Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users--Continued

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS--Continued

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to briefly describe my amendment No. 681, which includes modifications to section 1612 of the bill.

I want to thank Senator Inhofe for cosponsoring the amendment, and Senators BOND, JEFFORDS, and BAUCUS for working with me on this important issue and this amendment.

New air quality standards are driving a new round of air quality programs in many of our States. This is good for public health, and I strongly support these new standards. To meet these standards, I believe that new tools and strategies will be required.

I believe that one example of a new strategy that works was demonstrated in my State of New York. Despite making great strides in reducing emissions from a variety of sources, New York City has not yet been able to meet the air quality standards in the Clean Air Act. We are getting there, but it is a tough job, and there is more to do.

After the tragedy of September 11, it was clear that a large number of diesel-powered fleets and other diesel equipment would be operating around ground zero for many months. New York received emergency Federal funds to pay for those contractors. And, partly because they were being paid by Federal tax dollars, and partly because of New York's continuing struggle with air quality issues, diesel equipment operating at ground zero was required to be retrofitted with pollution control equipment, and some Federal funds were used to pay for the retrofits.

Communities across New York and the country face similar challenges, in that emissions from diesel equipment involved in highway construction projects can put a temporary--but significant--increase in emissions in communities struggling to meet air quality standards.

The amendment has three main provisions. First, it requires States to develop emission reduction strategies for fleets that are used in construction projects located in non-attainment and maintenance areas and are funded under this title. Second, it requires EPA to develop a non-binding guidance for the States to use in developing their emission reduction strategies. The guidance will include technical information on diesel retrofit technologies, suggestions on the methods for inclusion in the emission reductions strategies, and other information that Administrator of EPA, in consultation with the Secretary, determine to be appropriate. Third, it clarifies that States may use CMAQ funding to finance the deployment of diesel retrofit technology and other cost-effective solutions as part of the emission reduction strategies.

I first introduced this provision as an amendment during the debate on the transportation bill last year. That original provision was included in the bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this year. During committee consideration of the bill, it came to my attention that the Association of General Contractors had concerns with the amendment. I am pleased to say that the chairman and I have worked with them to accommodate their concerns, and the revised section 1612 that this amendment contains reflects those negotiations. The Association of General Contractors now supports this provision, and has agreed to actively support it during the conference. I will ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be placed in the RECORD following my remarks.

This amendment will also result in the cost-effective use of CMAQ funds. During the debate over the last reauthorization of the highway programs, Congress asked the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences to assess the CMAQ programs. Specifically, Congress asked the board to report on whether CMAQ-funded projects are cost-effective relative to other strategies for reducing pollution and congestion.

The Transportation Board reported its results in a 2002 Special Report 264, the CMAQ Improvement Program, Assessing 10 Years of Experience. The report concluded that `` strategies directly targeting emission reduction have generally been more cost-effective than attempts under CMAQ to change travel behavior.'' It recommended re-authorization of the CMAQ Program with modifications to improve its cost-effectiveness and to enhance its performance in improving air quality. In addition, a recently completed report for the Emission Control Technology Association that builds on this report and other data reaches similar conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of diesel retrofits. I will also ask unanimous consent that this report be printed in the RECORD after my remarks.

This amendment achieves both goals. It improves CMAQ cost-effectiveness by authorizing states to use CMAQ to fund the deployment of diesel retrofits. These are new technologies that have been found by EPA, the Diesel Technologies Forum, and others to be very cost-effective relative to other CMAQ-funded projects to improve air quality.

The amendment will also enhance the performance of CMAQ in improving air quality by financing diesel retrofit technology that reduces emissions of fine particulate matter, the most serious airborne threat to human health today. This is a problem that everyone agrees is a top air pollution priority. It's why I feel so strongly about this amendment and have worked to fund the EPA's Clean School Bus USA program. Recognizing the seriousness of the problem, the administration has acted as well, promulgating the 2004 on-road heavy duty diesel regulations, the 2010 off-road diesel regulations, the Clean School Bus USA Program, the National Clean Diesel Campaign, and the newly-proposed Clean Diesel Initiative that is in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal.

I am pleased that the Senate will adopt this amendment because I believe it will provide States with additional tools to achieve our Nation's air quality goals. Reducing diesel emissions from construction activities is often the most cost-effective way to improve air quality. This amendment will help make that happen do just that.

I want to again thank Senators INHOFE, BOND, JEFFORDS, and BAUCUS for working with me.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the material to which I referred be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

http://thomas.loc.gov/