Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to address some statements made last week, during the debate on the Bingaman amendment No. 791, regarding community acceptance of renewable energy in Vermont. After I left the floor, one Senator tried to make a point in opposition to the creation of a national renewable portfolio standard by referencing some opposition to a wind power project in Vermont. I want to set the record straight: though we have had some siting issues, Vermonters overwhelmingly support renewable energy over nuclear, coal, or natural gas. The Senate should not confuse local concerns about the appropriate location for wind power siting in Vermont as a monolithic objection to any new renewable energy in my State. In fact, the views are contrary to such a conjuncture, even in the case of wind power. Numerous polls throughout the last decade have consistently shown that Vermonters support wind energy. In fact, a survey in March 2004 found 74 percent of respondents said they would consider wind turbines along a Vermont mountain ridge either beautiful or acceptable. The same survey found 83 percent of Vermonters choose renewable energy from wind, solar, hydro and wood as preferable to other energy sources. Lawrence Mott, Chair of Renewable Energy Vermont, which commissioned the energy poll said, ``It's clear, Vermonters want more renewable energy, including wind turbines, and that they find installation on ridgelines very acceptable.'' Vermont's history with wind power goes back to the turn of the century when farmers used windmills to pump drinking water from their wells. One of the first great experiments in converting wind to energy was conducted atop a peak in Vermont called Grandpa's Knob in Castleton, Vermont. It was, at the time, the world's largest wind turbine and produced 1.25 MW with the first synchronous electric generator. I recall visiting this wind turbine with my grandfather, an architect, and we marveled at its beauty and ingenuity. It was the first time energy from a wind turbine was interconnected to the utility grid. Vermont's interest in wind power has continued to grow since then. Just look at Green Mountain Power's wind farm in Searsburg, Vermont. Eleven wind turbines generate enough electricity to power more than 2,000 homes, reducing toxic air emissions by 22 million pounds compared to the impacts if that amount of electricity had been produced through combustion of fossil fuels. Vermont has a tremendous capacity for wind power, as several of my colleagues have demonstrated with wind maps produced from the U.S. Department of Energy. Industry representatives in Vermont envision a handful of wind farms scattered about Vermont producing enough electricity to power about 50,000 homes, which would account for about 10 percent of the State's electricity needs. Last week, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas signed a new renewable energy bill into law. He did so at the manufacturing plant of Northern Power Systems, a world leader in off-grid power systems. Northern Power is about to ship seven 100-kilowatt wind turbines to three communities in remote western Alaska, and the Governor used a 31-foot-long blade from one of these turbines as his writing table. Clearly, Vermont's Governor and Vermont's legislators see the value of renewable energy. A large majority of Vermonters support wind energy and renewable energy. And I am very optimistic about the role wind energy can play in satisfying a growing proportion of this Nation's energy needs. Last week the Senate defeated an important amendment that would have helped set this nation on a course to significantly reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It is unfortunate that a majority of my colleagues did not see fit to put the U.S. on the right course--to break our addiction to foreign oil. H.R. 6 requires a 1 million barrel a day oil saving goal. Unfortunately, this goal would actually result in more oil being imported, not less. In fact, the U.S. will still be importing 14.4 million barrels a day under the underlying bill's goal. Slowing down the increased rate of consumption alone is not enough. We should be setting an ambitious goal that actually reduces imported oil, not a goal that will result in more oil being imported. Instead, the Senate refused to set a national goal to reduce the Nation's addiction to foreign oil. The Cantwell amendment would have established that goal--to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent by 2025. By turning our backs on this goal, we are sending the wrong message. Reducing our addiction to foreign oil is essential to the economic security of our Nation. We cannot continue to rely on unstable foreign countries for the energy that runs the economic machine of this Nation. Fluctuating energy prices and instability in the Middle East once again are prompting calls for energy independence for the U.S. Federal efforts to ensure freedom from fluctuations in energy prices have been advocated by every President, both Republican and Democrat, since 1973 and the infamous oil boycott. As Americans we count on energy to protect our security, to fuel our cars, to provide heat, air conditioning and light for our homes, to manufacture goods, and to transport supplies. In all of these needs, we, as consumers, pay the price for fluctuations in the global energy market. Reducing our reliance on foreign oil is essential and the most basic step we need to take to address this crisis. The Cantwell amendment would have resulted in about 7.6 million barrels per day less oil being imported in 2025. Those savings are equivalent to the amount of oil the U.S. currently imports from Saudi Arabia. We can and should stop the oil cartels from controlling the future of this Nation. In addition, I believe setting an oil saving goal could have beneficial effects on our air quality. Since a vast majority of current oil consumption is from the transportation sector, I believe setting an oil saving goal would encourage auto manufacturers to voluntarily improve efficiency of cars and trucks. As our population continues to grow and more people are driving more miles, it is essential to our air quality to continue to improve fuel efficiency of the vehicles we drive. As it stands now, this bill does not require auto manufacturers or others in the transportation sector--the plane, train and truck sector--to meet corporate average fuel economy standards. I believe increased fuel economy standards can and should also be included in this bill. But short of adding new standards, setting this goal would have been a significant step in that direction. By failing to set an oil saving goal, I think we have failed to state one of the most basic goals of this bill--a real reduction the amount of foreign imported oil. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent to deliver my remarks from my seat.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I speak on Senator Bingaman's amendment to set a national goal to obtain 10 percent of our Nation's electricity from renewable resources. I support this idea. In fact, I have filed an amendment to go one step further--requiring 20 percent renewables by the year 2020. America needs a national commitment to encourage clean domestic sources of renewable energy. I have been in the Congress for 30 years. I have seen the Nation make tremendous advances in areas ranging from medicine to the Internet. I have even witnessed the Red Sox win the World Series. Yet the Nation literally remains dependent on many of the same powerplants that operated when I first was elected to Congress in 1974. When I think of the next 30 years, I envision an America where clean domestic renewable energy sources are an integral part of our Nation's electricity generation. As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, obtaining 10 percent of our country's electricity from a renewable energy represents the modest end of what we could achieve. Let me offer three reasons I believe the Nation's commitment to encourage renewable power is needed. First, renewable power would help consumers by reducing electricity prices. According to data provided by the Bush administration's Energy Department, a renewables requirement would lower consumer energy costs by the year 2020. The second reason is the benefit to public health and the environment. A renewables requirement would dramatically reduce carbon emissions from powerplants. It would significantly also reduce emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contaminate our water, cause smog and acid rain, and contribute to respiratory illnesses. Third, a renewable electricity standard would enhance our energy independence and our national security by diversifying our energy supply. As we increase our reliance on natural gas, much of the demand may have to be met by liquefied natural gas shipped to the United States from other countries. It is unthinkable that we should sink to a greater reliance on foreign fuel imports when we have abundant, inexhaustible renewable energy here. Currently, renewable energy accounts for a little over 2 percent of U.S. electricity generation. But the United States has the technical capacity to generate 4.5 times its current electricity needs from renewable energy resources. The potential is there, but we have to give it the assistance of market incentives, as we have traditionally done for our more established fuel sources. I urge my colleagues to again demonstrate our strong commitment to renewables and support the Bingaman amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Great Ape Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2005. Over the past decade I have sponsored legislation to establish and reauthorize programs designated for the conservation of several multinational species including African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinoceros and tigers, and marine turtles. Throughout my years in Congress, endangered species conservation has been among my highest priorities, but the recent birth of my first grandson lends new strength to my commitment to preserve the natural world for future generations. The great apes--chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons--constitute a group of 14 primate species that share a high percentage of genetic characteristics with human beings. Among them, certain species have demonstrated the ability to learn human behaviors. Left unharmed, they may live for 30 to 50 years and form complex social relationships. As Dr. Jane Goodall said in a BBC News article in 2002, ``All [great ape species] have minds that can solve simple problems and all have feelings. So it's a moral responsibility to save them from extinction.'' The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that fewer than 100,000 Western lowland gorillas currently remain worldwide. Only 30,000 orangutans remain in Southeast Asia. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whereas more than one million chimpanzees populated the dense forests of Africa in 1960, fewer than 200,000 survive in the wild today. In regions of Western and Central Africa and Southeast Asia, where populations of these captivating creatures still remain, the continued existence of great ape species will depend upon finding solutions to various complicated threats including habitat destruction, disease, and poaching. One problem of elevated concern for scientists is the alarming number of new outbreaks of the ebola virus in Africa. As we have become increasingly aware of the substantial risk to human life that ebola and similar viruses pose in parts of Central and Western Africa, few understand the serious impact that these diseases have on great ape populations. A study published in the journal Nature in 2003 reports that when an ebola outbreak affects a given area, more than 80 percent of all great apes living in that area will die of the disease. In August 2004, the International Primatological Society released preliminary evidence that suggests that as many as 20,000 Western lowland gorillas may be at risk as the result of a new outbreak of the ebola virus in the Republic of Congo. Developing vaccines and techniques to prevent the decimation of great ape populations as a result of ebola will require a coordinated effort among conservationists, wildlife biologists, and those responding to human outbreaks. Supported in part by the Great Ape Conservation Fund, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently convened a meeting of experts to begin the process of developing a research and intervention plan. This meeting typifies this kind of collaborative conservation effort that the Great Ape Conservation program was designed to undertake. The Great Ape Conservation Fund has also played an invaluable role in protecting habitat. One of the first such projects to receive support from the Fund, the Goualougo Triangle Chimp Project in the Republic of Congo, is a success story that stands out among what can often be disheartening news from the frontlines of chimpanzee conservation. In 1993, scientists first discovered a small population of chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle that had never been hunted and were therefore not afraid of humans. The presence of such chimps is extraordinary given that their habitat coincides with a region that is rife with logging and bushmeat hunting. With help from the Great Ape program, scientists from the Wildlife Conservation Society produced scientific evidence to document 272 individual chimps and acquired rare video footage of their social interactions. As a result of this study, conservationists convinced the government of Congo to protect the Goualougo chimps and their habitat from the eminent threat of logging and hunting and to cede the Goualougo Triangle to a national park. Over the course of merely 5 years, the Great Ape Conservation Fund has provided financial assistance for 94 research and restoration projects in 22 countries and leveraged millions of dollars in additional matching and in-kind funds. My legislation reauthorizes the Great Ape Conservation Fund, which receives its annual appropriation through the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, for 5 years and gradually raises the funding authorization from $5 million for each year to $7 million for fiscal year 2008 and $10 million for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The bill raises the top threshold cap on administrative expenses from $80,000 to $150,000, though I should note that over the past five years, Federal appropriations have yet to bring the cap on administrative expenses to the top threshold amount. Additional provisions of the bill will expand the variety of conservation projects eligible for assistance to include those that address the root causes of threats to great apes in range states, including the illegal bushmeat trade, diseases, lack of regional or local capacity for conservation and habitat loss due to natural disasters. The bill also amends an existing requirement in the law that requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually convene a panel of experts. My bill exempts expert panels under this law from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and provide the administrator with greater flexibility to determine when it is appropriate to convene an expert panel. I remain hopeful that despite the overwhelming challenges that jeopardize the continued survival of great apes, we can do our part to sustain efforts to halt their unnecessary extinction. Federal assistance for the conservation of rare, threatened and endangered international species through the use of species conservation funds has received bipartisan support from Congress for nearly 15 years. I ask you to please join me in maintaining this longstanding commitment to wildlife protection. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I regret that I am unable to be present for the vote on the Domenici renewable fuels amendment, No. 779. I support this amendment, and I am pleased that a majority of my colleagues do as well. The Domenici amendment makes a significant step toward reducing our Nation's reliance on foreign oil. For 30 years I have been a supporter of renewable energy and alternative fuels, and I support this amendment which will require 8 billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline by 2012. The Energy Committee's reported Energy bill sought to promote the use of biomass ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen and biogas. I appreciate that effort. But, as we move forward with increased production of these renewable fuels, we must do so in a manner that is environmentally sound. We cannot separate energy policy from environmental policy. The Senate Energy Committee reported bill encompasses many provisions in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, the only provision in this bill that was actually considered by the Environment Committee is the renewable fuels program. The reason is that boosting the use of ethanol in gasoline has significant Clean Air Act implications, and we must ensure that conforming changes to the Clean Air Act are made to ensure no worsening of air quality. As included in the reported version of the Energy bill, giving the Department of Energy authority for a new billion gallon renewable fuels program does not accomplish our dual objectives of increasing the use of renewable fuels while maintaining our Nation's air quality. Prior to the Energy Committee consideration of this renewable fuels provision, Senator Inhofe wrote Senator Domenici regarding the need for changes in the Clean Air Act for an ethanol mandate to be effective. The Environment and Public Works Committee has repeatedly approved legislation to make such changes in the Clean Air Act to make the ethanol mandate work and for the environment, air quality and public health to be protected. The Domenici amendment is basically the same as the measure, S. 606, approved earlier this year by the Environment and Public Works Committee but with a higher ethanol mandate and updated to prevent backsliding on toxic emissions. The amendment phases out the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, within 4 years. This phase-out will be accomplished more safely because refiners will be required to maintain no worse toxic emissions than occurred in 2001-2002. Those were much better performing years than the 1999-2000 baseline in S. 606. The amendment also provides EPA with authority to regulate fuels and fuel additives for the protection, not just of air, but of water resources too. This is an important provision that will allow EPA to take action should another fuel additive prove a threat to drinking water. In addition, the amendment eliminates the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline--RFG--that was put into the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. EPA is required to issue regulations to ensure that all nonattainment areas use RFG that contributes less to smog. The Agency must also regularly require fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to conduct health and environmental studies and make them public and to update its complex model for vehicle emissions from the outdated 1990 baseline vehicle. Further, governors in the ozone transport region may opt-in to the RFG program for their entire State, not just a nonattainment area. The amendment also sets up an automatic check-back to see what impacts the fuel system changes, the ethanol mandate and the MTBE phase-out will have on health, air quality, gasoline prices and supply, and other factors. Oil companies began adding MTBE to gasoline as early as 1979 and by 1991, 1 year before the Clean Air Act oxygenate requirement went into effect, oil companies were using more than 100,000 barrels of MTBE per day. These facts belie the oil companies' argument that Congress made them use MTBE and therefore Congress should stop the lawsuits. It is a well- established fact that oil companies were using MTBE years before the Clean Air Act oxygenate requirement went into effect. The Clean Air Act does not mandate the use of MTBE, and the fact that there was any oxygenate requirement in the Clean Air Act at all was due in part to oil industry lobbying. Earlier today there was also a rollcall vote on the Schumer amendment, No. 782. Had I been present, I would have voted in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, was proposing to strike the whole second subtitle, Subtitle B, from the Domenici amendment. While the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, argues that his strike merely eliminates the ``mandate'' of requiring ethanol in gasoline, it does much more. First, the fact that it eliminates a national commitment to use ethanol in gasoline at significant volumes should not be overlooked. Second, the Domenici provision would promote diversification in ethanol production by promoting the development of cellulosic biomass ethanol. This is an important new technology, designed to produce ethanol from wood waste, plant materials, and animal waste, in addition to corn and soybeans. It will allow more States the opportunity to produce ethanol with locally appropriate and available materials. In addition, to address the concerns of the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, there is detailed language in the part of the Domenici amendment he seeks to strike that would allow States to seek waivers from the use of ethanol in the event that there is disproportionate economic hardship. I think that this is the appropriate way to proceed. High gasoline prices and dependence upon foreign sources of oil are already causing economic hardship, and now is the time to try to get more domestically produced ethanol blended with our gasoline so that we can reduce that dependence. Though I support removing the liability shield for renewable fuels in Subtitle B of the Domenici amendment, I think that the Schumer amendment is too drastic a tool to deal with the price concerns of his State and moves us away from a serious national commitment to renewable fuels. For those reasons, I would have opposed Senate Amendment 782 had I been present. I support efforts to increase the use of renewable fuels. I believe it can and should be done in a way that is protective of this country's air, land and water. That means not allowing gasoline to become dirtier. And that means maintaining EPA's role in regulating fuels to improve air quality while protecting current and future drinking water sources and not transferring these authorities to the Energy Department. The Domenici amendment accomplishes those objectives and I am pleased it has been added to the bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Great Ape Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2005. Over the past decade I have sponsored legislation to establish and reauthorize programs designated for the conservation of several multinational species including African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinoceros and tigers, and marine turtles. Throughout my years in Congress, endangered species conservation has been among my highest priorities, but the recent birth of my first grandson lends new strength to my commitment to preserve the natural world for future generations. The great apes--chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons--constitute a group of 14 primate species that share a high percentage of genetic characteristics with human beings. Among them, certain species have demonstrated the ability to learn human behaviors. Left unharmed, they may live for 30 to 50 years and form complex social relationships. As Dr. Jane Goodall said in a BBC News article in 2002, ``All [great ape species] have minds that can solve simple problems and all have feelings. So it's a moral responsibility to save them from extinction.'' The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that fewer than 100,000 Western lowland gorillas currently remain worldwide. Only 30,000 orangutans remain in Southeast Asia. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whereas more than one million chimpanzees populated the dense forests of Africa in 1960, fewer than 200,000 survive in the wild today. In regions of Western and Central Africa and Southeast Asia, where populations of these captivating creatures still remain, the continued existence of great ape species will depend upon finding solutions to various complicated threats including habitat destruction, disease, and poaching. One problem of elevated concern for scientists is the alarming number of new outbreaks of the ebola virus in Africa. As we have become increasingly aware of the substantial risk to human life that ebola and similar viruses pose in parts of Central and Western Africa, few understand the serious impact that these diseases have on great ape populations. A study published in the journal Nature in 2003 reports that when an ebola outbreak affects a given area, more than 80 percent of all great apes living in that area will die of the disease. In August 2004, the International Primatological Society released preliminary evidence that suggests that as many as 20,000 Western lowland gorillas may be at risk as the result of a new outbreak of the ebola virus in the Republic of Congo. Developing vaccines and techniques to prevent the decimation of great ape populations as a result of ebola will require a coordinated effort among conservationists, wildlife biologists, and those responding to human outbreaks. Supported in part by the Great Ape Conservation Fund, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently convened a meeting of experts to begin the process of developing a research and intervention plan. This meeting typifies this kind of collaborative conservation effort that the Great Ape Conservation program was designed to undertake. The Great Ape Conservation Fund has also played an invaluable role in protecting habitat. One of the first such projects to receive support from the Fund, the Goualougo Triangle Chimp Project in the Republic of Congo, is a success story that stands out among what can often be disheartening news from the frontlines of chimpanzee conservation. In 1993, scientists first discovered a small population of chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle that had never been hunted and were therefore not afraid of humans. The presence of such chimps is extraordinary given that their habitat coincides with a region that is rife with logging and bushmeat hunting. With help from the Great Ape program, scientists from the Wildlife Conservation Society produced scientific evidence to document 272 individual chimps and acquired rare video footage of their social interactions. As a result of this study, conservationists convinced the government of Congo to protect the Goualougo chimps and their habitat from the eminent threat of logging and hunting and to cede the Goualougo Triangle to a national park. Over the course of merely 5 years, the Great Ape Conservation Fund has provided financial assistance for 94 research and restoration projects in 22 countries and leveraged millions of dollars in additional matching and in-kind funds. My legislation reauthorizes the Great Ape Conservation Fund, which receives its annual appropriation through the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, for 5 years and gradually raises the funding authorization from $5 million for each year to $7 million for fiscal year 2008 and $10 million for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The bill raises the top threshold cap on administrative expenses from $80,000 to $150,000, though I should note that over the past five years, Federal appropriations have yet to bring the cap on administrative expenses to the top threshold amount. Additional provisions of the bill will expand the variety of conservation projects eligible for assistance to include those that address the root causes of threats to great apes in range states, including the illegal bushmeat trade, diseases, lack of regional or local capacity for conservation and habitat loss due to natural disasters. The bill also amends an existing requirement in the law that requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually convene a panel of experts. My bill exempts expert panels under this law from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and provide the administrator with greater flexibility to determine when it is appropriate to convene an expert panel. I remain hopeful that despite the overwhelming challenges that jeopardize the continued survival of great apes, we can do our part to sustain efforts to halt their unnecessary extinction. Federal assistance for the conservation of rare, threatened and endangered international species through the use of species conservation funds has received bipartisan support from Congress for nearly 15 years. I ask you to please join me in maintaining this longstanding commitment to wildlife protection. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for Senate passage of S. Res. 39, a resolution of apology for the Senate's failure to pass anti-lynching legislation. Some may wonder about the need to pass this resolution concerning events that occurred decades ago. I believe it is important that light be shown upon, and a discussion occur, about these horrific events. As the famous saying goes, ``Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.'' There were almost 5,000 documented cases of mob lynching in the United States since the Civil War. It is important to note that many historians believe this number should be doubled to include the undocumented cases that occurred. Lynchings occurred almost everywhere in the United States, and were in many cases examples of so-called mob justice which thwarted the decisions of or shortcut the American judicial system. Despite the national scope of these events, the Senate refused to pass anti- lynching legislation that would provide greater protection to innocent victims and bring the guilty to justice. While we cannot reverse the decisions made by previous Senates, we can at the very least, offer our apologies and highlight this shameful period in American history. Only by exposing these terrible events, discussing how they occurred, and learning from them can we hope to avoid repeating them in the future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to express my opposition to the nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr., to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Pryor has a distinguished legal career. He graduated magna cum laude from Tulane University Law School, clerked for a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, was a law professor at Samford University, and served as attorney general for the State of Alabama. While he deserves recognition for his legal background, that alone is not enough in my estimation to be confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. In my review of Mr. Pryor's statements, actions, and writings, I am concerned that Mr. Pryor's personal opinion, rather than the law, will compel his decisions in some cases. My areas of concern arise in areas of the law that I have spent my career working to address, including the environment, reproductive rights, and gay rights. On the environment, for example, Mr. Pryor urged the U.S. Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional Federal efforts to protect wildlife on private lands under the Endangered Species Act. In regard to this case, the lower court stated that Mr. Pryor's constitutional arguments would ``place in peril the entire federal regulatory scheme for wildlife and natural resource conservation.'' The case is Gibbs v. Babbitt. In another important case, Solid Waste Authority of Northern Cook County v. United States, Mr. Pryor urged the Supreme Court to strike down Federal efforts to protect waters and wetlands that provide habitat for migratory birds. Finally, Mr. Pryor has advocated in testimony before the Senate that States should not be held accountable in court for failing to enforce minimum Federal standards from the joint hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 16, 2002. On reproductive rights Mr. Pryor in 1997 called the Roe v. Wade decision, ``the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children.'' In a speech during that same year, Mr. Pryor criticized the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by stating that this decision ``preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history: Roe v. Wade.'' Finally, during Mr. Pryor's career he has actively worked to oppose gay rights. In fact, he has gone so far as to seek out cases to file briefs, or spoken out on the merits of such cases, that have no connection to the job he was currently performing. For example, even though Alabama had no similar statute, Mr. Pryor filed an amicus brief in the Romer v. Evans case supporting Colorado's law prohibiting local governments from enacting laws protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination. In addition, despite the fact that the Lawrence v. Texas case did not involve Alabama law, Mr. Pryor's interest was so keen that he petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to participate in the oral argument and filed a brief on the merits of the case. Some have argued that Mr. Pryor should not be held to all these briefs and statements because he was just doing his job and protecting the rights and positions of his client or employer. However, the problem with this argument is that many of the positions he has taken have not related to the requirements of the job he was performing, but were positions he singularly advocated because he believed in them and sought out cases to express and uphold his beliefs. It is this fact that concerns me and leads me to believe that Mr. Pryor will use his personal beliefs rather than settled law to decide cases. His actions as a recess appointment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals have not diminished my concern, especially when Mr. Pryor was the deciding vote that prohibited the full Eleventh Circuit to consider the unique Florida law banning gay adoption. Given these facts and Mr. Pryor's history, I opposed limiting debate on his nomination in 2003, and continue to do so today. Unfortunately, I will be necessarily absent for the votes that will occur related to this nominee. However, I feel it is necessary to express my position on this important nomination.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to express my opposition to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is considered the second highest court in the Nation. This court of appeals, compared to other circuit courts of appeals, has sole jurisdiction over many laws and Federal agency regulations and decisions. Given the limited number of cases the U.S. Supreme Court considers every year, this means the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has the last word on important laws and their interpretation. Justice Janice Rogers Brown has a compelling life story, but a compelling life story is not enough to be confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. While she deserves recognition for her upbringing and work in the community, I am concerned that Justice Brown's personal opinion, rather than the law, compels her decisions in some cases. Some other areas of concern I have with Justice Brown's nomination include: Justice Brown has advocated for a return to the time when the Supreme Court struck down many important economic regulations and workplace laws on constitutional grounds. The case is Santa Monica Beach v. Sup. Ct. of LA County, 1999, dissenting. Justice Brown has argued that those seeking to enforce the statutory prohibition against disability discrimination are ``individuals whose only concern is their own narrow interest.'' The case is Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 2001, dissenting. Justice Brown has ignored or misconstrued Supreme Court precedent and legislative language to reach her decisions. The cases are San Remo Hotel v. City-County of San Francisco, 2002, dissenting; Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 2001, dissenting; Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 2004, dissenting. Justice Brown has stated in a lone dissent concerning the State statute requiring prescription contraceptive coverage that if the corporation's female employees do not like being discriminated against, they are free to find, ``more congenial employment.'' The case is Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 2004, dissenting. Taken individually, these stances might not be cause for some to oppose this nomination. However, looking at the whole picture I believe there is a pattern of behavior that leads me to conclude that Justice Brown is not qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. For these reasons, I opposed limiting debate on her nomination in 2003, and continue to do so today. Unfortunately, I will be necessarily absent for the votes that will occur related to this nominee. However, I did feel it necessary to express my position on this important nomination.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Vermont Arts Council and its dedicated support for the arts in Vermont. The Vermont Arts Council, the only nonprofit State arts agency in the country, was founded four decades ago ``on a simple and powerful premise: that the arts enrich lives and form a vital part of Vermont community life.'' Throughout the years, the Vermont Arts Council has served as Vermont's foremost arts advocate. Its resources are dedicated to the professional development of local artists, and it is a primary source of information about the arts, their impact on Vermont and across the Nation. Vermont is rich in culture and creativity, and the Vermont Arts Council has played such a vital role in contributing to this environment where artists and arts organizations thrive. The arts and humanities are a powerful force in bringing us together and their presence is to be nurtured and integrated into our communities at every opportunity. The Vermont Arts Council became a reality 40 years ago thanks to those who understand the important role the arts play in education and in our daily lives. Pauline Billings, who served as one of the original trustees of the council, has worked tirelessly in support of the arts in Vermont. It is so fitting that she is being honored with the council's Lifetime Achievement Award for the Arts. I cannot think of a more deserving recipient, and I welcome this opportunity to acknowledge Polly for her invaluable contributions. It is with great pleasure that I recognize the Vermont Arts Council as it marks its 40th anniversary and pay tribute to the council's work in helping the arts remain a vibrant force in Vermont. Here is to another four decades of great achievement.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, and Lieberman for working with me to introduce this important legislation, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005. Over half of our Nation's fresh drinking water comes from underground sources. The process of hydraulic fracturing threatens our drinking water supplies. Hydraulic fracturing occurs when fluids are injected at high rates of speed into rock beds to fracture them and allow easier harvesting of natural oils and gases. It is these injection fluids that are of high concern. In a recent report, the EPA acknowledged that these fluids, many of them toxic and harmful to people, are pumped directly into or near underground sources of drinking water. This same report cited earlier studies that indicated that only 61 percent of these fluids are recovered after the process is complete. This leaves 39 percent of these fluids in the ground, risking contamination of our drinking water. Let me share with you the story of Laura Amos, a resident of Colorado who suffers from ill health effects today. In May of 2001, while an oil and gas well was being hydraulically fractured near her home, the metal top of her drinking well exploded into the air. At the same time, her water became bubbly and developed a horrible odor. For three months, she was provided alternate drinking water by Ballard, later know as Encana, the company that owned the well near her home. It took this long until her water appeared normal again. Laura and her family drank from this well over the next couple of years. It was then that Laura developed a rare adrenal-gland tumor. During this time, Laura began actively investigating the chemicals used during the hydraulic fracturing of a well near her home. She learned about a chemical called 2-BE, which was later linked to adrenal-gland tumors in rodents. Litigation over the last several years has resulted in findings that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated as part of the underground injection control program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Yet, EPA indicates in writing that they have no intention of publishing regulations to that effect or ensuring that state programs adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing. I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters to EPA and their responses dated October 14, 2004 and December 7, 2004, be inserted in the Record. In June of 2004, an EPA study on hydraulic fracturing identified diesel as a ``constituent of potential concern.'' Prior to this, EPA had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with three of the major hydraulic fracturing corporations, whom all voluntarily agreed to ban the use of diesel, and if necessary select replacements that will not cause hydraulic fracturing fluids to endanger underground sources of drinking water. However, all parties acknowledged that only technically feasible and cost-effective actions to provide alternatives will be sought. Hydraulic fracturing needs to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and it has got to start now. It is unconscionable to allow the oil and gas industry to pump toxic fluids into the ground. My bill, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005, clarifies once and for all that hydraulic fracturing is part of the Underground Injection Control Program regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This legislation also bans the use of diesel and other toxic pollutants for oil and natural gas exploration. Last1y, this legislation requires EPA to ensure that States adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing activities in all States to ensure that companies area adhering to our Nation's laws and conducting business in a manner safe for all Americans. We need to do the right thing, and take action now to protect our Nation's drinking water supply. According to the oil and gas industry, 90 percent our oil and gas wells will be accessed through hydraulic fracturing. Congress and the EPA have to work together to provide a consistent and safe supply of drinking water for all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, and Lieberman for working with me to introduce this important legislation, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005. Over half of our Nation's fresh drinking water comes from underground sources. The process of hydraulic fracturing threatens our drinking water supplies. Hydraulic fracturing occurs when fluids are injected at high rates of speed into rock beds to fracture them and allow easier harvesting of natural oils and gases. It is these injection fluids that are of high concern. In a recent report, the EPA acknowledged that these fluids, many of them toxic and harmful to people, are pumped directly into or near underground sources of drinking water. This same report cited earlier studies that indicated that only 61 percent of these fluids are recovered after the process is complete. This leaves 39 percent of these fluids in the ground, risking contamination of our drinking water. Let me share with you the story of Laura Amos, a resident of Colorado who suffers from ill health effects today. In May of 2001, while an oil and gas well was being hydraulically fractured near her home, the metal top of her drinking well exploded into the air. At the same time, her water became bubbly and developed a horrible odor. For three months, she was provided alternate drinking water by Ballard, later know as Encana, the company that owned the well near her home. It took this long until her water appeared normal again. Laura and her family drank from this well over the next couple of years. It was then that Laura developed a rare adrenal-gland tumor. During this time, Laura began actively investigating the chemicals used during the hydraulic fracturing of a well near her home. She learned about a chemical called 2-BE, which was later linked to adrenal-gland tumors in rodents. Litigation over the last several years has resulted in findings that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated as part of the underground injection control program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Yet, EPA indicates in writing that they have no intention of publishing regulations to that effect or ensuring that state programs adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing. I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters to EPA and their responses dated October 14, 2004 and December 7, 2004, be inserted in the Record. In June of 2004, an EPA study on hydraulic fracturing identified diesel as a ``constituent of potential concern.'' Prior to this, EPA had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with three of the major hydraulic fracturing corporations, whom all voluntarily agreed to ban the use of diesel, and if necessary select replacements that will not cause hydraulic fracturing fluids to endanger underground sources of drinking water. However, all parties acknowledged that only technically feasible and cost-effective actions to provide alternatives will be sought. Hydraulic fracturing needs to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and it has got to start now. It is unconscionable to allow the oil and gas industry to pump toxic fluids into the ground. My bill, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005, clarifies once and for all that hydraulic fracturing is part of the Underground Injection Control Program regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This legislation also bans the use of diesel and other toxic pollutants for oil and natural gas exploration. Last1y, this legislation requires EPA to ensure that States adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing activities in all States to ensure that companies area adhering to our Nation's laws and conducting business in a manner safe for all Americans. We need to do the right thing, and take action now to protect our Nation's drinking water supply. According to the oil and gas industry, 90 percent our oil and gas wells will be accessed through hydraulic fracturing. Congress and the EPA have to work together to provide a consistent and safe supply of drinking water for all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we stand on the verge of passing the highway bill, I once again praise Chairman Inhofe for his leadership. We would not be at this point without the chairman's persistence and hard work. And I personally thank you and Senators Baucus and Bond for their excellent efforts.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield.

Mr. JEFFORDS. We have proved it can be done. The highway bill before the Senate is important for the Nation. It will authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs through fiscal year 2009. This bill will make our roads safer. This bill will reduce traffic congestion. This bill supports mass transit. This bill will create jobs. This bill will have an impact on every town, every city, and every State. The legislation includes a provision by Senators Grassley and Baucus that boosts funding in this bill by $11.2 billion or about 4 percent over what the White House has requested. That funding makes all the difference in allowing us to draft a funding formula that ensures that all States benefit in this legislation. That funding helps level the playing field for many States that feel they are being treated unfairly at the White House prescribed funding level of $284 billion. I urge President Bush to reconsider his veto threat against this legislation. It is a good bill that helps every Sate and will impact every American. There are no differences between the House and Senate versions of this bill that cannot be overcome with good, honest negotiation, and compromise. But we should not enter those negotiations with a proverbial ``gun at our head'' with the threat of a veto. The White House should not enter the negotiations with a ``my way or the highway'' approach. There is a storm brewing in the Senate of mammoth proportions. It is a storm I hope we can avoid for the sake of this great institution. I urge the President and the Republican leadership in the Senate to change the course of this storm. This bill, and others like it, are too important to get caught in the political hurricane on the horizon. Despite the gloomy forecast, I remain hopeful we can maintain the momentum we have made on the highway bill and reach a final agreement quickly and fairly. Smart Growth This highway bill, although not a perfect bill, is a step forward in the smart growth arena. We have included some modest provisions in this bill to encourage smart growth, like safer routes for our children to get to school, encouraging more physical activity through walking and biking for all Americans, measures to improve traffic congestion, funding for stormwater, and just plain smart planning. The Safe Routes to Schools Program helps ensure our children are safer as they walk to and from school. By improving sidewalks and crosswalks for both pedestrians and bicyclists, we are providing a healthier alternative to riding the bus or using a car. We are encouraging students to get out there and walk or ride their bike to school. In the 1960s, over 60 percent of our children walked or rode their bikes to school. Today, it is less than 10 percent. According to the National Institutes of Health, the number of children who are overweight has doubled in the last two to three decades; currently one child in five is overweight. Increasing the opportunities for children to walk or ride their bikes to school can help combat the obesity problem. I would Iike to see more funding for this important program. Even we, as adults, need to increase our physical activity. The provision for bicycle and pedestrian safety grants will promote the benefits of walking and bicycling, and how to stay safe while doing so. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, bicycling and walking currently account for nearly 13 percent of traffic fatalities, that is over 5,000 a year. Yet States are spending less than 2 percent of their Federal safety funds on bicycle or pedestrian projects. The biking and walking programs also help minimize traffic congestion, a common problem of urban sprawl. The increasing amount of time that Americans spend in their cars in traffic has encouraged manufacturers to supply larger, more comfortable trucks and cars. These huge, gas-guzzling cars and trucks are a symptom of a failure to make our homes and workplaces more accessible to other forms of transportation. Other provisions that incorporate smart planning, multi-agency coordination, and encourage public input early in the planning process, help ensure that the improvements meet the specific needs of the area. Improved planning also addresses local concerns and makes for more efficient enhancements to the community, without costly mistakes. Even the Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program provides much needed assistance to our States and local communities by helping them deal with the impacts of highway stormwater discharges. This important legislation increases our investment in our regional transportation agencies so they can consider the choices that will build stronger and more sustainable regions and local communities. And, that is what smart growth is all about. Making smart, educated decisions on how to handle the growth of our communities. Such planning promotes growth that improves the economy, revitalizes neighborhoods, protects farmland and environmentally sensitive areas, and improves public health. Smart growth offers a range of transportation options, provides parks and play areas for our children, and provides accessible options for those with disabilities. All of these use energy more efficiently and are good for the environment. Many of the provisions in this bill help ensure that we develop transportation projects in smarter ways. I hope the conference committee produces an agreement that respects these important resources, be it our historic and cultural assets and parks and protected open spaces. Since the 1960s, I have been involved in the smart growth debate. As Vermont's attorney general, I drafted what became the first, and is still today, the most comprehensive, State level environmental review regulation in the United States, known in Vermont as Act 250. In 1999, I established the Senate smart growth task force. Today, I serve as cochair, along with my colleague, Senator Levin, on the Senate's bipartisan, multiregional task force for smart growth. A number of you also serve with us to ensure that we assist those at the State and local levels with the growth of their communities. If you are not already a member, I encourage you to join our task force today to broaden the efforts in the Senate. Land use and development affects each and every one us, regardless of party affiliation. And with energy prices on the rise, transportation and land use planning are critical tools for conserving energy and promoting more fiscally sound development practices. The task force needs your help to incorporate smart growth principles into the budget and appropriation processes, to build better relationships with our State and local partners, and work with the administration to support State and local efforts to plan for growth. Our Nation has only recently begun to recognize that sprawl is unhealthy--whether it is contributing to obesity in America or multiplying the number of roads that are dangerous and unfriendly to pedestrians or harming the habitat of endangered species. Smart growth is about providing transportation choices, including transit, pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes and paths, and of course, highways and roadways. This highway bill is a move in the right direction. While funding is limited for these programs, I am encouraged to see provisions like these are moving forward. In these times of high gasoline prices, Vermonters and all Americans want to know what Congress is doing to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. Constituents who are paying steep prices at the pump want to know that we are working to promote technologies that use gasoline more efficiently. I would like to talk about some of the provisions of the highway bill and the managers' amendment that have the potential to do just that. The bill provides additional incentives to use hybrid vehicles on our Nation's highways and the managers' amendment builds on those provisions. While I think these provisions represent a good initial starting point for important discussions to come in the conference on this bill, I think more can and should be done through this legislation to encourage hybrid use, and to expand their benefits for consumers and the environment. Some argue that we do not need to do any more to promote hybrid purchasing and use by consumers. They suggest that the price of gasoline itself has been a strong driver of hybrid purchases. Certainly, in part, that is the case. At the end of April, the Associated Press reported that the hybrid market has grown by 960 percent since 2000. New hybrid vehicle registrations totaled more than 8,300 in 2004, an 81 percent increase over the year before. Even though hybrids still represent less than 1 percent of the 17 million new vehicles sold in 2004, major automakers are planning to introduce about a dozen new hybrids during the next 3 years. I have personally joined the thousands of Americans, and several other members of this body, in becoming a hybrid owner. I purchased a Ford Escape hybrid last year. Simply allowing gas prices to increase is not the best way to promote hybrid use. That is a poor policy solution. We should also provide significant non-financial incentives to stimulate demand for these vehicles. One important incentive in the bill before us is to allow these vehicles access to the high occupancy vehicle lanes, or HOV lanes, on our highways. We will be saving our commuters time, in addition to reducing gasoline use. In doing so, we need to carefully consider and maintain the other societal benefits of HOV lanes. Those benefits include: encouraging transit and shared car use, and promoting dedicated alternative fuel vehicles. Mr. President, our last highway law, TEA-21, gave States the authority to allow what is called a high occupancy vehicle lane, or HOV lane. Many commuting Americans are familiar with these lanes, and thousands commute into the District of Columbia every day using them. I want to give my colleagues some of the history behind allowing less polluting vehicles in HOV lanes. Under TEA-21, if a vehicle was certified under Federal regulations as an ``inherently low-emission vehicle'' it could be used in the HOV lane with only one occupant. The law authorized States to implement this policy through September 30, 2003, and granted each State the right to revoke this policy if it increased HOV lane congestion. EPA established the low-emission vehicle standards. They did so in order to recognize that certain types of fuel and vehicle technologies have low emissions and to encourage their use. Only vehicles without evaporative fuel emissions meet EPA standards. Consequently, a vehicle that bums any quantity of gasoline or diesel cannot meet the standards. That includes hybrid vehicles that operate on a combination of gasoline or diesel and electric batteries. Vehicles that operate entirely on alternative fuels with no evaporative emissions, such as compressed natural gas, liquified natural gas, or purely electric vehicles, are the only ones that are able to meet the standards. We should promote the use of those vehicles. However, such vehicles are a very small percentage of the on-road fleet, and, as a consequence, few motorists have been able to take advantage of the HOV lane benefit provided in TEA-21. Since the passage of TEA-21, there has been growing interest among motorists, the vehicle industry, and some States in renewing the HOV lane benefit and expanding it to hybrid vehicles, which are more widely available. The bill before us includes provisions that would renew and expand the HOV lane exemption for low-emission vehicles. Specifically, the managers' amendment would allow ``low emission and energy-efficient vehicles'' access to HOV lanes. The bill would make that access permanent. A vehicle would qualify as a ``low emission and energy-efficient vehicle'' if it meets EPA's ``Tier II'' emission standards that were phased in beginning in model year 2004. In addition, EPA would have to certify that the vehicle gets at least 50 percent better fuel economy than a gasoline vehicle in the city or that it is a ``dedicated alternative-fueled vehicle'' as defined in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Current hybrid vehicles are clean enough to comply with the new tier II standards. Some hybrids also meet the threshold for fuel economy ratings in the bill. This change would result in expanding access to HOV lanes to include hybrid vehicles. I reassure my colleagues who may be concerned that congestion in HOV lanes might arise as a result of the policy change contained in this bill. The bill before the Senate requires States that allow hybrids on HOV lanes to establish a program for qualifying and labeling such vehicles, and monitoring and evaluating their use in HOV lanes. States also would be required to develop policies and procedures for limiting the single-occupancy operation of hybrids if their use led to increased traffic congestion. While there are benefits to this language, I hope that my colleagues consider strengthening the language. We should be mindful when we allow single occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes, even if they are hybrids. The managers' amendment simply implements the tier II emissions standards that were effective last year. Hybrids easily meet these standards today, so this language has no practical impact. If it is the determination of Congress to allow hybrids to use the HOV lanes, we should be promoting the most fuel-efficient and cleanest hybrid vehicles on the road. I would like to go further. This bill takes a good step toward promoting single occupant HOV access for hybrid vehicles. We make sure that there are only dedicated alternative fuel vehicles in HOV lanes, those that run on 100 percent alternative fuels. But we need to make sure that we don't overburden our HOV lanes. And we need to make sure that our goals of lowering pollution that we set in our last highway law are maintained. It is my hope that we do so in the conference on this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, several days ago, 76 Members of this body voted to support additional investment in this Nation's surface transportation program. They did not vote for an extravagant increase, instead they voted for a modest 4 percent increase over the President's request. With this modest increase, we will barely be able to keep pace with the enormous maintenance needs facing our surface transportation system with little left over for improvement. Now the junior Senator from Alabama asks to return to an inadequate level of investment. He asks the American family to waste additional time and money stuck in traffic. He asks us to vote to let more of our Nation's roads and bridges fall into a state of disrepair--all over a modest 4 percent increase. I will vote against the Sessions amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, once again I thank Senator Inhofe and all of the Senators and staff that have helped us reach this point. This bill will make a difference in the life of every American by making it easier and safer to get from place to place. In passing this bill, the Senate puts this Nation on the path to better roads, on the path to shorter and safer commutes, and on the path to more jobs. And this bill will not add a dime to the deficit. The additional $11 billion in this bill will allow all States and all communities to benefit under this legislation, and it is crucial that we hold on to that funding as we move forward with this bill. The President's veto threat against this bill is a mistake, it is misguided and it is flat out wrong. Let's get this bill done, and get it done right. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for his excellent statement. I offer to work with the Senator to see if we can bring about some action to take care of those problems. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there are many people to thank in what has been a long 3-year process. First, Chairman Inhofe. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with the Senator from Oklahoma. He has always been fair and considerate, and I enjoy our friendship. We have a couple weeks, possibly months, more to go to get this bill done. I look forward to working with him. Senator Bond also has been wonderful to work with. He brings spirit, enthusiasm to all his work, and a lot of humor, and I appreciate our close working relationship. He is a good friend. Senator Baucus, my colleague on this side, is a very close friend and has been a great addition to the team and this process. The Senator from Montana is a true legislator. He knows how to get things done. Without him, I don't think we would be as far as we are here today. It is an honor to work with such an intelligent and fair-minded Senator. There are many staff to acknowledge, also. I have always told my staff director, Ken Connolly, that in order to succeed in his job, he needed to hire a strong team and to hire staff smarter than me and him. Well, in this case, it wasn't difficult. Anyway, let me run through a few staff members who have helped the cause of moving this bill. Senator Inhofe's staff: Ruth VanMark, Andrew Wheeler, James O'Keefe, Nathan Richmond, Angie Giancarlo, Greg Murrill, John Shanahan, Marty Hall, and others; Senator Bond's staff: Ellen Stein, John Stoody, Heideh Shahmoradi; Senator Baucus's staff: Kathy Ruffalo returned to the Senate just this past spring to help us complete this legislation. She has been a fantastic addition to that team. On my staff, there are many people to thank, including JoEllen Darcy, Catharine Ransome, Margaret Wetherald, Chris Miller, and MaryFrancis Repko. However, there are four key people who need to be acknowledged and thanked for bringing this bill to us today. Malia Somerville has been the glue that kept our team together; Alison Taylor, the best chief counsel of any committee in either body of Congress; J.C. Sandberg, the only staffer who really knows what is in the bill, and the hardest worker in the Senate; and Ken Connolly, my staff director, who has built such a good team. To him I owe a great deal for the work that has been done. All of these staff members, I am sure, are looking forward to final passage tomorrow. They are even more eager, I am sure, to go to conference. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. No.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. We are making progress. I know we are going to come out with a good bill. I look forward to working with him. Today we begin the third week of debate on this very important legislation. The bill before us, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, better known as the highway bill, is important to the Nation. Too many Americans are sitting in traffic. The Texas Transportation Institute, which ranks U.S. cities on the severity of their congestion, tells us in a recently released report that the average commuter in Atlanta sits in traffic for 67 hours each year; Washington, DC, for 69 hours; San Francisco, 72 hours; in Los Angeles, the average commuter sits in traffic for an astounding 93 hours each year. That is almost 4 days each year wasted while sitting behind the wheel in traffic. I would hope we could move away from our reliance on cars and make better use of public transit, but the reality is the number of cars on the roads increases each year. The bill before us will help cities in all of our States reduce congestion by adding additional travel lanes, by building overpasses at busy intersections, and using the best technology available to keep our traffic moving. We need this bill to make our roads safer. More than 42,000 Americans will die in traffic accidents this year. The bill before us will help States make dangerous intersections and curves safer by putting up better warning signs, by building guardrails, and by building center median dividers. This bill will make our roads safer by helping States build wider shoulders for disabled vehicles, by building rumble strips to slow down traffic, and by building fences to discourage jaywalkers. This bill will save lives. Once again, I thank the chairman, Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, and Senator Baucus for all their efforts in moving this bill forward. And while I am glad we expect to pass this bill tomorrow through the Senate, I remind all of my Senate colleagues we still have a lot of work to do ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I would like to spend a few minutes discussing an important provision in the highway bill before us. Section 4(f) of the highway bill provides important protections for historic sites, parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges throughout the country. With the increasing demand for transportation projects, it is important that we not lose sight of our natural treasures. We need to balance the growing need for transportation with responsible stewardship of our history and natural resources. In my State of Vermont, we have a wealth of history and natural beauty. To see the wildlife that populate the Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge or the covered bridges used by our forefathers--is to experience a heritage that we all want preserved for future generations. Section 4(f) has helped preserve these treasures. The Revolutionary War site at Fort Vehemence on Route 7 in Pittsford, VT, was avoided as a result of 4(f). An excellent collection of historic metal truss bridges across the Connecticut River were rehabilitated, not replaced, as a result of 4(f). A road in the Danville Historic District was narrowed in order to keep the historic characteristics of the historic village because of 4(f). While constructing a new highway in Vermont, we have discovered a significant archeological site containing artifacts from Native Americans, providing us with a piece of history that until now was not known. By documenting this site, we will expand our knowledge of Vermont's Native Americans. Also, because of 4(f) protections. 4(f) is amended in this legislation. The objective of this amendment is to allow transportation projects and programs to move forward more quickly, while maintaining the protections of 4(f). Those protections assure that there will be public notice and opportunity for public review and comment on proposed ``de minimis'' determinations for transportation projects. And that affected agencies will concur in the decision of the Secretary of Transportation that there will be no adverse impact on a historic site, recreation area, park, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge. The provision would require the Secretary of Transportation, when making a finding that a transportation project or program will have a ``de minimis'' impact, to consider all avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement measures that have been incorporated into the project. This provision allows project sponsors to incorporate environmentally protective measures into the project from the beginning, in order to support a finding of ``de minimis'' impact. These mitigation measures must be carried out and be shown to have the intended impact. If they are not having the intended impact, other measures must be used to ensure no adverse impact. This is an important strengthening of the 4(f) program that will protect our heritage while planning for needed transportation projects. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

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