[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8105-8116]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 8106]]

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 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

[[Page 8107]]

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 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.

[[Page 8108]]

     
                                  ____
                                                   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.
       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

[[Page 8109]]

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 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

[[Page 8110]]

     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.
                                  ____



                                 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.

[[Page 8111]]

     
                                  ____
                                              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 Storm-
     water 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.
                                  ____

                                                 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

[[Page 8112]]

     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 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

[[Page 8113]]

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 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

[[Page 8114]]

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 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.

[[Page 8115]]


  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, 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

[[Page 8116]]

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. 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 brown-
fields--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.

                          ____________________