[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8119-8129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS--Continued


                 Amendment No. 593 to Amendment No. 567

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the pending business 
before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer to the pending 
bill, H.R. 3, the transportation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. THUNE] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 593.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To retain current levels of State authority over matters 
  relating to preservation, historic, scenic natural environment, and 
                           community values)

       On page 230, strike lines 6 through 15 and insert ``Section 
     109 of''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering would remove a 
substantive grant of authority the U.S. Department of Transportation 
will be given under the bill as reported by the Environment and Public 
Works Committee. The House and Senate have been working for the past 2 
years to reauthorize TEA-21. I understand one of the underlying goals 
has been to improve upon the existing process States must follow from 
project inception to completion. Many of my colleagues would be amazed 
to learn that on average it takes 8 years to complete a construction 
project from inception to its completion. Some Members have told me it 
takes longer than that.
  While I applaud Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords for their 
work to make needed improvements in the transportation process, my 
State Department of Transportation in South Dakota has brought to my 
attention a problematic provision they believe will further delay and 
complicate further transportation projects across the country.
  To clarify for my colleagues, section 1605(a) of the underlying bill 
would grant the Federal Highway Administration the authority to 
``ensure'' that a highway facility ``will consider the preservation, 
historic, scenic, natural environment and community values.''
  I have been unable to get anyone to give me a good explanation as to 
why this particular provision was included in the bill. Currently each 
of our respective State Departments of Transportation already follows 
strict Federal rules when it comes to such things as environmental 
review, historic preservation, and planning requirements. States also 
have to follow their own State rules regarding these issues. To give an 
example, this is the book State DOTs have to follow. This pertains to 
rules and regulations that apply to highway projects. It seems to me to 
be quite thick already.
  The amendment I am offering does nothing to take away from the 
existing environmental reviews, historic preservation, and planning 
requirements each transportation project is subject to. Very simply, it 
removes the prospect that this provision will result in the Federal 
Government imposing new requirements on top of those already in law or 
rule, including in the subjective area of ``community values.''
  I believe many of my colleagues would agree the best decisions are 
made by individuals at the State and local levels. If this provision 
were to be signed into law, I fear States will be told by the Federal 
Government what their community values are. Even more concerning to me 
and my department of transportation is the risk that there will be 
varying interpretations of community values from State to State and 
regional divisions of the Federal Highway Administration. Our current 
design, planning, and construction processes are difficult enough as it 
is.
  Unless we remove section 1605(a) from this bill, we will effectively 
be allowing the Federal Highway Administration to tell our States what 
their respective community values are. Furthermore, unless we remove 
this provision, I fear one of the major goals in the reauthorization 
bill, which is project streamlining, will be unachievable. Moreover, 
while I certainly heard about this from my own State Department of 
Transportation, I have received letters from the following groups 
supporting the removal of section 1605(a) of the bill: AASHTO, the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, has 
written asking that this provision be removed; AGC, the Associated 
General Contractors of America; ARTBA, the American Road and 
Transportation Builders Association; the American Highway Users 
Alliance; the American Council of Engineering Companies; the 
Transportation Construction Coalition; and the U.S. Chamber-led 
Americans

[[Page 8120]]

for Transportation Mobility Coalition. I will submit for the Record 
some of those letters that have been sent to us with respect to this 
particular provision of the bill.
  I want my colleagues to know what the executive director of AASHTO 
said in his letter:

       States should have the flexibility to determine how they 
     will work with other state agencies and local communities to 
     address these values rather than having them dictated by the 
     federal government.
       NEPA and other environmental laws already provide 
     regulatory oversight. Additional requirements will only 
     burden the project delivery process, which we are tying to 
     streamline.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimus consent that those letters I mentioned 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
         American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
           Officials,
                                                   April 26, 2005.
     Hon. James Inhofe,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inhofe: The American Association of State 
     Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) represent the 
     State transportation agencies in the fifty states, the 
     District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. On behalf of our member 
     States, I urge you to maintain the current commitment to 
     simplifying and expediting the highway project delivery 
     process, and to remove Section 1605(a) of the Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity 
     Act of 2005 (S. 732) which--contrary to that commitment--
     would impose additional requirements and standards for each 
     and every highway project.
       Specifically, Section 1605(a) of SAFETEA adds language that 
     grants additional authority to the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation to ensure that individual projects on every 
     highway facility are designed to achieve ``preservation, 
     historic, scenic, natural environmental and community 
     values.'' States should have the flexibility to determine how 
     they will work with other state agencies and local 
     communities to address these values rather than have these 
     values dictated by the federal government. In addition, 
     regulatory oversight is already required under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), historic preservation laws 
     and other environmental statutes. Additional requirements 
     will do nothing more than further burden the current project 
     delivery process, which we are trying to streamline.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     John Horsley,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                                   April 26, 2005.
     Hon. Daniel Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: On behalf of the Associated General 
     Contractors of America (AGC), I am writing to urge you to 
     support a Thune amendment to H.R. 3 that would maintain state 
     and local flexibility over the transportation planning 
     process by striking unnecessary and burdensome requirements 
     contained in Section 1605(a) of the federal highway and 
     transit reauthorization bill.
       Section 1605(a) adds language that grants additional 
     authority to the U.S. Department of Transportation to ensure 
     that individual transportation projects are designed to 
     achieve ``preservation, historic, scenic, natural 
     environmental, and community values.'' While environmental 
     and historic impacts are carefully considered when designing 
     transportation improvements, the federal government should 
     not dictate what ``values'' are important to states and 
     localities.
       Current planning requirements establish a highly 
     comprehensive process that effectively enables appropriate 
     agencies and the public to have input on transportation 
     decisions in their communities. Proposals to complicate or 
     add to this process will only add to the length of time that 
     it already takes to deliver transportation projects. We 
     believe Section 1605(a) is contrary to the commitment to 
     streamline the transportation project delivery process, which 
     is critical to addressing the nation's transportation needs.
       Again, I urge you to support the Thune amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                             Jeffrey D. Shoaf,

                                        Senior Executive Director,
     Government and Public Affairs.
                                  ____

                                    American Road & Transportation


                                         Builders Association,

                                                   April 28, 2005.
     Hon. John Thune,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thune: On behalf of the 5,000 members of the 
     American Road & Transportation Builders Association, I write 
     in strong support of your amendment to H.R. 3 to reject a new 
     federal directive to states on what they must consider when 
     attempting to meet their own unique transportation 
     challenges.
       One of the key objectives of the Transportation Equity Act 
     for the 21st Century (TEA-21) when it was enacted in 1998 was 
     to shorten the amount of time transportation improvement 
     projects spend in the environmental review and approval 
     process. To accomplish this objective, the measure included 
     provisions to facilitate concurrent reviews by involved 
     federal agencies and consolidated the transportation planning 
     process.
       Unfortunately, H.R. 3 injects a number of new planning 
     requirements that states and metropolitan planning 
     organizations (MPOs) must consider in the transportation 
     planning process. Specifically, the measure requires the U.S. 
     Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) to ensure federally-
     aided highway improvement projects are designed to meet, 
     among other things, the ``community values'' of an area. In 
     addition, to this objective being entirely subjective and 
     impossible to define, these ``value judgment'' decisions arc 
     best made by transportation planners at the local level--not 
     U.S. DOT officials.
       Thank you for your leadership on this amendment to strike 
     the new community values standard for highway improvement 
     projects. We urge all senators to support the Thune Amendment 
     and all efforts to avoid adding new federal requirements on 
     state and local planning authorities.
           Sincerely,
                                                   T. Peter Ruane,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in closing, as I have outlined today on the 
floor--in addition to the views expressed by the leading transportation 
groups in the country--it is my hope the bill managers will be able to 
accept this commonsense amendment to ensure that community values are 
decided at the State level and not in Washington, DC.
  Again, I will close by saying this particular document already 
provides a tremendous amount of paperwork and regulation and rules that 
State DOTs and those who participate in Federal projects and highway 
funding issues have to comply with. It certainly seems to me that to 
add a nebulous and subjective additional requirement of ``community 
values,'' one, adds additional paperwork burden and redtape to the 
process that is already extensive and, secondly, it allows the Federal 
Government to interfere in an area that ought to be decided at a State 
and local level.
  I hope the managers will accept the amendment. In the event they 
don't, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? At this time, 
there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Rhode Island is recognized for 10 minutes.


                           The Nuclear Option

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I will speak on the issue of the so-called 
nuclear option.
  We are at an important crossroads in our Nation's history today. I 
believe my Republican colleagues should think long and hard about the 
long-term effects of what they are proposing on the vitality and 
utility of this institution that we call the U.S. Senate.
  As Thomas Paine once stated:

       He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even 
     his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty, he 
     establishes a precedent that will reach himself.

  I believe that this so-called crisis is really an artificial crisis. 
The Senate has confirmed 206 of President Bush's judicial nominees and 
rejected 10. The Senate has confirmed 95 percent of the President's 
nominees. We have the lowest court vacancy rate since the 
administration of Ronald Reagan.

[[Page 8121]]

  As almost everyone in this body is aware, President Clinton had over 
60 judicial nominees and 200 executive branch nominees blocked by the 
Republicans. Many of these nominees were not even granted the courtesy 
of a hearing, let alone a vote. We call this ``pocket filibustering'' 
in the Senate. It was according to the rules, and we followed the rules 
and did not attempt to change the rules. That is the difference today. 
The Republicans are trying, through extralegal means perhaps, to change 
the rules of the Senate.
  Senator Frist and many of my other Republican colleagues have been 
involved in both filibustering and pocket filibustering of judicial 
nominees, and they did not object to their own actions or purport to 
suggest that their own actions were unconstitutional or in any way 
violated the spirit or the rules of the Senate.
  In 2000, Clinton nominee Richard Paez was filibustered by a number of 
my colleagues, but Democrats and Republicans defeated the filibuster by 
finding common ground and, under the rules of the Senate, moved to a 
vote.
  Although almost every Senator in this Chamber believes that 
bipartisan improvements could and should be made to the nomination 
process, this President and the majority have not made any such 
attempts.
  For example, returning to the tradition of allowing home State 
Senators and/or home State advisory boards to make recommendations to 
the President regarding eminent lawyers and jurists he should consider 
when nominating men and women for lifetime appointments on Federal 
courts would be one possible way to make this whole process less 
partisan.
  If we want thoughtful, intelligent men and women to even want to take 
on the job of Federal judge, we would all benefit from depoliticization 
of the judicial process.
  There are many ways President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate 
could work with Democrats to make the judicial nomination process work 
more smoothly. But in light of the rejection of the minority leader's 
proposal and the subsequent proposal made by the majority leader, it is 
clear this debate is not really about making the process work better. 
This whole debate should be seen for what it is--a grab for power.
  This is not the first time a President, with the help of his own 
party, has attempted to grab complete and total power over the judicial 
nomination process.
  In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, sent a bill to 
Congress that would have drastically reorganized the judiciary and 
added up to six more justices on the Supreme Court. Why? Because he 
didn't like what the Supreme Court was doing to his legislative 
proposals. Although the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the bill, 
finding it, in their words, ``essential to the continuance of our 
constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent 
of both the executive and legislative branches of Government,'' the 
majority leader, Joseph Robinson, supported the bill and brought it to 
the floor.
  A determined group of Senators, using the filibuster for 8 days, 
defeated this proposal. It was the right to free and open debate that 
defeated President Roosevelt's attempt to consolidate his power over 
the judicial branch of Government. It is that same right we are talking 
about today. It is the right that allows the Senate to play its unique 
role in our constitutional democracy.
  One of the most basic concepts behind the construction of the 
Constitution is the concept that absolute power corrupts. After 
fighting a revolution to escape from the tyranny of an absolute 
monarch, the Founding Fathers were very focused on coming up with a 
system of government that would prevent one ruler or one faction of 
people from controlling all of the mechanisms of power.
  James Madison believed that ``the causes of faction cannot be removed 
and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its 
effects.''
  As he stated in Federalist Paper No. 10: ``Among the numerous 
advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be 
more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the 
violence of factions.'' He further goes on to state that ``Complaints 
are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens . 
. . that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival 
parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to 
rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior 
force of an interested and overbearing majority.''
  It was the desire of the Founding Fathers to protect the rights of 
the minority from ``the superior force of an interested and overbearing 
majority'' which caused them to create three branches of Government.
  Because of the skills and temperament required of a judge, the 
Founding Fathers decided that judges would not be elected like the 
other two branches of Government but would be nominated by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
  Article II, section 2 states that the President:

     . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent 
     of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public 
     Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all 
     other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are 
     not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be 
     established by Law. . . .

  In effect, Madison and the Founding Fathers believed that the 
independence of the judiciary was so important that lifelong judicial 
appointments needed to be made by consensus between the executive and 
legislative branches. Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist Paper No. 
78 that:

       This independence of the judges is equally requisite to 
     guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the 
     effects of those ill humors which the arts of designing men, 
     or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes 
     disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though 
     they speedily give place to better information, and more 
     deliberate reflection, have a tendency in the meantime, to 
     occasion dangerous innovations in the government and serious 
     oppressions of the minor party in the community.

  Resonating throughout the Federalist Papers is the notion that the 
test of this Government is not the success of the majority but the fact 
that minority rights are protected. Minority rights on this floor could 
be extinguished if the rules of this Senate are disregarded. This is 
why I am here today on the floor of the Senate to speak out.
  It is important that we do not let another President try to pack the 
courts. The Senate cannot become merely a rubberstamp for any 
President. The independence of the courts is critical to protecting the 
Constitution and the rights of individuals. It is for this reason that 
preserving the right to open and free debate in the Senate is so 
important. Indeed, if the Founding Fathers wanted a system of pure 
majority rule, they would have only created one Chamber.
  These decisions should not be made on a political whim. The impact of 
judicial appointments outlasts party changes in both the executive and 
legislative branch of Government. Indeed, some Members of the other 
party have complained about the abuse of power by ``activist'' judges. 
Frankly, I cannot think of a better way to protect against activist 
judges than by protecting the current cloture rule. If two-thirds of 
the Senate believes a nominee is qualified for the position and will do 
the job well, that candidate is probably not going to be an activist 
judge on either the right or the left.
  Opponents of the filibuster have questioned its constitutionality. 
However, time and again, the courts have shown a reluctance to 
interpret the rules of either House of Congress or to review the 
application of such rules.
  The Founding Fathers stated in article I, section 5, clause 2 of the 
Constitution:

       Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.

  Much of the current debate around the Republican leadership's 
proposal to change a 200-year-old Senate tradition regarding the right 
to unlimited debate revolves around rule XXII of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate. This rule is clearly constitutional. Rule XXII is about the 
precedence of motions. The relevant part is as follows:


[[Page 8122]]

       Is it the sense of the Senate that debate shall be brought 
     to a close? And if that question shall be decided in the 
     affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly sworn--
     except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in 
     which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds 
     of the Senators present and voting--then said measure, 
     motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the 
     unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the 
     exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

  This rule encapsulates an agreement between the majority and minority 
that an amendment to the Senate rules is so important that it requires 
a two-thirds vote--the same number of votes required to vote on 
treaties, overcome a Presidential veto, and impeach a President--to 
change the Standing Rules of the Senate. And beyond all the current 
maneuvers on the floor, the real goal of the Republican majority is to 
change the rules of the Senate.
  In addition to the filibuster, the Senate has adopted other practices 
to protect minority rights, including unanimous consent rules, holding 
legislation or nominations in committee, and the blue-slip process. 
When some of these procedures, in addition to the filibuster, have been 
challenged, the courts have given deference to the Senate to make its 
own rules on how to deliberate.
  Clearly, if the majority party is arguing that the filibuster is 
unconstitutional, then certainly all other methods of blocking a 
nomination, including never holding a hearing or vote in committee, 
would be as well.
  I daresay the same individuals arguing for the end of the filibuster 
because it is unconstitutional would not state that they acted 
unconstitutionally in blocking 60 of President Clinton's judicial 
nominees.
  In fact, the Constitution is notably silent on what advice and 
consent means on a Presidential nomination. The majority are 
interpreting this to mean that each nominee deserves a vote, but the 
Constitution is actually silent on this issue. It is left to the Senate 
to determine what advice and consent really means.
  I think we are well served by the current rule and 200 years of 
checks and balances, and we should not give up our right to debate 
without realizing the serious consequences this will have on our 
institution, not just today but for decades, in fact, the history of 
this country going forward. Finally, let me talk briefly about the 
claim that unlimited debate or the filibuster has never been used 
against a judicial nominee. That is simply untrue. The first recorded 
instance occurred in 1881 when Republicans were unable to end the 
filibuster of Stanley Matthews to the Supreme Court. There were nine 
other occasions in the 19th century when the Senate held no floor votes 
on Supreme Court nominations. More recently, the nomination of 
Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 
and Homer Thornberry to be an Associate Justice failed when they were 
filibustered on the Senate floor by Republican Senator Robert Griffen 
and others.
  Our predecessors also believed that certain judicial nominations were 
too problematic to be approved. If we are focused on improving the 
judicial nomination process right now, there is much we can do together 
to make it work better. This should be the issue before us today, not 
taking away the voice of the minority in one of the most important 
decisions we are asked to make as Senators, protecting the independence 
of the judiciary.
  I also think we should be talking about real crises on the Senate 
floor, such as a $422 billion deficit, a historic trade deficit, the 
devastating budget the majority will be presenting to us this 
afternoon, and the need to stabilize a country in the Middle East that 
we have been engaged in for more than two years and has cost us 
American lives and billions of dollars. I urge the majority to 
reconsider this ill-advised abuse of power and work with us to forge 
some solutions to these real crises and to maintain the balance and 
integrity of our democratic institutions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Colorado is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 581 to Amendment No. 567

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, 
amendment No. 581, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 581.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To modify the percentage of apportioned funds that may be 
         used to address needs relating to off-system bridges)

       In section 144(f)(2)(A) of title 23, United States Code (as 
     amended by section 1807(a)(4)), strike ``15 percent'' and 
     insert ``20 nor more than 35 percent''.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, before discussing my amendment, allow me 
to commend the work of Senator Jeffords and Senator Inhofe and their 
staffs for their work on this very important bill for the people of 
America. It is good work, and it is about the people's business. This 
is a vitally important bill on a vitally important topic. Without their 
efforts, we would not be where we are today. I look forward to the day 
when we can have a transportation bill passed that we can send to the 
President for his signature, hopefully very soon.
  I also wish to say that I am glad we are taking this bill up at this 
time because the last Congress was not able to get it through. We are 
hopeful this time around that we will be able to succeed. This is an 
issue which I believe is at the top of the concerns of people 
throughout the country. In my travels throughout the State of Colorado, 
county commissioners, mayors, and local people tell me time and time 
again that moving forward with the reauthorization of the 
Transportation Act is something we should do and we should do as soon 
as possible.
  The amendment that I have proposed addresses a problem that faces 
many of our States across our country, particularly those States that 
have many miles of rural roads and bridges. Ensuring that rural areas 
receive adequate funding to fix the increasing number of structurally 
deficient bridges in rural America is a priority. I know it is a 
challenge in Oklahoma, and I know it is a challenge in Vermont.
  In my State of Colorado, 17 percent of our bridges are in disrepair, 
and many of those bridges are in parts of rural Colorado. Currently, 
the Federal Bridge Program apportions funds to States for the 
replacement and fixing of bridges, and for over 25 years the program 
has directed a minimum of 15 percent of those Federal funds to be used 
on bridges on those State and local roads that do not receive any 
Federal aid. We call these bridges off-system bridges.
  We need to increase the percentage from 15 percent to 20 percent. It 
is imperative when addressing the needs of transportation 
infrastructure in Colorado and across America that we ensure there is 
adequate funding to address the needs of rural America. Let us make 
clear the scope of this problem. In this country, there are 307,000 on-
system bridges; 23 percent of those bridges are structurally deficient 
or functionally obsolete--23 percent of those bridges are in bad shape.
  There are 286,000 off-system bridges. Of those 286,000 off-system 
bridges, 30 percent are deficient and in need of repair. And consider 
this, across this great country of America, over 80 percent of bridges 
are found on non-Federal-aid highways. We must ensure that these 
bridges in rural communities have the kind of repair to ensure the 
safety and quality of life for the residents of those communities.
  The House version of this Transportation bill has increased the level 
of funding out of this fund to 20 percent. I agree with the House of 
Representatives, and I believe along with the National League of 
Cities, the National

[[Page 8123]]

Association of Counties, the American Public Works Association, and the 
National Association of County Engineers that we should do the same 
thing, and my amendment will do that.
  Our roads, our bridges, our transit system, our rail lines, and our 
ports need assistance to ensure that our Nation has a first-class 
infrastructure needed to reinvigorate our economy and to make our 
country strong and competitive.
  Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and their staffs have worked to 
ensure that we have a comprehensive bill that addresses these needs. 
This small fix improves this bill, and I hope my colleagues will join 
me in ensuring it passes the Senate and gets to the President.
  I will take just a second to address an amendment that we will be 
voting on shortly, and that is the amendment offered by my colleague 
from Missouri, which would essentially take away the 2 percent that has 
been allocated in the portion of these funds to deal with the problem 
of storm water discharge. That is an issue which is a reality that 
faces communities across our country.
  We have 5,000 communities that will be affected if, in fact, that 2-
percent allocation is stripped from this particular legislation. It is 
important for us to make sure that we are protecting the environment, 
but it is also important for us to make sure we are supporting the 
local and State governments that will benefit from the money that is 
currently included in our version of the bill. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the amendment that has been offered by our 
good friend from Missouri.
  Keeping this provision that we are talking about in this bill is 
important to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Association of State 
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, the Association 
of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the Association of State Floodplain 
Managers, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, and 
others.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am happy to work with the Senator from 
Colorado on the needs of his particular State. This measure before us 
would enable his State to spend more on bridges if that is the need but 
to require States to spend 5 percent more where in our State for 
various reasons we only spend a minimum of 15 percent, and other States 
may be in our same situation, I am very much concerned about a mandate 
because we have bad bridges, but we kill people on our highways. We 
kill people on our highways because we have two-lane highways that are 
carrying heavy truck traffic and passenger traffic that warrant four 
lanes. Rebuilding bridges is not going to solve that problem. So for 
our State, this would be a real problem.
  As chairman of the subcommittee, I would be happy to work with the 
Senator to see if we can reach an accommodation, but I am very much 
concerned about what I think the gist of his amendment is.
  I believe the Senator from South Carolina has a brief statement. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. DeMint are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague from 
Colorado. I believe I was to follow him. Is that the order? I do want 
to adhere to the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order in effect.
  Mr. WARNER. I want to address the amendment of the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, which is one of several pending 
amendments. If the Chair so desires, could we ask our colleague from 
Colorado, is this a matter related to the bill? We need some 
orientation so that I can accommodate the Senator from Colorado or he 
can accommodate me, as the case may be.
  Mr. SALAZAR. If the distinguished Senator from Virginia would give me 
30 seconds, I will make my point.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is ever so generous. Let's give him a full 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  I say this to my distinguished friend from Missouri: I believe the 
needs of rural America, especially with respect to transportation, are 
important. I believe having legislation here that would change the 
percentage allocation by 5 percent, so we could have the rural bridges 
of our country have more resources to be able to get the job done, is 
something that is very important. I accept his offer to work with him, 
and look forward to seeing how we can address the needs of rural 
America with respect to the rural bridges we have across our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to address the underlying bill 
which, in markup in the committee on which I am privileged to serve, 
was a markup of 17 yeas and 1 nay.
  I rise in opposition to the Bond amendment. I hasten to point out 
this body has already disapproved the Bond amendment when they approved 
the earlier highway bill. This body has acted and approved the current 
mark that is in the underlying bill, which my good friend from Missouri 
seeks to strike.
  What is this all about? In its simplest form, it is the mayors and 
the county supervisors and those officials in the State entrusted with 
the supervision of the construction, modernization, improvements, and 
renovation of our road system, usually the assistant secretary for 
transportation or whatever it is designated in the State--it is a whole 
realm of State officials on one side. I will call it by one name, the 
mayors. It is the mayors versus my good friend from Missouri, Mr. Bond. 
The mayors desperately want to keep intact the bill as written by the 
committee and keep this provision which helps these individuals deal 
with a mandate from the Congress of the United States under the Clean 
Water Act, which says you must, in new construction, and as they 
rehabilitate the existing road system, deal with storm water runoff. 
That runoff contributes up to 50 percent of the total storm water which 
is daily worsening our drinking water. That is a quick synopsis.
  Now I would like to go into a somewhat more lengthy dissertation. I 
express my strongest opposition. I should say I urge colleagues to 
affirm the markup of the committee. Leave the bill as it is. But to do 
so, we have to oppose the Bond pending amendment.
  The program is urgently needed to fund local governments, the mayors 
and the supervisors, to reduce the runoff of polluted water. As I say, 
this was already approved by the Senate when they approved the first 
highway bill. There is no change of the language in the amendment I put 
in and incorporated in the markup of the bill. It was included and 
passed by the Senate last year.
  The bill in its present form--and this provision, the Warner 
amendment, is in the bill--will for the first time begin to address the 
unfunded mandates affecting our local communities. It helps the mayors 
and the boards of supervisors and others deal with the unfunded mandate 
placed upon them with regard to the storm water runoff. I regret that 
my colleague opposes helping our localities with such serious financial 
burdens as now imposed on them by the Clean Water Act.
  The rest of the story is that the Clean Water Act requires all of our 
communities to obtain permits for their storm water discharge. Along 
with this requirement comes the mandate that local governments are to 
fund projects that will control storm water runoff. These can be very 
expensive projects. Again, our existing highways are up to 50 percent 
the contributors to the problem associated with

[[Page 8124]]

storm water runoff affecting our drinking water and other clean water 
uses.
  Look at this debate we are having now as one regarding public health. 
What is more important to us than our clean drinking water? It is a 
matter of public health. Local governments that finance and manage our 
public drinking water systems tell me and they tell you, every one of 
you, it is becoming more and more difficult and more expensive to 
filter and treat our drinking water to remove the pollutants, many of 
which derive from storm water runoff, particularly from our roads. Stop 
to think of the contamination that exists on the roads that accumulates 
over the use of the road. Along comes one of our greatest gifts, a rain 
shower, and it takes those pollutants and runs them off and they find 
their way into our drinking water.
  Many organizations that are on the front lines dealing with the 
problem strongly support this very modest provision to begin to address 
pollution for the existing highway structures. I point out that we have 
already acted in this body in previous legislation to say all new 
construction will have set aside by the States as required the funds 
necessary to deal with the storm water runoff from new construction. 
This measure very modestly is to take care of the existing road 
structures--when they need to be repaired at times, when they need to 
be upgraded.
  I will bet I could go to dozens of places in my State, and each of 
you could go to places in your State, where you have new construction 
going on over here and it is funded to handle the storm water runoff, 
and not a mile distant is one of the old roads which doesn't have the 
precautions, and the runoff from both feeds the same stream which then 
goes into our water supplies. So unless you correct the old system, 
what is the sense of trying to correct the new system, in many 
instances? Stop to think about that. We have already exercised our 
wisdom to make sure the new construction is adequately financed and 
this is but a modest provision to finance the existing system.
  It is a small provision. It is $170 million a year--$170 million a 
year out of a $284 billion bill. It will help more than 5,000 local 
communities in each of our States. Most importantly, our States 
themselves want this program. The Association of State and Interstate 
Water Pollution Control Administrators, our State officials responsible 
for improving the water quality of our rivers and lakes and streams, 
has written to each of us urging that the Senate retain the markup 
which was approved--again, 17 to 1 in the committee.
  I refer my colleagues to a portion of the letter from the State and 
Interstate Water Pollution Administrators:

       Communities throughout the Nation, including numerous 
     smaller towns and counties, are required under the Clean 
     Water Act to obtain discharge permits for storm water. Even 
     those communities which have long understood the value of 
     protecting their drinking sources and recreational sources 
     from storm water impacts are hard-pressed to absorb the costs 
     of discharges from the highways. This presents an unfair 
     burden to these small communities, and we believe it is fair 
     for the transportation funding system to help remedy this 
     problem where existing highways and other roads cause 
     significant runoff problems.

  Storm water runoff is an $8 billion national problem. Yet there is no 
financial assistance to help our localities with the existing road 
structure. The storm water program in this bill takes the first step. I 
am very proud, indeed humbled, to represent these small communities. I 
urge my colleagues to let this bill remain as is.
  The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, representing our 
municipally owned sewage treatment plants, has joined in this debate.
  I ask unanimous consent that several letters I have from the various 
State organizations be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. This organization likewise has written in strong support 
of the committee's storm water provision. They also cite the undisputed 
fact that polluted storm water from impervious surfaces such as roads 
is a leading reason why nearly 40 percent of our Nation's waters fail 
meeting our Nation's water quality standards.
  Similar letters of strong support have come from the U.S. Conference 
of Mayors which emphasize ``absent some . . . [other Federal funding] 
storm
water pollution cleanup costs, including loadings attributable to the 
Federal highway system will be borne largely by local taxpayers through 
property taxes and other general taxes and wastewater utility fees.''
  Hear this: These are your mayors reaching out to you for help.
  I could go on. I have a great many letters. I am pleased to say our 
distinguished Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, states:

       A program such as this could help improve water quality in 
     the Chesapeake Bay, and other watersheds in the Commonwealth.

  The Virginia Association of Counties has strongly endorsed this 
program with the view that these provisions, reserving less than one-
third of a penny of every highway dollar, are a very modest commitment 
to an enormous challenge before local governments struggling with 
contamination of drinking water from highway/street storm water 
discharge. The support for the committee's provision is strong because 
everyone recognizes that storm water runoff from highways is a known 
impediment to good water quality.
  Accordingly, from the Environmental Public Agency, storm water runoff 
is the leading cause of pollution for nearly half of our rivers, lakes, 
and streams.
  Roads collect pollutants from tailpipe emissions, brake lines, oil, 
and other sources. During storms, they mix with other contaminants of 
heavy metals and road salts that wash into our waters, and eventually, 
regrettably, work their way, in many instances, into our drinking 
water.
  Today, every new highway must include methods to control this runoff. 
We have already spoken to this issue, spoken to this need, and funded 
in connection with new construction. I am talking about a very modest 
amount, one-third penny, to help these existing road systems.
  We are here to help our local communities. The mayors have reached 
out. The chairman of the Board of Supervisors has reached out. Those 
folks that come to our offices and visit, we slap them on the back, and 
they leave that office thinking they are going to get help. This is the 
kind of help they need. It is not much, one-third of one penny of every 
highway dollar.
  The demands of those who are in opposition to this--namely, the road 
builders, and I am not speaking disrespectfully--have powerful lobbies, 
unlimited requirements. This is one-third of one penny for the mayors.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                  Washington, DC., April 25, 2005.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Chair, Environment & Public Works,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James M. Jeffords,
     Ranking Minority Member, Environment & Public Works 
         Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Minority Member Jeffords: 
     On behalf of The United States Conference of Mayors and the 
     hundreds of cities we represent, I write to convey our strong 
     support for the stormwater provisions of your Committee-
     approved SAFETEA plan to renew the nation's surface 
     transportation programs.
       These provisions, reserving less than 1/3 of a penny on 
     every authorized dollar, is a very modest commitment to an 
     enormous challenge before local governments struggling with 
     contamination of drinking water and cleanup of streams, 
     rivers, lakes and ponds and highway and street stormwater 
     discharge, including oil, grease, lead and mercury. Moreover, 
     we have been assured that these provisions limit funding to 
     actual facilities on the federal aid system, which is a 
     critical factor underlying our support of this program. This 
     is important to the nation's cities since it ensures that 
     users of these systems contribute something to the broader 
     efforts under the Clean Water Act to reduce pollutants from 
     the nation's major highways and roads.
       Absent some commitment to retrofitting existing facilities 
     on the federal aid system during this renewal period, 
     stormwater pollution cleanup costs, including loadings 
     attributable to the federal aid system will be borne largely 
     by local taxpayers through property taxes, other general 
     taxes and wastewater utility user fees.

[[Page 8125]]

       Finally, we disagree with the claim that this is a 
     diversion of funds from highway construction and highway 
     capacity needs. It is the belief of the nation's mayors that 
     improved performance, whether it is pavement quality, the 
     deployment of technology, or its stormwater quality features, 
     are priorities for the nation as we work with you to provide 
     a modern and fully functional transportation system for our 
     citizens and their communities and regions.
       America's mayors thank you for making these provisions part 
     of your SAFETEA legislation and urge you to preserve this 
     important commitment to stormwater pollution abatement 
     efforts during your conference committee deliberations with 
     the House. If you have any questions, please contact our 
     Assistant Executive Director for Transportation Policy Ron 
     Thaniel.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Tom Cochran,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

         Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution 
           Control Administrators,
                                   Washington, DC, April 22, 2005.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Association of State and 
     Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), 
     I urge your support for the Highway Stormwater Discharge 
     Mitigation Program, Section 1620 of the Senate SAFETEA bill, 
     S. 1072, in the 108th Congress. This new and modest program 
     is designed to address stormwater runoff from the nation's 
     existing transportation system. Stormwater runoff is a 
     significant source of water pollution affecting large and 
     small communities, as well as fish, wildlife and the natural 
     environment.
       Stormwater pollution results from paving over naturally 
     porous ground, resulting in impervious surfaces that collect 
     pollutants and increase overland stormwater volume and 
     velocity. Stormwater becomes a direct conduit for pollution 
     into the nation's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. Studies 
     have shown that roads contribute a large number of pollutants 
     to urban runoff--metals, used motor oil, grease, coolants and 
     antifreeze, spilled gasoline, nutrients from vehicle exhaust, 
     and sediment. For example, the stormwater discharge from one 
     square mile of roads and parking lots can contribute about 
     20,000 gallons of residual oil per year into the nation's 
     drinking water supplies. Highways can increase the annual 
     volume of stormwater discharges by up to 16 times the pre-
     development rate and reduce groundwater recharge.
       Communities throughout the nation, including many smaller 
     towns and counties, are required under the Clean Water Act to 
     obtain discharge (NPDES) permits for their stormwater. Those 
     communities, which have long understood the value of 
     protecting their drinking water sources and recreational 
     waters from stormwater impacts, are hard-pressed to absorb 
     the costs of discharges from highways in addition to their 
     other stormwater management responsibilities. This presents 
     an unfair burden to these communities and we believe it is 
     fair for the transportation funding system to help remedy 
     this problem where existing highways and other roads cause 
     significant runoff problems.
       We urge you to continue to demonstrate your leadership in 
     protecting America's waters by supporting the stormwater 
     mitigation provision in SAFETEA. We appreciate your 
     willingness to consider the views of the State and Interstate 
     Water Pollution Program officials responsible for the 
     protection and enhancement of the nation's water quality 
     resources.
           Sincerely,
                                            Arthur G. Baggett, Jr.
     President.
                                  ____

                                       Association of Metropolitan


                                               Water Agencies,

                                   Washington, DC, April 22, 2005.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the nation's largest publicly 
     owned drinking water systems, I write today to express 
     support for section 1620 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
     and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, (S. 732), 
     which would provide $870 million over five years for 
     stormwater mitigation projects.
       This language makes progress toward addressing the billions 
     of dollars in costs that state and local governments will 
     incur to control stormwater generated by our nation's 
     highways.
       Stormwater runoff has a significant effect on thousands of 
     miles of the nation's rivers and streams. The bill 
     acknowledges this impact and assists states and local 
     communities in addressing this growing water quality problem.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Diane VanDe Hei,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                       Association of Metropolitan


                                            Sewerage Agencies,

                                                   April 22, 2005.
     Re Support for S. 732 and the Highway Stormwater Discharge 
         Mitigation Program.

     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Chair, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. James M. Jeffords,
     Ranking Member, Environmental and Public Works Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inhofe and Senator Jeffords: We are writing 
     to express our strong support for the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 
     (SAFETEA) (S. 732) as passed March 16 by the Senate 
     Environment and Public Works Committee. The Committee's bill 
     includes a provision to authorize $867.6 million over five 
     years for stormwater mitigation projects, using just 2% of 
     the Surface Transportation Program funds. Such projects 
     include stormwater retrofits, the recharge of groundwater, 
     natural filters, stream restoration, minimization of stream 
     bank erosion, innovative technologies, and others.
       According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
     polluted stormwater from impervious surfaces such as roads is 
     a leading cause of impairment for nearly 40% of U.S. 
     waterways not meeting water quality standards. Roadways 
     produce some of the highest concentrations of pollutants such 
     as phosphorus, suspended solids, bacteria, and heavy metals.
       AMSA represents hundreds of publicly owned treatment works, 
     many of which have municipal stormwater management 
     responsibilities. Your continued support for S. 732, 
     including the Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation 
     Program, would provide much-needed support to these 
     communities. Thank you for your leadership and please feel 
     free to contact me at 202/833-4653 if AMSA can provide you 
     with additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Ken Kirk,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                              Trout Unlimited,

                                                   March 15, 2005.
     Re Support of Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Funding 
         in the Transportation Bill.

     Hon. Jim Inhofe,
     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inhofe: Trout Unlimited, the nation's leading 
     trout and salmon conservation organization, urges you to 
     support funding to mitigate stormwater runoff in this year's 
     transportation bill. A similar provision, Section 1620, the 
     Highway 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 storm 
     water. These approaches are generally more cost-effective and 
     do more to protect and improve water quality and protect 
     habitat.
       Thank you for your support of this important provision in 
     this year's transportation bill.
           Sincerely yours,

                                                  Steve Moyer,

                                Vice President, Government Affairs
     and Volunteer Operations.
                                  ____

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                   April 19, 2004.
     The Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: As always, the Commonwealth deeply 
     appreciates your efforts to improve our environment as well 
     as our transportation system. I am writing to provide my 
     strong support for your amendment to the Senate Surface 
     Transportation Reauthorization Bill that provides for a 
     highway stormwater discharge mitigation program.
       A program such as this could help to improve water quality 
     in the Chesapeake Bay, and other watersheds in the 
     Commonwealth. Virginia is prepared to work with you and other 
     states to ensure that these funds can be flexibly managed by 
     VDOT to achieve our

[[Page 8126]]

     shared goal of improving stormwater discharge from existing 
     or future federal-aid highways.
       I appreciate your continuing support of the many and varied 
     interests across the Commonwealth. I look forward to 
     furthering these interests through the reauthorization of the 
     Surface Transportation Act.
           Sincerely,
     Mark R. Warner.
                                  ____

                                          Commonwealth of Virginia


                                            County of Fairfax,

                                Fairfax, Virginia, April 27, 2005.
     Senator John W. Warner,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I am writing to you in my capacity as 
     the President of the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) 
     to urge your continued support for the stormwater provisions 
     of your Committee-approved SAFETEA plan to renew the nation's 
     surface transportation programs.
       These provisions, reserving less than 1/3 of a penny on 
     every authorized dollar, are a very modest commitment to an 
     enormous challenge before local governments struggling with 
     contamination of drinking water and cleanup of streams, 
     rivers, lakes and ponds from highway and street stormwater 
     discharge, including oil, grease, lead and mercury. Moreover, 
     I have received assurances that these provisions limit 
     funding to actual facilities on the federal aid system, which 
     is a critical factor underlying my support of this program. 
     This is important to the local governments since it ensures 
     that users of these systems contribute something to the 
     broader efforts under the Clean Water Act to reduce 
     pollutants from the nation's major highways and roads.
       Absent some commitment to retrofitting existing facilities 
     on the federal aid system during this renewal period, 
     stormwater pollution cleanup costs, including loadings 
     attributable to the federal aid system, will be borne largely 
     by local taxpayers through property taxes, other general 
     taxes and wastewater utility user fees.
       As Fairfax County and other localities within the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed work to limit stormwater runoff and 
     improve the Bay's health, I ask that you and your colleagues 
     show your support for this critical component of SAFETEA. It 
     is vital that environmental mitigation efforts are regarded 
     as an integral feature of a safe and efficient national 
     transportation network.
       I appreciate your making these provisions part of your 
     SAFETEA legislation and urge you to preserve this important 
     commitment to stormwater pollution abatement efforts during 
     your conference committee deliberations with the House.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Gerry Connolly.

  .The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, obviously, my good friend, the Senator from 
Virginia, and I view this very differently. I will outline some of the 
differences we have.
  Let me clarify. The Senator from Virginia noted that the bill passed 
last year in the Senate with the storm water provision included. I ask 
my colleagues to recall that we did so only with the agreement that I 
would not raise it in the Senate in order to get it to conference, and 
we would address it in conference. I did so out of deference to my 
colleagues to get the bill off the floor and to conference in what 
turned out to be the vain hope we could get a conference agreement on 
the bill which we badly needed last year.
  I did not want to hold up progress on the bill last year. We did not 
have time to debate it fully. But this year, we have time to debate it 
fully. It is appropriate we do so.
  First, let me address the concept that this is a modest amendment, a 
small amendment.
  Back home, $900 million is not a small amount. I live in a State 
where $900 million means a whole lot. Do you know to whom it means a 
lot? It means a lot to the mayors. The mayors want safety for their 
citizens. These are community leaders who come to Washington to talk to 
me about how badly they need the money for their roads.
  I don't think $900 million is small. I don't think we should take 
$900 million from the highway, bridge, transit construction budget.
  But if Senators think their State has more than enough highway 
dollars and can afford to give money away for storm water, I would be 
glad to know that as we move forward on appropriations matters and 
other matters dealing with transportation.
  With respect to what this underlying bill will do, section 1620, 
which was sponsored by the Senator from Virginia, mandates States set 
aside 2 percent of the funds in their main highway accounts--nearly 
$900 million total over the life of the bill--to be used only, 
regardless of need, on storm water mitigation activities.
  If allowed to remain in the bill, the mandatory set-aside would force 
all States to divert $740 million from their Surface Transportation 
Program funds. The mandatory set-aside would also force States to 
divert over $125 million from the Equity Bonus Program set up to help 
almost every State receive more transportation. That is where I get the 
$900 million figure.
  However, if this figure is struck, if the State of Virginia or any 
other State wants to use it, storm water mitigation activities are 
already eligible for funding. States can spend up to 20 percent of a 
project's cost using STP funds on storm water mitigation if they 
choose. The underlying bill also expanded funding eligibility for storm 
water mitigation by adding it to the eligible activities. The National 
Highway System program states they will be able to spend up to 20 
percent of a project's costs using NHS on storm water mitigation if 
they choose.
  I have already listed what the impact of the mandatory set-aside 
would be. The occupant of the chair is from Minnesota. That would be a 
$17.7 million hit on Minnesota. In addition, the State of Virginia 
would have to set aside $23 million. But I guess they would want to use 
that money on storm water anyhow.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
  If the Senator is reading from the same statistics, give the full 
information.
  The Senator said to our distinguished Presiding officer of Minnesota 
that indeed $17 million would be taken out of the asphalt and concrete. 
But I point to the next column: Your State holds $471 million under the 
mandate by the EPA for clean water. I have calculated that $17 million 
is helping, in a very modest way, the obligation of your State for $471 
million to meet the mandate put on by the Senate and House of 
Representatives.
  I know, as a former Governor, how you----
  Mr. BOND. I would like to respond and finish my presentation. Then we 
can get into a discussion.
  Mr. WARNER. I have always admired the Senator for so many reasons. I 
really regret to be out here so forcefully taking him on with his arm 
in a sling.
  Mr. BOND. You have no conscience.
  Mr. WARNER. No conscience.
  I ask you--you are out here accusing me of putting in a mandate--how 
many mandates in this bill are you the author of?
  For instance, Safe Walks to Schools--hurray. I am all for it. Very 
good one.
  Mr. BOND. I didn't support that.
  Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?
  Mr. BOND. I didn't vote for that. I will address that at some point.
  Mr. WARNER. Do you have a question to put to me?
  Mr. BOND. I thought I had the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. But I will get it back.
  Mr. BOND. All good things come to an end. I appreciate the comments. 
I was going to address the need for clean water, but my good friend 
from Virginia is saying we need to make this into a water bill. He said 
we need to fund local water projects for Governors.
  I thought this was a transportation bill. I have already pointed out 
that the States can use up to 20 percent of STP in the national highway 
funds on storm water mitigation. But there are lots of unfunded 
mandates that this body has put, in the past, on our local governments 
to clean up local water.
  Do you know something. For the last dozen years, I have fought as 
chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee, with my colleague 
and very good friend, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, to provide the 
funds we need to try to help States and local governments meet their 
obligations.
  There is something called the State revolving funds, and every year 
the Office of Management and Budget--it does not matter whether it is a 
Republican or Democrat--cuts it. Those are

[[Page 8127]]

the most important funds we can provide. We put in over $2 billion each 
year. It gets cut. We put it back in the next year to go into the State 
revolving funds. Senator Mikulski and I have funded hundreds and 
hundreds of millions of dollars of water cleanup projects in various 
States--including Virginia, I am proud to say, a State of which I am 
very fond--and helping them deal with their clean water needs.
  This is a transportation bill. I hear a lot from mayors and local 
government officials. They need transportation. There are waters needs, 
yes, but these water needs are about $200 billion--$200 to $250 
billion--and unfunded. We could take the entire transportation budget, 
dump it into water, and still not meet the needs.
  He has talked about how important safe drinking water is for health. 
And I agree. Really, it is one of the best environmental investments we 
could make. But when you are talking about public health, let's talk 
about the slaughter on the highways. The whole purpose of this bill is 
called SAFETEA. The administration says, and I believe, we need to make 
our highways safer. We kill three people a day or more on Missouri 
highways. Over 365 of those people die every year because our highways 
are inadequate. We have narrow two-lane roads that really should be 
divided four-lane highways, and people get killed on them. Jobs do not 
come to town when we do not have adequate roads. We contribute to 
pollution when we tie up traffic on these roads. We need to put these 
dollars to work.
  As I said, the good Senator from Virginia mentioned the mayors 
support it. Well, my mayors support money for highways and bridges and 
transportation. But I can tell you, the States strongly support my 
amendment. They do not want their hands tied by a new Federal mandate. 
We have too many mandates in this bill, and I would be willing to take 
a look at some of the others.
  But the State departments of transportation want and need the 
flexibility to spend their own highway dollars. That is why the 
organization of State highway directors, AASHTO, said: ``We need your 
immediate help.'' They absolutely want the help of every person in this 
body to support the Bond amendment to strike section 1620. They say:

       Section 1620 mandates that States set-aside 2%. . . . This 
     will divert $867 million from a core program that provides 
     funding for highway, bridge and transit construction, 
     rehabilitation and repair. If this provision is removed, any 
     State can continue to spend up to 20% of a project's cost on 
     storm water activities--but at the discretion of the State.

  So here we are asking this body to be, again, a ``daddy knows best.'' 
We are going to tell States they have to spend $900 million--which is 
not much in ``Washington speak,'' but it is an awful lot in my ``home 
State speak''--for storm waters.
  I have already submitted the letters of support. Let me give you some 
more of the organizations, in addition to AASHTO: the United 
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Laborers-
International Union of North America, the International Union of 
Operating Engineers, the International Association of Bridge, 
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, the American 
Society of Civil Engineers, the American Council of Engineering 
Companies--and the list goes on. These people understand how badly we 
need these highway dollars. Anybody who thinks the $284 billion that we 
were able to get to bring this bill to the floor is adequate has not 
gone home and listened to the people.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. This has been a very good debate and lively debate, and 
you both adequately confused me. I think that we should maybe draw this 
to an end. In a moment I would like to make a unanimous consent request 
that would limit the debate on the amendment. I have been checking with 
you individually. So I ask I be recognized at the conclusion of the 
Senator's remarks and any remarks the Senator from Virginia may have 
for that request.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection. How might 
we best accommodate the managers of the bill? A few more minutes on my 
side, a few more minutes I presume from my colleague, and we would be--
  Mr. INHOFE. I was going to propound a UC that you have 3 additional 
minutes, the Senator from Missouri has 3 additional minutes, and 
Senator Jeffords 2 additional minutes, if that is all right.
  Mr. BOND. Do you want 2?
  Mr. INHOFE. No, I don't want 2. I already had my 2.
  Mr. BOND. Go ahead, please.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you. So if there is no objection--
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if you would ask 
that I be recognized at the conclusion of the debate for purposes of 
making a tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me go ahead and put this in order, then.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 8 minutes 
remaining for debate prior to a vote in relation to the Bond amendment 
No. 592, with Senator Warner in control of 3 minutes, Senator Bond in 
control of 3 minutes, Senator Jeffords in control of 2 minutes, and 
that Senator Warner would be recognized to make a tabling motion; 
provided further, that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a 
vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendment in order to the 
amendment prior to the vote--
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the purpose of my recognition is to move 
to table. Is that clearly understood?
  Mr. BOND. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, it is clearly understood. Let me finish here.
  Further, that following that vote, the Senate proceed to executive 
session for the consideration en bloc of Calendar No. 67, Calendar No. 
68; further, that there then be 30 minutes equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member or their designees; provided further, that 
following that debate the Senate return to legislative session and the 
votes occur on the confirmation of the two nominations at a time 
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democrat 
leader, and that following those votes the President be notified of the 
Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection was heard to unanimous consent 
request.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. No. I withdraw any objection. I thank the Presiding 
Officer. And I just might add by way of courtesy to the Senators, they 
can expect a rollcall vote within the next 10 minutes or so. Would that 
not be correct?
  Mr. INHOFE. That would be correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. To conclude my opening comments, I would note that the 
administration, in its statement of policy, says: The inclusion of a 
mandatory 2-percent set-aside from the STP program to support a highway 
storm water mitigation program is opposed. Storm water discharge 
mitigation costs are already eligible under STP.
  I very much appreciate the assistance of the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Inhofe, who supports my amendment and spoke 
eloquently earlier on it.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and now turn the 
floor over to----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  You have just advised the Senate that the administration has taken a 
position. I wish to add, is that the current AP or the one that was 
given last year?
  Mr. BOND. April 26, 2005.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. BOND. You may find it at the top of page 2.
  Mr. WARNER. I accept the proffer.
  Mr. President, while the Senator is on his feet, I say to the 
Senator, you say that this mandate is going to take some money from the 
bill. I have added up a number of mandates that our committee has put 
into this bill which are funded out of highways. Two of them, I

[[Page 8128]]

commend you for. One is the NHS connecters--that is connecting some of 
our local systems to the interstate--which are valid. That is $900 
million. Safe roads and paths to schools--that is a mandate. I commend 
you for that. That is $312 million. And Railroad diversion of highway 
funds, $893 million. It goes on and on.
  I have to tell you, I think this is a well-crafted bill. It has my 
support. The chairman knows that. But, please, do not point the finger 
to me as if I am the only one who put a mandate in to help the little 
fellows. They are in here, plenty of them.
  Thank you for your smile. That is all I wish to say. You agree with 
me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bond 
amendment.
  This section provides much-needed assistance to our States and local 
communities to deal with the impacts of highway storm water discharges.
  I urge my colleagues to continue their support for this vital program 
which the full Senate adopted in the 108th Congress.
  My colleague from Missouri argues that this provision takes money 
away from State highway departments.
  That is not the case.
  This provision simply ensures that of the funds provided to State 
highway departments, an extremely small percentage, 2 percent, will be 
spent on storm water problems caused by Federal aid highways.
  Who will benefit?
  Local communities will benefit. That is why the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors is opposed to the Bond amendment.
  Without the funds set aside by the storm water program in the highway 
bill, local communities will be left holding the bill for compliance 
with storm water regulations in areas where Federal aid highways 
contribute to storm water pollution.
  Our Nation's wildlife will benefit.
  One of this section's greatest supporters is Trout Unlimited.
  They recognize that storm water runoff presents a huge risk to fish 
populations all across the Nation.
  Other groups opposed to the Bond amendment include the League of 
Conservation Voters.
  A vote against the Bond amendment is a vote for clean water.
  A vote against the Bond amendment is a vote for local communities.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bond amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to point out that as Senators come 
down to vote, I will put this sheet down for their examination. It 
shows the current allocation of aggregate Surface Transportation 
Program funds to their respective States, followed by a column which 
indicates the amount of money that the current markup with the Warner 
provision in it takes for the storm water. And then in the right-hand 
column is what their States owe under the EPA mandate to clean up 
water.
  You will find that I offset by just a small percentage the enormous 
obligation each Senator's State has with regard to the EPA-mandated 
cleanup of the water.
  I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for a very good debate. I 
hope we have fairly and adequately framed it for all Senators.
  I move to table Bond amendment No. 592, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. I will withhold.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
  This particular mandate of the good Senator from Virginia is one that 
I don't like. He put in another mandate to increase funding for 
metropolitan planning organizations. If we could pass a Clear Skies 
bill, we wouldn't need to waste all that time on planning activities 
because we would clean up our air with a heavy restriction on 
utilities. That is a debate for another time. But just because there 
are too many mandates in this bill already does not justify keeping 
$900 million in State budgets out of transportation needs and putting 
it into storm water.
  Don't forget, as we have said, the States now can spend up to 20 
percent of their STP and the National Highway System money on storm 
water cleanups. Granted, there are tremendous needs for cleaning up the 
water, wastewater and drinking water. We need to address those. I wish 
we could address them more generously in the water cleanup bills. But 
this is taking money away from the lifeblood of transportation 
lifesaving highway construction that we need in our States.
  Our mayors--in Missouri, the ones I have talked to--and community 
leaders are very strongly in favor of it. I guess the good Senator and 
I will have dueling charts showing how much money is set aside from the 
State budgets. We know the amounts set aside in the State budgets pale 
by comparison to the water needs, but the needs for highways go far 
beyond that in our States. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the 
motion to table because we need better, safer transportation to meet 
the goals of SAFETEA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply wish to reply that the amendment 
that is in the bill provides jobs. The same construction worker who is 
on the project building the new road comes down and repairs the old 
road. It requires concrete and asphalt to repair the old road, to 
divert the water. So it is highway construction. It is jobs. There is 
no digression of the funds except to provide a safety measure.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, all of the labor organizations, the State 
highway officials, all of the groups that provide those funds strongly 
support my amendment and would oppose the motion to table of the 
Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, those organizations have been misinformed.
  I move to table the Bond amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 593

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Thomas and Johnson be added as cosponsors of Thune amendment No. 593.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays previously 
ordered on the amendment be vitiated and that the amendment be adopted.

[[Page 8129]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 593) was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 594 To Amendment No. 567

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
at the desk submitted by Senator Isakson be considered; provided 
further that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Isakson, proposes an amendment numbered 594 to amendment No. 
     567.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 594) was agreed to as follows:

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to approve a 
 certain construction project in the State of Georgia, provide for the 
  reservation of Federal funds for the project, and clarify that the 
                  project meets certain requirements)

         At the end of subtitle H of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 18__. APPROVAL AND FUNDING FOR CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION 
                   PROJECTS.

         (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     receipt by the Secretary of a construction authorization 
     request from the State of Georgia, Department of 
     Transportation for project STP-189-1(15)CT 3 in Gwinnett 
     County, Georgia, the Secretary shall--
         (1) approve the project; and
         (2) reserve such Federal funds available to the Secretary 
     as are necessary for the project.
         (b) Conformity Determination.--
         (1) In general.--Approval, funding, and implementation of 
     the project referred to in subsection (a) shall not be 
     subject to the requirements of part 93 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
         (2) Regional emissions.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), 
     all subsequent regional emissions analysis required by 
     section 93.118 or 93.119 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or successor regulations), shall include the 
     project.

                          ____________________