Floor Statements

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. 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. 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.

I will be happy to.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I believe the entire provision should apply only to engines smaller than 50 horsepower and not engines larger than 50 horsepower. So, in summary, the intent of this provision is to apply to adoption or enforcement of standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 21, 2003, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing on North Korea.

On behalf of the Republican leadership, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I finish my remarks, the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized.

Mr. President, I have come to speak about the Omnibus appropriations bill. I say to my good friend from North Dakota, sometimes it is frustrating. We spent 8 years with an administration of his party, and there were many times we had to change appropriations bills. We had a very frequent presence from the Office of Management and Budget, and in order to get bills signed, we had to accede to Presidential requests.

In this bill, obviously, there are some very important provisions. When we are talking about country-of-origin labeling, the concern that comes to many of us in livestock-producing States, cattle producers and hog producers, if you are a small independent operator and you don't have a totally integrated operation, you have a very difficult time getting a total life history of every animal you might want to feed out and sell.

The ability of a large integrated operation which goes from cow calf to feeding, finishing and slaughtering, they are in a great position to live with the country-of-origin labeling. There are some real problems, which is why we asked for a delay in the implementation of the country- of-origin labeling. There had been a new proposal for an animal identification system which would make that prospect possible. In the absence of that, many of the individual small cattle ranchers and hog producers in my State think it would be impossible for them to sell their animals.

There are some conflicting needs. Those had to be resolved and, like any measure, an Omnibus appropriations bill has provisions in it that some people don't like. Certainly, in almost every appropriations bill on which I work, there are provisions I don't like. But we have to get it passed by both Houses. We have to get it signed by the President.

I am here today to urge that, No. 1, we move quickly to adopt the Omnibus appropriations bill and that we get on and work on a bipartisan basis without delays, without having to invoke cloture to pass appropriations bills for the coming year.

With respect to the Omnibus appropriations bill, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to some very important provisions. There are problems that are happening every day because we were not able to pass the Omnibus appropriations bill in December. We worked on a bipartisan basis. The distinguished ranking member of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, and I put together what is a very difficult bill, but we think it is a very important bill. Probably the most significant part of it is for medical care.

The Omnibus appropriations bill provides $28.3 billion in funds, including third-party insurance collections. This amount is $3.1 billion over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and represents a 12.3 percent increase over the previous year's enacted level, the one that will have to stay in effect if we continue to work under a continuing resolution.

At this point, our problem is we either pass this bill or go back to a continuing resolution. The figure of $3.1 billion less for the current year means great hardship, great delay for our VA health care, among other things.

Make no mistake, these funds are urgently and desperately needed by veterans, especially for those who return from Iraq and the global war on terrorism.

If my colleagues visit, as I have, VA facilities, the Washington VA, and the VA facilities in my home State, anyplace they go they will find there is a tremendous delay in the ability to care for and take on veterans who qualify under the greatly expanded eligibility scope the Congress has mandated on VA. There is a great delay in taking care of many of these people.

According to a VA analysis, there are 15,813 service members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom who have been separated from military duty as of September 22 of last year. Among these service members, almost 2,000, or 12.5 percent, have sought VA health care during 2003.

Every day we hear unfortunate and sad news of American soldiers killed in Iraq. As illustrated by the VA analysis and scores of news reports, there are thousands of service members who were fortunate to live but were wounded in combat. As reported last October 1 by USA Today:

At least seven times as many men and women have been

wounded in battle as those killed in battle.

As these wounded service members are discharged from the military and confront new and challenging hardships in piecing together a new life, most of them will depend upon the VA to meet their needs. I personally met some of these service members when I visited Walter Reed Hospital last month. I visited the VA facilities. I visited service members, such as Phillip Ramsey from Kansas City, MO, who was badly wounded in Iraq and will ultimately require extensive, long-term care from the VA system as well.

Further, we know that the demand for VA medical care is not going to lessen. We have already seen the VA medical care system being overwhelmed by the staggering increase in demand for its medical services.

Since 1996, VA has seen a 54-percent increase, or 2 million patients more, in total users of the medical care system. Further, the VA projects that its enrollments will grow by another 2 million patients from a current level of 7 million to 9 million patients in 2009. Getting the funds that we have approved in the Senate, approved in the conference committee, approved on the floor, and signed by the President is absolutely essential.

In addition, construction projects for new medical facilities and improvements to existing facilities will not go forward without this Omnibus bill passing. Under a year-long continuing resolution, the VA would not be able to begin funding construction for new facilities in Las Vegas and Orlando. Further, funding for the development of 48 high- priority, new, community-based outpatient clinics, and a number of new nursing homes will be curtailed.

In the years I have worked with the VA in my current position, providing community-based outpatient clinics is the most effective, humane, and efficient way of delivering service to VA-qualified veterans who would otherwise have to travel perhaps as much as hundreds of miles to get primary and routine care.

In another area, for 2003, pharmacy costs rose over 11 percent, and the VA is continuing to see increasing demands for prescriptions each month.

The continued rising demand for prescriptions is stripping funds from other priority areas as VA continues to operate under last year's funding level. Furthermore, the VA provides a high priority to the highest quality of life long-term care for each of its elderly veterans. The VA planned to expand its program by over 20 percent this year, but the VA will not be able to expand its long-term care services under a continuing resolution funding authority. This, in my view, is not the way we should treat the men and women in uniform who have served America.

The VA has made significant strides in improving claims benefits processing, but the VA's efforts would again be curtailed under a continuing resolution. The VA is currently on track to reach their goal of no longer than 100 days to process these claims, down from 233 days, which it was previously. They are trying to get there by the end of 2004. However, with a continuing resolution level at the 2003 level, the current year, the Veterans Benefits Administration would have to cut 500 full-time employees. Such a reduction would be catastrophic to the timeliness of claims processing and the expeditious delivery of benefits such as pensions to the needy, education benefits, and home loans.

At a continuing resolution for 2003 funding level, the VA cemetery services would be critically impacted and would result in delays in awarding shrine commitment contracts, awarding grants for State veterans cemeteries, and a reduced level of staffing that would negatively impact cemetery maintenance.

America's veterans rely on the VA to provide the services they need and have earned. Now is not the time to reduce funding levels, and that is one reason I urge my colleagues to approve this Omnibus bill.

In HUD, Housing and Urban Development, under a continuing resolution, the Section 8 Voucher Program for the needy who get housing through a voucher provided by the Federal Government would be $2.1 billion short. That would result in tens of thousands of low-income families without rental subsidy assistance and potentially displace them. Certainly, that is not something we want to see done. That is another reason we have to pass the Omnibus bill.

For the Federal Housing Administration single family and multifamily insurance fund programs, the continuing resolution's limitations for the mutual mortgage insurance and general insurance/special risk insurance programs will be hit well before the end of the fiscal year. That would result in a suspension of new mortgage activities for a wide variety of home ownership and multifamily housing programs.

Moving on to NASA, our space program, under a year-long continuing resolution space science activities would be reduced by approximately $425 million from the amount included in the 2004 Omnibus appropriations conference report on the VA/HUD and independent agencies. Space science would be forced to accommodate the reduction by cutting missions that are currently in the pre-development phase, both technology and advanced concepts, which would likely result in delays to missions on origins, solar space exploration, and Sun-Earth connections.

NASA is also relying on the 2004 omnibus level for the space shuttle program in order to accommodate return to flight requirements. If forced to operate under a full-year CR, the ability of the space shuttle to accommodate these return to flight requirements would be reduced by nearly $60 million.

Finally, the Corporation for National Community Service would be forced to limit grant awards to AmeriCorps programs throughout the country since the CR does not provide adequate funding to reach the President's goal of 75,000 volunteers. Under a year-long CR, the corporation would only be able to support between 45,000 and 47,000 members, about 40 percent less than provided under the Omnibus appropriations bill.

We went through a period of problems that have occurred in the Corporation for National and Community Service. Senator Mikulski and I worked to help them straighten out the problems. On a bipartisan basis, they have had strong support for getting back to the great work of the many volunteer programs, including AmeriCorps. Without this funding, there would be a drastic setback and we would find that the level of activity would be significantly reduced.

These are just some of the reasons, from the perspective of the VA/ HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee bill, which is included in the Omnibus bill, why I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree we need to get on with this bill and go to work on the current year's business. We have far too little time to deal with all of the things we must deal with, and I hope we could get on with the job.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I commend our leader, Senator Frist, as well as Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, and Senator Breaux, for the tremendous work in passing this very difficult bill. This is a tremendous milestone. It is great news for the seniors of our Nation.

I also ask and plead with the leadership and the Members to realize that we have not yet finished work on the vitally important appropriations bills. It is extremely important we get these bills passed this year prior to the start of 2004, because there is so much in these bills that must be passed now.

The Appropriations Committees, under the leadership of Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd, have worked long and hard to produce these bills. Senator Mikulski and I fought to get an increase in veterans health of $2.9 billion. We did that because of the pressing need for our veterans.

Our high-priority veterans are waiting sometimes 6 months just to get an appointment. We need that money in the VA system now, not sometime next year. We are also seeing more and more veterans coming back from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq with serious injuries, long-term injuries, that are going to require veterans health care. We have to come to some agreement to get these bills passed this year, not sometime next year, not January or February or March. We cannot afford to miss a half a year.

In addition to that, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Connecticut put in the over $1 billion needed for the Help America Vote Act.

I would be happy to yield.

The distinguished Senator from Kentucky makes a very valid point. The time is now to get that money into the voting system in every

State. We cannot delay any longer. Every week, every month we delay, means less likelihood that we will make the changes that were promised.

This body overwhelmingly adopted the Help America Vote Act which, as Senator McConnell has said, will make it easier to vote and tougher to cheat. This is a commitment we made to the people of America that we would provide these reforms and we would fund them. If this money has to wait until the approval of these appropriations bills sometime in February and getting the money out in March or April, we are not going to get it done in time. They are not going to be able to implement these vitally important reforms in election.

I know many people want to get their voting machines improved. Frankly, I want to see the end of dogs and dead people voting. They are still trying that in St. Louis. There was a nice 180-count indictment issued by the prosecuting attorney in the city of St. Louis, the circuit attorney. That problem needs to stop and the only way we can get it to stop is by funding the Help America Vote Act.

There are many other good arguments, but I urge the leaders to come together to work on this matter. If we could do it by unanimous consent, that would be the best, but if we have to come back the second week in December, we have an obligation to the people of Missouri to do our job. I plead with the leadership to come to some agreement so we can finish these bills.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, earlier today I spoke briefly about the need to get our appropriations bills, many of which are now included in the so-called omnibus appropriations measure--some of us think it is an ``ominous'' appropriations measure--passed prior to the end of calendar year 2003. Among the things I pointed out were some very important measures. This body passed something called the Help America Vote Act, which I think focused attention on two very important problems. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted to make sure we had up-to-date voting machines to make sure everyone who was entitled to vote could vote to remove barriers to voting. We supported that.

We also got support for something I thought was very important as well, and that was to stop the rampant fraud that has come back as a result of postcard registration.

I have the honor of representing an area that has probably the dubious distinction of being one of the vote fraud centers perhaps in the universe. The city of St. Louis, as I have said many times before, is famous for voting rolls clogged with people registered one, two, three, even four times; vacant lots with small cities worth of registered voters; and even my favorite dog, Ritzy Meckler, a 13-year- old Springer Spaniel who was registered there.

We have had some great theological experiences. For the last general election, a very prominent and outstanding alderman of the city of St. Louis registered to vote on the 10th anniversary of his death. It is a wonderful theological statement. It does not do much

for me as a political scientist, but he registered by postcard.

After the 2000 election, when we found tremendous vote fraud problems in St. Louis, they had a mayoral election scheduled for the spring of 2001. The last day of registration, 3,000 postcards showed up to register voters for that election. It did not take long for observant election officials to note that all of those cards appeared to be in the handwriting of one or two people. They started checking and they found that, lo and behold, there were a lot of phony people registered.

Terribly, the deceased mother of the prosecuting attorney of the city of St. Louis was registered to vote. This brought about some action. Several of the people involved in that little process came together and decided to destroy the records. Since that time, I have read in the paper that the prosecuting attorney in St. Louis has filed significant criminal indictments for those people.

However, I am proud to say that the St. Louis City election board is using new laws passed in the State of Missouri to tighten up on these postcard registrations. Prior to the Help America Vote Act, you couldn't even check on people who registered by mail. The process for getting voters off the list, if they are improperly registered, was byzantine, and took years to do. But under the Federal standards, there are still areas where these nonexistent or duplication voter registrations can be made by mail.

We provided new powers and new responsibilities for local election officials in the Help America Vote Act. We promised to fund them. So during the process of debate on the appropriations bills, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, the Chair, and the ranking member of the Rules Committee, when this passed, came to the floor and I supported them. We got over $1 billion to fund the Help America Vote Act. That languishes in the omnibus appropriations bill. That money is necessary to support local efforts to carry out the mandates under the Help America Vote Act.

We all thought that once we passed that law we were going to ensure honest elections in 2004, elections where everybody entitled to vote could vote. The problem is, if we don't get around to passing the funding for the Help America Vote Act until we come back next year, the process drags on and on and we are probably into March before the money goes out--which is too late to make many of the changes and to build the infrastructure and to buy the equipment that is needed to carry out the requirements of the Help America Vote Act.

I have talked with other Senators about the many important measures that are included in that Omnibus Appropriations Act. But I want to call the attention of my colleagues to some further information that I have developed about the Veterans Affairs budget.

Senator Mikulski and I fought long and hard to get the funding that we needed to try to catch up to the backlog in the VA. People with service-related injuries, permanent disabilities, low-income people, homeless people, are being denied, for months, the ability to get in to see a doctor because so many new enrollees have come into the system. This body expanded the eligibility. We expanded the eligibility, but the money has not kept up. So we are trying to play catchup, and there is an additional $2.9 billion above this year's funding level for the VA that cannot begin until the bill is signed. We are already a couple of months into the fiscal year 2004. We would be 6 or 7 months in before we could get funding if we wait until next year.

My staff tells me there are a number of other things that will happen. Specifically, noninstitutional long-term care cannot be increased. The VA has placed a high priority, providing a high quality of life, long-term care for each veteran. The VA planned to expand the program by over 20 percent this year because of the demand. The VA, without these funds, will not be able to expand the long-term care services under the fiscal year 2003 funding authority.

Second, pharmacy costs will continue eating the budget. For fiscal year 2003, pharmacy costs rose over 11 percent and the VA is incurring increasing demands for prescriptions each month. The continuing rise in demand for prescriptions is stripping funds from other priority areas as VA continues to operate under last year's funding levels.

Third, new community-based outpatient clinics will be curtailed. The VA has 48 high-priority community-based outpatient clinics ready to go that can't move forward because they don't have the funds under the continuing resolution.

Finally and most important, and something I hope will be significant to each one of us here, the waiting lists will continue to lengthen. Continued operations under a continuing resolution will force VA to curtail hiring of new physicians and nurses. The VA experiences about a 1-percent normal attrition rate of physicians per month. By January, VA's waiting list will rise by over 10,000 from the projected level.

VA patients, who should be getting our top priority attention, are going to find the waiting list longer. That is why I renew my appeal to the leaders on both sides to deal with the omnibus appropriations, to come to some agreement, either to take this on UC, or take it by voice vote, with the distinguished chairman and ranking member on our side and the other side to come to closure on it, or, if need be, bring us back in session.

The House is going to come back into session on December 8, I understand, and vote on the bill. We have an obligation to come in-- either if there is a unanimous consent agreement granted to do it by voice vote or if there is not--and do what we are paid to do and that is to vote up or down and pass the appropriations that are so essential for many areas where continuing resolution funding will be inadequate.

I urge the leadership to work on this. We need it in many areas.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize the St. Louis radio community for joining together to pioneer the 1st Annual March of Dimes Radio Broadcasters For Babies Event at the Saint Louis Galleria on November 8, 2003. This was the first event of its kind nationwide. Together, Clear Channel Radio, Emmis Broadcasting, Bonneville St. Louis Radio Group, KTRS The Big 550, 1380 THE TEAM, Q95.5 Radio One, Classic 99 and Infinity Radio raised almost $300,000 to support research and programs to save babies from premature birth, the leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality.

One out of every eight babies in the U.S. is born prematurely, some so tiny they can't even cry. In nearly half of these cases, no one knows why. With their 5 year, $75 million Prematurity Campaign--no one is working harder than the March of Dimes to find out why babies are born too soon. I commend the St. Louis radio community for their support of the March of Dimes. With their help we will find the causes of premature birth and gain more knowledge to save more babies.