[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2105-S2106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 495. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the highway 
sanctions; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


  legislation to repeal clean air act to repeal the highway sanctions

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is simple and 
clear. The only thing the bill does is to repeal the highway sanction 
provisions in the Clean Air Act.
  I want to start by saying that I know what the so-called 
environmental community is going to say. Actually, they have already 
said it. I recall a press release that said, ``Another smoggy stealth 
attack is in the works,'' and ``sharpening the dirty-air knives.'' 
Well, that sounds fancy and exciting, but it is just flat wrong.
  Mr. President, I ask you, where is the common sense? I do not want 
dirty air. And I do not think anybody in this room, in this body, wants 
dirty air. But any attempt to change the status quo gets some 
spinmeisters at work.
  Let me explain where there is a real problem. There is a provision in 
the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA Administrator, with the approval 
of the Secretary of Transportation, to halt highway funding for a 
nonattainment area. For instance, if a State does not have an approved 
clean air plan, after a certain period of time sanctions apply, and 
those sanctions include halting highway funding. Now, transit funding 
can continue and bike path money can go forward. There is also a 
``safety'' exemption where the Secretary of Transportation determines 
that a ``project is an improvement in safety to resolve a demonstrated 
safety problem and likely will result in a significant reduction in, or 
avoidance of, accidents.''
  I have several problems with that provision.
  First, highway funding is a matter of safety. We dedicate 
transportation funds to specific improvement programs, like railroad 
crossings and programs on drunk driving. But highway safety is also an 
issue when it comes to road conditions.
  In my own State of Missouri, I can tell you that highway fatality 
rates are higher than the national average because roads are more 
dangerous. In the period 1992 to 1996, 5,279 people died on Missouri 
highways. Nationally, Federal Highways estimates that road conditions 
are a factor in about 30 percent of traffic fatalities. Well, I believe 
that figure is higher in Missouri, because I have been on the narrow 
two-lane roads and have seen the white crosses where people have died.
  Highway improvements, such as wider lanes and shoulders, adding or 
improving medians, and upgrading roads from two lanes to four lanes can 
reduce traffic fatalities and accidents. The Secretary can grant 
exemptions from the current law to allow a project to go forward, but 
he can also deny them. I have a problem with the Government, the 
Federal Government, micromanaging a State's transportation plan.
  The law also says the State will have to submit data to justify that 
the ``principal purpose of the project is an improvement in safety.'' 
Tell that to the grandmother who has lost her granddaughter on a 
stretch of highway. She will never go to the prom, because she was 
killed on that highway.
  I would argue that highway construction and improvements are almost 
always a matter of safety and that to have to seek an exemption is an 
unnecessary and inappropriate delay. Any further delay imposed by the 
Federal Government on highway projects which are necessary for safety 
is unacceptable.
  Second, taking away or imposing any kind of delay on highway funding 
does nothing to improve air quality or to reduce congestion. According 
to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials, ``Congestion damages air quality, increases travel times, 
costs an estimated $43 billion annually in delays in the country's 50 
largest urban areas, and generates additional delay costs in rural and 
suburban areas.''
  Some will argue, ``If you build it, they will come.'' That normally 
applies to baseball diamonds, but they are talking about highways. I am 
not denying that there is some truth to that, but congestion already 
exists. They are already there. People in our State and rural Missouri 
are driving, and they are driving on narrow highways because they have 
to. There are no trolleys; there are no regularly scheduled buses. 
Halting or delaying funds to address the problem is inappropriate.
  I think the cliche, ``Pay now or pay more later,'' is appropriate. 
What we would be ``paying'' for is potentially the loss of life, loss 
of economic opportunities, and the loss of convenience for the 
traveling public. Isn't this an issue of quality of life? I think so.

[[Page S2106]]

  Third, the Highway Trust Fund is supported by highway users for 
highway construction and maintenance. It is a dedicated tax for a 
dedicated purpose. The people of Missouri are paying highway fund taxes 
and not getting a full dollar back for their highways. And to take away 
some of the money that they have put in because of totally unrelated 
concerns is inappropriate as a punitive sanction.
  The 105th Congress spent the entire Congress, almost, working on a 
transportation policy.
  One of the most contentious debates we had at the time and the 
significant outcomes of that debate was the issue of the trust fund. 
The Congress finally agreed to and the President signed into law what I 
refer to as the Bond-Chafee provision which says that the money goes in 
as the money comes out the next year for transportation and programs 
authorized by law.
  Included in TEA-21--highway dollars being spent on--is $8.1 billion 
over 6 years for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
Program. This is money dedicated to helping States and local 
governments meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Under current 
law, CMAQ--as it is called--funding will continue without interruption, 
but highway construction could be halted or face a delay.
  Using a ``dedicated tax for a dedicated purpose'' as a hammer in this 
instance is, I believe, inappropriate and unfair.
  I do not view this legislation as an attack on the Clean Air Act. It 
is a matter of common sense.
  Some may ask, if they do not already know, what precipitated the 
introduction of this legislation. I contemplated introducing this bill 
in the past but had other matters that were more important. But on 
November 8, 1998, the San Francisco-based Sierra Club filed suit in the 
District of Columbia District Court against the EPA to force the EPA to 
mandate sanctions not just on St. Louis and the nonattainment area but 
on the entire State of Missouri and to make these sanctions 
retroactive. That action, I believe, is irresponsible and extreme.
  The EPA itself chose not to impose sanctions on the St Louis area or 
the State of Missouri because the State and the nonattainment area are 
doing everything that is necessary to come into compliance. The St. 
Louis area has adopted an inspection/maintenance program. They have 
instituted a plan to reduce volatile organic compound emissions by at 
least 15 percent. They have opted into EPA's reformulated gasoline 
program. And the St. Louis Regional Clean Air Partnership has been 
formed to encourage voluntary actions. In these circumstances, the 
Sierra Club lawsuit is purely punitive and purely unwarranted, but it 
is possible as long as we have this legislation on the books.
  I do not personally know one Member of the Senate who fought for 
highway funding for his or her State's highway needs who would support 
actions to take that funding away, especially in a frivolous lawsuit by 
a group with a different agenda, with different priorities than the 
citizens of the State who are paying in the money. If this provision of 
law is left in place, what is happening in Missouri could happen 
elsewhere. Highway sanctions are in place for Helena, MT, and a 
situation is developing in Atlanta, GA, which has been brought to my 
attention.
  There are those who say you can count the number of times highway 
sanctions have been imposed on one hand, but that still is too many. I 
disagree with the linking of highway funds and clean air attainment. We 
must address both. Quality of life requires both clear air and safe 
highways. I am dedicated to both. I hope we can have hearings and move 
on this measure in the near future.
                                 ______