Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a request has been made by the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee that we have a voice vote and not just accept these amendments without objection. It would be in order to ask for a voice vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Senator Ensign has a statement he wishes to make, but in the meantime we have a number of amendments that have been cleared on both sides. Amendment No. 2172 to Amendment No. 2150

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Hollings and Senator Graham of South Carolina. This is an amendment permitting the Secretary of VA to enter into an enhanced-use lease for the Medical University Hospital Authority in Charleston.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now see my distinguished colleague from Nevada is in the Chamber. I yield the floor to him for such comments as he wishes to make.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey in the Chamber. I believe he has an amendment, and if the pricetag is reasonable, we may be able to accept it.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I could not agree more with my colleague from South Carolina. When I hear asked on this Senate floor, who cares about judicial appointments, who cares about the important judiciary that makes decisions that affect our everyday lives, I would join with him in saying that the people in Missouri care. I have found all of the problems--and there are many problems, there are lots of concerns. People are concerned about Iraq. They want to see the President carry on the war against terrorism. They are concerned about jobs. They are very grateful, I might add, that the Republican Congress has given the economy such a boost with its good fiscal policy and gotten the economy growing, an economy that President Bush inherited that was in the tank, but it is starting to grow, and we want it to grow faster. They ask me more about this unprecedented filibuster of judges than anything else. No matter where I go, in the rural areas, in the big cities, in the suburbs--my colleagues on the other side ask, who cares? Well, people in my State understand. They know how important the judiciary is. They know that appellate courts, the courts that oversee district courts usually in many States, make decisions that affect our everyday lives. The Senator from South Carolina was right. The police officers, the sheriffs, these are the folks who go out and risk their lives and then they see appellate judges, people on appeals courts, making decisions that turn these criminals loose. And they say what is this all about? I am risking my life, I am out there getting shot at, trying to bring somebody in, and an appellate court judge misuses the law to set him free. Our police officers, our law enforcement officers today understand the constitutional rights. They know. They have to abide by the standard. They have to respect the rights of all citizens. But when they do that, when they go through all of the steps and do it right and then a criminal is turned loose, they, who have risked their lives, know how important these judges are. My Democratic colleagues complain that we are taking time. Well, I have been waiting to get on the floor because this is something we need to talk about. We have listened to them all year long delay, filibuster. They bragged about they finally passed the Healthy Forests bill to stop the wildfires that have burned in California and threaten many States, and do my colleagues know what they are doing? They are filibustering the ability to take that bill to the conference so we can get it passed. They are filibustering that. My colleague from Illinois was talking about how long it took us to get to the VA-HUD bill, a bill I am responsible for. Well, something may have interfered with taking up that bill when the minority whip spent 8\1/2\ hours on the Senate floor on Monday complaining about filibusters. Excuse me, but what is that when he will not release the floor beginning at 1:30? I gave up. I heard he went 8\1/2\ hours, maybe it was 9\1/2\ hours. I decided to turn on the ball game about then. But we were blocked from doing anything. We were blocked by the same Democrats who complained, after they filibustered all year long, that we are talking too much. There is a lot to be said, but the most important thing I can say is that the President has nominated 46 people to serve on the Federal circuit court, and the Senate has confirmed only 63 percent. This is what we are talking about, unprecedented. The President has made four nominations to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, the second highest court in the land, and only one has been confirmed. Despite the self-congratulations of the Democrats who say they have confirmed 168, they have not confirmed 37 percent of the circuit judges. What nominee has withdrawn his name? One of the most qualified people ever nominated for the judiciary. Three remain filibustered. Three more are being threatened with that fate. Numerous others are being blocked or delayed by the minority. The reason most cited is that these nominees are out of the mainstream. The mainstream, it appears, is defined by a few of my colleagues and some of the most liberal interest groups in the country. I know the liberal interest groups, the Hollywood group, put in a lot of money, and they have strange ideas of what the mainstream is. When you talk about some of their mainstream Hollywood people or People for the American Way ideas, I tell my colleagues, that dog does not hunt in Missouri. I imagine it does not hunt in South Carolina, Georgia, and Pennsylvania either. If that is the litmus test, let us talk about who is in the mainstream. For the Ninth Circuit, Judge Carolyn Kuhl, the American Bar Association says she is well qualified for the position. Oh, earlier on, that was going to be the gold standard. The Democrats said: We cannot appoint anybody who is not rated at least qualified by the American Bar Association. She is rated well qualified, a distinguished career as an attorney with the Department of Justice, U.S. Solicitor General, a clerk for the United States Supreme Court. Twenty-three women judges on the Superior Court of Los Angeles, and nearly 100 judges who serve with her have spoken out on her outstanding abilities and professionalism. The litigation section of the L.A. County bar has also. Are those people out of the mainstream? Are they somehow different? Are they somehow unworthy? Then Judge Janice Rogers Brown, she is the first African-American woman to serve on the State's highest court. She was retained by the support of 76 percent of the voters in her last election. That is in California. Is 76 percent of the California voters out of the mainstream? Academics from colleges across the State have written in to speak about her professionalism and evenhandedness. Sounds like mainstream to me. They like to think that the panel of the Ninth Circuit, which is the most liberal, most overruled, most out of touch circuit court in the Nation, is mainstream, but this panel of Ninth Circuit judges tried to stay the recall election in California. The Ninth Circuit judges declared that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. Is that the mainstream? Two Democrats appointed to the Ninth Circuit ruled that convicted felons serving a life sentence have a fundamental right to procreate by artificial insemination. Are they in the mainstream? Where is that in the Constitution? Mr. President, I have many colleagues who need to speak. I have a whole lot more to say. I will be sharing it with you. But most of all, I am hearing from the people in Missouri who know their lives could be affected by what the nominees of the appellate courts in the Nation can provide. After 9/11, a Jordanian named Osama Awadallah was apprehended after material linking him to some of the hijackers was found in a car parked at Dulles by one of the hijackers. It was established that Awadallah knew two of the hijackers and had met with one of them up to forty times. But Clinton appointee Judge Shira Scheindlin dismissed his charges and in the process struck down a federal material witness statute long used by the Department of Justice to detain witnesses who are a flight risk. The fact that this was well-settled law used by the prosecution was no deterrent to the judge. Fortunately, she was overruled by the court of appeals. Yesterday, we also heard about Clinton appointee Judge Jed Rakoff, who ruled that the federal death penalty is unconstitutional, again disregarding well established precedent. In his opinion, the judge likened the statute to murder. The judge seemed to have total disregard for the fact that the arguments he made were those that should be made in a legislative body, but that would require one to be responsive to the will of the voters--what an old fashioned notion! Even the Washington Post--which opposes the death penalty--condemned this blatant overreaching decision as entirely inappropriate for a judge. Another recent Clinton appointee has ruled it necessary for the government to permit criminal illegal immigrants bail, rather than holding them for deportation--A very useful tool for our immigration services to ensure that criminal aliens are sent back to their native countries. President Clinton nominated a New Jersey federal judge to the court of appeals who once ruled that a homeless man, despite the disturbance he was causing the patrons, had a right not to be removed from a public library. Of course, he was supported unanimously by the Democrats. On the circuit court, he went on to rule that prisoners had a constitutional right protecting their mail from searches and argued that the government could not go after the proceeds of drug forfeitures--fortunately for the war on drugs, he was unsuccessful. Speaking of prisoner cases, one of the decisions issued by Judge Pickering that the Democrats have been critical of was a prisoner's rights case. A prisoner was dissatisfied with the prison issue typewriter because it was lacking a memory system--Judge Pickering ruled that this prisoner's typewriter was adequate and he did not have the right to one with memory. What a cruel decision. Is that what this debate has come down too? This hardly puts Judge Pickering out of the mainstream, in fact I would bet just about everyone listening to this debate would agree this decision is mainstream--It makes common sense. I could stand here all morning reading decision after decision handed down by Democrat appointed judges that simply defy reason and bear no resemblance to what most people in this chamber or in their states would consider to be the ``mainstream''. Yet a few of our colleagues have taken it upon themselves to make this critical determination. By their history, they have no credibility on this question. In fact, all the nominees who have been labeled as such actually enjoy the majority support in this body and have the support of Republicans and Democrats alike. Mr. President, it is time to give these extremely well-qualified, high-respected individuals an up or down vote. It is time for the minority to quit hiding behind this flimsy argument about being in the mainstream. It is too late for Miguel Estrada, his nomination was withdrawn after 848 days and 7 cloture votes, unanimous rating of well qualified by the ABA, but it is time to give Justice Priscilla Owen a vote, her nomination has been pending for 917 days and there has been three cloture votes, unanimous rating of well qualified by the ABA, it is time to give Judge Charles Pickering a vote, his nomination has been pending for 901 days and he has an ABA rating of well qualified, it is time to give Attorney General William Pryor a vote, his nomination has been pending for 217 days and he received a qualified rating, it is time to give Judge Carolyn Kuhl a vote, her nomination has been pending for 873 days and the ABA has give her a well qualified rating, it is time to give Justice Janice Brown a vote, her nomination has been pending for 110 days, and it is time to give Judge Henry Saad a vote, his nomination has been pending for 743 days. Mr. President, it is time for the body to give these candidates an up-or-down vote.

Mr. BOND

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, the California Fire Chiefs Association say they categorically do not support the proposed regulation because it will lead to a substantial increase in residential and wildland fires. They state: We are saddened an agency that exists only to protect the health and safety of Californians would choose to ignore fire safety and misrepresent the facts. Not surprisingly, other agencies are very much concerned. The National Association of State Fire Marshals remains very concerned that the California rule cannot be safely met. The United States Consumer Products Safety Commission has concerns over the potential for burn fire material hazards that remain unaddressed. The Missouri State Fire Marshal remains concerned that the California rules create a significant threat to the safety of people, property, and the environment. The National Marine Manufacturing Association is concerned that California's activities create marine safety issues that must be evaluated further before they are imposed on industry. That is right. This rule can even make boats unsafe. Generators and engines kept in boats in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation requiring these superheated catalytic converters is a boating disaster waiting to happen. I ask unanimous consent that copies of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, in the face of all of these concerned safety groups, I asked California to provide any kind of evidence or any kind of testing or any kind of analysis that these safety concerns were not true. They could not. CARB failed to provide safety data or testing results using test procedures approved or witnessed by safety efforts. CARB failed to provide any data testing or analysis of the danger of liquid or vapor fuel released from a pressurized tank used to comply with the rule lighting on fire after coming in contact with superheated catalytic converters used to comply with the rule. CARB admitted that grass clippings can ignite if they come into contact with surfaces above 518 degrees Fahrenheit. CARB failed to provide any data showing that the shields were capable of protecting against temperatures of 1,026 degrees Fahrenheit. They admitted they failed to conduct standard testing applied to all internal combustion engines. This is a problem requiring us to act to solve it. We are being asked to do something to protect 22,000 jobs, 3 manufacturing plants being moved to China. My provision would enable those jobs to stay in the United States. We are asking to prevent the risk of burn, fire, and explosion to millions of consumers, fires in our homes and in our wildlands. The provision to have EPA do a national rule instead of California will ensure that national environmental issues are met and that it will take into concern issues such as the safety in achieving the pollution reductions we need. I made several changes in my amendment to address Member concerns. We made it clear that this would not have prevented their States from regulating existing or end-use engines. We made it clear this provision only applies to new engines. Some Members thought the initial language would prevent States from regulating diesel engines. We have specified these are limited to spark-only engines. They do not cover diesel engines because the State of California could continue to regulate them, and we have also seen that the EPA has issued regulations with respect to diesel engines. Some Members were concerned that the original language would prevent their State from regulating mid- and large-sized engines such as airport tugs, forklifts, and cranes. We have no intention of limiting those. The amendment specifically applies only to small engines under 50 horsepower. These are numerous changes that are well worth saving 22 manufacturing jobs. We will protect the environment. We are providing the air quality improvements to all 50 States. We are protecting public safety by assuring that the concerns of all of the safety interested groups I have indicated are taken into account by EPA in issuing their regulations. I don't want to be the one to go home and tell our workers we are sending their jobs to China. I don't want to tell our families they cannot have a breadwinner earning a good living in those factories. We want to tell communities that we will not cripple their tax base, their school systems, and cripple their services. We will protect the environment. We will protect public safety and the jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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.

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. BOND. 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.

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. 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. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. 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.