[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4465-S4475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS--Continued
Amendment No. 593 to Amendment No. 567
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the pending business
before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer to the pending
bill, H.R. 3, the transportation bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. THUNE] proposes an
amendment numbered 593.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To retain current levels of State authority over matters
relating to preservation, historic, scenic natural environment, and
community values)
On page 230, strike lines 6 through 15 and insert ``Section
109 of''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering would remove a
substantive grant of authority the U.S. Department of Transportation
[[Page S4466]]
will be given under the bill as reported by the Environment and Public
Works Committee. The House and Senate have been working for the past 2
years to reauthorize TEA-21. I understand one of the underlying goals
has been to improve upon the existing process States must follow from
project inception to completion. Many of my colleagues would be amazed
to learn that on average it takes 8 years to complete a construction
project from inception to its completion. Some Members have told me it
takes longer than that.
While I applaud Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords for their
work to make needed improvements in the transportation process, my
State Department of Transportation in South Dakota has brought to my
attention a problematic provision they believe will further delay and
complicate further transportation projects across the country.
To clarify for my colleagues, section 1605(a) of the underlying bill
would grant the Federal Highway Administration the authority to
``ensure'' that a highway facility ``will consider the preservation,
historic, scenic, natural environment and community values.''
I have been unable to get anyone to give me a good explanation as to
why this particular provision was included in the bill. Currently each
of our respective State Departments of Transportation already follows
strict Federal rules when it comes to such things as environmental
review, historic preservation, and planning requirements. States also
have to follow their own State rules regarding these issues. To give an
example, this is the book State DOTs have to follow. This pertains to
rules and regulations that apply to highway projects. It seems to me to
be quite thick already.
The amendment I am offering does nothing to take away from the
existing environmental reviews, historic preservation, and planning
requirements each transportation project is subject to. Very simply, it
removes the prospect that this provision will result in the Federal
Government imposing new requirements on top of those already in law or
rule, including in the subjective area of ``community values.''
I believe many of my colleagues would agree the best decisions are
made by individuals at the State and local levels. If this provision
were to be signed into law, I fear States will be told by the Federal
Government what their community values are. Even more concerning to me
and my department of transportation is the risk that there will be
varying interpretations of community values from State to State and
regional divisions of the Federal Highway Administration. Our current
design, planning, and construction processes are difficult enough as it
is.
Unless we remove section 1605(a) from this bill, we will effectively
be allowing the Federal Highway Administration to tell our States what
their respective community values are. Furthermore, unless we remove
this provision, I fear one of the major goals in the reauthorization
bill, which is project streamlining, will be unachievable. Moreover,
while I certainly heard about this from my own State Department of
Transportation, I have received letters from the following groups
supporting the removal of section 1605(a) of the bill: AASHTO, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, has
written asking that this provision be removed; AGC, the Associated
General Contractors of America; ARTBA, the American Road and
Transportation Builders Association; the American Highway Users
Alliance; the American Council of Engineering Companies; the
Transportation Construction Coalition; and the U.S. Chamber-led
Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition. I will submit for the
Record some of those letters that have been sent to us with respect to
this particular provision of the bill.
I want my colleagues to know what the executive director of AASHTO
said in his letter:
States should have the flexibility to determine how they
will work with other state agencies and local communities to
address these values rather than having them dictated by the
federal government.
NEPA and other environmental laws already provide
regulatory oversight. Additional requirements will only
burden the project delivery process, which we are tying to
streamline.
Mr. President, I ask unanimus consent that those letters I mentioned
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,
April 26, 2005.
Hon. James Inhofe,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: The American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) represent the
State transportation agencies in the fifty states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. On behalf of our member
States, I urge you to maintain the current commitment to
simplifying and expediting the highway project delivery
process, and to remove Section 1605(a) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act of 2005 (S. 732) which--contrary to that commitment--
would impose additional requirements and standards for each
and every highway project.
Specifically, Section 1605(a) of SAFETEA adds language that
grants additional authority to the U.S. Department of
Transportation to ensure that individual projects on every
highway facility are designed to achieve ``preservation,
historic, scenic, natural environmental and community
values.'' States should have the flexibility to determine how
they will work with other state agencies and local
communities to address these values rather than have these
values dictated by the federal government. In addition,
regulatory oversight is already required under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), historic preservation laws
and other environmental statutes. Additional requirements
will do nothing more than further burden the current project
delivery process, which we are trying to streamline.
Sincerely yours,
John Horsley,
Executive Director.
____
The Associated General
Contractors of America,
April 26, 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 Thune amendment to H.R. 3 that would maintain state
and local flexibility over the transportation planning
process by striking unnecessary and burdensome requirements
contained in Section 1605(a) of the federal highway and
transit reauthorization bill.
Section 1605(a) adds language that grants additional
authority to the U.S. Department of Transportation to ensure
that individual transportation projects are designed to
achieve ``preservation, historic, scenic, natural
environmental, and community values.'' While environmental
and historic impacts are carefully considered when designing
transportation improvements, the federal government should
not dictate what ``values'' are important to states and
localities.
Current planning requirements establish a highly
comprehensive process that effectively enables appropriate
agencies and the public to have input on transportation
decisions in their communities. Proposals to complicate or
add to this process will only add to the length of time that
it already takes to deliver transportation projects. We
believe Section 1605(a) is contrary to the commitment to
streamline the transportation project delivery process, which
is critical to addressing the nation's transportation needs.
Again, I urge you to support the Thune amendment.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
Senior Executive Director,
Government and Public Affairs.
____
American Road & Transportation
Builders Association,
April 28, 2005.
Hon. John Thune,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thune: On behalf of the 5,000 members of the
American Road & Transportation Builders Association, I write
in strong support of your amendment to H.R. 3 to reject a new
federal directive to states on what they must consider when
attempting to meet their own unique transportation
challenges.
One of the key objectives of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) when it was enacted in 1998 was
to shorten the amount of time transportation improvement
projects spend in the environmental review and approval
process. To accomplish this objective, the measure included
provisions to facilitate concurrent reviews by involved
federal agencies and consolidated the transportation planning
process.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3 injects a number of new planning
requirements that states and metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) must consider in the transportation
planning process. Specifically, the measure requires the U.S.
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) to ensure federally-
aided highway improvement projects are designed to meet,
among other things, the ``community values'' of an area. In
addition, to this objective being entirely subjective and
impossible to define, these ``value judgment'' decisions arc
best made by transportation planners at the local level--not
U.S. DOT officials.
Thank you for your leadership on this amendment to strike
the new community
[[Page S4467]]
values standard for highway improvement projects. We urge all
senators to support the Thune Amendment and all efforts to
avoid adding new federal requirements on state and local
planning authorities.
Sincerely,
T. Peter Ruane,
President & CEO.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in closing, as I have outlined today on the
floor--in addition to the views expressed by the leading transportation
groups in the country--it is my hope the bill managers will be able to
accept this commonsense amendment to ensure that community values are
decided at the State level and not in Washington, DC.
Again, I will close by saying this particular document already
provides a tremendous amount of paperwork and regulation and rules that
State DOTs and those who participate in Federal projects and highway
funding issues have to comply with. It certainly seems to me that to
add a nebulous and subjective additional requirement of ``community
values,'' one, adds additional paperwork burden and redtape to the
process that is already extensive and, secondly, it allows the Federal
Government to interfere in an area that ought to be decided at a State
and local level.
I hope the managers will accept the amendment. In the event they
don't, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? At this time,
there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Rhode Island is recognized for 10 minutes.
The Nuclear Option
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I will speak on the issue of the so-called
nuclear option.
We are at an important crossroads in our Nation's history today. I
believe my Republican colleagues should think long and hard about the
long-term effects of what they are proposing on the vitality and
utility of this institution that we call the U.S. Senate.
As Thomas Paine once stated:
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even
his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty, he
establishes a precedent that will reach himself.
I believe that this so-called crisis is really an artificial crisis.
The Senate has confirmed 206 of President Bush's judicial nominees and
rejected 10. The Senate has confirmed 95 percent of the President's
nominees. We have the lowest court vacancy rate since the
administration of Ronald Reagan.
As almost everyone in this body is aware, President Clinton had over
60 judicial nominees and 200 executive branch nominees blocked by the
Republicans. Many of these nominees were not even granted the courtesy
of a hearing, let alone a vote. We call this ``pocket filibustering''
in the Senate. It was according to the rules, and we followed the rules
and did not attempt to change the rules. That is the difference today.
The Republicans are trying, through extralegal means perhaps, to change
the rules of the Senate.
Senator Frist and many of my other Republican colleagues have been
involved in both filibustering and pocket filibustering of judicial
nominees, and they did not object to their own actions or purport to
suggest that their own actions were unconstitutional or in any way
violated the spirit or the rules of the Senate.
In 2000, Clinton nominee Richard Paez was filibustered by a number of
my colleagues, but Democrats and Republicans defeated the filibuster by
finding common ground and, under the rules of the Senate, moved to a
vote.
Although almost every Senator in this Chamber believes that
bipartisan improvements could and should be made to the nomination
process, this President and the majority have not made any such
attempts.
For example, returning to the tradition of allowing home State
Senators and/or home State advisory boards to make recommendations to
the President regarding eminent lawyers and jurists he should consider
when nominating men and women for lifetime appointments on Federal
courts would be one possible way to make this whole process less
partisan.
If we want thoughtful, intelligent men and women to even want to take
on the job of Federal judge, we would all benefit from depoliticization
of the judicial process.
There are many ways President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate
could work with Democrats to make the judicial nomination process work
more smoothly. But in light of the rejection of the minority leader's
proposal and the subsequent proposal made by the majority leader, it is
clear this debate is not really about making the process work better.
This whole debate should be seen for what it is--a grab for power.
This is not the first time a President, with the help of his own
party, has attempted to grab complete and total power over the judicial
nomination process.
In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, sent a bill to
Congress that would have drastically reorganized the judiciary and
added up to six more justices on the Supreme Court. Why? Because he
didn't like what the Supreme Court was doing to his legislative
proposals. Although the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the bill,
finding it, in their words, ``essential to the continuance of our
constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent
of both the executive and legislative branches of Government,'' the
majority leader, Joseph Robinson, supported the bill and brought it to
the floor.
A determined group of Senators, using the filibuster for 8 days,
defeated this proposal. It was the right to free and open debate that
defeated President Roosevelt's attempt to consolidate his power over
the judicial branch of Government. It is that same right we are talking
about today. It is the right that allows the Senate to play its unique
role in our constitutional democracy.
One of the most basic concepts behind the construction of the
Constitution is the concept that absolute power corrupts. After
fighting a revolution to escape from the tyranny of an absolute
monarch, the Founding Fathers were very focused on coming up with a
system of government that would prevent one ruler or one faction of
people from controlling all of the mechanisms of power.
James Madison believed that ``the causes of faction cannot be removed
and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its
effects.''
As he stated in Federalist Paper No. 10: ``Among the numerous
advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be
more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the
violence of factions.'' He further goes on to state that ``Complaints
are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens .
. . that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival
parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to
rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior
force of an interested and overbearing majority.''
It was the desire of the Founding Fathers to protect the rights of
the minority from ``the superior force of an interested and overbearing
majority'' which caused them to create three branches of Government.
Because of the skills and temperament required of a judge, the
Founding Fathers decided that judges would not be elected like the
other two branches of Government but would be nominated by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Article II, section 2 states that the President:
. . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all
other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law. . . .
In effect, Madison and the Founding Fathers believed that the
independence
[[Page S4468]]
of the judiciary was so important that lifelong judicial appointments
needed to be made by consensus between the executive and legislative
branches. Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist Paper No. 78 that:
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to
guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the
effects of those ill humors which the arts of designing men,
or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes
disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though
they speedily give place to better information, and more
deliberate reflection, have a tendency in the meantime, to
occasion dangerous innovations in the government and serious
oppressions of the minor party in the community.
Resonating throughout the Federalist Papers is the notion that the
test of this Government is not the success of the majority but the fact
that minority rights are protected. Minority rights on this floor could
be extinguished if the rules of this Senate are disregarded. This is
why I am here today on the floor of the Senate to speak out.
It is important that we do not let another President try to pack the
courts. The Senate cannot become merely a rubberstamp for any
President. The independence of the courts is critical to protecting the
Constitution and the rights of individuals. It is for this reason that
preserving the right to open and free debate in the Senate is so
important. Indeed, if the Founding Fathers wanted a system of pure
majority rule, they would have only created one Chamber.
These decisions should not be made on a political whim. The impact of
judicial appointments outlasts party changes in both the executive and
legislative branch of Government. Indeed, some Members of the other
party have complained about the abuse of power by ``activist'' judges.
Frankly, I cannot think of a better way to protect against activist
judges than by protecting the current cloture rule. If two-thirds of
the Senate believes a nominee is qualified for the position and will do
the job well, that candidate is probably not going to be an activist
judge on either the right or the left.
Opponents of the filibuster have questioned its constitutionality.
However, time and again, the courts have shown a reluctance to
interpret the rules of either House of Congress or to review the
application of such rules.
The Founding Fathers stated in article I, section 5, clause 2 of the
Constitution:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.
Much of the current debate around the Republican leadership's
proposal to change a 200-year-old Senate tradition regarding the right
to unlimited debate revolves around rule XXII of the Standing Rules of
the Senate. This rule is clearly constitutional. Rule XXII is about the
precedence of motions. The relevant part is as follows:
Is it the sense of the Senate that debate shall be brought
to a close? And if that question shall be decided in the
affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly sworn--
except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in
which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds
of the Senators present and voting--then said measure,
motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the
unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the
exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
This rule encapsulates an agreement between the majority and minority
that an amendment to the Senate rules is so important that it requires
a two-thirds vote--the same number of votes required to vote on
treaties, overcome a Presidential veto, and impeach a President--to
change the Standing Rules of the Senate. And beyond all the current
maneuvers on the floor, the real goal of the Republican majority is to
change the rules of the Senate.
In addition to the filibuster, the Senate has adopted other practices
to protect minority rights, including unanimous consent rules, holding
legislation or nominations in committee, and the blue-slip process.
When some of these procedures, in addition to the filibuster, have been
challenged, the courts have given deference to the Senate to make its
own rules on how to deliberate.
Clearly, if the majority party is arguing that the filibuster is
unconstitutional, then certainly all other methods of blocking a
nomination, including never holding a hearing or vote in committee,
would be as well.
I daresay the same individuals arguing for the end of the filibuster
because it is unconstitutional would not state that they acted
unconstitutionally in blocking 60 of President Clinton's judicial
nominees.
In fact, the Constitution is notably silent on what advice and
consent means on a Presidential nomination. The majority are
interpreting this to mean that each nominee deserves a vote, but the
Constitution is actually silent on this issue. It is left to the Senate
to determine what advice and consent really means.
I think we are well served by the current rule and 200 years of
checks and balances, and we should not give up our right to debate
without realizing the serious consequences this will have on our
institution, not just today but for decades, in fact, the history of
this country going forward. Finally, let me talk briefly about the
claim that unlimited debate or the filibuster has never been used
against a judicial nominee. That is simply untrue. The first recorded
instance occurred in 1881 when Republicans were unable to end the
filibuster of Stanley Matthews to the Supreme Court. There were nine
other occasions in the 19th century when the Senate held no floor votes
on Supreme Court nominations. More recently, the nomination of
Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
and Homer Thornberry to be an Associate Justice failed when they were
filibustered on the Senate floor by Republican Senator Robert Griffen
and others.
Our predecessors also believed that certain judicial nominations were
too problematic to be approved. If we are focused on improving the
judicial nomination process right now, there is much we can do together
to make it work better. This should be the issue before us today, not
taking away the voice of the minority in one of the most important
decisions we are asked to make as Senators, protecting the independence
of the judiciary.
I also think we should be talking about real crises on the Senate
floor, such as a $422 billion deficit, a historic trade deficit, the
devastating budget the majority will be presenting to us this
afternoon, and the need to stabilize a country in the Middle East that
we have been engaged in for more than two years and has cost us
American lives and billions of dollars. I urge the majority to
reconsider this ill-advised abuse of power and work with us to forge
some solutions to these real crises and to maintain the balance and
integrity of our democratic institutions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Colorado is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 581 to Amendment No. 567
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk,
amendment No. 581, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes an
amendment numbered 581.
Mr. SALAZAR. 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 modify the percentage of apportioned funds that may be
used to address needs relating to off-system bridges)
In section 144(f)(2)(A) of title 23, United States Code (as
amended by section 1807(a)(4)), strike ``15 percent'' and
insert ``20 nor more than 35 percent''.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, before discussing my amendment, allow me
to commend the work of Senator Jeffords and Senator Inhofe and their
staffs for their work on this very important bill for the people of
America. It is good work, and it is about the people's business. This
is a vitally important bill on a vitally important topic. Without their
efforts, we would not be where we are today. I look forward to the day
when we can have a transportation bill passed that we can send to the
President for his signature, hopefully very soon.
I also wish to say that I am glad we are taking this bill up at this
time because the last Congress was not able to
[[Page S4469]]
get it through. We are hopeful this time around that we will be able to
succeed. This is an issue which I believe is at the top of the concerns
of people throughout the country. In my travels throughout the State of
Colorado, county commissioners, mayors, and local people tell me time
and time again that moving forward with the reauthorization of the
Transportation Act is something we should do and we should do as soon
as possible.
The amendment that I have proposed addresses a problem that faces
many of our States across our country, particularly those States that
have many miles of rural roads and bridges. Ensuring that rural areas
receive adequate funding to fix the increasing number of structurally
deficient bridges in rural America is a priority. I know it is a
challenge in Oklahoma, and I know it is a challenge in Vermont.
In my State of Colorado, 17 percent of our bridges are in disrepair,
and many of those bridges are in parts of rural Colorado. Currently,
the Federal Bridge Program apportions funds to States for the
replacement and fixing of bridges, and for over 25 years the program
has directed a minimum of 15 percent of those Federal funds to be used
on bridges on those State and local roads that do not receive any
Federal aid. We call these bridges off-system bridges.
We need to increase the percentage from 15 percent to 20 percent. It
is imperative when addressing the needs of transportation
infrastructure in Colorado and across America that we ensure there is
adequate funding to address the needs of rural America. Let us make
clear the scope of this problem. In this country, there are 307,000 on-
system bridges; 23 percent of those bridges are structurally deficient
or functionally obsolete--23 percent of those bridges are in bad shape.
There are 286,000 off-system bridges. Of those 286,000 off-system
bridges, 30 percent are deficient and in need of repair. And consider
this, across this great country of America, over 80 percent of bridges
are found on non-Federal-aid highways. We must ensure that these
bridges in rural communities have the kind of repair to ensure the
safety and quality of life for the residents of those communities.
The House version of this Transportation bill has increased the level
of funding out of this fund to 20 percent. I agree with the House of
Representatives, and I believe along with the National League of
Cities, the National Association of Counties, the American Public Works
Association, and the National Association of County Engineers that we
should do the same thing, and my amendment will do that.
Our roads, our bridges, our transit system, our rail lines, and our
ports need assistance to ensure that our Nation has a first-class
infrastructure needed to reinvigorate our economy and to make our
country strong and competitive.
Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and their staffs have worked to
ensure that we have a comprehensive bill that addresses these needs.
This small fix improves this bill, and I hope my colleagues will join
me in ensuring it passes the Senate and gets to the President.
I will take just a second to address an amendment that we will be
voting on shortly, and that is the amendment offered by my colleague
from Missouri, which would essentially take away the 2 percent that has
been allocated in the portion of these funds to deal with the problem
of storm water discharge. That is an issue which is a reality that
faces communities across our country.
We have 5,000 communities that will be affected if, in fact, that 2-
percent allocation is stripped from this particular legislation. It is
important for us to make sure that we are protecting the environment,
but it is also important for us to make sure we are supporting the
local and State governments that will benefit from the money that is
currently included in our version of the bill. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to vote against the amendment that has been offered by our
good friend from Missouri.
Keeping this provision that we are talking about in this bill is
important to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, the Association
of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the Association of State Floodplain
Managers, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, and
others.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am happy to work with the Senator from
Colorado on the needs of his particular State. This measure before us
would enable his State to spend more on bridges if that is the need but
to require States to spend 5 percent more where in our State for
various reasons we only spend a minimum of 15 percent, and other States
may be in our same situation, I am very much concerned about a mandate
because we have bad bridges, but we kill people on our highways. We
kill people on our highways because we have two-lane highways that are
carrying heavy truck traffic and passenger traffic that warrant four
lanes. Rebuilding bridges is not going to solve that problem. So for
our State, this would be a real problem.
As chairman of the subcommittee, I would be happy to work with the
Senator to see if we can reach an accommodation, but I am very much
concerned about what I think the gist of his amendment is.
I believe the Senator from South Carolina has a brief statement. I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. DeMint are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague from
Colorado. I believe I was to follow him. Is that the order? I do want
to adhere to the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order in effect.
Mr. WARNER. I want to address the amendment of the distinguished
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, which is one of several pending
amendments. If the Chair so desires, could we ask our colleague from
Colorado, is this a matter related to the bill? We need some
orientation so that I can accommodate the Senator from Colorado or he
can accommodate me, as the case may be.
Mr. SALAZAR. If the distinguished Senator from Virginia would give me
30 seconds, I will make my point.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator is ever so generous. Let's give him a full
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
I say this to my distinguished friend from Missouri: I believe the
needs of rural America, especially with respect to transportation, are
important. I believe having legislation here that would change the
percentage allocation by 5 percent, so we could have the rural bridges
of our country have more resources to be able to get the job done, is
something that is very important. I accept his offer to work with him,
and look forward to seeing how we can address the needs of rural
America with respect to the rural bridges we have across our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to address the underlying bill
which, in markup in the committee on which I am privileged to serve,
was a markup of 17 yeas and 1 nay.
I rise in opposition to the Bond amendment. I hasten to point out
this body has already disapproved the Bond amendment when they approved
the earlier highway bill. This body has acted and approved the current
mark that is in the underlying bill, which my good friend from Missouri
seeks to strike.
What is this all about? In its simplest form, it is the mayors and
the county supervisors and those officials in the State entrusted with
the supervision of the construction, modernization, improvements, and
renovation of our road system, usually the assistant secretary for
transportation or whatever it is designated in the State--it is a whole
realm of State officials on one side. I
[[Page S4470]]
will call it by one name, the mayors. It is the mayors versus my good
friend from Missouri, Mr. Bond. The mayors desperately want to keep
intact the bill as written by the committee and keep this provision
which helps these individuals deal with a mandate from the Congress of
the United States under the Clean Water Act, which says you must, in
new construction, and as they rehabilitate the existing road system,
deal with storm water runoff. That runoff contributes up to 50 percent
of the total storm water which is daily worsening our drinking water.
That is a quick synopsis.
Now I would like to go into a somewhat more lengthy dissertation. I
express my strongest opposition. I should say I urge colleagues to
affirm the markup of the committee. Leave the bill as it is. But to do
so, we have to oppose the Bond pending amendment.
The program is urgently needed to fund local governments, the mayors
and the supervisors, to reduce the runoff of polluted water. As I say,
this was already approved by the Senate when they approved the first
highway bill. There is no change of the language in the amendment I put
in and incorporated in the markup of the bill. It was included and
passed by the Senate last year.
The bill in its present form--and this provision, the Warner
amendment, is in the bill--will for the first time begin to address the
unfunded mandates affecting our local communities. It helps the mayors
and the boards of supervisors and others deal with the unfunded mandate
placed upon them with regard to the storm water runoff. I regret that
my colleague opposes helping our localities with such serious financial
burdens as now imposed on them by the Clean Water Act.
The rest of the story is that the Clean Water Act requires all of our
communities to obtain permits for their storm water discharge. Along
with this requirement comes the mandate that local governments are to
fund projects that will control storm water runoff. These can be very
expensive projects. Again, our existing highways are up to 50 percent
the contributors to the problem associated with storm water runoff
affecting our drinking water and other clean water uses.
Look at this debate we are having now as one regarding public health.
What is more important to us than our clean drinking water? It is a
matter of public health. Local governments that finance and manage our
public drinking water systems tell me and they tell you, every one of
you, it is becoming more and more difficult and more expensive to
filter and treat our drinking water to remove the pollutants, many of
which derive from storm water runoff, particularly from our roads. Stop
to think of the contamination that exists on the roads that accumulates
over the use of the road. Along comes one of our greatest gifts, a rain
shower, and it takes those pollutants and runs them off and they find
their way into our drinking water.
Many organizations that are on the front lines dealing with the
problem strongly support this very modest provision to begin to address
pollution for the existing highway structures. I point out that we have
already acted in this body in previous legislation to say all new
construction will have set aside by the States as required the funds
necessary to deal with the storm water runoff from new construction.
This measure very modestly is to take care of the existing road
structures--when they need to be repaired at times, when they need to
be upgraded.
I will bet I could go to dozens of places in my State, and each of
you could go to places in your State, where you have new construction
going on over here and it is funded to handle the storm water runoff,
and not a mile distant is one of the old roads which doesn't have the
precautions, and the runoff from both feeds the same stream which then
goes into our water supplies. So unless you correct the old system,
what is the sense of trying to correct the new system, in many
instances? Stop to think about that. We have already exercised our
wisdom to make sure the new construction is adequately financed and
this is but a modest provision to finance the existing system.
It is a small provision. It is $170 million a year--$170 million a
year out of a $284 billion bill. It will help more than 5,000 local
communities in each of our States. Most importantly, our States
themselves want this program. The Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators, our State officials responsible
for improving the water quality of our rivers and lakes and streams,
has written to each of us urging that the Senate retain the markup
which was approved--again, 17 to 1 in the committee.
I refer my colleagues to a portion of the letter from the State and
Interstate Water Pollution Administrators:
Communities throughout the Nation, including numerous
smaller towns and counties, are required under the Clean
Water Act to obtain discharge permits for storm water. Even
those communities which have long understood the value of
protecting their drinking sources and recreational sources
from storm water impacts are hard-pressed to absorb the costs
of discharges from the highways. This presents an unfair
burden to these small 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.
Storm water runoff is an $8 billion national problem. Yet there is no
financial assistance to help our localities with the existing road
structure. The storm water program in this bill takes the first step. I
am very proud, indeed humbled, to represent these small communities. I
urge my colleagues to let this bill remain as is.
The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, representing our
municipally owned sewage treatment plants, has joined in this debate.
I ask unanimous consent that several letters I have from the various
State organizations be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. WARNER. This organization likewise has written in strong support
of the committee's storm water provision. They also cite the undisputed
fact that polluted storm water from impervious surfaces such as roads
is a leading reason why nearly 40 percent of our Nation's waters fail
meeting our Nation's water quality standards.
Similar letters of strong support have come from the U.S. Conference
of Mayors which emphasize ``absent some . . . [other Federal funding]
storm
water pollution cleanup costs, including loadings attributable to the
Federal highway system will be borne largely by local taxpayers through
property taxes and other general taxes and wastewater utility fees.''
Hear this: These are your mayors reaching out to you for help.
I could go on. I have a great many letters. I am pleased to say our
distinguished Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, states:
A program such as this could help improve water quality in
the Chesapeake Bay, and other watersheds in the Commonwealth.
The Virginia Association of Counties has strongly endorsed this
program with the view that these provisions, reserving less than one-
third of a penny of every highway dollar, are a very modest commitment
to an enormous challenge before local governments struggling with
contamination of drinking water from highway/street storm water
discharge. The support for the committee's provision is strong because
everyone recognizes that storm water runoff from highways is a known
impediment to good water quality.
Accordingly, from the Environmental Public Agency, storm water runoff
is the leading cause of pollution for nearly half of our rivers, lakes,
and streams.
Roads collect pollutants from tailpipe emissions, brake lines, oil,
and other sources. During storms, they mix with other contaminants of
heavy metals and road salts that wash into our waters, and eventually,
regrettably, work their way, in many instances, into our drinking
water.
Today, every new highway must include methods to control this runoff.
We have already spoken to this issue, spoken to this need, and funded
in connection with new construction. I am talking about a very modest
amount, one-third penny, to help these existing road systems.
We are here to help our local communities. The mayors have reached
out. The chairman of the Board of Supervisors has reached out. Those
folks that come to our offices and visit, we slap them on the back, and
they leave
[[Page S4471]]
that office thinking they are going to get help. This is the kind of
help they need. It is not much, one-third of one penny of every highway
dollar.
The demands of those who are in opposition to this--namely, the road
builders, and I am not speaking disrespectfully--have powerful lobbies,
unlimited requirements. This is one-third of one penny for the mayors.
Exhibit 1
The United States
Conference of Mayors,
Washington, DC., April 25, 2005.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Chair, Environment & Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Ranking Minority Member, Environment & Public Works
Committee, U.S. Senate, 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 and 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
deployment 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.
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.
____
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 Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies,
April 22, 2005.
Re Support for S. 732 and the Highway Stormwater Discharge
Mitigation Program.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Chair, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Ranking Member, Environmental and Public Works Committee,
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.
____
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.
[[Page S4472]]
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 storm
water. 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.
____
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Office of the Governor,
April 19, 2004.
The Hon. John W. Warner,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner: As always, the Commonwealth deeply
appreciates your efforts to improve our environment as well
as our transportation system. I am writing to provide my
strong support for your amendment to the Senate Surface
Transportation Reauthorization Bill that provides for a
highway stormwater discharge mitigation program.
A program such as this could help to improve water quality
in the Chesapeake Bay, and other watersheds in the
Commonwealth. Virginia is prepared to work with you and other
states to ensure that these funds can be flexibly managed by
VDOT to achieve our shared goal of improving stormwater
discharge from existing or future federal-aid highways.
I appreciate your continuing support of the many and varied
interests across the Commonwealth. I look forward to
furthering these interests through the reauthorization of the
Surface Transportation Act.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Warner.
____
Commonwealth of Virginia
County of Fairfax,
Fairfax, Virginia, April 27, 2005.
Senator John W. Warner,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner: I am writing to you in my capacity as
the President of the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO)
to urge your continued 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, are 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,
I have received assurances that these provisions limit
funding to actual facilities on the federal aid system, which
is a critical factor underlying my support of this program.
This is important to the local governments 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.
As Fairfax County and other localities within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed work to limit stormwater runoff and
improve the Bay's health, I ask that you and your colleagues
show your support for this critical component of SAFETEA. It
is vital that environmental mitigation efforts are regarded
as an integral feature of a safe and efficient national
transportation network.
I appreciate your 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.
Sincerely,
Gerry Connolly.
.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, obviously, my good friend, the Senator from
Virginia, and I view this very differently. I will outline some of the
differences we have.
Let me clarify. The Senator from Virginia noted that the bill passed
last year in the Senate with the storm water provision included. I ask
my colleagues to recall that we did so only with the agreement that I
would not raise it in the Senate in order to get it to conference, and
we would address it in conference. I did so out of deference to my
colleagues to get the bill off the floor and to conference in what
turned out to be the vain hope we could get a conference agreement on
the bill which we badly needed last year.
I did not want to hold up progress on the bill last year. We did not
have time to debate it fully. But this year, we have time to debate it
fully. It is appropriate we do so.
First, let me address the concept that this is a modest amendment, a
small amendment.
Back home, $900 million is not a small amount. I live in a State
where $900 million means a whole lot. Do you know to whom it means a
lot? It means a lot to the mayors. The mayors want safety for their
citizens. These are community leaders who come to Washington to talk to
me about how badly they need the money for their roads.
I don't think $900 million is small. I don't think we should take
$900 million from the highway, bridge, transit construction budget.
But if Senators think their State has more than enough highway
dollars and can afford to give money away for storm water, I would be
glad to know that as we move forward on appropriations matters and
other matters dealing with transportation.
With respect to what this underlying bill will do, section 1620,
which was sponsored by the Senator from Virginia, mandates States set
aside 2 percent of the funds in their main highway accounts--nearly
$900 million total over the life of the bill--to be used only,
regardless of need, on storm water mitigation activities.
If allowed to remain in the bill, the mandatory set-aside would force
all States to divert $740 million from their Surface Transportation
Program funds. The mandatory set-aside would also force States to
divert over $125 million from the Equity Bonus Program set up to help
almost every State receive more transportation. That is where I get the
$900 million figure.
However, if this figure is struck, if the State of Virginia or any
other State wants to use it, storm water mitigation activities are
already eligible for funding. States can spend up to 20 percent of a
project's cost using STP funds on storm water mitigation if they
choose. The underlying bill also expanded funding eligibility for storm
water mitigation by adding it to the eligible activities. The National
Highway System program states they will be able to spend up to 20
percent of a project's costs using NHS on storm water mitigation if
they choose.
I have already listed what the impact of the mandatory set-aside
would be. The occupant of the chair is from Minnesota. That would be a
$17.7 million hit on Minnesota. In addition, the State of Virginia
would have to set aside $23 million. But I guess they would want to use
that money on storm water anyhow.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
If the Senator is reading from the same statistics, give the full
information.
The Senator said to our distinguished Presiding officer of Minnesota
that indeed $17 million would be taken out of the asphalt and concrete.
But I point to the next column: Your State holds $471 million under the
mandate by the EPA for clean water. I have calculated that $17 million
is helping, in a very modest way, the obligation of your State for $471
million to meet the mandate put on by the Senate and House of
Representatives.
I know, as a former Governor, how you----
Mr. BOND. I would like to respond and finish my presentation. Then we
can get into a discussion.
Mr. WARNER. I have always admired the Senator for so many reasons. I
really regret to be out here so forcefully taking him on with his arm
in a sling.
Mr. BOND. You have no conscience.
Mr. WARNER. No conscience.
I ask you--you are out here accusing me of putting in a mandate--how
many
[[Page S4473]]
mandates in this bill are you the author of?
For instance, Safe Walks to Schools--hurray. I am all for it. Very
good one.
Mr. BOND. I didn't support that.
Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?
Mr. BOND. I didn't vote for that. I will address that at some point.
Mr. WARNER. Do you have a question to put to me?
Mr. BOND. I thought I had the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has the floor.
Mr. WARNER. But I will get it back.
Mr. BOND. All good things come to an end. I appreciate the comments.
I was going to address the need for clean water, but my good friend
from Virginia is saying we need to make this into a water bill. He said
we need to fund local water projects for Governors.
I thought this was a transportation bill. I have already pointed out
that the States can use up to 20 percent of STP in the national highway
funds on storm water mitigation. But there are lots of unfunded
mandates that this body has put, in the past, on our local governments
to clean up local water.
Do you know something. For the last dozen years, I have fought as
chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee, with my colleague
and very good friend, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, to provide the
funds we need to try to help States and local governments meet their
obligations.
There is something called the State revolving funds, and every year
the Office of Management and Budget--it does not matter whether it is a
Republican or Democrat--cuts it. Those are the most important funds we
can provide. We put in over $2 billion each year. It gets cut. We put
it back in the next year to go into the State revolving funds. Senator
Mikulski and I have funded hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars
of water cleanup projects in various States--including Virginia, I am
proud to say, a State of which I am very fond--and helping them deal
with their clean water needs.
This is a transportation bill. I hear a lot from mayors and local
government officials. They need transportation. There are waters needs,
yes, but these water needs are about $200 billion--$200 to $250
billion--and unfunded. We could take the entire transportation budget,
dump it into water, and still not meet the needs.
He has talked about how important safe drinking water is for health.
And I agree. Really, it is one of the best environmental investments we
could make. But when you are talking about public health, let's talk
about the slaughter on the highways. The whole purpose of this bill is
called SAFETEA. The administration says, and I believe, we need to make
our highways safer. We kill three people a day or more on Missouri
highways. Over 365 of those people die every year because our highways
are inadequate. We have narrow two-lane roads that really should be
divided four-lane highways, and people get killed on them. Jobs do not
come to town when we do not have adequate roads. We contribute to
pollution when we tie up traffic on these roads. We need to put these
dollars to work.
As I said, the good Senator from Virginia mentioned the mayors
support it. Well, my mayors support money for highways and bridges and
transportation. But I can tell you, the States strongly support my
amendment. They do not want their hands tied by a new Federal mandate.
We have too many mandates in this bill, and I would be willing to take
a look at some of the others.
But the State departments of transportation want and need the
flexibility to spend their own highway dollars. That is why the
organization of State highway directors, AASHTO, said: ``We need your
immediate help.'' They absolutely want the help of every person in this
body to support the Bond amendment to strike section 1620. They say:
Section 1620 mandates that States set-aside 2%. . . . This
will divert $867 million from a core program that provides
funding for highway, bridge and transit construction,
rehabilitation and repair. If this provision is removed, any
State can continue to spend up to 20% of a project's cost on
storm water activities--but at the discretion of the State.
So here we are asking this body to be, again, a ``daddy knows best.''
We are going to tell States they have to spend $900 million--which is
not much in ``Washington speak,'' but it is an awful lot in my ``home
State speak''--for storm waters.
I have already submitted the letters of support. Let me give you some
more of the organizations, in addition to AASHTO: the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Laborers-
International Union of North America, the International Union of
Operating Engineers, the International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, the American
Society of Civil Engineers, the American Council of Engineering
Companies--and the list goes on. These people understand how badly we
need these highway dollars. Anybody who thinks the $284 billion that we
were able to get to bring this bill to the floor is adequate has not
gone home and listened to the people.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. This has been a very good debate and lively debate, and
you both adequately confused me. I think that we should maybe draw this
to an end. In a moment I would like to make a unanimous consent request
that would limit the debate on the amendment. I have been checking with
you individually. So I ask I be recognized at the conclusion of the
Senator's remarks and any remarks the Senator from Virginia may have
for that request.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection. How might
we best accommodate the managers of the bill? A few more minutes on my
side, a few more minutes I presume from my colleague, and we would be--
Mr. INHOFE. I was going to propound a UC that you have 3 additional
minutes, the Senator from Missouri has 3 additional minutes, and
Senator Jeffords 2 additional minutes, if that is all right.
Mr. BOND. Do you want 2?
Mr. INHOFE. No, I don't want 2. I already had my 2.
Mr. BOND. Go ahead, please.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you. So if there is no objection--
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if you would ask
that I be recognized at the conclusion of the debate for purposes of
making a tabling motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Let me go ahead and put this in order, then.
Order Of Procedure
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 8 minutes
remaining for debate prior to a vote in relation to the Bond amendment
No. 592, with Senator Warner in control of 3 minutes, Senator Bond in
control of 3 minutes, Senator Jeffords in control of 2 minutes, and
that Senator Warner would be recognized to make a tabling motion;
provided further, that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a
vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendment in order to the
amendment prior to the vote--
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the purpose of my recognition is to move
to table. Is that clearly understood?
Mr. BOND. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, it is clearly understood. Let me finish here.
Further, that following that vote, the Senate proceed to executive
session for the consideration en bloc of Calendar No. 67, Calendar No.
68; further, that there then be 30 minutes equally divided between the
chairman and ranking member or their designees; provided further, that
following that debate the Senate return to legislative session and the
votes occur on the confirmation of the two nominations at a time
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democrat
leader, and that following those votes the President be notified of the
Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection was heard to unanimous consent
request.
Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. No. I withdraw any objection. I thank the Presiding
Officer. And I just might add by way of courtesy to the Senators, they
can expect a rollcall vote within the next 10 minutes or so. Would that
not be correct?
Mr. INHOFE. That would be correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S4474]]
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. To conclude my opening comments, I would note that the
administration, in its statement of policy, says: The inclusion of a
mandatory 2-percent set-aside from the STP program to support a highway
storm water mitigation program is opposed. Storm water discharge
mitigation costs are already eligible under STP.
I very much appreciate the assistance of the chairman of the
committee, Senator Inhofe, who supports my amendment and spoke
eloquently earlier on it.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and now turn the
floor over to----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
You have just advised the Senate that the administration has taken a
position. I wish to add, is that the current AP or the one that was
given last year?
Mr. BOND. April 26, 2005.
Mr. WARNER. Fine.
Mr. BOND. You may find it at the top of page 2.
Mr. WARNER. I accept the proffer.
Mr. President, while the Senator is on his feet, I say to the
Senator, you say that this mandate is going to take some money from the
bill. I have added up a number of mandates that our committee has put
into this bill which are funded out of highways. Two of them, I commend
you for. One is the NHS connecters--that is connecting some of our
local systems to the interstate--which are valid. That is $900 million.
Safe roads and paths to schools--that is a mandate. I commend you for
that. That is $312 million. And Railroad diversion of highway funds,
$893 million. It goes on and on.
I have to tell you, I think this is a well-crafted bill. It has my
support. The chairman knows that. But, please, do not point the finger
to me as if I am the only one who put a mandate in to help the little
fellows. They are in here, plenty of them.
Thank you for your smile. That is all I wish to say. You agree with
me.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bond
amendment.
This section provides much-needed assistance to our States and local
communities to deal with the impacts of highway storm water discharges.
I urge my colleagues to continue their support for this vital program
which the full Senate adopted in the 108th Congress.
My colleague from Missouri argues that this provision takes money
away from State highway departments.
That is not the case.
This provision simply ensures that of the funds provided to State
highway departments, an extremely small percentage, 2 percent, will be
spent on storm water problems caused by Federal aid highways.
Who will benefit?
Local communities will benefit. That is why the U.S. Conference of
Mayors is opposed to the Bond amendment.
Without the funds set aside by the storm water program in the highway
bill, local communities will be left holding the bill for compliance
with storm water regulations in areas where Federal aid highways
contribute to storm water pollution.
Our Nation's wildlife will benefit.
One of this section's greatest supporters is Trout Unlimited.
They recognize that storm water runoff presents a huge risk to fish
populations all across the Nation.
Other groups opposed to the Bond amendment include the League of
Conservation Voters.
A vote against the Bond amendment is a vote for clean water.
A vote against the Bond amendment is a vote for local communities.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bond amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to point out that as Senators come
down to vote, I will put this sheet down for their examination. It
shows the current allocation of aggregate Surface Transportation
Program funds to their respective States, followed by a column which
indicates the amount of money that the current markup with the Warner
provision in it takes for the storm water. And then in the right-hand
column is what their States owe under the EPA mandate to clean up
water.
You will find that I offset by just a small percentage the enormous
obligation each Senator's State has with regard to the EPA-mandated
cleanup of the water.
I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for a very good debate. I
hope we have fairly and adequately framed it for all Senators.
I move to table Bond amendment No. 592, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WARNER. I will withhold.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
This particular mandate of the good Senator from Virginia is one that
I don't like. He put in another mandate to increase funding for
metropolitan planning organizations. If we could pass a Clear Skies
bill, we wouldn't need to waste all that time on planning activities
because we would clean up our air with a heavy restriction on
utilities. That is a debate for another time. But just because there
are too many mandates in this bill already does not justify keeping
$900 million in State budgets out of transportation needs and putting
it into storm water.
Don't forget, as we have said, the States now can spend up to 20
percent of their STP and the National Highway System money on storm
water cleanups. Granted, there are tremendous needs for cleaning up the
water, wastewater and drinking water. We need to address those. I wish
we could address them more generously in the water cleanup bills. But
this is taking money away from the lifeblood of transportation
lifesaving highway construction that we need in our States.
Our mayors--in Missouri, the ones I have talked to--and community
leaders are very strongly in favor of it. I guess the good Senator and
I will have dueling charts showing how much money is set aside from the
State budgets. We know the amounts set aside in the State budgets pale
by comparison to the water needs, but the needs for highways go far
beyond that in our States. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the
motion to table because we need better, safer transportation to meet
the goals of SAFETEA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply wish to reply that the amendment
that is in the bill provides jobs. The same construction worker who is
on the project building the new road comes down and repairs the old
road. It requires concrete and asphalt to repair the old road, to
divert the water. So it is highway construction. It is jobs. There is
no digression of the funds except to provide a safety measure.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, all of the labor organizations, the State
highway officials, all of the groups that provide those funds strongly
support my amendment and would oppose the motion to table of the
Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, those organizations have been misinformed.
I move to table the Bond amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Warner
Wyden
[[Page S4475]]
NAYS--49
Allard
Allen
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 593
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Thomas and Johnson be added as cosponsors of Thune amendment No. 593.
I further ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays previously
ordered on the amendment be vitiated and that the amendment be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 593) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 594 To Amendment No. 567
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
at the desk submitted by Senator Isakson be considered; provided
further that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr.
Isakson, proposes an amendment numbered 594 to amendment No.
567.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 594) was agreed to as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to approve a
certain construction project in the State of Georgia, provide for the
reservation of Federal funds for the project, and clarify that the
project meets certain requirements)
At the end of subtitle H of title I, add the following:
SEC. 18__. APPROVAL AND FUNDING FOR CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
receipt by the Secretary of a construction authorization
request from the State of Georgia, Department of
Transportation for project STP-189-1(15)CT 3 in Gwinnett
County, Georgia, the Secretary shall--
(1) approve the project; and
(2) reserve such Federal funds available to the Secretary
as are necessary for the project.
(b) Conformity Determination.--
(1) In general.--Approval, funding, and implementation of
the project referred to in subsection (a) shall not be
subject to the requirements of part 93 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
(2) Regional emissions.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1),
all subsequent regional emissions analysis required by
section 93.118 or 93.119 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (or successor regulations), shall include the
project.