[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9754-9759]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 2451. A bill to support the local decisionmaking functions of 
local educational agencies by limiting the authority of the Secretary 
of Education to issue regulations, rules, grant conditions, and 
guidance materials, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with 20 kids and grandkids, I understand 
the importance and value of quality education. For many years my wife 
dedicated her life to teaching and mentoring young students, never 
knowing that in the years to come, two of our children would follow in 
their mother's footsteps, building classrooms of their own and 
impacting the lives of so many young people.
  Through my family's unique educational experiences, and my time in 
State and local government, I have learned that with teaching comes the 
great responsibility of not only working with students, but also 
parents, employers and many in the local community to ensure our 
children are well equipped for the road ahead.
  Nationwide, 96 percent of local school board members are elected, 
making those members accountable to the many students, parents, and 
taxpayers they represent. But in recent years, the voice of this local 
authority is being eroded through inhibitive policies and requirements 
established by Federal agencies, like the Department of Education.
  Education has historically been a State and local issue. By 
strengthening the process for meaningful input by impacted 
stakeholders, our local communities can remain active in the education 
policy decision-making process.
  This is why I have introduced the Local School Board Governance and 
Flexibility Act. With this legislation, the goal is to bring control of 
our education policy back to where it belongs--with our local 
communities--giving State and local school boards the necessary 
flexibility to achieve their educational goals. S. 2451 would wrestle 
away control from the Department of Education by prohibiting the agency 
from issuing any regulations, rules, guidance materials, or grant 
conditions that would result in a conflict of authority with any State 
or local educational agencies.
  This bill would also streamline reporting requirements and would 
require the Department to provide Congress with an annual report on how 
the agency's policies impact local school districts. As we have seen, 
many of the overreaching education policy changes declared by 
Washington bureaucrats have resulted in negative effects on local 
schools, not only in terms of policy, but also financially. This bill 
requires the Department of Education to seek input on costs and 
assistance needs from State and local school agencies before issuing or 
implementing regulations, rules, guidance materials, or grant 
conditions.
  The Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act will give State 
and local school boards a voice in how the Federal Government issues 
regulations and guidelines for education. It is time for the Department 
of Education to be accountable to the parents, teachers, and local 
elected officials who work first-hand with our Nation's children. 
Education needs are unique to each community, and in order to give the 
next generation of Americans a better future and wealth of 
opportunities, my legislation will give State and local school boards 
the authority they need to carry out the education goals that are best 
suited for their children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2454. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to extend 
expiring provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism 
Act of 2010; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Grassley to 
introduce legislation to reauthorize for another 5 years expiring 
provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, 
STELA. This law provides satellite television carriers with the 
necessary rights to retransmit distant broadcast television programming 
to households that are otherwise unable to receive local signal over-
the-air. If Congress does not act by the end of the year to reauthorize 
the distant signal license, approximately 1.5 million consumers will 
lose access to the broadcast television programming that they are 
currently receiving.
  The compulsory copyright license system for satellite television has 
been successful in promoting competition in the video marketplace. 
Consumers across the country benefit from having nationwide competitors 
to cable. Rural consumers, including many in Vermont, rely on a healthy 
satellite industry that is able to provide service to customers where 
cable is unable to reach. Congress has helped to facilitate the growth 
of the satellite industry by providing it with a mechanism to clear the 
rights to broadcast television content, which remains among the most 
popular.
  Senator Grassley and I are continuing what has always been a 
bipartisan partnership on satellite television legislation. I worked 
with Senator Hatch in 1999 to establish a permanent license allowing 
satellite carriers to retransmit local television content to consumers. 
That license has had an important impact on competition in the video 
market. In 2010, I worked with Senator Sessions on

[[Page 9755]]

STELA. Satellite television legislation should never be partisan--it 
should be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together 
and demonstrate to the American people that we can act responsibly and 
prevent serious disruption to consumers.
  The bill we are introducing today is a narrow approach. We are 
extending the current system for another 5 years, while also making 
some minor technical corrections to the existing statutes. This bill 
may not please all stakeholders. Some would like Congress to use this 
legislation as a vehicle to enact significant changes to the current 
system that governs the relationship between broadcast television 
stations and distributors. Others would prefer that Congress not act at 
all and simply allow this license to expire. My focus is on the 
consumers who stand to lose access to broadcast television content in 
the event that Congress is unable to pass a bill by the end of the 
year. This bill will ensure that they are not left in the dark come 
December 31.
  Our legislation is one half of what the Senate will have to do in 
order to ensure that 1.5 million consumers are able to maintain the 
broadcast television signals that they are currently receiving. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Rockefeller as we work to fit the 
necessary Copyright and Communications Act provisions of this bill 
together. I also look forward to working with our counterparts in the 
House in order to protect the consumers relying on this license.
  I urge the Senate to support extending STELA for another 5 years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2454

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Satellite Television Access 
     Reauthorization Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

       Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 111(d)(3)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``clause'' and inserting ``paragraph''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``clause'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph''; and
       (2) in section 119--
       (A) in subsection (a)(6)(E), in the undesignated matter 
     following clause (iii), by striking ``clause (i)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (B)(i)'';
       (B) in subsection (c)(1)(E), by striking ``2014'' and 
     inserting ``2019'';
       (C) in subsection (e), by striking ``2014'' and inserting 
     ``2019''; and
       (D) in subsection (g)(7)(C), by inserting ``the'' before 
     ``Communications''.

     SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF LICENSE.

       (a) In General.--Section 119 of title 17, United States 
     Code, as amended in section 2, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(h) Termination of License.--This section shall cease to 
     be effective on December 31, 2019.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 107(a) of the Satellite 
     Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (17 U.S.C. 119 
     note) is repealed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2455. A bill to enhance Social Security benefits for children, 
divorced spouses, and widows and widowers, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my 
friend and colleague, Senator Murray, to talk about Social Security. I 
am going to spend a few moments discussing a bill we are introducing 
today and then turn it over to Senator Murray.
  As you know, Social Security is one of the most important programs 
ever established in this country. After 75 years, Social Security 
continues to deliver as intended. It is a promise to Americans. The 
promise is simple. If you work hard all your life and contribute to the 
system, then Social Security will be there to help make ends meet when 
you retire or help out the family if a worker dies or is disabled.
  Let me be clear. Despite the naysayers, Social Security is not a 
handout. Social Security benefits are linked directly to the amount 
that retirees pay into the system through a lifetime of hard work. But 
times have changed and we need to make sure the promise of Social 
Security continues in a meaningful way. That is why Senator Murray and 
I introduced the Retirement and Income Security Act yesterday, which we 
like to call the RAISE Act. It is a commonsense bill to update, 
enhance, and protect Social Security in a fiscally responsible way.
  When it comes to fairness, this bill is a small but important step 
for seniors, for older women, and for the families of deceased or 
disabled workers. It makes sure that the modest benefits of Social 
Security will go to everyone who deserves them.
  The RAISE Act has three major components.
  It will, first, improve Social Security benefits for divorced 
spouses. Under current law, the divorced spouse only gets benefits from 
a former spouse's earnings if they were married for at least 10 years. 
Under our bill, eligibility rules would be phased in beginning at 5 
years of marriage. The spouse would be entitled to 60 percent of the 
benefits after 6 years of marriage, 70 percent after 7 years, and so 
on.
  Second, our bill will enhance benefits for widows and widowers. It 
establishes a new enhanced benefit for widows and widowers where both 
spouses have retired. An alternative calculation in the bill will use 
both spouses' benefits--deceased and surviving--rather than just the 
survivor's benefit. The surviving spouse will receive either their 
current benefit or the new alternative, whichever is greater.
  The third component of the RAISE Act extends eligibility for children 
of retired, disabled or deceased workers. This provision would apply if 
the child is still in high school, college or vocational or career 
school. Under current law, minors and high school students under the 
age of 19 can get Social Security benefits if their parent is a 
retired, disabled or deceased worker. Beginning in 2016, this provision 
extends benefits for full-time students up to the age of 23.
  Even though Social Security continues to fully pay for itself and has 
never added a dime to the deficit, I know some of our colleagues will 
complain that we cannot afford these small enhancements. That is why 
our bill asks those Americans who can most afford it to pay their fair 
share towards the strengthening of the Social Security trust fund.
  Beginning in 2015, the RAISE Act would apply a 2-percent payroll tax 
on annual earnings over $400,000. This means that, for future 
generations, Social Security will continue to be fully funded. In 
future years, that threshold will increase under an indexing formula 
built into the bill.
  I am a proud sponsor of this bill with Senator Murray. It was an easy 
decision for me, since my commitment to bolstering Social Security 
started from day one in the Senate. I have already introduced two other 
bills on Social Security, and I want to just mention them briefly 
before I turn it over to Senator Murray.
  The first bill is my Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act. 
It would extend the solvency of Social Security by lifting the cap on 
high-income contributions, which this year is $117,000. Not everyone 
knows this, but once your annual income hits that threshold, you no 
longer have to contribute to Social Security for the rest of the 
calendar year. This seems unfair to me. My bill would lift the cap and 
phase out what effectively has become a tax loophole. Higher income 
Americans would pay into Social Security all year long--just like 
everyone else. This provision would add generations of financial 
certainty to Social Security.
  The bill would also improve benefits for seniors and others by 
establishing new cost-of-living adjustments based on reality. The 
formula would better reflect seniors' financial needs by basing the 
adjustments on items such as prescription drugs and housing, which 
seniors pay for, instead of electronics and new cars.
  My second bill is the Social Security Fairness Act. It would repeal 
unfair reductions to Social Security benefits for people who have 
worked part of their

[[Page 9756]]

career in noncovered jobs--often State or local government or other 
civil service jobs.
  Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government 
Pension Offset in the 1980s because of fears workers who retire under 
other pensions would be double covered and Social Security could not 
afford it. But in effect those old laws are punishing people by 
reducing benefits they rightfully have earned.
  Today, these provisions affect more than 2 million people nationwide, 
and the number is growing. It is not just about getting back what you 
paid into the system. Removing these penalties would also encourage 
people willing to work in public service as a second career--such as 
police officers or teachers. If you are considering such a move today 
but know your Social Security benefit would be reduced or penalized 
because you had stepped forward and worked in public service, why would 
you do it?
  Let's remember one thing about all of these bills--the two I 
introduced earlier and the RAISE Act we are discussing today. Social 
Security benefits are vitally important but also are very modest. 
Nationally, they average $13,500 a year for recipients. It is very 
important to my State. More than 71,000 people in my State of Alaska 
rely on Social Security. That is roughly 1 out of 10 Alaskans. Social 
Security lifts tens of thousands of Alaskans out of poverty--the 
elderly and especially elderly women--and it pumps more than $1 billion 
into our economy every single year.
  No one is getting rich off of Social Security, but it does provide an 
important foundation, and it does so in a truly American way: You work, 
you contribute, and you get something back. As long as I am in 
Congress, I will fight to make sure Social Security is solvent and 
there for not only this generation but for generations to come.
  Senator Murray has been a longtime champion for Social Security, and 
I am proud to stand with her on the floor today. Our RAISE Act is 
another modest improvement. I hope our colleagues will join us in 
standing up for this critically important program.
  Our Social Security system reflects the best of America: hard work, 
personal responsibility, human dignity, and caring for our parents, our 
children, our spouses, and our neighbors and ourselves.
  Let's come together in this Chamber and do all we can to make sure 
Social Security is working for all Americans.
  With that, I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, Mr. 
Begich, for coming and joining me today because I know he is deeply 
committed to strengthening and protecting Social Security for current 
and future seniors. So I am very pleased to join him today in 
introducing the RAISE Act, which will be a very critical step forward 
in this effort.
  Over the last several decades, middle class families have been 
increasingly squeezed by rising prices for everything from college 
tuition to health care. Wages have stayed flat--or even declined for 
some people--and fewer companies today are offering the kinds of 
generous pension plans that used to help so many workers stay 
financially secure.
  With all that in mind, it is not surprising that, as families have 
struggled to stretch their dollars further and further in order to get 
the bills paid and raise their children, it has become harder and 
harder to save for retirement.
  In fact, a recent study showed that more than a third of today's 
workers have been unable to save even a dollar for retirement, and even 
those who do have savings do not have very much. The same study found 
that 60 percent of respondents had less than $25,000 in total assets 
and investments, excluding their home.
  The numbers are even more pronounced when you look at women in the 
workforce. Because women, on average, earn less than men, they 
accumulate less in savings, they receive smaller pensions, and nearly 3 
in 10 women over 65 depend only on Social Security for income in their 
later years.
  It is clear that now more than ever Social Security is a lifeline for 
millions of seniors. So it is especially important for us to make sure 
this critical system is meeting the needs of today's beneficiaries.
  For 75 years our Social Security system has offered millions of 
seniors and their families a foundation of financial security. But a 
lot has changed in those 75 years. Today, most families have two 
earners. Because Social Security was actually designed for single-
earner families, surviving spouses in families where both adults worked 
may receive less in benefits than they deserve.
  Social Security also supports children whose parents retired, became 
disabled or passed away--but those benefits end at the age 18 or 19. 
That is right. When young adults should be thinking about continuing 
their education--a necessity in today's economy--they are worried about 
having nowhere to go.
  At a time when Social Security is an increasingly critical source of 
support for so many, the RAISE Act would make some commonsense updates 
to ensure our Social Security system is doing everything possible to 
help today's seniors and their families.
  As the Senator from Alaska described, the RAISE Act would establish a 
new alternative benefit to make sure widows and widowers from two-
earner families do not receive less in survivor benefits than those 
from single-earner families.
  The RAISE Act would enable spouses who were married for less than 10 
years to receive spousal and survivor benefits. It would extend 
benefits for young adults under 23 who are enrolled in school full 
time.
  Crucially, to help ensure Social Security is there for future 
generations, the RAISE Act would shore up the Social Security trust 
fund in a fiscally responsible way that protects middle-class families. 
I believe strengthening and protecting Social Security benefits through 
the RAISE Act would do an enormous amount of help to our workers and 
families and their ability to stay financially secure.
  But I also want to note there is a much broader challenge. There is 
not just one solution. We should absolutely make these critical changes 
to help make sure our Social Security system is meeting the needs of 
today's workers and families, but we also have to look at ways for 
workers to save for retirement and encourage companies to offer higher 
retirement plans.
  That is not all. We need to make sure women get equal pay for equal 
work so they will have the same shot at a secure retirement as their 
male coworkers.
  We do need to invest in education and training and get college costs 
down so our workers are prepared to compete for high-wage, high-skilled 
jobs.
  We need to continue to fight to strengthen and protect programs such 
as Medicare which senior women and men rely on.
  Democrats care deeply about taking these steps and many others to 
make sure our workers have the secure, dignified retirement they 
deserve. There is absolutely no reason why, after working hard all of 
her life, a retiree should have to worry about how she and her family 
will make ends meet.
  I believe we can do better. I know Senator Begich does as well. I 
urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a close look at 
our RAISE Act. I hope we can pass it to offer seniors and their 
families some additional relief. Then I hope we can build on this with 
other policies to create more opportunity and more financial security 
for our workers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN:
  S. 2457. A bill to require States to establish highway stormwater 
management programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the 
introduction of my latest legislative proposal to better control the 
harmful and

[[Page 9757]]

volumes of polluted stormwater that is generated from our Nation's 
Federal aid highways. Highway stormwater is a growing threat to water 
quality, aquatic ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that depend on 
the health of these ecosystems. Moreover, the high volumes and rapid 
flow of stormwater runoff from highways and roads poses a very serious 
threat to the condition of our Nation's water and transportation 
infrastructure as well as personal property particularly in urban and 
suburban communities.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that pollution 
from point-sources have been steadily declining since the enactment of 
the Clean Water Act. Likewise, we have seen reductions in pollution 
from certain non-point sources like agriculture which are attributable 
in part to the success of a wide variety of USDA Natural Resource 
Conservation Service Programs and farming innovations in soil 
conservation and nutrient pollution management.
  One non-point source sector where we are unfortunately seeing an 
increasing impact on water quality is from impervious surface that 
create rapidly moving high volumes of untreated polluted stormwater 
that rush off of road surfaces, erode unnatural channels next to and 
ultimately underneath roadways comprising the integrity of roadway 
infrastructure, and increases the stress on storm sewer systems 
shortening the useful life of this infrastructure and ultimately lead 
to the discharge of untreated pollution that is carried off roadways 
and into our lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters.
  Impervious surfaces include most buildings and structures, parking 
lots and of course the nearly 9 million lane miles of roads across our 
country. The total coverage of impervious surfaces in an area is 
usually expressed as a percentage of the total land area.
  The coverage increases with rising urbanization. In rural areas, 
impervious cover may only be 1 percent or 2 percent, however road 
surfaces comprise 80 percent to 90 percent of a rural area's total 
impervious surfaces. In residential areas, impervious surface coverage 
ranges between 10 percent in low-density subdivisions to over 50 
percent in more densely developed communities, where the composition of 
the impervious surface area coverage works out to be 50 percent roads. 
In dense urban areas, the impervious surface area is often over 90 
percent of the total land area, with roads comprising 60 percent to 70 
percent of that coverage.
  According to EPA, urban impervious cover, not just roads, in the 
lower 48 adds up to 43,000 square miles--an area roughly the size of 
Ohio. Continuing development adds another quarter of a million acres 
each year. Typically two-thirds of the cover is pavement, roads and 
parking lots, and 1/3 is buildings.
  According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, impervious surfaces compose 
roughly 17 percent of all urban and suburban lands in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. The greatest concentration of impervious surfaces in the 
Bay watershed is in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Areas of DC, 
Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia Tidewater area, Philadelphia's 
western suburbs, and Lancaster, PA, are also regions in the watershed 
where impervious surfaces are greater than 10 percent of the total land 
area.
  Rainfall on hard surfaces like roads and highways has a very 
destructive and turbulent affect on nearby waterways and 
infrastructure. For example, the rain events that occur over a week 
long period at the end of April brought nearly 8 eight inches of rain 
to the Baltimore-Washington region. The urban runoff from roads in 
Baltimore caused an embankment above the CSX railroad track along East 
26th Street, between St. Paul and Charles Street, to collapse. 
Fortunately no one was injured though homes had to be evacuated for 
more than a month, nearly a dozen parked cars were destroyed and 
moreover movement of freight along CSX railroad was disrupted for more 
than a week. This event shows just how destructive and disruptive 
poorly managed stormwater from transportation infrastructure can be.
  Some may chalk this up to a freak storm of unusually large 
proportion. It's true this storm was unusual, but so were the polar 
vortexes and all of the snow we had in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast, 
and last year's 3-mile wide tornado in Alabama, and the California 
drought and wildfires, and baseball sized hail in Nebraska just last 
week. ``Unusual'' weather seems to becoming a lot more usual. As 
extreme weather events triggered by our changing climate become more 
frequent it is imperative that we incorporate better designs into our 
infrastructure to better handle these types of events.
  Under the Clean Water Act, stormwater is considered a non-point 
source and there are no requirements that stormwater be collected or 
treated. The exception being for localities where in order to meet the 
standards set in an MS4, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, permit 
a region may include its transportation infrastructure in its MS4 
permit.
  However, in most cases stormwater that falls on roadways washes oil, 
grease, asbestos brake-dust, nitrogen deposits from tailpipe emissions, 
trash, road salt and de-icing agents, and sediment into nearby 
waterways. Highway stormwater runoff is most often not treated or 
adequately managed.
  While these organic and inorganic contaminants are legitimate threats 
to water quality, the greater concern with roadway runoff is the sheer 
volume and rapid flow rate in which stormwater leaves these hard 
surfaces and enters our waterways. Flows and volumes that cause roads 
to collapse in Baltimore.
  Roads are designed for stormwater to flow off of the driving surface 
quickly, for safety reasons. When stormwater rushes off of road 
surfaces into storm drains it is usually piped straight into the 
nearest river or stream without removing contaminants, detaining any of 
the volume, or slowing down the flow. This creates an enormously 
destructive set of circumstances for our waterways.
  Another example of the destructive force that persistent unmitigated 
and poorly managed highway runoff can have on the condition and safety 
of highway infrastructure is in Mobile Alabama along Highway 131 in the 
Joe's Branch Watershed. The Mobile Bay Estuary Program, part of the 
National Estuaries Program, in coordination with Alabama Department of 
Transportation is having to spent millions of dollars to reinforce a 
highway embankment to keep the highway from slipping down a hill and 
into the Joe's Branch Creek, restore the hydrology of the river, and 
help protect private property from the dangerous erosion that's been 
caused by poorly managed stormwater from Highway 131.
  The Mobile Bay Estuary Program described the problem this way: ``In 
the Joe's Branch watershed, on the property of Westminster Village 
adjacent and parallel to Highway 131, a head cut stream is eroding at 
an accelerating rate, an ominous condition as ALDOT prepares to 
undertake improvements to the highway. Identified as a high priority 
stabilization area in the D'Olive Creek, Tiawasee Creek and Joe's 
Branch Watershed Management Plan, MBNEP has submitted a funding request 
to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management on behalf of its 
partners in Spanish Fort, Daphne, ALDOT and Westminster Village to 
undertake restoration of the stream using a cutting-edge technology 
called Regenerative Step Pool Storm Conveyance.''
  The four entities involved are spending large amount money to repair 
a problem caused by stormwater damage that could have been prevented at 
a lower cost by incorporating better stormwater mitigation facilities 
into the design of the highway.
  These high-volume/high-speed flows also hasten the deterioration of 
water infrastructure. A 2001 study on the erosive power of urban 
stormwater flows examined how excessive stormwater volumes and flow 
rates off of urban surface infrastructure caused more than $1 million 
in roadway and water infrastructure damage in the Cincinnati 
metropolitan areas in Ohio and Kentucky in a single year.
  While there are serious water quality concerns with not adequately 
controlling roadway infrastructure runoff,

[[Page 9758]]

there are serious infrastructure costs, that are ultimately passed on 
to taxpayers and ratepayers, that can be avoided if transportation 
authorities do more to control and manage stormwater runoff with the 
infrastructure assets they manage and build.
  The increased incidence of flash flooding events that occur even 
during seemingly mild and routine storm events is a direct result of 
the growing percentage of impervious land cover in urban and suburban 
communities. Replacement of the ``greenscapes'' that are lost to 
pavement is essential to restoring hydrological balance to our urban 
and suburban communities and impaired watersheds.
  According to USGS: an inch of rain on one square foot of pavement 
produces 1.87 gallons of stormwater, Scaled up, 1 inch of rain on one 
acre would produce 27,150 gallons of stormwater. Using FHWA design 
standards for interstate highway lane and shoulder widths, 12 feet per 
lane, 10 foot right shoulder, 4 foot left shoulder, 10 miles of a four 
lane interstate highway generates nearly 2.5 million gallons of 
polluted stormwater for every inch of rain. To put that into 
perspective for the Potomac and Anacostia River Watersheds: The Capital 
Beltway, not including its 48 interchanges, generates nearly 30 million 
gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of rain that falls on the 
64 mile 8 to 12 lane interstate highway loop. It is volumes of 
stormwater like that which cause dangerous streambank erosion.
  Gillies Creek is an urban waterway located East of Downtown Richmond. 
It is a tributary of the James River which flows into the Chesapeake 
Bay. Gillies Creek is surrounded by industrial and residential 
development and also receives stormwater from State highway 33, 
Interstate 64, US 60, and hundreds of city streets including Stony Run 
Parkway which directly adjacent to the creek for several miles. The 
banks and bed of this creek have eroded so badly as urban development 
around the creek has added more impervious surfaces to the watershed 
that streambed sheering has created cliffs more than ten feet tall at 
spots along the creek. Trees supporting the bank continually fall into 
the creek and nearby roadways and other infrastructure as well as homes 
and business are at risk. Reducing the impacts of the storms by 
mitigating the flow and volume of stormwater in this watershed will 
protect against further erosion and save the cost of repair and 
eventual replacement of the assets located along this endangered creek.
  The aim of this legislation is to improve highway designs to better 
manage stormwater to avoid the costly damage that poorly managed 
stormwater causes to infrastructure and nearby streams, rivers and 
coastal waters.
  I held a hearing on this issue in the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee 
on May 13. I heard many ideas from both the minority and majority 
witnesses that were invited to present testimony at this hearing. I 
listened to the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and I have incorporated provisions into this bill that should 
alleviate concerns they may have had with previous attempts to better 
control highway stormwater.
  My bill's approach to highway runoff management is one that I hope my 
colleagues of both parties can support. First of all it puts states in 
the driver's seat for developing hydrological analysis and 
implementation of best management practices to control highway runoff. 
The objective of the legislation is to control and manage flow and 
volume of stormwater from highways not to treat runoff in order to meet 
water quality standards. By taking this sort of approach we avoid EPA's 
involvement in the process. Lastly, States would only need to apply 
these procedures to new construction on major reconfiguration projects 
that significantly increases the amount of impervious surface in the 
project area.
  Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a 
significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the 
environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of 
``context sensitive solutions.'' In 2008, the Government Accountability 
Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that needed 
to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. 
That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy 
and the environment. With 985,139 miles of Federal aid highways 
stretching from every corner of the US, polluted highway runoff is no 
small problem facing our Nation's waters. I would urge my colleagues to 
join me trying to address this problem facing America's waterways and 
infrastructure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2457

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Runoff Management 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY RUNOFF MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 330. Federal-aid highway runoff management program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Covered project.--The term `covered project' means a 
     reconstruction, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, renovation, 
     major resurfacing, or new construction project on a Federal-
     aid highway carried out under this title that results in--
       ``(A) a 10-percent or greater increase in impervious 
     surface of the aerial extent within the right-of-way of the 
     project limit on a Federal-aid highway or associated 
     facility; or
       ``(B) an increase of 1 acre or more in impervious surface 
     coverage.
       ``(2) Erosive force.--The term `erosive force' means the 
     flowrate within a stream or channel in which channel bed or 
     bank material becomes detached, which in most cases is less 
     than or equal to the flowrate produced by the 2-year storm 
     event.
       ``(3) Highway runoff.--The term `highway runoff ', with 
     respect to a Federal-aid highway, associated facility, or 
     management measure retrofit project, means a discharge of 
     peak flow rate or volume of runoff that exceeds flows 
     generated under preproject conditions.
       ``(4) Impacted hydrology.--The term `impacted hydrology' 
     means stormwater runoff generated from all areas within the 
     site limits of a covered project.
       ``(5) Management measure.--The term `management measure' 
     means a program, structural or nonstructural management 
     practice, operational procedure, or policy on or off the 
     project site that is intended to prevent, reduce, or control 
     highway runoff.
       ``(b) State Highway Stormwater Management Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, each State shall--
       ``(A) develop a process for analyzing the erosive force of 
     highway runoff generated from covered projects; and
       ``(B) apply management measures to maintain or restore 
     impacted hydrology associated with highway runoff from 
     covered projects.
       ``(2) Inclusions.--The management measures established 
     under paragraph (1) may include, as the State determines to 
     be appropriate, management measures that--
       ``(A) minimize the erosive force of highway runoff from a 
     covered project on a channel bed or bank of receiving water 
     by managing highway runoff within the area of the covered 
     project;
       ``(B) manage impacted hydrology in such a manner that the 
     highway runoff generated by a covered project is below the 
     erosive force flow and volume;
       ``(C) to the maximum extent practicable, seek to address 
     the impact of the erosive force of hydrologic events that 
     have the potential to create or exacerbate downstream channel 
     erosion, including excess pier and abutment scour at bridges 
     and channel downcutting and bank failure of streams adjacent 
     to highway embankments;
       ``(D) ensure that the highway runoff from the post-
     construction condition does not increase the risk of channel 
     erosion relative to the preproject condition; and
       ``(E) employ simplified approaches to determining the 
     erosive force of highway runoff generated from covered 
     projects, such as a regionalized analysis of streams within a 
     State.
       ``(c) Guidance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall 
     publish guidance to assist States in carrying out this 
     section.

[[Page 9759]]

       ``(2) Contents of guidance.--The guidance shall include 
     guidelines and technical assistance for the establishment of 
     State management measures that will be used to assist in 
     avoiding, minimizing, and managing highway runoff from 
     covered projects, including guidelines to help States 
     integrate the planning, selection, design, and long-term 
     operation and maintenance of management measures consistent 
     with the design standards in the overall project planning 
     process.
       ``(3) Approval.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall--
       ``(A) review the management measures program of each State; 
     and
       ``(B) approve such a program, if the program meets the 
     requirements of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Updates.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     publication of the guidance under this subsection, and not 
     less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter--
       ``(A) the Secretary, in consultation with the heads of 
     other relevant Federal agencies, shall update the guidance, 
     as applicable; and
       ``(B) each State, as applicable, shall update the 
     management measures program of the State in accordance with 
     the updated guidance.
       ``(d) Reporting.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)(A), 
     each State shall submit to the Secretary an annual report 
     that describes the activities carried out under the highway 
     stormwater management program of the State, including a 
     description of any reductions of stormwater runoff achieved 
     as a result of covered projects carried out by the State 
     after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Reporting requirements under permit.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State shall not be required to submit 
     an annual report described in paragraph (1) if the State--
       ``(i) is operating Federal-aid highways in the State in a 
     post-construction condition in accordance with a permit 
     issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
       ``(ii) is subject to an annual reporting requirement under 
     such a permit (regardless of whether the permitting authority 
     is a Federal or State agency); and
       ``(iii) carries out a covered project with respect to a 
     Federal-aid highway in the State described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Transmission of report.--A Federal or State 
     permitting authority that receives an annual report described 
     in subparagraph (A)(ii) shall, on receipt of such a report, 
     transmit a copy of the report to the Secretary.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``330. Federal-aid highway runoff management program.''.

                          ____________________