Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, in 2 weeks, this Nation will celebrate Earth Day. The first Earth Day was in 1970, 34 years ago. For three and a half decades, people from all walks of life have gathered on April 22 to celebrate the environment. Since the first Earth Day, our Nation has had seven Presidents, including our current leader, President Bush. Four of the six former Presidents were Republicans: President Nixon, President Ford, President Reagan, and former President Bush. Each of these former Presidents has left their mark on our Nation's environment. For the next 10 minutes, I want to review the major policy and legislative accomplishments--and there were many--of these former Presidents. At the same time, I will point out what the administration--the current Bush administration--is doing to that legacy left by four former Presidents. That contrast is stark. Many of you would be surprised to learn that President Nixon's lasting policy legacy may well be on the environment. President Nixon signed into law some of the most comprehensive and sweeping environmental laws. Here is a list on this chart: National Environmental Protection Act, which was the basis for a lot of these situations; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; Endangered Species Act; Marine Mammal Protection Act; and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We would all agree this is an impressive list. For the sake of time, I will not read the list for each of the subsequent three Republican Presidents. But the list is, in some cases, equally impressive. Let's look at President Ford. The chart shows his greatest environmental accomplishment may be the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The bill helped reduce our Nation's solid waste output and has increased reuse and recycling. Now let's go to President Reagan's list on this chart. This is amazing to some of us who didn't think we necessarily were doing much. The list includes: the Endangered Species Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Water Act reintroduced; Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, amending RCRA; Safe Drink Water Act amended; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act; Nuclear Waste Policy Act; Water Resources Development Act, and the Lacy Act amended. They all built great environmental records that make all of us proud. I was Republican at the time, and we were proud of the environmental record these Presidents produced. Now I want to go back to President Bush, senior, for a moment. His list was fairly solid. His greatest environmental achievement may have been the Clean Air Act. Being on that committee at the time, I was involved in negotiating these changes. It wasn't easy. Sometimes we all have to give a little to get a lot. But there were results from his efforts. Now we come to the current President Bush. Remember, we are simply looking at Republican Presidents and their significant environmental records. We are not going to the Democratic Presidents. Let's look at his chart. There it is. There is nothing there. It is blank. There is not one legislative accomplishment of importance on the environmental issue. None. I bet you would like to know what they have been doing for the last 4 years on environmental policy. Or maybe you would not. I will tell you anyway. The Bush administration has been at war with the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration has proposed to gut the Clean Water Act. The Bush administration has bankrupted Superfund, ending the cleanup of toxic waste sites. The Bush administration has slashed funding for drinking water and wastewater. The Bush administration has slowed and almost shut down environmental enforcement. The next chart--need I continue? Here is President Bush's record. What are these on the chart? These are environmental rollbacks. If we can take a look at this chart, it says: Weakening the new source review section of the Clean Air Act; no Federal oversight on the cleanup of nearly 300,000 miles of rivers and 5 million acres of lakes; delays in requiring national pollutant discharge elimination system permits; opens more public land for toxic waste dumps; loosens regulations on mercury emissions; exempts Pentagon from the ESA and MMPA rules; exemptions from Montreal Protocol for the pesticide methylbromide; withdrew the TMLL rule set to take effect under the Clean Water Act; increased fuel efficiency standards by a mere 1.5 miles per gallon over 3 years; capped wilderness designation at 22.8 million acres nationwide, no more; Clear Skies plan curbs mercury emissions to only 2 to 14 tons reduction by 2010; does not pursue legal investigations of polluting facilities accused of violating Clean Air Act and water standards; also, they have underfunded Superfund. The administration has a growing credibility gap, maybe even a credibility chasm on air pollution policy and environmental policy in general. I believe the President has lost the trust of the American people when it comes to the environment. There are opportunities for him to rebuild this trust, but I doubt that any of the suggestions that have been given will be taken seriously. When this President came into office, I had the greatest hopes that we could all work together to solve the problems facing the American public. But to put it mildly, I have been greatly disappointed. The former Presidents I mentioned earlier built a legacy of environmental progress. This legacy is being dismantled. We can only hope that a future President will look back and work to rebuild our environmental protections to make sure this Nation can go on to a better and a healthier future. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Snowe-Dodd amendment to add $6 billion more in child care funding to the welfare bill that is before the Senate. There is no issue more important than child care assistance in the context of this reauthorization. I commend Senators Snowe and Dodd for their leadership on this issue. Child care assistance is critical for a number of reasons. First, there is a strong connection between access to child care and the ability of parents to join and stay in the workforce. Second, quality child care is critical to building the foundations for school readiness and later academic success. Third, states are facing tough economic times and they are cutting back on support for child care. Our children need additional help from the Federal Government. Child care is the No. 1 issue facing families today. Seventy-five percent of American children under the age of five spend at least part of their day in child care. In Vermont, over 80 percent of women with children under the age of six are in the workforce. Without access to child care, these families are often forced to leave their employment and seek public assistance. We must support additional child care funding in order to support low-income parents and help them remain in the workforce. Quality child care helps lay the groundwork for school readiness and success later in life. We know that the most crucial time for a child's brain development is from birth to 5 years old. Elementary and secondary education are extremely important. But without a positive, high-quality experience in the earliest stages of development, too many children are set up for failure in elementary, middle and high school. By adopting the Snowe-Dodd amendment, we will give more parents the power to choose high-quality child care for their children and give those children the opportunity to get the most out of their early years. If we are truly serious about closing the achievement gap among our students, and between the United States and our international competitors, then funding for high-quality early childhood care is the place to begin. The States are facing tough financial situations. The General Accounting Office found that since January 2001, twenty-three States have made changes that would decrease the availability of child care assistance; while only nine States made changes that could increase child care availability. I want to underscore this point. According to the GAO, nearly half of the States are decreasing the availability of child care for working families. And this report may just be the tip of the iceberg. Federal funding is critical to reverse this trend. My colleagues must understand the importance of this issue. By adopting this amendment, we can help families move off of welfare permanently. Or we can prevent them from needing welfare assistance in the first place. I see this amendment not as a choice, but as a necessity. I urge my colleagues to support the Snowe-Dodd amendment, to support our working families and to support our youngest children. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me. This is a very important amendment. Inscribed on a wall in a side room of the Capitol is a wonderful statement of Theodore Roosevelt reminding us that: The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value. The Bush administration is ignoring this sage advice and is turning back on the Superfund Program. This program has successfully removed PCBs, arsenic, lead, and other toxic waste from almost 900 communities. Yet this administration refuses to reauthorize the expired Superfund polluter-pays fees that were supported by President Reagan, the other President Bush, and President Clinton. As a result, the Superfund trust fund that once contained $3.6 billion is now essentially bankrupt. The taxpayers are forced to pay for the cleanup of abandoned toxic dumps, instead of the waste- generating chemical and petroleum industries. The impact of the resulting funding shortfall is illustrated by two sites in Vermont. The Elizabeth Mine site in Strafford has been denied funds for the second year in a row to clean up acid mine drainage that is leaching into the Connecticut River which flows down to several States. The delay has forced EPA to spend millions of dollars in emergency funds to stabilize this site, while still failing to pay for actual cleanup. Only a few miles away lies another abandoned Superfund site, the Ely Mine site. It was added to the National Priorities List in 2001, but the Bush administration has yet to fund the investigation to discover the full extent of the contamination, let alone begin cleanup. These examples illustrate how the Bush administration's refusal to support reauthorization of the polluter-pays fees chokes off funds for sites at all stages in the cleanup process. Not surprisingly, the pace of cleanups completed annually during the Bush administration has plummeted by more than 50 percent. I, therefore, support the effort to reinstate the Superfund fees because every community deserves clean soil and water without delay. I urge my colleagues to support the Lautenberg amendment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise before you today as a cosponsor of the Crapo amendment to increase the funds available for the clean water and the drinking water State revolving funds. I ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement for the Crapo amendment from the League of Conservation Voters, the League of Cities, various environmental organizations, labor, water and wastewater infrastructure groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. In the clean water arena, the budget before us today fails to recognize the staggering water resource needs of this Nation. A recent poll by Frank Luntz, a well-known Republican pollster, documents the widespread support among Americans for Federal investments in clean water protections. The poll showed that 91 percent of Americans are concerned that our waterways will not be clean for our children and grandchildren. It showed that 91 percent of Americans agree that if we are willing to invest billions of dollars annually in highways and airways, we should be willing to make the necessary investments in our Nation's waterways. It showed that 90 percent of Americans believe that a Federal investment to guarantee clean water is a critical component of our Nation's environmental well-being. The Water Infrastructure Network in 2000 estimated $380 billion dollars are needed for clean water and drinking water over 20 years. The EPA in 2002 estimated $270 billion are needed for clean water and $265 billion are needed for drinking water. The Congressional Budget Office estimated a range of $132 and $388 billion are needed for clean water and $70 and $362 billion are needed for drinking water. In light of these statistics, the administration responded with a 37- percent cut in the fiscal year 2005 budget. This is truly astonishing. In the last 5 years, an extremely broad consensus has emerged that more money is needed for water infrastructure. Time after time Americans express their outrage at the weakening of clean and safe water protections and express their willingness to pay to maintain water quality standards. However, time after time, these strong statements fall on deaf ears in this administration. The administration seems to recognize the need for water infrastructure in Iraq, but fails to recognize it here at home. The administration seeks close to $3.5 billion for water and sewer services repair in Iraq, at the same time that it seeks a $500 million cut, close to a 40 percent reduction for clean water infrastructure spending, at home. The administration seeks $775 million for water resources improvements in Iraq, and a 5 percent cut for the Army Corps of Engineers at home. It is the Army Corps of Engineers that is executing many of the public works improvements in Iraq using expertise built at home. The administration's cut was accompanied by a lengthy discussion of how that cut was actually an increase due to outyear assumptions about spending. My only reaction to these types of statements is that Americans can't get cleaner water with outyear assumptions. The District of Columbia can't get lead-free pipes today with budget gimmicks and future promises. The residents of Washington and our entire Nation need clean and safe water now. Some say that the reductions proposed by the administration are only part of the budget game--that the administration really hopes that Congress will reinstate previous funding levels. Perhaps this would be believable if these were isolated instances where this administration completely failed to support clean and safe water programs. But this is not an isolated instance. This reduction was proposed against the backdrop of systematic actions to weaken, rollback, and fail to enforce clean and safe water protections. The fiscal year 2005 budget is not the proposal of an administration that has made clean water a priority. It is the proposal of an administration that from day one until the present has systematically turned its back on the 90 percent of Americans who are concerned about water quality. I can only hope that those Americans are paying attention to today's debate. In 2004, I joined my colleagues, Senators Crapo and Sarbanes in offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution that is similar to the amendment we offer today. It was accepted without controversy by the full Senate, but later dropped in conference with the House. It is time that we all start listening to the Americans who tell us over and over again that clean water is important to them. It is time to send a strong statement to the House of Representatives and the President that we will not stand by while water quality needs are shortchanged. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Crapo amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I fully agree with the chairman. The Senator's amendment should have been included in the managers' amendment, and I will work with you and the chairman to resolve this matter as the process moves forward.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Nickles for their continued efforts on this issue. I, too, want to lend my commitment and support to fully paying for the SAFETEA bill before the Senate completes action on the legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senior Senator from Washington State is correct. It was our understanding that the bill envisions $120 million per year for that program.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have spoken many times about my serious concern for our Nation's deteriorating air quality. I would like to speak today on behalf of those Americans who are working tirelessly at the regional and local levels to protect our air quality, and who have expressed their concerns to me. Many Americans across the country feel that the Clean Air Act has not done enough to protect their health and their environment. They also worry that, under the leadership of our President, things will only get worse. They are taking action at the local and State levels, and State government is responding with real leadership. We need to support these actions with strong, Federal legislation to protect our current laws and improve our air quality. On a nationwide Clean Air Listening Tour I initiated in 2003, I heard first-hand from Americans who are tired of getting sick from breathing dirty air, and tired of putting their children's health at risk from eating mercury-contaminated fish. In Asheville, NC, and in Boston, MA, the public demands that the Federal Government work immediately to clean their air. Asheville is situated in close proximity to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most visited National Park in the Nation at nine million visitors every year. Sadly, this majestic park is also the Nation's most polluted, as reported by the National Parks Conservation Association. Its visibility is tied for the worst with Mammoth Cave National Park, at a mere 14-mile range during the summer months. Under natural conditions, the vista should average around 80-miles. The Smokies have the highest rate of acid precipitation among the parks, at thirty-five kilograms per hectare. This is six to seven times the nitrogen pollution that local soils can process. In fact, the highest peak in the Smokies can be as acidic as vinegar. The total number of hourly ozone exceedences in the Smoky Mountains far outnumbers other parks at over one hundred and thirty-three thousand per year. Ozone exposure in the Smokies is twice that of the region's most ozone-ridden cities--Knoxville, TN, and Atlanta, GA. These statistics mean that in the Smoky Mountains, dozens of tree and plant species are damaged, streams are dying, aquatic wildlife populations are declining, and area residents face increased mortality and chronic lung ailments. Plus, the fish that people consume are poisoned with toxic mercury, which can cause a number of birth defects and health problems in adults. What is causing all this dreaded pollution? While cars and industry contribute substantially to the problem, old, dirty power plants are my greatest concern. About 30,000 premature deaths occur every year due to power plant pollution alone. Incredibly, North Carolina loses 1,800 people each year because of this pollution. And, hundreds of thousands of children are born annually at risk of birth defects and neurological damage from their mothers' exposure to mercury. These are shocking figures, and we should be responding immediately to this crisis. Power plants are still the Nation's single largest source of air pollution in this country. They are responsible for most of our Nation's smog and haze pollution, and asthma- and lung disease- causing particulate matter, by emitting 60 percent or more of national sulfur dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of nitrogen oxides. In fact, the country's oldest and dirtiest plants are responsible for 75 to 85 percent of the haze in the southwestern Appalachians. Power plants also emit more than one-third of the Nation's poisonous mercury into the air. We should also know that power plants emit 25 percent of our country's emissions of carbon dioxid--the greatest greenhouse gas. Our Nation's utilities alone send forth 10 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. They are, in part, responsible for the global warming that is occurring today and will continue into the future. Global warming will seriously affect the 130 species of trees and the 4,000 other plant species in the Smokies, as well as worsen the already dangerously unhealthy ozone pollution problem. Many local residents are not only highly concerned, but they are frustrated with our Federal Government's absent leadership. State officials and others in Asheville and the Smoky Mountain region are tired of waiting on the Federal Government to protect their air and their climate. They are already acting to reduce this power plant pollution. The North Carolina legislature has made great strides with the passage of the Clean Smokestacks Act. Other States are quickly following suit. However, States are keenly aware that since much of the pollution they experience blows in from elsewhere, a national solution is crucial. In my listening session at the Grove Park Inn on May 19, 2003, I heard witnesses testify in compelling language how air pollution affects Smoky Mountain communities, and how citizens are banding together to protect public health. North Carolina State Senator Steven Metcalf, Buncombe County Commissioner and Chair of the Land of Sky Regional Council David Gantt, as well as John Stanton, Vice President of the National Environmental Trust, joined me in a press conference to launch the listening session. Hugh Morton, Owner of Grandfather Mountain, which is a scenic travel attraction near Linville, NC, began the public forum with a slide show illustrating the devastation that air pollution has on his business. Slide after slide showed trees made bare by acid rain, and vistas clogged with haze. There is no doubt in his mind that such pollution threatens the environmental health and economic productivity of the mountain. Don Barger, Senior Director of the Southeast Regional Office of the National Parks Conservation Association, Brownie Newman, Executive Coordinator of the Western North Carolina Alliance, Elizabeth Ouzts, State Director of the North Carolina Public Interest Research Group, and Michael Shore, Managing Director of the local Environmental Defense, added to the dialogue by describing how grassroots action has led to a high level of public awareness about air pollution and its effects, and how that action has resulted in State legislation to begin cleaning the air. Dr. Clay Ballantine, an Asheville physician and medical expert on power plant-related health damage, also provided excellent testimony. Given that air pollution decreases lung function, causes pneumonia and respiratory infection, increases lung cancer rates similar to those of second-hand smoke exposure, causes asthma and asthma attacks, and leads to premature death, Dr. Ballantine is concerned about the suffering he sees first-hand. I am grateful to all of these witnesses for participating in the listening session, and for sharing their expertise with me. Since Asheville ranks sixth in the Nation in per capita deaths caused by power plant pollution, and since North Carolina is facing millions of dollars in additional pollution-related health costs, local citizens there have every reason to be concerned, and every right to be outraged that this administration plans to do nothing to help them. The administration has worked to effectively neutralize and eviscerate nearly all major protections in the Clean Air Act. From dropping all enforcement cases against the worst violators of New Source Review, to the recent proposal to delist utilities for mandatory mercury control, this administration should make all of us angry. These actions are an insult to all Americans, and a slap in the face. From Asheville, NC to Boston, MA, Americans made clear to me their desperation and frustration at being told they have to wait a decade or more for this administration and this Congress to clean their air, while the hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and birth defects continue across the country. Residents of Boston, MA are especially worried about the potential dangers of mercury pollution from power plants, as the Boston economy, which is highly reliant on commercial and recreational fishing and tourism, may become affected by declining consumer confidence in the safety of local fish. Fortunately for some New England residents, states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut are already moving ahead with emission reduction plans. I sincerely appreciate the participation and support of my distinguished colleagues Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressmen Mike Capuano, Jim McGovern, and Bill Delahunt, and Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly in standing with me on September 22, 2003, at the New England Aquarium to bring attention to the serious mercury pollution problem facing New England. Also lending their support during the press conference were Ed Toomey, Aquarium President and CEO, and Armond Cohen, Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force in Boston. The Aquarium and Task Force have been leaders in mercury and air pollution-related research, education, and advocacy. At the public forum, Cindy Luppi, Organizing Director of Clean Water Action in Boston, and Jane Bright of HealthLink in Marblehead, Massachusetts spoke about the grassroots Northeast Clean Power Campaign, representing over 300 organizations from Maine to Connecticut that are all fighting to reduce power plant pollution in the region. Ms. Luppi also provided compelling findings from a Tufts University study: direct costs of environmentally-attributable neurobehavioral disorders, such as those caused by mercury pollution, in Massachusetts alone total between $40 million and $150 million each year, with indirect costs totaling an additional $100 million to $400 million. Also, Ms. Luppi presented the findings of a 2002 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection study which determined, ``The Department believes that the removal of 85 to 90-plus percent of mercury in flue gas has been demonstrated to be technologically and economically feasible.'' In other words, there is no excuse to delay mandating tough national mercury reductions under the Clean Air Act. Massachusetts and Connecticut are moving now to require an 85 to 95 percent reduction in mercury emissions in the next 5 to 9 years. Like in Asheville, the witnesses stressed that such State-level progress is encouraging, but that real relief from air pollution can only come from reductions made across the country. During the listening session, Dr. Jill Stein, a physician and President of the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities, and Dr. Bill Bress, State Toxicologist for the Vermont Department of Health, detailed the serious and often life-threatening health effects of mercury exposure through consumption of contaminated fish. Nearly 10 percent of American women have high mercury blood levels above EPA's safe health threshold. Pregnant women who consume even small amounts of fish can inadvertently put their developing babies at risk of mental retardation, seizures, cerebral palsy, vision and hearing problems, abnormal gait and speech, and learning disabilities. EPA has estimated that 630,000 children are born at risk each year due to mercury exposure in the womb. This is twice EPA's previous estimate. An astonishing 50 percent of Americans who eat fish regularly exceed the mercury health limit, and 10 percent exceed the limit by a factor of four. Adults are also susceptible to developing heart, kidney, and immune system disorders due to mercury consumption. Anglers and certain ethnic groups who eat large amounts of fish face two to five times these health risks. Clearly, dramatically curbing mercury pollution will improve all of our lives. Dr. Steve Petron, Board Member of the National Wildlife Federation and Senior Ecosystems Scientist for CH2M Hill, demonstrated how toxic mercury pollution from power plants harms our Nation's aquatic wildlife. Those species that depend on fish for food are the most at risk. Because of this, loons, bald eagles, otters, amphibians, and other animals are already facing or could soon face decline. And lastly, Dr. Praveen Amar, Director of Science and Policy for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM, represented State air quality regulators by stressing that mercury control technologies are available and affordable, and by expressing the need for smart Federal environmental laws to drive technology innovation and application. As a recent NESCAUM report found, ``Where strong regulatory drivers exist, substantial technological improvements and steady reductions in control costs follow.'' That's where Congress comes in. We are elected to serve the people of this Nation. Where people are becoming sick and are dying because of air pollution, something must be done. We must never knowingly allow such suffering to continue if we have the ability to act, and we do. Time and time again, mothers and fathers, doctors, scientists, and community members ask for our help. At the bare minimum, we should be protecting current law. But to truly benefit the public good, we must pass tough legislation to force dirty power plants and other polluters to start behaving like good citizens. The air is not their toxic waste dump. It is not theirs to pollute for free, even though this administration is encouraging them to think that way. If it belongs to anyone, the air belongs to those children who play outdoors, or those families who go fishing and take trips to our scenic national parks, or to the poorest of us who are unlucky enough to live next to a smokestack. The air belongs to all of us. We should treat it like the most precious resource we know. Americans from around the country have learned this important lesson. Congress and this administration must now do the same.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, this bill contains a very carefully crafted formula. This committee worked for close to a year to develop the formula contained in S. 1072. Balance, that is what this bill is about. The donor States such as Texas have gained 95 percent. That has been their goal for 6 years. Some would say for longer. Now they have achieved their goal and they are still complaining. This formula is fair. The formula the Senator from Texas put forward would undermine the highway program in many States and therefore I oppose the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, 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, Vermont, 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. An amendment to 4(f) is included 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 amendment 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 backed by enforceable agreements and post-construction monitoring of the effectiveness of these impact mitigation measures, with identified contingency measures to backstop the primary mitigation measures. In other words, the mitigation measures must be carried 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. In addition to the 4(f) provisions, this contains some modest, common-sense provisions to assure the 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 injured and more than 1 million animals are killed on our roadways everyday. 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. 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 ensuring 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.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the vote we are about to take is not just a cloture vote on a transportation bill. The vote to move forward on this legislation is about safety, it is about worker productivity, it is about family, it is about fairness, and it is about fulfilling our responsibility to the American public. But most importantly, it is about jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs. These jobs are not in China or Singapore or Chile. These jobs are in Portland, Springfield, Los Angeles, Kansas City, and Burlington. This legislation is balanced, it is fair, and it is paid for. We owe it to our constituents to finish this bill today. Tomorrow let's send it to the House and then to the President. I urge my colleagues to support moving forward and completing this vital legislation. Vote for cloture, vote for jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield back our time, through the Chair. Cloture Motion

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Grassley and Baucus for the contributions they have made to this very important measure. They worked diligently to come up with the funding to pay for the programs contained in this legislation. The Finance Committee has provided the revenue to meet the needs of the three committees that contributed to this bill. In doing so they protected revenue that deserves to be in the highway trust fund and found appropriate ways to offset these costs. Through their hard work we can report that this bill is paid for. Technically, a budget point of order can be lodged against this bill because a small amount of general revenue is needed. But I want all my colleagues to remember that we have gone beyond the budget for the war, for defense spending, and for tax cuts. Has the spending contained in these type of measures resulted in the creation of U.S.-based jobs? That is debatable. But this bill is a jobs bill. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this bill will create many, many jobs. Should we bring this bill down over a small technicality? No. We should pass this bill today. I yield the floor with full confidence that we will do so. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the amendment. The previous speaker has outlined articulately the huge loss in productivity this Nation suffers because of the present situation with respect to our highways, and that if we don't do something about it, we, obviously, are not going to get the productivity we need. With international competition from all over the world now, lost productivity becomes even more important as we go forward. Many in this body have argued that the level of funding in our bill is too low. In fact, if we look at the transportation needs of the Nation, they may be right. What we have done in this legislation is to follow the will of the Senate. Last year, during debate on the budget, this body overwhelmingly voted in favor of the budget levels contained in this bill. In addition, our levels are almost $60 billion less than the House proposal--again, $60 billion below the House. In fact, our bill falls right between what the President wants and what the House wants. We are in the right place. I could be wrong--maybe I am--that we should accept that low a level, but we will never get this bill to the President's level. And without a bill, we risk missing out on the creation of many jobs. The American people need these jobs. The biggest problem we have right now is the lack of effort to pull forward and increase productivity and to increase the number of available jobs. This bill will do it. It will create thousands of new jobs, and it will create them within proper areas of expenditure. This is a good bill. I would like to see it a little bigger. Maybe we will get it a little bigger. The House is certainly going to give us that opportunity. Right now what we should do is pass this bill and get it on to the President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like my fellow Senators to learn of some of the tremendous advances we have been able to make under this bill in the past relative to the changing needs of our Nation. I am going to spend just a few minutes on the North Street Revitalization Project. This effort is an innovative transportation project in Vermont that demonstrates the value of the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program, also know as the TCSP. When the TCSP was authorized in TEA-21, the city of Burlington quickly realized that this innovative program could be used to revitalize a blighted neighborhood called the Old North End. North Street is located in the heart of Burlington's Old North End. The North Street revitalization project was born of a need to reinvigorate one of Burlington's oldest and most densely populated neighborhoods, a neighborhood where nearly a third of the inhabitants fall below Federal poverty levels, where over 85 percent of elementary school children receive free and reduced price lunches. It has been a wonderful example of a community using transportation funds to fight sprawl by investing in an older urban neighborhood. I do not exaggerate when I say that efforts to revitalize the Old North End have been underway for over 20 years. The early TCSP Program grant for North Street has been the single most important factor in the success that the project is finally achieving. I am pleased to report that the project is out to bid and construction will commence this spring. In addition, business activity in the neighborhood is way up and housing investment is increasing. The optimism is infectious and the infrastructure work has barely just begun. As you can tell, I am very excited by this project. But I have chosen to highlight the project for another reason. The North Street revitalization project is an excellent example of the benefits of the TCSP. The TCSP allows projects such as this one to develop all over this country. It encourages communities to consider the ways in which transportation investment can improve mobility, economic vitality, and quality of life. I am pleased to say that we have continued this program in our reauthorization package and increased the funding associated with it. This is only one of the many excellent programs that this bill authorizes. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would concur with the comments of my colleagues and join Senator Warner by reiterating the need to preserve our history. In my state of Vermont, we have a wealth of history and natural beauty. To see the wildlife that populates 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 Venegence on Route 7 in Pittsford, Vermont, was avoided as a result of 4(f). An excellent collection of historic metal truss bridges across the Connecticut River was 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). Section 4(f) protections have served us well and will continue to safeguard our precious resources in the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first I want to commend my good friend from Oklahoma for all of the effort he put into this bill. I know, having been in the position of being the chairman at one time, the incredible effort that goes into the production of a bill of this size. I know what his staff did, and I will give my commendation to the staff as well. I emphasize also the importance to the Nation. This is a jobs bill. In fact, there is no other jobs bill that will do so much for different workers of this Nation. Everyone benefits. Those who are in the manufacturing area of all the tools and equipment that are necessary to provide the work all benefit by the tremendous effort that goes into improving roads throughout this Nation. Also, there is a tremendous effort put into it which requires machinery. Therefore, the companies that make the machinery benefit with increased production, increased utilization of workers, right on down through to the people who do the minimal things which are also so very important. As far as the staffs goes, I would like to thank the staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on both sides of the aisle, for their efforts. From my staff, I thank Ken Connolly, Ed Barron, Jeff Squires, Erik Steavens, Liz Ryan, Alison Taylor, and Carolyn Dupree; Catharine Ransom, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and J.C. Sandberg with Senator Reid's staff. Chairman Inhofe's staff, I would like to acknowledge and recognize Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Marty Hall and James O'Keefe; from Senator Bond's staff, Ellen Stein and Trevor Blackann. These staffers have made tremendous sacrifices, working long hours and many days, to bring about the fruition of this bill. We are all proud of it, and the country is going to be proud of it. The more they see of it, the more they will like it, and the more people will benefit from having better jobs.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me reiterate how important this bill is to our country's infrastructure and our country's economy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his statement. I want to reassure all of our Members that we will be working together and have been working together, and we will find a solution to many of those amendments. We won't unless they are filed. The sooner they are filed, the sooner we may even have a chance to get home for the weekend. That might be incentive for some. I yield the floor.

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