Transportation, Housing And Urban Development, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (Senate - September 16, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from California will be here shortly to respond to a number of these amendments, since they fall into the jurisdiction of her full committee.

The Senator from Oklahoma has offered three amendments to this bill that are related to transportation. Each of those amendments would limit the ability of States and local governments to spend their highway grants on activities that are eligible for funding under the Federal aid highway program.

Those limitations would not only apply to funds that have been earmarked in this bill. I think Senators should understand they would also apply to the formula grants that go to our States and local governments, which plan their own transportation investments.

The Senator's amendments would take away funding from transportation enhancement, especially streetscaping, bike and pedestrian paths, and the mitigation of highway runoff pollution.

Today, all of these activities are eligible for funding under the current highway authorization law, the SAFETEA-LU Act. Under that act, communities are required to prepare and provide comprehensive transportation plans in order to receive their Federal highway and transit grants. Those plans have to include the communities' plans for bike and pedestrian pathways, because those transportation plans are meant to be comprehensive, and our national policy, which has been debated on the floor of the Senate and the House, has been to recognize bike and pedestrian paths as one component of a complete transportation system. They cannot constitute the largest part of the system but a plan that ignores that element is incomplete.

When we provide bike paths and walkways, we help keep our families and our neighbors safe. Without these paths, many more bicyclists, pedestrians, people who commute to work that way would compete with vehicle traffic. Everybody on a bike or footpath is vulnerable when they are mixed in with heavy traffic. But school-age children are the most vulnerable.

When we debated this policy under SAFETEA-LU, we determined that bikeways and walkways are an important part and are components of our transportation system for people who cannot afford a car and have to walk to work. People who walk to school are impacted by the Senator's amendment.

I don't believe that this bill--the current transportation appropriations bill--is an appropriate time that we should be debating and changing our highway policy, which is so important to all of our communities across the country.

The chairman of the appropriate committee is on the floor. I know she wants to respond. I yield the floor to her at this time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. I would ask all our Senators to pay attention to what we are being asked to vote on. We did vote on a similar amendment during the budget debate. But these amendments are very different. The amendment to the budget resolution never put Amtrak's funding at risk. That amendment would have only prohibited an extra reserve fund from going to Amtrak if it did not allow firearms.

The amendment we are now considering does something much more drastic, it will put at risk Amtrak's appropriations. In order to receive any Federal funding under this amendment, Amtrak would have 6 months to build a process for checking and tracking firearms, it would have to find the manpower necessary to screen and guard firearms, and would have to purchase the equipment necessary.

There is nothing in the underlying appropriations to pay for any of that. So this amendment is going to put a severe burden on them, and if they do not comply, Amtrak will shut down.

I think it is very important that we be careful what we are voting on. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Wicker amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this should be a noncontroversial amendment. It simply retains in present law the current community service requirement which Congress passed into law for public housing tenants who are able-bodied over a decade ago. The House has tried to take out this requirement. It is a very modest 8 hours per month of community service for able-bodied tenants. Automatically exempted are folks over 62, folks who have a disability, caretakers, folks who meet the TANF work requirements, et cetera. It is a modest, reasonable work requirement which has been in the law for years. I urge all Members to retain it through this vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Louisiana is offering an amendment that would require continued enforcement of public service for people who live in public housing. I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First, it is current law. Secondly, I am concerned, in this economic downturn, when we have a lot of families struggling, the most struggling families, we are putting this requirement on them. Therefore, I am going to oppose this amendment and will be voting no.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we are about to set up a series of votes to occur shortly. We will make that unanimous consent agreement in the next few minutes.

In the pending time, I will speak against one of the amendments that will be considered; that is, the one that was offered by the Senator from Nevada. It is a motion to recommit and reduce spending for our transportation and housing bill.

I would like to point out to all our colleagues, the funding levels that are contained in this bill are consistent with the budget resolution this entire Senate agreed to in the spring and are $1.2 billion below the level of funding that was requested by the President in his request.

The majority of the funding increases that are contained in our bill support our Nation's vulnerable citizens and the needs of the communities. Those increases include funding to support rental assistance for low-income families, elderly and disabled tenants who use Section 8 vouchers, living in project-based housing or those who live in public housing.

The funding provided ensures that families receiving assistance will maintain that. This is critical because, without assistance, these individuals and families would be at the risk of homelessness, at a time that all of us know that many of our citizens are struggling today.

We have increased funding for homeless programs, which will help prevent more families from becoming homeless. Last year we should all note there was an increase of 9 percent in family homelessness in this Nation.

We have increased funding to support our States and our local communities to address their housing needs and support economic activities ties through the Community Development Block Grant Program. We increased funding in our Nation's infrastructure that will both improve the safety of our Nation's roads and bridges and create and sustain critical jobs.

We have increased funding for safety inspectors at the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as funding for a new program to invest in railroad safety technologies such as positive train control.

In comparison, there are drastic consequences, we should note, to freezing funding for this bill at last year's level. Funding frozen at the fiscal year 2009 level could result in tens of thousands of people who currently hold vouchers to lose their housing. During this economic crisis, we should not be putting our low-income families at risk and out on the street.

In addition, a funding level frozen at the 2009 level would put at risk our critical funding for air traffic controllers. My colleague from Missouri has talked about the importance of increasing the air traffic controllers, and we know the Federal Aviation Administration is facing a shortage of experienced air traffic controllers. We cannot afford to ignore the safety needs of the aviation system.

This subcommittee carefully weighed the merits of all programs before us. We cut programs below the President's request and achieved additional savings. Further reductions now requested by this amendment would seriously undermine critical transportation safety activities. I ask colleagues to reject the amendment when we vote.

We should have a unanimous consent agreement shortly to have votes begin in the next several minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, the funding levels contained in the bill are consistent with the budget resolution the Senate passed and agreed to this Spring. We are $1.2 billion below the level of funding requested by the President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

WTO RULING

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, the World Trade Organization handed down a ruling in one of our Nation's most important trade cases to date. The ruling was in a case that the U.S. Government, through our Trade Representative, brought against the European Union for providing market-distorting subsidies for the European aerospace company, Airbus. It was a case brought against the EU not because of minor trade infractions or insignificant manipulation of the international market. It was brought because of decades of playing outside the rules, billions in government subsidies, and repeated warnings by the United States to end the unfair practice of providing a damaging subsidy called launch aid. What the WTO ruled by all accounts is very clear. Launch aid is illegal. It creates an uneven playing field. It has harmed American workers and companies. It needs to end.

For me, this is an important decision that is long overdue. That is because in my home State, the State of much of our country's aerospace industry, the consequences of competing with the treasuries of large European governments has been very real for a very long time. It has been felt in communities, in local economies, and in lost jobs. That is why, as my colleagues know, I have been speaking out against Europe's market-distorting actions in commercial aerospace for many years. I have raised my concerns with other Senators, with foreign leaders, and administrations of both parties.

In 2005, I helped pass a unanimous resolution in the Senate on the need to level the playing field for fair global aerospace competition. In that same year, after the European Union mocked our efforts to negotiate in good faith by continuing to provide launch aid, I urged the Bush administration to move forward with this WTO case. Make no mistake about it, I understand the value of healthy competition in the international marketplace. But I also believe that competitors must abide by the same set of rules.

One reason I have fought so hard to end illegal subsidies is because I know there is a fundamental difference in how our country and Europe view the aerospace industry and fair competition. For us in America, commercial aerospace is seen as a private business. Some companies will win; some companies will lose. But we allow the marketplace to decide. American aerospace companies, such as Boeing, take tremendous financial risks when they develop and market a new aircraft. Their workers and developers and researchers put their jobs and billions of dollars on the line each time. They literally bet the company with each new plane they develop. But in Europe, aerospace is a jobs program. To fund that program, they use billions of dollars in what is called launch aid. So they are not quite as concerned when Airbus loses money. In fact, they don't even require Airbus to repay that launch aid, if the aircraft they develop is unsuccessful. It is no risk, all reward.

But as the WTO has now ruled, it is also a violation of international trade rules and fair competition. The plain truth is that these illegal subsidies have cost American jobs. The commercial aerospace industry employs well over half a million Americans with family-wage salaries. But in the past 20 years, as Airbus has continued to grow, thanks to billions in subsidies, we have lost hundreds of thousands of American aerospace jobs. These are scientific and technical jobs. They are jobs that keep the economies of communities large and small stable in States all throughout the country. They are jobs that support families to pay mortgages and create other jobs. They are jobs that are increasingly precious at a time when we are facing double-digit unemployment.

American innovation led to the birth of the aerospace industry over 100 years ago. Since that time, we have made air travel safer and brought growth and innovation to our economy. Although we led in the first century of flight, unless we recognize the damages these subsidies pose and fight for our workers, we might not have a major role in the next century in aerospace. That is why the WTO ruling is so important. This ruling is much more than a confirmation that Airbus has been breaking the rules. It is a victory for American workers who produce the world's best planes and who have been forced to fight an uphill battle. It is a warning to other countries considering entering the aerospace marketplace that launch aid is the wrong example to follow. It reaffirms the spirit of free and fair trade in the international marketplace and reminds us that we have to be vigilant because this is certainly not the end of this fight.

In fact, there are already signs that the EU and Airbus will flaunt the will of the WTO. Already, very publicly, the Governments of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have said they will move forward with plans to provide Airbus with nearly $5 billion in launch aid for the development of Airbus's latest generation of airplane, the A350, despite any ruling by the WTO. In other words, in the face of a clear condemnation of their practices, they said they will do as they please. That is why, on Monday, I wrote to President Obama urging him and his administration to take the strongest possible actions to prevent European governments from providing Airbus with an additional illegal trade-distorting subsidy. But it will be all of our responsibilities to ensure that the rules are followed, American jobs are not further endangered, and the future of the aerospace industry is protected.

Unless we wake up to the threat that continued illegal subsidies pose, we will lose an industry we created that is critical to our economic recovery and will help sustain our Nation's continued growth.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that except for the amendments provided for in this agreement, no further amendments be in order to H.R. 3288; that the following be the only first-degree amendments and motion to recommit remaining in order to H.R. 3288; that second-degree amendments which are relevant to the first-degree to which offered be in order but not prior to a vote in relation to the first-degree amendment; that the listed Kyl motion to recommit be the only motion to recommit in order, except motions to reconsider votes or motions to waive applicable budget points of order; that a managers' amendment that has been cleared by the managers and the leaders also be in order, and that if the amendment is offered, then it be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; Landrieu amendment No. 2365, which is pending; Vitter amendment No. 2359, pending and as modified; DeMint amendment No. 2410, pending; McCain amendment No. 2403, pending, as modified; Kyl motion to recommit with instructions, pending; that upon disposition of the amendments and the motion to recommit, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the subcommittee and Senators INOUYE and COCHRAN be appointed as conferees; further, that if a point of order is raised against the substitute amendment, it be in order for another substitute amendment to be offered, minus the offending provisions but including any amendments which had been agreed to prior to the point of order; that no further amendments be in order; that the new substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the remaining provisions beyond adoption of the substitute amendment remain in effect; that on Thursday, September 17, following a period of morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 3288 and proceed to vote in relation to the amendments and motion as specified above, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to each vote, and that after the first vote in a sequence, the remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes each; further, that the cloture motion be withdrawn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with that, I would like all Members to know that what we have just agreed to is the final amendments of this bill. If any Senator would like to speak on any of them, they are welcome to come to the floor to do so this evening. But with this agreement, all those amendments will be voted on tomorrow morning, as will be announced at the end of the session today.

Mr. President, just to let all Senators know, with this agreement, there will be no further rollcall votes tonight.

Source