Temporary Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Missouri if he would add my name as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. President, the Bond-Mikulski amendment described by the Senator from Missouri makes a great deal of sense to me. It seems to me that keeping our promise to our veterans is also a part of national security and national defense. We have a very serious problem in the VA health care system. It is going to grow worse, not better, and we need to add these resources.

As we know, the number of people who have been wounded in Iraq and are going to come back home and justifiably lay claim to the health care they were promised in our VA system, we must provide the funding for that.

I think all of us in this Chamber have had the experience of visiting with veterans with respect to their experience in the VA health care system. They will tell us of seeing the posters of Uncle Sam pointing at them saying, Uncle Sam wants you, and on the bottom of the poster it said, free health care for life.

Many of our veterans have experienced something substantially less

than that when they come home from having served our country, and that is why I think it is very important for us to provide the funding that is needed in the VA health care system.

I recall one day being at a town meeting and a man named Thor came up to me. He had served in the Air Corps in the Second World War, had fought for this country, had done all that his country had asked of him, many years ago. Now he was without much income, in his late seventies, and he was having all kinds of health problems, some of it related to his service in the Second World War. He was not able to get the help he needed.

The day he came to the meeting I held, he told me he was having trouble with his teeth and could not eat. He had false teeth. His teeth did not fit. They were cutting his mouth and he could not get new teeth from the VA system. At age 75 or 80 years of age, having served in the Second World War, done for this country what this country asked him to do, now living in very low-income circumstances, he should not have to beg VA to get new teeth. That ought not be the way it happens.

I happened to get him new teeth because I had a friend who was a dentist. He talked to some people who run a laboratory and he was able to get a new set of teeth. But we ought to take care of these needs more systematically. We ought to fund the VA health care system to provide for the needs of these veterans. It is a promise we have made and, in my judgment, a promise we ought to keep. So I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor to the Bond-Mikulski amendment.

Amendment No. 1826

Mr. President, I send an 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.

I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Durbin and Landrieu. This amendment is identical to that which I offered in the Appropriations Committee, and which lost on a 15-to-14 vote. It is the identical language. So my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, at least, will be acquainted with the provisions and the specific language of this amendment.

My colleague spoke earlier today about the goals we share for Iraq-- our country's objectives in the Middle East and around the world. We all want the Iraqi people to have a better country and to be able to control their own destiny. We all want to foster a democracy in Iraq, in which the Iraqi people are free to make their own decisions, could build a model economy with a market system that works, one that provides an expansion of economic opportunity and jobs for the Iraqi people--all of us would aspire to have that happen.

Some of my colleagues, however, have said this can only happen if you inevitably link the two pieces of the appropriations request sent to us by the President, the $87 billion which includes the amount of money for the defense needs, which is some $66 billion, and the $20-plus billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. They say it must remain a single piece of legislation, inextricably linked, that cannot in any way be taken apart because one part makes the other work.

I suppose it is like a loose thread on a cheap suit. You pull the thread and the arm falls off, so you can't take any part of this and adjust it or change it. That is what we are told.

I believe there are pieces of this legislation that can be changed, and I think changed for the better, in ways that will still accomplish the goals the President and we have for the country of Iraq, but that will also help the American taxpayer.

At the outset, let me say that I believe that the portion of the request relating to our military is important and is urgent, and this Congress will enact it very quickly. I don't think America sends its sons and daughters to war and then decides it will not fund that which is necessary for them to carry out their mission. That would be unforgivable. We have a responsibility to do that, and we will do that.

The second portion of this request, dealing with the reconstruction of Iraq, is a different story. I think there are a couple of aspects to remember about that.

First, the infrastructure of the country of Iraq was deliberately not targeted by the American military attack. The attack, which was called Shock and Awe, which most of us saw on television, did not target electric generation facilities, the electric grid, roads, bridges, dams. It deliberately did not target those. As a result of that, we do not have a country in which their infrastructure has been devastated by carpet bombing of the type that happened in some places during World War II.

Second, many of the reconstruction items in the 20-plus billion request by the administration are not urgent. I will describe that in some detail.

Third, the cost of the reconstruction effort need not, and ought not, to be borne by the American taxpayer. If the United States was the only possible source of funding for reconstruction, that would be one thing. But that is not the case. The fact is that Iraq has a wealth of oil reserves, and Iraq can easily use those resources to finance its own reconstruction. My amendment would help construct a mechanism for the Iraqis to do exactly that.

My amendment simply proposes that there be established an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority, in Iraq, by the Governing Council of Iraq, working with the Coalition Provisional Authority. The Governing Council of Iraq is made up of Iraqis. They would create an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority. That authority would securitize or sell securities against the value of future oil that will be pumped in Iraq. Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the world and has substantial capability to pump a dramatic amount of oil in order to raise ample funds to reconstruct Iraq.

Simply, my amendment says let Iraqi oil pay for the reconstruction of Iraq, not the U.S. taxpayer. And let Iraqis use that Iraqi oil revenue to reconstruct Iraq. This has nothing to do with the United States grabbing part of the resources that belong to the people of Iraq. On the contrary, my amendment says that the Iraqi people, through the Governing Council of Iraq, should use Iraqi oil revenue to reconstruct the country of Iraq. It is very simple. It is not hard to understand.

Some believe that if we followed this approach, we would be accused of grabbing Iraqi oil. They will say: You attacked Iraq because you wanted their oil.

That can't be the case because there is nothing here that would put American hands on Iraqi oil. It would be Iraqis in the country of Iraq using Iraqi oil to reconstruct Iraq. It simply relieves the burden of $21 billion from the shoulders of the American taxpayers, which is what is proposed by the administration for the reconstruction of Iraq. It says instead of having the U.S. taxpayers borrow the money, or the Federal Government borrow the money or pay taxes to reconstruct Iraq, Iraqis can use their oil resources to do that.

Ambassador Bremer said that by July of next year, Iraq will be pumping 3 million barrels of oil per day. That is $160 billion of net export value of oil for the country of Iraq in 10 years. They can easily sell securities against that future production of oil and use that to reconstruct Iraq.

As I indicated, this is the second largest oil reserve in the world. This is not a small resource. This is liquid gold under the sands of Iraq. When they pump it and sell it to a world that needs oil, they will have $16 billion a year. And Iraq could obtain immediate funding for reconstruction by selling securities, or obtaining loans, backed by that future revenue stream.

The concept of securitizing these oil reserves has been endorsed by a number of sources and experts. The endorsement comes from a number of corners of thought. The President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, Philip Merrill, has said he supports that concept of using Iraqi oil for reconstruction. In fact, the Export-Import Bank used a similar approach for Russian oil and gas after the fall of the Soviet Union, which was credited with helping to stabilize the industry's finances and restoring Russia's infrastructure in the early 1990s.

Mr. Merrill, the head of the Export-Import Bank says: What we want to do is securitize this flow of oil.

Now, when Ambassador Bremer appeared before the Appropriation Committee, he said that this approach wouldn't work. Ambassador Bremer said you can't have Iraq securitize its oil, or use future sales of oil to reconstruct Iraq, because Iraq owes a lot of money. It has foreign debt. Ambassador Bremer said the foreign debt was owed to Russia, France, and Germany.

After that hearing, I did a little research. It turns out that the largest foreign debt owed by Saddam's regime was not to Russia, France, and Germany.

The largest foreign debt of the Saddam regime was owed to the Saudis, and the Kuwaitis, and the other Gulf Countries. The two largest single creditors, by far, are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam's regime also owed some money to Russia, Japan, France, and Germany, that is true, but the largest foreign debt was owed to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis.

I just don't understand the Ambassador's contention that Iraqi oil must be sold right away in order to pay off the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. First of all, Saddam Hussein and his henchmen owed this money. Saddam Hussein ran the country of Iraq, and he engaged in strategies and policies that resulted in these debts. Ambassador Bremer suggested that some successor government in Iraq will inherit the debt. My question is, Why? Why not say to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis: You are owed a lot of money by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. Find them, and collect it from them.

The Iraqi people ought not have to bear the burden of Saddam Hussein's debt. It doesn't make any sense to me. This man is gone. His government no longer exists. And Iraq is sitting on top of an enormous oil resource.

But we are told now that the American taxpayer should pay to reconstruct Iraq, because Iraqi oil revenues need to be immediately turned over to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis to settle Saddam's debts.

I am sorry. It doesn't add up to me. It doesn't work for me. I don't understand the perversity of a strategy that says the American taxpayer shall bear the burden so that Iraq's assets can be free to pay the Saudis and the Kuwaitis past foreign debt.

Does this make sense to anybody? If you answer, yes, we think this makes sense, the American taxpayers will pay the bill, and Iraqi oil will pay the Saudis, then I am sorry, you need to go back and do some remedial training someplace. You are not thinking straight.

Now, there are those who argue that the current Iraqi Governing Council is not a duly elected government, and has no standing to do anything with Iraq's oil.

But on Friday, Ambassador Bremer said the following:

The Iraqis are perfectly ready now to accept a lot of

responsibility, and they are doing that. There are Iraqi

ministers running all 25 ministries. . . . They are making

policy in every ministry. They are responsible for the

budgets of their ministry. They've got to spend the money.

They can move the money around within their budget. They have

great latitude. And they are now operating ministries.

The Governing Council of Iraq is made up of Iraqis. They are running Iraq's Oil Ministry, among others. It seems to me that they have the capability to securitize future Iraq oil revenues and pay this reconstruction cost.

Is the Governing Council of Iraq somehow less legitimate than Saddam Hussein's government? To anyone who argues that the Governing Council of Iraq cannot enter into debt on behalf of Iraq, I ask this: Do you think that Saddam's regime was a duly elected government?

In 1995, Saddam ran for President of Iraq unopposed, and he won 99.96 percent of the vote. That's right. Less than four one-hundredths of one percent of the voters voted against Saddam.

In August of 2000, Saddam Hussein ran again for President. He ran unopposed. This time, the official reelection count was better. With 100-percent voter turnout, he received 100 percent of the vote. That was the official result announced by the Iraqi government.

In that election, there were no polling booths. Voters were required to hold their ballot over their heads as the approached the ballot box, so that everybody could see how they voted. When they voted, they had to parade past 28 portraits of Saddam Hussein, and they had to hold these ballots over their heads so they could demonstrate how they voted.

Was that a duly constituted government? I don't think so. The Iraq Governing Council is much more legitimate than the Saddam regime, in my estimation. Why would anyone argue with that? Who wants to come to the Senate floor and say that the debts incurred by Saddam's regime are legitimate, but securities that would be issued by the current Governing Council would not be legitimate?

I ask that again because I think it is important.

Why would anyone argue that the massive debts run up by Saddam Hussein's government are legitimate and payable, but securities issued by the current government of Iraq's Governing Council against future oil revenues with which they could reconstruct Iraq would somehow not be legitimate? It doesn't make any sense.

Until a few months ago, the Administration was telling everyone that Iraq's oil would allow the Iraqis to pay for their own reconstruction.

Let me show what Mr. Ari Fleischer at the White House said about this. He was the President's spokesperson. He said in February of this year:

And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country.

Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi

people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has

to be able to shoulder much of the burden of their own

reconstruction.

He is, of course, talking about Iraqi oil, the second largest oil reserve in the world.

Shortly after that time, Mr. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said:

. . . the oil revenues of that country could bring in

between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two

or three. . . . We're dealing with a country that can really

finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

That is the administration speaking. They say Iraq can finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon, because it has massive oil resources.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in March of this year, said:

I don't believe that the United States has the

responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. . . . And the

funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen

assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things.

That is the Secretary of Defense saying the American taxpayer is not going to have to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Vice President Cheney, on national television in March of this year, said:

In Iraq we have a nation that's got the second largest oil

reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will

generate billions of dollars a year in cashflow in the

relatively near future, and that flow of resource obviously

belongs to the Iraqi people and needs to be put to use by the

Iraqi people. And that will be one of our major objectives.

This administration has said time and time and time again that the reconstruction of Iraq will be done with Iraqi oil.

Let me describe a ``Nightline'' program with Ted Koppel and Mr. Natsios, head of USAID, the lead reconstruction agency in our country.

Mr. Koppel: I understand that more money is expected to be

spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall plan for

the rebuilding of Europe after World War II.

Mr. Natsios: No. This doesn't even compare. The Marshall

plan was $97 billion. This is $1.7 billion.

Mr. Koppel: I mean, you talk about 1.7. You are not

suggesting the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for

$1.7 billion?

Mr. Natsios: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers'

contribution, I do. This is for the U.S. The rest of the

rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries that have

already made pledges: Britain, Germany, Norway, Canada and

Iraqi oil revenues. They are going to get $20 billion in

revenues but the American part of this will be $1.7 billion.

Again, this is the lead person on the reconstruction of Iraq speaking last March.

Mr. Koppel: I understand. But as far as reconstruction

goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than

$1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?

Mr. Natsios: That is our plan, and that is our intention.

Over and over and over again, Mr. Natsios said exactly the same thing.

It is strange that not many months later all of those folks-- Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, Mr. Natsios--all said the same thing. And now there is this eerie silence from those folks who told the American taxpayer, you won't have to pay for this, Iraqi oil will pay for it.

Now they send up a $21 billion request to say to the American taxpayer, you will pay for this. And, by the way, you can't change any element of this, because this all fits together like a puzzle; take out one piece and you destroy the puzzle.

Now, in Ambassador Bremer's request, part of the nearly $21 billion involves items that are clearly not related to any damage caused by our military action:

$1 billion to rehabilitate power distribution networks that

were in a highly deteriorated condition before the war.

This has nothing to do with the war. It is just 20 years of devastation by Saddam Hussein's government.

$50 million to rectify the actions of the former regime and

reconnect the Euphrates River to 30 villages and 100 farms.

That is an irrigation water project and has nothing to do with the war.

There is $50 million to restore a marsh and rectify some of the environmental tragedies ``of the past 25 years''; $50 million for water projects in Basra, a ``long neglected city''; $125 million to restore railroad tracks that suffered from ``severe neglect over time.''

There are a whole series of things like that, that on their face are not a result of the war and in many cases not particularly urgent. Here is a pretty symbolic item: $1.6 million requested to build museums and memorials. I have never heard of an urgent request for a museum. I have heard of important requests for museums, but I have never heard of a request for a museum that is urgent or an emergency. I am wondering if there is anyone in our country who thinks that the building of a new museum in Iraq is an emergency.

Many have mentioned, and I did in the Appropriations Committee, some of the expenditures: For a 4-week business course for executives, $10,000 per student. That 1-month catchup course in business is double the monthly cost of going to Harvard Business School.

There is $55 million for computer training, $330 a month for half-day courses; $1,500 per student for a 6-month second language English course; $9 million to study ZIP Codes for the postal service in Iraq; $100 million for 2,000 garbage trucks; $4 million to start telephone area codes.

The fact is, many of these items are not an emergency and not urgent. And the American taxpayer should not have to pay for any of this, because Iraq has the resources to pay for its own reconstruction. Yet we have this piece of legislation that we are told is not separable, it comes as one piece; pull a string on the cheap sweater and the arm comes out; take one piece out and it destroys the rest. That is nonsense.

When you look at the $66 million requested by the Pentagon to support our troops, no question: We need to do that, and we need to do that now. But when you look at the $21 billion with respect to reconstruction, in my judgment, that can be done by having Iraqis securitize Iraqi oil, and using that financing for the reconstruction of their own country.

I said when I started, everyone has the same ultimate objective. I want not just Iraqi people, I want people around this world, to have opportunity and hope, to live free, to live in circumstances where they have an economy in their country that expands and produces jobs and opportunity.

There is a hopelessness and helplessness in many parts of the world. One-half of the population of the world lives on less than $2 a day. One-half have never made a telephone call; 150 million have no access to potable water that is healthy and is of good quality; 150 million kids are not in school. This is a big, challenging world.

We are focused now on the country of Iraq. I want things to go well in Iraq. I want our soldiers to be safe. I want them to be able to come home as soon as possible. I want the Iraqi people to come through this experience believing their country has turned a corner and they can live in freedom and have some hope and have the opportunity to make a good future for themselves.

But as we do all of that, we have some responsibilities at home. We need to be able to deal with those. We are lucky to be Americans, lucky to be alive now and to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, but we have a lot of challenges. We have huge homeland security issues right here at home.

The plain fact is, we have had major studies done, most notably the Hart-Rudman study by two of our former colleagues for the Council of Foreign Relations. That study says we are dangerously unprepared. In fact, that is the title of the study. We have a lot of things to do at home to make sure we are prepared to protect our country against another attack by terrorists. We can't just write a blank check for Iraq's reconstruction, and say spend whatever you need, let's spend $9 million for new ZIP Codes and buy pickup trucks and build prison beds at $50,000 a bed in Iraq. We have urgent needs here, in this country, and we do not have infinite resources.

With respect to the country of Iraq, our country ought to be supportive. We ought to be helpful. We ought to aspire to have the same kind of future for the folks in Iraq that we want for ourselves; that is, a future of hope. But that does not mean the American taxpayer ought to bear the burden of solving problems created by Saddam Hussein when he borrowed money from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, France, Germany, and others. It does not mean we ought to bear that burden. Those debts ought to be forgiven or restructured. Iraqis ought to be able to use their oil resource to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq right now. Very simple.

Sometimes we get so rigid in this political process, we do not hear each other; we talk past each other. The discussion about this in the committee came down to this: the President says it has to be this way now, and therefore it must be this way and we cannot consider another way. I offered two amendments in the Appropriations Committee. The first amendment, identical to the one I am offering today on the Senate floor, was that there should be created an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority. They should borrow money against future Iraq oil and reconstruct Iraq. It is the burden of Iraqi oil, not the burden of the American taxpayer, to reconstruct Iraq.

That amendment lost by a vote of 15 to 14, though at least one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle expressed support for the concept, and said he might consider this approach on the Senate floor.

So I offered a second amendment in the Appropriations Committee, which said that instead of providing a 20 billion-plus dollar grant, we should extend Iraq a loan. That is not something I prefer, because I think Iraqis can finance their reconstruction by securitizing their oil. But it is a better approach than just extending a grant.

I lost that second amendment as well, by a vote of 15 to 14. I understand that a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are interested in this concept.

So we will have these debates in the Senate. I expect that we will vote on

the amendment I offered today, once we return. My hope is we can find a bipartisan way to agree on something that shows common sense.

Most of us know little about Iraq. But Iraq is not a desperately impoverished country. Iraq sits on top of the largest reserves imaginable. The oil reserves exist under that sand. There is only one country that has larger reserves. That is Saudi Arabia. Iraq has great capability to invest in itself and build and grow and provide opportunity for the Iraqi people.

Even as we aspire to have that happen, we had better look inward a bit in this country and ask ourselves where we are headed. We are facing record Federal budget deficits. This year, we also had the largest trade deficit in the history of this country, by far.

The combined budget and trade deficit is very close to $900 billion. Yet people walk around here as if it is ``Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.'' It is as if none of this exists.

All of this money we are talking about today, $87 billion--all of it is borrowed against our children's futures. Why?

The President wants to have it all: We need tax cuts. We need increased military spending. We need increased homeland security spending, and, at the same time, $87 billion now for Iraq, on top of the $79 billion earlier this year.

Someone, someday, in some way, pays the cost of that. That cost comes with a lower standard of living in this country if we do not get our fundamentals in order. You just cannot keep doing this.

Mathematics is taught the same way from Maine to California. There is only one way to add and subtract.

What we require, I think, is a bit of backbone from Republicans and Democrats, this President and the Congress, to stand up and take a look at what we are facing, our budget deficits, our trade deficits, our long-term future economic health, and decide we have to put things back on track. That is important for this country.

Yes, I care about Iraq, as do my colleagues. Yes, we should be concerned about the reconstruction of Iraq. But that is a burden that Iraqis can bear, by using their vast oil resources. It is not a burden that ought to be borne by the American taxpayer.

The Senate will not be in session next week. But I will seek to have a vote on this amendment when we return.

I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment to the desk in a moment. Before I do, I wanted to give the Senate an update on what is happening with the fires in California, and pay a very special tribute to a fallen firefighter. As of 3 p.m.

today, the fires in California have consumed more than 722,000 acres, or roughly 1,100 square miles. Many of these acres are on public lands. Many are on private lands. More than 2,600 homes have been destroyed, 20 people have been killed, and there are more than 12,000 firefighters battling the flames. These firefighters are very brave. I will show you one of them right now.

I rise with a very heavy heart to pay tribute to a fallen California firefighter. It is an honor for me to do this, but it is a very sad moment for me to do this.

Steven L. Rucker, a fire apparatus engineer from Novato, CA, was just 38 years old. Novato, CA is nowhere near southern California. Novato, CA is in the northern part of our State, in the San Francisco Bay area. But Steven Rucker and others from his fire department risked their lives and, indeed, Steven gave his life, to help our southern California communities. Steven Rucker comes from my home county, a county where I was a supervisor for 6 years before I went to the House of Representatives, in the early 1980s.

He was killed on Wednesday, October 29, at 12:30 p.m., when his unit was overwhelmed by flames as they battled on foot to protect a home threatened by the Cedar Fire in San Diego County.

I want to show you a picture of some of the firefighters and what they are up against. Have you ever seen a more telling picture of what these firefighters are up against, standing close to these flames in air that is so polluted it is beyond description?

Steve fell. He was nicknamed ``the Ruckster'' by his friends and colleagues. He grew up in Freemont, CA, in the San Francisco Bay Area. He was the youngest of four children. After completing paramedic training in Contra Costa, Mr. Rucker went on to realize his childhood dream of becoming a firefighter in Novato. In his 11 years with the Novato Fire Protection District, Mr. Rucker wore the badge and his honor proudly. His car carried a license plate that read ``Fire Ruck.'' He was known for organizing toy drives and children's events for Christmas and for Easter.

Steve Rucker is a true example of why we call firefighters heroes. He bravely and selflessly risked his life time and time again trying to protect the homes of families he didn't even know in a community far from where he lived. Tragically, he has fallen in one of those battles. It is easy to see why we mourn his loss and why his friends and family are so proud of him.

I send my sincere condolences to his family, to his wife, and their two young children, the communities of Novato which mourns his loss, and all of the firefighters who had the honor of serving with Mr. Rucker over these years. I know they are devastated by this tremendous loss, and I know the loss is reverberating through the fire lines. I know how hard it is for them to cope with this.

In this time of crisis in California, we must carry on, and we will. We always have. People say to me even here in the Senate: Your State always has some kind of crisis, some kind of problem. Why do so many people live there? What draws them there? I always explain that you need to be there to understand the beauty of our State. You need to be there to understand it. You need to be there to understand the incredible diversity of our people. In politics, we reason from one side to the other. Diversity? We have every one. The beauty of our State holds us all together. It has brought us to that State.

We will carry on, but we are not going to forget Steve. We are also not going to forget Doug MacDonald. I send my prayers to Fire Captain Doug MacDonald who is a 17-year veteran of that Novato Fire District. Captain MacDonald suffered severe burns and injuries when he went back into the fire to search for his missing colleague, Steve Rucker. Captain MacDonald is in critical condition at the San Diego Burn Center. We pray and pray that he will come home soon. I know his wife and his two children are with him.

It says something about Captain MacDonald, and it says something about the Novato Fire Department, that Captain MacDonald, a 17-year veteran, went back and risked his own life to save Steve Rucker. It says a lot about Steve Rucker in that he would inspire people to risk their lives to save him. These firefighters are extraordinary heroes.

Yesterday, I was so proud that the Senate overwhelmingly passed my amendment to ensure that those first responders, those firefighters, will receive the best health care available to minimize their injuries when they fight in such natural disasters--fires.

I thank the President at this time. He has now declared Riverside County a Federal disaster area. This is now our fifth county, and we have been asking him to do this. We are very glad he has done this because even though we know in Riverside we have had less loss of homes and property, we have homeowners there who will need the help that such a declaration will bring.

Before I send my amendment to the desk, I wish to make one more point. We still have fires burning out of control in my State. We still need help, particularly in the San Diego area. We now need, according to Deputy Chief Arta, 26 type I strike teams, we need 48 type III strike teams, we need 2 strike teams of dozers, and we need 15 hand crews at the Cedar Fire in San Diego.

For the Paradise Fire--and my understanding is that these fires are about 5 miles apart and the big issue is to stop them from joining. At that Paradise Fire, we need 31 engine strike teams, we need 9 type III strike teams, and we need 33 hand strike crews.

I mention this because we still have work to do to wrap our arms around this. We need this help now. We needed it 2 days ago. We have asked everyone who could help us with this--particularly our FEMA Director who is working hard with us to get this equipment--to get these people to help our 12,000 firefighters.

I want to look at Steve one more time, our firefighter, our 38-year- old firefighter, from Novato, CA, in Marin County, who traveled miles and miles with his colleagues in that department to help people far away from where he lived. In his name, please send the help to 12,000 firefighters. We need to help them. We need to cut through all of the bureaucracy and all of the excuses. We need to get the help there in San Diego.

Look at what is happening. Look at what it looks like. We need help. We are getting a little help from the weather--a little bit of a change, but not enough of a change, in our State. We really do not get the heavy rains in November. In San Diego and Riverside, they do not get that much. We are getting some moist air in from the ocean. That is good. We need more help.

We need to be strong, and we need to get this help. We need to see the end date when we will have these fires 100 percent contained.

This bill that we are working on today does more than current law to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening. It doesn't do as much as I would like. Senator Leahy wrote a bill which I was proud to co-author that did much more than this bill in front of us. But this bill in front of us is more than current law. It certainly does more than the House bill, which does, in essence, in my view after I have looked at it, hardly anything at all to help these communities--hardly anything at all.

We have an opportunity to make this bill even better.

Then Senator Bingaman got a couple of amendments through. I thank Senator Wyden for helping get some of these amendments through, Senator Cochran for supporting some of our amendments, and my colleagues on the other side.

Amendment No. 2043

(Purpose: To increase the minimum percentage of funds allocated for

authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects in the wildland-urban

interface)

I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be read and considered.

This is a very straightforward amendment. In the underlying bill, 50 percent of the funds are allocated to help communities that are close to areas that are high risk for fire. These are high-risk communities. We have these in our State. We have them up and down the west coast. We

have them in the western part of our country. Frankly, we have them in a number of communities. We need to get on top of things before we see this kind of fire. The way to do this is to take as much of the resources as we can and go to these communities--whether they are large or small, it does not matter--and work with them.

In April, Governor Gray Davis, our outgoing Governor, declared several counties that are now burning disaster areas because of the bark beetle. We asked the President to please declare an emergency, a disaster, so we could spend what it would take to get rid of those dying trees that sat out there. We knew they were waiting to burn. We predicted--I hate to say this; there were 12 of us in the bipartisan letter, the two California Senators and a bipartisan team from the House--we predicted in almost an eerie way that we would have uncontrollable fires if we did not have this disaster declared. It did not happen.

Now we have a chance. A lot of my constituents will not have that chance. But now we will have a future chance to protect communities that are at risk by taking funds in this bill, the majority of them, and putting them toward these communities.

I will show a couple of other pictures. The first photo shows what it looks like before the fire engulfs the community. This photo shows what we are dealing with--dreams gone. I have lived in the same house for 38 years in a hillside community. Every time I look at one of these families, I know how I would feel if I lost my home of 38 years with all of my memories--yes, we would move on; we would move ahead, but it is very difficult. Whoever said your home is your castle is right. It does not matter if it is one bedroom or one room or a mansion. It does not matter; your home is your castle. When you are home, this is your domain. This is your place. This is the place for your family.

You lose your home, you lose a sense of order. You lose a sense of security. You lose a sense of peace. This is a very hard time for my State.

What would this amendment do? I hope it is voted on, and I hope we pass it. It would help protect communities from wildfire by directing 70 percent of the funds for wildfire prevention in the wildland/urban interface; in other words, where the wildland and the urban areas interface, where communities face the greatest risk from wildfire.

The amendment happens to be consistent with what the President recommended in his budget for fiscal year 2003. We did not pick this number out of the hat in any way, shape, or form. We actually have precedent for this number.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the USDA Forest Service fiscal year 2003 President's budget.

Now, if we pass this amendment, we are coming up with a stronger bill because it is just common sense that the real purpose behind this bill should be protection of our people. That is the real purpose. It should not be to make it easier for big loggers to go deep into the forest and take out old-growth trees. I know we protect them in here but not as far as I would want to. The real purpose of this should be to protect our communities. As I said, the House-passed bill certainly did not do that.

We will hear a lot of talk from the House side, and I encourage my colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Crapo, and the others to stand strong for the Senate bill because the House bill would do nothing--I say this sincerely--to help us. It would not have helped in our circumstance. I will explain why.

The House bill fails to emphasize and prioritize removal of flammable vegetation. This is chaparral. This is not what the House bill deals with. The House bill deals with trees. It also does not allow for projects on non-Federal land where many areas are burning. I don't have the exact stats, but we are looking at maybe 50-50 here on Federal land and non-Federal land. Clearly, if we just have a bill that focuses on Federal land, we are missing a lot of other land and our communities could burn.

The bill Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Cochran worked on does not have that prohibition. We need to have a bill that deals with the chaparral, that deals with this vegetation that is going up in smoke, and that does not just deal with the large trees.

The Senator from Nevada is here. There is certainly a lot of growth like this in his State, including in Lake Tahoe as well.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

The House bill fails to focus the limited resources for wildfire prevention projects near at-risk communities where these resources are needed the most. We can see the communities right around here. Many are not that populated, but they are communities that would qualify in the underlying bill. In my amendment, more funds would go here.

By not focusing its resources near at-risk communities, the House- passed bill keeps homes, businesses, and communities in this wildland/ urban interface area in harm's way. In other words, where the beautiful wildlands meet the suburban-urban communities, that is where we have our problems. This is what we have been talking about. This is what Senator Leahy and I have been talking about and why we know we need more funding.

By the way, we have much more funding in that bill. The bill before the Senate is a compromise. It is not enough. It is better, certainly, than

where we are, and it is much better than the House bill which actually, to be honest, again, would do absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to help us in this type of circumstance.

Now, in the bill before us, that I am amending, we know hazardous fuels reduction projects on non-Federal lands would qualify for the funding. This is important. I thank the authors for that. Additionally, the underlying bill emphasizes the thinning and removal of small- diameter trees for wildfire prevention and seeks to implement standards that protect old-growth trees.

Then it says at least 50 percent of the funds should go to these at- risk communities. This is where I am trying to strengthen it and say it ought to be 70 percent. Again, I think this bill is getting better.

I was so happy to tell my firefighters we are going to take care of their health. I was happy to tell my communities that the EPA, if this bill becomes law, will monitor the toxins in the air, not the usual pollutants that we follow, but the toxins that are in the air from these fires. So I am happy about that.

Again, I hope this amendment will be adopted. I really do not know what the end result will be, but clearly, if you increase the percentage of the funds that you can spend in these communities that are at risk, common sense tells you we will not have the type of fires we are seeing in California today.

We cannot waste our resources. We do not have enough resources. In this bill, therefore, the 70 percent ought to be directed here. So we believe there are strong arguments why we need to focus a greater percentage on these high-risk communities.

We believe there is precedent setting for this, given the President's request.

Mr. President, I am so hopeful we will get agreement on this amendment because, again, it will make this a far better bill.

I yield the floor at this time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to respond to my friend with great respect because we do not change a thing about your bill, except change the percentage of 50 to 70. We leave you all the flexibility. If a community says they think it is important to go inside the forest to protect a watershed, to protect the supply of water, or there is bark beetle infestation, that is not a problem. The fact is, we just say that the communities ought to have 70 percent of this rather than 50 percent.

I say to my friend, who is going to show us pictures here--I don't know if he was present--12 of us, in April, wrote the President about the severe danger. We named three of the four counties that are up in smoke. We begged him to declare a disaster, we begged him.

I want you to know who signed that letter: Senator Feinstein and I, Congressman Jerry Lewis, Congresswoman Mary Bono, and the San Diego delegation--Republicans and Democrats.

We saw this coming a mile away. The importance of this bill is because we do not know what future Presidents might do. We may have the same trouble in the future, and they just don't pay too much attention to it. We can't get our needs taken care of.

This bill is very important, but if we don't take that money and spend it where the people are, then, to me, we have not learned a lesson from these California fires.

I thank my colleague very much. I am disappointed we cannot agree. I understand, but I am disappointed. I hope we will have a good vote for expending funds where the people are because that is what we need to do.

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator is talking about my vote.

Well, the Senator is talking about me.

Well, I think that is fairly rude, but I will wait for my time.

Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

That is all right. That is OK.

Mr. President, the 70-percent number was taken out of President Bush's own budget request. This is not an arbitrary figure. It is a figure that was put in his budget. We have put it in the Record.

I don't want to talk about 5 years ago. But I will be happy to discuss the forest plans I have supported, because they always dealt with what the problem is, which is making sure we get rid of the brush, we get rid of the infestation, and we don't use this as a way to say the only way to have a healthy forest is to cut down every tree, particularly old growth. Then you don't have any forest. That is not my idea of healthy forests.

I don't have to go 5 years to prove where I have been. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this letter, dated April 24, 2003.

It reads:

We are writing you today to encourage your swift approval

of California Governor Gray Davis' request of a Presidential

emergency declaration--

Not just for San Bernardino--

for Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties

relative to the high threat of forest fire in these regions.

We knew that. The people knew that. We were trying to get help. We said:

Due to the drought conditions and the infestation by the

bark beetle, our national forests have been met with an

unprecedented danger as the bark beetle has attacked over

451,000 acres of trees in these three counties. Because of

the unique urbanization in and around the forests, this

infestation has created a tinder box of such magnitude that

the loss of life and resources would be incomprehensible

should fire break out.

This is uncanny.

Most of the affected trees are on or adjacent to federal

lands, making this crisis well beyond the ability of state

and local authorities to manage. Therefore, it is critical

that the federal government help provide financial assistance

for infested tree removal from public and private lands, as

well as assist with other mitigation measures.

So we didn't just limit it to removal of the bark beetle. We called for other mitigation measures. We said:

Now that the State of California has requested a federal

emergency disaster declaration, your help at this juncture

remains critical and would make a positive impact in those

areas of Southern California.

We close with this:

Mr. President, we appreciate the various burdens being

placed upon you--

Because this was at the time we were at war with Iraq--

In these challenging days. However, we urge you to consider

this matter as expeditiously as possible since these areas

are in need of immediate federal assistance.

I say to my colleagues, please, let's not stand up here and point fingers at each other. The fact is, this is a bipartisan group of colleagues begging for help, recognizing the fact that near at-risk communities we have work to do. I am happy this bill is before us today. I am thrilled at that. I thank my friends for helping me protect the health of firefighters and the children and the elderly there, as they did yesterday.

All I am saying is: Please, I don't change one word of your brilliant legislation. I don't take a word. I just say, take it up to 70 percent for the communities that live near these at-risk areas.

I will close by reading the people who signed this letter. By the way, it is a beautiful representation of California politics, from the most liberal to the most conservative. Signing this letter: Jerry Lewis, Mary Bono, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, David Dreier, Duncan Hunter, Joe Baca, Ken Calvert, Randy Duke Cunningham, Darrell Issa, Bob Filner, and Susan Davis.

This isn't the time to have a finger-pointing argument, while I just lost a firefighter because no one declared this a disaster. That was the way it went. Please, let's not do that. Why don't we use this opportunity to come together across party lines, as my colleagues did with the underlying bill, and just realize that this fire says something to us. What it says to us is that these at-risk communities need more attention.

I guarantee you, if you support this, and we have a bill that really carries out what President Bush said should be the case--70 percent of the money being used at these communities--we will have made a great leap forward.

I hope we won't have a circumstance where we are going: What did you do 7 years ago and 10 years ago and 5 years ago and 4 years ago.

I will tell you what I did. I have been saying we have to clear brush around these communities. We have to clear trees, dead and dying trees in these forests. We have to thin. We have to go after the chaparral. We have a lot of work to do. Let's meet somewhere in the middle between those people who want to see more aggressive logging of old-growth trees. I respect your view. I don't attack you. I just don't agree with you. I don't think that is the answer to protecting our communities. The answer is helping us near these at-risk communities.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week, as the California wildfires continue to rage, scorching more than 720,000 acres of land, destroying more than 2,600 homes, and taking the lives of at least 20 people, we have learned the costs of not taking the proper steps to protect our vulnerable communities and forests.

Last April, I wrote to the President and asked him to declare three of our southern counties disasters areas due to bark beetle infestation. There were 12 of us from both parties who asked for fuels reduction to ease our dangerous situation. Unfortunately, that disaster designation did not happen.

In July, I introduced a bill with Senator Leahy, the Forestry and Community Assistance Act, that would have helped protect our forest and communities from wildfires. The bill would have authorized funding for wildfire prevention projects including thinning, cutting of dense underbrush, and prescribed burning.

The Leahy-Boxer bill would have authorized $1.25 billion for wildfire prevention projects on National Forest System lands, $1.25 billion for projects on Bureau of Land Management lands, and $2.5 billion for projects on tribal, private and State lands. The bill would have required that 85 percent of the funds be given to wildfire prevention projects within one-half mile of communities that are at risk for wildfire, and projects that are necessary to protect a municipal water supply system.

That is the bill I wish we were passing today. We are passing a bill that is far weaker, but it is better than the House bill.

It explicitly authorizes projects that protect at-risk communities, watersheds, and lands with insect infestation.

The bill also provides that 50 percent of the funds authorized for wildfire prevention projects be used toward at-risk communities. Unfortunately, my amendment to increase this percentage to 70 percent failed.

Of particular significance to California, the bill directs the Department of Agriculture to conduct a program encouraging systematic information gathering on insect pests that have caused large-scale damage to forests, including the bark beetle.

Also, I am pleased that the Senate passed my amendment requiring the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to monitor the long-term health conditions of firefighters who fought in my area declared a Federal disaster.

I am also pleased the Senate passed my amendment requiring that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, monitor the emission of hazardous pollutants in the air in disaster areas. The provision requires that the EPA accomplish this by providing each of its regional offices with a mobile air pollution monitoring network, and publish its findings on EPA's website daily until the danger has subsided.

This bill could have been made better if we had passed several amendments that I supported. These included: a Bingaman amendment to allow the Forest Service to borrow funds from the General Treasury for firefighting once its funds have been expended. Currently, once the Forest service depletes its funds, it must borrow from other accounts within the Forest Service's budget to pay for firefighting; the Murray amendment to ensure old growth trees on all lands are protected; the Cantwell amendment to require that in undertaking efforts to prevent wildfires, all possible alternatives be considered; and the Harkin amendment to sunset the legislation after 5 years, allowing Congress to review how well the program is doing.

Despite the fact that I wanted a stronger bill, I have decided to support the bill before us, because, while not perfect, it will help make our communities safer.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2038, as modified.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I know the hour is already late for some Members. I believe we have had much time to discuss this legislation, but I do believe there are a couple of important amendments that are still yet to come that raise issue that are important for Members to understand. I am concerned that the underlying bill amends the National Environmental Policy Act, a benchmark statute that has been on the books since 1969. Because this is an important act, I believe I must stand up and offer this amendment.

I take great pride in the fact that I sit at the desk of Senator Henry M. Jackson who served as chairman of the Senate Interior Committee for many years. He was the prime sponsor and mover behind the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of national legislation that sets the tone for how our environment should be treated as we review the work of Federal agencies' actions.

I know my colleagues from California, Oregon, and Idaho are trying to move forward on hazardous fuel reduction projects. I am asking them to consider the impact of the major changes that bill proposes to make to the National Environmental Policy Act process with respect to hazardous fuels reduction projects. In addition, the bill before us leaves the door open for further changes in the National Environmental Policy Act in other areas besides hazardous fuel reduction, and that concerns me.

First of all, I really do believe that at the heart of this problem associated with hazardous fuels reduction is funding. It was the case in 2000 when we had a lot of fires throughout the West, and the Western Governors Association came together and said: Let's fund a hazardous fuel reduction account. The problem with the current practice is that Congress provides money for hazardous fuels reduction projects, but the funds are taken out of these accounts and used to fight fires, and the projects are not funded. In addition, we are not providing enough funding for hazardous fuels reduction projects.

I estimate that we need approximately $1 billion a year to do adequate hazardous fuel reduction in wildland-urban interface areas. Unfortunately,

the President's budget request for this fiscal year included approximately $300 million for this purpose.

I think all of my colleagues can agree that we have to come together to authorize and appropriate adequate resources to prevent fires ahead of time. We should not short-fund hazardous fuels reduction and take those limited resources to fight fires when they happen.

I applaud my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, particularly the Senator from Oregon, and for putting this legislation forward.

My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are also trying to bring up the fact that they think it is important that hazardous fuel reduction projects proceed smoothly. That is why I would like to point out to my colleagues that the Forest Service does provide categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels projects. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, sixty percent of projects in 2001-2002 received categorical exclusions. These projects did not require the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment.

A second group, about 34 percent, has been approved via environmental assessments, which are much shorter than an EIS.

Only 6 percent of the projects have had to go through the full EIS process.

These figures are outlined in an October 2003 GAO report that clearly shows that the National Environmental Policy Act has not held up progress on hazardous fuel reduction. What has held up progress is the failure to provide adequate funding in this area.

So I ask my colleagues why should we change the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of Federal legislation that has protected the environment since 1969?

Some of my colleagues have suggested that the law's requirement that the Forest Service consider alternatives has delayed hazardous fuels reduction projects. However, numerous court cases have held that in some circumstances two or three action alternatives are adequate to comply with NEPA. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that in the cases of Friends of Southeast's Future v. U.S. Forest Service and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, that two or three alternatives, in addition to the preferred alternative and the no- action alternative, will satisfy NEPA.

The case law does not say that 30 different alternatives must be considered, or 10 different alternatives, or 7 different alternatives, or 6 different alternatives, or even five different alternatives. It is saying that in certain cases, two or three can be adequate.

I think my colleagues are well intentioned. However, I have real concerns about the proposed change to the National Environmental Policy Act, that has been on the books since 1969. The bill before us would limit the number of alternatives to: one, the proposal for hazardous fuel reduction; two, the alternative of doing nothing or; a third alternative, which is the only real alternative. In the case of a proposed fuel reduction project in the Northwest, someone could propose taking no action because we do not have to do that hazardous fuel reduction, and then someone else says, maybe here is an alternative.

Well, my concern is that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If only 6 percent of these cases really have not had the categorical exemption of not having to go through an EIS and only three percent are ending up in court, then the National Environmental Policy Act is not the cause of the holdup.

Washington State has been the subject of many forest fires and many tragedies, most recently the tragic Thirty-mile fire in 2001. Much of eastern Washington is under condition class 2 and condition class 3, and, therefore, could be subject to this bill. My concern is that if a city wants to propose an alternative, it might be precluded from offering an alternative that would address concerns over the impact of the hazardous fuels reduction project on water quality.

So I would say to my colleagues, let us fund the hazardous fuels reduction account. Let us move forward to promote healthier forests. If we truly see that the National Environmental Policy Act delays project, even though only 3 percent of hazardous fuels projects have ever reached court, then let us come back and change the law.

I am truly concerned with the proposed change to the National Environmental Policy Act. What will stop other legislative proposals from coming to the Senate floor to change the National Environmental Policy Act in other areas? Are Members who are going to support this underlying language ready to stop at hazardous fuel reduction, or do they want to change NEPA all across the board?

For example, say one's community has to consider a proposal to build a new gas pipeline. Pipeline safety has been an issue of great controversy in the State of Washington, which had a pipeline explosion several years ago that killed several people. What if only one alternative was considered for the route of a gas pipeline going through one's State? I want to make sure the current law says reasonable alternatives are considered so that no community, no citizen, no organization with standing is left out in the cold.

That is what Henry M. Jackson was thinking about when he wrote the National Environmental Protection Act. He thought about making sure the public had a chance to participate in the process. He wanted to make sure they had the ability to have the issues that they wanted to be addressed and considered.

The Forest Roads Working Group, an organization that has operated with the blessing of the Bush Administration, along with other organizations, has raised similar concerns. These organizations have expressed their support for the public to have a say and to retain the ability to participate in the decision-making process.

I know my colleagues want to move forward on a plan that will make all communities more secure, that will make our forests more healthy. I applaud them for that, but I also hope Members will stop and think about the statistics that GAO has outlined. This dispute is not fundamentally about the EIS process and the number of alternatives. The Forest Service has the ability to proceed via categorical exemptions. It can develop an EIS when it needs to analyze complex proposals. If we start changing NEPA with respect to hazardous fuels projects, where are we going to stop?

I urge my colleagues not to change legislation that has been one of the landmark pieces of environmental law that this body saw fit to pass in 1969, but rather to keep that legislation intact and fund hazardous fuel reductions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senators Cochran and Harkin, for including in the managers' package an amendment I filed on the issue of wildland firefighter safety. My heart goes out to my colleagues from California and the people they represent. In Washington, we are well acquainted with catastrophic wildfires and the threat they pose to local communities. Our thoughts are with the people of California, as well as with the families of the firefighters on the job--including crews from my State who are on their way south to join in the effort.

The men and women who fight fires on our public lands serve our Nation bravely. Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost their lives in the line of duty. Before the California fires, I believe the toll was 26 individuals this year alone.

And this morning, we were faced with the news of the first firefighter death

from the California blazes--an 11-year veteran named Steven Rucker, who perished while trying to save a home. He leaves behind a wife and two children.

As I have read the press accounts and listened to the stories my colleagues have told about the loss of life in California over these past few days, I cannot help but recall a recent tragedy in my State of Washington. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the midst of the second worst drought in the history of our State, the Thirtymile Fire burned out of control. Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21.

Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own report on the Thirtymile Fire, the tragedy ``could have been prevented.'' We know that firefighting is a dangerous job. But despite its inherent danger, we have a responsibility to ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile Fire ever happens again.

I would like to thank my colleague Senator Bingaman, the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as Senator Wyden, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. In the wake of the Thirtymile Fire, they agreed to convene hearings on precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from the grief-stricken families. In particular, the powerful testimony of Ken Weaver--the father of one of the lost firefighters-- put into focus precisely what's at stake when we send these men and women into harm's way. I can think of no worse tragedy for a parent than confronting the loss of a child, especially when that loss could have been prevented by better practices on the part of Federal agencies.

At the Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that lead to unnecessary fatalities.

Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to the agency's training and safety protocols, and even based on what I have heard when I have visited with firefighters over the past two years, I do believe the courage of those families to stand up and demand change has had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who today are battling blazes as wildland firefighters. Yet, I believe there is more that Congress can do to express our commitment. Today I offer a modest amendment that will take a few more steps in that direction.

My amendment does three simple things.

First, it will require the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds the agencies expend for firefighter safety and training.

Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role-- ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency, and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time-- without a separate break-down of these monies.

Second, it will require the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and training programs. I assure my colleagues who have not spent time dwelling on this issue, that the maze of policy statements, management directives and curricula changes associated with Federal firefighter training is dizzying and complicated.

The agencies have a responsibility to continually revise their policies in the face of new science and lessons learned on the fire line. Meanwhile, this body has the responsibility to ensure needed reforms are implemented. As such, I believe that Congress and the agencies alike would benefit from an annual check-in on these programs. I would also hope that this would serve as a vehicle for an ongoing and healthy dialogue between the Senate and agencies on these issues.

Third, it would stipulate that Federal contracts with private firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of Federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to monitor compliance with this requirement. This is important not just for the private contractor employees' themselves but for the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the fire line.

This is actually quite a complex issue about which many of us are just beginning to learn. With the severity of fire seasons throughout the country over the past 2 years--and notwithstanding the Clinton administration's efforts to hire a significant number of new firefighters as part of the National Fire Plan--the number of private contract crews hired by the agencies to help with fire suppression has tripled since 1998. According to Oregon Department of Forestry estimates, the number of contract crews at work has grown from 88 to 1998 to 300 this year, with 95 percent based in the Pacific Northwest. In general, these contract crews have grown up in former timber communities and provide important jobs, especially given the fact the agencies themselves do not at this juncture have the resources to fight the fires entirely on their own. And many of these contractors have been in operation for a decade or more and boast stellar safety records.

Nevertheless, as the number of--and need for--contractors has grown, there are more and more tales of unscrupulous employers that take advantage of workers and skirt training and safety requirements. This is a growing concern for U.S. Forest Service employees and state officials. This summer, the Seattle Times wrote a detailed feature on the issue, quoting internal Forest Service memos as well as evidence from the field.

Among the contractor practices cited in the article: Breaking safety rules and failing to warn other crews on the fire line; falsifying or forging firefighting credentials and ignoring training requirements; hiring illegal immigrants that cannot understand fire line commands-- and committing various labor abuses; and rotating a single crew from fire to fire for 50 straight days--while Federal firefighters are not allowed to work more than 14 or 21 days in a row.

The article quoted from a November 2002 memo written by Joseph Ferguson, a deputy incident commander for the Forest Service: ``If we don't improve the quality and accountability of this program, we are going to kill a bunch of firefighters . . . Although there were two or three good to excellent crews on each fire, that was offset by 20 to 30 that were hardly worth having,'' Ferguson added. ``It was apparent that training for most of these crews had been done poorly or not at all.''

Paul Broyles, who heads a safety committee for the National Interagency Fire Center added that private crews he has seen have varied from ``fantastic to a he[ck] of a lot less than good and some were real safety concerns.'' He noted that while state government and feds were trying to crack down on violations associated with documentation, ``the assumption is, where there's one problem, there's probably more.''

This provision is a modest beginning in addressing the challenges posed by integrating private and Federal contract crews--and doing it in a manner that maximizes everyone's safety on the fire line. I understand that the Federal and State agencies are already attempting to push contractors in this direction, and this provision will bolster that momentum.

I had also hoped to include in this amendment a provision that would direct the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of the impacts of the President's outscourcing initiative on wildland firefighter safety. Unfortunately, that provision was opposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Now, let me be clear. I oppose the Bush administration's outsourcing initiative. And if I had my way, I would simply declare that this initiative would not apply to the firefighting agencies. However, at the very least, I hope my colleagues will agree that we should take a close look at how outsourcing will affect the ability of

our Federal agencies to do their job when it comes to fighting wildfires and their ability to do it safely.

According to the Forest Service Council, which represents 20,000 Forest Service employees across the Nation, some 40 percent of these workers serve dual functions.

Likened to the Reserve or National Guard, they call it the ``militia'' approach--where qualified employees that perform other jobs for much of the year are dispatched as ``first responders'' on wildland fires.

From a military perspective in Iraq, we have seen the importance of the National Guard and Reserve in supporting our military efforts. No one here in Congress would contemplate outsourcing the Guard and Reserve.

I hope my colleagues would recognize that it is completely unclear how the outsourcing initiative, with its emphasis on contracting out certain types of jobs, would impact the need for Forest Service employees to perform these collateral duties. I am concerned that the outsourcing initiative will seriously erode the agencies' capacity to fight fires--just as the sponsors of this bill argue these fires are becoming most intense.

Likewise, I have serious concerns that it will disrupt the chain of command on the fire line, especially in instances in which the Forest Service could lose some of its most experienced firefighters as a result of outsourcing. These are my concerns.

While I understand that there were objections on the other side of the aisle to including the GAO study provision--and we have thus removed it from this amendment, to move forward on the other important provisions--I guess we are lucky that such a study does not actually require legislation. I plan to work with a number of my colleagues to request just such a report form the GAO, because I believe it is important we thoroughly understand the way outsourcing would impact Federal agencies' ability to fight fires and fight them safely.

And so I hope my colleagues will support this simple amendment. Ultimately, the safety of our Federal firefighters is a critical component of how well prepared our agencies are to deal with the threat of catastrophic wildfire.

Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we send into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training programs.

We owe it to our Federal wildland firefighters, their families and their State partners, and to future wildland firefighters.

My amendment will provide this body with the additional tools it needs to do the job. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment.

administrative review process

Mr. President, this is an important piece of legislation that has been in the process all year now. As we know, the aviation industry has had its difficulties since the events of 9/11 and the Iraq war. Aviation across the board has struggled to comply with additional security requirements and to become economically viable again. A lot of changes are happening in the industry.

But Congress certainly has not been insensitive to the needs of this industry. We passed legislation to be of assistance in, I guess, 6 weeks after the 9/11 events, and then earlier this year additional assistance was provided to the airline industry as a result of losses they were experiencing and expected to experience as a result of the war in Iraq.

But they need the broader long-term Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. I consider this legislation to be the third leg of the stool to give the aviation industry, as a whole, an opportunity to get up and running, to provide service to the American people, and to, frankly, see blue skies again. That is why this legislation is very important.

If we do not extend this FAA reauthorization, there are certain parts of the program that will either be deferred or will have to shut down. So it is not insignificant that we are up against the wall in terms of extending the Federal Aviation Administration legislation.

I emphasize, too, that this is not just about the agency. This is about an important part of our economy. We are very mobile in America. Transportation is such an important part of our economy. Americans are flying all over the country, as we speak, on airlines and in general aviation. They are in our airports. It is an important part of our economy. It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, when it is allowed to function as it should. So we need to get this legislation passed.

It is, in my opinion, about safety in the aviation industry at our airports, in general aviation, with the airlines. We need to make sure the money is there for the aviation program, for the security that needs to be put in place on the airplanes, in the airports, on the perimeters. This is very important legislation. It is part of our overall homeland security program.

I remind my colleagues that H.R. 2115, the FAA reauthorization bill, is a 4-year $60 billion bill. This is a huge piece of legislation. We need to get it done.

I would like to point out to my colleagues some of the impacts we see as a result of this industry and what it means. First, aviation generates more than $900 billion in GDP every year. Over the life of this bill, the legislation is expected to create approximately 665,000 jobs; $14.2 billion in airport grant funding would create these 665,000 jobs. There would be 162,000 jobs in 2004 alone; $14.2 billion will be used for security, safety, and capacity projects at airports; $13.3 billion would be to modernize the air traffic control system, and $500 million for the Essential Air Service program.

This is an important piece of legislation. A lot of money is involved. It is not just about the big airports; this is about the smaller airports. We do have good programs included here, including the Essential Air Service, and also a program that allows communities to be involved and participate with some funding of their own.

We have had an experimental program in place now for the last couple years. This would extend that small community Essential Air Service program. A number of communities around the country are very much interested in having that opportunity.

It also provides new opportunities for flights out of Reagan National Airport, 8 new flights inside and 12 new flights outside the perimeter. So this is very important legislation in terms of the airports.

For the first time we actually make sure the regional airlines get some assistance. When we passed the big legislation back in 2001, the regional airlines were sort of left out. So we would get that done.

It provides for cost-effective programs that could save the taxpayers

$173 million per year. It has a huge impact on States all over the country. I would like to show a chart to give you some idea of the amount of money and the amount of jobs that would be affected by this legislation. I have the list here. It is too small probably for most of you to see, but I will just pick a couple of them: Alaska, $522 million, 24,000-plus jobs.

I see the Senator from Georgia, a very important terminal in Atlanta, one of the most important in the country, $162.6 million; 7,722 jobs; a smaller State, North Dakota, $59.2 million, 2,814 jobs.

The list is here. If you want to see how your State would be affected with dollars and jobs, we have the information for you.

The question would be, Why has this taken so long? We passed it back in May in the Senate. It passed the House. We went to conference. We worked out an agreement on good legislation. But it did include some language that became controversial. It did say there would not be privatization of the air traffic control system, but it identified 69 sites in medium and small communities where contract hours could be considered or could be actually put into place. So there was a criticism about that.

After trying to work it out in a variety of ways, we went back to conference and took that language out. So we basically went back to the status quo. We don't say there won't be privatization of the air traffic control system, and there won't be. We didn't say that, well, these 69 contract areas might be considered for contract hours. We took both of those out, thinking, well, we are ready to go now.

Strangely enough, that was not acceptable, either. So we have been working in a bipartisan way to try to come up with some solution that would satisfy both parties, all parties, and how this could be handled.

Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Dorgan, and I sent a letter to the FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey, last week saying we thought it would be appropriate to have a 1-year moratorium on any effort of privatization. We have been working with the administration on that issue since that time.

The administration, I believe, is willing to make a commitment to not go forward for 1 year, for a moratorium, while GAO does a study of the impact of privatization, and also so the Commerce Committee, chaired by the Senator from Arizona, can have hearings on that matter. But they want to be able to go forward with those things that are already underway.

The net result for the air traffic controllers and for other unions within the FAA would be a 1-year moratorium. However, where there is an ongoing A-76 study, that would not be stopped. Now I am being told maybe even that is not enough. I ask, how much is enough?

This is very important legislation that affects the economy of the country and this industry. Are we going to let 1 or 2 groups decide we will not have this $60 billion bill unless they get some guarantee on something that is not going to happen, anyway? I don't believe that is reasonable. I think we need to go forward and have this vote. Let the American people see who wants to be of assistance to aviation, who really wants to have safety in the skies.

Let me say to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, be careful how you vote because this legislation provides funds for security at airports. It changes who pays for the security costs and where that money would go. The AIP, airport improvement program, which was used for $500 million in security costs over the last couple of years would not continue to be used for that purpose. It would go back to being used for what it was originally intended--improvements at terminals, runways, and aprons, but there would be a dedicated line of money that would go to security. If you vote against this legislation, and it continues to drag out indefinitely, and we don't get these security funds to the proper place they are supposed to go-- particularly the airports--if we have another instance at an airport, or with the airline industry, I would not want to be on record voting against this very important legislation that has been developed over a long period of time, in a bipartisan way.

Yes.

Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee he has put his finger right on the heart of the problem. There are funds that would not go out for security and airport improvement if we don't pass this legislation. The alternative would just be to extend the current law for, I don't know, 6 months. The Senator is right that in that case the status quo is in place. As a matter of fact, any privatization efforts that might be underway or they want to do in that period could go forward. We had worked it out where we had language both in the conference report and in a letter that would say there would not be privatization of the air traffic control system.

Finally, even other parts of the FAA would get a 1-year moratorium. This is the classic example of where my colleagues in the Senate-- Democrats--seem to be hopelessly pursuing where the last rose lingers. We have a whole bouquet in this bill. It is good for the American people. It is going to be good for the industry and it will create jobs. We are looking for this one last thorny rose we can claim and say, well, we got it done. I note the House has already passed this legislation and we are, I assume, sometime in the next month going to complete our session of this year. We need to get this done. It would be very positive for the industry and for the Congress for us to go ahead and complete this action.

The Senator is absolutely right. The alternative, if we don't pass this legislation, is the status quo, which would allow the administration to do whatever they please in terms of privatization under legislation Congress has previously passed.

I will make one other note. On this idea of contract towers, there are mixed emotions on both sides of the aisle. It is not a Republican or Democrat thing. But there have been hundreds of these contractors put into place. Usually, they are supported by local congressmen and senators--and, by the way, it is an idea that really exploded and was used extensively during the Clinton administration. I am not being critical. In many cases, it makes common sense. In many communities, if you don't have the contract towers, you would not have anything.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why we haven't been able to bring this to conclusion. I think it is time to vote and see who is for getting this legislation done and who wants to preserve the status quo, I guess, or have nothing, which would hold up funds to the tune of billions for security and improvements at our airports.

Since the chairman is here, and I know Senator Lautenberg is waiting

to speak, I will reserve the remainder of my time. We will claim more time after Senator Lautenberg has had a chance to speak.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on the time of the Senator, I am glad to respond.

I will give the Senator a direct answer. Senator Stevens indicated that is what he wanted. I understand there are extenuating circumstances with those two areas in Alaska. That varies from State to State. In some States, they want contract towers for a particular site, and in others not. I agree with the Senator on that. I think we should not have excluded them.

Mr. President, for the sake of a flow back and forth, I yield 5 minutes of our remaining time to the chairman of the full committee.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, before he leaves the Chamber, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his work on the Commerce Committee, and specifically for his work and his cooperation on the development of this legislation, both at the subcommittee and full committee level and here in the Chamber of the Senate, and also for the tone of his remarks. He wants to get this done and that is the attitude we should all have. In fact, that has been my goal. I am trying to find a way we can get a bill completed that has $60 billion in it, billions of dollars for security for our airports and for the airline industry as a whole and that the President will sign.

Is this about trying to win the point--the congressional position will prevail and the President's position will prevail? How about finding a position we can both live with? That is, fortunately or unfortunately, how it works sometimes in a legislative body. That has always been my attitude. I am not interested in making statements. We came here to get things done. We need to get this legislation completed. That is why we have been working feverishly to try to come to a conclusion.

With regard to contract towers, we have one in Tupelo, MS. It works fine.

I believe the record will show that the Senator from New Jersey has over the years supported the concept of contract towers. As a matter of fact, when he was chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, in 1994, the number of contract towers grew from 14 in 1987 to 59 at the end of 1994--an increase of 300 percent while he was subcommittee chairman.

I repeat again something I said: This is not a Republican idea. I am not even sure it is a Democrat idea. But it is an idea that was used effectively during Democratic administrations and Republican administrations.

The 1994 Senate report says:

In light of the recent recommendations in the ``Report of

the National Performance Review'' which calls for converting

level I control towers to contract operations, the Committee

has provided an additional $1 million above the amount

requested for this program.

That was in the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee report in 1994.

Here is the most important language from the subcommittee chairman, Senator Lautenberg.

The Committee believes this public/private sector program

(contract towers) has provided significant safety and

economic benefits to smaller communities at a reduced cost to

the Federal Government since its inception in 1982. The

Committee urges FAA to expand the programs where appropriate.

Now, all of a sudden, contract towers are something really heinous. What is the difference in 1994 and 2003? We have done a lot more--I think over 200 of them. I think most of them work just fine.

I do not know. We are doing a little revisionist history here.

I emphasize this: There is no language in this conference report that would identify contract towers for Alaska, in or out. We took that out. It is not here.

We also had language in the conference report that said we would not have privatization of the air traffic control system.

Declare victory? Oh, no. That was a problem because it didn't apply to all parts and all unions involved in FAA.

That is what this is really all about. It is about making sure that every one of the unions that are involved in the Federal Aviation Administration are excluded.

Again, we are, I guess, looking for the perfect here. All the talk is about air traffic controllers, but as a matter of fact, it involves the Federal Flight Weather Service people, it involves maintenance, it involves everybody.

We can't have privatization of any part of the FAA, would be the attitude of some. I just do not understand that language here.

So it is very important that we realize what is actually in this conference

report and what is not. My guess is, Can you accept victory? Can you accept victory? The administration has said they will put it in writing; they would have supported it in legislation; no privatization of air traffic control systems.

I ask the Senator from New Jersey. He addressed a question to me. I address a question to the Senator from New Jersey. Will he accept a commitment of a 1-year moratorium of no privatization of the air traffic controllers?

That is my point.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

On my time, I ask the Senator from Mississippi just one question, if the Senator is available. I want to put a question to him.

Can the Senator tell me why Congressman Young from Alaska fought so hard to take two of his airports off of the privatization possibility?

Take a short minute, if you will.

Mr. President, it is apparent the Congressman from Alaska wants to make sure his people are safe when they are in and out of that airport. He doesn't want to be privatized, and neither do I, or most of the people in the Chamber.

I have great respect for the Senator from Mississippi. He and I will agree on lots of things. When we don't, they are usually deep disagreements. We all want the system to function. The Senator from Arizona certainly understands aviation and how the system operates, but he said something in his remarks that really struck me. No matter what happens, this program is going to get funded. It is going to get funded regardless of the action we take tonight. Why it is that the President of the United States and his people decided to delay implementation of this reauthorization, I will never know. This is kind of like a Custer's last stand: We are going to teach you Democrats something.

Don't teach us; teach the American people how you care about them, about their safety. Why, suddenly, are we so concerned about going commercial? We took roughly 28,000 baggage handlers and said, you know what. The private sector can't handle them. They mess up all the inspections. They are terrible. We have to get them in Government hands where we know things can be properly operated. But when it comes to the FAA, the people who responded so heroically when the tragedy of 9/11 struck our country, no, then we want to put security on the cheap. We want them to be operated by Acme Air, or whoever else it is.

The aviation industry has had a lot of difficulty. Much of that is because our country had an overwhelming tragedy strike us on 9/11, and so our citizens were afraid to travel. They were afraid to get up in an airplane. Now they don't have to worry so much, except for shoulder- guided missile launchers and except for terrorists constantly trying to break through. And now, to make life easier, we are going to take the FAA, the most well-trained group in the country, people who are on the job 24/7, constantly, they are always there when we need them, regardless of weather, regardless of what else happens--when those airplanes struck the Trade Towers, we are now talking about my neighborhood.

I saw the Trade Towers from my apartment house. I didn't see them that day because I happened not to be there, but I notice their absence. It is very clear. The people in the tower at Newark--I know those guys and the ladies. I know them well. I have been up in that tower many times. I used to be commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. I know what goes on in towers. I know we used to gauge rainfall with a pail outside. It wasn't that long ago. The fact is, they could see the buildings burning, and when the order came to take safer action, they did.

We are going to soon be voting cloture on the FAA conference report, and it would have passed except for the fact there was an insert put in after neither House had a Democrat in the conference--neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives, neither had a Democrat in the conference. Nevertheless, we are now suddenly delivered a program that includes a recommendation from the White House, which neither body acted upon, and when we voted overwhelmingly to preserve the no- privatization view.

On June 24, 2002, just in the aftermath of 9/11, the President signed an Executive order. So this issue has been in the works for some time. We don't have to talk about who is delaying the movement of the reauthorization bill. There it is. June 4, 2002: Section 1 of this Executive order:

The first sentence of that order is amended by deleting ``

. . . an inherently governmental function.''

That is what the President of the United States said on June 4, 2002, not too many months after 9/11 took place.

We took up the FAA bill in June. The Senate spoke loudly and clearly: No privatization. The House also spoke loudly: No privatization. But in the conference, the prohibitions disappeared. Conference leaders simply dropped all the language dealing with privatization.

Why did the Members of the conference, sitting behind closed doors, ignore the mandates for safety and security of our aviation system? If you ask them, they say the White House said we had to; so the order. Both Houses of Congress were clear. Both Houses spoke on the issue. Both Houses said no privatization of air traffic controllers. But in the conference, that commitment disappears. Why? Apparently in this Congress, we pass bills in both Houses, and then the White House writes the conference report.

It is presented graphically on this chart. House bill: No privatization. Senate bill: No privatization of air traffic controllers. White House position: Silence on privatization. Conference bill: Silence on privatization. That is a coverup. What that means is they can go ahead and do it any time they want to.

In this Congress, if the House and Senate agree on something and you throw it out and allow the White House to write whatever they want, we don't usually respond favorably to that happening. The stakes are high because the safety and security of our families, our friends, and our neighbors are at stake. The clearest evidence of this is how our air traffic control system performed on September 11, 2001.

The first airplane struck one of the Trade Towers at 8:45 a.m. This chart shows what the skies looked like at that time. The little light green areas represent airplanes. You can barely see the ground. This was 1 hour, and it was even more crowded than that. The order came out to get the airplanes out of the sky, get them on the ground, get people safely to someplace where they could call their families and let them know what was happening.

One hour later, 5,000 airplanes were taken out of the sky, directed to land at destinations that were not originally planned, and the picture looks like this chart. It is a lot safer. If my family was flying, I would have been very happy to hear they landed someplace, whether it was in Wyoming or Arizona--anyplace else besides New Jersey. I would have just been happy to know they were on the ground.

My State suffered major losses. Almost 700 people--691, to be exact-- from New Jersey lost their lives that day in the World Trade Center attack. We are very sensitive to safety. We know this hits home. This is no academic exercise for us. We know there are families tortured by the loss of a father or mother or brother or sister. My oldest daughter lost her best friend in that World Trade Center. They worked together at one financial firm. My daughter went to law school, and this lady went to a place called Kantor Fitzgerald. They lost 700 of their 1,000 employees.

These acts of terror utilizing our aviation system introduced a new era of fear for the U.S. travelers.

September 11 also highlighted the heroic act of many public employees who did their jobs, as they do every day, with skill, courage, and professionalism. Emergency responders, rescuers, firefighters, police officers, and other government employees aided people out of the burning buildings. We heard of a historic incident where a couple of policemen and firemen went into the buildings knowing very well their lives were at stake. Unfortunately, they were right; their lives were at stake, but they tried to save others.

As our aviation system was both under attack and being used as a means of attack, it was the air traffic controllers who protected the tens of thousands of Americans aboard aircraft at that time. The snapshots we have seen tell us the picture quite precisely. Within an hour of the time that the flights were ordered to the ground, the Nation's air traffic controllers made unbelievable progress. We saw that in the chart. Within an hour, numbers of those planes--huge numbers--were successfully grounded.

I repeat, almost 5,000 aircraft were guided safely to the ground in a matter of hours, a tremendous feat. All parts of the system worked well, worked together, and worked safely to bring home those traveling by plane that day. This included roughly 15,000 air controllers, 6,000 technicians, and 2,800 flight service station employees.

These people acted bravely and professionally. So why does President Bush want to honor these heroes of 9/11 by firing them? I do not get that at all. The administration plans to privatize our air traffic control system.

I heard the distinguished Senator from Mississippi say there are no plans, no, but just take away the safeguards and anything one wants can be done. This conference report allows them to do exactly that. It is a bad idea, truly disrespectful to the thousands of September 11 heroes and disrespectful to all of those who worry about air travel when they read about shoulder-fired weapons and even worse.

It is no coincidence that this important section of the FAA bill was omitted without any Democratic input or debate. The American people do not want safety and security on the cheap. They want air traffic control to remain essentially a Government safety function, as it was before President Bush signed that Executive order in 2002. That is why the Senate voted on June 12 of this year--I remind my colleagues who are in the Chamber, talking about who should vote for what--I want everybody in this Chamber to feel like they can look in the mirror and answer the question: What was the best thing I did for the safety and the safeguarding of our airplanes and our passengers? That is to make sure this system stays intact.

The Senate voted on June 12, a vote of 56 to 41--we do not have 56 on this side--to ban this privatization. I remind my colleagues that safety and security are not partisan issues. Eleven of my Republican colleagues voted for safety and security. This conference report on the FAA is not the first conference report produced on this bill. Conferees produced an original conference report that was downright strange.

How much time do we have remaining on our side?

For starters, it exempted the State of Alaska. Of course, that has something to do with the fact the chairman of the House Transportation Committee is from Alaska. He did not want his airports privatized. He was very specific.

He said: Of course, the criticism of myself is that I exempted the State of Alaska, and here is the reason for that. One, he describes Juneau Field itself to be going under Capstone next year so it would not be eligible to be contracted out. The Merrill Field is a real complex issue. He winds up saying that the airplanes take off right toward my hotel room every morning. I look out and there is one coming right at me. It is an interesting experience and I want to make sure everything is done right in that field.

He does not want Acme air controllers to be there perhaps in the middle of a labor dispute or something like that. He wants to know that the tried and trusted hand of the FAA as it is presently composed continues. If he thinks that exempting Alaska is a good idea, let the other States have an exemption, too. The other 49 should just as well be exempt.

If the Chair would let me know when we have 10 minutes, I would like to turn that time over to the Senator from West Virginia.

Privatizing the air traffic control system is a bad idea for many reasons. We should heed the lessons of other countries that tried this already: Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. All of these attempts resulted in failures.

We should heed the lessons of the blackouts we experienced in the Northeast this summer that shut down six major airports. Our air traffic control system guided stranded flights safely to the ground.

I do not think it can be any clearer that air traffic control is a vital Government safety and security function.

I sense my colleague from West Virginia would like to use his 10 minutes now.

I yield the time with unanimous consent that I regain it and turn it over to my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I am sorry, but there was a unanimous consent that was agreed to that the time would be turned back, and I just want to make sure we divide it up properly. So I would like to be able to recover the time and then just make a decision to hear our chairman of the subcommittee. How much time is remaining on our side?

I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

If the Senator from Mississippi would read that infamous letter we are talking about, it says no actual privatization will take place.

My goodness, we couldn't privatize it within a year if we started today. That letter doesn't say what it is purported to say.

Unfortunately, certain Senate conferees to the FAA bill decided to remove all barriers to privatizing our national air traffic control system. But both the Senate and the House voted to put these barriers in the bill as a response to President Bush's actions, including the issuance of an Executive order, to move towards privatizing air traffic control. And the President feels so strongly about privatizing that he has forced conference leaders not to take any actions in the bill. And this is not agreeable to those of us concerned about the safety impacts of the President's plan. To my dismay, this ideological crusade by the White House has held up passage of the legislation for over 3 months, and I am disappointed that some of my colleagues are willing to sacrifice safety for this zeal to privatize.

Between 1994 and 2000, the FAA did contract out 130 small FAA towers. These were ``level I towers''--generally with less than 25 operations per hour and operating under ``visual flight rules''--that is, without radar equipment. I also note that the current list of 219 towers constitutes a small fraction of overall air traffic in the United States. While exploring ways to modernize air traffic control equipment for the entire national system, the Clinton administration proposed a Federal corporation to take over air traffic operations. While I initially was willing to consider this proposal, it was rapidly determined to be a poor idea, and the President eventually made the determination that air traffic control is an inherently governmental function. So during reauthorization of the FAA bill in 1996 and 2000, we agreed to FAA management reforms, to give FAA the flexibility it needs to act as a better manager, not privatization. In the end, the President and the Congress agreed that air traffic control is an inherently governmental function, and recognized that it was not wise to pursue privatization. Unfortunately, the Bush administration reversed the Clinton administration's executive order last year, reclassifying air traffic control functions so that privatization could proceed. And this was after September 11. In summary, the Clinton administration did not support privatization, while the Bush administration does support privatization.

I say to Senator Reid, this may be hard to believe, but the Bush administration issued their Executive order after September 11. I find that especially troubling in light of the incredible and even heroic performance by the Federal employees of our Nation's air traffic control system on September 11. The security of the Nation's airlines became so important that we felt the need to federalize baggage screening. But somehow, this administration still wants to privatize the air traffic control system.