Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to honor two outstanding Missourians, Daniel and Jo Ann Platt. The occasion is a special one, as they celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary.

Only a year after Jo Ann, a native of Indiana, and Dan, a New Yorker, were married on December 5, 1953, they came to the Midwest from Manhattan, where Dan--an anesthesiologist--had been asked to become chief of the Anesthesia Department at Knickerbocker Hospital and the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary.

Instead, Dan practiced at Alton Memorial Hospital, a place where the Platts believed that he could engage in a personal, patient-centered style of medicine that was impossible in a larger, more urban hospital setting. And there, he opened the first recovery room in the St. Louis metropolitan area, and established one of the first coronary care units and intensive care units in the St. Louis area, along with Barnes Hospital. Upon Dan's retirement in 2002, Alton Memorial Hospital dedicated its surgical and emergency building in his name, to commemorate his 48 years of service to the community, complete with a bust and a plaque paying tribute to Dan as ``the consummate physician.''

As Dan worked long hours at the hospital, Jo Ann was busy, as well. Over the years, she has served the community in many capacities, including as a member of the board of trustees of St. Louis Country Day School, on the vestry of The Church of Saint Michael and Saint George, on the board of governors of the Saint Louis Woman's Club, on the board of the St. Louis Charitable Foundation, and as a board member for both the Jennie D. Hayner Library Association and the Alton Museum of History.

Yet the bulk of Jo Ann's time was spent in supporting Dan's practice of medicine--which she considered a ministry--and being a devoted and fun-loving mother to their three children: Drew, now a commercial realtor and developer in Evansville, IN; Brett, who runs his own currency hedge fund in London, England, and recently became engaged to Mariela Ferro; and Carol, an attorney, political analyst and commentator, who lives in San Marino, CA, with her husband Jack Liebau, a portfolio manager who recently opened his own investment management firm. Carol, after surviving Harvard Law School as an overt Republican, worked faithfully on my staff in Washington for 2 years before realizing that her colleagues simply could not listen fast enough. All three children remember lives filled with the love, support and encouragement of their parents--and many, many good times.

Truly, Dan and Jo Ann's life together has been full of accomplishments and blessings--most notably, the heartfelt love and respect of their children and children-in-law. We wish them every happiness in the years to come, together with our warmest congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may go out of order to speak for 5 minutes prior to Senator Hatch, and then Senator Hatch may be recognized.

Mr. President, I am most grateful to my colleagues. I have been here on the floor for 3 scintillating hours, and I have other commitments that I have to make.

Early this morning the House passed historic bipartisan legislation to improve and strengthen the Medicare program and give all seniors access to prescription drug coverage. Seniors will finally receive the prescription drug coverage they need and the health care security they deserve.

This Medicare conference report is a compromise in the truest sense of the word. It is not perfect--some on the far left don't like it and some on the far right don't like it either. But I will tell you who does like it: The AARP--this agreement has been endorsed by the leading voice for older Americans--representing 35 million members nationwide and 743,000 members in my home State of Missouri. As well as the hospitals, doctors, other health care providers and employers.

Why do these groups support this bill? Because in AARP's own words, ``This is about getting vital help to people that need it most.''

Before I talk about some of the strengths on this bill I wanted to take this opportunity to address some of the criticism from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I have heard some Members say that this bill ``keeps drug prices high.''

That is untrue. Seniors will realize significant savings off their current drug bills under this bill. In 2004-2005, senior citizens will receive a Prescription Drug Discount Card that the Department of Health & Human Services--HHS--estimates will cut drug costs by up to 25 percent.

In 2006, the prescription drug benefit is added to Medicare that HHS estimates will help seniors currently without coverage save up to half off what they're paying today. For the typical senior who spends $1,285 a year on prescription drugs, more than $640 they get to keep in their pocket translates into significant savings.

Lastly, the bipartisan Medicare plan also ensures generic drugs, less expensive than brand-name pharmaceuticals, are moved to market much faster to help hold down costs.

I have heard some members say that this bill will ``cause two to three million retirees to lose drug coverage.'' This bill contains $88 billion worth of employer incentives to help protect retirees' private coverage. This bill will actually strengthen the safety net for seniors by providing financial incentives for employers to continue offering prescription drug coverage for their retirees.

This marks the first time that Medicare will provide a federal subsidy of 28 percent of beneficiaries' drug costs between $250 to $5,000--up to $1,330 per beneficiary. This subsidy is excluded from taxation, providing another incentive for employers to offer coverage.

Lastly, qualified retiree plans have maximum flexibility on plan design, formularies and networks, and allows employers to wrap-around Medicare coverage options. That is why the AARP and major employer groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, Employers' Coalition on Medicare, Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, endorse the bipartisan Medicare plan. Some Members have said this bill is ``bad for seniors'' and cited a recent Consumers Union report.

Truth is this Medicare bill provides help to the two groups that need it most--low income seniors, and seniors with high drug costs. Even Consumers Union acknowledges that low-income seniors ``will be eligible for substantial subsidies for their prescription drugs.'' Consumers Union also acknowledges that seniors with catastrophic drug expenditures get ``measurable relief'' under the bill, which will cover 95 percent of a senior's drug costs over $3,600. In other words, the Medicare bill provides help to the two groups that need it most--low income seniors, and seniors with high drug costs.

And finally some have claimed that this Medicare bill will destroys Medicare as we know it and privatize the whole program. That is one of my personal favorites. Bottom line is the AARP would never endorse a bill that privatizes or in any way destroys the Medicare program period.

I will support this bill because it is the first major upgrade to Medicare in 38 years, providing help to the two groups that need it most--low income seniors, and seniors with high drug costs.

For nearly four decades, Medicare has provided peace of mind and health care security for millions of seniors. Yet, increasingly this cherished program is no longer meeting the security needs of our seniors. Medicine has advanced exponentially since 1965, but the Medicare Program has not kept pace. When Medicare was launched 38 years ago, modern medicine meant surgery and hospitalization--and that is what Medicare covers.

Today, doctors routinely treat their patients with prescription drugs, preventive care and groundbreaking medical devices--but Medicare has not kept pace with these changes.

For example, today Medicare covers only about half of the typical seniors'

health care costs. Medicare lacks good preventive coverage, wellness care, and chronic disease management. It doesn't even cover the costs of an annual physical. It does not protect against large, catastrophic health costs should serious illness strike. And we all know that it does not cover outpatient prescription drugs.

Additionally, the program faces serious financial and demographic pressures in the coming years. Between now and 2030 the number of seniors will nearly double from 40 million to 77 million. The program's costs will more than double to nearly $450 billion annually, even before we add prescription drug coverage or improve other benefits. And the number of taxpayers paying into the system to finance health coverage for seniors will drop from 4 today to 2.4 by 2030. This underscores the need to act and the need to act responsibly. We need to improve the program for today's seniors but we also need to put in place a more stable structure that will provide health care security for generations to come.

My goal is and has always been to give seniors the best, most innovative care. This will require a strong, up-to-date Medicare system that relies on innovation and competition, not bureaucratic rules, price controls and regulation.

The bill before us takes a bold new step and is an important achievement in the effort to strengthen and improve Medicare and provide meaningful prescription drug benefits to seniors. This bill offers beneficiaries a meaningful and reliable drug benefit through the private sector, with reasonable and fair cost-sharing. Beneficiaries will have the ability to receive the drugs of their choice without government interference and with better coverage options.

Most importantly, it will provide prescription drug coverage at little costs to those who need it most--people with low incomes. It will provide substantial relief to those with very high drug costs and relief to millions more. In a country as prosperous as ours, we can no longer tolerate situations where seniors have to split their pills in half or cannot fill necessary prescriptions because they can't afford the vital drugs they need.

This bill ensures access to drug benefits for beneficiaries who live in rural areas. Reliable coverage will be available everywhere in Missouri--wherever there is Medicare coverage, there will be prescription drug coverage.

As we work to implement this new Medicare benefit, this bill will provide immediate prescription drug assistance for beneficiaries through a temporary drug discount card available to seniors 6 months after the bill is signed into law.

This discount card is expected to yield a savings of between 10 and 25 percent. Some of our most vulnerable seniors would receive an additional $600 subsidy annually to assist with the purchase of prescription drugs. This drug card would be available until the Medicare prescription drug benefit is fully implemented in 2006. Adding vital prescription drug coverage is not the only thing that we are doing to improve Medicare coverage for seniors.

Medical experts long ago learned that preventive care extends and improves quality of life. The bill before us today adds vital preventive care, wellness services, and chronic care management. This long overdue step will keep seniors healthy and will save money and most importantly save lives.

This bill also includes $25 billion in new assistance to ensure patient access to hospitals, doctors and other health care providers, especially in rural areas. The Medicare bill corrects existing rural inequities by infusing billions of dollars over the next decade into rural and small towns as well as small hospitals everywhere.

Admittedly I remain concerned about the magnitude of the reductions in payments for cancer care included in the bill. I hope to work with the Senate leadership as well as Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus moving forward to ensure that these cuts do not threaten access to cancer care for patients in Missouri and across the country.

We must bring Medicare into the 21st century: add a prescription drug benefit, expand coverage, improve services, and give seniors more control over the health care they receive.

This week we are poised to make historic changes with bipartisan support to improve the Medicare Program, to strengthen it for seniors and to preserve and protect it for future generations.

I want to say why I am in favor of this Medicare conference report. I think that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, in a bipartisan coalition, came up with a great compromise. Nobody should be surprised that it makes enemies left and right. That is what a compromise or a moderate proposal does.

I will tell you one group that is for it. That is the AARP, with 35 million members nationwide. There are 743,000 seniors in my State who have been deeply involved in the preparations of this legislation. They say it is a good deal because it is about getting the vital help to people who need it most.

I was a little amused hearing some of the folks on the other side of the aisle condemning AARP. Generally, AARP may side with the Democrats, but in this instance we have worked with them and on a bipartisan basis. It isn't just Republicans. Now that they endorse a bipartisan compromise, rather than going with the Democrats, they condemn them.

Let me just talk about a few of the misconceptions I have heard in the last 3\1/2\ hours: Drug prices will be high. There will be a senior citizen discount card with a 15 to 25 percent reduction; $600 for low- income seniors the next couple of years. HHS estimates in 2006 the typical senior will save approximately half of what he is paying today. This plan also ensures the less expensive generic drugs will get the market faster, helping to hold down the cost.

Some have said this is bad for seniors. The truth is that the Consumers Union acknowledges it will help the two most needy groups-- the low-income seniors and those seniors with high drug costs. These are the people who really need the help.

Finally, this is the favorite charge: Some have said this is going to destroy Medicare; that it is going to privatize it. That is really one of my personal favorites.

I think the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, did a wonderful job of pointing out some of the demagoguery we hear when people talk about destroying Medicare.

There are problems in Medicare with the way it is administered. Senator Bennett outlined quite a few of those. We can tell you about a lot of problems. I have staff people who work all the time helping people sort through Medicare.

To say that the Republicans and the Bush administration want to destroy it is a big, fat, flat lie. No matter how many times you repeat it, it is not true.

The whole purpose of this is to assure that there is a reliable drug benefit and health care benefit for seniors now and in the future. We are asking the next generation to pick up the ball for a $400 billion, 10-year plan that is going to continue to grow, and we owe them the solid viable Medicare program that is still in operation when they reach Medicare-eligible age.

One of the problems that Senator Collins of Maine discussed which she and I have been fighting with the former Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, is they were ordered to save some money in Medicare. They squeezed it down so tightly that instead of saving $16 billion a year, they cut the cost by $64 billion a year, and they threw one-third of the home health care agencies out of business in Missouri.

Seniors could not get the home health care they needed because of HCFA. Somebody said the costs are not going up. The problem with Medicare is fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals can afford to take it because the Federal bureaucracy has ground down the reimbursements.

Then someone said Newt Gingrich wanted to abolish Medicare or have it wither away. That is absolutely flat wrong. Members cannot use that form of demagoguery in this body and expect to get away with it. Former Speaker Gingrich said HCFA is a problem. Frankly, I can show case after case after case where HCFA and the bureaucracy were a problem. He wanted to change the system so that seniors got good health care and you did not have a bureaucracy ratcheting down

and controlling prices so rural hospitals such as a hospital in my home State could not afford to take seniors and doctors had to say: We cannot take any more Medicare patients because we are getting reimbursed from Medicare less than it costs us and we cannot give balanced billing so we have to arbitrarily ration on health care to the elderly because of the way Medicare is implemented.

That is wrong. That is what this bill is going to improve. I hope my colleagues will look at the significant improvements this $400 billion, 10-year bill will bring to improving health care for seniors and giving the seniors now better health care and assuring that seniors in the future--the current generation will be paid for--have the health care when they need it.

I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I have some amendments that have been cleared on both sides. First, I send an amendment to the desk for Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Edwards, dealing with a study on Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, we are ready to accept the amendment by voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Inhofe, providing for implementation plans and no preclusion of other provisions relating to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

We have no further statements on this side.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

We are happy to accept it. We appreciate working with the Senator from Minnesota, in fact both Senators from Minnesota. Senator Dayton and Senator Coleman have both been very strong, vocal supporters. We know how important it is to Minnesota. We are sorry we are in such tight fiscal constraints, but we want to put the money in this year with the sure knowledge that we will be able to come back and finish it next year, which I trust will not delay the construction of the memorial.

Furthermore, since Senator Coleman has been active on this, on his behalf, I ask that he be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment. I know the people of Minnesota want to know both of their Senators are very vigorous champions of this great memorial to a man we will always miss.

I didn't always agree with him but it was always interesting, and I had many, many good and pleasant exchanges with him. We worked together on many issues. The Government Printing Office now uses soy ink because of our amendment. We used to tease each other, that in Minnesota he would claim it as the Wellstone amendment; I would claim it as the Bond amendment in Missouri. But neither one of us would mention the cosponsor in our States.

But we worked closely together. His is a wonderful spirit that is still with us.

I believe there are no further comments.

I ask we adopt it on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are awaiting one more Senator who has an amendment to be offered. We are getting to the point where we hope we can go to a voice vote on final passage as soon as possible to expedite the work of

the committee. I have asked our cloakroom to check to see if the Senator is going to be joining us to offer his amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his comments on space exploration and the space station.

He noted the delays in the space station operations because of the unavailability of the space shuttle. That is one of the reasons we put some of those funds in other priority programs. We are trying to get back into space so we can get the space shuttle. We very much appreciate that.

I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Florida.

I agree this is an important issue and I will try to address it in conference.

Mr. President, I express my sincerest appreciation to my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, without whom we could not have gotten them done. We were under very tight time pressures and with very limited resources.

I express my thanks to the chairman, Senator Stevens, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for making enough money available so we can restore the full amount of funding for veterans health care which was a top priority.

This was an extremely difficult year for us. We could not have gotten it done without an extremely able staff who worked, I imagine, more than 100 hours a week and 20 hours several days.

Thanks on the minority side to Paul Carliner, Alexa Sewell, Gabrielle Batkin; and, on my side, Jon Kamarck, Cheh Kim, Allan Cutler, Jennifer Storipan, and Rebecca Benn. We sincerely appreciate their good work.

I ask my colleague for any comments, and then we are ready to go to final passage.

We are ready for final passage.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate insist upon its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of H.R. 2765, the D.C. Appropriations bill; further, that an amendment that is at the desk regarding title II be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask that the substitute amendment then be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; provided further that the Senate then insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 4 p.m., in open session, to consider the nomination of the Honorable Michael W. Wynne to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 18, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, in the President's Room, immediately following the first vote, on pending committee business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on nomination of Arnold I. Havens, to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing to consider the nomination of James M. Loy to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 9:30 a.m, on ``America after 9/11: Freedom Preserved or Freedom Lost?,'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel I: Bob Barr, Former United States Representative, Atlanta, GA; Viet Dinh, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; James Zogby, Arab American Institute, Washington, DC; James Dempsey, Center for Democracy and Technology, Washington, DC; Robert Cleary, Proskauer Rose, LLP, New York, NY; Nadine Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY; and Muzaffar Chishti, Director, Migration Policy Institute at New York University School of Law; New York, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 18, at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony on S. 1467, a bill to establish the Rio Grande outstanding natural area in the state of Colorado, and for other purposes, S. 1209, a bill to provide for the acquisition of property in Washington County, Utah, for implementation of a desert tortoise habitat conservation plan, and H.R. 708, a bill to require the conveyance of certain national forest system lands in Mendocino National Forest, California, to provide for the use of the proceeds from such conveyance for national forest purposes, and for other purposes; S. 1167, which would resolve boundary conflicts in Barry and Stone counties in the State of Missouri, and S. 1848, which would amend the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell the Bend Pine Nursery Administrative site in the State of Oregon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on strategic forces of the committee on armed services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on space acquisition policies and processes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled ``U.S. Tax Shelter Industry: The Role of Accountants, Lawyers and Financial Professionals.''

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business with Members permitted to speak up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I understand there are five bills at the desk, and they are due for a second reading. I ask unanimous consent that the clerk read the titles of the bills en bloc for a second time.

I would object to further proceedings en bloc.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have had numerous discussions with the Senator from California. Obviously, we see these issues very differently.

Let me point out to my colleagues, this is not something that has just come up. When we had the committee markup of this bill, the Senator and I had an opportunity to debate it at that point. An amendment, not modified, such as the one I presented on the floor last week, was kept in the bill. Her motion to strike failed 17 to 12.

After that time, we met with the Senator from California and other concerned Senators to make sure we did not do the things that the current California Air Resources Board regulation would do; that is, cost 22,000 American jobs and put at risk of fire, burn, and explosion people using small engines, whether they be in a lawnmower, a leaf blower, a weed eater, or a chain saw. These were the real problems in the California Air Regulation Board proposal.

Now, when I listened to the Senators, they wanted to make sure, No. 1, they did not affect diesels. I said good point; make sure we cut diesels. They wanted to make sure it only applied to smaller engines, and that is why we put the 50 horsepower and smaller engine limitation in it. They wanted to make sure you could require retrofitting, and we made it clear it was only for new engines.

Most of all, almost every State wanted to get some form of reduction of pollution from these small engines, so we crafted an amendment that made all those changes and specifically directed the EPA to move forward with a rule. The fastest they can do that rule is that it is to be proposed by December 1, 2004; and then the EPA is required to move forward on it. That would be a quicker reduction in emissions than under CARB, the California Air Resources Board, proposal.

Now, when this measure came to the floor, I had a number of cosponsors, people who felt very strongly, as do I, about this amendment, and we debated it on the floor. The Democratic leadership came to us and said: We do not want to vote on this. We want to accept it by voice vote. We said: All right, we will cut off the debate, accept it by voice vote, if that is the last we are going to deal with it.

Now, today, my colleague from California says she was not a party to that agreement and she wants a vote on it. Well, I view it as a failure to live up to that agreement.

Nevertheless, there are a very significant number of Senators on my side, and I assume on the other side, who would want to weigh in on it, and some of those Senators are not back. As I said, we have a deadline this afternoon when we are going to try to take other amendments on this bill. I said we would not be debating this amendment today because other Senators have amendments that must come up.

But there is so much misunderstanding about what the Clean Air Act provides, what CARB has done, and what my amendment would do.

First, the Senator has said, on a number of instances, that every State loses the right to fight pollution. States can take bits and pieces of the California ruling and use it in their State.

Well, No. 1, California is the only State that has a narrow exemption for engines under 175 horsepower that do not affect agriculture and construction. Obviously, many of these engines that are affected would affect agriculture and construction. No State can pick and choose and develop its own regulations from part of the California regulation or take bits and pieces of the California regulation. No State, on its own, can go out and regulate these small engines. There was a presumption in the Clean Air Act that we would have a national standard.

Now, the EPA has moved forward on regulations on a wide variety of engines. We are directing them specifically to go after these small engines and get the proposed rule out within 1 year, to consider job loss, and to consider the fire hazard of these catalytic converters.

I understand the CARB regulation would not go into effect until 2007. My colleague from California said we cannot force all States to rely on national standards. Well, that is what the Clean Air Act does. We want to make sure the national standards are imposed to give every State the reduction in air pollution which comes about from implementing the kinds of changes that were made for ATVs and snowmobiles that do not require catalytic converters.

At the end of the day, if they cannot get the reductions, then EPA, which has a national responsibility, can listen to all of these arguments. Frankly, many of the arguments made by the Senator from California reflect a completely different understanding than I have on the science and on the technology involved.

Under these circumstances, I do not think we ought to be exporting 22,000 jobs to the Far East, perhaps China, and posing a significant fire risk to anybody using small engines.

As I have said before, I use those small engines. When I am using a chainsaw, I am very aware of the danger of that saw blade. If it had a catalytic converter-heated engine, at 1,100 degrees, I do not know how I would do it. I would probably, if I cut down a tree, set the tree on fire with the catalytic converter.

When we are talking about fire hazards, as I would think anybody in California would be very much concerned about, a catalytic converter is a tremendous fire hazard. I will go into that in a moment.

But my colleague said one company, referring to Briggs and Stratton, should not be allowed to change our air quality rules. Frankly, California wrote a rule that favors one company, Honda, which manufactures small engines and has very significant production in the Far East already.

They could start up just like that because the American companies would

not be able to retool immediately. Honda would capture the market. I am arguing for the jobs of 5,000 workers in Missouri, 5,101 workers for Briggs & Stratton, and about 2,000 of them work for Briggs & Stratton; 3,000 of them work for other companies that have part of this: In Wisconsin, 5,158 jobs; Georgia, 2,542 jobs; Kentucky, 2,198 jobs; Illinois, 2,116 jobs; Alabama, 1,288 jobs.

I am worried about the workers. I have visited those workers. I did not know the Senator from California was coming to the floor today. Otherwise, I would have brought out a scroll signed by the workers who would lose their jobs if this amendment were adopted.

The Senator points out that Briggs & Stratton said it wouldn't cause them much trouble. Well, they are a multibillion-dollar company. They can move their production to China as well. I fully expect that they would. It wouldn't make much of a difference to the shareholders. They said it wouldn't affect the shareholders, no. But it will affect 22,000 jobs in the United States. That is why this amendment is important.

These arguments and the totally differing view of how this problem can be addressed should rightly be debated at the national level. The EPA is directed to move forward, take all the technological information, take the arguments, listen to the safety concerns, listen to the cost benefit arguments, and figure out how the Nation can get cleaner air by further limiting the pollution from these small engines. If they come down with a modified catalytic converter proposal at the end of the day, so be it.

But the California fire chiefs were excluded from the negotiations. The negotiation went on between CARB and Honda. The California fire chiefs were stunned because they had been assured that there would not be a problem with the regulation causing fire.

After they saw the CARB rule, the California State fire marshals wrote a letter saying:

We categorically do not support the CARB proposed

regulation because we believe it will lead to a substantial

increase in residential and wildland fires.

The Senator and the chief of staff from California have had very direct conversations with representatives of the California fire chiefs. They must have been very persuasive because now their letter says:

We are sure that the safety concerns can be addressed.

I think that suggests that there was a great deal of effective persuasion applied. But they were not the only ones who believed there was a problem, when you look at the other people who have raised questions about it. The National Association of State Fire Marshals remains very concerned that the CARB rule cannot be safely met. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission expressed concerns over the potential for burn, fire, or material hazards that remain unaddressed. The Missouri State fire marshals remain concerned that the CARB rule creates a significant threat to the safety of the 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.

There is one place where they can evaluate those concerns and evaluate the technology and make sure we clean up the air without an undue cost, a cost in risk of fire and explosion. I was talking with a fellow in Missouri this weekend at a football game. His neighbor drove a car with a catalytic converter out into the field, caught the field on fire. A lot of people are very much concerned, in addition to these groups, as to the dangerousness of catalytic converters, which can get up to 1,151 degrees.

In the November 6 letter I received before there was this very persuasive meeting with the eloquent Senator from California, the California fire chiefs said:

Earlier this year, in oral and written communications to

the California Air Resources Board, our association expressed

serious concerns about the CARB's plan to require catalytic

converters on lawn mowers 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

lawn mowers which, after all, are intended for use on grass.

California does not need yet another way of igniting fires.

That was the November 6 letter sent to me.

Grass ignites at about 500 degrees. Grass clippings ignite at 518 degrees. High efficiency catalytic converters from CARB's own testing reach temperatures of 1,126 degrees Fahrenheit. We wrote to CARB. I asked them if they had any safety data, if they had done any studies, had they looked at alternative methods, had they tried out any of these small engines with catalytic converters, had they done any tests. We asked them a whole list of questions that any responsible agency would be expected to answer. I fully expect the Environmental Protection Agency to make sure we have a rule that cleans up the environment but doesn't cost jobs and doesn't increase significantly the risk of fire.

There are many issues we are not going to be able to resolve here today. I want to see these technology issues debated, worked out on a prompt schedule, and produced in a resolution by the EPA.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask that we go to the bill.

Mr. President, I have no objection on this side.

Mr. President, I appreciate the actions taken by the distinguished minority whip, the Senator from Nevada, and also the agreement by the Senator from California to withdraw her amendment.

All I can say about it is, No. 1, we had an agreement, we thought, with the floor staff when we debated this last week--requested by the minority floor staff--that there not be a vote because they did not want a vote. Our condition was we needed to move on to other things. We would have a brief time schedule. As you can see, there is no way that we can restart, in the 45 minutes we have left, this entire debate.

I will state that I categorically disagree with the views reached by the Senator from California. If we are successful in including the measure in the final VA-HUD amendment, all these issues will be resolved by the EPA.

Mr. President, we had an oversight. Senator McCain has an amendment that he was promised the other day. I ask the minority leader if he would agree to adding that since we told Senator McCain he could bring his amendment up.

Mr. President, we are open for business. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Graham of Florida, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, we are willing to accept the amendment on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, to respond to my good friend, No. 1, we are ready to accept his amendment. If we could have some more time to handle other business, I would like to. If, perhaps, the Senator--each Senator could take 5 minutes or 10 minutes?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 2195

As I indicated, we are ready to accept the amendment by the Senator from Illinois by voice vote.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota feels strongly about this; both Senators do.

I ask that Senator Coleman be added as a cosponsor.

We are willing to accept the amendment. I ask that it be accepted by voice vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the pending Dayton-Coleman amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask that the Clinton-Enzi amendment on which there is a colloquy be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Daschle relating to an agreement with the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences to develop epidemiological studies on Vietnam veterans with respect to Agent Orange, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

There are no objections on either side. I ask that it be agreed to by voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Feingold.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment with respect to VA marketing. It is acceptable on both sides. I ask that be it be agreed to on a voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, because we had done a list of amendments and we neglected to include an amendment by Senators Cantwell, Carper, Brownback, Hagel, and others with respect to section 8 public housing, moving to work demonstration agreements, I ask unanimous consent that this be acceptable and I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is acceptable on our side.

I suggest we agree to it by voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I thank my colleagues for their attention to this matter.

It is certainly our intent, in continuing congressional support for the corporation, that it look for additional ways for actively partnering and collaborating with organizations such as the Congressional Award Program. I look forward to working with my colleagues on appropriate ways to carry that goal forward.

capital asset realignment for enhanced services (cares) initiative

Mr. President I thank the Senators from New York and the Senator from Wyoming for their thoughtful comments. Their understanding is correct, and we will pursue such language in the conference report. Senator Mikulski and I will also be sending a letter on their behalf to Secretary Principi with these concerns.

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

Mr. President, I think we have reached the point where we are ready to get a final list and a means of proceeding. So if it is agreeable on both sides, I ask unanimous consent that the only other amendments in order to the VA-HUD bill, other than the substitute, be the following: Dayton No. 2193 with 5 minutes equally divided; Senator McCain, amendment on NASA; Senator Inhofe, amendment on air quality; Senator Jeffords, National Academy of Sciences study; further that following the scheduled cloture votes on Tuesday, the Senate resume consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill for the consideration of the remaining amendments.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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.

I call up an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, is the pending business now the VA-HUD appropriations bill?

Madam President, there are about 45 seconds worth of things that we need to clear up, pending amendments. Then I intend to turn to the distinguished minority whip for the offering of an amendment, on which we will have a very short time limit.

I see my colleague, Senator Mikulski, is in the Chamber.

Amendment No. 2156

Madam President, I believe we have had a full debate on the Bond amendment. I call up the Bond amendment and ask for its adoption.

This is the Bond amendment on small engines.

Madam President, I ask for its adoption.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add, as cosponsors, Senators McConnell, Talent, and Chambliss.

Next, Madam President, I call up the Craig amendment on pesticides.

Madam President, I think we have had a full debate on that amendment. I know of no other debate.

Madam President, I am going to send a very brief amendment to the desk that removes the emergency designation. The committee has reallocated funds to us so that our bill now comes within the allocation offered by our committee.

Madam President, the amendment was with us in the cloakroom. I apologize to my colleague in the chair. Here it is. This is it.

Madam President, I send this amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, it simply strikes the emergency clause. I think there is no debate on that. I ask for its immediate adoption.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues.

Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Miller of Georgia as a cosponsor to amendment No. 2156.

Madam President, how much time remains?

Madam President, I yield myself 7 minutes, and I reserve time for my colleague.

I rise in strong opposition to the Clinton-Enzi amendment. It would deny up to $1 billion in funds to support our Nation's veterans. I especially object to the amendment because it would likely extend waiting lines for veterans already waiting for medical care.

Before I go into further explanation, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Amvets, Disabled American Veterans, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

These organizations all oppose the Clinton-Enzi amendment because they understand the problem the VA has.

In 1999, the General Accounting Office found that VA could spend billions of dollars operating hundreds of unneeded buildings over the next 5 years. The GAO reported that the VA wastes more than $1 million per day on medical care funds for unneeded infrastructure instead of direct patient care. This money could be used to provide medical care to over 100,000 veterans.

Our committee, the VA-HUD committee, after the GAO report, directed the VA to do something about it, to develop a comprehensive strategy. Thus, in 1999, under the Clinton administration, the VA created the CARES Commission to address this concern.

I have traveled around the State of Missouri. I have seen firsthand the need for construction funds to update surgical and intensive care units. By the way, I gave at the office. One of the first closures the VA instituted was of a surgery center in the State of Missouri because they weren't doing enough surgeries to be proficient. I believed our veterans needed the best care. So now we have a primary care facility and we send them to a surgical hospital where they do enough surgeries to be proficient and safe.

We know we have different needs from veterans than when the VA was set up many years ago. The Clinton-Enzi amendment would deny over $600 million in construction funds to build new hospitals in States such as Nevada, Florida, and Colorado. It would deny funds to address safety, seismic and other deficiencies for facilities in Kentucky, California, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and others. It would deny construction of 48 new community-based outpatient clinics.

It would deny funding for 37 nursing home investments, such as construction of new nursing homes in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. This is not a fatally flawed process. I cannot agree with the assertion of the Senator from New York. In an October 27 letter to all Senators, this year Secretary Principi outlines the great extent to which he has gone to ensure that the process and review be thorough at every stage. Local veterans groups, union officials, as well as affiliate representatives participated directly in the development of these plans.

The CARES Commission received more than 169,000 public comments. I take exception to the characterization of the plan as a ``cost cutting'' plan. The draft proposes to spend $4.6 billion in construction funds to expand services. It preserves more than 97 percent of the current bed capacity. Further,

the draft plan provides for no reduction in VA capacity to provide domiciliary or long-term care, including long-term mental health care. Let me repeat that. The draft plan provides for no reduction in VA capacity to provide domiciliary or long-term care, including long-term mental health care.

In some areas, the draft plan would increase overall bed capacity. In New York State, the realignment would increase overall bed capacity by about 10 percent. The CARES Commission has held field hearings, and the Senator from New York has attended two of them. The CARES Commission held 38 field hearings with over 700 witnesses and made 68 site visits. Clearly, Secretary Principi and the CARES Commission have been thorough, responsive, fair, and open.

This is a process that still is in its development stage. The Senate authorizing committee, chaired by Senator Specter, is working on legislation to establish funding for CARES, which will provide Congress an opportunity to review the final CARES plan before it can be implemented. The VA Committee held a hearing with Secretary Principi and the CARES Commission chair, Everett Alvarez, to provide oversight on the process.

I am committed to and fully supportive of CARES because we need to support veterans' medical care over unneeded buildings. To keep unneeded or excess buildings in operation deprives veterans of the care they need. There has been much opposition to this.

Mr. President, to reiterate, I oppose vigorously the Clinton-Enzi amendment to stop the VA's Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services or CARES process. The amendment would deny up to $1 billion in funds to support our Nation's veterans. I object to this amendment because I believe in putting the needs of veterans ahead of the costs of keeping open unneeded buildings. I especially object to this amendment because it would likely extend the waiting lines for veterans already waiting for medical care. It is imperative that the CARES process moves forward so that the VA can move its outdated medical care infrastructure into the 21st Century.

Before I explain my reasons for opposing this amendment, I ask that letters from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America be added to the Record. As the largest veterans' service organizations in the Nation, they all oppose the Clinton-Enzi amendment because of its negative impact on veterans.

Why does the amendment hurt veterans? In 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO) performed a study of the VA's medical care infrastructure and found that the VA ``could spend billions of dollars operating hundreds of unneeded buildings over the next five years.'' The GAO reported that the VA wastes $1 million per day in medical care funds on unneeded infrastructure, instead of direct patient care. Therefore, instead of wasting some $400 million annually on unneeded buildings, the VA could use these funds to provide medical care to over 100,000 needy veterans.

In response to the GAO's report, our committee directed VA to develop a comprehensive strategy to realign its medical care facilities so that it can deliver health care in a more accessible and effective manner. Thus, in 1999, the VA created the CARES initiative during the Clinton Administration to address this concern.

The amendment also hurts veterans by denying much-needed construction funds to areas that need modernized facilities to serve its veteran population. In my travels around my own home State of Missouri, I have seen first-hand the need for construction funds to update surgical suites and intensive care units, among other things. For those Senators who have veterans in rural areas, they know that there is a critical need for outpatient clinics so veterans do not have to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest hospital. With an aging veteran population, there is a significant need to build nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The Clinton-Enzi amendment will deny over $600 million in construction funds to these places. It will deny funds to build new hospitals in States such as Nevada, Florida, and Colorado. It will deny funds to address safety, seismic, and other deficiencies for facilities in States such as Kentucky, California, Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. It will deny the construction of 48 new community based outpatient clinics throughout the country. It will deny funding for 37 nursing home investments, such as the construction of new nursing homes in States such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Another reason why I oppose the Clinton-Enzi amendment is that the CARES process is still in its developmental stage and it is premature to pull the plug. Yet, Senator Clinton has already concluded that the CARES process is ``fundamentally flawed'' and the CARES Commission has ``neglected'' the important health care issues facing our veterans. Further, she characterizes CARES as a ``cost-cutting'' plan.

I do not agree with the Senator's assertions and I think it is unfortunate that she has been so critical of Secretary Principi who has been extremely responsive to the Congress's concerns. To Secretary Principi's credit, he has made the CARES process open and fair for all affected parties, including veterans to participate.

In an October 27, 2003 letter sent to all Senators, Secretary Principi outlines the great extent he has gone through to ensure that ``the process and review be thorough at every stage.'' Local veterans groups, local officials, union officials as well as affiliate representatives participated directly in the development of local plans. Since the announcement of the Draft National CARES Plan, the CARES Commission has received more than 169,000 public comments. According to the VA, all comments will be made a part of the official record and will be considered by the CARES Commission during its deliberations.

I take great exception to Senator Clinton's characterization of CARES as a ``cost-cutting plan.'' The Draft plan proposes to spend $4.6 billion in construction funds to expand services. It preserves more than 97 percent of VA's current bed capacity. Ninety-seven percent. It increases outpatient capacity by more than 12 million visits a year. It creates 48 new community-based outpatient clinics and at least 2 new hospitals. Further, the Draft plan provides for no reduction in VA capacity to provide domiciliary or long-term care, including long-term mental health care. Let me repeat that last sentence. The Draft plan provides for no reduction in VA capacity to provide domiciliary or long-term care, including long-term mental health care. Moreover, in some areas, the Draft plan's realignment would increase overall bed capacity. For example, in New York State, the realignment would increase overall bed capacity by about 10 percent. The Draft plan provides for all of these enhanced services and additional facilities despite the VA's projections that the veteran population is expected to decline by more than 25 percent over the next 20 years. I ask my Senate colleagues, does this sound like a cost-cutting plan?

Further, the CARES Commission has held a number of field hearings and site visits across the Nation to listen first-hand to the concerns of interested parties. In fact, Senator Clinton participated in two CARES hearings. In total, the CARES Commission held 38 field hearings that included over 700 witnesses and made 68 site visits. In some instances, the Commission altered its schedule to respond to local interests such as in New York.

Clearly, Secretary Principi and the CARES Commission have been thorough, responsive, fair, and open in moving the process. For example, at Senator Schumer's request, Secretary Principi agreed to visit the Canandaigua VA hospital before making any final decision.

I also stress again that the CARES process is still in its developmental stage. The Commission has not completed its work. No final decisions have been made. The current plan is only a draft and is an interim step to the overall process. Delaying or stopping this process is premature and ends up hurting more than helping our veterans. The CARES Commission must complete the plan and the Secretary and the Congress must approve it.

The Senate authorizing committee, chaired by Senator Specter, is working on legislation that establishes criteria for funding CARES projects,

which will provide the Congress an opportunity to review the final CARES plans before it can be implemented. In fact, the Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing with Secretary Principi and the CARES Commission Chair Everett Alvarez to provide oversight on the process and to ensure that the process was moving in a public and deliberative manner. The Committee also recently passed legislation that was originally sponsored by Senator Bob Graham and co-sponsored by nine other senators, including Senator Clinton that would give the Congress 60 days to approve before any VA facility could be closed. If enacted, this legislation ensures that the Congress is involved in the implementation of the CARES plan.

I am committed and fully supportive of CARES because I believe in supporting veterans medical care needs over unneeded buildings. I believe that CARES is the most important initiative in the VA and it must be done. We cannot afford any more delays. For too long, the VA was unable to rationalize its infrastructure and millions of medical care dollars were wasted on empty, obsolete, or redundant buildings instead of focusing those dollars on medical care for our veterans. Now, after nearly 4 years of work on CARES, the VA is developing a national plan that will ensure that the medical care needs of our Nation's veterans come first and they will receive the best care in modernized 21st Century facilities. We owe it to our veterans to move away from the old medical model of hospital-centered medicine to the contemporary, modern patient-centered medicine model.

The veterans also agree with my view and oppose this amendment. The VFW's November 6, 2003 letter states, ``we believe it is important to move ahead as the location and mission of some VA facilities need to change to improve veterans' access; to allow more resources to be devoted to medical care, rather than the upkeep of inefficient buildings and to adjust to modern methods of health care service delivery. Our Nation's veterans deserve no less.''

The sponsors of this amendment have tried to assuage the concerns of Senators who expect to receive new medical facilities in their State by limiting the amendment to facilities where closures may occur. However, I tell my colleagues, do not be fooled. This amendment would still prevent new hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes to be constructed because the VA cannot break up its CARES plan into separate pieces. There is only one plan for the Nation. It is a National Plan and it cannot be separated into pieces. In addition, many new construction projects under CARES cannot be financed unless some obsolete facilities are closed. In some areas, such as Chicago and Pennsylvania, construction for new facilities will be financed by the proceeds of leases of the closed facilities. Finally, this amendment continues the wasteful practice of spending medical care funds on unnecessary and empty buildings. Under CARES, these funds would be re-focused on direct patient care, the construction of new outpatient clinics, and operating costs for new hospitals, such as the proposed facilities in Las Vegas and Orlando. Implementing CARES will allow the VA to serve more veterans and especially ensure that our most vulnerable veterans will not be forced to wait for several months or years to obtain medical care.

I urge my colleagues to place the needs of veterans ahead of unneeded facilities. Efforts to delay the CARES process will cause significant harm to our veterans. Outside of funding for VA medical care, CARES is my highest priority for VA. I have supported CARES from its inception in 1999, including the implementation of the pilot program in VISN 12. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Clinton-Enzi amendment and allow the VA to move the CARES process forward.

Mr. President, in order to get this bill completed, we are going to have to wrap it up one way or the other by 6 o'clock tonight. It can either walk out or go out feet first. I will join my colleague from Maryland in saying if she wants to withdraw the amendment, I understand her concerns. I am sympathetic to the concerns. We would be delighted to put it in report language and work with the Secretary of the VA to make sure her concerns are fully addressed.

But in the meantime, unless the Senator is ready to acquiesce, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment and the yeas and nays be set aside temporarily until we can have further discussions with the Senator from New York and the other sponsors.

Mr. President, I have been asked by the leadership to bring up Calendar No. 374, S. 1685, the Immigrant Pilot Program. I believe it has been cleared on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Leahy- Brownback amendment at the desk be agreed to; the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.