Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might we inquire of the managers on the Democratic side if they are ready to take this up?

Mr. BOND. I will be happy to withhold on that.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I see the majority leader is in the Chamber. We will not act on this amendment at this time. If somebody wishes to object to it after the majority leader speaks, we would ask that they come to the floor and make an objection. Otherwise, I propose that at 3 o'clock we ask that the amendment be adopted or, if we need a recorded vote, we will be happy to do that. One way or another, I hope we can have action on this by 3 o'clock. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from New Hampshire what his substitute does?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this obviously is a very important issue the Senator has raised. Having this as an amendment to a technical amendment raises questions that I think perhaps should be answered. First, I point out to my friends who are concerned about it that the number we have chosen for the highway portion of the bill was a number adopted by a 79-21 vote on the floor of this body. In addition, we understand the need to provide funding for highways. The Finance Committee has worked very hard to come up with the funding measures. I don't serve on the Finance Committee, but they have adopted fuel tax compliance measures. They have reformed the provisions for the ethanol exemption. It is a very valuable agricultural fuel that improves the environment. They will not charge the highway trust fund with that. They will pay down the existing interest owed to the highway trust fund and spend down the balance. They will clarify mobile machinery exemptions and transportation taxes, and discontinue refunds going from the trust fund into the general revenue fund for fuel tax exemptions. These are generally related to the highway trust fund. Further, I will point out for those of us who said we want the trust fund used for highways, the trust fund right now is being used for other things that are not highway related, such as automobile, bus, and truck drivers. Some $36 billion will go to mass transit, a very valuable adjunct to the transportation system but not something that people who pay highway trust fund taxes are using because they are putting the gas and diesel in their own vehicles. There are also valuable environmental benefits in there such as CMAQ--congestion mitigation for air quality. There are also rails and trails and other easements in there that are a significant diversion of highway trust fund dollars from the direct highway trust fund purposes. I hope my colleagues who have problems with strict application of highway funds being raised on highway uses deal with that in an amendment that is directly related to the highway bill transportation which is before us. Obviously, one of the things one can do in the Senate is to offer amendments that are more properly the jurisdiction of other committees, which certainly collective bargaining is, I would say, such an effort. But this bill is so important to the United States, to our economy, and the safety and well-being of the people who use our highways and use our bridges in the United States that I hope we can get back to the main purpose of this measure, which is to continue the highway program, which builds better roads, better bridges, and provides jobs--47,000 jobs for each $1 billion of highway contracts--and provides the future for economic growth in our States. As I have said on many occasions on this floor, I can tell you jobs are going to be located in the States where they have good transportation systems, and good highways are essential for that. Finally, in my State it is a matter of saving lives. So I hope we can get back to dealing with the important measures in this bill. I hope we can deal with the specific needs, make the technical amendments that are normally permitted on such a bill, and debate the major provisions. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, picking up with the description of this bill, which we think is extremely important, I am going to share some other views. But I want to continue with this description of the bill. Under the current law, there is a general prohibition against placing commercial establishments in recreation and safety rest areas on interstate rights-of-way. This bill creates a small exception to this prohibition by allowing States to place either electrification or other idling facilities that can be used for heating, air-conditioning, electricity, and communication. This will enable truck operators to receive services without continuing to run their engines, thereby reducing vehicle emissions. States, other public agencies, and private entities are already allowed to operate on the interstate system and may charge for the services provided under this new authority. Why is this important? This is tremendously important. If you travel in your State along an interstate, you will find now that the new hours-of-service regulations require truckers to take more frequent breaks. There are rest areas in my State which are crowded with trucks. There are entrances to and exits from interstate highways where significant numbers of trucks are parked. This is to make sure that the drivers get the rest they need. There has been some controversy over it, but this is the rule and they are abiding by that rule. But when they are shut down and idling, particularly in bitter cold weather so they can get heat in their cab while they get the necessary rest, No. 1, it is causing dangerous situations along the roadway, on the exit and entrance ramps to interstate highways, and they are needlessly burning fuel, polluting the atmosphere, and causing excessive use of imported petroleum at a time when we face a real energy crisis. So while this is a small part of the bill, it is one which responds to very significant needs to maintain safety for the traveling public, especially the truckers, and also to eliminate air pollution that comes from idling trucks. Another program that I think is vitally important to empower the improvements in tolling, section 1609, deals with tools for toll programs. One of the effective things that has been used in many highway locations for raising revenue and regulating the flow of traffic is tolling. This bill modifies the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program, the ISRRP, and establishes a new variable toll pricing program. This variable pricing program replaces the pilot program which was authorized in the previous TEA-21. The new variable toll pricing program enables the use of variable toll pricing on congested facilities in order to increase mobility and improve air quality. This says that the Secretary can permit a State or public authority to toll any highway, bridge, or tunnel, including facilities on the interstate system, to manage high levels of congestion or reduce emissions in a nonattainment area or maintenance area. This is extremely important when you look at the kinds of congestion we have in many areas during high traffic time. If there are tolls imposed when there would otherwise be heavy congestion, then those who must necessarily travel at that time can continue to do so by paying a toll. This is the ultimate market-based system for assuring that people who do not have to travel at high congestion times will not. Obviously, this means better traffic flow, this means less congestion, and therefore less pollution. So I think this is extremely important. The Secretary may permit a State or public authority to manage the levels. The States must provide the Secretary with a description of the congestion and air quality problems, and the goals. Any State or public authority already operating under a cooperative agreement under the existing pricing pilot program of TEA-21 can continue under the existing laws. We also have included some changes in the tolling requirements because in some States there are interstates which are badly out of date and in need of substantial rehabilitation. In the current laws, the provision for establishing tolls on existing interstates has been limited to replacement. If you have ever traveled I-70 in the State of Missouri, which is the lifeline for our State and for much of the Nation for east-west traffic going from coast to coast, certainly traveling between Kansas City and St. Louis, you will find that there are tremendous delays occasioned because the roads are inadequate. They are two-lane roads that are like driving in city traffic, they are so filled with cars and congestion. In addition, when there are accidents on these roads, it is not uncommon for us to experience an hour or 2-hour delay. In one instance, I managed to miss a 7-hour delay by taking some back roads which I knew about to get around a major disaster. This measure expands the ability to say if it is substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction, the State, if it chooses, could use tolls to improve an interstate. Right now, Interstate 70 has the distinction of being the first toll road in the United States. But it also means it is a half a century old and it is at least 20 years out of date. The total cost for repairing it and replacing it is about $3 billion. Some of my colleagues will be surprised to know that I have not asked in this bill for $3 billion to replace this vital national link. But I do believe we need to provide options for States to deal with problems such as this one. Whether they do it is going to be up to them. In the State of Missouri, there would have to be a vote of the people. They would have to authorize the issuance of bonds and a tolling authority. This does not by any means say we are going to put tolls on it. It provides an option for the legislature, the Governor, the Department of Transportation to consider as they look at how they want to deal with one of these very significant highway corridors, which has become far too often a parking lot rather than a means of facilitating transportation between our two major cities and for people traveling from far beyond, going east to west through the heartland of the Nation, through the State of Missouri. I think this is a very important provision and one which will provide States reasonable flexibility, not allowing them, willy-nilly, to take roads already financed through the interstate program, to impose tolls on them to finance other activities, but to make sure that we continue to realize the dream of those who initially formulated the interstate highway program to make sure that we can see traffic continue to proceed. Let me move to another provision in the bill. It is section 1610, which merely directs the EPA to study the ability to monitor differentiation between fine and coarse particulate matter. As we find out more about the dangers of pollutants, we find they are greater risks in the fine particulates in many instances which can cause far more significant harm than a coarse particulate because of the impact on the lungs. Section 1611 adds particulate matter areas to the Congestion, Mitigation, and Air Quality Program. The funds under this provision are apportioned on the basis of a ratio of total weighted population of a State's nonattainment or maintenance areas to the total weighted population of all nonattainment or maintenance areas in the Nation. If you didn't follow me on that, if a State has air quality problems in an area which is one-twentieth of all of the areas in the Nation, then they would get one-twentieth of the total funds available. It sounds convoluted, but it really targets the CMAQ funds to the areas with greatest needs. Since many areas will need assistance to meet the new 8-hour ozone standard and the new fine particulate matter standard, the CMAQ formula is modified to include those areas. Adjustment factors are used to account for the number of pollutants for areas in nonattainment or maintenance. Section 1611 says CMAQ funds can be used for alternative fuel infrastructure under TEA-21. This bill goes further and encourages the use of CMAQ funds by listing the purchase of alternative fuel and the purchase of biodiesel fuel as eligible activities under CMAQ. Due to some confusion in some DOT and EPA field and regional offices, we have also clarified that projects to control the extended idling of vehicles are indeed eligible for funding under the CMAQ program. The bill also fixes oversight under current law that prevents States that do not have any nonattainment or maintenance areas from using CMAQ funds for CMAQ projects. Frankly, this allows us to get more homegrown clean fuels used with the assistance of CMAQ funds. I happen to know something about soy diesel and about biodiesel. I am a great champion of it, because if you have followed a bus or a truck down the road that is burning straight diesel, you know what an unpleasant smell that can cause and what damage that can do to the environment. Biodiesel is a soybean-based or other biomass-based fuel which operates in a much cleaner burning environment. Several years ago we started a pilot project at the great training facility at Fort Leonard Wood, MO that needed to train soldiers to fight in smoke conditions on the battlefield. They had been burning diesel to provide that smoke. We felt that was not necessarily a good idea to be burning diesel and exposing our finest troops to the diesel pollution and the smoke that was caused. We worked with the Department of Defense to switch that to soy diesel. There was smoke. I asked them after they implemented what the byproducts were. They said, Obviously, we are not polluting the environment with petroleum-based diesel. We are burning a much cleaner soy-based fuel. It is much less harmful to the soldiers. The only problem is it smells like French fries and they get hungry. But given the alternative, that seems to be a good idea. To the extent we get more buses and trucks using biodiesel, we are going to have greater benefits. Let me give you two areas where soy diesel or any biodiesel can be a great improvement. No. 1, firehouses: The fire men and women who live and stay in firehouses have complained for years. When they fire up the firetrucks, they get the diesel fumes coming up into the rest area. Sometimes, our valiant firefighters have to live and sleep in heavily polluted diesel- fuel-soaked areas. This is not only unhealthy, but it is very unpleasant. Fire stations have been some of the first places where we have used biodiesel. It has been extremely popular. Certainly when we are trying to talk about taking care of our first responders and the valiant firefighters who are on the line making sure the engines and the firetrucks below them are burning a clean-burning feel, it is a step in the right direction. Another important area we have talked a lot about is school bus safety. When you have kids on school buses, the fumes from petroleum- based diesel come into that school bus. Do you know where they are the most dangerous? They are most dangerous when they are at low levels-- where the small children are. The smallest children are likely to be exposed to petroleum-based diesel fumes. We are working to encourage more and more school buses to use soy diesel, and put aside the fact that kids are going to get hungry when they smell something that smells like french fries. But it is vitally important that we lessen the danger to our schoolchildren as well as lessening the use of diesel fuel and providing a significant benefit to those who produce soybean and other biomass. I see a couple of our colleagues are here. Senator Thomas wishes to speak. We have lots more to talk about, but I will discontinue at this point and thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for coming to the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are checking with our colleagues on the possibility of setting a judicial nomination. As soon as we find out whether that is acceptable, we will ask consent. Mr. President, we have heard lots of reasons why this bill is not a good bill, why we don't want to go to this bill, why we shouldn't be moving a highway bill. I have talked about some of those reasons, but let me share with you some information that indicates how the people of America think. The Zogby International Survey Group did a broad-based survey of American voters. Nearly 70 percent of the voters contacted, in February 2003, said they believe America is facing a transportation capacity crisis, that our Nation's roads, airports, and mass transit systems are struggling to handle a growing population and economy. Fifty-six percent overall and 79 percent of young women with children said traffic congestion is depriving them of more time with their families or for leisure activities today than just 5 years ago. I don't think these answers should surprise any of us. Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown by almost 19 percent, the number of registered motor vehicles has increased by 36 percent, and the vehicle miles traveled has ballooned by 72 percent. And--surprise-- over the past 20 years we have added less than 5 percent to road capacity, and even less than that to public transit. What are the conditions of roads in local communities? Forty-eight percent of those surveyed by Zogby said they were either fair or poor. When you move to Hispanic Americans, 75 percent said their communities have either fair or poor road conditions. This is a problem in communities. This is a problem particularly for citizens who are maybe at a disadvantage in their community. This survey's results come from a poll of over 1,000 voters nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent. I think some of the other findings are pretty important. Eighty percent of the people polled think the Nation's highways and public transit networks are extremely important or very important to the U.S. economy. That is why we are here. Eighty percent of our constituents think highways and transportation networks are important. That is what this bill is all about. That is why we want to get everybody together to move this bill. I urge my colleagues, if you have problems with particular portions of the bill, offer amendments. That is how this body functions. We would like to have good-faith amendments that seek to make changes which are necessary so we can move forward in a reasonable manner. I think the people of America, particularly the 80 percent who say it is important, deserve to see us vote on issues that are of importance to them. Eight in 10 of the people surveyed agree that an investment in highways, bridges, and public transit should be considered an important element in homeland security and national defense. Ninety percent believe it is important that their representatives in Congress fight to ensure sufficient Federal funding for transportation improvement projects in their local areas. I think some States must be lower than that because I think in my State it is higher than 90 percent. So some may have only 80 percent who think it is important. Two-thirds of Americans say roads and public transit play a vitally important role in their life. These are scientific surveys that merely confirm what I and many of my colleagues already know: If you go back to your home State and have a meeting about highway and transportation funding, you better get a big hall. I have had people come out to fill any hall that I have scheduled a meeting in to talk about it because they want to know more. They know it is important. I think this is vitally important. I know there are some who may take a different view. Some people claim building more roads just causes more traffic. They even say you can't build your way out of traffic congestion. They are the zero sum game people, the ones who say there will just be more congestion. Well, congestion is getting worse at a frightening pace in America. I believe the primary reason is a lack of adequate highway and public transportation capacity, not only in our major urban and suburban areas but in rural areas as well. As I have said several times, that is why we are killing people in Missouri. We don't have adequate highway transportation, particularly in rural areas. Even as we spend more wasted time sitting in gridlocked traffic, many well-intentioned Americans, spurred on by the rhetoric of some of the extreme advocacy groups who want us all to ride bicycles--and I love to ride bicycles, but those won't get me to work and back, particularly when we have icy roads, as we do here, or when we have to take more people with us--are convinced that adding road capacity only causes more traffic congestion, more air pollution, more waste of precious fuels. I think the answer to that is very clear: Research data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Texas Transportation Institute and common sense, if you and I just sit back and think about it, proves just about the opposite. The real problem is our lack of resolve to provide meaningful solutions to traffic congestion through new capital and operational investments. The failure to do so actually results in tons of unnecessary air pollution and billions of gallons of wasted motor fuel. The Zogby poll found that 70 percent of America is facing a transportation capacity crisis, and all of these people realize we need, as a nation, the investment in transportation. Talk about a drag on the economy, according to the Texas Transportation Urban Mobility Report, absent substantial new investments in highway and public transportation capacity, transportation operations across the Nation, the economic cost of traffic congestion in the Nation, lost productivity, wasted motor fuel will grow from about $67.5 billion in 2000 to almost $100 billion by 2009. That is one of the reasons we seek to have the investment. Yes, $255 billion is a large amount. It is not all going to highways. It comes from highway user taxes, but it goes to mass transit; it goes to congestion mitigation; it goes to scenic easements, to other things that improve the environment in which we live. If we don't make these investments, the Texas Transportation Institute forecasts that over this period the average road speed in America's 675 largest urban communities will fall from about 42.3 miles per hour to 40.3 miles per hour. If you believe, as I do, that time is money, that reduction will continue to grow what is really a hidden tax levied on American consumers as transportation labor productivity decreases and costs increase. Another one of the problems we have with congestion is pollution. The good news, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, is that motor vehicle emissions have declined dramatically since the 1970s, thanks in part to the developments in new automotive and motor fuels technology. Emissions of carbon monoxide are down 45 percent since 1970, volatile organic compound emissions are down 60 percent, particulate matter emissions are down 47 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions are down 5 percent, and lead emissions have been eliminated. The bad stuff is being reduced. We are getting the bad stuff out. This remarkable environmental achievement, which is responsible for most of the air quality improvement in the United States over the past three decades, was accomplished at the same time the number of licensed motor vehicles in the United States grew 87 percent and total vehicle miles traveled soared by 125 percent. Unfortunately, traffic congestion is retarding clean air progress just as it is retarding American productivity and economic growth. Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, there is some question on this side about the amendment being an amendment to the commerce title, and at this point we are not prepared to give consent to that. We want to work with the Senator who has been working in good faith, but I have been asked, since this is a matter that relates to a different section of the bill, to hold off. We can work through this if we can go with the original consent.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on this side I am not authorized to enter into that type of UC. I assure the Senator and my colleagues on the other side we will work with them. There is a concern about moving into the commerce title. We will work with him if we can move forward on the consent for the judge vote; then we will work on this, if we can get consent for that.

Mr. BOND. I believe at this point it is necessary to revise the unanimous consent. First, I say to my friend from North Dakota that the title he wants to amend has not been offered. That is a problem on which we are going to have to work. We have only offered the EPW portion. I asked unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member and, thereafter, there be a vote on the nomination of Mark R. Filip, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. I renew my request. Following the 5 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation and, following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment 2265.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nick Karellas of my staff be granted floor privileges during the remaining consideration of S. 1072.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know this is a day when we are having discussions about the highway bill, the transportation measure, and the highway portion of it. I appreciate the opportunity to share with my colleagues some of my thoughts on the work that has gone on. As I indicated yesterday, there will be a number of very important amendments. We hope to overcome the technical difficulties which make it impossible for Members to get to their offices so that they can present the amendments. We have heard from a number of Members who are concerned because they are not getting enough in the bill, but, frankly, this bill has much in it to commend, and we are looking forward to working in a cooperative manner to get this bill passed. We have lost valuable time, obviously, as we had to get cloture yesterday and we are working under the constraints of the ricin presence today. So we are a bit delayed. I reiterate, I appreciate and commend the great work of Senator Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and my partner on the Transportation Subcommittee, my ranking member, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. They have done an excellent job. I believe the committee reported out a bill, S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, which we know as SAFETEA, which accomplishes several very important goals. First, safety. Safety in this authorization is for the first time given a prominent position, being elevated to a core program. Our bill mirrors the administration's proposal continuing our commitment to our motoring public's safety. This is accomplished by providing much needed funding to reduce highway injuries and fatalities, all without the use of mandates. A key component of the bill before us will go a long way to saving lives by providing funds to States to address safety needs at hazardous locations, sections, and elements. This includes roadside obstacles and unmarked or poorly marked roads that may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other highway users. We know in my own home State of Missouri that inadequate roads delay, deny, and derail economic development opportunities. But most important, inadequate highways kill people. We have more than three deaths a day on Missouri's highways. I think a large number--at least a third and perhaps more--of those are attributed to inadequate infrastructure. When there is traffic of 10,000, 15,000 to 20,000 cars a day on a narrow two-lane road, there are going to be people passing when they should not and they run into other people head on. I have lost friends. I know too many families who grieve the loss of loved ones. I can point out roads in Missouri where one can drive not very far and see white cross after white cross put up as a reminder that some lost their lives on those roads. They lost their lives because the traffic was heavy. Very often, someone not from the area or even not from the State has come in and is not familiar with the road and they pass where they should not. They meet someone else head on, and that is a tragedy. Several weeks ago, I attended the funeral of the husband of a former staffer of mine who has been incapacitated. He was killed on a two-lane road. It was a terrible tragedy and an unspeakable loss. We heard numerous testimony from the administration that nearly 42,000 people are killed on our roads and highways each year. I think the bill reflects a continued commitment to making not only investments in our infrastructure but also to the general safety and welfare of our constituents. The second feature of this bill which is very important is equity. While previous authorizations have talked about equity, our bill carefully balances the needs of the donor States while also recognizing the needs of the donee States. For those who may not be familiar with the terminology, donor States such as Missouri and Oklahoma are ones that get less than a dollar back for every dollar they put in. Donee States are ones that get back more than a dollar for every dollar they put in. We are seeking to get a better return on our money, realizing that in this bill we cannot overcome the inequities between the donor and donee States. There are many sections in the bill I am proud of supporting. One of the most important facts is all donor States will receive a 95 percent rate of return at least by the end of the authorization. These States include Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. There are 24 States in total. These have been getting less than 95 cents in the past and will be getting up to 95 cents. My home State of Missouri, like many of the donor States mentioned, has some of the worst roads in the Nation. According to a survey, Missouri has the third worst roads. Fifty-nine percent of its roads are either in poor or mediocre condition, requiring immediate repair or reconstruction. Missouri also has the second worst bridges in the Nation. I guess I ought to remind people the one State that ranks even worse than Missouri is our neighboring State, Oklahoma, the State of the chairman of our committee. So obviously we have an interest in bringing about some repair and some safety improvements. During the reauthorization of TEA-21, the previous currently extended highway authorization, donor States did not think it was possible to achieve a 95 percent rate of return. Under our proposal, we are able to get them there--get all of us there. However, I am aware some of the donor States are concerned that they hit the growth caps and they do not achieve a 95 percent return in the first year. We were unable to bring all donor States up as early as we might have wished due to budgetary constraints and balancing the needs of the donor States with the needs of donee States. For this reason, as the donor States grow, the donee States see a gradual decline to bring greater equity between the States. I am proud to tell all Senators from all States, however, that every State will grow at least 10 percent over the funding provided in the current bill TEA-21. This new bill, SAFETEA, also addresses several environmental issues such as the need to ease the transition under the new air quality standards. The conformity process is better aligned with air quality planning, as well as streamlining the project delivery process by providing the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the environmental review stage. The third aspect of the bill which I think is very important is there is a sufficient level of growth. The administration proposed, in my view, an insufficient level of growth for our Nation's aging infrastructure. The reason for offering the Bond-Reid amendment, which was adopted on the budget amendment in this body with 79 votes last year, was because the administration's SAFETEA proposal came in at only $200 billion for highways. During the last year's budget debate, I, along with Senator Reid, offered an amendment to fund highways at $255 billion over 6 years, and that was supported by a vote of 79 to 21. I am pleased to report that the bill we have before us follows the Bond- Reid amendment providing a 31 percent increase in funding over TEA-21. While this is not as high as some might have wanted, we are able to achieve this goal without raising fuel taxes. Last, I think it is important to note that this is a jobs bill. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates 47,500 jobs, or more. Accordingly, in 2009 our comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion will sustain over 2 million jobs. According to the Associated General Contractors, the same $1 billion investment yields $500 million in new orders from manufacturing and $500 million spread through other sectors of the economy. Construction pay averages, at $19 per hour, 23 percent higher than the private sector average. Failure to enact a 6-year bill will deprive us of the 90,000 jobs that would be created. Another accomplishment of our package is it will ensure that transportation projects are built more quickly because environmental stakeholders will be brought to the table sooner, environmental issues will be raised earlier, and the public will have better opportunities to shape the projects. Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a more structured environmental review process more efficiently and with fewer delays. The bill also ensures transportation projects will not make air worse in areas with poor air quality while giving local transportation planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal air quality requirements. This bill will put transportation planning on a regular 4-year cycle, require air quality checks for projects large enough to be regionally significant, and reduce the requirements for other projects. In addition to the benefits of this bill, I want to discuss a couple of specific items. I think these benefits are clear, and I think they commend the bill to anyone who is interested in good highways, safety, and jobs. There is an amendment that was adopted in the committee which I find troubling. It was adopted in the committee without my support. The Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program requires 2 percent set- asides from highways. That is about $1 billion. It is a mandate that tells States what they have to do with their highway money. I was hoping we would not get into mandates such as that. It is a massive environmental program. As the occupant of the chair knows, there are tremendous needs for environmental investment, particularly in clean water, safe drinking water, and other water needs. But this is a highway bill and I do not think it makes sense to tell all the States that they are going to have to set aside 2 percent of the funds apportioned to each State under the surface transportation program for use only on storm water mitigation activities in a new section 176. I think the bill as introduced more than adequately addresses the issue of contaminated runoff from highways while also protecting States' flexibility to manage their programs to meet their individual needs. The bill as introduced increases State flexibilities and opportunities to address storm water pollution in two ways. First, it makes storm water projects eligible under the National Highway System program, whereas under current law these projects are only eligible under the STP program. Second, the underlying bill extends eligibility to storm water mitigation projects that are not tied to ongoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing or restoration, only to an existing Federal aid highway. Therefore, the States have the flexibility. The States with storm water problems will know they have those problems and they will have the flexibility to direct the money to storm water. They have much greater flexibility. The bill as introduced allows those States that choose to do so to use their highway money for storm water. The States that have other means for addressing storm water and need the money for roads can use it for roads. I think we ought to address the problems on water issues, clean water and safe drinking water, but let's stay with the highway bill and not try to shoehorn a new environmental program into it. While roads certainly contribute to contaminated runoff, the appropriate place to address storm water runoff is in the context of other clean water programs through the water infrastructure bill. If gas receipts increase, it could exceed the amount we provide EPA to address all other clean water programs combined without ever assessing if this is the best place to devote funds. To me, this could be a serious problem for States where there is not storm water. We have storm water problems in Missouri. We just need the flexibility. We don't need a mandate. There are other States that do not have storm water problems and they should not have to deal with it. Another item that is important: Many of my colleagues will recall that in 1974, specific Federal money for grade crossing safety was first established, the Rail/Highway Grade Crossing Safety Program. A determination was made by Congress that at least one-half of the funds provided for the crossing program should be utilized for the installation of protective devices--flashing lights, gates, bells, and the circuitry that operates these devices. The rationale for these provisions was to assure that the constrained funds made available by Congress would not just be ``saved'' to install costly grade separations. Instead, Congress wanted to assure that the funds would enhance safety in the broadest possible way through the installation and upgrade of crossing warning devices at many more locations would be possible if the funds were reserved mostly for crossing separations, particularly in rural areas of the country. The committee adopted an amendment in markup that did three things. It increased funding for the section 130 program from $100 million to $200 million. It included specific funding for other hazards and grade separations. But it also eliminated the current law provision that requires at least one-half of the section 130 funds be available for protective devices. In an effort to assure that the maximum level of safety be realized at the highest number of grade crossings throughout the United States, the current law provision of section 130 that says at least one-half the programs be used for protective devices I think should be restored to the program. The section 130 program has a very credible safety performance record. When measured as a percentage of reduction in accident fatalities since its inception, the grade crossing program has been the most effective highway safety program. This record of accomplishment certainly justifies maintaining the existing programmatic structure of the program. I hope the Senate will be willing to restore the current law requirement for one-half of the section 130 program for grade crossing protective devices. Let me just tell you my experience in Missouri. There are 3,879 public highway/rail crossings and 3,011 private highway/rail crossings. Only 1,629 of the public highway/rail crossings in Missouri are equipped with active warning devices, flashing light signals and/or gates--about 42 percent. The remaining 58 percent are referred to as passive crossings and are equipped with crossbuck signs only. Missouri installed 212 active warning devices between 1997 and 2003 and spent nearly $24 million on these projects from section 130 funds. Currently, the Highway/Rail Crossing Safety Program in Missouri is required by the Federal Highway Administration to spend $1,999,000 annually for protective devices and the same amount for hazard elimination. The protective device money can only be used to install lights, gates, signs, and/or pavement markings at highway/rail crossings. The highway hazard funds have more flexibility to them and can be used to build a grade separation, close a crossing, improve the roadway at or near a crossing closure in order to reroute traffic. It is important to maintain funds in the hazard elimination category so our Department of Transportation and departments of transportation around the country can continue to work with local communities on crossing closure projects and corridor projects. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to address these vitally important programs. I see our other members, leadership members of the EPW committee, are here to address these issues. With that, I will yield the floor and thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, the good Senator from Oklahoma. He is doing a wonderful job. I have been listening to the comments of our friend from Arizona and I understand his concerns. In order to achieve equity, in order to get the bill passed, we were only able to give certain States, under the formula, an increase that maybe in all rights was not adequate. But anybody who gets a 40-percent increase is certainly doing better than most. I have driven the highways in Arizona, and I know that my colleague from Arizona does an excellent job representing his State. I hope the additional $1.118 billion will be a help. This is a problem we always face on the highway bill. I don't know any State that cannot make a compelling case that they have needs that are greater. The chairman of the full committee and I are sitting on the first or second and third worst roads and the first and second worst bridges in the Nation. I am not getting a 40-percent increase. I can tell you in detail about friends who have been killed on the highways in Missouri because there was too much traffic--10,000, 15,000 cars a day on narrow two-lane roads. This is a huge problem. The State of Oklahoma is a major Southwest-to-Midwest freeway. My State is in the center of the States. When you look at a map that shows the truck traffic and you identify the major corridors by red lines, the center of Missouri is a big red spot, and St. Louis is a big red blotch on the map; there is that much congestion. We were very proud to have the first interstate in the Nation under President Eisenhower's bill, starting through St. Charles, MO. That is the good news. But the bad news is that the road is badly out of shape, and there is not enough money in this highway bill even to make a beginning on repairing it. The Missouri Department of Transportation may be able to make some improvements. We are giving them some options on how to deal with it in our State, but it is clearly a pressing need. I can make a case that Missouri is the demographic center, because as many people live north of us as south of us, and as many people live east of us as west of us. The national traffic flow is through the State. We have needs. We don't increase at 40 percent, but we had to stay with the funding formula because this is a compromise. We are trying to take care of everyone and meet the needs that are pressing, meet the highest priority needs, and we were not able to do it. We want to work with our good friend from Arizona. We understand his concerns and we thank him for his kind comments. Again, I will have to say that the effort we put in was a lengthy effort and much compromise--nobody got really all they need, which, unfortunately, is the nature of a compromise. Again, I appreciate the comments made. I hope all of us can get together and move quickly. We are ready to offer an amendment. I gather we are urged to wait until tomorrow morning. If others have amendments, I hope we can be open for business tomorrow and get going because there are lots of pressing amendments and there are issues that need to be voted on. I hope we can get up and running and begin a very important debate and have votes on these amendments. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to answer some of the concerns raised by my colleague from New Jersey. Basically what he is describing is the Intelligence Committee. For 8 months, our staffs have interviewed over 200 people. They have gone through thousands of pages of documents. We have investigated all of the charges and all of the concerns that have been raised. There will be a preliminary report provided to the members of the Intelligence Committee on Thursday. Starting afresh with another congressional commission is not warranted. The report of the Intelligence Committee has not been seen. There are certain things that we know we have seen supported. I believe everybody believes David Kay is credible. When he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 28 this year, he said: I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of the cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought. I think when we have the complete record you are going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt, individuals were out for their own protection. In a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate. There is no question about it not being a fully accurate estimate. This is one of the areas where I think all of us would agree, we did not have as good intelligence as we should have. We didn't have as good intelligence in the 1990s, when we should have. And President Clinton, on February 17, 1998, said: If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a day later, said: Iraq is a long way from here but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the present greatest security threat we face. Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser, said on that same day: He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983. All of the people who are making these statements have access to the intelligence information that we as Senators get. We realize, based on what David Kay stated, that we badly underestimated the ballistic missile capability. As a matter of fact, Senator Graham of Florida was prescient in a letter he wrote. In a letter dated December 5, 2001, signed by many others, he said: There is no doubt Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons program. Reports indicate biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to prewar status. In addition Saddam continues to redefine ``delivery system'' and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop long range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. That one was right on the mark because that is what we found. What are the needs? Obviously, when there are not people who speak Arabic, when we do not have unofficial agents in the country, we are missing out on one of the important elements of a good intelligence program. But, you know something. It is not just Iraq. We didn't know how far Libya was along until Muammar Qadhafi, not wanting to be pulled out of a spider hole by an American soldier standing over him with a grenade, decided he would come clean. We were unaware of how far Iran has gone. And, clearly, prior to the first gulf war, we did not know just how far advanced Saddam Hussein's programs were. We also know--and David Kay was clear about this--that we cannot account for weapons of mass destruction that he had. There didn't have to be a large stockpile. A suitcase full of anthrax or ricin, or even a handful, can be a great terrorist weapon, and we will be lucky if we find that small amount, particularly after you look at the lengthy program of denial, deception, and destruction in which he engaged. There is a lot of intelligence that was lacking with respect to Saddam Hussein. We have to do a better job. The purpose of the Senate Intelligence Committee, one of five or six committees already investigating it, is to find out not only what we lacked but also to recommend changes because the one area on which we would agree is that we have to have a better system of intelligence. What we learn is going to put us on that track. I know the staff has worked hard. I am looking forward to the report. I will be surprised if it does not confirm what David Kay says and lay out some recommendations. The President has a responsibility as well. We have an oversight responsibility. If he wants people to look at it, to tell him how to improve it: Good luck. Go ahead. But we have the Iraqi Survey Group, internal investigations, and I believe probably the best investigation is what the Senate Intelligence Committee has done. I apologize. I know my colleague from Illinois wants to speak so I will yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I will be happy to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to respond to that question, what the Intelligence Committee looks at is what is the intelligence that was gathered. There have been some suggestions that the intelligence was influenced or colored by pressure from the administration. David Kay said absolutely not. He said he talked to the analysts, there was absolutely no information--there was absolutely no information--and he said that really the intelligence community owes an apology to the President--and I would say to the American people--for not having done it better. But they are dealing with a very inexact science. If you follow what other elected officials had said prior, during the 1990s, 2001, 2002--what they were saying shows that they used the same intelligence. We are looking at the intelligence, the national intelligence estimates and all those things. We look at it, and if you want to second-guess, if you want to argue that we should not have gone into Iraq, I think David Kay answers that and says the world is far safer. It was a much more dangerous situation than we thought. Yes, there are errors. There are areas where we overestimated his capability. There are areas where we underestimated his capability. But the fact remains that Saddam Hussein had so much weaponry, it is going to take 18 months just to destroy it. He still may have chemical and biological weapons. We look at what the intelligence is.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his understanding. He and I have worked together on many issues, and it is not easy. Certainly, this one is not easy. There is no question that we are not seeking perfection. We understand the problems that all States face. Over the 6 years, this bill actually winds up giving, as best I can figure, the State of Connecticut 20 cents more on every dollar they put in than the money we get back in the State of Missouri. So we have given at the office, and we are attempting to achieve equity. Nobody is going to be 100 percent happy, but this is one where there has been tremendous cooperation, over better than a year, among Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, my colleague, the subcommittee chairman, and Senator Reid, trying to listen and develop a framework that is fair and that deals with the pressing needs that this Nation faces. I commend the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Jim Inhofe, along with Senators Reid and Jeffords, for a job well done. The Finance Committee has been working hard. I gather they have done a good job to come up to the level that was originally contained in the Bond-Reid amendment in the Budget Act. We thought this was the minimum we needed because there are such pressing needs for highways. Obviously, everybody knows good highways lessen congestion. Everybody knows that they are the guidelines to economic development. If we do not have good highways, we cannot keep and grow good jobs. So it is vitally important for the long-term future of the State. In my State, it is really a safety issue. We are a very wide, broad, and tall State with lots of traffic through it. In many of these areas, the two-lane highways are carrying traffic that is designed for at least four lanes nowadays. Safety in this authorization is for the first time given a prominent position, being elevated to a core program. We have more than three deaths a day on Missouri's highways, and at least one and maybe more than those are attributable to the conditions of our highways. I know this happens in other States. That is why I am delighted that the administration, in laying out the title SAFETEA, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, has emphasized safety because good roads and highways are a matter of safety. I think this bill does mirror the administration's proposal continuing our commitment to the motoring public's safety. This is accomplished by providing much needed funding to reduce highway injuries and fatalities, all without the use of mandates. Funding for good highways and bridges is absolutely essential and a key component of our bill will go a long way toward saving lives by providing funds to States to address safety needs at hazardous locations, sections, and elements. These include roadside obstacles and unmarked or poorly marked roads that may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other highway users. We know in Missouri that inadequate roads not only lead to congestion, therefore more pollution, they delay, deny, and derail economic development opportunities, but they also kill people. When you have traffic--10,000, 15,000, 20,000 cars a day--on a narrow, two-lane road, you are going to have people passing when they should not and they run into other people head on. We heard testimony from the administration that nearly 42,000 people are killed on our roads and highways each year. We need to make an investment to reduce that loss. I am glad that the bill reflects the continued commitment to making not only investments in our infrastructure but also to the general safety and welfare of our constituents. On the question of equity, our bill is the best we can come up with in the real world to achieve equity among all of the States. Some of us have been donor States for a very long time, getting back far less than the dollar we put in. There are other States that have consistently received more. As a result, this bill tries to achieve some equity by getting all States to a 95-cent rate of return, at least by the end of the authorization. There are 24 States; Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. At the same time, we wanted to make sure that every State got an increase. So every State gets at least a 10-percent increase over the amount of funds that they were getting in TEA-21, and we put a lid on so that some States would not take an undue share. I think the top rate is about a 42-percent increase. So in that framework, we have come up with what we think is equity. My home State of Missouri, as many of the donor States mentioned, has some of the worst roads in the Nation. It has about the third worst roads in the Nation, with 59 percent of its major roads in either poor or mediocre condition, requiring immediate repair or reconstruction. We also have the second worst bridges in the Nation. I take my hat off to the chairman of the committee because I understand his State may be the one State that ranks in worse shape than Missouri does on both of these. As my colleagues will notice, Missouri is very much in the middle ranks of those getting an increase. During the reauthorization of TEA-21, donor States did not think it was feasible to achieve the 95 percent rate of return. Under our proposal, we are able to get them there. However, I am aware that some of the donor States are concerned they hit our growth caps and do not achieve a 95 percent return in 2004. We were unable to bring donor States up as early as we might have wished due to our budgetary constraints, and balancing the needs of the donor States with the needs of the donee States. But as donor States grow, the donee States see a gradual decline. To bring greater equity between the States, I am proud to announce that all States will grow not less than 10 percent over TEA-21. This bill also addresses important environmental issues that were part of a compromise, worked out with great input from all sides. To ease the transition to new air quality standards, the conformity process is better aligned with air quality planning, as well as streamlining the project delivery process by providing the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the environmental review stage. We think that is very important. We know there are lots of different ideas on this bill. We tried to accommodate all of those ideas. We had ideas and requests coming in over the transom, through the window. We met people on the floor. Our staffs worked together to try to balance all of these needs. Clearly, there are going to be a number of amendments. I hope our colleagues will work with us because there is a real desire, on the part of the chair and the ranking member of both the full committee and the subcommittee, to give a hearing to these. If there are important issues that need to be dealt with, we want to get the votes and move forward so we can, we hope, get the bill signed before the current authorization expires at the end of February. Regarding a sufficient level of growth, the administration proposed, in my view, an insufficient level of growth for our Nation's aging infrastructure. The reason for offering the Bond-Reid amendment was because the administration's SAFETEA proposal came in at a mere $200 billion for highways. During last year's budget debate, I, along with Senator Reid, offered an amendment to fund highways at $255 billion over 6 years, which was supported by a vote of 79 to 21. I am pleased to report that the bill we have before us follows the Bond-Reid amendment providing a 31- percent increase in funding over TEA-21. While this is not as high as some might have wanted, we are able to achieve this goal without raising fuel taxes. In this bill, I think all of us are concerned about jobs as well as the benefits that good highways and bridges bring if we are to get people to work this summer, which I think is very important because we still do not have enough people working. We need to get the authorization so it can get out to the highway departments so they can make their contracts for the coming year. I do not need to tell my colleagues, because I think everybody has heard it too many times, that the Department of Transportation estimates that for every billion dollars in new Federal investment, there are 47,000 jobs created. We want to see those jobs created this year. Accordingly, in 2009 our comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion will sustain over 2 million new jobs. According to the Associated General Contractors, the same $1 billion investment yields $500 million in new orders from manufacturing and $500 million spread through other sectors of the economy. Construction pay averages at $19 per hour, 23 percent higher than the private sector average. Failure to enact a 6-year bill yields the loss of 90,000 jobs. Another accomplishment of our package will ensure transportation projects are built more quickly because environmental stakeholders will be brought to the table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised earlier and the public will have better opportunities to shape projects. Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a more structured environmental review process more efficiently and with fewer delays. The bill also ensures that transportation projects will not make air worse in areas with poor air quality, while giving local transportation planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal air-quality responsibilities. The bill will put transportation planning on a regular 4-year cycle, require air quality checks for projects large enough to be regionally significant and reduce current barriers local officials face in adopting projects that improve air quality. This comprehensive package is a good step forward to addressing our Nation's needs in infrastructure development and improvement. I thank my colleagues from the Finance Committee, and others. I urge everybody to work with us. The managers of the bill will be doing their best to expedite it. I appreciate the time. I urge my colleagues to support the motion for cloture and to move to the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will designate the former Mallinkrodt Nuclear Production Facilities in Missouri as a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000. These facilities, which handled and processed highly radioactive materials during the Cold War, are located in Downtown St. Louis, Weldon Springs in St. Charles County, and Hematite in Jefferson County, MO respectively. Energy workers at these sites handled and processed highly radioactive materials during the Cold War as part of the Manhattan Project and our nation's ongoing Atomic Weapons Program. The St. Louis Downtown or ``Destrahan'' Site operated from 1942 through 1958. From there, operations and most Mallinkrodt workers were moved out to the Weldon Springs Facility which operated until 1958. After that, work continued at the Hematite Facility in Jefferson County until 1969. This legislation would add these facilities to the four existing Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Sites across the country, which were written into the original EEOICPA. In addition to designating the existing SEC sites, the EEOICPA set up a process to add additional sites to the SEC list provided those sites meet certain criteria. A Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) is comprised of a group of employees with specific cancers who worked at four specific nuclear facilities or participated in certain nuclear weapons tests, and who met other requirements under the EEOICPA. An SEC designation would provide former workers at these sites or their survivors with expedited compensation as opposed to requiring these workers to participate in the long, complex and cumbersome bureaucratic process known as dose reconstruction. According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), there are two key statutory determinations required for adding a class of employees to the SEC. The first requirement is that it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose that the class of employees received. The second requirement is that there is a reasonable likelihood that such a radiation dose may have endangered the members of this class. After extensive research, which included several briefings with NIOSH, the Department of Energy, independent experts and former Mallinkrodt workers, I believe that there is strong evidence indicating that both statutory requirements for the SEC have been met with regard to the Mallinkrodt Sites. In mid 2001, the Department of Energy (DOE) released a report indicating for the first time that the highly radioactive material plutonium was processed at the Weldon Springs Site. The report also stated that recycled uranium, another highly radioactive material, was processed at the site. Furthermore, in its recently completed site profile for the St. Louis Downtown Site, NIOSH admits that they have virtually no records or monitoring data on the workers at the site prior to 1948. NIOSH also stated that this could be a problem in calculating individual dose, thus requiring some assumptions to be made. Both of the aforementioned issues, the presence of plutonium and the loss or destruction of individual monitoring records were reasons for writing the four existing SEC sites into the original EEOICPA. In addition to these issues, long sought after documents from the former Chief Safety Officer for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) during the time described the Mallinkrodt St. Louis facility as one of the two worst plants with respect to worker exposures. Workers at this plant were exposed to excessive levels of airborne uranium dust relative to the standards in effect during the time, and many workers were exposed to as much as 200 times the preferred levels of exposure. NIOSH confirmed these intense levels at a recent presentation on the Mallinkrodt-St. Louis Site Profile when it described the operations at this plant as a ``messy'' or ``dirty'' operation in terms of levels of radionuclides present. Finally, NIOSH has informed claimants who worked at these sites or their survivors that if they are not interviewed as a part of the dose reconstruction process, it would ``hinder'' NIOSH's ability to conduct dose reconstruction for the claimant and may result in a dose reconstruction that ``incompletely or inaccurately'' estimates the radiation dose to which the energy employee named in the claim was exposed. So NIOSH is basically saying that they are relying on a former worker's memory or any information a survivor might have. What if the former worker cannot remember what he was exposed to or was never told? What if the survivor has no idea as to what materials the claimant might have been exposed? Keep in mind. Most of this happened anywhere from 40-60 years ago. All of the previously mentioned points are evidence that the health of these workers was endangered and that an accurate dose reconstruction is not feasible. Therefore, I believe that the Mallinkrodt sites in Missouri should be designated as a Special Exposure Cohort. To make matters even worse, the Department of Health and Human Services first published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning the Special Exposure Cohort on June 25, 2002, and as of today, January 27, 2004, this rule has yet to be finalized. Many of these former Mallinkrodt workers have died while waiting for the proposed SEC rule to be finalized, including some claimants who were waiting for dose reconstruction to be started or completed. This is simply unacceptable! The EEOICPA was intended to provide long overdue compensation to these workers within a reasonable period of time. These brave workers answered the call and helped our nation win the Cold War. It is now time for our nation to help them and provide them with the immediate compensation that they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will designate the former Mallinkrodt Nuclear Production Facilities in Missouri as a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000. These facilities, which handled and processed highly radioactive materials during the Cold War, are located in Downtown St. Louis, Weldon Springs in St. Charles County, and Hematite in Jefferson County, MO respectively. Energy workers at these sites handled and processed highly radioactive materials during the Cold War as part of the Manhattan Project and our nation's ongoing Atomic Weapons Program. The St. Louis Downtown or ``Destrahan'' Site operated from 1942 through 1958. From there, operations and most Mallinkrodt workers were moved out to the Weldon Springs Facility which operated until 1958. After that, work continued at the Hematite Facility in Jefferson County until 1969. This legislation would add these facilities to the four existing Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Sites across the country, which were written into the original EEOICPA. In addition to designating the existing SEC sites, the EEOICPA set up a process to add additional sites to the SEC list provided those sites meet certain criteria. A Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) is comprised of a group of employees with specific cancers who worked at four specific nuclear facilities or participated in certain nuclear weapons tests, and who met other requirements under the EEOICPA. An SEC designation would provide former workers at these sites or their survivors with expedited compensation as opposed to requiring these workers to participate in the long, complex and cumbersome bureaucratic process known as dose reconstruction. According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), there are two key statutory determinations required for adding a class of employees to the SEC. The first requirement is that it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose that the class of employees received. The second requirement is that there is a reasonable likelihood that such a radiation dose may have endangered the members of this class. After extensive research, which included several briefings with NIOSH, the Department of Energy, independent experts and former Mallinkrodt workers, I believe that there is strong evidence indicating that both statutory requirements for the SEC have been met with regard to the Mallinkrodt Sites. In mid 2001, the Department of Energy (DOE) released a report indicating for the first time that the highly radioactive material plutonium was processed at the Weldon Springs Site. The report also stated that recycled uranium, another highly radioactive material, was processed at the site. Furthermore, in its recently completed site profile for the St. Louis Downtown Site, NIOSH admits that they have virtually no records or monitoring data on the workers at the site prior to 1948. NIOSH also stated that this could be a problem in calculating individual dose, thus requiring some assumptions to be made. Both of the aforementioned issues, the presence of plutonium and the loss or destruction of individual monitoring records were reasons for writing the four existing SEC sites into the original EEOICPA. In addition to these issues, long sought after documents from the former Chief Safety Officer for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) during the time described the Mallinkrodt St. Louis facility as one of the two worst plants with respect to worker exposures. Workers at this plant were exposed to excessive levels of airborne uranium dust relative to the standards in effect during the time, and many workers were exposed to as much as 200 times the preferred levels of exposure. NIOSH confirmed these intense levels at a recent presentation on the Mallinkrodt-St. Louis Site Profile when it described the operations at this plant as a ``messy'' or ``dirty'' operation in terms of levels of radionuclides present. Finally, NIOSH has informed claimants who worked at these sites or their survivors that if they are not interviewed as a part of the dose reconstruction process, it would ``hinder'' NIOSH's ability to conduct dose reconstruction for the claimant and may result in a dose reconstruction that ``incompletely or inaccurately'' estimates the radiation dose to which the energy employee named in the claim was exposed. So NIOSH is basically saying that they are relying on a former worker's memory or any information a survivor might have. What if the former worker cannot remember what he was exposed to or was never told? What if the survivor has no idea as to what materials the claimant might have been exposed? Keep in mind. Most of this happened anywhere from 40-60 years ago. All of the previously mentioned points are evidence that the health of these workers was endangered and that an accurate dose reconstruction is not feasible. Therefore, I believe that the Mallinkrodt sites in Missouri should be designated as a Special Exposure Cohort. To make matters even worse, the Department of Health and Human Services first published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning the Special Exposure Cohort on June 25, 2002, and as of today, January 27, 2004, this rule has yet to be finalized. Many of these former Mallinkrodt workers have died while waiting for the proposed SEC rule to be finalized, including some claimants who were waiting for dose reconstruction to be started or completed. This is simply unacceptable! The EEOICPA was intended to provide long overdue compensation to these workers within a reasonable period of time. These brave workers answered the call and helped our nation win the Cold War. It is now time for our nation to help them and provide them with the immediate compensation that they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to pay special tribute to the U.S. Army's Human Resources Command--St. Louis, formerly known as the Army Personnel Command, AR-PERSCOMD. On October 2, 2003, ARPERSCOM was deactivated and merged with the U.S. Army's Total Army Personnel Command to form the Army's Human Resources Command, headquartered in Alexandria, VA. Although its name has changed, the organization's proud legacy of selfless service to Army Reserve Soldiers, veterans, and their family members continues. The mission of Human Resources Command--St. Louis, HRC-St. Louis, is to ensure the full spectrum of human resources programs, services and systems are executed to support the readiness and well-being of Army personnel worldwide. HRC-St. Louis and its predecessor organizations have a long and distinguished history of service to the Nation. Located in the Charles F. Prevedel Building at the Federal Records Complex in suburban St. Louis, the command was officially activated on October 1, 1998, with the mission of providing the highest quality life cycle management and services resulting in a trained and ready force in support of the National Military Strategy. Formed provisionally on October 16, 1997, AP-PERSCOM replaced the former U.S. Army Reserve, USAR, Personnel Center on ARPERCEN. HRC-St. Louis traces its lineage back to 1919, when the Demobilized Records Division was established in Washington, D.C., as an activity under the Adjutant General's Office. Its mission was to store and maintain the records of soldiers demobilized after World War I. After a number of moves, the division came to St. Louis in 1945. First located at the Federal facility at 4300 Goodfellow Blvd., the division moved to its present location on 9700 Page Avenue--1 Reserve Way--in 1956. Through the years, the organization underwent a number of name and mission changes, including the establishment of the Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center or RCPAC in 1971, and ARPERCEN's establishment as a field operating agency under the Chief, Army Reserve in 1984. In 1994, a U.S. Army council of colonels convened and determined that USAR personnel management, service and policy functions should be streamlined and consolidated under one command: AR-PERSCON. Serving as the single focal point for the supporting Army Reserve Personnel life cycle management in peacetime, mobilization, and demobilization environments, HRC-St. Louis provides efficient and seamless human resource support to Army Reserve Soldiers who are Troop Program Unit, TPU, members, drilling Reserve unit members; Individual Mobilization Augmentees, IMA; Individual Ready Reservists, IRR; and Active Guard Reserve, AGR soldiers, reservists on extended full-time active duty. The command supports almost 329,000 Ready Reserve Soldiers, approximately 212,000 in the Selected Reserve--TPU, IMA, and AGR, and over 115,000 IRR Soldiers. HRC-St. Louis is a highly innovative organization; maximizing the talents of its combined military and civilian work force over 1,100 members. It serves as a leader within the Department of Defense in maximizing use of advanced technology providing personalized, e-care-- electronic--to customers. Its award-winning HRC-St. Louis, formerly 2xCitizen, website, with its numerous applications, informs Reserve soldiers and the public on Army personnel matters. In 2002, alone, there were over 28 million visits--logins--to the website. Soldiers can access and update their records online at any time via the Internet through their own individual self-service web portal--a significant innovation and major evolution in soldier personnel service support. No longer do Reserve soldiers have to wait extended periods for hardcopy documents or microfiche copies to arrive through the mail to review their records or prepare for promotion boards. In providing responsive, real time e-care for soldiers, HRC-St. Louis contributes significantly toward the Army's readiness to engage in support of the implementation of the National Military Strategy on behalf of the Nation's security objectives. The command's merger with the Total Army's PERSCOM, and incorporation as part of the new U.S. Army's Human Resources Command, is part of an overall Army transformation effort to streamline and enhance integration of all personnel functions--making them more efficient and responsive in meeting a wide range of missions--while enhancing personnel service for the soldier. This proclamation recognizes and salutes all those who currently serve as members of Human Resources Command--St. Louis--soldiers and civilians alike--and all who have gone before them who have made countless contributions to the United States of America. As the Army's Human Resources transformation continues, the soldiers and civilians of HRC-St. Louis will continue to make many more significant contributions to the soldiers and our Nation as a part of the U.S. Army's Human Resources Command.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Sieglinde Kurz received her bachelor of arts degree from Fontbonne College, St. Louis, MO, in 1961 and her masters degree in Health Care Management from Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, in 1976. Linda Kurz started her career with the Department of Veterans Affairs in November 1965 as a Research Chemist in Renal Hypertension Research at the St. Louis VA Medical Center. Linda Kurz, during her government career, was the Administrative Assistant to the Associate Director, Hines, IL; Associate Director, VA Medical Center, Tomah, WI; Associate Deputy Regional Director, Northeastern Region, Albany, NY; Associate Director, VA Medical Center, Marion, IL; Director, Construction Project Coordination and Budget, VA Headquarters, Washington, DC; Director, VA Medical Center, Marion, IL. She left the Marion VAMC to accept the position of Director at the St. Louis VAMC. Linda Kurz served as director of the St. Louis VA for 5 years and 8 months from May 1998 thru January 2004, one of the largest and most complex VA facilities in the Nation. Linda Kurz provided leadership for this dual division hospital, providing care for in excess of 36,000 veterans annually, within a primary service area of metropolitan St. Louis, including 9 counties in Missouri and 14 counties in West Central Illinois and lead a care team of 1,900 full time employee equivalents. Linda's life time achievements include: A leader in the health care management field, mentor for VHA Health Care Management Trainees, Executive Career Field Director Trainees and achieved the status of Diplomat in the American College of Healthcare Executives. Linda Kurz, was listed as one of the Top Female Directors in Missouri Hospital Association Newsletter, Summer 2003 Edition and in Who's Who Among Top Executives in 1998-1999 and Linda Kurz, during her tenure as Director, St. Louis VA Medical Center was recognized in 1999, with the Vice-Presidential ``Hammer and Scissors'' award for her efforts in piloting the first Department of Veterans Affairs Canteen Integration. During her tenure at the St. Louis VA, Linda has worked tirelessly to improve access to care for veterans and opened three health clinics; she supported her employees by providing educational opportunities for mid-level managers through programs such as mini-MBA and she promoted an open policy, communicating with staff at all levels by establishing employee and supervisory forums. Linda Kurz will retire January 31, 2004, after 37 years of government service, having devoted countless hours and years to the welfare of the American Veterans.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I say to my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, that I intended this provision to apply only to the adoption or enforcement of standards or other requirements relating to ``new'' engines, not existing engines or ``in-use'' engines. Also, I have heard from other colleagues and stakeholders regarding their desire to address in-use engines. I did not intend that this new language to apply to voluntary State programs aimed at reducing emissions from existing engines such as the Texas Emission Reduction Plan.

Mr. BOND. Yes, I believe the entire provision, including subsection (c), should apply to adoption or enforcement of standards or other requirements relating only to nonroad engines.

Mr. BOND. Yes, I believe the entire provision, including subsection (c), should apply to adoption or enforcement of standards or other requirements relating only to nondiesel engines. I used the term spark- ignition to have that meaning.