''
  That letter stated a goal of passing 8 of the 12 bills before the 
August recess. While the Senate did not meet that goal of passing eight 
bills prior to the recess, I think we did make good progress. I have to 
congratulate the distinguished chairman from Washington for helping 
lead the way and helping us achieve that progress. To a degree, we have 
been hampered by the lateness of the President's budget request and the 
necessity of waiting for the House to pass the appropriations bills 
first.
  But the House has now passed all of its bills, and we have a window 
of floor time available to consider the remaining bills in the Senate. 
I believe strongly all Members should have the opportunity to consider 
the bills and participate in this process and offer amendments, if they 
choose to do so. But with the end of the fiscal year approaching and 
floor time becoming a precious commodity, we should not have to spend 
large blocks of time in quorum calls waiting for Senators to offer 
amendments.
  At some point, the bills will have to be taken up and passed one way 
or another. In the past, this has meant packaging bills together into 
omnibus bills, and we know how well that is received. Not at all. And 
all but a few Members lose the opportunity to participate and 
contribute through the amendment process and debate and influence the 
outcome of conference reports.
  I have concerns about the budget proposed by the President, most of 
which is embodied in the congressional budget resolution that provides 
the framework for the appropriations process. I

[[Page 21585]]

voted for several amendments to the budget resolution that would have 
reduced spending from the levels proposed by the President. I also 
voted against the resolution itself. I think the level of debt we have 
accumulated is alarming.
  The fact remains, however, that Congress has approved the President's 
budget. While an Omnibus appropriations bill would highlight the 
problems with the President's spending policies, I do not think that 
course of action would be helpful to the process. By considering the 
bills individually, though, all Senators will be given an opportunity 
to have meaningful input and participation in the process, and that is 
as it should be.
  So I look forward to continuing to work with the distinguished 
chairman, Mr. Inouye, our subcommittee chairs, and our two leaders, and 
all Senators to complete the appropriations process in an orderly and 
timely fashion that will reflect credit on the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for 
his remarks. As ranking member and former chairman of this committee, 
he knows full well we work very hard to accomplish and complete these 
bills and to get them done in a timely fashion. We are working our 
hearts out to get that done.
  To that point, the bill before us, the transportation and housing 
bill, has now been on the floor of the Senate Thursday afternoon and 
evening, Friday, Monday, all of today, and we will finish it tomorrow. 
So for any Senators who are sitting out there with issues, you need to 
come to the floor and get them resolved. We hope to start a series of 
votes tomorrow morning to get through a number of the amendments that 
are out there and finish this so we can move to the Interior 
appropriations bill tomorrow.
  So, again, for the notification of all Senators, to the point the 
Senator from Mississippi raised, come to the floor, resolve your 
disagreements, or help us schedule a vote. We are going to finish this 
bill tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to touch upon an issue I think has 
not gotten as much consideration in the Senate as it might; that is, 
for the first time since 1975, and in the midst of a major recession, 
senior citizens in our country who are on Social Security will not--
unless we act--be receiving a cost-of-living adjustment this year.
  Let me repeat that. For the first time since 1975, and while we are 
in the midst of a major economic recession which is causing havoc with 
the lives of all of our people, including senior citizens, this year--
unless Congress acts--senior citizens will not be getting a cost-of-
living adjustment.
  Among other things, this would mean monthly Social Security payments 
would drop for millions of retirees because Medicare prescription drug 
premiums--the Medicare Part D Program--which are deducted from Social 
Security payments, are scheduled to increase.
  So what we are looking at is that not only will tens of millions of 
America's seniors not receive any increase in Social Security but many, 
in fact, will see a reduction because their Social Security checks will 
go to pay for an increase in Medicare Part D payments. I would suggest 
in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, we 
cannot allow that to happen.
  Many senior citizens in this country have recently, within the last 
year or two, seen a significant decline in their savings because of the 
losses they incurred with the drop in the stock market. Many have seen 
their pensions disappear. Many have seen the value of their home 
dramatically diminish. All of this is taking place at a time while 
poverty among senior citizens is going up. And the number of seniors 
who are declaring bankruptcy is also increasing.
  Most importantly, I think it is imperative that sooner than later we 
take a hard look to determine how COLAs for Social Security 
beneficiaries are, in fact, determined. Some years ago, when I was a 
Member of the House, I introduced legislation to establish a separate 
index for seniors because the simple reality is, it is wrong to include 
seniors in the overall index because their needs--how they spend their 
money--are often very different than how the rest of the population 
spends their money.
  If you are a young person or a middle-aged person and you want to go 
out and buy a laptop computer today, for example, the odds are you are 
going to get a pretty good price on that computer, and the price of 
that computer will be substantially lower than it was a couple years 
ago. So for you, inflation for your expenditures on technology may well 
have gone down.
  On the other hand, if you are a senior citizen, especially one who 
does not have a whole lot of money, how are you spending your money? 
Well, a very significant cost for seniors, obviously, is health care. 
For those needs Medicare does not cover, the truth is, health care 
costs, as we all know, are exploding. They are going up.
  So if you are a senior, the odds are you are spending a lot more for 
health care out of your own pocket this year than you did last year. If 
you are a senior and you get caught in the doughnut hole of Medicare 
Part D, you are spending a lot of money because prescription drug 
costs, in many instances, are also going up.
  So I think when we take a look at the COLA, we should understand the 
needs of somebody who is 75 or 80 years of age and how he or she spends 
their money, from an inflation perspective, is very different from 
somebody who is 18 years of age or maybe 40 years of age. But be that 
as it may, there can be no debate that millions of senior citizens 
today, in the midst of this recession, are hurting very badly. I think 
we would be doing a great disservice to them by turning our back on 
their needs and not making sure we are providing some financial support 
to them.
  Therefore, I am asking my colleagues to join me in becoming an 
original cosponsor of the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, 
legislation I will be formally introducing on Thursday. Under this 
legislation, all Social Security recipients, railroad retirees, SSI 
beneficiaries, and adults receiving veterans benefits will receive a 
one-time additional check of $250 in 2010. Since seniors living on 
fixed incomes are most likely to spend this money--whether it is on 
health care, whether it is trying to keep warm this winter--this 
legislation would provide a boost to our economy as it emerges from the 
economic crisis.
  I very much appreciate that my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, 
is an original cosponsor, and I hope within the next couple of days we 
can have more.
  For more than three decades, seniors have relied on a cost-of-living 
adjustment in their Social Security benefits to keep up with their 
increased expenses. Unfortunately, the current formulation for 
determining Social Security COLAs, in my view, does not accurately take 
into account the purchasing needs of today's seniors who often do not 
buy items such as laptop computers and cellular phones but spend, as I 
mentioned a moment ago, a disproportionate percentage of their income 
on health care needs and prescription drugs.
  The truth is, what we are proposing now is something very similar to 
what the Obama administration provided for in the stimulus package. 
This legislation we are offering is fully paid for by simply applying 
the Social Security payroll tax to household incomes above $250,000 and 
below $359,000 in 2010.
  Under current law, only the first $106,000 of earned income is 
subject to the Social Security payroll tax, thus a worker earning 
$106,000 pays the same payroll tax as a CEO making $300 million. This 
legislation begins to correct this inequity in 2010, while making sure 
seniors receive a fair increase in benefits next year. I should point 
out,

[[Page 21586]]

in terms of this offset, no one in America earning $250,000 or less 
would see their payroll taxes go up at all.
  So I think this is an important issue. I think seniors all over this 
country are worried about their financial situation. They want the 
Congress to pay attention to their needs. I think the one-time 
financial support of a check of $250, while not a whole lot of money, 
would at least help many people not see a reduction in their Social 
Security checks and would be of real help.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________