[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9636-9637]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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. 605, to provide a complete substitute.
       Dorgan amendment No. 652 (to amendment No. 605), to provide 
     for the conduct of an investigation to determine whether 
     market manipulation is contributing to higher gasoline 
     prices.
       Inhofe (for Ensign) amendment No. 636 (to amendment No. 
     605), to authorize the State of Nevada to continue 
     construction of the US-95 Project in Las Vegas, Nevada.
       Allen/Ensign amendment No. 611 (to amendment No. 605), to 
     modify the eligibility requirements for States to receive a 
     grant under section 405 of title 49, United States Code.
       Schumer amendment No. 674 (to amendment No. 605), to 
     increase the transit pass and van pooling benefit to $200.
       Sessions Modified amendment No. 646 (to amendment No. 605), 
     to reduce funding for certain programs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I would like to spend a few 
minutes discussing an important provision in the highway bill before 
us.
  Section 4(f) of the highway bill provides important protections for 
historic sites, parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl 
refuges throughout the country. With the increasing demand for 
transportation projects, it is important that we not lose sight of our 
natural treasures. We need to balance the growing need for 
transportation with responsible stewardship of our history and natural 
resources.
  In my State of Vermont, we have a wealth of history and natural 
beauty. To see the wildlife that populate the Missisquoi Wildlife 
Refuge or the covered bridges used by our forefathers--is to experience 
a heritage that we all want preserved for future generations. Section 
4(f) has helped preserve these treasures.
  The Revolutionary War site at Fort Vehemence on Route 7 in Pittsford, 
VT, was avoided as a result of 4(f). An excellent collection of 
historic metal truss bridges across the Connecticut River were 
rehabilitated, not replaced, as a result of 4(f). A road in the 
Danville Historic District was narrowed in order to keep the historic 
characteristics of the historic village because of 4(f).
  While constructing a new highway in Vermont, we have discovered a 
significant archeological site containing artifacts from Native 
Americans, providing us with a piece of history that until now was not 
known. By documenting this site, we will expand our knowledge of 
Vermont's Native Americans. Also, because of 4(f) protections. 4(f) is 
amended in this legislation.
  The objective of this amendment is to allow transportation projects 
and programs to move forward more quickly, while maintaining the 
protections of 4(f). Those protections assure that there will be public 
notice and opportunity for public review and comment on proposed ``de 
minimis'' determinations for transportation projects. And that affected 
agencies will concur in the decision of the Secretary of Transportation 
that there will be no adverse impact on a historic site, recreation 
area, park, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge. The provision would 
require the Secretary of Transportation, when making a finding that a 
transportation project or program will have a ``de minimis'' impact, to 
consider all avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement 
measures that have been incorporated into the project.
  This provision allows project sponsors to incorporate environmentally 
protective measures into the project from the beginning, in order to 
support a finding of ``de minimis'' impact.
  These mitigation measures must be carried out and be shown to have 
the intended impact. If they are not having the intended impact, other 
measures must be used to ensure no adverse impact. This is an important 
strengthening of the 4(f) program that will protect our heritage while 
planning for needed transportation projects.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I thank the ranking member of our 
committee, Senator Jeffords, for the hard work he has done, as well as 
Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, who have worked very hard and, of 
course, Senator Bond, who is chairman of the transportation 
subcommittee of the committee I chair.
  This has been 3 years in the making. What we are looking at right now 
is very significant. We are to the point now where we are down to a 
handful of amendments that remain--probably the most significant bill 
that would be passed this year. It appears that under the rules of 
cloture, we probably will have our vote on this and be able to take 
amendments between 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock on Monday, and vote on some 
amendments starting at 4 p.m. I hope we vote on quite a few. I think we 
will end up with about six more total votes before this is done.
  If we get some of those out of the way Monday night, by Tuesday, when 
we go in, we will be able to finish and have final passage on this bill 
and send it to conference. We went through this exercise a year ago and 
we were able to get it to conference. Unfortunately, we lacked one 
signature of getting a conference report and getting it back here. This 
time that will not happen. People are aware of the fact it is critical 
that we have a bill. We cannot operate on any more extensions.
  Let me remind everyone there are two choices right now. We are 
operating under six extensions. When you have an extension, all you do 
is take the previous authorization and extend it. That means you don't 
get any of the good things we have done in putting this bill together. 
We are operating on a bill that passed 7 years ago. We have done some 
things that are far better for America and for every State represented 
if we pass the bill as opposed to an extension. If we pass a bill, we 
are going to be able to take care of donor States' rate of return. If 
we don't pass a bill, we will not be able to do that. Last year's bill 
would have brought every State from the 90.5-percent participation up 
to 95 percent. Since this is not funded at as high a level as it was 
last year, it would only guarantee an ultimate return of 92 percent.
  One of the biggest parts of this program--and we have been calling it 
SAFETEA because we have the SAFETEA core programs included. They came 
through the Commerce Committee. When you look at the deaths on the 
highways and the problems we are having out there--in my State of 
Oklahoma, we have had two deaths from bridge accidents, crumbling and 
falling on people and cars down below. Without the bill, we won't be 
able to have those SAFETEA programs. It is a matter of life and death 
to have this bill, streamlining provisions in order for us to act 
quickly and get these roads built. That will not happen under an 
extension. We will have to pass the bill.
  In this bill, we actually put together a national commission to 
explore new ways of financing roads. When you look at our National 
Highway System, as Senator Jeffords and I have mentioned several times, 
it started in the 1960s, during the Eisenhower administration. It came 
to his attention that we had a problem when he was Major Eisenhower 
during World War II and trying to move services and troops and 
personnel and equipment across America. He realized the problems. When 
he became President, he started the National Highway System. It is 
built now--not maintained but built. We

[[Page 9637]]

have been financing roads, bridges, and maintenance in the same way for 
almost 50 years now. We have this national commission that will explore 
new ways to get private participation in funding and transfer most of 
this to the States, where it belongs. That is not going to happen if we 
are on an extension.
  There is Routes to School Program. We have had young people die and 
this addresses that. Again, if we don't pass the bill, we will not have 
the Safe Routes to School provisions, and we are going to have to 
operate on an extension. That is not acceptable.
  There are border programs. We have several border States and we need 
to address their special needs with the transportation as a result of 
NAFTA and other programs, coming from other countries through the 
United States. We have a border program to accommodate that. We are not 
going to have it if we don't have the bill passed, because there will 
be an extension of a 7-year-old bill.
  Lastly, is the firewall protection of the trust fund. I think 
everyone knows there is an irresistible propensity around Washington to 
spend other people's money, and when they see an opportunity to get a 
pet project by taking something out of the trust fund, they do it. 
Consequently, we have a lot of policies that are passed here, whether 
it is using ethanol or fuel-efficient cars, these programs to encourage 
them to do it, they get benefits and that comes out of the trust fund. 
That is a raid on the trust fund. This builds firewalls so that cannot 
happen. Without that, the raids will continue. That is why it is 
important we pass this bill. I know we are going to pass it. We have no 
doubt about that. Last year, we passed it to conference 76 to 21. I 
anticipate we will have that same margin of victory when we send this 
bill to conference.
  We have been appealing for people to bring amendments to the floor. 
We are to the point now where people are working on the amendments, so 
that is going to have to wait until Monday afternoon. Again, that will 
be between 2 and 4 o'clock. I hope staff will be sure to advise their 
Members that is the time we will want to consider these amendments. If 
they want a vote on Monday, they better have their amendment down here, 
discussed, and debated between 2 and 4 o'clock.
  The last point I want to mention is that somebody has received very 
unjust criticism. We have done a very good job--keep in mind we have 
been working on this 3 years now--we have done a very good job on the 
formula approach. What we want to do in our Senate bill is equitably 
distribute money to States based on certain criteria to be considered.
  For example, if you are a donor State, then there is a factor that 
adjusts the distribution that comes to the State. If you are a donee 
State, it is the same thing. If you are an owed State, it is the same 
thing. If you are a small State or a State with low population, such as 
Montana and Wyoming, that is a factor in this formula.
  We have factors on the death rate. My State of Oklahoma has a higher-
than-average death rate on the highways on a per capita basis. It tells 
you something. What it tells you is there is a problem. We are going to 
have to correct the problem because people are dying.
  The bottom line is, this is a life-or-death bill. So it is very 
important that we get this done. I appreciate the dedication of what we 
refer to as the big four, the leaders of this legislation--the chairman 
of the committee, which is myself, Senator Bond, Senator Jeffords, and 
Senator Baucus. It has been a great team effort. It has been a 
bipartisan effort. There has not been one vote that has not been 
bipartisan. That is a change around here--people are working together. 
Maybe we will learn a lesson and this will expand to some of the other 
areas.
  It is my understanding, unless someone else has something to say 
about the bill--we have covered it pretty well now for the last 10, 12 
days--we are down to the short rows, and we are ready to move on to the 
2 hours on Monday and then, of course, final passage on Tuesday.

                          ____________________