[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14464-S14481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2861, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2861) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri is going to make an opening statement. Senator Mikulski, in an 
effort to move this bill forward, even though she had a longstanding 
commitment in Maryland this morning, asked that I represent her this 
morning, which I am happy to do.
  However, her statement will be made at a later time at her 
convenience. She should be here in a relatively short period of time. 
As I indicated, she would not want to hold the bill up in any way. 
There is a lot of business going on today, as everyone knows, not the 
least of which Senator Bond and I are the chairman and ranking member 
of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, and we are trying to move that bill along, too. That meeting 
started 5 minutes ago. I appreciate everyone's understanding, and I 
look forward to working as quickly and expeditiously as we can on this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the minority whip. I look forward 
to working with him on many issues, but the highway bill, which comes 
up once every 6 years, is being marked up in our subcommittee and full 
committee today. This is the perfect storm for me.
  I understand Senator Mikulski's commitments today. I intend to make 
an opening statement, and then I have an amendment to lay down. I am 
going to have to turn over the floor to the Presiding Officer.
  As always, VA-HUD is a challenging measure to produce, but this time 
it is particularly difficult because of the constraints in the budget. 
We have had to make some very hard decisions on how to fund almost 
every program in the bill. No one will be completely happy with this 
bill, but ultimately the decisions the distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Mikulski, and I have made with our committee have been the 
right ones, and the American taxpayers should be happy since our job is 
not only to fund programs, but to do so wisely, and that is what we 
have tried to do.
  Ultimately, this is a good bill. It balances the needs and priorities 
of Members with requirements of the budget request of the 
administration. The bill also meets our discretionary budget allocation 
of $91.334 billion, and we are under our outlay allocation as well.
  My compliments, once again, to my colleague and ranking member, 
Senator Mikulski, on her hard work, cooperation, and commitment to 
making this bill a balanced and good piece of legislation. I know that 
Senator Mikulski has a number of concerns about certain aspects of the 
bill, mostly regarding the funding level of certain programs. I share 
her concerns. But I believe we both understand we are drafting a bill 
with significant funding constraints. She and I worked hard to ensure 
the funding is targeted to key programs and priorities that we both 
strongly support, and we think most Members support as well.
  To be clear, our most pressing and important priority in the VA-HUD 
2004 appropriations bill is funding for our Nation's veterans and, most 
importantly, funding to provide quality and accessible medical care 
services from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am proud to say our 
bill meets our commitments to our Nation's veterans and ensures the VA 
medical care system has adequate resources to meet its current and 
ongoing needs, especially for VA's core constituents, such as those 
with service-connected disabilities, low incomes, or needs for 
specialized services.
  It is critical that we ensure VA can provide a safety net for our 
veterans, especially during a time when our Armed Forces are mobilized 
across the globe maintaining the peace and fighting the war against 
terrorism.
  While we expect the brave men and women serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
the Philippines, Bosnia, and other places to face dangers on a daily 
basis, they should not expect to face the danger of inadequate medical 
services when they return from duty. This bill ensures that they have 
peace of mind, meaning the Government will be there for them when they 
return.
  Further, our bill meets the funding agreement for the VA under the 
fiscal year 2004 budget resolution by providing $30.6 billion in 
discretionary spending, an increase of $2.9 billion over the fiscal 
year 2003-enacted level.
  Consistent with the budget resolution, nearly all of the 
discretionary spending increase is for medical care. Further, the bill 
does not include the administration's request to impose new enrollment 
and higher prescription drug fees on certain veterans. We have not 
included the administration's proposal because I believe it is unfair 
to ask our Nation's veterans to bear too heavy a burden for the cost of 
the medical care they rightly deserve. The proposal has proposed a new 
$250 enrollment fee and an increase in prescription copays from $7 a 
month to $15 a month.
  The administration also requested funds to implement its 
controversial outsourcing program. According to VA, if these were not 
enacted, it would need $1.3 billion to meet its projected medical care 
needs in fiscal year 2004. Therefore, we have rejected these new fees 
and have included an additional $1.3 billion to make up for the lost 
revenues from those fees.
  Let's be clear. Without these funds, the VA would be forced to deny 
care to about 585,000 veterans. During a time when our troops are 
deployed, fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, it is not 
just necessary to include the additional funds; it is our moral duty to 
include those funds.
  For medical care, the VA/HUD bill before us provides $26.8 billion in 
funds without collections, representing a $1.57 billion increase over 
the request. With third party insurance collections, the medical care 
account will have over $28.3 billion in funds. That is about $3.1 
billion over fiscal year 2003's enacted level and represents a 12.3 
percent increase over fiscal year 2003, the largest increase in VA 
medical care history.
  Let me illustrate the urgent and pressing needs. Several of us went 
to the VA hospital in Washington yesterday to thank the veterans and 
wish them happy Veterans Day. But on our visits around the system, we 
found that there are tremendous needs.
  According to a recent VA analysis, 15,000--almost 16,000 service 
members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom have separated from 
military duty, and among these service members almost 2,000 had sought 
VA health care during 2003. I point out, these numbers do not include 
those military men and women who are returning from Afghanistan

[[Page S14465]]

and other parts of the world, fighting the war on terrorism.
  Every day in the news we hear the unfortunate, sad news of American 
soldiers killed in Iraq. However, as illustrated by the VA analysis and 
scores of news reports, we have found that our new medical care in the 
field has enabled us to save many service members who might not have 
survived. They come back with very serious wounds and perhaps 
disabilities.
  USA Today, on October 1, said at least seven times as many men and 
women have been wounded in battle as those killed in battle. The good 
news is we have kept these people alive. But as these wounded service 
members are discharged, they confront new and challenging hardships in 
piecing together their lives. Most of them will be depending on the VA 
to meet their needs. Further, we know the demand for VA medical care is 
not going to lessen. We have already seen the VA medical care system 
overwhelmed by the staggering increase in demand for medical services.

  Since 1996, the VA has seen a 54 percent growth, 2 million patients, 
in total users for the system. Further, the VA projects its enrollments 
will grow by another 2 million patients from the current level of 7 
million to 9 million in 2009.
  The other major highlight of VA funding is construction funding for 
VA's medical care infrastructure. The bill provides almost $525 million 
for minor and major construction projects. A significant portion of 
that is dedicated to the Department's Capital Asset Realignment for 
Enhanced Services, or CARES, initiative.
  I want everybody to remember this because this CARES initiative is 
important. To jump-start the program, the bill includes authority for 
the Secretary to transfer up to $400 million from medical care to the 
CARES program. This transfer authority is provided because buildings 
that are no longer suitable for the delivery of modern health care cost 
the VA money out of medical care. Instead of spending these important 
resources on obsolete facilities, these funds could be used to provide 
quality care to more veterans closer to where they live. The GAO has 
concluded that the VA wastes $1 million a day on sustaining the 
obsolete and out-of-date, unused facilities. The CARES program is 
designed to move VA health care into the 21st century. It depends on a 
modernized infrastructure system located in areas where most of our 
veteran population lives.
  Many veterans today have to travel hundreds of miles to receive care. 
I visited the VA hospitals in my home State of Missouri and found they 
all have great need for infrastructure improvements, such as modernized 
surgical suites, intensive care units, and research space. Most of the 
VA system was created right after World War II. It is outdated and 
located in areas that are not always easily accessible to veterans. 
That is why I strongly support the CARES initiative and believe 
Secretary Principi is on the right track in realigning the health care 
system.
  As for HUD, we provide adequate funding for all programs either at 
last year's level or the budget request, and usually the higher of the 
two. However, there are several points to be made about funding for two 
programs: Section 8, and HOPE 6.
  The administration proposed funding section 8 vouchers through a new 
account, Housing Assistance for Needy Families, which would have 
allocated section 8 certificates through a State block grant program. 
Under the budget request, section 8 project-based housing assistance 
would have continued to be funded through HUD. This program has been 
uniformly criticized and could have placed a number of families at risk 
of losing their housing over the next few years.
  Instead, we funded the section 8 certificate fund at $18.4 billion, 
consistent with the budget request, without the new program structure. 
Many groups say this appropriation is inadequate and could result in 
the loss of housing. I share these concerns with several 
qualifications.
  First, in previous bills we restructured the account to provide 
funding to PHAs only for the families actually using vouchers and then 
with the central reserve at HUD, to ensure additional funds would be 
available to fund vouchers for additional families up to the PHA--that 
is, public housing authority--authorized contract level.
  This is new. The data is incomplete. There is a risk that there are 
not enough funds in the appropriation to meet all the needs of all 
families. But we do not know what that number will be.
  In past years, HUD has found additional excess section 8 funding to 
meet all section 8 needs, and no doubt will next year and the year 
after until this new funding system is in place and data is reliable.
  Nevertheless, we made it clear in the report that we expect the 
administration to alert us to any shortfalls and that we expect any 
shortfalls to be funded fully in a supplemental appropriations request.
  Second, the administration eliminated the HOPE VI Program, which was 
funded last year at $570 million. This program has been a tremendous 
boost to the quality of housing for many low-income families. It has 
allowed PHAs to take down obsolete public housing, where we essentially 
warehouse the poor, and replace that housing with mixed income and 
public housing that has anchored new investments in distressed 
communities.
  I have a personal interest in this program because we started this 
change. We made this change initially in St. Louis, MO, with one 
project which was totally uninhabitable, unsafe, and unfit to raise a 
family. It has been replaced with new, modern, mixed-income family 
housing. This program is working. This is one of the best things that 
has happened in public housing.
  Does there need to be a change? Certainly we can look at it, but we 
need a discussion, a debate, and a decision before we try to shut down 
HOPE VI. We have not been able to fund this program fully, but we have 
provided $195 million for HOPE VI in fiscal year 2004 and provide 
limited authority to recapture funds from old projects unable to use 
their HOPE VI funding.
  For the Corporation for National and Community Service, the bill 
provides $484 million for fiscal year 2004, about $100 million above 
the fiscal year 2003-enacted level and $113.6 million below the 
request. The dollar increase is the largest increase in the 
corporation's history, and the total amount provides the highest level 
of funding for the corporation. While our funding level does not meet 
the President's request, along with additional flexibilities we 
provided in the bill, it will support the President's goal of enrolling 
up to 75,000 new AmeriCorps members.
  We have provided a robust appropriation for the corporation. I 
strongly believe the bill contains the necessary controls to ensure 
that the corporation does not continue to repeat the highly publicized 
mismanagement problems of the past. The bill ensures accountability, 
addresses the AmeriCorps enrollment problems, without penalizing the 
thousands of volunteers who want to serve and serve well.
  Further, with the current chief financial officer in place, and 
Chairman Steve Goldsmith at the helm of the corporation's board of 
directors, I am very confident the corporation can correct its 
longstanding management problems.
  I am a believer in tough love, and I can say with confidence this 
bill represents that philosophy. The promise of the corporation is too 
great to allow it to be derailed by inappropriate, inadequate 
mismanagement and the inability to count, which has perplexed the 
corporation in previous years.
  For the Environmental Protection Agency, the bill provides $8.2 
billion, some $552 million more than the budget request. The funding 
represents a number of tough decisions balancing Member priorities with 
the budget request. In particular, we were able to fund fully the clean 
water State revolving fund at the fiscal year 2003 level, which is $500 
million more than the budget request. We also fully funded the drinking 
water State revolving fund at $850 million, which is equal to the 
budget request in the fiscal year 2003 level.
  I know there will be some concerns about Superfund, which is funded 
at $1.265 billion, the same as fiscal year 2003, and $125 million less 
than the budget request. This is one of the tough choices, but this 
funding level reflects a level of funding consistent with the last few 
years.
  We have included requirements to help push EPA toward more Superfund

[[Page S14466]]

closeouts. There is a contentious issue in the count. Language has been 
included to clarify an existing exemption in the Clean Air Act that 
engines that are used in farming and construction and are smaller than 
175 horsepower are exempt from State regulation for emissions but 
remain subject to EPA regulations.
  The problem we face today is that California is on the verge of 
issuing new regulations that would drastically change the emission 
requirements for small engines, whether they are used for lawn and 
garden or farm and construction. This California Air Resources Board 
threatens 17,000 jobs in other States and 5,000 jobs in Missouri.
  Before the board acted, I specifically requested them to find a 
resolution to the issue which would not force U.S. manufacturers to 
move their plants offshore because I think Government-required export 
of jobs is unacceptable. The California Air Resources Board had an 
opportunity to adopt a rule supported by the entire industry to provide 
the environmental gains needed and protect the public from the risk of 
burn and explosion from catalytic converters on small engines, but they 
chose not to go this route. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations 
raise great threats to safety of lives and the health of consumers.

  I will be addressing that in an amendment I will be offering which 
will clarify the purpose of these provisions and also respond to 
concerns raised by a number of Senators. I hope we can support this 
measure to assure that we can clean up our environment, and we do so in 
a way that does not bring additional risk of explosion and fire. We 
have seen what tragedies fires caused in California. We do not want to 
see fires caused by small engines, and we do not want to see 22,000 
manufacturing jobs exported directly as a result of a regulation.
  The underlying bill itself also includes $5.586 billion for the 
National Science Foundation, an increase of $276 million over the 
current funding level. It is an increase of only 5.2 percent, which is 
far short of the funding path, which I think an overwhelming majority 
of this Senate supports, to put NSF on a path to double in 5 years. To 
keep us from losing jobs to overseas, we have to have the high 
technology science that the NSF can provide.
  In addition, people working in the National Institutes of Health tell 
us that continued gains in NIH, which we have so generously doubled, is 
being held back by the failure of the hard sciences in NSF, which are 
necessary to support the medical advances. I am pleased we are funding 
the priorities of nanotechnology, plant genome, and EPSCoR above the 
requested levels and continue to support research at all levels, from 
elementary school to post-docs and beyond.
  Finally, we continue our support of minority-serving institutions, 
including such programs as historically Black-serving institutions and 
the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation, with $22 million 
in additional funds over the President's request.
  NASA is funded at $15.3 billion, consistent with the 2003 level. We 
have funded the space shuttle program at the President's requested 
level of $3.97 billion. The Columbia Investigation Accident Board 
recently issued a final report, and the response of NASA has developed 
an implementation plan as a foundation for return to flight.
  Nevertheless, NASA is facing a crossroads in its human space program 
and we need to understand the extent of the administration's commitment 
to the shuttle, the International Space Station, and human space 
flight.
  The need to define this commitment has become even more important in 
recent weeks with the successful launch of a Chinese taikonaut and 
after the disturbing news that Russia will be unable to fund the next 
scheduled launch of a Progress to the ISS, meaning the current crew on 
the ISS will not return to Earth until next year.
  The bill does have to necessarily reduce the budget for the 
International Space Station by $200 million, reflecting the current 
state of the ISS, with its reduced crew and the inability of NASA and 
international partners to continue its construction of the ISS, as well 
as the obvious risks of relying on Russia and Russian vehicles to 
supply the ISS for an indeterminate amount of time.
  There are many constraints within this bill. We must consider all the 
current uses for funds versus a program that in some respects is on 
hold. We will gladly reconsider this action as NASA and the 
administration present a plan that will restart the construction of the 
ISS to reach core complete.
  The bill also provides for some minor programmatic changes within the 
science aeronautics and exploration account. We do provide for an 
additional $50 million beyond the President's request in the area of 
aeronautics.
  Europe has made it clear they intend to dominate the commercial 
aviation market, and we intend not to let that happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I thank Senator Bond and the distinguished Senator 
from California for her graciousness as we proceed on both the bill and 
an amendment of Senator Bond and her advocacy in behalf of the State of 
California. Her advocacy on the issue is well known, but I know she 
also has pragmatic solutions. I also appreciate that she did not object 
to bringing this bill forward. We thank her very much.
  The veterans need this bill. We need it to protect America's 
environment. We need it to empower communities, and we need to invest 
in science and technology that helps us come up with new ideas for the 
new products that are going to lead to new jobs right here in the 
United States of America.
  The Presiding Officer knows about the loss of jobs in our country and 
the way we are going to not only have the jobs today, but also the jobs 
of tomorrow, is by coming up with these new products. We know we win 
the Nobel Prizes, but now we have to start winning the markets.
  I am so pleased to bring the VA-HUD bill to the Senate floor with my 
dear colleague, Senator Bond. This is truly a bipartisan bill. I thank 
Senator Bond for his cooperation and collegiality in developing the 
framework for this legislation, as well as Senator Stevens and Senator 
Byrd who worked with us as we tried to deal with a very spartan and 
frugal allocation in these tough economic times. We really appreciate 
Senator Stevens trying to problem-solve with us on how we can meet the 
compelling needs that are in this legislation.
  One of the most compelling needs is VA. During the August recess, I 
traveled to VA clinics all over Maryland, from the rural parts of my 
State all the way up to metropolitan areas, meeting with doctors and 
nurses, but also with veterans. What did I see? Outpatient clinics at 
capacity, waits to see specialists, and, at times, driving long 
distances to travel in rural areas. Everywhere I went, they all said 
they were being swamped by new veterans seeking care.
  They are anticipating the return of the Iraqi war veterans, not only 
Jessica Lynch, but others who come back bearing the permanent wounds of 
war knowing that they are going to need the permanent help of the VA. 
We want to be on their side to stand up for that help.
  We also saw that many people who had health care but lost their jobs 
or were forced into early retirement turning to the VA. When we took a 
look at the VA budget, we found that the President's request was about 
$1.5 billion under what we needed to deal with the waiting lines, the 
new Iraqi vets coming back, and also the fact that we need to take care 
of those category 7 veterans, those World War II veterans. So we need 
more money in VA. We tried to take care of this on the Iraqi 
supplemental, but that was not the time nor the place, and we count on 
working with the leadership, under Senator Stevens, to solve this 
problem. We have come a long way in this VA-HUD budget in dealing with 
this issue.
  While we stand up for our veterans, we also want to stand up for our 
communities. This is why the HUD budget offers promise to the area of 
housing and community development. We continue our commitment to core 
housing programs. We particularly are enthusiastic about the Community 
Development Block Grant Program because it goes to local communities; 
it is flexible funding where the local community decides where the 
public investment

[[Page S14467]]

needs to go to leverage jobs or to rebuild communities. This is why we 
like CDBG, whether it goes to North Carolina, to those small rural 
communities in Alaska, or to a big city such as Baltimore. Because of 
what we have done, we have helped retain over 100,000 jobs nationwide.

  It is also the same for a program called HOME, which has created in 
the past 10 years over 700,000 affordable housing units. We are going 
to continue in this bill the longstanding commitment to renew all 
section 8 vouchers and also to keep the HOPE VI program going. So we 
are looking out for building housing, building hope, and providing 
access to the American dream.
  We are also in this bill fighting to protect our environment. We are 
helping EPA by providing the right funds to clean up brownfields, 
improve air quality, and fix water and sewer systems. I am particularly 
proud of the way we have continued on a bipartisan basis to fully fund 
the Chesapeake Bay Program.
  Where we would like to do more is in the water and sewer program. 
Every Senator has come to us, along with every Governor, to say: 
Increase water and sewer money. The communities need it to protect 
public health and the environment, but we also need it, say the 
Governors and the local officials, because this will also create jobs. 
We are under so many EPA-unfunded mandates that essentially this will 
push problems onto the local ratepayer.
  We have funded water and sewer projects, but I am going to be 
offering an amendment to increase it even by $3 billion more.
  We also have to have very strong enforcement of environmental laws. 
So we must not skimp on enforcement, and I will be supporting an 
amendment by Senator Lautenberg on this issue.
  Then we go to national service. This bill also empowers communities 
through national service. Working with Senator Bond, we cleaned up a 
terrible accounting mess. The President has responded and given us new 
leadership, but right now we are working to increase the volunteer 
program. We continue to need additional funds and better management.
  At the same time, we are working on NASA to return our space program 
to flight, but we want to ensure, as always, the safety of our 
astronauts, and we are absolutely committed to implementing the Gay-Min 
commission report so that when we go back to space, our astronauts will 
be safe.
  Space science: This is where we look at big breakthroughs, whether it 
is Earth science, work at NASA Goddard, or the Hubbard telescope, but 
also Senator Bond and I worked to increase funding of aeronautics by 
$50 million.
  In 1980, the U.S. had 90 percent of the commercial aviation market. 
Now we are down to 50 percent. This is unacceptable. We have to make 
sure we make airplanes in this country, and we come up with the best 
ideas and the breakthrough technology, not only for smart weapons of 
war, but where this is translated into the commercial airline business 
where we can fly and ensure that passengers are safe, but also maintain 
this manufacturing base. So Senator Bond and I put in $50 million for 
increased aeronautical research.
  At the same time, we have put money into the National Science 
Foundation to make sure we have that farm team of the next generation 
of scientists and engineers, but also in breakthrough technologies, 
investment in biotech, infotech, and a marvelous new field called 
nanotech that could create thousands of new jobs.
  Imagine that wonderful wedding ring the Chair has on, that our former 
colleague Senator Dole gave. As she looks at that ring, just know that 
that is the size of a supercomputer when we move our nanotechnology 
further ahead, that the entire Library of Congress will be in something 
less than the size of my earring. Is this not phenomenal?
  There will come a day when someone will be able to take one little 
pill-like item a day, or even a month, and that nanotechnology will be 
an ongoing monitor for the diabetic, for the high blood pressure 
person, for the stroke-prone person and be able to send alerts to a 
doctor's office. This is what lies ahead.
  We will not only be saving lives or collecting information, but what 
we will be doing is winning the Nobel Prizes and winning the markets 
and these products will be manufactured in this country and will 
revolutionize the world.
  This is what VA-HUD is all about, standing up for our veterans, 
rebuilding communities, protecting the environment, answering a call to 
national service, making public investments in science and technology. 
So I am pleased to support this bill, along with my colleague, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bond. This is a bipartisan bill. 
This is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill. This is a red, 
white, and blue bill. We hope it moves expeditiously through the Senate 
with a few of the amendments we are proposing.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. I call up an amendment at the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Ms. 
     Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 2150.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment before us is the one I 
described in my opening statement which will save 22,000 manufacturing 
jobs in 23 States. Let me repeat so that all will know what we are 
debating today, and that is whether we will decide to kill 22,000 
manufacturing jobs in 23 States across America.
  With this amendment, we will decide whether to close at least three 
American manufacturing plants. We will decide today whether we will 
send thousands of jobs to China. We will decide today whether we will 
kill thousands of jobs of manufacturing parts suppliers. We will decide 
today whether we will kill thousands of jobs of those dependent on a 
manufacturing paycheck. We will decide all of this with this very 
important amendment. Our answers must be a resounding no to killing 
22,000 manufacturing jobs. Our answer must be a resounding no to 
sending more jobs to China by a State regulation. Our answers must be a 
resounding no to closing manufacturing plants. A ``no'' vote on this 
proposal and the underlying proposal is a vote to send thousands of 
jobs abroad.
  Why are these jobs at risk? Quite simply a single agency in a single 
State has its own ideas of how to solve problems in the environment. 
The problem is they do so without a care in the world as to the 
consequences of their actions--the loss of jobs and the danger that it 
entails.
  At issue is the desire of the California Air Resources Board to 
impose new air pollution reductions by imposing a massive redesign on 
small engines used in lawnmowers, generators, blowers, chain saws, and 
marine vessels. The California redesign would be so massive that it 
will force the use of expensive and dangerous technologies like super 
hot catalytic converters on hand-held equipment.
  The California market and those States that may follow suit will be 
forced to do so because major chains that sell these small engines will 
not be able to make one kind of engine for a California market and 
another kind of engine for other markets. Instead of manufacturers 
rebuilding plants in the United States, they will rebuild them in China 
where it is cheaper and fill them with cheap labor. These workers will 
not be subject to U.S. wage, work, or environmental regulations.
  This is not a question of what the company does in terms of its 
profit and loss statement. They can maintain the same profits by 
probably raising prices and sending their manufacturing to China. This 
is a question of U.S. jobs of the men and women who work in those 
plants.
  I visited workers at a Poplar Bluffs, MO, plant which makes small 
engines. They are good people, hard-working people. They are supporting 
their families and their communities. They cannot understand why we 
would let a regulation of one State send their jobs to China. But they 
are not alone. Closure of these plants will have a ripple effect across 
the country.

[[Page S14468]]

  When you include the direct loss from parts suppliers and payroll 
dependents, 22,000 jobs in 23 States from Minnesota to Florida, from 
Massachusetts to Texas and Arizona will be lost.
  This map shows where those losses occur. They are significant 
losses--not only in my State but in Wisconsin, in Georgia, in Illinois, 
in Alabama, and in Texas. These are the States that will bear the 
burden.
  I ask my colleagues: Can we afford to lose more than 22,000 
manufacturing jobs? I think the answer is no.
  The need to save these 22,000 jobs is so important that I have made 
changes in my small engines provision to address concerns of 
stakeholders and members. I believe and trust that these changes are 
appropriate and will assure that we have targeted our amendment to meet 
the real dangers.
  First, the requirement that EPA establish new small engine standards 
to achieve additional pollution reduction for small engines.
  Let me make it clear: EPA, under the Clean Air Act, already regulates 
small engines and has done at least two rounds of small engine air 
pollution reductions.
  In this amendment, we direct them to within a year do another round 
of new standards so that the entire Nation benefits from cleaner small 
engines. In other words, we are going to get the cleanup that 
California wants in California, and which other States in the Nation 
need in their States. My own State of Missouri needs pollution 
reductions in Kansas City and St. Louis. In Missouri, we can't issue 
those regulations. I say to the occupant of the Chair, North Carolina 
can't issue those regulations on its own. But by directing EPA to 
enforce those standards nationally, we will get the cleanup that we 
need in every single one of our States. All 50 States will benefit from 
nationwide air pollution reductions.
  While we are concerned about the loss of 22,000 jobs, changes in the 
amendment will also address vital safety concerns with the California 
rule. Safety professionals and the organizations they serve fear that 
the California rule will force unsafe changes to small engines that 
will increase the risk of fire, burn, and even explosion. This 
California regulation contains the requirement that would force small 
engine makers to install superheated catalytic converters.
  Anybody who has been around them should know that catalytic 
converters reach extremely high temperatures when chemically breaking 
down air pollution. In fact, catalytic converters meeting California's 
standard can reach temperatures of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit or more. 
Dry grass burns at just over 500 degrees Fahrenheit, and certainly 
human skin burns at much lower temperatures.
  Keep in mind that were this California regulation to go into effect, 
you would be required to hold an 1,100-degree Fahrenheit catalytic 
converter attached to your weed whacker, chain saw, or lawnmower only 
inches from your hands and legs.
  Keep in mind the California regulation would require you to wave 
around a 1,100-degree catalytic converter in the dry grass you are 
mowing or the dry brush you are cutting or in the dry leaves you are 
blowing. This is a safety hazard. There are basic safety warnings--
avoiding the use of hot mufflers or use of equipment in dry grass or 
brush conditions must be avoided. The California rule ignores them. Not 
only did they not address these concerns, but in one example they 
provided misleading information to their own California Fire Chiefs 
Association. Initially, the California Fire Chiefs believed that the 
California combination of leaking fuel from overly pressurized tanks 
and excessive temperatures from a hot catalyst is a disaster waiting to 
happen. The fire chiefs thought the rule poses an unacceptable risk to 
the people of their State.
  After promises from the Air Regulation Board were made to the fire 
chiefs that they change their regulations, the fire chiefs dropped 
their concerns. Unfortunately, they were misled, according to the fire 
chiefs.
  This is an enlarged copy of the letter that was sent by the 
California Fire Chiefs Association. It documents how the operation of 
this new regulation would be a great danger.
  I ask unanimous consent a copy of the letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   California Fire


                                           Chiefs Association,

                                  Rio Linda, CA, November 6, 2003.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: The California Fire Chiefs Association 
     represents fire chiefs from over 1,100 fire departments 
     operating in the state of California. Member organizations 
     consist of municipal fire service agencies, fire districts, 
     state and federal government agencies, and corporate fire 
     brigades.
       Earlier this year in oral and written communications to the 
     California Air Resources Board (CARB), our association 
     expressed serious concerns about the CARB's plans to require 
     catalytic converters on lawnmowers and other lawn and garden 
     power equipment. Firefighters have far too much experience 
     suppressing fires caused by catalytic converters on 
     automobiles carelessly parked on combustible grass and 
     leaves.
       After this past month of fighting wildland fires, we are 
     almost too tired to think about catalytic converters on 
     lawnmowers which, after all, are intended for use on grass. 
     California does not need yet another way of igniting fires.
       Several weeks ago, the CARB's staff informed our 
     representative, Assistant Chief Jim Medich of the West 
     Sacramento Fire Department, that the catalytic converter 
     requirement had been removed and the outdoor power equipment 
     industry was now in support of the measure. Believing that 
     statement to be true, we had no further objection to the CARB 
     rule and have since been quoted in support of the regulation.
       Unfortunately, we were misled. The catalytic converter 
     provision was not dropped, and we cannot find any evidence of 
     industry support. As such, we wish to go on record that we 
     categorically do not support the proposed regulation, because 
     we believe it will lead to a substantial increase in 
     residential and wildland fires.
       These are complex issues that are not simply solved by 
     manufacturers according to an arbitrary regulatory schedule. 
     Similar challenges exist with catalytic converters on board 
     boats, and it may be years before they are resolved.
       We are saddened an agency that exists only to protect the 
     health and safety of Californians would choose to ignore fire 
     safety and misrepresent the facts. Our hope is that, as this 
     matter proceeds to the federal government, it will be managed 
     with more integrity. As always, we stand ready to work with 
     our many friends in the environmental protection community 
     who so well understand that effective fire prevention saves 
     lives and protects the environment.
           Sincerely,
                                        Chief William J. McCammon,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, the California Fire Chiefs Association say 
they categorically do not support the proposed regulation because it 
will lead to a substantial increase in residential and wildland fires.
  They state:

       We are saddened an agency that exists only to protect the 
     health and safety of Californians would choose to ignore fire 
     safety and misrepresent the facts.

  Not surprisingly, other agencies are very much concerned.
  The National Association of State Fire Marshals remains very 
concerned that the California rule cannot be safely met.
  The United States Consumer Products Safety Commission has concerns 
over the potential for burn fire material hazards that remain 
unaddressed.
  The Missouri State Fire Marshal remains concerned that the California 
rules create a significant threat to the safety of people, property, 
and the environment.
  The National Marine Manufacturing Association is concerned that 
California's activities create marine safety issues that must be 
evaluated further before they are imposed on industry. That is right. 
This rule can even make boats unsafe. Generators and engines kept in 
boats in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation requiring these 
superheated catalytic converters is a boating disaster waiting to 
happen.
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of these letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Association of State Fire Marshals, Executive 
           Committee,
                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 2003.
     Re California's new emission regulations for lawn and garden 
         equipment and request for a safety study.

     Mr. Jeffrey R. Holmstead,
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania Avenue, 
         NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Holmstead: The National Association of State Fire 
     Marshals (NASFM) represents the most senior fire safety 
     officials

[[Page S14469]]

     in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our mission is 
     to protect life, property and the environment from fire and 
     other hazards. We receive virtually all of our resources from 
     federal and state government agencies.
       NASFM became aware of the proposed emission regulation 
     being proposed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
     for lawn and garden equipment earlier this summer. Out of 
     concern that the very hot catalytic converters and 
     pressurized fuel tanks required by this rule would pose a 
     risk for additional garage fires, wildland fires and operator 
     burns, NASFM submitted the enclosed July 29, 2003, and 
     September 12, 2003, correspondence to CARB. In this 
     correspondence, NASFM urged the CARB Board ``not to proceed 
     with [its proposed emission] regulation at this time, given 
     the high probability that lives and property will be at risk 
     if catalytic converters and pressurized fuel tanks are 
     required before all critical safety parameters have been 
     identified and before the industry can implement the proper 
     safety measures.''
       NASFM urged CARB to participate in a safety test program to 
     evaluate and respond to the unresolved safety concerns with 
     CARB's proposal to apply extremely hot catalysts and 
     pressurized fuel systems to lawn and garden equipment. We are 
     aware that a similar safety study is being undertaken with 
     U.S. EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard and industry to research the 
     effects of applying catalytic converters to marine engines. 
     However, by moving forward with the adoption of regulations 
     at its Board hearing on September 25, the CARB Board has 
     effectively rejected the proposed safety study, thus denying 
     NASFM (and other safety organizations) the needed time and 
     therefore the ability to participate as a stakeholder in the 
     CARB regulatory development process. Additionally, CARB has 
     failed to identify and objectively explain to the public the 
     risks and substantially unresolved safety issues associated 
     with its regulatory program. For example, CARB's August 8 
     Staff Report failed to mention--or even cite to--the 
     correspondence submitted to CARB by the California Fire 
     Chiefs Association on July 18, comments of NASFM submitted on 
     July 29, or the correspondence from the U.S. Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission, all of which raised valid safety concerns 
     with CARB's proposal.
       CARB has indicated that manufacturers will simply respond 
     to the increased heat from catalysts by adding more heat 
     shielding and insulation--despite documentation by 
     manufacturers that the installation of additional heat 
     shielding and insulation to protect the operator from burns 
     will inherently result in much longer cool-down periods, 
     increasing the risk of fires during refueling and fires from 
     retained grass clippings after the equipment is parked in the 
     garage.
       NASFM remains very concerned that the requirements adopted 
     by the CARB Board at its September 25 Hearing cannot safely 
     be met, particularly by the relatively small, unsophisticated 
     equipment manufacturers that dominate the lawn and garden 
     industry. Consequently, NASFM's suggested safety study is 
     needed more than ever to accurately determine how much heat 
     catalysts will generate; whether the added heat from a 
     catalyst exhaust system can safely be mitigated through heat 
     shielding; and how much pressurization a fuel tank can safely 
     withstand.
       NASFM also is concerned that other states are likely to 
     ``opt into'' the California program if they are authorized by 
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) under Section 
     209(e) of the Clean Air Act. Because of fundamental 
     unresolved safety issues, the U.S. EPA must ensure that 
     consumers across the country are adequately protected as 
     required by the Clean Air Act. We urge U.S. EPA to evaluate, 
     accurately identify for the public, and address the 
     substantial unresolved safety issues presented by the CARB 
     regulation. If EPA authorizes the CARB regulation without 
     conducting a thorough and meaningful safety evaluation, then 
     NASFM and its members will request substantial additional 
     federal funding to respond to a dramatic expected increase in 
     fires in and around people's homes, as well as an increase in 
     operator burn injuries. We believe the additional costs in 
     fire suppression--and the potential loss of life and 
     property, as well as damage to the environment--that will 
     result from CARB's regulations as currently written would 
     dwarf the relatively small costs of conducting a meaningful 
     safety study prior to the EPA decision on whether to 
     authorize the regulations.
       NASFM has established relationships with the EPA as well as 
     with environmental nongovernmental organizations, other fire 
     service organizations and the Building and Fire Research Lab 
     at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. We 
     stand ready to participate in a safety study on this issue if 
     authorized by EPA.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Donald P. Bliss,
     President.
                                  ____

                                             U.S. Consumer Product


                                            Safety Commission,

                                   Washington, DC, August 4, 2003.
     Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D.,
     Chairman, Air Resources Board, California Environmental 
         Protection Agency, Telstar Avenue, El Monte, CA.
       Dear Dr. Lloyd: A staff representative of the U.S. Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission (CPSC) attended the Small Off-Road 
     Engine Workshop held by the California Air Resources Board 
     (CARB) in Sacramento on July 2, 2003. Part of that workshop 
     included the discussion of potential safety issues associated 
     with proposed air quality requirements in California. We 
     understand that these proposed air quality requirements might 
     require additional emissions control equipment on outdoor 
     power equipment such as lawn mowers. The CPSC staff has 
     conducted an initial review of potential safety issues that 
     may arise as a result of the promulgation of these 
     requirements and believes that these issues merit further 
     consideration and discussion in the regulatory process 
     conducted by CARB. Specifically, the CPSC staff recognizes 
     the potential for burn, fire, or materials hazards that 
     additional emissions control equipment could present.
       The CPSC engineering staff requests an opportunity to 
     discuss proposed emissions control requirements for outdoor 
     power equipment with the appropriate CARB staff to learn more 
     about the proposed requirements and their implications on 
     consumer product safety. Hugh McLaurin, the Director for 
     Engineering Sciences at the CPSC, will contact the 
     appropriate authority at CARB to arrange further discussions.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jacqueline Elder,
     Assistant Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                   National Marine


                                    Manufacturers Association,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: The National Marine Manufacturers 
     Association (NMMA) is the nation's largest recreational 
     marine trade association representing manufacturers of 
     recreational boats, marine engines and marine accessories. 
     NMMA has over 1500 members, many which are either located or 
     conduct business in the state of Texas.
       NMMA would like to inform you of recent actions by the 
     California Air Resources Board that raises marine safety 
     issues for recreational vessels equipped with generator sets. 
     The recent rules for spark-ignited small off-road engines 
     adopted by the California Air Resources Board would impose 
     both new exhaust and evaporative controls on vessels equipped 
     with these devices. This action was taken without 
     consultation with NMMA, its members or the U.S. Coast Guard.
       NMMA, the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Coast 
     Guard have a test program underway at Southwest Research in 
     San Antonio to test catalysts on sterndrive/inboard engines. 
     The purpose of this test program is to assure the 
     performance, durability and safety of catalysts in this 
     application. Nevertheless, California adopted regulations 
     that would require catalysts on marine generators before 
     completion of this study. The California rules would also 
     require changes to the fuel systems on any vessel equipped 
     with a marine generator. NMMA, our fuel tank and boat builder 
     members and the U.S. Coast Guard have been actively engaged 
     with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for several 
     years in the development of regulations to control 
     evaporative emissions from recreational vessels. It is our 
     understanding that the requirements included in California's 
     rules are similar to those which have raised safety issues in 
     the EPA rulemaking. Like the exhaust rules, these 
     requirements were adopted without consultation with the U.S. 
     Coast Guard, and the boat building industry.
       NMMA is concerned that California's activities create 
     marine safety issues that must be evaluated further before 
     they are imposed on this industry. For this reason, NMMA 
     urges you to support Sen. Bond's provision included in the 
     VA-HUD FY 2004 Appropriations bill which would limit 
     California's ability to impose requirements on these devices 
     and marine vessels.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Thomas J. Dammrich,
     President.
                                  ____

                                      Department of Public Safety,


                                      Division of Fire Safety,

                             Jefferson City, MO, October 24, 2003.
     Senator Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: I write both as Missouri State Fire 
     Marshal and as a director of the National Association of 
     State Fire Marshals (NASFM). NASFM represents the most senior 
     fire safety official in each of the 50 states and District of 
     Columbia. NASFM's mission is to protect life, property and 
     the environment from fire and other hazards. We receive 
     virtually all of our resources from state and federal 
     government sources, although we pride ourselves on the many 
     productive relationships with industries that share our 
     commitment to public safety.
       First, I wish to thank you for giving serious consideration 
     to serving as a sponsor of the American Home Fire Safety Act. 
     This legislation has the potential to save two lives a day 
     from the leading causes of fire in the home. As you know, I 
     have lost family members in a fire involving the products 
     contained in this bill. It would mean a lot to the Missouri 
     fire service if you would help in this worthy effort.
       But just as we seem to conquer one fire safety challenge, 
     others take their place. We are especially concerned that a 
     proposed California environmental regulation might move 
     forward nationally and create a significant threat to the 
     safety of people, property and the environment.

[[Page S14470]]

       The issue is whether we have a sufficient understanding of 
     how air emissions requirements for the small engines used 
     with lawn-mowers, snow-blowers and other small-engine outdoor 
     power equipment might affect the number and severity of fires 
     in residential garages and in rural communities most affected 
     by wildland fires. We do not regard these potential fire 
     hazards to be more important than air quality, but they 
     certainly are no less important.
       We stand ready to work with you, the environmental 
     protection authorities and the manufacturers of these 
     products to determine a common-sense approach to a complex 
     series of questions about how best to have outdoor power 
     equipment that is safe and clean. This is an attainable goal 
     if we work together.
       Most recently, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
     has proposed air emission rules for these purposes. In 
     cooperation with the California Fire Chiefs Association, and 
     after consultation with the outdoor power equipment 
     manufacturers and others with knowledge of these issues, 
     NASFM urged CARB to give greater consideration to fire 
     safety. While CARB acknowledged the concerns, the proposed 
     rule does not.
       The scenario is not hard to imagine--especially given the 
     many garage and wildland fires that take lives, destroy 
     property and spoil the environment every year. The CARB has 
     not adequately examined the probability of increased gasoline 
     leakage of the pressurized fuel tanks its rule will require. 
     Nor has CARB considered the very high temperatures emitted by 
     catalytic converters its rule will mandate.
       Regulators have lost so much credibility over the years by 
     forcing people to do illogical things. The combination of 
     leaking fuel tanks and high temperatures is not something we 
     wish to introduce into a residential garage with a gas water 
     heater, discarded newspapers and rags, and combustible paints 
     and solvents. Nor do we wish to see such power equipment left 
     idle for even a minute on top of combustible vegetation. The 
     forest fires that consume hundreds of thousands of acres and 
     scores of homes can be ignited by a single, discarded 
     cigarette. This could be far worse, and for that reason we 
     have alerted the United States Department of the Interior to 
     look into this matter.
       As we understand the process, the CARB may proceed if it 
     receives a federal waiver from the United States 
     Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and that such 
     waivers may be granted with little oversight. Once a waiver 
     is granted, other states are likely to follow the CARB's 
     lead. Even with the federal government's help, we cannot 
     purchase enough fire apparatus and equipment or train enough 
     firefighters to protect the public from the fires we now 
     have. Prevention is the only answer. Creating new hazards--
     through regulation, no less--is unacceptable.
       We will appeal directly to US EPA to give this matter very 
     serious attention, but we would encourage you to use your 
     good offices to encourage the US EPA to use this opportunity 
     to protect the environment and human life from residential 
     and wildland fires in the future. NASFM is not against 
     states' acting to protect the environment from harmful 
     emissions.
       However, these fire safety issues will be a factor no 
     matter where such measures are considered, and they are best 
     dealt with on a national level for the benefit of all.
           Best personal regards,
     William Farr,  
       Missouri State Fire Marshal, and
     Board of Directors,
       National Association of State Fire Marshals.

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, in the face of all of these concerned 
safety groups, I asked California to provide any kind of evidence or 
any kind of testing or any kind of analysis that these safety concerns 
were not true. They could not.
  CARB failed to provide safety data or testing results using test 
procedures approved or witnessed by safety efforts.
  CARB failed to provide any data testing or analysis of the danger of 
liquid or vapor fuel released from a pressurized tank used to comply 
with the rule lighting on fire after coming in contact with superheated 
catalytic converters used to comply with the rule.
  CARB admitted that grass clippings can ignite if they come into 
contact with surfaces above 518 degrees Fahrenheit. CARB failed to 
provide any data showing that the shields were capable of protecting 
against temperatures of 1,026 degrees Fahrenheit. They admitted they 
failed to conduct standard testing applied to all internal combustion 
engines. This is a problem requiring us to act to solve it.
  We are being asked to do something to protect 22,000 jobs, 3 
manufacturing plants being moved to China. My provision would enable 
those jobs to stay in the United States. We are asking to prevent the 
risk of burn, fire, and explosion to millions of consumers, fires in 
our homes and in our wildlands. The provision to have EPA do a national 
rule instead of California will ensure that national environmental 
issues are met and that it will take into concern issues such as the 
safety in achieving the pollution reductions we need.
  I made several changes in my amendment to address Member concerns. We 
made it clear that this would not have prevented their States from 
regulating existing or end-use engines. We made it clear this provision 
only applies to new engines. Some Members thought the initial language 
would prevent States from regulating diesel engines. We have specified 
these are limited to spark-only engines. They do not cover diesel 
engines because the State of California could continue to regulate 
them, and we have also seen that the EPA has issued regulations with 
respect to diesel engines.
  Some Members were concerned that the original language would prevent 
their State from regulating mid- and large-sized engines such as 
airport tugs, forklifts, and cranes. We have no intention of limiting 
those. The amendment specifically applies only to small engines under 
50 horsepower.
  These are numerous changes that are well worth saving 22 
manufacturing jobs. We will protect the environment. We are providing 
the air quality improvements to all 50 States. We are protecting public 
safety by assuring that the concerns of all of the safety interested 
groups I have indicated are taken into account by EPA in issuing their 
regulations. I don't want to be the one to go home and tell our workers 
we are sending their jobs to China. I don't want to tell our families 
they cannot have a breadwinner earning a good living in those 
factories. We want to tell communities that we will not cripple their 
tax base, their school systems, and cripple their services. We will 
protect the environment. We will protect public safety and the jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, let me compliment my colleague from Missouri and my 
colleague from Maryland, the chair and ranking member of this 
subcommittee. They have offered the Senate a good piece of legislation. 
While there may be some areas for discussion where we might have some 
disagreements about one level or another that has been proposed, by and 
large, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski have done an excellent job 
bringing this appropriations subcommittee bill to the Senate. I 
appreciate their work.
  The amendment just offered will spark some significant debate this 
morning. I believe my colleague from Idaho is also preparing to offer 
an amendment, and my hope is to be involved in that discussion when my 
colleague from Idaho offers his amendment this morning.
  I would like to make a comment about another appropriations bill we 
will be dealing with this afternoon. I don't want to be in violation of 
the rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Transportation/Treasury Appropriations Conference

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this afternoon at 5 o'clock, the 
Transportation, Treasury, and General Government appropriations 
conference will meet. I am one of the conferees on that conference. We 
meet at 5 o'clock this afternoon.
  In the appropriations bill that comes from both the House and the 
Senate to that conference at 5 o'clock this afternoon, there are 
provisions that deal with travel to Cuba. I mention that because 
something important will happen today. We have identical amendments in 
the House and the Senate bills that prohibit the enforcement of the 
provision that prohibits travel to Cuba by the American citizens. No 
money in the bill shall be used to enforce that travel ban.
  I am particularly interested in this because, for example, the 
Treasury Department earlier this year denied a license to the Farm 
Bureau and other farm organizations to help organize a trade show in 
Cuba to promote the sale of U.S. agricultural products.
  I find that unfathomable. Why would we want to prohibit the promotion 
of

[[Page S14471]]

the sale of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba? Cuba must pay cash for 
those products they have been purchasing from our country because of an 
amendment I was involved in getting passed that allows U.S. companies 
to sell agricultural products to Cuba. There was a 40-year embargo, but 
we are now able to sell in Cuba. But inexplicably, the farm 
organizations, including the Farm Bureau, were denied a license to go 
to Cuba to promote the agricultural sales. That makes no sense to me. I 
hope we will have people who think more clearly about that.
  What prompted me to talk about it this morning is a visit I had 
yesterday from a young woman who came to talk to me about a problem she 
has. I am going to show a picture of the young woman. Her name is Joni 
Scott. She went to Cuba 4 years ago. She is from Indiana. She went to 
Cuba 4 years ago, and she distributed free Bibles in Cuba. She and a 
group of folks from her church traveled to Cuba to distribute 
free Bibles. Last month, 4 years later, she received from the U.S. 
Government a fine of $10,000 for having traveled to Cuba to distribute 
free Bibles.

  Yes, that is right, the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the 
Department of the Treasury tracked her down. It took them 4 years. I 
don't know why it took 4 years. They tracked her down and said: For the 
act that you have committed, traveling to Cuba to distribute free 
Bibles, we will fine you $10,000.
  I have written to the Department of Treasury saying this does not 
make any sense. Is there no reservoir of common sense there, or at 
least some level below which they will not sink? Fining somebody 
$10,000 for distributing free Bibles in Cuba, what on Earth are we 
thinking about? This woman went with a church group to distribute 
Bibles free of charge to the Cuban people. Now she is being tracked 
down by our Government and levied a $10,000 fine. It makes no sense.
  I also was contacted recently by another organization, the Disarm 
Education Fund. They donate medicine and medical supplies to Cuban 
health clinics. But more importantly, they send United States doctors 
to Cuba to teach advanced medical techniques to Cuban doctors. One of 
their projects involves a procedure called something called mandibular 
distraction, building new jaws for kids born without jaws. This is 
highly technical surgery. They have been not only doing this for 
children but teaching Cuban doctors the techniques of this intricate 
surgery.
  This year, Disarm had to discontinue its programs because OFAC at the 
Treasury Department would not renew the license they had held since 
1994. This went on for 6 months and they could not go to Cuba to help 
these children by distributing medicine and by performing intricate 
surgery and teach and train Cuban doctors.
  On October 17, less than a month ago, after 6 months of 
consideration, OFAC issued a new license that allows the Disarm 
Education Fund to resume some of its programs in Cuba. However, the new 
license specifically prohibits this organization's doctors from 
training Cuban doctors. Do you know why? Because OFAC says training of 
Cuban doctors in this very intricate surgery constitutes an export of 
service to Cuba.
  So they can now go down and perform this surgery on Cuban children. 
It is very intricate surgery. They can perform the surgery, but they 
cannot have a Cuban doctor around to be trained because OFAC recently 
decided that educating Cuban doctors is illegal. What in the world is 
this Administration thinking?
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. On the legislation that became law a couple years ago, 
with your backing and my backing, that is that agricultural goods and 
medical supplies could be traded and sold to Cuba without United States 
taxpayer credit, maybe we need to add the words and ``related medical 
services.''
  That is really picking the flyspecks out of the pepper here down at 
the Department of the Treasury. Shame on them for standing in the way 
of a humanitarian effort to make kids healthier.
  But behind you is the picture of Miss Scott. She also visited my 
office yesterday. I must say to this administration: Do not fight us on 
this issue. We are giving you the right way out. The House and the 
Senate, in a strong bipartisan voice--the loudest and the strongest 
vote we have ever had here on the floor of the Senate--said: Let's 
begin to back away from this travel embargo with Cuba. It does not work 
any longer. It is a 40-year-old failed policy. Now you are being 
arbitrary. Now you are being selective. We ought to get away from that.
  So I hope this afternoon in conference the House and the Senate's 
bipartisan voice is heard. Frankly, the administration ought to view it 
as a gift. We are not abolishing the law that puts in that embargo. We 
are simply disallowing the expenditure of levying a $10,000 fine 
against a woman passing out Bibles because she trafficked through 
Canada and did not fill out the right form. That is what we are doing.
  Let OFAC track down drug traffickers and terrorists and leave Ms. 
Scott alone. That is what we ought to be about. Somehow this has gotten 
very confused and very skewed.
  I thank the Senator for bringing up this point. Please prevail in 
conference this afternoon.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho was part of a 
group, a bipartisan group, in the Senate. Then-Senator John Ashcroft, 
for example, was also a key part of that group. We changed the law with 
respect to trade with Cuba so that we could sell agricultural products 
into the Cuban marketplace. We did not open it very wide, but we opened 
it.
  Last year, for the first time in 42 years, 22 train carloads of dried 
peas left North Dakota to go to the Cuban people. Cuba paid cash for 
it. Our farmers were able to sell into the Cuban marketplace. Good for 
them.
  But this issue of travel and denying farm organizations, including 
the Farm Bureau, the right to go to Cuba to promote food sales is just 
unbelievable.
  There are times, not very often, but there are times when I am 
profoundly embarrassed by the actions of this Government. Yesterday was 
one of them, when this young lady came to see me to say: I am really 
concerned and upset about this because I went to Cuba to distribute 
free Bibles, and now my Government is slapping me with a $10,000 fine.
  That is an unforgivable policy, in my judgment. But it is not just 
her. It is not just this young lady who thought she was doing the world 
some good, and clearly she was. She was pursuing her faith and her 
interest in distributing Bibles to the Cuban people.
  There is so much more than just her. I mentioned the doctors who have 
been denied the opportunity to travel to Cuba to do this intricate 
facial surgery on Cuban children and to train Cuban doctors to do the 
same surgery. Now, after 6 months, they are able to go do the surgery, 
but they are not able to train the Cuban doctors because that is the 
prohibited export of a service to Cuba. Again, that is an embarrassing 
decision on the part of this Government.
  But let me just describe a couple more, if I might.
  This young lady is named Joni Scott. She traveled to Cuba, as I said, 
4 years ago. It took them 4 years to track her down.
  Cevin Allen, from the State of Washington, wanted to bury the ashes 
of his father, who was a Pentecostal minister in prerevolutionary Cuba. 
He died, and his last wish was that his ashes would be buried on the 
church grounds where he served in Cuba. Well, his son, true to the 
faith in his father, took his ashes to Cuba to bury them, and what 
happened to him was he received a notice from the Federal Government. 
They were fining him $20,000 for taking the ashes of his dead father to 
be buried on the church grounds where he served as a minister in 
prerevolutionary Cuba.

  Marilyn Meister was a 72-year-old Wisconsin schoolteacher. She 
bicycled in Cuba. She received a $7,500 fine.
  I have shown the picture previously of Joan Slote, whom I also know. 
She is a Senior Olympian. She bicycles all around the world. She is in 
her midseventies. She went with a Canadian bicycle group to take a 
bicycle trip to Cuba. She was fined $7,630. I said to OFAC: You ought 
to be embarrassed about that. OFAC then reduced her fine to $1,900, and 
she paid it. I don't think she should have, but she paid it. Then she 
got a note from the Department of

[[Page S14472]]

the Treasury, after she paid it, that they were going to garnish her 
Social Security, and they sent a collection agency after her because, 
they said: Well, we never received it. She had the canceled check.
  It is one thing for an agency to be incompetent; it is another thing 
for it to make fundamentally bad judgments about what it is going to do 
with its time. OFAC's should be chasing terrorists, not visitors to 
Cuba.
  This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; this went on under 
Democratic administrations as well, although I must say it has been 
ratcheted up--over double the effort--under this administration. And 
the President just announced, a month ago, on October 10: I have 
instructed the Department of Homeland Security to increase inspections 
of travelers and shipments to and from Cuba. He said: We will also 
target those who travel to Cuba illegally through third countries. He 
talks about using the investigative capability of the Department of 
Homeland Security to track down American travelers so we can levy fines 
against them.
  My colleague from Idaho is right. It is ludicrous for OFAC to be 
tracking down some young woman who has distributed free Bibles in Cuba, 
so we can levy a fine. This is not, in my judgment, injuring Fidel 
Castro. This policy is attempting to take a slap at Fidel Castro, and 
it injures Americans and their right to travel freely.
  I hope this afternoon, at 5 o'clock, when we go to this conference, 
with the identical provisions coming from the House and the Senate, 
that my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, will support this policy 
of allowing travel to Cuba.
  We long ago concluded with China, a Communist country, and Vietnam, a 
Communist country, that trade and travel and engagement is a 
constructive way to move forward. I believe that. I believe that is 
true with Cuba. The only voice Cubans hear is Fidel Castro's voice. I 
would much prefer they hear the voice of this young lady who travels to 
Cuba to talk to them about her faith and to talk to them about the 
Bible. I would much prefer they hear the voice of thousands and 
thousands of tourists who tell the Cubans what is happening in the rest 
of the world. The Cuban people deserve that. That is the quickest and 
the most effective way, I believe, to effect a change in the Government 
in Cuba.
  So at 5 o'clock this afternoon, in the conference of Transportation-
Treasury Appropriations bill, we will be making a very important 
decision, and because there are identical provisions in both the House 
and the Senate bills which will prohibit the enforcement of this travel 
ban in the future, I hope the conference will keep those provisions.
  But the White House, as they have done in other areas, threatens a 
veto. I do not think they would veto this appropriations bill over this 
issue. But let them threaten. I believe very strongly, as my colleague 
from Idaho just suggested, that we ought to hold tight on this 
provision in conference this afternoon.
  My intention of bringing this up now, and describing this young lady 
and her experience, is to ask my colleagues again: Let's do the right 
thing. Let's not be embarrassed by actions of the Government that fine 
the American people for traveling someplace to distribute free Bibles. 
That is outrageous, and it has to stop.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to respond to the comments 
made by the Senator from Missouri, the chairman of the committee, in 
placing legislation, a rider, if you will, into the appropriations 
bill.
  If ever there was a special interest provision in an appropriations 
bill, this is the mother and father of such a rider. I rise in 
opposition to what is called the small engine provision in the 2004 VA-
HUD appropriations bill. I note that the Senator from Missouri did not 
send to the desk an amendment he plans to introduce to change the 
underlying amendment that was introduced in the Appropriations 
Committee markup. So I am going to try to address both pieces of 
legislation and indicate my opposition to both. Although the amendment 
that he says he is going to introduce is better than the language in 
the underlying bill, it is still unacceptable because it would 
effectively block any State regulation of small road engines anywhere 
in America. This provision was inserted into the chairman's mark at the 
request of a single engine manufacturing company, Briggs & Stratton 
from Missouri.
  As originally written, the underlying bill would effectively preempt 
any State regulation of pollution from off-road engines smaller than 
175 horsepower. I understand the Senator from Missouri now wants to 
narrow his provision to block any regulation of spark engines under 50 
horsepower and not include diesel engines. This new provision is better 
but, as I said, still unacceptable.
  Since the beginning, section 209 of the Clean Air Act has recognized 
that States, with extraordinary or extreme pollution, need flexibility 
to reduce pollution and protect public health. A California law 
actually served as the model for the original Clean Air Act. I think 
that is interesting. As a result, the Clean Air Act has always allowed 
California to set its own standards for some sources of pollution. 
Later changes in the law allowed other States to adopt the California 
standards, if they so chose.
  The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments gave California the right to 
regulate emissions from off-road engines smaller than 175 horsepower, 
except for agricultural and construction equipment. So other States are 
currently free to adopt the California standards or not. The right of 
States to regulate small engines would quickly be taken away if the 
Bond provision is allowed to remain in this bill. Mr. President, 
individual States should have the right to regulate these small engines 
as they choose.
  That is what States rights is all about. Many States have benefitted 
from the process established in section 209, and California's 
regulations often serve as models for the rest of the Nation. The small 
engine provision would amend section 209 and remove important rights 
from States. I oppose using the appropriations process to take away 
States rights under the Clean Air Act. This kind of change to a major 
law like the Clean Air Act deserves a full debate, hearing, and review 
in the Environment and Public Works Committee. It has had none of the 
above.
  It is important for all of my colleagues to understand that one 
company is behind this so-called small engine provision. We are having 
this debate simply because Briggs & Stratton disagrees with a recently 
adopted California regulation which, incidentally, does not go into 
effect for another 5 years. I will explain why that becomes relevant 
later.
  On September 25 of this year, California adopted a regulation 
reducing emissions from off-road engines smaller than 25 horsepower, 
mainly lawn and garden equipment. This is the interesting thing: This 
regulation is the equivalent of removing 1.8 million automobiles from 
California's roads by 2020. That is how big an item this is in my 
State. Once again, let me make it clear that we are talking about the 
equivalent of 1.8 million automobiles.
  But the issue here is not whether we should support any particular 
regulation from the California Air Resources Board. The issue is 
whether we should permanently take away States rights to regulate these 
engines, period. Briggs & Stratton is using opposition to a single 
California regulation to block every State's efforts to regulate these 
engines anywhere in the future. I do not believe we should take such 
important changes to the Clean Air Act lightly, especially when such 
changes have been included in an appropriations bill without having 
adequately looked at the crucial stakes involved.
  Briggs & Stratton has made a series of arguments in opposition to the 
California regulation. We heard the Senator from Missouri say the 
regulation would force the company to close plants, threaten thousands 
of American jobs, and for jobs to be moved to China. I don't know how 
the Senator from Missouri knows that they would move jobs to China 
unless Briggs & Stratton have told him that is what they plan to do.

  At the very same time that Briggs & Stratton is lobbying this Senate 
to preempt California regulations, the company was telling the 
Securities and Exchange Commission an entirely different thing. On 
September 11 of this

[[Page S14473]]

year, while lobbying the Senate in support of the small engine 
provision, Briggs & Stratton filed their annual 10-K report with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission. Here is what they say in their 
report:

       While Briggs & Stratton believes the cost of the proposed 
     regulation on a per engine basis is significant, Briggs & 
     Stratton does not believe that the [California Air Resources 
     Board] staff proposal will have a material effect on its 
     financial condition or results of operations, given that 
     California represents a relatively small percentage of Briggs 
     & Stratton's engine sales and that increased costs will be 
     passed on to California consumers.

  So point 1, California is just a small part of the Briggs & Stratton 
market. Point 2, it will not affect the financial viability of that 
market. And point 3, they would only pass on the costs of retrofitting 
these engines to whomever would buy it, something that is fairly 
typical. Now why all this talk about moving 22,000 jobs to China if, in 
fact, what they said on their SEC statement is correct? The SEC 
statement is the be-all-and-end-all for a company's integrity and 
credibility.
  If you lie on your SEC statement, you get into a lot of trouble with 
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Section 209 of the Clean Air Act gives California the right to 
regulate these engines. The company is free to pass along these costs 
to Californians. My State will accept those costs because we need 
cleaner air. As far as I am concerned, this is the way regulations 
should work.
  Since we brought the annual report to the attention of the public, 
Briggs & Stratton has argued that the annual report was simply 
discussing the company's bottom line and that sending jobs overseas 
would not affect the bottom line. But that is not what the company's 
annual report says. The report says, again, California is but a small 
share of the Briggs & Stratton market. Increased costs will simply be 
passed along to California consumers. It does not say that any 
increased costs will force jobs overseas.
  So Briggs & Stratton is telling the Securities and Exchange 
Commission that everything is fine and at the same time telling the 
media, the public, and this body that the sky is falling.
  Senator Boxer and I have asked the Securities and Exchange Commission 
to investigate whether Briggs & Stratton has broken any securities laws 
by telling such drastically different stories. We are still waiting for 
a response.
  In terms of jobs, my colleagues should also know that Briggs & 
Stratton's SEC report is referring to the original regulation proposed 
by the Air Resources Board. Since the SEC report was filed, the 
California Air Resources Board has continued to work with the industry 
to modify the regulation to correct fire safety concerns and to reduce 
costs, and I believe they will get there. They have 5 years to do so.
  Madam President, what I am going to be doing in this portion of my 
remarks is essentially showing that Briggs & Stratton really is an 
isolated company asking for this. By so asking for it, they are going 
to cause additional costs to other industries. So I hope to make that 
argument now.
  Last month, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, the small engine 
industry's leading trade group of which Briggs & Stratton is a member 
issued a press release which said that the industry's input into the 
adopted regulation made the regulation acceptable. This press release 
details the concessions made by the State and said that the Air 
Resources Board largely adopted the industry's counterproposal. In 
other words, the industry trade council, of which Briggs & Stratton is 
a member, had their counterproposal adopted by the State Air Resources 
Board and yet Briggs & Stratton is still opposing the action.
  I quote the release:

       For the past 2 years, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute 
     has been working proactively with the staff of the California 
     Air Resources Board to improve proposed catalyst base exhaust 
     standards for real problems.

  The press release goes on to say:

       In direct response to the Outdoor Power Equipment 
     Institute's advocacy, the California Air Resources Board 
     unanimously adopted on September 25 a modified framework 
     which, one, relaxes the stringency of the California Air 
     Resources Board's staff's proposed tier 3 exhaust standards 
     and, secondly, substantially improves the overall general 
     framework for the still-to-be-defined evaporative 
     regulations.

  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Outdoor Power Equipment 
Institute's press release be printed in the Record at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Additionally, I have a September 26, 2003, letter 
from Alan Lloyd, the chairman of the California Air Resources Board, to 
the Senator from Missouri, detailing revisions that were made to the 
regulation. Referring to the modified regulation, Mr. Lloyd states as 
follows:

       I believe the action taken by the Air Resources Board is a 
     win/win situation. We achieved our emission reduction goal. 
     The adopted regulation, based on an industry proposal, will 
     reduce costs, simplify compliance and avoid job losses.

  So the Air Resources Board took the industry's proposal, the industry 
association of which Briggs & Stratton is a member. That is why this 
thing is so unfair.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter from Mr. Lloyd 
to the Senator from Missouri be printed in the Record following my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Briggs & Stratton also raised concerns about fire 
safety. The Senator from Missouri has placed a November 6 letter from 
the California Association of Fire Chiefs in the Record. That letter 
expressed concerns about the proposed California regulation. I take 
these concerns very seriously. The last thing I want to do is increase 
the risk of fire. So we need to make sure these engines are safe, and 
the regulation has 5 years to make adjustments before it goes into 
effect, ample time to make such changes as replacing heat shields and 
doing whatever else is necessary to ensure these engines are fire safe.
  There is apparently some miscommunication between the fire chiefs and 
the Air Resources Board. I have just received a letter dated November 
11. I want to read from this letter:

       The fire safety issues we raised [and that would be the 
     November 6 letter that Senator Bond printed in the Record] 
     need more attention and require independent assessment before 
     engineering and production decisions are made [which they 
     have not been up to this time]. In our most recent 
     discussions with [the Air Resources Board], they support the 
     idea of an independent study, and have proposed moving 
     forward with a study, much the same as what is now underway 
     with catalytic converters being used in marine applications. 
     We enthusiastically support this idea, and will be working 
     closely with [the California Air Resources Board], the State 
     Fire Marshal, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to 
     ensure that all fire safety concerns are addressed. We wish 
     to make clear that we regard fire safety and environmental 
     quality as being equally important, and wish to make it clear 
     that we support without reservation the air quality goals of 
     the proposed requirements. We support the regulation moving 
     forward as we have received assurances from CARB [the 
     California Air Resources Board] that our safety concerns will 
     be addressed through this independent study.

  So I think the concerns of the Senator from Missouri are a bit 
overstated in view of the fact that the fire chiefs, the fire marshal, 
and anyone else will work closely with CARB in the ensuing 5 years to 
correct any safety problems that might exist. The letter goes on, and 
this is important:

       Finally, we understand that, as a separate matter, the 
     Senate is debating the question of whether States are free to 
     develop safety and environmental standards. We were never 
     asked to comment on this matter but, for the record, we do 
     not support legislation that would interfere with a State's 
     ability to protect its own citizens. To the contrary, we have 
     had to count on the State of California to develop fire 
     safety standards for upholstered furniture, mattresses and 
     bedding, because the Federal Government has failed to do so. 
     The issues of air quality, as they relate to outdoor power 
     equipment, can be addressed, and I believe that working 
     closely with the Air Resources Board, we will find a solution 
     that will provide a high degree of fire safety while 
     maintaining the Board's goals for air quality.

  I would like to work with the Senator from Missouri, the Air 
Resources Board, fire safety officials, and the small engine industry 
to make sure the California regulation is fire safe. We have 5 years do 
so. It is possible to do so. But what we cannot do is take away the 
State's rights to be concerned

[[Page S14474]]

about its citizens, and that is exactly what Senator Bond is trying to 
do.
  He gives jurisdiction, for the regulation of small engines, to the 
EPA. What the fire chiefs have just said is the EPA has refused to move 
on areas such as bedding and other areas which cause fires, so the 
State has had to do it for themselves.
  States rights are a major part of this issue and I thought these 
rights were part of everything we believed in--letting a State, where 
it can, regulate for itself. Again, I think it is unfortunate that 
Briggs and Stratton is using safety concerns about a single regulation 
to block all future efforts to reduce pollution from these engines in 
any State.
  Let me tell you why this is so big for California. We have the worst 
air quality in the Nation. We have seven ozone nonattainment areas. 
That is more than any other State. Los Angeles is the Nation's only 
extreme ozone nonattainment area. The San Joaquin Valley is not far 
behind. This year has been the worst year for smog in southern 
California since 1997, and the San Joaquin Valley is in a similar 
situation.
  This pollution has severe consequences for public health and for our 
economy in California. Let me tell you what the Air Resources Board 
says will be the result of the efforts of the Senator from Missouri. 
They say Senator Bond's provision could lead to 340 premature deaths 
per year in California due to deteriorating air quality.
  I believe States with serious pollution problems need to be able to 
reduce emissions wherever possible. This small engine provision would 
place a very important source of pollution off limits to State 
regulation.
  I understand a modifying amendment is going to be introduced on 
behalf of Senator Bond that will change the current bill language, 
which currently blocks the regulation of off-road engines smaller than 
175 horsepower. All told, these engines alone emit as much pollution as 
18 million automobiles. Can you believe that? Small off-road engines 
are emit as much pollution as 18 million automobiles. That is a big 
number for California and any reduction in this pollution would benefit 
California greatly.
  The narrower version of this provision, which has yet to be 
introduced but I trust will be, would still block State regulation of 
spark engines smaller than 50 horsepower, which represents the majority 
of small engines that exist and operate in my home State. According to 
the California Air Resources Board, engines under 50 horsepower emit as 
much pollution as 4 million cars, just in California. This is more than 
100 tons of smog-forming pollutants per day in my State alone.
  The modifying amendment that we understand will be sent to the desk 
will essentially mandate 1,500 more tons of smog-producing pollutants a 
day in California--all to benefit one company that is not telling the 
truth on its SEC statement. These off-road engines are also among the 
least regulated and dirtiest engines around.
  According to the California Air Resources Board again, operating the 
average gas-powered lawnmower for just 1 hour produces as much 
pollution as driving a car for 13 hours. I would hazard a guess that no 
one in this Senate knew that operating a lawnmower for 1 hour produces 
as much smog as operating a car for 13 hours. Keep in mind that the 
lawnmower is only about 5 horsepower and the car engine is far larger.

  Even running a small string trimmer for an hour produces as much 
pollution as driving a car for 8 hours. Again, I hazard a guess that no 
one in this Senate knows that operating a small string trimmer for an 
hour produces as much pollution as 8 hours of driving a car. The bottom 
line: These are very dirty engines.
  California is already struggling to comply with national air quality 
standards. We need every industry to do their fair share. According to 
the Air Resources Board, the State has to reduce emissions from these 
engines in order to achieve compliance with national air quality 
standards. In other words, if California is not allowed to proceed with 
the regulations they put forward on September 25, we will be violating 
clean air standards. What happens if we do it? What happens is that 
California loses $2.4 billion in highway transportation moneys. That is 
how important this issue is for the State of California and that is how 
dastardly this amendment--an authorization on an appropriations bill--
really is.
  California cannot afford to remain out of compliance with national 
standards. We also can't afford to take tools away from States that are 
in this situation. If we can't reduce emissions from off-road engines, 
then we will have to cut pollution from other sources. What does that 
mean? Other sources are already facing heavier regulation, so cutting 
their pollution will be more expensive and place more burden on other 
industries.
  On this point I would like to quote a September 25 letter from the 
Environmental Council of the States. That is an organization that 
represents environmental agencies in all 50 States. Let me read what 
they say:

       Removal of this ability to regulate a substantial part of a 
     State's inventory, means that States will have to obtain 
     reductions from the stationary source area [key, from the 
     stationary source area], an area that is already heavily 
     regulated at substantially higher cost. Businesses facing 
     global competition will opt to either shift work to off-shore 
     facilities or to simply close, with concomitant negative 
     consequences on the local and national economy.

  It is critical that this language be eliminated from the HUD-VA 
appropriations bill.
  This is the environmental council to which every State belongs.
  What does this mean? This means that every oil refinery will have to 
have tough requirements and that every utility will have to have tough 
requirements. The cost of gas will rise, and the cost of energy will 
rise. Every stationary source, if we can't tackle this area because it 
is so big, will have to have their standards tightened.
  This is all for one company. Every other company that makes small 
engines has said they can comply, except one company in Missouri that 
says in their SEC report, no problem, and comes here and says, we are 
going to move our jobs to China. A whole series of companies will be 
disadvantaged, but one Missouri company will suffer no financial 
consequences.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this September 25 
letter from the Environmental Council of States be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the debate over the small engine 
provisions is focused on California for this point. But it is also 
clear that the effects go far beyond California.
  Remember that under the Clean Air Act, once California passes the 
regulation, other States can then replicate that to any degree they so 
choose. This is where it begins to affect a number of other States. The 
small engine provision in the VA/HUD appropriations bill is a problem 
for every State and for every Senator who believes individual States 
should be able to adopt their own rules and regulations on issues such 
as these. States with serious pollution problems include Texas, 
Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Illinois, North Carolina, New York, New 
Jersey, Maryland, and many others know they need to be able to reduce 
pollution from every possible source. Some States have already moved 
forward with regulations affecting off-road engines.
  This legislation--the underlying bill, as well as the amendment that 
we understand will be sent to the desk shortly--will cut this off, 
remove the right from a State and give it to the EPA that historically 
has been a slow mover in this area.
  According to the associations representing State and local pollution 
control officials, the original version of the small engine provision 
would have blocked the current program in seven States--Alaska, 
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, Texas, and Wisconsin.
  The 175-horsepower engine would also block programs in at least eight 
States that are considering future regulations: Alabama, Illinois, 
Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and 
Virginia, in addition to the District of Columbia.
  The States recognize this threat to their rights. I have already 
quoted a letter from Environmental Council of

[[Page S14475]]

the States. We have also received letters in opposition to the Bond 
provision from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
Southeastern State Air Resources Managers representing State air 
pollution control agencies in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and the 
associations representing State and local air pollution control 
officials from all 50 States.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these organizations be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Southeastern States Air


                                      Resource Managers, Inc.,

                               Forest Park, GA, November 20, 2003.
     Re Bond Provision of S. 1584--Fiscal Year 2004 VA, HUD and 
         Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill.

     Hon. Zell Miller,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Miller: Southeastern States Air Resource 
     Mangers, Inc. (SESARM), representing the directors of the 
     southeastern state air pollution control agencies in Alabama, 
     Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 
     South Carolina, and Tennessee, is writing this letter to 
     encourage your support of the removal of a provision 
     introduced by Senator Bond in S. 1584, the Fiscal Year 2004 
     VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill. The 
     provision would amend Section 209(e)(1)(A) of the Clean Air 
     Act to curtail state's authority to reduce emissions from 
     diesel and gasoline off-road equipment and engines.
       While Senator Bond's proposed provision regarding the off-
     road engines apparently was intended to address rules adopted 
     only in California, it will limit the ability of all states 
     to solve serious public health-related air quality problems. 
     Senator Bond's proposal revises a very important provision of 
     the Clean Air Act which allows states to adopt engine 
     emission standards more stringent than the federal standards 
     as long as appropriate federal review processes are followed. 
     Congress wisely put this provision into the Act to give 
     states the ability to deal with serious air quality problems 
     across the country. SESARM opposes the impact of the Bond 
     proposal on this important provision.
       Please note that other compromise amendments which fall 
     short of fully restoring Section 209(e)(1)(A) are, in our 
     opinion, unacceptable and will constrain states as discussed 
     above. SESARM and your state air pollution control agency 
     would appreciate your support of removal of the Bond 
     Amendment from S. 1584.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Hon. E. Hornback,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 2003.
     Re S. 1584, FY2004 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
         Appropriations Clean Air Act Amendment.

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Conference of State 
     Legislatures, I write to urge your support for amendments 
     that would strike a provision of S. 1584 that amends Section 
     209(e)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act and curtails state 
     authority to regulate diesel and gasoline off-road equipment 
     and engines. Emissions from off-road sources contribute to 
     ozone and fine particulate matter pollution. They pose a 
     threat to public health and to state achievement and 
     maintenance of national ambient air quality standards for 
     ozone and particulate matter.
       NCSL strongly believes that federal environmental policy 
     should be addressed in substantive committee deliberations 
     and not made through riders to appropriations bills. The 
     amendatory language in S. 1584 would strip states of long-
     standing authority to exceed federal standards. It 
     compromises state and local government capacity to determine 
     the most effective means to address specific air pollution 
     problems. It also has implications for agriculture and 
     natural resource management none of which are addressed 
     through the use of an appropriations rider.
       The Clear Air Act appropriately recognizes that states are 
     best suited to determine which sources, including off-road 
     equipment and engines, contribute most significantly to air 
     pollution and which strategies are most effective in 
     addressing pollution-related problems. I again urge your 
     support of amendments that strike the aforementioned off-road 
     provision from S. 1584. Thank you for your consideration of 
     NCSL's concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                    William Pound,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the States also propose compromise 
language that would still place some of these engines off limits. To 
quote the letter from the Southeastern States Air Managers:

       Please note that other compromise amendments which fall 
     short of fully restoring section 209(e)(1)(a) are, in our 
     opinion, unacceptable and will constrain States as discussed 
     above. This association and your State air pollution control 
     agencies would appreciate your support of removal of the Bond 
     amendment from S. 1584, the HUD VA appropriations bill.

  Many other States are just beginning to realize the importance of 
this small engine provision. As we move forward with more protective 
air quality standards, more and more States will need to reduce 
emissions to comply with national standards. Those States will also 
need to reduce pollution from these very engines because there are so 
many of them and they are so very dirty. I strongly believe we should 
protect a State's right to do so.
  We should not use this appropriations bill to take rights away from 
the States without knowing what we are doing, without a hearing, and 
without review by the authorizing committee.
  As I said, this rider is the mother and father of all riders because 
it authorizes a major reduction in States rights with no hearings 
whatsoever, no ability to question Briggs & Stratton, and no ability to 
ask them why they said on their SEC report that this would cause no 
financial disadvantage to the company, that California is such a small 
portion of their market, and they would just pass on any additional 
costs to the consumer.
  Why would they tell the Senate or the Senator from Missouri they 
would move jobs to China if this passed? The statements of Briggs & 
Stratton make me very suspicious.
  The Clean Air Act has long recognized that States with serious air 
pollution problems need to be able to set strong standards to protect 
public health. The hard-fought 1990 Clean Air Act amendments give the 
States the ability to regulate these off-road engines.
  With respect to the California regulation, I will work with fire 
officials, air resources boards, the industry, and the Senator from 
Missouri to ensure that the final regulation is safe. But I believe it 
is clear that this should not be a debate about a specific State 
regulation. That is our problem. We will handle it. California is 
entirely able and capable of handling this problem. We don't need 
someone else to tell us what to do.
  This is a debate about making sure the States have the flexibility 
necessary to protect the public health.
  It is hard for me to understand why anyone would do this on an 
appropriations bill when the consequences are so dire, with over 300 
premature deaths likely to be caused by worsening air pollution, or if 
the State moves to further tighten stationary sources and really send a 
whole magnitude of companies offshore.
  I don't think in an appropriations bill we should take well-earned 
States rights away from every State in this Union to benefit one 
company. Remember, every other manufacturer of small engines is going 
along with what California is doing. They have all said they could do 
it. They have all said they could adapt these standards into their 
manufacturing. They have all said they could change. They have all said 
they can add adequate heat shields.
  Furthermore, the pollution from these engines under 175 horsepower 
accounts for 17 percent of California's mobile smog emissions. This is 
not minor. We are talking about 17 percent of a State that has seven 
nonattainment areas in it, 17 percent of their pollution, and an Air 
Resources Board that has accepted the industry's proposal, an industry 
trade council, to which Briggs & Stratton belongs, submitted a proposal 
they could live with to the Air Resources Board. The Air Resources 
Board accepted it. And now Briggs & Stratton is coming back and saying: 
We do not agree; we will get our Senator to put a rider in a bill--with 
no hearing, without understanding the consequences that this provision 
will move the right for every single State to protect its citizens.
  That is truly wrong. This morning, I ask my colleagues to stand up 
for their states rights. I ask them to stand up and protect public 
health. I ask them to oppose this special provision on this 
appropriations bill put there to benefit one company when every other 
company says they can comply.

                               Exhibit 1

              [From the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute]

OPEI Succeeds in Dramatically Improving California Emission Regulations

       For the last two years, OPEI has been working proactively 
     with the staff of the

[[Page S14476]]

     California Air Resources Board (CARB) to improve proposed 
     catalyst-based Tier III exhaust standards for wheeled 
     products, as well as new evaporative emission regulations, 
     based on the use of carbon canisters and/or sealed fuel 
     tanks, as well as less-permeable fuel tank materials and fuel 
     lines. On August 8, 2003, CARB staff issued a proposed 
     regulation that would have required wheeled products to 
     install high-efficiency/high-heat generating catalysts in 
     order to meet exhaust standards that were 50% more stringent 
     than the current Tier II standards. CARB's August 8th 
     proposal would also have required all lawn and garden 
     equipment to be subject to shed-based performance testing to 
     demonstrate that the entire piece of equipment complied with 
     an overall evaporative/diurnal emission standard. CARB's 
     August 8th proposal evaporative compliance program and 
     exhaust stand would have: (1) imposed enormous compliance and 
     product integration problems for both engine companies and 
     OEMs; and (2) resulted in significant safety concerns as 
     well, principally because of the substantial heat generated 
     from the high-efficiency catalysts. Through written 
     correspondence, the U.S. Congressional House Committee on 
     Government Reform, the California Fire Chiefs Associations 
     (CFCA), the National Association of State Fire Marshals 
     (NASFM), and the U.S. Consumer and Product Safety Commission 
     (CPSC) have gone on record as strongly opposing CARB's August 
     8th proposal because of the unresolved safety issues with 
     high-efficiency/high-heat generating catalysts and 
     pressurized fuel systems.
       In direct response to OPEI advocacy, the California Air 
     Resources Board (CARB) unanimously adopted on September 25th 
     a modified alternative framework which: (1) relaxes the 
     stringency of CARB Staff's proposed Tier III 
     exhaust standards; and (2) substantially improves the 
     overall general framework for the still-to-be-defined 
     evaporative emission regulations. The CARB Board has 
     adopted industry's proposed exhaust standards which are 
     roughly 25% less stringent for Class I engines (less than 
     225 cc displacement) and 33% less stringent for Class II 
     engines (greater than 225 cc displacement). Based on an 
     economic study prepared for OPEI, the compliance costs of 
     the industry counterproposal should be roughly one-third 
     less than the costs associated with the August 8th CARB 
     proposal. CARB's August 8th exhaust and evaporative 
     proposed standards would have increased the average 
     compliance cost for lawn mowers by $106 and the average 
     compliance cost for riding mowers by $321. CARB's adopted 
     less stringent exhaust and more flexible evaporative 
     program are expected to result in an average total 
     compliance cost increase of $73 for walk-behind-mowers and 
     $189 for riding mowers.
       The provisions in OPEI/EMA's counterproposal (as generally 
     adopted by the CARB Board) also establish a much more 
     straightforward and less burdensome, design-based (rather 
     than shed-testing) program (for all products others than 
     walk-behind-mowers) to demonstrate compliance with the 
     evaporative requirements. OPEI has also persuaded CARB to 
     allow the use of smaller and less-expensive carbon canisters. 
     The provisions in OPEI's/EMA's counterproposal (as generally 
     adopted by the CARB Board) provide industry with much longer 
     lead-time compared to the August 8th CARB proposal. 
     Specifically, industry has more than five years of additional 
     lead time to achieve the ultimate evaporative emission 
     requirements. This additional lead time should allow 
     manufacturers with adequate time to develop and use new low-
     permeation barriers (such as co-extruded materials) in 
     constructing their fuel tanks.
       The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) is the major 
     international trade association representing the 
     manufacturers and their suppliers of consumer and commercial 
     outdoor power equipment such as lawnmowers, garden tractors, 
     utility vehicles, trimmers, edgers, chain saws, snow 
     throwers, tillers, leaf blowers and other related products. 
     Founded in 1952, the Institute is dedicated to promoting the 
     outdoor power equipment industry by undertaking activities 
     that can be pursued more effectively by an association than 
     by individual companies.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2


                                          Air Resources Board,

                               Sacramento, CA, September 26, 2003.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: Thank you for your September 24, 2003, 
     letter commenting on the proposed regulation to reduce 
     pollution from small engines below 25 horsepower. Your letter 
     was received prior to the California Air Resources Board 
     (ARB) public hearing on this regulation, and read by each of 
     my fellow Board members.
       Your letter urged the Board to reach ``a comprehensive 
     agreement with the entire small engine industry that saves 
     jobs while also protecting the environment and public 
     safety.'' I'm pleased to report that on September 25, 2003, 
     the Air Resources Board unanimously adopted a revised 
     regulation that I am confident addresses all the issues 
     raised in your letter on behalf of the small engine industry. 
     In particular, the regulation we adopted:
       1. Removes any question regarding safety;
       2. Results in the use of commonly available technologies 
     which will not require engine redesign;
       3. Prevents the possible loss of jobs referred to in your 
     letter; and
       4. Achieves nearly the same emission reductions.
       The revised regulation is based on proposals we had 
     requested and received in the past two weeks from members of 
     the small engine industry. ARB staff used these proposals to 
     design and include in the regulation two alternative methods 
     of compliance. One of the alternatives closely reflects the 
     proposal of the Engine Manufacturers, Outdoor Power Equipment 
     Institute, and Briggs and Stratton.
       The most important feature of the regulatory alternatives 
     we adopted is a less stringent exhaust emission standard 
     (offset by better evaporative emission controls). The new 
     standard will reduce the heat generated by the engine's 
     exhaust. Honda testified that with the revised exhaust 
     emission standards, safety is no longer a concern. A 
     representative of the California Fire Chiefs Association 
     testified the revised regulation appeared to address their 
     concerns. Similarly, a representative of the California Fire 
     Marshall's office told our staff he believes ARB 
     adequately handled the safety issues with the revised 
     regulation. I am confident that the testimony of these 
     experts assures us there will be no new safety issues 
     resulting from implementing this regulation.
       No testimony was presented to the Board regarding job 
     losses and plant closures. However, I am aware that Briggs 
     and Stratton has said the company will have to shut down some 
     or all of its plants because major engine redesign would be 
     required to meet California's proposal to reduce small engine 
     emissions. I believe that statement referred to the original 
     proposed regulation and no longer applies. Testimony at our 
     hearing yesterday confirmed that relatively simple changes to 
     engine components would allow these small engines to meet the 
     revised emission standards we adopted. Better hoses and fuel 
     tanks would prevent fuel vapors from leaking into the 
     atmosphere where they form smog. A simple catalyst, similar 
     to the ones used on over 15 million small motorcycles and 
     mopeds worldwide, would reduce exhaust emissions without 
     creating a heat hazard to the user. The testimony was clear 
     that these simple changes were effective and no engine 
     redesign that might cause job losses would be needed. Honda 
     testified on the record that the regulations would not reduce 
     its employment or production.
       I believe the action taken by the ARB is a win-win 
     situation. We achieved our emission reduction goal. The 
     adopted regulation, based on an industry proposal, will 
     reduce costs, simplify compliance and avoid job losses. Fire 
     experts stated there is no safety problem.
       As you stated in your letter to me, addressing these issues 
     should obviate the need for Congressional action. We have 
     successfully addressed all the issues you raised. 
     Accordingly, I now request that you remove the expansive 
     state preemption language from the HUD/VA budget bill, so in 
     cooperation with small engine manufacturers, we can get on 
     with the job of protecting the health of 35 million 
     Californians.
           Sincerely,
                                              Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D,
     Chairman.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 3

         Environmental Council of the States, State and 
           Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, 
           Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials,
                                                 October 24, 2003.
       Dear Senator: We write to you today on behalf of the 
     Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), the State and 
     Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and 
     the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials 
     (ALAPCO) to urge your support for amendments to strike a 
     provision of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies FY 2004 
     appropriations bill that would amend Section 209(e)(1)(A) of 
     the Clean Air Act to curtail states' authority to clean up 
     diesel and gasoline off-road equipment and engines.
       Emissions from off-road engines contribute significantly 
     and increasingly to ozone and fine particulate matter 
     (PM2.5) pollution and are responsible for a 
     variety of serious public health impacts. As state and local 
     environmental agencies work to develop strategies for 
     attaining and maintaining health-based National Ambient Air 
     Quality Standards for ozone and PM2.5, they will 
     look to the regulation of off-road engines as a means for 
     achieving their clean air goals.
       The provision in the VA-HUD appropriations bill to amend 
     Section 209 would have broad adverse consequences with 
     respect to the ability of states to seek emission reductions 
     from off-road engines. First, the provision would prevent not 
     only California, but all other states as well, from setting 
     new emission standards or enforcing existing standards for 
     all off-road engines under 175 horsepower (hp), including, 
     among others, those used in lawn and garden equipment, 
     generators, forklifts, airport ground support equipment and 
     mining equipment. Second, the provision would also preclude 
     states from regulating off-road engines above 175 hp if the 
     engines are certified in the same engine ``family'' as 
     certain off-road engines under 175 hp. Third, the provision 
     would prevent states from pursuing ``retrofit'' programs to 
     clean up older, dirtier engines. In short, if this provision 
     to amend Section 209 of the Act is retained in the VA-HUD 
     appropriations bill, states' clean air efforts will be

[[Page S14477]]

     thwarted and they will be forced to seek further, likely less 
     cost effective, reductions in emissions from other sources 
     that are already well controlled, including small businesses.
       As the Clean Air Act appropriately recognizes, states are 
     best suited to determine which sources contribute most 
     significantly to air pollution in their respective 
     jurisdictions and which programs will be most effective in 
     addressing their specific problems. ECOS, STAPPA and ALAPCO 
     urge that you support amendments to strike this off-road 
     provision from the VA-HUD appropriations bill and preserve 
     states' rights to pursue healthier air for our nation.
           Sincerely,
     R. Steven Brown,
       Executive Director, ECOS.
     S. William Becker,
       Executive Director, STAPPA and ALAPCO.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland 
for her comments. She is a superior ranking member. When she is 
chairman of the subcommittee, she is a superior chairman of the 
subcommittee. I do not know any Senator who loves her assignment more 
than the Senator from Maryland. If we hear one thing from her, it is 
about her VA-HUD bill. She does a super job. I am just so grateful for 
her service to our country, to our veterans, and to housing. It has 
just been exemplary.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Craig.


                Amendment No. 2156 To Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. CRAIG. On behalf of Senator Bond and Senators McConnell, Talent, 
Chambliss, Miller, and Craig, I send the Bond amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho, [Mr. Craig], for Mr. Bond, Mr. 
     McConnell, Mr. Talent, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Miller, and Mr. 
     Craig, proposes amendment numbered 2156 to amendment No. 
     2150.

  The amendment reads as follows:

(Purpose: Clarify the current exemption for certain nonroad agriculture 
     and construction engines or vehicles that are smaller than 50 
 horsepower from air emission regulation by California and require EPA 
                    to develop a national standard)

       Page 106, strike lines 16 to 20 and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:
       ``Section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7543(e)(1)) is amended by--
       (a) striking the words ``either of''; and
       (b) in paragraph (A), adding before the period at the end 
     the following: ``, and any new spark-ignition engines smaller 
     than 50 horsepower''.
       Not later than December 1, 2004, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall propose regulations 
     containing new standards applicable to emissions from new 
     nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower.''.

  Mr. CRAIG. I will speak only briefly. I didn't think I had a dog in 
this fight, only a lawnmower and a weed eater.
  Most of what the Senator from California said I agree with. But I 
also know when you have a large manufacturer that builds literally tens 
of thousands of engines a year spread out across the country and are 
allied to a variety of tools that are built by other companies, there 
does need to be uniformity in law.
  The amendment requires EPA to establish that kind of uniformity for 
50 horse and under. Of course, I can appreciate that. I have dealt with 
situations before, including when we had the lawsuit over Yellowstone 
Park. It said that snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park had to meet a 
certain standard. We said, wait a minute, let's build a standard so all 
snowmobiles meet, nationwide, both the issue of sound and air 
pollution.
  That is exactly what is happening now. Most industries, when you can 
build a nationwide uniformity of standard, work obviously to meet it or 
they go out.
  Briggs & Stratton is the last remaining large manufacturer of small 
engines in the country. I understand that California has made some 
exceptions, carving out for Honda and others to meet certain compliance 
issues.
  I hope in this amendment we do recognize when you have a producer of 
this magnitude that sells worldwide and nationwide that we build or 
work to build uniformity across those standards. I believe that is the 
intent of the amendment.
  The Senator is right, it has been reduced to 50 horsepower and does 
address EPA, requiring them to address this problem.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Or we can go back and forth through the Chair if the 
Senator is in agreement. The problem is that because of the severe 
conditions in the State, 7 nonattainment zones, this is 17 percent of 
mobile sources. If we do not deal with it, we cannot meet the clean air 
standards and we jeopardize our highway funds.
  There is the rub, so to speak. States do not have to follow. Clearly, 
States have followed, a large number of them. I don't know what else to 
do. Every State's air, as we have discussed with forests, Senator, is 
different. Pollution comes from different kinds of sources in every 
State. That is why this ability of a State, particularly one as large 
as California, fifth largest economic engine on Earth, should have the 
right to protect its people.
  The concern is that EPA, (a) won't move fast enough; (b) will not do 
enough to severely reduce the pollution to enable California to come 
within its containment standards.
  Mr. CRAIG. Regaining my time in trying to respond to that because I 
am not the expert in this area and I have not dealt with this issue per 
se, obviously, I recognize the need of California. Other States have 
that need. What this amendment does is it addresses EPA to move rapidly 
into that area to build a uniform national standard that meets those 
needs. Of course, EPA does have a broader test when it develops 
regulation. It does have an economic factor test involved in looking at 
regulations that some States are not required or simply do not have 
because they set their own standards.
  It is a fine line between allowing States to move forward and 
developing uniform national standards. There have been exceptions. The 
Senator has spoken to those exceptions.

  When a market has a magnitude of sales large enough, sometimes those 
exceptions are effectively made and economically companies can survive. 
In this instance, what we have seen in this particular market, because 
of costs of retooling, retrofitting, and bringing assembly lines 
online, oftentimes it is easier to move offshore--not that you will 
change the requirement--but you can, therefore, build the new plant for 
less cost, you drive down your costs because of labor, and that is what 
the Senator from Missouri is concerned about.
  He is also concerned about pollution. That is why the amendment 
addresses EPA and says get at the business of dealing with this 50 
horsepower and up issue. That is a major problem.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am more than happy to yield.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The bulk of our problem, I am told by the Air 
Resources Board, otherwise I would not know, is under 50 horsepower. So 
it takes that right away.
  Additionally, Senator, I guess what got my dander up, was the SEC 
filing of a company when they say this is not a financial problem. 
Actually, the finances drive everything in the country. We know that 
very well. This is not a financial problem. They will pass on added 
cost. California is a small part of the market. If the company is 
saying that is a 10(k) I would tend to believe the 10(k). Wouldn't you?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, regaining my time, I obviously cannot 
address that issue. I am here for the purpose of introducing the 
amendment on behalf of Senator Bond. Senator Bond is in markup on 
surface transportation and will be back to the floor in a while to 
engage the Senator in these questions, I am sure, and he knows a great 
deal more about this issue than I.
  What I would like to do at this moment, if the Senator from 
California would accept it, is to lay the amendment aside temporarily 
for the purpose of the introduction of another amendment, and when 
Senator Bond gets back to the floor he can bring this amendment back 
for the purposes of addressing it with the Senator. Would the Senator 
object to that?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Not at all.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from California.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Bond amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S14478]]

                Amendment No. 2158 To Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. CRAIG. With that, I send to the desk an amendment for the 
Senate's consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Idaho, [Mr. Craig], for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lugar, 
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Fitzgerald, proposes an amendment 
numbered 2158 to amendment No. 2150.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have brought an amendment to the floor 
today that has been worked on for a long period of time in a bipartisan 
way, Democrats and Republicans, VA-HUD subcommittee, Senate Agriculture 
Committee, and others, to deal with pesticide registration and the fees 
of that registration.
  For the last several years, the VA-HUD appropriations bill has, on an 
analyzed basis, advanced these fees automatically. We have done it 
through the appropriating process.
  The administration basically said let's resolve this issue. A broad 
coalition of environmental organizations and chemical companies 
basically came together in the past several months to reach consensus 
on a permanent pesticide fees package. Through several long hours, an 
agreement was reached late this summer through a truly bipartisan 
effort that produced identical legislation in both the Senate amendment 
I have just sent forward with the 20-plus cosponsors and House H.R. 
3188. So the House and Senate are now working in tandem on this issue.

  The package includes a unique cross section of support from industry, 
labor, farmers, and the environmental community. Such groups as the 
Natural Resource Defense Council, the American Farm Bureau, the Sierra 
Club, the CropLife America group, and the Northwest Coalition for 
Alternatives to Pesticides now fully endorse this bill.
  Cumulatively, there are over 20 agricultural organizations supporting 
this amendment, and they have asked for ``stable, effective and 
predictable pesticide regulation'' that is explicitly created in this 
legislation.
  The amendment guarantees long-term stable funding to EPA that 
provides and expedites the pesticide registration process by using a 
performance-based approach. Additionally, the amendment provides a 
protection for small business and minor use products while funding 
efforts to protect workers.
  The legislation ensures that EPA use sound science in its evaluation 
of products, and that existing rigorous standards are maintained, while 
reducing the timelag between approval and availability of these 
products to farmers and retailers who sell them.
  The amendment is consistent with other user fees legislation, such as 
the successful Prescription Drug User Fee Act.
  Congress has addressed the pesticide fees issue for several years, as 
I have mentioned, by simply rolling it over in appropriations bills. 
But it is truly an issue that deserves the full consideration of all 
parties involved and finality brought to it. And this amendment offers 
that.
  I had offered it in the subcommittee, but because of our 
consideration of not dealing with legislation in the subcommittee, we 
chose, and I chose, to bring it to the floor on behalf of a very broad 
bipartisan group of Senators.
  As in the past, the House and the Senate VA-HUD bills, as I said, 
spoke to a temporary approach, a 1-year fix for the issue.
  Now, of course, I hope we can gain acceptance of this amendment on 
all sides so that we have a long-term solution so Congress can fully 
resolve the issue.
  My amendment, our amendment, has the same budget impact as the 1-year 
rider currently in both the House and the Senate 2004 appropriations 
bills. Now is the time, I do believe, to provide a long-term fix to the 
pesticide fee program at the EPA by including this consensus 
legislation on an appropriations bill moving forward.
  The diverse stakeholder coalition--from the agricultural industry, 
environmental groups, workers, and the consumer community--has worked 
long and hard to forge a consensus and is fully supportive of the terms 
of this amendment.
  So I hope when we get consideration of this--it is possible there may 
be others who wish to speak to it--that we can bring it on this 
legislation and adopt it, hopefully, by consensus of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Pryor as a 
cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I know Senator Dorgan, who supports the initial 
legislation, has some concern about other issues and is on his way to 
the floor to speak to those.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that the pending 
amendment is an amendment offered by Senator Craig from Idaho dealing 
with pesticide registration fees. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                Amendment No. 2159 To Amendment No. 2158

 (Purpose: To permit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
                Agency to register a Canadian pesticide)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, that is a first-degree amendment. I will 
offer a second-degree amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2159 to amendment No. 2158.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have visited with my colleague, Senator 
Craig, about this second-degree amendment. I have also visited with 
those who are running the Agriculture Committee.
  This is an amendment to the pesticide registration fee amendment 
offered by Senator Craig. Let me point out, I support the underlying 
amendment. I believe it is an important amendment that Senator Craig 
has offered. I intend to vote for it. I will not insist on a vote. In 
fact, I will ask to withdraw my amendment following my presentation. 
But I did want to have a dialog with my colleague from Idaho about an 
issue that is related to the issue of pesticide registration. It deals 
with the issue of harmonization with Canada, something that was 
promised when we did the free trade agreement with Canada, that we 
would harmonize pesticides and herbicide pricing and policies.
  The fact is it has not been done. A group of us in the Senate, a 
bipartisan group, including Senator Craig and Senator Burns, myself, 
and others, have continued to work on this issue because we have a 
circumstance on the northern border where chemical prices are 
substantially different between the United States and Canada, even 
though in many cases the chemical itself is nearly identical--perhaps 
tweaked with one piece or another of the formula, but otherwise nearly 
identical.
  For example, a chemical that is put on canola in Canada and then the 
canola is sent to our country to be crushed at the crushing plant and 
put into our food supply is a chemical our farmers cannot go get in 
Canada and bring back, despite the fact this chemical is substantially 
similar to one used on canola in the United States but is priced much 
lower in Canada. So we have had this promise of chemical harmonization 
for some long while dealing with Canada.
  The current circumstance we believe is unfair to American farmers. 
The bipartisan legislation that is in the second-degree amendment I 
offer gives the EPA 60 days to approve or deny the

[[Page S14479]]

registration of a Canadian pesticide if it has similar use and makeup 
as a pesticide registered in the United States.
  It allows the EPA, if the EPA so chooses, to delegate portions of the 
registration workload to the States to aid the EPA in completing the 
registration process. But the Environmental Protection Agency, under 
this approach, is ultimately responsible for this process. According to 
a study done by the North Dakota State University, we still have 
significant price disparities between chemicals that are almost 
identical. If those disparities had been eliminated with harmonization, 
North Dakota producers would have saved $20 million last year. That is 
a substantial amount.
  We have worked with State agriculture commissioners in the various 
States. As I indicated, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have 
worked together. As a result of that, we are anxious to move this 
legislation. We did have a hearing on a different version of it 
previously. We have now changed that version because of some objections 
to it. We would like to have a hearing and a markup. I understand there 
are some perhaps in the industry who do not support this. But on behalf 
of American farmers, we really need to do it.
  I have offered it as a second-degree amendment. I have learned 
moments ago that the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee will 
commit to doing a hearing on this next February. That is a couple of 
months away. That is significant progress. I appreciate very much his 
cooperation, and I know the Senator from Idaho is a member of that 
committee. My hope would be, although there is not a commitment at this 
point, that that hearing, in which we demonstrate bipartisan support 
for this issue, would be followed by a markup. We really do need to 
move this legislation.
  My only purpose for offering the second-degree amendment today is 
that my colleagues and I are frustrated that we have not been able to 
get this done previously. There are many reasons for it, but we do need 
to now take action. That is the purpose of this.
  I say to my colleague from Idaho, as a member of the Agriculture 
Committee, I know he and Senator Cochran, leader of the committee, and 
others believe strongly that we need to have proper hearings on these 
issues. I know my colleague from Idaho is a strong supporter. I ask him 
how he feels about this legislation, the second-degree amendment I 
have offered.

  Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator from North Dakota will yield, Mr. 
President, what the Senator speaks to is a very real problem, 
especially in border States such as his and mine, where farmers across 
that line that is often invisible--economically, environmentally, and 
climactically, but not jurisdictionally, certainly not from a national 
standpoint--can't understand why a product that appears to be the 
same--and as the Senator from North Dakota said, there may be some 
slight difference because it is not licensed in this country--cannot 
cross the border and find a substantial savings and bring it back for 
application on his agricultural crops in the lower 48. Yet product 
raised in Canada, harvested in Canada, can be trafficked into our 
markets, refined, and moved into our food stream.
  There does clearly need to be a resolution of this problem, from an 
economic standpoint, from an environmental standpoint, and from a food 
safety standpoint. That was spoken to in the Canadian free trade 
agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is something we 
ought to resolve.
  I am pleased that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is 
willing to hold hearings early next year to review it. I will certainly 
encourage that. I will encourage that we move the next step, to a 
markup, to resolve this issue once and for all. There are remnants left 
of difficulties between the United States and Canada in a variety of 
areas as a result of the free trade agreement. I didn't support that 
agreement initially, but it is the law of the lands involved: Canada, 
the United States, and Mexico.
  We ought to try to resolve these kinds of difficulties that create 
great problems. Twenty million dollars spread across the national 
economy is not so much money; $20 million in a State such as North 
Dakota or Idaho, on individual farmers who are, at best, breaking even 
in some of these crops and in many years below cost of production--that 
savings in itself is a very substantial reduction in the overall cost 
of doing business.
  That is what harmonization was about: Environmentally, regulatorily, 
and certainly as a cost of product, and for food safety and all of 
those things within the food chain. This is an issue that cries out for 
resolution. I am pleased that the Senator is willing to withdraw his 
second degree and that that probably then allows us, hopefully, to go 
forward with the other one, maybe by a voice vote or an acceptance of 
the chairman and the ranking member of the committee.
  I thank the Senator for bringing this issue to the floor. I am 
certainly an advocate of his position and will work to help him resolve 
it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho. He has 
been a strong supporter of this approach.
  Perhaps for the record, I might add what farmers are upset about is 
the following. We see Canadian grain coming into our country. It is 
treated with their chemicals but their chemicals are deemed unfit here, 
not because it has the wrong ingredient or it would be unhealthy for 
us. It is just the way it is labeled in order to prevent it from being 
sold in this country.
  On the chemical Liberty for use in canola, there is a $4.40 per-acre 
price difference between the United States and Canada for essentially 
the same chemical.
  On Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, there is only about a $2 
per-acre price differential; On a chemical Puma, $11 million more to 
apply just for North Dakota farmers. The chemical Stinger, which is 
sold as Lontrel in Canada--both are similar pesticides, use the same 
active ingredient--there is almost a $10 per-acre difference between 
the chemicals. That is what upsets farmers. They see that they can't 
buy the nearly identical chemicals for $10 an acre less, but they see 
the grain come in from Canada that has been treated with the same 
chemical. That is why the United States-Canada free trade agreement had 
a provision in it that called for harmonization in these areas, and yet 
almost no progress has been made. It is why a group of us are trying to 
do something about it.
  I thank my colleague from Idaho and my colleague from Montana and my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle. I thank Senator Cochran, and 
especially his staff on the Senate Agriculture Committee, on the 
commitment to hold a hearing, in the next couple of months, on this, in 
the month of February. Also, my colleague's belief that we need to move 
along, and he will be pushing for a markup, gives me some hope that we 
will be able to move this legislation.
  Let me conclude by saying again the first-degree amendment offered by 
my colleague from Idaho is one that is needed. It is very important, 
and I strongly support it. It provides the fees for pesticide 
registration. This Congress needs to pass that legislation. I support 
doing it as a first-degree amendment offered by my colleague from 
Idaho.


                      Amendment No. 2159 Withdrawn

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I hope we will adopt the first-degree amendment of my 
colleague from Idaho by voice vote. Certainly, this appropriations bill 
is going to become law. Whether it is on the floor of the Senate with 
action or part of some omnibus bill, this is going to the President for 
signature. Having my colleague's first-degree amendment part of the 
bill, doing something that needs to get done now, not later, makes a 
lot of sense. I am pleased to be supportive of the amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding, under the 
agreement, that Senator Byrd will be on the floor at noon to speak for 
a period of time. Following that, I understand we will resume 
consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S14480]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12 
having arrived, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, shall be 
permitted to speak for up to 30 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. That is the order. I understand we will then recess from 
12:30 until 2:15 for the purpose of the Democrat policy luncheon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 29 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I will not use all of the 
remaining time.


                Department of Defense Authorization Bill

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on May 22 of this year, 2003, I cast my vote 
in opposition to the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill. I 
cast that vote to protest the errant course of the defense 
establishment in seeking larger and larger regular defense budgets. The 
budget for the Department of Defense is exploding, even if we do not 
count the vast sums being used to maintain our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  The regular defense budget, not including the costs of the war on 
terrorism in Afghanistan or the other war, the war in Iraq which we 
started, has gone up by 31 percent since 2000. I will say that again. 
The regular defense budget, not including the costs of the war on 
terrorism in Afghanistan or the other war which we started in Iraq, has 
gone up by 31 percent since 2000.
  In 2000, Congress authorized $304.1 billion to fund the routine day-
to-day operations of our military. The conference report before the 
Senate today authorizes $401.3 billion to pay the routine bills for our 
defense establishment. As I say, I am not even speaking of the costs of 
Iraq on the one hand or the costs of Afghanistan. So if we were to just 
ignore Afghanistan and Iraq in looking at the costs of the military, we 
are authorizing today in the conference report $401 billion to pay the 
routine bills for our defense establishment as against the $304.1 
billion that Congress authorized in the year 2000--in other words, 
roughly $100 billion more today than we authorized in 2000, just 
ignoring Iraq, on the one hand, and Afghanistan on the other.
  The growth of the so-called peacetime budget of the Department of 
Defense is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The 
Pentagon estimates that it will request $502.7 billion for routine 
defense operations in the year 2009. Think of that. That is more than a 
half trillion dollars. The Pentagon estimates it will request $502 
billion for routine defense operations in 2009. But a request for half 
a trillion dollars--as we will be undertaking in 2009--should be 
anything but routine, especially if not one red cent of those funds 
would be for any contingency military operation.

  Instead, these growing defense budgets are proof that there is no 
longer any real effort to provide a smarter defense plan that will 
modernize our forces for the 21st century while eliminating the 
vestiges of a cold war era military force. Nearly 3 years ago, Defense 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced he would conduct a series of top-
to-bottom reviews of the Pentagon. I lauded him for doing that. I 
applauded him publicly and in private conversations. I applauded the 
Secretary of Defense. Those reviews were supposed to get rid of old 
weapons systems, field new ones, and refocus the defense establishment 
to get more bang for the taxpayers' buck.
  I, along with many others, supported those efforts as announced by 
the Secretary of Defense. But any hope of modernizing our Armed Forces 
while maintaining fiscal discipline has gone--gone out the window. The 
defense transformation effort which began as a frontal assault on 
irresponsible spending at the Pentagon has been replaced by the quest 
for flexibility--``flexibility,'' the latest buzzword to describe 
efforts to consolidate greater and greater and greater power into the 
hands of a select few at the top of the executive branch.
  I voted against the Defense authorization bill on May 22 of this 
year. Why did I do that? I was the only one, the only Senator who voted 
against it. Why did I do that? I voted against that bill in order to 
voice my protest to spiraling defense budgets when the American people 
are expecting smarter spending by their Government, and I will vote 
against the conference report today to this bill for the very same 
reason, as well as because it gives rubberstamp approval to 
consolidating new, broad powers in the Secretary of Defense.
  This conference report creates the ``National Security Personnel 
System,'' so-called, which gives the Secretary of Defense, Donald 
Rumsfeld, unchecked powers--unchecked powers to rewrite civil service 
rules for civilian employees of the Pentagon. The conference report 
includes sweeping authorities--sweeping authorities to allow the 
Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to waive landmark environmental 
protection laws with a stroke of the pen.
  The conference report establishes new ``flexibilities''--
flexibilities for the Pentagon to use to develop and deploy an unproven 
national missile defense system. That is a sinkhole, a sinkhole for 
your money, the taxpayers' money.
  The conference report grants new multiyear authority to transfer 
appropriations--now, get this. Hear me! The conference report grants 
new multiyear authority to transfer appropriations of unlimited sums. 
This is not chickenfeed we are talking about. We are talking about 
unlimited sums of ``your money,'' the taxpayers' money, from numerous 
accounts in order to increase spending on Navy cruiser conversions and 
overhauls.
  These are but a few examples of the new powers granted to the 
executive branch, downtown, at the other end of the avenue, in this 
bill--this bill. I am not reading from ``Alice in Wonderland.'' I am 
reading from this conference report.

  Our country continues to be threatened by Osama bin Laden. Our troops 
are under fire in Iraq in the aftermath of a preemptive war, a 
preemptive war that we started, a preemptive war that our President, as 
Commander in Chief, started.
  Fie on us, the Congress! For shifting that power to the President 
last October, last October 11. Twenty-three Senators in this body voted 
against shifting that power to the President. I was one of those 23. I 
was against shifting that power to this President or to any President. 
It doesn't make any difference to me what his politics--what his 
political party is, or would be, so help me, God. I would stand against 
that with any President. Fie on us! Only 23 Members in this body stood 
firm for the Constitution of the United States under which, power to 
declare war is vested in the legislative branch. Soldiers are fighting 
and dying half a world away and the wealth of this great country is 
being diverted from the United States Treasury in order to carry out an 
experiment in nation building in Iraq.
  If there were ever a time to demand more accountability and 
efficiency in how taxpayer dollars are spent on our military, this is 
it. But instead of holding the feet of the Secretary of Defense to the 
fire, Congress gives the Secretary vast new powers to hire and fire 
workers as he sees fit.
  Instead of turning the screws--the screws, instead of turning the 
screws--on this Defense Secretary to straighten out this mess, the 
accounting nightmare at the Pentagon, Congress grants the Pentagon more 
flexibility over how it can use funds appropriated to it. We cut the 
strings by which Congress limits the use of taxpayers' money. Instead 
of demanding greater accountability over how our military is preparing 
to meet the military threats of the coming decades, Congress creates 
new loopholes. The inescapable conclusion, is that Congress has been 
distracted from the most important issues facing our military posture. 
Instead, Congress is asked to take action on peripheral matters, and 
even then we simply pass the buck by closing our eyes and hoping that 
the Defense Department can straighten itself out if it is invested with 
enough new powers and ``flexibilities.''

[[Page S14481]]

  If the leadership of the Pentagon thinks that ``defense 
transformation'' means getting Congress to stick its head in the sand, 
count me out. My idea of transformation means spending smarter to build 
a stronger military, not turning a blind eye to Executive Branch power 
grabs.
  It is our fault. I can understand how the executive branch seeks to 
grab power. The executive branch is operating 24 hours a day every day, 
365 days a year. Everywhere its imprint is seen throughout the globe, 
Congress sleeps.
  The flexibilities in this bill are the antitheses of accountability. 
For each new ``flexible authority'' that Congress hands over to the 
Secretary of Defense--any Secretary of Defense--Congress signs away one 
more lever that should be used to compel the Secretary to build a 
smarter defense plan.
  The Commander in Chief beats his chest and throws down the gauntlet, 
saying, ``Bring them on,'' in front of the TV cameras, but pictures of 
the fallen dead coming home to Dover are not allowed.
  Oh, we don't want to display the pictures of bringing back the 
caskets at Dover, DE. No. The American people must not see that side of 
the war. This is a stubborn course that we have chosen that could tie 
down our forces in Iraq for months and months and months, and years 
even to come, and it is a course that I oppose today. It is a course I 
have opposed from the beginning. This ill-advised invasion and 
occupation of a Middle Eastern country stands to sap--sap--our military 
power through the attrition of our brave men and women in uniform. The 
effects of such a toll could affect our national security for decades 
to come.
  The United States cannot afford to shelve--to place on the shelf--
efforts to leap forward a generation in military power by investing in 
a smarter defense plan. If our country does not prioritize efforts to 
change our military to respond to the asymmetric warfare of the 21st 
century--whether those threats emanate from North Korea, or a 
belligerent China, or Iran--the long-term toll of the adventure in Iraq 
could weaken our military for years to come, just as our Armed Forces 
were found to be hollow in the years after Vietnam.
  I will vote against the conference report to the Defense 
authorization bill. It transfers vast unchecked powers to the Defense 
Department while avoiding any break with the business-as-usual approach 
to increasing defense spending. It dodges the most important issues 
facing our national defense posture, and I cannot support such a bill.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________