Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the bill before us today recognizes some of the challenges that face States and metropolitan planning agencies when developing plans for future highway projects. We have included natural resource and environmental factors for States and metropolitan planning agencies to consider when developing their transportation plans. They should consider protecting habitat, water quality and agricultural and forest land while minimizing invasive species. While I am most familiar with aquatic invasive species such as the sea lamprey and the zebra mussel that are wreaking havoc on my beloved Lake Champlain, nonnative species of vegetation have been degrading public and private property, degrading habitat, crops, and pastures. State transportation planning agencies can become active stewards in roadside management by phasing out the uses of nonnative vegetation and reestablishing native plants on our rights-of-way. In addition to considering invasive species during the planning process, this bill makes funding available for the control of invasive plant species and establishment of native species. To help States and metropolitan planning agencies assess the. environmental impacts of proposed highway projects we suggest consulting with other State and local agencies. Those responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation and historic preservation should compare transportation plans with State conservation plans. This would include inventories of natural or historic resources and consideration of areas where wildlife crossing structures may be needed to ensure connectivity between wildlife habitat linkage areas. This commonsense approach will assure that transportation planners will consider the location of important habitat, wetlands and other natural resources at the earliest stages of planning for new roads. These provisions will make project delivery faster and more efficient. Currently, transportation projects are often planned without detailed information on core conservation areas, sensitive resources or important habitat that might lie within the selected corridor. These conflicts do not come to light until the environmental review process, which then becomes more expensive and time- consuming as transportation and resource officials try to reconcile infrastructure and conservation activities. These provisions will help transportation planners in avoiding unnecessary impacts on wildlife habitat and in mitigating for unavoidable impacts of a project. These provisions encourage States to utilize available wildlife habitat data and maps to inform the long-range transportation planning process. Planners would be able to identify potential concerns at the earliest stage of planning, when options for minimizing impacts are greatest and costs of doing so are lowest. Over 200 Americans die each year in wildlife-vehicle collisions, many more are injure4 and more than 1 million animals are killed on our roadways every day. State and Federal agencies spend considerable time and money both protecting natural areas and building transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, conservation and growth efforts often happen independently and then come into conflict during the permitting and construction phases of a transportation project. These investments need to be coordinated. If conservation efforts are taken into account at the earliest stages of transportation planning, both priorities can be realized, in less time and at less cost. While none of us have a crystal ball that can show us what the future will look like, through consultation, transportation planners can get a picture of the broader landscape and see what the consequences of a proposed project might be. In some instances, potential environmental and habitat impacts can be avoided. The most significant threat to the biodiversity of this country is habitat loss. However, thoughtful, forward-looking transportation planning can go a long way towards reducing negative impacts and mitigating for unavoidable impacts. Over the next few decades, the decisions we make regarding highways and the ensuing loss of habitat will determine the fate of species and America's biodiversity. These provisions are aimed at helping to preserve that biodiversity through coordinated planning. Another provision focuses on improving environmental stewardship in transportation projects by expanding the current eligibility for environmental restoration and pollution abatement from only those projects undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration to any project, as well as establish eligibility for invasive species control efforts. Contributions to measures to control exotic and invasive plant species may precede, concur, or follow project construction if such measures are consistent with Federal law and State transportation planning processes. Finally, this bill recognizes that despite the best planning process, mitigation for impacts on habitat and natural resources from transportation projects may be necessary. To help provide for needed mitigation, the bill allows the States to establish habitat and wetlands mitigation funds for efforts related to mitigation activities. The fund would allow States to undertake larger mitigation efforts based on the total impacts of multiple projects rather than the smaller scale of a single project. These changes to the planning process and increased consideration of environmental impacts will improve future transportation projects while protecting the environment. This highway bill is about more than money. It is about balancing the needs of our Nation's transportation system with concerns about our natural habitats. We have done our best to strike that balance in this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. Please, everyone, expedite.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree with the Senator's statement and call upon Senators to be here so we can get this work done.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I emphasize we are running out of time. We cannot keep going this way without getting anything done. We have a responsibility to do so. I urge Members who have issues they want to raise, please come now. Close to 50 years ago, Congress passed and President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. As Chairman Inhofe has pointed out a number of times during the debate on this bill, that legislation is one of the greatest public works projects in history and is credited with the creation of one of the biggest transportation systems in the world. President Eisenhower was a thoughtful man, but his first realization of the value of good highways was noted in 1919, when he participated in the U.S. Army's first transcontinental motor convoy from Washington, DC, to San Francisco. When Eisenhower and a friend heard about the convoy, they volunteered to go along as observers ``partly for a lark and partly to learn,'' Eisenhower later recalled. On the way West, the convoy experienced all the woes known to motorists, and then some: an endless series of mechanical difficulties; vehicles stuck in the mud or sand; trucks and other equipment crashing through wooden bridges; roads as slippery as ice or dusty or the consistency of ``gumbo''; extremes of weather, from desert heat to Rocky Mountain freezing; and, for the soldiers, worst of all, speeches and speeches and more speeches in every town along the way. On September 15, 1919, after 62 days on the road, the convoy reached San Francisco, where it was greeted with medals, a parade, and more speeches. During World War II, General Eisenhower saw the advantages Germany enjoyed because of the autobahn network. He also noted the enhanced mobility of the Allies when they fought their way into Germany. These experiences shaped Eisenhower's views on highways. ``The old convoy,'' he said, ``had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land.'' Thankfully, these experiences helped guide President Eisenhower as he developed and pushed for the creation of the Federal-Aid Highway Act. In 1955, President Eisenhower said: Together, the united forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear--United States. Without them, we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts. We stand here now on this Senate floor, 50 years later, trying to improve and maintain the roads and highways created by the legislation inspired by President Eisenhower. The bill before us makes great strides in State efforts to reduce traffic congestion and make our roads and bridges safer. It will help maintain and expand our mass transit systems, and it creates jobs and helps our economy. This bill will improve transportation in every State and have an impact on every American in one way or another. Once again, I thank Chairman Inhofe and Senators Bond and Baucus for their efforts in moving this bill forward. We have made good progress this week, and I know the momentum will continue today, and hopefully it will start soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I echo the comments of my good friend. The Senator from Hawaii has given us an opportunity to listen to the goodness he has given us in many speeches. I thank the Senator for what he has done today.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct. We have only six we know of.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have long been a proponent of measures that support historic preservation and economic development, and it is in keeping with that tradition that I rise today to introduce the National Historic Country Store Preservation Act of 2005. This bill establishes a national program to support historic country store preservation that will aid in the revitalization of rural villages and community centers nationwide. For many Americans, the country store invokes an image of a simpler life before much of this country became stamped with shopping malls and the ``big-box'' store. But for thousands of people living in Vermont and for millions more living in rural communities across the United States, a visit to the local country store is a regular part of one's daily life. They are centers of commercial activity in the towns they serve and embody the core of American small business entrepreneurship. Many of these vital small businesses have been passed down among family members for generations. They are operated in buildings that have existed for as long as 150 years. In fact, by one of the more vigorous standards in Vermont, a country store is only considered historic if it was built before the Winooski River Flood of 1927. In my hometown of Shrewsbury, VT, the Pierce Store was the hub of our small community when my wife Liz and I settled there in 1963. Run by the four Pierce siblings, Marjorie, Glendon, Marion and Gordon, the store was the place to go for a neighborly chat as much as for your milk and butter. Children would get off the bus to buy their penny candy. Glendon Pierce could tell a great tale, and the political banter was endless. With its antique cash register and woodstove, this was the quintessential general store. Unfortunately, the Pierce Store closed its doors some years back and Shrewsbury lost a vital part of its identity. There has been a recent attempt to revive the store, and I hope, for the sake of my community, it proves successful. Despite their small relative size and market share, historic country stores have demonstrated incredible resiliency, surviving floods and fires, overcoming economic downturns, and reformulating their inventories to meet modern needs. According to the Vermont Grocers' Association, country stores account for an estimated $55 million annually in retail sales in Vermont. Nonetheless, competition from larger chain stores continues to increase. When coupled with the additional cost and expertise required to maintain their aging structures and external facades, today's remaining country stores are hard-pressed to overcome these unprecedented challenges. In Vermont, a handful of historic country stores close each year and the cumulative impact of those losses is experienced throughout the State. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has listed the entire State of Vermont among America's ``Eleven Most Endangered Places,'' That is due to the threat that large-scale development poses to Vermont's small, independent retailers. Yet country stores remain fixtures of Vermont's landscape. The Vermont Alliance of Independent Country Stores estimates that more than 115 historic country stores are scattered about the State. Across the country, thousands of these establishments help to define the character of rural life. These country stores draw local customers and tourists alike, offering convenient access to newspapers, groceries and local specialty foods in a typically neighborly atmosphere. Many stores also double as local post offices or outdoor camping and home hardware goods suppliers. It is not unusual, and highly recommended, that customers buy a fresh whole wedge of cheddar cheese from a 38-pound wheel next to the cash register. Fathers can buy earthworms and tackle and take their daughters to the nearby fishing hole for an afternoon excursion. The National Historic Country Store Preservation Act of 2005 is designed to build upon the momentum that country store preservation work has generated in Vermont and to gather useful models and information to develop a program that supports historic, rural country stores nationwide. My legislation authorizes the U.S. Economic Development Administration to make grants to national, State and local agencies and non-profit organizations to support historic country store preservation efforts. The bill promotes the study of best practices for preserving structures, improving profitability and promoting collaboration among country store proprietors. In addition, the bill establishes a revolving loan fund. The fund will be used for research and restoration work. It will be used to improve our understanding of existing needs and provide the assistance required to address them. This bill seeks to sustain America's rural heritage by uniting small business development and historic preservation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in my efforts to protect our Nation's historic country stores and revitalize our rural communities. I ask that a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have long been a proponent of measures that support historic preservation and economic development, and it is in keeping with that tradition that I rise today to introduce the National Historic Country Store Preservation Act of 2005. This bill establishes a national program to support historic country store preservation that will aid in the revitalization of rural villages and community centers nationwide. For many Americans, the country store invokes an image of a simpler life before much of this country became stamped with shopping malls and the ``big-box'' store. But for thousands of people living in Vermont and for millions more living in rural communities across the United States, a visit to the local country store is a regular part of one's daily life. They are centers of commercial activity in the towns they serve and embody the core of American small business entrepreneurship. Many of these vital small businesses have been passed down among family members for generations. They are operated in buildings that have existed for as long as 150 years. In fact, by one of the more vigorous standards in Vermont, a country store is only considered historic if it was built before the Winooski River Flood of 1927. In my hometown of Shrewsbury, VT, the Pierce Store was the hub of our small community when my wife Liz and I settled there in 1963. Run by the four Pierce siblings, Marjorie, Glendon, Marion and Gordon, the store was the place to go for a neighborly chat as much as for your milk and butter. Children would get off the bus to buy their penny candy. Glendon Pierce could tell a great tale, and the political banter was endless. With its antique cash register and woodstove, this was the quintessential general store. Unfortunately, the Pierce Store closed its doors some years back and Shrewsbury lost a vital part of its identity. There has been a recent attempt to revive the store, and I hope, for the sake of my community, it proves successful. Despite their small relative size and market share, historic country stores have demonstrated incredible resiliency, surviving floods and fires, overcoming economic downturns, and reformulating their inventories to meet modern needs. According to the Vermont Grocers' Association, country stores account for an estimated $55 million annually in retail sales in Vermont. Nonetheless, competition from larger chain stores continues to increase. When coupled with the additional cost and expertise required to maintain their aging structures and external facades, today's remaining country stores are hard-pressed to overcome these unprecedented challenges. In Vermont, a handful of historic country stores close each year and the cumulative impact of those losses is experienced throughout the State. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has listed the entire State of Vermont among America's ``Eleven Most Endangered Places,'' That is due to the threat that large-scale development poses to Vermont's small, independent retailers. Yet country stores remain fixtures of Vermont's landscape. The Vermont Alliance of Independent Country Stores estimates that more than 115 historic country stores are scattered about the State. Across the country, thousands of these establishments help to define the character of rural life. These country stores draw local customers and tourists alike, offering convenient access to newspapers, groceries and local specialty foods in a typically neighborly atmosphere. Many stores also double as local post offices or outdoor camping and home hardware goods suppliers. It is not unusual, and highly recommended, that customers buy a fresh whole wedge of cheddar cheese from a 38-pound wheel next to the cash register. Fathers can buy earthworms and tackle and take their daughters to the nearby fishing hole for an afternoon excursion. The National Historic Country Store Preservation Act of 2005 is designed to build upon the momentum that country store preservation work has generated in Vermont and to gather useful models and information to develop a program that supports historic, rural country stores nationwide. My legislation authorizes the U.S. Economic Development Administration to make grants to national, State and local agencies and non-profit organizations to support historic country store preservation efforts. The bill promotes the study of best practices for preserving structures, improving profitability and promoting collaboration among country store proprietors. In addition, the bill establishes a revolving loan fund. The fund will be used for research and restoration work. It will be used to improve our understanding of existing needs and provide the assistance required to address them. This bill seeks to sustain America's rural heritage by uniting small business development and historic preservation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in my efforts to protect our Nation's historic country stores and revitalize our rural communities. I ask that a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend, Leonard Wing, Jr., who passed away Saturday, April 30, 2005. Leonard was a decorated war hero, a civic leader, a devoted family man, and a great Vermonter. I knew Leonard almost my entire life. We grew up across the street from each other on Kingsley Avenue in Rutland, VT. When I was a young boy, Leonard left Vermont to fight in World War II. Leonard was wounded and taken prisoner in Europe before escaping and fleeing to northern Africa with help from the Polish underground. For his efforts in the European Theatre, Leonard was awarded the Silver Star and the Purple Heart, in addition to other commendations. I still remember listening in awe as my neighbors in Rutland recounted the heroics of Leonard and his father, MG Leonard Wing, Sr., who was a Vermont legend for his military leadership in the South Pacific. Leonard Wing, Jr. went on to serve for over 30 years in the Army and Army National Guard before retiring as a brigadier general in 1973. After World War II, Leonard returned to the United States and continued his studies, graduating from the Boston University School of Law in 1950. After law school, Leonard returned to Vermont and became one of the State's finest attorneys, practicing law in Rutland for 46 years. During his legal career, Leonard served as both the president of the Vermont Bar Association and the State director of the American College of Trial Lawyers. To residents of Rutland, Leonard is probably best known, however, for his local leadership and civic involvement. Leonard sat for 6 years on the Rutland City Board of School Commissioners, part of that time serving as the board's president. Most significantly, Leonard helped found the Havenwood School in Rutland. He also served as president of that school in addition to holding the same post at the Rutland Association for Retarded Citizens and the Vermont Association of the Retarded. These are just a few notable examples of the many charitable and civic activities to which Leonard lent his time. Leonard's life was marked by his extraordinary service to his local community, his State, and his country. The city of Rutland, and the State of Vermont, will not be the same without Leonard's leadership. He will be most missed, however, by those he loved most dearly: his family. I offer my condolences to his wife Mary and their nine children. I hope they take comfort in knowing that Leonard's accomplishments and service will not soon be forgotten by the scores of Vermonters whose lives he touched.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of manager's package for the highway bill. This package, which combines all four titles of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, increases funding for our highways and transit systems by $11.2 billion. I commend Senators Grassley and Baucus for putting together a package that not only increase the resources for our States but does not add to the Federal deficit. One cannot drive this highway bill on empty. Funding is its fuel, and we need to make sure this bill has a full tank when it leaves the Senate and heads to conference. The White House argues that the financing of the manager's package is based on gimmicks. To that I say nonsense. If Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus tell me it is paid for, then I believe them. Frankly, compared to the funding levels in last year's highway bill, today's package is modest. The President should be claiming victory and applauding our actions rather than threatening a veto. This additional funding will mean we can make more roads safer, make sure more Americans face less traffic, and create more jobs. This additional funding benefits every State, every city, every country and every town. This additional funding makes all the world of difference. I would yield the floor at this time and offer the Senator from Arkansas such time as he desires to discuss the transportation bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is fine.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank again Senator Inhofe and Senator Bond for their leadership on this bill. I am glad to be here on the Senate floor continuing to debate this important legislation. This managers' package we have before us today will increase the funding in our legislation $11.2 billion and ensures that all States will have the resources necessary to improve their highways, roads, and bridges. This package will be the catalyst that helps get this bill completed the way it I should be--fully funded. I sincerely thank Senators Grassley and Baucus for their tremendous efforts in crafting the finance title of this proposal. This package will create jobs. It will save lives. It will reduce travel time. And it will improve the quality and structure of our Nation's surface transportation system. Just this week, the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University released its annual Urban Mobility Report. This highly respected report once again tells us we need to do better when it comes to transportation in this country. The report tells us that traffic congestion delayed travelers 79 million more hours--79 million more hours--and wasted 69 million more gallons of fuel in 2003 than in 2002. The report tells us that overall in 2003, there were 3.7 billion hours of travel delay and 2.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel, for a total cost of more than $63 billion. But this bill is about more than reducing traffic congestion. The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics says there are approximately 45,500 transportation-related fatalities per year, 94 percent of which occur on highways. That is because over a quarter of our interstates remain in poor or mediocre condition. Fourteen percent of our bridges are structurally obsolete. This is unacceptable. Something must be done. That is what we are trying to do here today. We have worked very diligently to reach a compromise that will move us forward in safety, commerce, environmental protection, and congestion reduction. I encourage all Senators to come to the floor and offer their amendments sooner rather than later. Let's get this bill done so our States can get started with their critical work. Let's get this bill done this week so we can move it to conference with the House as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Caroline Ahearn, a fellow working in the Environment and Public Works Committee office, as well as Tim Connolly and Cara Cookson, legislative aides to the committee office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 3 and amendments thereto.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. If I may interrupt for a moment, I support what you are saying 100 percent. I warn Members they should not give any thought, right now, anyway, of believing they do not need to be here. We have to get this done. The country needs it.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bond amendment to strike section 1620 of the underlying bill, the highway stormwater discharge mitigation program. This section provides much-needed assistance to our States and local communities to deal with the impacts of highway stormwater discharges. Without these funds, our Nation's highways are at risk of becoming a conduit for pollutants to reach fragile waterways and ecosystems. In the last Congress, the Senate recognized the need for this program and adopted this provision as part of the transportation bill. I urge my colleagues to continue their support for this vital program. Our Nation is facing a water quality challenge. Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1970, we have taken steps to reduce pollution coming from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants and industry. However, according to the EPA's most recent National Water Quality Inventory, 40 percent of our Nation's waterways are still impaired. Non-point source pollution is the next hurdle for this Nation to overcome if we are to truly make progress and improve our water quality. EPA states that urban run-off and storm sewers are the number four source of pollution in rivers, number three in lakes, and number two in estuaries. When it rains or when snow melts, roads serve as conduits for pollutants such as oil and grease, heavy metals, and sediment that flow directly into rivers, streams, and lakes. Because roads prevent rainfall and snowmelt from soaking into the ground, the physical characteristics of surrounding water bodies are also altered. Groundwater recharge is reduced, affecting water supplies. Stream channels erode due to rapid, heavy flows, leading to excessive situation in rivers and streams which severely impacts fish habitat. This is a major part of our stormwater problem in Vermont. Water temperatures are altered, impacting wildlife. In addition, flooding can occur which not only damages the environment but also puts human lives and property at risk. The highway stormwater discharge mitigation program will ensure that communities have at least a portion of the resources to solve their water quality problems stemming from Federal-aid highways. It authorizes 2 percent of surface transportation program funds to be used for highway stormwater discharge mitigation. This would provide a total of $867 million over 5 years. The program would reduce the impacts to watersheds from the development of highways and roads while addressing the goals in the Federal Clean Water Act by funding projects that improve water quality. The new program emphasizes non-structural solutions to managing stormwater runoff, which reduce costs to local communities, protect the natural water cycle, and provide more overall environmental benefits. In my home State of Vermont, Lake Champlain, which also borders the State of New York, is threatened by pollution from storm water run off. Although it is one of the cleanest large lakes in the United States, Lake Champlain is polluted with nutrients and sediment. The fastest growing source of pollution reaching the lake is runoff from developed land, including highways. Roadway drainage systems carry sediment and nutrients, and the cost of cleaning up existing roadway runoff to Lake Champlain is estimated at more than $500,000 each year for the next 9 years. Similar problems exist in the Connecticut River basin in Vermont. Currently, our State is struggling to deal with a backlog of expired storm water permits, extremely limited resources, and statewide storm water discharge water quality issues that threaten the growth of our economy by stalling development. The two most important road improvement projects in our biggest city have been repeatedly delayed by storm water pollution concerns, slowing the construction schedules by months and even years. One of our greatest assets in my home State of Vermont is our pristine environment, including Lake Champlain. We need to ensure that as we improve our roadway network to meet the demands of a growing population we do not sacrifice the quality of our environment that draws people to visit and move to Vermont in the first place. I have heard some of my colleagues from more arid States question the need for these funds given climatic differences. However, each and every State in the Nation has critical storm water mitigation needs. Under new regulations that took effect in March 2003, over 50,000 small communities, counties, and other areas in every State must now manage stormwater runoff to meet Clean Water Act requirements. The EPA estimated the cost to comply with these regulations to be about $1 billion per year. Larger cities already manage stormwater pollution in order to meet discharge permits and other Clean Water Act requirements. Every State in the country has at least one community covered by these regulations. The arid and semi-arid western United States has receiving waters that are generally smaller than their eastern counterparts. Therefore, the impacts of urban stormwater are more strongly felt in western waterways. For example, in the State of Nevada, the Las Vegas Valley Stormwater Management Committee found in its 2003 annual report that zinc and lead concentrations were 10 to 96 times higher in stormwater runoff than in other parts of the Nation, an effect attributed to the fewer number of storms in the arid Southwest. EPA estimates that Arizona communities will need about $150 million to meet stormwater regulatory requirements, plus an additional $40 million in estimated costs to address urban runoff. Arizona's portion of stormwater funding under section 1620 of the highway bill is about $17 million. The California Department of Transportation estimates that the cost of stormwater controls on existing highways would range from between $4 million and $7.5 million per mile of highway. The Chesapeake Bay Commission estimated in January of 2003 that stormwater retrofit costs across the watershed are more than $9 billion. In demonstration of the nationwide support for this stormwater provision in the highway bill, I ask unanimous consent that multiple letters opposing the Bond amendment and endorsing the underlying provision be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Bond amendment is opposed by the: U.S. Conference of Mayors, State Water Pollution Control Administrators, Environmental Council of States, Trout, Unlimited, Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, Metropolitan Water Agencies, American River, and a host of other organizations. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the League of Conservation Voters indicating its opposition to the Bond amendment and its intent to score this vote be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. One of our Nation's most precious resources is our water. Water quality affects the environment, wildlife, our health, and our economy. Section 1620 of the transportation bill recognizes the significant contribution that roads make to stormwater pollution, and it provides critical funding to help States and local communities mitigate these damages. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bond amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join the chairman in urging colleagues to bring amendments to the floor. It is time to get this bill out of the traffic jam it is currently stuck in. If we are going to get the highway bill done before the end of May, the Senate needs to accelerate action and shift into higher gear. Our States, cities, and towns need this bill. The American public needs this bill. We have heard from the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities. All asking the same thing, get this bill done. The bill before us will strengthen our nation's transportation system, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, improve the safety of our roads, highways and bridges, and support and improve our transit systems. We cannot afford to wait any longer to make these much needed investments. Our transportation system needs help now: 38 percent of our major roads are in poor or fair condition; 28 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient and unsafe for travel; 5.7 billion gallons of fuel are wasted annually while motorists sit in traffic. Traffic congestion means longer delays, higher costs, increased accidents, more pollution, added frustration and keeps us from spending time with our family and friends. In 2001, according to the American Public Transportation Association, congestion costs to American motorists were nearly $70 billion. Each peak-period road user lost approximately $1,200 in wasted fuel and productivity. It is time to get this bill on the fast track and start making some progress. Once again I thank Chairman Inhofe, and Senators Bond and Baucus for the collaborative process in which we have proceeded on this bill. We are ready to take up amendments. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and offer them. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his excellent presentation. We assure the Senator we are listening and we will take the Senator's advice.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have been in the Congress some 30 years. I have seen a lot of budgets. I have voted for some, and voted against others, but in all my days, I have rarely seen a more irresponsible budget than the one this Congress is about to approve. In a time of rising debt and rising military expenses, we are also absurdly living in a time of rising tax cuts. Frankly, I am appalled. I am appalled at the fiscal irresponsibility of cutting taxes by $106 billion over the next 5 years, primarily for the wealthiest among us, while our budget and trade deficits go up. It is no wonder the value of the dollar has plunged. I am also appalled that this budget excludes future costs of the war in Iraq. In the past, we have sometimes raised taxes to pay for war costs. I believe this is the first time this country has ever cut taxes and waged a war at the same time. I am tired of witnessing a shell game where it is claimed that a budget will lead to a reduction in the deficit, while the President requests billions and billions of dollars in so-called ``emergency'' military spending. At the same time this budget calls for increasing tax cuts, this budget will mandate cuts in programs that benefit low-income Americans. A Federal budget is about setting priorities, and the priorities contained in this budget are all wrong. This budget puts tax cuts ahead of ensuring that our communities have clean water, safe streets, and good schools. This budget includes $35 billion in cuts in mandatory programs such as the Food Stamp Program and Medicaid, which serves low-income children and their families, people with disabilities, and the elderly. I have a hard time voting for provisions that will simply increase the burden on States to care for low-income and disadvantaged Americans. There are many other low-income programs that will need to be cut to follow this budget blueprint ranging from affordable housing to economic development and nutritional programs. In short, this is a Sheriff of Nottingham budget. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich. This budget assumes that funding for domestic discretionary programs will be cut by 5.9 percent this year below the level enacted for 2005, adjusted for inflation. Over 5 years, these cuts are enormous and will affect practically every area of the domestic budget from veterans' health care to job training to special education. I was not pleased at the cuts in the discretionary budget contained in the Senate-passed budget. This budget is worse. It will lead the country down the path towards cuts in environmental protection programs, transportation programs such as Amtrak, and education programs. This budget will also, unfortunately, enable those who favor oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to shield such a provision from full debate in the Senate. I cannot support this budget resolution conference report because of its misguiding priorities. I regret that this budget will lower the quality of life for all Americans by not adequately funding important domestic programs, increasing the deficit, and widening the divide between rich and poor in this country.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today, our third day of debate on the highway bill. As we have stated before, this is vital legislation that will have an impact on every American. I join Senator Inhofe in calling on my colleagues to come to the floor to offer amendments. With that said, I would like to address some of the important provisions in this bill. I would like to spend a minute talking about bridges and our need to make sure that adequate funding exists to maintain these structures. As many of my colleagues know, I have a passion for bridges and specifically covered bridges. While covered bridges are no longer critical parts of our Nation's infrastructure, they provide an important link to our collective past and are feats of engineering and longevity. The National Covered Bridge Preservation Program, which I authored in 1998, has been a great success, albeit a slightly underfunded success. From the Thetford Center Covered Bridge to the Weathersfield Falls Covered Bridge, I have taken great pride in being able to work to rehabilitate these bridges in Vermont. Given my passion for the topic, many members may think that Vermont has the Nation's largest number of these bridges. In fact, Pennsylvania has 220 covered bridges, Ohio has 144 covered bridges, and Vermont has only 99 covered bridges. Even California has 12 covered bridges and Missouri has 5. It is my great regret that I do not believe Oklahoma has any of these fine structures. While I may seem like a broken record talking about bridges, it is critical that we pass a bill that adequately funds bridge maintenance and repair. While I do not have the national statistics at my fingertips, those of you that travel around our Nation's Capital can readily attest to the fact that the bridges in this city are choke points for commuters and commerce. The DC Department of Transportation estimates that about $300 million is needed to repair 11 major bridges. If we do not provide at least some of these funds, our economy will suffer. Senator Leahy and I have been working for years to provide funds to rehabilitate the Missisquoi Bay Bridge in Vermont. This bridge links New York and Vermont and serves as an international corridor to Canada. In 1998, Vermont's congressional delegation secured funds in the highway bill to begin the project, and unfortunately we are still at it. I can hardly imagine how long it would take to upgrade the George Washington or Chesapeake Bay Bridges. It is my hope that the Congress will send the President a bill with a robust bridge program. Our Nation's bridges, whether historic or not, are in a state of disrepair and this bill is an important step in the right direction. I yield the floor.