[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4452-S4463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 3, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-aid
highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and
for other purposes.
Pending:
Inhofe amendment No. 567, to provide a complete substitute.
Bayh amendment No. 568 (to Amendment No. 567), to amend
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the
provisions relating to countervailing duties apply to
nonmarket economy countries.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have several pages of amendments that
are out there. We repeat our invitation on behalf of myself and Senator
Jeffords. We want to invite all Democrats and Republicans who have
amendments to the highway bill to bring them down. It is going to get
crowded later as we go on. Now we have time for adequate consideration,
for deliberation, and we encourage Members to bring their amendments to
the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I rise in support of the SAFETEA bill.
Effective transportation is vital to our Nation, and I believe this
bill will be an important step in helping to meet the country's
transportation needs.
I would like to thank both Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords for
working hard on this bill. The people of Oklahoma are blessed with the
hard work Senator Inhofe has put forward, both in the Senate and when I
had the opportunity to serve with him in the House.
This bill has required a lot of hard work and a lot of dedication. He
has put forward an effort that I think we all appreciate. Sometimes we
forget to say thank you for the hard work that goes into a bill such as
this, including the hard work of the staff, I might add. The staff on
both sides has been helpful in putting this legislation together.
In particular, I express my support for the public transportation
title of the bill. While many people erroneously refer to this as the
highways bill, it is actually a comprehensive reauthorization of the
Nation's surface transportation programs, including transit. A healthy,
well-functioning transit network can greatly enhance the effectiveness
of other transportation modes, and as chairman of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Transportation of the Banking Committee, I have had many
opportunities to see the difference reliable public transportation can
make for both individuals and communities.
I also express my thanks to the Banking Committee chairman, Chairman
Shelby. For many years he has been one of the leading champions for
public transportation in the Senate. I appreciate his dedication. It
has been a pleasure to work with him as subcommittee chairman on
reauthorization of the mass transit programs.
I also recognize and thank Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of
the Banking Committee, and Senator Reed, the ranking member of the
Housing and Transportation Subcommittee. They have been actively
involved in the reauthorization process, and I appreciate the
thoughtful perspective they brought to all of our discussions. Together
I believe we have been able to accomplish a great deal to improve
public transportation in a strong and bipartisan manner.
I thank again Senator Inhofe and all the other Republicans on the
Environment and Public Works Committee for their hard work and
leadership. I miss not being on the committee. I was on the committee
when this bill first moved forward. I very much appreciate working with
my colleagues.
Public transportation is a key component of our Nation's
transportation infrastructure and provides safe, reliable, efficient,
and economic service. Public transportation can create jobs and
stimulate economic development, as well as reduce traffic congestion
and pollution.
Because I represent the State of Colorado, some people wonder why I
care about public transportation. Beyond the national policy concerns,
these same people are often surprised when I explain how important
public transportation is to my Colorado constituents.
Public transportation encompasses a great deal beyond the stereotype
of subways and heavy rail. People in the Denver suburbs can now take
light rail to their jobs downtown. Students in Boulder often use the
bus system to get around town. Sick people on the eastern plains may
rely on demand-responsive transit services to go to chemotherapy or
dialysis appointments. Public transportation is important to many
different types of people in many different locations. This bill will
help ensure that all these people have access to reliable public
transportation.
I believe the Senate passed an excellent transportation
reauthorization bill this last year, and I was especially pleased with
the transit title. I believe it made important progress in a number of
areas while building upon the many successes of TEA-21. Fortunately, we
come to the floor with substantially the same package, and I am hopeful
this approach will speed things along and allow the bill to move
forward with a minimal number of amendments.
I am very supportive of the formula changes made in the transit
title. These go a long way toward addressing my longstanding concerns
with the distribution of transit dollars. As my colleagues may know,
one of my top priorities during the consideration of TEA-21 was to
bring more equity to the distribution of transit dollars. Senator Rod
Grams and I were able to make changes that allowed States such as
Colorado to have greater access to this resource.
In drafting the reauthorization bill, greater equity has continued to
be my top priority. While the traditional transit cities have many
important needs, it is time to update the formulas to include other
needs. Today's bill strikes a balance by providing for more traditional
transit cities and also providing for new needs by creating several new
formulas.
In particular, I strongly support the new growing States formula.
Historically, many of the fastest growing areas in Western and Southern
States have had a difficult time obtaining transit dollars. Yet their
explosive growth makes transit all the more important. Mass transit can
help growing areas reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, as well
as increase access to jobs. The new growing States formula will help
direct additional resources to the high-growth areas with the greatest
need.
I also support the new transit-intensive cities formula. This new
formula will reward smaller cities that are providing greater than
average transit service. In addition to providing an incentive for
cities to improve their transit service, I support the formula because
it deliberately directs taxpayer dollars to areas that are utilizing
them most efficiently.
Finally, I support the new rural low-density formula. This formula
will help rural areas provide critically needed service. Rural areas
and very small towns generally have older and less affluent citizens,
the very people who often rely on public transportation. In
[[Page S4453]]
fact, rural America has an estimated 30 million nondrivers. The problem
is exacerbated for rural-transit-dependent populations, as compared to
urban dwellers, because they most often travel great distances, and
alternate transportation, such as a taxicab, is generally not
available. Yet more than 40 percent of residents in rural America have
no access to public transportation and another 25 percent have
negligible access.
Because of low-population density and the distances involved, rural
populations can be much more difficult and expensive to serve. However,
their need is as real as the need in urban centers. This new formula
will begin to help rural States meet those needs.
The transit title also places more appropriate emphasis on bus
programs. For too long, the mass transit programs have been viewed as
rail programs. While we can all agree that rail is vitally important to
a select group of cities, the vast majority of Americans rely on bus
service. This bill takes a balanced approach, providing resources to
expand and improve both bus and rail service.
Another way we can help expand the reach of Federal transit dollars
is through bus rapid transit. As compared to rail, bus rapid transit is
able to deliver similar capacity for a fraction of the cost. I believe
we should find ways to not only allow but to promote the use of bus
rapid transit. I support the bus rapid transit provisions and believe
we should continue to ease the fixed guideway restrictions. In some
areas, such as Colorado's mountains, geography or other factors make a
fixed guideway requirement cost prohibitive. We must ensure bus rapid
transit has sufficient flexibility to make it a viable option for many
areas.
The Federal Government attempts to strike a balance between
accountability and easing administrative burdens within its programs.
However, the New Starts Program has gotten out of balance. I believe
the Small Starts Program, as proposed in this bill, does strike a
better, more appropriate balance. Under this program, all projects will
be subject to the review process rather than exempting projects under
$25 million. This threshold was causing project distortions and poor
estimations in an attempt to deem a project under $25 million.
In addition to the incentive to underestimate a project, this
approach lacks accountability for the taxpayer dollars at stake. By
contrast, the Small Starts Program in the bill will subject all
projects to the review process. However, to ease administrative burden,
projects under $75 million will be subject to a streamline process.
This will ensure that all projects receive scrutiny and will scale the
level of scrutiny to be appropriate to the project size. This will also
make it easier for smaller cities to add transit to their communities
for the first time.
While public transit agencies are important in providing transit
service, the private sector is also a key partner in providing
effective, efficient service. By making a few modest changes, the
transit title ensures they will be able to remain a part of the
process. Public-private partnerships can benefit all parties, and our
bill will help allow and encourage such partnerships.
Another important feature of this bill is its use of incentives
rather than mandates and penalties. Until now, projects have little
incentive to use good planning and forecasting or to stay on time and
on budget. By offering incentives, we hope to change that. It is absurd
that projects such as TREX in Denver have to return money because they
did good planning and stayed on time and under budget. Transit agencies
should not be punished for doing a good job. Rather, they should be
rewarded. I believe they should be able to keep a portion of that money
for other transit uses, and the bill before us today will let them do
that.
Again I thank Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and my colleagues on
the committee for their work in producing the transit title of the bill
that is before us today. I believe that under the SAFETEA bill,
America's public transportation system will be able to serve more
people more efficiently. I am hopeful the Senate will quickly complete
action and enact a transportation reauthorization.
I reemphasize my sincere thanks to the chairman of the Environment
and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, for his great work, and the
other Republicans and members of the committee working with the ranking
member, Senator Jeffords. I am pleased this transportation bill, which
is badly needed, is now moving forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first I say to the Senator from Colorado,
we miss him on the committee. He was an excellent member of the
committee. However, he was replaced by some excellent freshmen who are
as enthusiastic as was the Senator from Colorado. While we miss him on
the committee, it is still a great committee, and we certainly
appreciate very much the comments he made this morning and the
contributions he has made to the Environment and Public Works
Committee.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding the regular order
is the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana. He has agreed to
set his amendment aside for the consideration of other amendments as
they come to the floor, with the understanding he will regain the floor
after those amendments are considered and action taken, if action is
taken.
We do have an amendment from the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Senator Bond, who has worked tirelessly for years on
this bill. I am sure he wants to offer it at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 592
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
numbered 592.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike the highway stormwater discharge mitigation
program)
Beginning on page 287, strike line 5 and all that follows
through the matter following line 25 on page 290.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment unties the hands of States
which were handcuffed by a provision added in committee last year and
is still in the bill, a provision on which debate was cut short last
year, but now we can finish the job, and I hope we will. This provision
will cost the States nearly $900 million in highway, bridge, and
transit construction or rehabilitation funding unless we adopt the
amendment.
The provision binding our States, section 1620 of the bill, mandates
that every State, regardless of whether it needs it or not, set aside 2
percent, or nearly $900 million, for use for the life of the bill only
on storm water mitigation activities. My amendment strikes this
mandatory set-aside.
Without the amendment, States will be directed to set aside over $740
million from their Surface Transportation Program funds, funds that
otherwise could construct or rehabilitate highways, bridges, or transit
systems. Without this amendment, States would be forced to set aside
over $125 million from the Equity Bonus Program set up by this bill to
help States receive more highway dollars. Without this amendment, the
States will be forced to use nearly $900 million only on storm water
mitigation, regardless of the need of such activities.
Every State will lose highway dollars under this set-aside. We have
tables available. Alabama, the set-aside would cost it $19 million;
Alaska, $10 million; Arizona, $17 million; Arkansas, $12 million. I ask
Members to look at how much the Federal Government would dictate how
their highway funds would have to be spent.
Every office will receive a list, and we will have copies available.
I urge every Member to look to see how it affects their State. We are
fighting extremely hard on the Senate floor to
[[Page S4454]]
provide States with more transportation funds. This is something the
chairman and the ranking member, my subcommittee ranking member,
Senator Baucus, and I have done.
We are working with the Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley, and the
ranking member, Senator Baucus, to get the money. I know we will be
inundated by Members wanting transportation projects in this bill. I
know in my new role as chairman of the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee I will be inundated with requests for projects in their
State, but a Member voting to take funding from highways, bridges, and
transit and set it aside for storm water would seem to indicate that
their State has more than enough funding that they can afford to divert
highway funds to storm water so the State may not need more highway
funds.
Now, do not get me wrong. I support States having the ability to
address their storm water needs if they must do so, and if they choose
to do so. With my amendment, the States will remain fully authorized to
use their highway funds to mitigate storm water problems. Indeed, this
bill preserves and actually expands the ability of States to spend
highway dollars on storm water mitigation, on a highway project if that
is what is needed in their State.
Current law allows States to spend up to 20 percent of a project's
cost using STP funds on storm water mitigation. That is unchanged. The
bill also expands storm water eligibility by allowing States to spend
up to 20 percent of a project's cost under the National Highway System
funds on storm water mitigation. That is unchanged by this amendment.
I seek only to strike the mandatory set-aside; the Federal Government
big daddy knows better than the States how to spend their funds to
assure adequate transportation and protection of the environment.
There is no one in this body who has fought longer and harder than I
have, my former colleague, my ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for
Federal funding for water quality and drinking water. When we served as
head of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funded EPA, we
restored hundreds of millions of dollars in proposed cuts to the clean
water and safe drinking water funds. Every year we appropriated
millions of dollars to protect, sustain, and restore the health of our
Nation's water habitats and ecosystems. We spent millions funding water
projects for the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain,
Long Island Sound, and the Great Lakes. Last year, we sent hundreds of
millions of dollars more to Members' States for targeted investments
and water infrastructure. We do that every year for our colleagues
because we believe so much in providing clean and safe drinking water
for our families and local communities.
Forcing another arbitrary mandate on States, taking precious highway
and transit construction dollars and diverting them for another purpose
does not make sense. Decisions should be made by each State on a case-
by-case, project-by-project basis, not as a result of another one-size-
fits-all Federal mandate sent down from Washington.
Let me repeat, this amendment strikes only the set-aside mandate and
leaves fully intact storm water funding eligibility. I urge my
colleagues to let States keep $900 million for highway bridge and
transit construction and to turn back this new Federal mandate on
States. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this amendment
from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials; the Transportation Construction Coalition, a coalition of
builders and union representatives; the Associated General Contractors
of America; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association;
and a list of other organizations and unions supporting this amendment
be printed in the Record after my remarks.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Organizations Supporting the Bond Amendment To Strike the Stormwater
Set-Aside
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials Associated General Contractors of America; American
Road & Transportation Builders Association; American Coal Ash
Association; American Concrete Pavement Association; American
Concrete Pipe Association; American Council of Engineering
Companies; American Society of Civil Engineers; American
Subcontractors Association; American Traffic Safety Services
Association; Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association;
Asphalt Recycling & Reclaiming Association; Associated
Equipment Distributors; Association of Equipment
Manufacturers; International Slurry Surfacing Association;
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental
and Reinforcing Iron Workers; International Union of
Operating Engineers; Laborers-International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO; National Asphalt Pavement Association;
National Association of Surety Bond Producers; National Lime
Association; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association;
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; National Utility
Contractors Association; Portland Cement Association;
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute; The Road Information
Program; and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America.
____
April 27, 2005.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: The transportation construction
industry, working in partnership with federal, state and
local government, recognizes its special responsibility to
provide transportation improvements in a manner least
disruptive possible to the natural environment. And our
members are justifiably proud that they are actually able to
provide environmental enhancements in the course of many
projects they construct.
It is for these reasons that we support the provisions in
the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee's proposed
highway/transit program reauthorization bill, H.R. 3, that
will give state transportation departments more flexibility
in how--and how much--they fund transportation-related storm
water mitigation activities.
What we do not support is a provision included in H.R. 3
that would force all states to spend at least two percent of
their federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds on
storm water mitigation. This misguided, if well-intentioned
amendment, if left to stand, will divert nearly $900 million
from highway construction projects nationwide over the life
of the bill.
As mentioned, H.R. 3 takes a number of positive actions to
advance and expand state expenditures on storm water
mitigation--but it does so by leaving the decision making and
choices to the state agencies that know best how much funding
is necessary for this activity--in their state. For example,
H.R. 3 will allow all states to not only use their STP funds
for storm water mitigation, but also, for the first time,
their National Highway System Program (NHS) funds as well--if
they choose to do so.
H.R. 3 also, for the first time, would give states the
option to use their federal funds for storm water mitigation
activities on all federally-aided highway projects, not just
those, as under current law, that are defined as
``reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or
restoration.''
The ``add on'' two percent mandatory STP set-aside included
in H.R. 3 clearly is a federal ``command-and-control''
mechanism that is not necessary.
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association
strongly supports your amendment to eliminate the proposed
two percent storm water mitigation set-aside provision from
H.R. 3. We urge all senators to join you in this important
effort.
Sincerely,
T. Peter Ruane,
President & CEO.
____
April 27, 2005.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: On behalf of the Associated General
Contractors of America (AGC), I am writing to urge you to
support a Bond amendment to H.R. 3, which would prevent
states from losing nearly $900 million in critical highway
and transit funding over the next five years. Specifically,
the amendment proposes to strike a provision that mandates
states to set aside 2 percent of their highway formula
funding to be used only on stormwater mitigation activities.
Under current law, states can already choose to use their
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds--up to 20 percent
of a project's cost--on stormwater mitigation activities.
H.R. 3 already expands that funding eligibility to National
Highway System (NHS) Program funds. The Bond amendment would
not change this eligibility.
All states have unique needs that far exceed available
resources. By striking the mandatory 2 percent set-aside for
stormwater mitigation, the Bond amendment simply gives states
maximum flexibility to use their federal highway funds as
they see fit.
I have attached a table to this letter that shows the
amount of funding your state would be forced to set aside
from your highway and transit funding for stormwater
mitigation if the Bond amendment is not adopted. The amount
on the chart is funding that your state would not be able to
use to maintain or improve the condition of its highways,
bridges, or transit systems. Nationwide, the Bond amendment
would give states an additional $900 million over the next
five years.
[[Page S4455]]
States should be able to make their own decisions on how
best to use their limited federal transportation dollars.
Please oppose this arbitrary federal mandate by supporting
the Bond amendment.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
Senior Executive Director,
Government and Public Affairs.
____
April 27, 2005.
Dear Senator: During the Senate debate on the
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, H.R. 3, you
will have an opportunity to reject a new, top-down effort for
federal management of state highway programs that would force
highway funds to be diverted to non-transportation purposes.
We urge you to support an amendment by Senate Transportation
and Infrastructure Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Bond (R-
Mo.) to eliminate a new program that would require a portion
of federal highway formula funds to be used for storm water
mitigation projects.
H.R. 3 includes a provision that would require states to
use two percent of their federal Surface Transportation
Program (STP) funds for storm water mitigation activities.
Over the measure's life, this provision would result in
nearly $900 million in highway formula funds that would not
be available for highway, highway safety and bridge
improvement activities.
This proposal contradicts the flexibility provided
throughout the federal highway program and H.R. 3 that allows
states the ability to meet their own unique transportation
challenges. Storm water mitigation activities are currently
eligible for STP funds--a choice left up to states, not
mandated by federal law. In fact, H.R. 3 includes separate
provisions that would broaden the eligibility for states to
spend not only STP, but also National Highway System program
funds on storm water projects.
H.R. 3 would also extend eligibility for federal funds to
be used on storm water mitigation related to federal highway
projects, not just those projects undergoing reconstruction,
rehabilitation, resurfacing or restoration--as is the current
law. Consequently, the proposed creation of a mandatory storm
water mitigation ``set-aside'' is unnecessary and undermines
the ability of states to make their own decisions about the
best use of federal highway formula funds.
The nation has vast unmet surface transportation and water
infrastructure needs. Depriving states the ability to address
their highway and highway safety needs in order to fund storm
water mitigation projects is a false choice. It is far more
appropriate to complement state's current flexibility with
the enactment of a comprehensive water infrastructure bill.
Consequently, we urge you to support the Bond amendment to
strike the storm water mitigation program from H.R. 3.
Thank you for your consideration of these views.
Sincerely,
The Transportation Construction Coalition.
____
April 27, 2005.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: The American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) represents the
State transportation agencies in the fifty States, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. On behalf of our member
States, we support your Amendment to strike Section 1620 of
SAFETEA, which would mandate that the States set-aside 2% of
their Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds and of the
STP portion of the Equity Bonus Program. This set-aside would
divert $867 million from the core program that provides
funding for highway and bridge construction, rehabilitation
and repair.
Even if Section 1620 is removed, as you propose, any State
could continue to spend up to 20% of a project's cost on
storm water activities--but at the discretion of the State.
Section 1620 would mandate that each and every State spend a
specified amount of highway funds for construction of storm
water facilities regardless of a State's funding priorities
and needs with respect to transportation and water issues.
Moreover, these funds would be set aside for storm water
projects not necessarily associated with a particular highway
project.
The storm water set-aside would merely divert scarce funds
from the federal highway and transit program. It is through
the core highway programs, including the STP program, that
States and local governments build, maintain and operate a
safe and efficient highway system. Erosion of the core
programs through set-asides such as storm water diminishes
the ability of state and local governments to respond to
their needs.
We support your amendment to strike Section 1620 of SAFETEA
and appreciate your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely yours,
John Horsley,
Executive Director.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bond
amendment to strike section 1620 of the underlying bill, the highway
stormwater discharge mitigation program.
This section provides much-needed assistance to our States and local
communities to deal with the impacts of highway stormwater discharges.
Without these funds, our Nation's highways are at risk of becoming a
conduit for pollutants to reach fragile waterways and ecosystems.
In the last Congress, the Senate recognized the need for this program
and adopted this provision as part of the transportation bill.
I urge my colleagues to continue their support for this vital
program.
Our Nation is facing a water quality challenge.
Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1970, we have taken
steps to reduce pollution coming from point sources such as wastewater
treatment plants and industry.
However, according to the EPA's most recent National Water Quality
Inventory, 40 percent of our Nation's waterways are still impaired.
Non-point source pollution is the next hurdle for this Nation to
overcome if we are to truly make progress and improve our water
quality.
EPA states that urban run-off and storm sewers are the number four
source of pollution in rivers, number three in lakes, and number two in
estuaries.
When it rains or when snow melts, roads serve as conduits for
pollutants such as oil and grease, heavy metals, and sediment that flow
directly into rivers, streams, and lakes.
Because roads prevent rainfall and snowmelt from soaking into the
ground, the physical characteristics of surrounding water bodies are
also altered.
Groundwater recharge is reduced, affecting water supplies.
Stream channels erode due to rapid, heavy flows, leading to excessive
situation in rivers and streams which severely impacts fish habitat.
This is a major part of our stormwater problem in Vermont.
Water temperatures are altered, impacting wildlife.
In addition, flooding can occur which not only damages the
environment but also puts human lives and property at risk.
The highway stormwater discharge mitigation program will ensure that
communities have at least a portion of the resources to solve their
water quality problems stemming from Federal-aid highways.
It authorizes 2 percent of surface transportation program funds to be
used for highway stormwater discharge mitigation.
This would provide a total of $867 million over 5 years.
The program would reduce the impacts to watersheds from the
development of highways and roads while addressing the goals in the
Federal Clean Water Act by funding projects that improve water quality.
The new program emphasizes non-structural solutions to managing
stormwater runoff, which reduce costs to local communities, protect the
natural water cycle, and provide more overall environmental benefits.
In my home State of Vermont, Lake Champlain, which also borders the
State of New York, is threatened by pollution from storm water run off.
Although it is one of the cleanest large lakes in the United States,
Lake Champlain is polluted with nutrients and sediment.
The fastest growing source of pollution reaching the lake is runoff
from developed land, including highways.
Roadway drainage systems carry sediment and nutrients, and the cost
of cleaning up existing roadway runoff to Lake Champlain is estimated
at more than $500,000 each year for the next 9 years.
Similar problems exist in the Connecticut River basin in Vermont.
Currently, our State is struggling to deal with a backlog of expired
storm water permits, extremely limited resources, and statewide storm
water discharge water quality issues that threaten the growth of our
economy by stalling development.
The two most important road improvement projects in our biggest city
have been repeatedly delayed by storm water pollution concerns, slowing
the construction schedules by months and even years.
One of our greatest assets in my home State of Vermont is our
pristine environment, including Lake Champlain.
We need to ensure that as we improve our roadway network to meet the
demands of a growing population we do
[[Page S4456]]
not sacrifice the quality of our environment that draws people to visit
and move to Vermont in the first place.
I have heard some of my colleagues from more arid States question the
need for these funds given climatic differences.
However, each and every State in the Nation has critical storm water
mitigation needs.
Under new regulations that took effect in March 2003, over 50,000
small communities, counties, and other areas in every State must now
manage stormwater runoff to meet Clean Water Act requirements.
The EPA estimated the cost to comply with these regulations to be
about $1 billion per year.
Larger cities already manage stormwater pollution in order to meet
discharge permits and other Clean Water Act requirements.
Every State in the country has at least one community covered by
these regulations.
The arid and semi-arid western United States has receiving waters
that are generally smaller than their eastern counterparts.
Therefore, the impacts of urban stormwater are more strongly felt in
western waterways.
For example, in the State of Nevada, the Las Vegas Valley Stormwater
Management Committee found in its 2003 annual report that zinc and lead
concentrations were 10 to 96 times higher in stormwater runoff than in
other parts of the Nation, an effect attributed to the fewer number of
storms in the arid Southwest.
EPA estimates that Arizona communities will need about $150 million
to meet stormwater regulatory requirements, plus an additional $40
million in estimated costs to address urban runoff. Arizona's portion
of stormwater funding under section 1620 of the highway bill is about
$17 million.
The California Department of Transportation estimates that the cost
of stormwater controls on existing highways would range from between $4
million and $7.5 million per mile of highway.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission estimated in January of 2003 that
stormwater retrofit costs across the watershed are more than $9
billion.
In demonstration of the nationwide support for this stormwater
provision in the highway bill, I ask unanimous consent that multiple
letters opposing the Bond amendment and endorsing the underlying
provision be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The United States
Conference of Mayors,
Washington, DC, Apr. 25, 2005.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Chair, Environment & Public Works, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Ranking Minority Member, Environment & Public Works
Committee, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Minority Member Jeffords:
On behalf of The United States Conference of Mayors and the
hundreds of cities we represent, I write to convey our strong
support for the stormwater provisions of your Committee-
approved SAFETEA plan to renew the nation's surface
transportation programs.
These provisions, reserving less than \1/3\ of a penny on
every authorized dollar, is a very modest commitment to an
enormous challenge before local governments struggling with
contamination of drinking water and cleanup of streams,
rivers, lakes and ponds from highway and street stormwater
discharge, including oil, grease, lead and mercury. Moreover,
we have been assured that these provisions limit funding to
actual facilities on the federal aid system, which is a
critical factor underlying our support of this program. This
is important to the nation's cities since it ensures that
users of these systems contribute something to the broader
efforts under the Clean Water Act to reduce pollutants from
the nation's major highways and roads.
Absent some commitment to retrofitting existing facilities
on the federal aid system during this renewal period,
stormwater pollution cleanup costs, including loadings
attributable to the federal aid system, will be borne largely
by local taxpayers through property taxes, other general
taxes and wastewater utility user fees.
Finally, we disagree with the claim that this is a
diversion of funds from highway construction and highway
capacity needs. It is the belief of the nation's mayors that
improved performance, whether it is pavement quality, the
development of technology, or its stormwater quality
features, are priorities for the nation as we work with you
to provide a modern and fully functional transportation
system for our citizens and their communities and regions.
America's mayors thank you for making these provisions part
of your SAFETEA legislation and urge you to preserve this
important commitment to stormwater pollution abatement
efforts during your conference committee deliberations with
the House. If you have any questions, please contact our
Assistant Executive Director for Transportation Policy Ron
Thaniel at (202) 861-6711 or e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Tom Cochran,
Executive Director.
____
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators,
Washington, DC, April 22, 2005.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA),
I urge your support for the Highway Stormwater Discharge
Mitigation Program, Section 1620 of the Senate SAFETEA bill,
S. 1072, in the 108th Congress. This new and modest program
is designed to address stormwater runoff from the nation's
existing transportation system. Stormwater runoff is a
significant source of water pollution affecting large and
small communities, as well as fish, wildlife and the natural
environment.
Stormwater pollution results from paving over naturally
porous ground, resulting in impervious surfaces that collect
pollutants and increase overland stormwater volume and
velocity. Stormwater becomes a direct conduit for pollution
into the nation's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. Studies
have shown that roads contribute a large number of pollutants
to urban runoff--metals, used motor oil, grease, coolants and
antifreeze, spilled gasoline, nutrients from vehicle exhaust,
and sediment. For example, the stormwater discharge from one
square mile of roads and parking lots can contribute about
20,000 gallons of residual oil per year into the nation's
drinking water supplies. Highways can increase the annual
volume of stormwater discharges by up to 16 times the pre-
development rate and reduce groundwater recharge.
Communities throughout the nation, including many smaller
towns and counties, are required under the Clean Water Act to
obtain discharge (NPDES) permits for their stormwater. Those
communities, which have long understood the value of
protecting their drinking water sources and recreational
waters from stormwater impacts, are hard-pressed to absorb
the costs of discharges from highways in addition to their
other stormwater management responsibilities. This presents
an unfair burden to these communities and we believe it is
fair for the transportation funding system to help remedy
this problem where existing highways and other roads cause
significant runoff problems.
We urge you to continue to demonstrate your leadership in
protecting America's waters by supporting the stormwater
mitigation provision in SAFETEA. We appreciate your
willingness to consider the views of the State and Interstate
Water Pollution Program officials responsible for the
protection and enhancement of the nation's water quality
resources.
Sincerely,
Arthur G. Baggett, Jr.
President.
____
The Environmental
Council of the States,
Washington, DC, April 25, 2005.
Hon. James Inhofe,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the environmental Council
of the States (ECOS*), I'm writing to request your support
for the Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program, the
new provision included in S. 732, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Act of 2005 (SAFETEA),
section 1620.
EOS strongly supports the provision because stormwater
compliance is a serious issues for the states and this
provision provides for $867 million over five years,
specifically for stormwater mitigation projects associated
with the nation's federal-aid highways. The provision would
provide states with much needed resources to help meet
stormwater and water quality requirements of the Clean Water
Act. These funds are particularly critical during this time
of budgetary constraints.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss
this matter further. I may be reached at 202-624-3600.
Sincerely,
R. Steven Brown,
Executive Director.
[[Page S4457]]
____
Water Environment Federation,
Alexandria, VA, February 7, 2005.
Hon. James Jeffords,
Ranking Member Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Jeffords: The Water Environment Federation
(WEF) urges you to support a dedicated funding program to
mitigate the negative impacts of stormwater runoff from our
nation's highways. The Highway Stormwater Discharge
Mitigation Program was included in the Senate Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act of 2003 (SAFETEA) bill, S. 1072, in the 108th Congress.
It is critical that this program be included in this year's
version of the transportation bill.
According to U.S. EPA, contaminated stormwater is the
largest contributor to the impairment of water quality in
U.S. coastal waters and the second largest source of
impairment in estuaries. Contaminated stormwater is also the
single largest factor in beach closures and advisories. The
cost to address these problems is large, too. The U.S. EPA
estimates at least $8.3 billion over 20 years in local
funding needs to address Clean Water Act stormwater
requirements, and an additional $142 billion to address
stormwater infiltration and other problems in separate and
combined sewer systems.
Congress has recognized that contaminated runoff from
highways is a significant source of water quality impairment
in previous highway bills (ISTEA and TEA-21), but has not
succeeded in getting adequate funding directed toward this
problem. A dedicated fund to address stormwater impacts from
existing federal aid highways will help to prevent further
degradation of streams, lakes, and beach waters. This funding
will benefit all Americans by helping communities comply with
Clean Water Act stormwater requirements and to clean up
waters impaired by highway runoff.
On behalf of the members of the Water Environment
Federation, who are professionals working to protect water
quality around the world, thank you for your support of this
important provision that will help to improve the nation's
water resources.
Sincerely,
Tim Williams,
Managing Director, Government Affairs.
____
Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies,
Washington, DC, April 22, 2005.
Re Support for S. 721 and the Highway Stormwater Discharge
Mitigation Program.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Chair, Environment and Public Works Committee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Inhofe and Senator Jeffords: We are writing
to express our strong support for the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005
(SAFETEA) (S. 732) as passed March 16 by the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee. The Committee's bill
includes a provision to authorize $867.6 million over five
years for stormwater mitigation projects, using just 2% of
the Surface Transportation Program funds. Such projects
include stormwater retrofits, the recharge of groundwater,
natural filters, stream restoration, minimization of stream
bank erosion, innovative technologies, and others.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
polluted stormwater from impervious surfaces such as roads is
a leading cause of impairment for nearly 40% of U.S.
waterways not meeting water quality standards. Roadways
produce some of the highest concentrations of pollutants such
as phosphorus, suspended solids, bacteria, and heavy metals.
AMSA represents hundreds of publicly owned treatment works,
many of which have municipal stormwater management
responsibilities. Your continued support for S. 732,
including the Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation
Program, would provide much-needed support to these
communities. Thank you for your leadership and please feel
free to contact me at 202/833-4653 if AMSA can provide you
with additional information.
Sincerely,
Ken Kirk,
Executive Director.
____
Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies,
Washington, DC, April 22, 2005.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the nation's largest publicly
owned drinking water systems, I write today to express
support for section 1620 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (S. 732),
which would provide $870 million over five years for
stormwater mitigation projects.
This language makes progress toward addressing the billions
of dollars in costs that state and local governments will
incur to control stormwater generated by our nation's
highways.
Stormwater runoff has a significant effect on thousands of
miles of the nation's rivers and streams. The bill
acknowledges this impact and assists states and local
communities in addressing this growing water quality problem.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Diane VanDe Hei,
Executive Director.
____
Association of State Floodplain
Managers, Inc.
Madison, Wisconsin, April 25, 2005.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Chairman, Environment & Public Works Committee, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Jeffords: The Association of
State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) is very supportive of a
provision in the Senate Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act (S. 732) which provides
for a Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program.
The membership of the Association of State Floodplain
Managers includes state and local officials all over the
country who work with FEMA and other federal agencies to
reduce loss of life and property due to flooding. Our
membership of almost 7,000 also includes many other
professionals in the field.
We are extremely pleased that the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee has recognized the alterations that
often occur in floodplains due to construction and
modification of highways and roads as well as the effects of
runoff pollutants on waterways, lakes, and wetlands. A
commitment of 2% of the Surface Transportation Program funds
to assist local officials in mitigating the effects of
stormwater runoff will be a wise and important element of
highway planning and construction. The funds can also be used
for retrofit of already built highways to mitigate existing
inadvertent adverse impacts.
ASFPM has developed a conceptual framework for alleviating
such inadvertent effects on flood risk. The ``No Adverse
Impact'' or ``NAI'' concept seeks to guide state and local
decision makers in evaluating the effects of development and
the creation of impervious surfaces. The No Adverse Impact
approach focuses on planning for and lessening flood impacts
resulting from land use changes. It is essentially a ``do no
harm'' policy that will significantly decrease the creation
of new flood damages. Further information on the concept can
be found at our website: www.floods.org.
Providing for mitigation of stormwater runoff effects would
significantly contribute to implementation of a No Adverse
Impact approach to flood loss reduction in our nation. As the
full Senate will soon consider S. 732, we would like you to
be aware of our very strong support for the stormwater runoff
mitigation provision. ASFPM is grateful for your commitment
to this provision and urges your continued commitment.
Very sincerely,
Chad Berginnis,
ASFPM Chair.
____
Trout Unlimited,
March 15, 2005.
Re Support of Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Funding
in the Transportation Bill.
Hon. Jim Inhofe,
Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inhofe: Trout Unlimited, the nation's leading
trout and salmon conservation organization, urges you to
support funding to mitigate stormwater runoff in this year's
transportation bill. A similar provision, Section 1620, the
Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program, was included
in last year's Senate transportation bill, S. 1072.
Stormwater runoff is a significant source of pollution for
all the nation's waters, and is a major cause of trout and
salmon habitat loss. Roads are a major source of stormwater
runoff. Road building in the United States has created
millions of miles of impervious surfaces that collect water
and pollutants. When mixed with rain and melting snow, these
pollutants flow unimpeded into nearby streams, undermining
water quality and warming water temperatures to the point
where trout habitat is damaged. Furthermore, excessive and
poorly designed road building through watersheds can turn
normal rainstorms into small flash floods that scour stream
bottoms and de-stabilize stream banks, leading to poorer
quality streams over time.
Congress has recognized that runoff pollution from highways
lowers water quality and destroys habitat in receiving waters
in previous highway bills (ISTEA and TEA-21), but has not yet
succeeded in getting adequate funding directed at curbing
this pollution. In 2000, EPA estimated at least $8.3 billion
over 20 years in local funding needs to address stormwater
requirements. The time to take action is now as you consider
the new Highway Bill.
In addition to providing much-needed funding, the bill
encourages projects with the least impact on streams and
promotes the use of non-structural techniques, such as
created wetlands, to mitigate the negative impacts of
stormwater. These approaches are generally more cost-
effective and do more to protect and improve water quality
and protect habitat.
Thank you for your support of this important provision in
this year's transportation bill.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Moyer,
Vice President, Government Affairs and Volunteer
Operations.
[[Page S4458]]
February 10, 2005
Re Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Funding in the
Transportation Bill.
Dear Senator: The undersigned organization dedicated to
protecting America's waters urge you to support funding to
mitigate stormwater runoff in this year's transportation
bill. A similar provision, Section 1620, the Highway
Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program, was included in last
year's Senate transportation bill, S. 1072.
Stormwater runoff is a significant source of pollution for
all the nation's waters, and roads are a major source of
stormwater runoff. When rain falls on a natural landscape,
the water is absorbed by plants and soil where it is filtered
and released slowly into nearby streams and rivers and
replenishes ground water supplies. Road building in the
United States has created millions of miles of impervious
surfaces that collect water and pollutants, including oil,
grease, lead and other heavy metals. When mixed with rain and
melting snow, these pollutants flow unimpeded into nearby
streams, ditches, rivers and ponds. Excessive and poorly
designed road building through watersheds can turn normal
rainstorms into small flash floods that damage natural
systems and are very costly to local communities. Stormwater
runoff also pours into sewers causing overflows of untreated
sewage into drinking water supplies and recreational waters.
Congress has recognized that runoff pollution from highways
contaminates downstream waters in previous highway bills
(ISTEA and TEA-21), but has not yet succeeded in getting
adequate funding directed at curbing this pollution. Under
the Clean Water Act, thousands of local communities must
obtain permits for their stormwater discharges and develop
programs to mitigate runoff.
In 2000, U.S. EPA estimated at least $8.3 billion over 20
years in local funding needs to address stormwater
requirements, and an additional $92 billion and $50.3 billion
to address stormwater infiltration and other problems in
separate and combined sewer . . .
Environmental Integrity Project--Michele Merkel,
Washington, DC; National Audubon Society--Kasey Gillette,
Washington, DC; Natural Resources Defense Council--Nancy
Stoner, Washington, DC; The Ocean Conservancy--Catherine
Hazlewood, Washington, DC; Sierra Club--Ed Hopkins,
Washington, DC; Smart Growth America--Don Chen, Washington,
DC; Surface Transportation Policy Project--Ann Canby,
Washington, DC; Trust for Public Land--Alan Front,
Washington, DC; U.S. Public Interest Research Group--Christy
Leavitt, Washington, DC; Delaware Nature Society--Eileen
Butler, Hockessin, DE.
Control Growth Now, Inc.--Dan Lobeck, Sarasota, FL; Keep
Manatee Beautiful--Ingrid McClellan, Bradenton, FL; Reef
Relief--Paul G. Johnson, Crawfordville, FL; South Walton
Turtle Watch--Sharon Maxwell, NW Coast, FL; St. Lucie Audubon
Society--Harold Philips, Fort Pierce, FL; Munson Area
Preservation, Inc.--Margaret Fogg, Tallahassee, FL;
Apalachicola Bay & Riverkeeper--Apalachicola, FL/GA; Georgia
River Network--April Ingle, Athens, GA; Upper Chatahoochee
Riverkeeper--Elizabeth Nicholas, Atlanta, GA.
American Bottom Conservancy--Kathy Andria, East St. Louis,
IL; Center for Neighborhood Technology--Jacky Grimshaw,
Chicago, IL; Chicagoland Transportation & Air Quality
Commission--Melissa Haeffner, Chicago, IL; Environmental Law
& Policy Center of the Mid-West--Albert Ettinger, Chicago,
IL; Prarie Rivers Network--Jean Flemma, Champaign, IL;
Kentucky Waterways Alliance--Judith Peterson, Munfordville,
KY; Gulf Restoration Network--Cynthia Sarthou, New Orleans,
LA; Save the Illinois River--Ed Brocksmith, Tahlequah, OK;
Connecticut River Watershed Council--Tom Miner, Greenfield,
MA.
Leominster Land Trust--Peter Angelini, Leonminster, MA;
Massachusetts Watershed Coalition--Leominster, MA; North and
South Rivers Watershed Association--Samantha Woods, Norwell,
MA; Taunton River Watershed Alliance--Bill Fitzgerald,
Franklin, MA; American Fisheries Society--Jessica Geubtner,
Bethesda, MD; Anacostia Watershed Society--Jim Connolly,
Bladensburg, MD; Chesapeake Bay Foundation--Roy Hoagland,
Annapolis, MD; Maryland Conservation Council--Mary Marsh,
Arnold, MD; Patapsco Riverkeeper--Lee Walker Oxenham,
Baltimore, MD.
Missouri Coalition for the Environment--Edward J. Heisel,
St. Louis, MO; Environmental Coalition of Mississippi--Jackie
Rollins, Madison, MS; American Wildlands--Amy Stix, Bozeman,
MT; Citizens for a Better Flathead--Mayre Flowers, Kelispell,
MT; Lower Neuse Riverkeeper & Neuse River Foundation--Larry
Baldwin, New Bern, NC; New Hampshire Rivers Council--Carl
Paulsen, Concord NH; Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc.--Hugh M.
Carola, Hackensack, NJ; New York/New Jersey Baykeeper--Andrew
Willner, Keyport, NJ; and Amigos Bravos--Rachel Conn, Taos,
NM.
Mr. JEFFORDS. The Bond amendment is opposed by the: U.S. Conference
of Mayors, State Water Pollution Control Administrators, Environmental
Council of States, Trout, Unlimited, Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
Metropolitan Water Agencies, American River, and a host of other
organizations.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the League of Conservation
Voters indicating its opposition to the Bond amendment and its intent
to score this vote be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
League of Conservation Voters,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2005.
Re: S. 732 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA). Remove
provisions that weaken the Clean Air Act and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Oppose the Bond (D-MO)
motion to strike stormwater mitigation funds.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is
the political voice of the national environmental community.
Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental
Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of
Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is
distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and
the press.
LCV urges Congress to pass a balanced transportation bill
that protects public health and the environment as it
encourages the development of transportation options.
SAFETEA, as drafted, will mean increased air pollution from
cars and trucks and weakened environmental review of
projects.
To keep growth in traffic from undermining regional air
pollution control strategies, the Clean Air Act requires that
regional transportation plans contribute to the timely
attainment of health-based air standards. S. 732 would weaken
these requirements, by constraining the analysis of
transportation impacts to 10 years, rather than the 20-year
planning horizon now used. As a result, the actual impacts of
new projects would not be considered, resulting in long-term
increases in air pollution, traffic and sprawl, and increased
public health impacts.
Signed into law in 1970 by the Nixon administration, NEPA
requires the federal government to examine the potential
environmental impact of federally funded activities and share
its findings with the public. Under NEPA, the Department of
Transportation is afforded the opportunity to fix problems
with environmental compliance and review before decisions are
finalized. The government's own findings demonstrate that
environmental reviews are not a significant cause of delays.
If, however, this bill includes new, rigid deadlines and
review procedures, federal agencies would be forced to cut
corners. This could lengthen the process down the line by
spurring legal challenges and forcing agencies to make time-
consuming revisions.
In addition, LCV urges you to oppose the Bond (R-MO) motion
to strike the Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation
Program, Section 1620. This motion would eliminate a critical
program, which would provide up to $867.6 million (only two
percent of Surface Transportation Program funds) to mitigate
the effects of stormwater runoff from roads and highways.
This is especially important since nearly half of the
pollution in our waterways is due to runoff from roads and
parking lots.
LCV's Political Advisory Committee will consider including
votes on these issues in compiling LCV's 2004 Scorecard. If
you need more information, please call Tiernan Sittenfeld or
Barbara Elkus in my office at (202) 785-8683.
Sincerely,
Deb Callahan.
Mr. JEFFORDS. One of our Nation's most precious resources is our
water. Water quality affects the environment, wildlife, our health, and
our economy.
Section 1620 of the transportation bill recognizes the significant
contribution that roads make to stormwater pollution, and it provides
critical funding to help States and local communities mitigate these
damages.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bond amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of this
bill. I had been discussing with Senator Bond options with regard to
this amendment. Those discussions as yet have not yielded any course of
action. I judge that he took the initiative here; I just was unaware he
had taken it.
At this time I am chairing a hearing in the Armed Services Committee
on military intelligence. We have finished our open session. We are now
proceeding to S. 407 to conclude our hearing with a closed session. I
am not able at this juncture to address this important amendment from
the perspective of the Senator from Virginia who is the sponsor of the
amendment in the committee, which was adopted as part of the markup. So
I thank the distinguished chairman. My understanding is he did address
the Senate with regard to my unavailability at this time. I
[[Page S4459]]
will, however, at a time mutually convenient, come to the floor and
give my response to the Bond amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I serve on the Armed
Services Committee under his capable leadership. He chairs that
committee. He is also the longest serving member of the committee that
I chair, Environment and Public Works. It is very rare that I would
oppose something he is in favor of. This might be that exception. But
let me give him our assurance that nothing is going to happen to
dispose of this amendment until he has adequate time to complete his
hearing and come down and be heard on this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma for his usual gracious work with his colleagues here in the
Senate. I will return.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have talked about this issue several
times before. The distinguished Senator from Virginia has very strong
beliefs. Those beliefs are shared by the ranking minority member and by
several members of our committee. This amendment was added in
committee. It is one I voted against at the time. I did oppose it.
However, I know there are very strong feelings about it and I want to
make sure everybody gets to be heard, and I am sure we will end up with
a rollcall vote. I would only make a couple of comments.
There are flexible provisions in the underlying bill that will help
States address their storm water needs and maintain their ability to
determine how to spend these limited dollars. For that reason I had
felt a mandatory 2-percent set-aside in this bill was not necessary.
Currently, States are allowed to use their STP funds for
environmental enhancements which include a variety of projects,
including storm water mitigation. Our bill gives States the option to
use STP and NHS money for storm water mitigation. Our bill allows those
States that wish to use highway money to address storm water runoff and
help communities comply with phase 1 and 2 on clean water runoff to do
so.
I think probably one of the reasons for my opposition to this is I
spent 4 terms as mayor of a major city, Tulsa, OK. I have always been a
strong believer that the closer you get to home, the better the
decisions are. In other words, the idea that somehow Washington knows
more about my State of Oklahoma than the people in my State of Oklahoma
is something I have disagreed with.
If this amendment should be agreed to and the bill should become law,
if we in the State of Oklahoma want to spend 2 percent or even more of
our money for this purpose, we can do it. But if we have other
priorities that are greater, as determined by those of us in Oklahoma,
then I think that should take precedence.
For that reason I will respectfully support this amendment. I am sure
there will be more discussion on it later on.
I am sure the ranking minority member will agree with me, we do not
want to do anything further other than hear debate until Senator
Warner, whose provision it was that was put in the bill in committee,
has ample time to debate it and to come to the floor and try to work
out any compromises he may be successful in working out with the author
of the amendment, Senator Bond.
With that, let me renew our appeal to Members to come down with their
amendments. I am glad we are finally getting some activity here, some
amendments coming down. It is very important we move on with this bill.
We have several pages of amendments. I know a lot of these amendments
are going to be agreed to in a managers' amendment we will be
propounding before too long. There are some that will have to be fought
out on the floor. It is my desire, and I am sure the desire of the
ranking minority member, that we get on with these amendments. I have
been here long enough to know what is going to happen. We are going to
have all day today to handle amendments, and tomorrow. People are not
going to bring them down. Then when something happens or when cloture
is filed, everyone is going to get hysterical and say, Why didn't I
have time to offer my amendment?
You may not have time. We are serving warning to you right now, that
could happen. Now there is time and we encourage you to come down. This
amendment under discussion now, which the Senator from Indiana has
graciously set aside--it is his amendment--is one that will be
controversial and I suspect there will be many members on the minority
side of our committee who want to be heard. I think they were unanimous
in supporting Senator Warner in the committee at that time.
We hope those people will come down and get the debate out of the way
so we can proceed with this amendment and with any other amendments
that come to the floor. Let's keep in mind, as I said yesterday on more
than one occasion, what will happen if we are not successful in getting
this bill passed. We are on our sixth extension. The extensions do not
work. Our money is not well spent. People are dying on the highways.
There are things that are happening that will not happen unless we pass
this bill. Without an extension there is not going to be any chance to
improve the donor status. My State is a donor State. I remember when it
was 75 percent as a guarantee to come back to the States for money paid
into the highway trust fund, revenues that were collected in my State
of Oklahoma. Now it is up to 90.5 percent. If we had been successful
with the bill last year, it would have been 95 percent.
Senator Jeffords and I did everything we could to get our bill
passed. We are going to try to make that happen this time. But for
those States that are concerned about their donor status, they better
be lining up and supporting this. We do not know in conference what is
going to come out in terms of a number, but we do know this: Donor
status of 90.5 percent will at least go up to 91 or 92 percent. So they
are going to be better off, but not if we operate on an extension. If
we operate on an extension, we are not going to have any new safety
core programs.
They call this SAFETEA. I know there is an effort by the chairman of
the committee in the other body to rename it TEALU. I do not have a
real problem with that. But it is a safety bill. We have many safety
provisions, core programs that respond to the thousands of deaths each
year on our roadways. If we go on extensions, we are not going to make
any of these safety provisions a reality.
If we go on extensions instead of a bill, there is not going to be
any new streamlining. In fact, some of the current obstacles in helping
us to get roads built and bridges improved can be corrected, but they
can only be corrected if we are able to pass this bill. If we operate
on extensions, there is no increased ability to use innovative
financing, thereby giving the States more tools.
This is something that is so important. Ever since the Eisenhower
administration, we haven't changed the way we fund our road program.
There are a lot of ideas out there where we could use the public-
private partnership to build more roads and bridges. In fact, we have
in this bill a provision that establishes a commission to study various
ways, innovative ways to change the way we finance our roads, highways,
bridges, and infrastructure in America. But if we are on an extension,
if we do not pass this bill, we are not going to be able to do that.
We have one provision in here, Safe Routes to School, which is one I
felt strongly about, but I was not the leader on it. There are several
on our committee as well as over on the House side. As I recall, this
is one of the programs Congressman Oberstar felt very strongly about.
If we operate on an extension, we are not going to have the Safe Routes
to School Program. We could have deaths of young people as a result of
our failure to act. That is why this is so important.
Certainty in planning: On an extension, there is no certainty. You
think we are going to get the same amount of money that was already
authorized previously, but nothing else has changed. We don't know what
is going to happen next year. We don't know whether we are going to
have a bill that will be passed a month from now or 2 months from now
or a year from now. Therefore, there is no long-range planning that can
take place.
I served in the State legislature in Oklahoma many years ago. I know
when you start planning for the future
[[Page S4460]]
you have to plan for your contract season. It is not as severe in
Oklahoma as it is in Vermont or some of the Northern States, but
certainly these things have to be considered. We have to have our labor
supply ready to absorb, to be able to accommodate a heavy schedule of
construction, so we need to be able to plan for that.
In this bill we have a border program, Borders and Corridors. It is
very important we do these to accommodate the States such as Texas,
California, Arizona, and other border States along the northern border,
to help them out with that program. Without this bill we are not going
to be able to do that.
There are chokepoints. A lot of people think of the highway bill as
just highways. This is intermodal transportation. It affects railroad
crossings. Our State of Oklahoma is a State that has a channel. It
comes all the way to my town of Tulsa, OK. A lot of people don't know
that. We know there are chokepoints where barge traffic will come up;
it will go to rail traffic; it will go to truck traffic. This bill
addresses intermodal transportation and eliminates chokepoints.
Finally, we have the firewalls. What has bothered me more over the
years than anything else I can think of is how people will raid trust
funds. Politicians in State legislatures--it has happened here in
Washington--when no one is looking and there is a large surplus in some
trust fund, what do they do with a large surplus, I ask Senator
Jeffords? They run in there and they raid it. Consequently there are no
real protections under an extension. But we do have protections in the
bill that is before you.
I have every confidence--I don't want to sound as though I am
doubting whether we are going to have a bill. But we need to pass it in
time to get it to conference, back from conference, get it voted on,
and in law by May 31. That is getting very close.
In the Senate we will be going into a recess next week. We will not
be here for 7 days. It is my expectation as soon as we get back, we
will be in a position to finish this bill, get it to conference, and
meet this deadline.
I know I speak on behalf of our minority member, the ranking member,
the Democratic member on the committee, Senator Jeffords, in urging
people to come down and offer their amendments.
Mr. JEFFORDS. If I may interrupt for a moment, I support what you are
saying 100 percent. I warn Members they should not give any thought,
right now, anyway, of believing they do not need to be here. We have to
get this done. The country needs it.
Mr. INHOFE. The Senator and I know they are up there right now. Come
on down.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join the chairman in urging colleagues
to bring amendments to the floor. It is time to get this bill out of
the traffic jam it is currently stuck in. If we are going to get the
highway bill done before the end of May, the Senate needs to accelerate
action and shift into higher gear. Our States, cities, and towns need
this bill. The American public needs this bill. We have heard from the
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National
Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the
National League of Cities.
All asking the same thing, get this bill done.
The bill before us will strengthen our nation's transportation
system, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, improve the safety of our
roads, highways and bridges, and support and improve our transit
systems.
We cannot afford to wait any longer to make these much needed
investments.
Our transportation system needs help now: 38 percent of our major
roads are in poor or fair condition; 28 percent of our bridges are
structurally deficient and unsafe for travel; 5.7 billion gallons of
fuel are wasted annually while motorists sit in traffic.
Traffic congestion means longer delays, higher costs, increased
accidents, more pollution, added frustration and keeps us from spending
time with our family and friends.
In 2001, according to the American Public Transportation Association,
congestion costs to American motorists were nearly $70 billion.
Each peak-period road user lost approximately $1,200 in wasted fuel
and productivity.
It is time to get this bill on the fast track and start making some
progress.
Once again I thank Chairman Inhofe, and Senators Bond and Baucus for
the collaborative process in which we have proceeded on this bill.
We are ready to take up amendments. I urge my colleagues to come to
the floor and offer them.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments
made by the ranking member, Senator Jeffords. It is interesting when he
reads off the list of people anxious for a bill.
In the case of Oklahoma, when I was mayor of the city of Tulsa, we
were interested in being able to plan ahead. We have our Council of
Governments saying they need to have it. We have our State department
of transportation that says they are going to miss their construction
season. We have to get it done.
While Senator Jeffords and I many times philosophically disagree, the
fact we agree so much on getting this bill completed speaks well of
what we are trying to do. It demonstrates the broad base of support. I
don't have any doubt we will be able to get passage. The problem is if
we do not get the amendments for consideration, it will be a logjam
when we return from recess and could very well be a problem in meeting
our deadline of May 31. That is what we need to focus on.
We are in agreement on most of the provisions. There is some
disagreement on the formula. Formulas are always a problem. I have been
very happy about the way the Senate has done this. After having spent 8
years in the other body and serving on the Transportation Committee of
the House of Representatives, I remember meetings we had. I don't say
this in a critical way, but they operate on the basis of projects. We
do, too, except the difference is we talk about formulas and try to be
as equitable as possible and let the States determine their projects.
It gets back to the argument, who is in a better position to know the
needs of my constituents in the State of Oklahoma? Is it Washington or
our transportation commissioners responsible to the State legislature
and the needs in the State?
Some people say in an expensive bill, there is pork. There is no pork
in the bill. There are only two projects in the entire bill. People
need to understand that.
This will change to some degree when we get to conference because it
has to be agreed to by a majority of the conferees on the House, as
well as a majority of the conferees from the Senate. To devise a
formula that no one will disagree with is absolutely impossible. The
only choice we have if we look for unanimity in approving a formula
would be to have Senator Jeffords and me go to 60 Senators and say we
will take care of you and we will forget about the other 40. We would
have a bill and do it and it would be perfectly legitimate and not
unethical.
We take into consideration the Interstate Maintenance Program. It
varies from State to State. We take into consideration the National
Highway System, the lane miles, the principal arteries, excluding the
interstate VMT on principal arteries, excluding the interstate diesel
fuel used on highways, and total lane miles on principal arteries
divided by population. All these things have gone into the formula.
The Surface Transportation Program, which we have talked about, is
part of the consideration in terms of total lane miles.
The Highway Bridge Replacement Rehabilitation Program I am
particularly sensitive to because Oklahoma ranks last in terms of the
condition of bridges. These things have to be considered.
The Recreation Trails Program varies from State to State. There has
to be something in a formula that will take into consideration these
programs.
Border planning and operations: Since the passage of NAFTA and now
they are considering CAFTA, there are unusual situations taking place
from State to State. We have low-income States. My State, Oklahoma, is
a low-income State. We have low-population States such as Wyoming,
Montana, and
[[Page S4461]]
some of the States where they still have to have roads, but they do not
have the number of people so that has to be part of the consideration
and part of a formula.
They have low-population density States, high-fatality States. Some
States have higher fatalities than other States. That has to be taken
into consideration.
All these things--donor status, donee status--all are important. But
the bottom line is, I can take all 12 or 14 factors and put them into a
formula program. I can find areas where Oklahoma is not considered as
well as Texas or as Vermont. I can find factors that treat Vermont
worse than they treat Montana or some of the other States. If someone
is looking to be ahead on all factors, there is not 1 of 50 States that
can say they are.
I ask our Members to consider that. Formulas consider a lot of
things. We have done a good job with the approach we have. It is a
harder approach to take than the approach the other body uses. It is
easier for them to get a bill on and off the floor. Timing is
important. There is not a Member of this Senate who does not agree we
need to get a bill passed.
Members may not like the bill as it is. Come on down with amendments.
We are waiting for you. We invite Members.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Do I understand, Mr. President, that the amendment that
would strike the storm water mitigation provisions from the bill that
was reported out by the committee is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. First, I commend the committee, the chairman, the ranking
member, and my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Chafee, for
including this provision in the legislation before the Senate.
This provides for a set-aside of a State Surface Transportation
Program for storm water runoff mitigation. All of our local officials--
our mayors, our county commissioners, and others--say this is essential
as we address reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Program. It
is a very modest amount in the overall context of the bill, less than
$900 million nationwide to meet a very important and pressing need that
confronts local governments struggling to deal with the contamination
of drinking water and the cleanup of streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds
from highway and street storm water discharge.
A great deal of the pollution comes from these runoffs off the
roadways. We are talking about oil, grease, lead, mercury. In my own
State, where we are working so hard on the Chesapeake Bay, we know the
runoff from highways contributes very large amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorous and sediment to the bay and confronts the State with a very
serious clean water program.
Many of our Nation's highways and roads were built before the
implementation of storm water regulations. States are required to have
pollution reduction from new highways under EPA regulations, but we
need to have a mitigation program to deal with pollution from existing
Federal highways and associated paved services. Otherwise, we will have
great difficulty in meeting federally mandated water quality standards.
The standards have been put into place. The question now is, How do we
reach the standards?
My colleagues on the committee have done a very skillful job. I,
again, commend the chairman, the ranking member, and Senators Warner
and Chafee who, of course, are on the committee and try and find ways
to provide help to States and localities in fixing this problem.
This is an effort, of course, to make funding available to deal with
the storm water impact to water quality and the stream channels. The
estimates are quite large in terms of what is needed. This amendment
has very strong support from a broad range of groups. It is a
relatively small amount out of the total highway budget, but it deals
in a very focused way with a significant problem. It is a very wise
investment of these moneys in order to achieve a very marked
improvement with respect to the mitigation of the pollution impacts of
storm water discharge.
I commend the committee for the work they have done on this
amendment, for its inclusion in the legislation. I very strongly
support the committee bill and very much hope my colleagues will oppose
the amendment which would strike a provision that is in the committee
bill. This amendment takes out of the committee bill a provision
developed within the committee in a very skillful way that addresses a
very important problem. I very much hope my colleagues will reject this
amendment which strikes the storm water mitigation provisions reported
in the committee.
Mr. JEFFORDS. If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his
excellent presentation. We assure the Senator we are listening and we
will take the Senator's advice.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the ranking member very much.
What the committee has done is a very important step forward in a
very balanced bill. I very much hope we will sustain this provision in
the committee-reported bill.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while we are again encouraging people to
bring amendments down to the floor, I would like to make some comments
on a statement that was made yesterday that affects our committee, the
Environment and Public Works Committee.
Yesterday evening, the junior Senator from Delaware discussed his
hold on Stephen Johnson's nomination to be Administrator of the EPA.
His main complaint about Steve Johnson is about a lack of technical
data from EPA on Clear Skies. We are talking about the Clear Skies
legislation we considered in our committee that the administration has
come forth with.
But there has been no lack of technical data. The EPA has provided
the Environment and Public Works Committee with over 10,000 pages of
modeling on costs, job impacts, fuel switching, air quality, and deaths
avoided for the various multi-emissions proposals.
This information provides extensive detail about the impacts on the
Nation as a whole, regions, and individual States. Claims that EPA did
not supply sufficient information to make an informed decision simply
do not have any credibility.
In fact, this is in direct contrast to 2002, when then-Chairman
Jeffords--I have been making all kinds of complimentary remarks about
the ranking member, Senator Jeffords. Back in 2002, Senator Jeffords
was the chairman and I was the ranking member. He came forth with
something he had very strong feelings about, and that was the Clean
Power Act. When he marked it up, we had less than 1 week to review a
53-page bill, without any modeling information whatsoever. Let me
repeat that: less than 1 week to mark up a 53-page bill, which was
substituted for the original 5-page bill. I do not say that critically
because we did it. Nonetheless, we did it without the information I
believed was necessary at that time. We did not have information.
In addition, the quality of information in 1990--this is back when we
considered the Clean Air Act Amendments--paled in comparison to what
the executive branch has been able to produce for us using today's more
sophisticated models run on powerful supercomputers. The committee had
far more information about the impacts of the Clear Skies legislation
than the entire Senate had in 1990 during the debate on the Clean Air
Act amendments of 1990.
Now, what has been particularly frustrating is that the EPA data
request was used as a red herring to vote against Clear Skies. It is
now being used as an excuse to oppose Steve Johnson. I do want to talk
about Steve Johnson a minute because it is very unusual we have the
opportunity to have a Director with the background of Mr. Johnson.
When we notified the minority last November 15 of our intentions of
marking up the Clear Skies bill in February,
[[Page S4462]]
they never once raised the issue of needing more data from the EPA
until after we delayed the first markup on February 16. Then they
mentioned the need to get more data from the EPA almost as an
afterthought.
When we offered to delay the markup 2 weeks, in order to negotiate a
compromise, we were told they needed data from EPA, which would take 6
months to produce. This, of course, was after our committee already
spent 5 years conducting 24 hearings on the topic. We were told, after
all this committee work and the 10,000 pages of analysis, that the
minority still needed more analysis before they would be willing to
even begin negotiating.
Nevertheless, EPA has offered to spend considerable resources to
analyze each of the multi-emission proposals using an identical
methodology to guarantee that comparisons of the three bills are apples
to apples. Yet the charge is being leveled that this offer still is not
enough.
Last week, the EPA offered to conduct even more analysis to satisfy
Senator Carper, offering detailed data on S. 131, the President's Clear
Skies proposal; secondly, the Clear Skies manager's amendment from
March 9, 2005--that was ours; S. 843, Senator Carper's Clean Air
Planning Act; and, fourth, S. 150, Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act.
The data would consist of the cost of each bill; the fuel mix for
electricity production; Henry-Hub natural gas prices; average mine
mouth coal prices; regional electricity prices; emission allowance
prices; national and regional coal production; the response of electric
generating facilities--for example, the capacity retrofitted with
pollution control equipment; national and State-by-State emission
levels for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury; the national
aggregate CO2 emissions; public health and environmental
provisions benefits of each bill, such as the total monetized health
benefits, premature mortality benefits, and visibility benefits; and
the effects of each bill on nonattainment areas--for example, for each
current nonattainment area, EPA will list the counties in the area and
project whether the area comes into attainment with ozone and
particulate matter.
This is for all four pieces of legislation, not just one, everything
that has been asked for. This was an unprecedented offer of information
by the administration to the junior Senator from Delaware and, frankly,
it is more information than I believe he needs in order to move forward
on Clear Skies. This is in addition to the 10,000 pages of data the
committee has already received. This information would take the staff
of EPA 6 to 8 weeks to complete.
Unfortunately, even this offer is not enough. The junior Senator from
Delaware is insisting on the same level of analysis that the
administration conducted for the President's proposal, which would take
a half a year. Strangely, he insists this would allow him to negotiate
multiemissions legislation this spring.
This is a level of detail that no administration has ever conducted
for a legislative proposal at this stage in the process and, quite
frankly, a level of detail that is inappropriate to request. If the EPA
were requested to conduct this type of analysis for every bill, we
would have to double the size of the EPA, and all of their employees
would be working full time on congressional requests. To suggest that a
congressional committee needs this type of analysis before it can move
on legislation is ridiculous.
In the history of the Clean Air Act, we have more and better quality
data today than we have ever had in moving legislation, including the
amendments of 1990. Those are the amendments that were so significant
and have had such a positive effect on air quality. We have more data
than we ever had in moving any environmental legislation.
This demand for data was an excuse for delaying the Clear Skies
legislation and, quite frankly, it was an excuse to delay or obstruct
Steve Johnson's nomination. This appears to be part of a larger
strategy to obstruct this President's EPA nominees. Last Congress,
Governor Leavitt's nomination hearing was first boycotted by the
minority, then delayed for over 50 days. Today, Steve Johnson is also
being obstructed.
For just a moment, I wish to say something about the nomination of
Steve Johnson to be the next Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. It is unfortunate we find ourselves in a position of
having that nomination filibustered by the Democratic side. Mr. Johnson
is not a partisan politician. In fact, he is neither a partisan nor a
politician. I can't tell you right now whether he is a Democrat or
Republican. I don't think it makes any difference.
Steve Johnson is a career EPA employee who has risen through the
ranks under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He joined
the EPA during the Carter administration and was promoted to senior
management posts during the Clinton administration. He has also been
confirmed twice by the Senate, both times without opposition. Stephen
Johnson is not a partisan. He is also a scientist and, if confirmed,
would be both the first scientist and first career EPA employee to
serve as the head of the agency. We never had someone who has a
scientific background as Administrator of the EPA, nor have we had
anyone who has gone through the ranks of the EPA. There has never
before been a nominee who has known this agency so well prior to
becoming Administrator.
One of the big problems we have had with Administrators who are not
familiar with the agency is when we have something that needs to be
done, it takes them forever to sort through to find out where the bad
guys and good guys are and where the reports are coming from. He
already knows. He spent 24 years doing this.
He is trained in biology and pathology. After graduating from
college, he worked for the Computer Sciences Corporation at the Goddard
Space Flight Center and was signed to serve as a junior member of the
launch support team for the first Synchronous Meteorological Satellite,
SMS-1. He joined EPA during the Carter administration as a health
scientist in the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. He left EPA
briefly in 1982 to join a private lab and then returned in 1984 to
EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Throughout
the years Mr. Johnson climbed through the ranks, eventually being
appointed to senior management positions by the Clinton administration,
including Deputy Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs and the
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator at that time.
I have to say I was there when this happened during the Clinton
administration. I asked him a lot of serious questions, and I did not
object to his nomination even though it was propounded by the Clinton
administration.
In 2001, he was nominated by President Bush to serve as the Assistant
Administrator for that program office. He was confirmed without
opposition. Just last year when Mike Leavitt became Administrator he
was nominated to the No. 2 spot at the agency. Once again, he was
confirmed without any opposition.
Steve Johnson's qualifications are beyond question. The question is,
why are we here fighting for cloture on not just a qualified nominee
but a nominee who has been consistently promoted by both Democratic and
Republican Presidents? I believe Jonathan Adler did a good job
describing this nomination process when he wrote the following in the
National Review:
President Bush's selection of Steven L. Johnson as
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was
universally praised in Washington, D.C. Democrats and
Republicans, environmental activists and industry lobbyists
all hailed the pick as a positive step for the troubled
agency. Stalwart conservative Sen. James Inhofe . . .
--that's me--
applauded the choice while the Environmental Working Group's
Ken Cook called it a ``spectacularly good appointment.'' The
era of good feelings did not last long, however. Once slated
for a quick and easy confirmation, Johnson is now the victim
of an old-fashioned political obstruction as Senate Democrats
again target the administration's environmental policies.
This isn't the first time in recent history that an EPA Administrator
has been held up. In fact, that precedent was set the last time someone
was nominated by this President. Governor Mike Leavitt was treated with
equal courtesy as Steve Johnson. I know some, including the junior
Senator from Delaware, are now saying: I supported Mike Leavitt and was
there for him. But that is simply not accurate.
[[Page S4463]]
In fact, when the committee was scheduled to vote on the Leavitt
nomination, the vote was boycotted by the Democrats. Not a single
committee Democrat showed up, including the Senator from Delaware. It
was part of the boycott.
The three Administrators previous to Mike Leavitt took an average of
8 days to confirm. Mike Leavitt's confirmation took 50 days, 50 days to
confirm a Cabinet-level position for an individual who clearly is
qualified.
So this is nothing new for a qualified EPA Administrator nominated by
President Bush. It has been nearly a month that Steve Johnson has
awaited confirmation. The time has come to confirm Mr. Johnson.
During the debate we will likely hear some negative comments about
the President's record on the environment. What you hear from the
Democrats will likely be a very distorted view. The facts are very
plain, very easy to understand. By virtually every measure, under this
President's stewardship, our air, our water, and our land are cleaner.
We have a cleaner and healthier environment than we did prior to George
W. Bush taking over as President. That is simply the simple truth.
Just to highlight a few of the actions by the President, he signed
into law historic bipartisan legislation that has accelerated the
cleanup of brownfields--all of the States are concerned about that--
better protecting public health, creating jobs, and revitalizing
communities. George W. Bush is the first President ever to require the
reduction of mercury emissions by powerplants. I can remember when
there were full-page ads during the campaign saying that this President
is lowering the emissions. There were no restrictions before he came
in. He is the one who made the first reduction in our history. This
President has imposed a mandatory 70-percent reduction in mercury
emissions from these sources.
Just a year ago, the President announced an aggressive new national
goal, moving beyond the policy of no net loss wetlands to a new policy
of an actual net increase for wetlands each year. His Great Lakes
Legacy Program will help to clean up one of the largest systems of
freshwater on Earth, roughly 18 percent of the world's supply. His
Clear Skies initiative would have reduced SOX,
NOX and mercury emissions by 70 percent--the largest
mandated reduction of any President in the history of America. It
wasn't Bill Clinton. It was George W. Bush.
Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the environment and our
families are healthier because of George W. Bush. The facts don't lie.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
10 minutes as in morning business.
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, let me say to my good
friend from Oregon that the leader is coming down to make a statement.
Would he withhold his request until the leader gets here and makes his
statement?
Mr. WYDEN. If I could engage my colleague in a colloquy, I assume the
leader is going to speak relatively briefly as well. If that is the
case, I certainly want to be courteous. I ask unanimous consent, then,
that I have up to 10 minutes to speak after the majority leader has
spoken and that my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, have the
opportunity to speak for up to 10 minutes after me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________