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.

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the quorum call be rescinded.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
(PM<inf>2.5</inf>) 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 PM<inf>2.5</inf>, 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.

____________________