Floor Statements

Mr. President, I plan to vote against cloture on the nomination of Judge Southwick, and, if cloture is invoked, against the nomination itself.

The Fifth Circuit serves one of the most racially diverse regions in the country. It is especially important, therefore, that a nominee to this court possess an unshakable commitment to equal justice and a willingness to protect the rights of all. Unfortunately, President Bush has chosen a nominee who does not pass this simple test.

During his tenure with the Mississippi State court, Judge Southwick joined a ruling that reinstated a State employee who used a very charged racial slur about another worker. That decision was unanimously reversed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. In another case, Judge Southwick joined in an opinion that took into consideration the sexual orientation of a mother rather than her love for her child when deciding to deny her custody. On other occasions, he voted against the concept of ``a jury of our peers.''

I am deeply disappointed that President Bush has once again attempted to fill the Fifth Circuit vacancy with a nominee holding views far to the right of most Americans, and I do not support the nomination of Judge Southwick to the Fifth Circuit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I plan to vote in support of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007, better known as the DREAM Act.

The thousands of talented and hard working children and young adults who were brought to this country by their parents had nothing to do with the decision to disobey our laws.

I strongly believe this bill will strengthen our communities, our economy, and our military by requiring that undocumented students demonstrate good moral character, prove completion of a college or graduate degree, or serve in the U.S. military for 2 years in order to earn legalized status.

I urge my colleagues to support the DREAM Act.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin and my colleagues. Many of them have come up to Senator Feinstein and myself tonight and have expressed their concern about the fires that are raging out of control in our State, home to 37 million people, very dangerous fires, kind of a perfect storm of extremely high temperatures, very low humidity, and Santa Ana winds which gust up to hurricane-type winds, sometimes as high as 50, 60 miles an hour, with the average about 35 miles an hour.

Senator Feinstein and I have heavy hearts as we talk with our Governor and our mayors. They are conveying to us that this is very serious because our firefighters are at a huge disadvantage because of the unpredictability of the winds. We don't know from one moment to the next whether the fires will turn on these firefighters. Last year was a very tough year for us in California. We had some horrific experiences, and we lost firefighters. We are not going to repeat that situation. We have to make sure we save lives, that we get people out of their homes. At this point, I can say people appear to be cooperating with the authorities. The most important point is we care about each other and we save lives.

There are now more than a dozen wildfires burning, again, all being fanned by these hot Santa Ana winds, raging from as far south as the Mexican border to as far north as Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Governor Schwarzenegger has declared a state of emergency in seven counties--Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. More than 250,000 people are evacuated in San Diego County alone, where blazes have torched more than 100,000 acres. Senator Feinstein and I spoke with Mayor Sanders today, and he told us that one condominium complex has burned with 400 units.

Mayor Sanders warns we have tough times ahead. There are walls of flames 100 to 200 feet high. There are fires popping up everywhere, with eight separate fires burning in that region. More than a dozen people are being treated at the UC San Diego Medical Center Regional Burn Center for smoke inhalation and burns, including four firefighters who are seriously injured. One individual we know of has lost his life in San Diego.

Our firefighters deserve our prayers, our help, and our thoughts, as do all the people in the southern California region. We have to remember that they go out there and do everything they are trained to do, and the last thing they think about is themselves. Yet and still, we have been trying for years to pass the Healthy Firefighters Act to follow these firefighters who work in these horrific situations, and some of them have absolutely no health insurance. We are trying to protect them and follow them so we can make sure that in future years, they are not plagued from the smoke inhalation.

I wish to show a picture. I hope my colleagues will take a look at it. San Diego, this is one photo. We can see, if we look closely, the firefighters. From where they are getting any oxygen is hard to know. They are literally in the fires of hell right there.

Then in Santa Clarita, more than 25,000 acres have burned and approximately 800 homes have been evacuated. I will show another picture. We can see the fire in the hills threatening the homes. Eight hundred homes have been evacuated in this region.

Most of my colleagues have seen the reports of Malibu. More than 2,400 acres have burned. We can get a sense of what is happening there. This is a photo of a beach. This is the water, the Pacific Ocean. You cannot see in front of you the fires, the smoke, the wind blowing the sand. I was in southern California. I left this morning, and yesterday I was out in the Santa Anas.

To give my colleagues a sense of what it is like, the winds are so strong in the desert areas and in the beach areas that you can taste the grit of the sand in your mouth and feel it in your eyes and certainly in your lungs.

In Malibu, more than 2,400 acres burned. Several homes and structures have been destroyed, including the Malibu Presbyterian Church. My understanding is the church was able to remove computers and some other items they desperately needed, but that building is gone. The Pacific Coast Highway remains closed, and the evacuations continue as we speak.

Again, thousands of our brave firefighters are frantically working in conjunction with the California department of forestry and the U.S. Forest Service, the California Highway Patrol, the U.S. Border Patrol, and FEMA to contain these fires. I thank all the dedicated Federal workforce who have joined in this effort. They deserve our prayers and support as well.

People are escaping with only the clothes on their backs. Families have no time to gather anything as they flee from the inferno that engulfs everything it touches.

This is only the most recent information. As I speak, these fires rage on. The Governor says they don't expect a diminution of these Santa Ana winds until at best tomorrow afternoon, maybe Wednesday. We pray these winds stop their fierce blowing.

We need to make sure our communities have the resources they need now. California cannot fight this battle alone. I mentioned the agencies that are out there already helping. I know the equipment is being given as we speak.

The Governor has declared a disaster in seven counties, and as soon as he asks the President for a Federal declaration, I know President Bush will act swiftly. There are certain areas where we have to work together where there cannot be an inch of distance between us.

As I stand here, I look over at my friend, Senator Landrieu, and I see the compassion in her face because she is still working night and day, 24/7 to make sure her State is whole again. I, again, pledge to her--she knows I will be there with her every step of the way.

So these are the times when we in this Senate have to cross over party lines, and we do, to make sure we make life livable for people who have lost, in some cases, everything--everything material. Again, I want to say the most important point is we save lives.

I ask for an additional 1 minute, please.

Mr. President, this isn't just a fight to contain wildfires. This is a fight to save lives. This is a fight to save schools and homes and businesses. Again, I thank all the firefighters, the local officials, the volunteers, my own staff who is out there working. I thank the President and FEMA and all the Federal workers.

Right now we must contain these fires. Right now we must save lives. Right now we must provide shelter and hope for those displaced.

I again thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have come up to me or have come up to Senator Feinstein and said to us: Please let us know what we can do. We will be calling on our colleagues. We know they care very much about the 37 million people of my State, and a large proportion of them in southern California being impacted by these fires.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever time remains for the Republicans be reserved until the Democrats have finished our time.

Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Louisiana have left, Mr. Vitter, and how much time do I have?

All right. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.

The Vitter amendment is ``big brother'' at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private funds. I wonder what the Senator has in mind next? Is he going to tell America's families what they can spend their private funds on? This is a dangerous amendment which will lead to more abortions.

The Senator takes to the floor and he attacks an a private organization by name--an organization that over many years has had leading Republicans and Democrats on its board of directors. I think it is a very sad day when we have an amendment such as this. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services.

If Senator Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. He should work to make women criminals who have abortions--throw everyone in jail. If he wants to go that way, that is an honest way. But to stand up here and say that a private organization that works so hard every day to give women the health care they need-- to punish them because they use their own funds to provide a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.

His amendment will do nothing to reduce abortions. It will make contraceptives harder to get, and that will increase the number of unintended pregnancies. It will increase the number of abortions, just as we have shown the global gag rule does. Make no mistake, he may not call it a gag rule, but in essence it is. When you tell a person or an organization how they can spend their own personal funds, that is interfering with their rights.

What is going to happen? We are going to have less funding for breast and pelvic examinations, breast and cervical cancer screening, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV/AIDS. We are going to see less counseling, less testing, and less referrals.

This amendment is an attack on title X-supported health clinics. Title X was enacted in 1970 with strong bipartisan support to provide high-quality, comprehensive, and low-cost family planning and reproductive health care services to those in need but who cannot afford such services. Let's be clear. No title X dollars may be used for abortion care. We are going to have a vote that makes it very clear that nothing in this bill allows Federal funds to be used for abortion. No discretionary funding in this bill can ever pay for abortion. That has been illegal for quite some time.

So again, the Vitter amendment punishes effective organizations that are working every day to provide a full range of legal, important health care to women. The consequence of passing this--which I don't think we will because it is so radical--are that women would have less access to reproductive health care. They would get sick. They would be suffering, and they wouldn't

get access to contraception, which is so necessary.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. President, I wish to point out that George Bush's grandparents founded the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Connecticut. I wish to point out again that the issue of choice is only divisive when we have amendments such as this one, even though we already know there isn't a penny of funding in this bill that can be used for abortion. So, this is punishing the people who are living by the law, who are using their own private funds, and who are using Federal funds for contraceptive services, for health care services, and the rest.

This amendment shouldn't even be on this bill. The reason it is controversial is because Senator Vitter decided to bring up this very divisive amendment, which I hope we will defeat.

I yield 3 minutes to Senator Murray.

I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, let me just say that Senator Murray said it all. This is an unnecessary amendment by Senator Vitter. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Reid amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Vitter amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, for me, today is one of the most important days in my career because, with the introduction of the Lieberman- Warner bill, today will be remembered, in my view, as the turning point in the fight against global warming. Let me explain why I make that very sweeping statement.

First, this bill represents a bipartisan breakthrough on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. When I took the gavel of the committee 9 months ago, I said that global warming was the challenge of our generation, a challenge that I believed our committee could meet with knowledge, with bipartisanship, and in pursuit of that knowledge we have held 18 global warming hearings and 2 scientific briefings this year in the Environment Committee.

At our very first hearing in January, we invited all Senators to come to the committee and share their perspectives. More than one-third of the Senate took part in that historic event. Since then, we have heard from more than 120 witnesses, ranging from utility executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, religious leaders, and Nobel Prize winners. Indeed, yes, we had Al Gore, we had members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we also heard from business community leaders who have formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. We heard from mayors, Governors, and leaders of both parties, from many different States, cities, and counties across America.

Then a wonderful thing happened: Senator John Warner, who is the ranking member on Senator Lieberman's Global Warming Subcommittee, decided it was time that he play a lead role in crafting a landmark environmental law which will take its place beside the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other great bipartisan environmental legislation.

Senator Warner, this decision of yours is giving heart and hope to literally not only the people of the United States of America but all the people who share our planet. I know in your beautiful State of Virginia how proud they are. We had a hearing with you and with Senators Mikulski and Cardin, and we heard about the impact of global warming already taking place on the Chesapeake. Your Governor was also there. So this is a great moment.

I cannot tell you how touched and moved I am that Senator Warner has joined Senator Lieberman. It is a wonderful moment in history. This, I believe.

We would never leave a child alone in a hot, locked car, and I believe the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will not leave this issue of global warming burning for another generation to address. It is our responsibility, and we must act.

Today, with the introduction of this bill, we are taking the first immensely important legislative step to meet the challenge of global warming with hope and not with fear and with approaches that are carefully thought out and some already successfully tried out, like a cap-and-trade system that has been so successful in addressing acid rain. Also in this bill, which I am very proud of, is a section on energy efficiency, which has been so effective in lowering per capita energy use, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions in my own home State of California.

For the past 50 years, the United States of America has been the world leader in environmental protection. Laws such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Superfund Act have achieved so much for our Nation and so much for our people. They have cleaned up our rivers and lakes, improved the quality of our air, and protected our drinking water supplies. Each of those laws--if you go back and study them--became a reality because Congress started on the path that, over time, would lead to enactment of strong legislation. The same is true for what we face today in global warming. We must start on the path to pass strong legislation.

I have been working very closely with Senators Warner and Lieberman as they have assembled their bill, as have many other colleagues. I praise my friends for including so many people, including the occupant of the chair, Senator Casey, who was quite involved in crafting the green jobs portion of the bill. I have been so impressed with the effort they have invested, seeking out the views not only of other Senators but outside groups and business leaders, environmentalists, everybody, pro and con, with whom they have met. They have put great work into this effort. I am proud of that.

In my own conversations with them, I have laid out some important principles that I believe must be reflected in legislation to address this challenge.

First, the most important thing is that any bill has to include real, mandatory cuts in global warming pollution. Any bill we pass must set the Nation on the path to achieving the emissions reductions that will avoid dangerous climate change. Under the Lieberman-Warner bill, we anticipate reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020. This will send a strong early signal to the marketplace, which is a very important part of getting where we need to go.

The second necessary element is the flexibility to respond to new information because all of us know that daily we face new reports, new scientists telling us new things we didn't know before. So I ask my colleagues if they would include what I call a look-back provision in the bill. The bill must include provisions for continuing to review the science. We want to have our work based on science, and it has to happen at regular intervals. We have to know whether we are doing enough, too much, or if we have to do even more.

Third, we must establish a cap-and-trade program for global warming pollution like the one that worked so well

in curbing acid rain. A cap-and-trade system will put a market price on carbon, driving greater efficiency and new technology, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Fourth, we must protect the pioneering State efforts that are already underway. The States have been leading the way on this issue and doing it in the most bipartisan fashion. In my own State of California, we have seen trailblazing there with a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature. I believe my State has the gold standard bill. A total of 29 States have completed comprehensive climate action plans, and many have set mandatory reduction targets. We don't want to interfere with their work.

Fifth, it is a moral imperative to do what we can to ease the impacts of global warming--not only on the American consumer but on world populations suffering from drought, floods, and famine. The religious community has worked very closely with all of us on this moral imperative.

Finally, a bill must take into account the actions of countries that are not making progress toward a clean, sustainable energy future and must help level the playing field. Countries that want to export goods into the United States must take steps consistent with our global warming policy or be accountable for their emissions.

All of these elements I have mentioned are included in the Lieberman- Warner bill. Some of us may want to make them stronger, and some of us may want to make them weaker. But here is the important point: We have the framework. Every single issue anyone could raise about global warming has been raised and addressed in this bill, giving us a perfect place to start.

I thank all of my colleagues who have introduced bills to deal with global warming. Each bill has made an important contribution to the debate, and I know each bill has helped Senators Warner and Lieberman craft an excellent piece of legislation. We have this framework. We can build on it; it embodies all of the key concepts. The bipartisan progress on the bill is a reflection of how far we have come and brings us that much closer to the day we will have comprehensive legislation to deal with this great challenge of our generation.

It is with great pride that I yield the floor to Senator Joe Lieberman.

Yes.

Yes, I am with you.

Mr. President, I will take 1 minute. As I said to Senator Lieberman, before Senator Inhofe and I go to a hearing we are having in the Environment and Public Works Committee, I thank my colleagues for participating in this conversation. Senator Inhofe is right. This is a very important moment in time. The cost of doing nothing, according to the leading economist on this topic in the world, Nicholas Stern, is five times what the cost will be to address this issue now. So let's be wise about what we do.

The second point is, I am looking forward to Senator Inhofe's 2 hours on the Senate floor. I really am. Mr. President, I say to Senator Inhofe, I am giving him a compliment.

I said, I am looking forward to hearing Senator Inhofe for 2 hours on the Senate floor, and I hope he will stay for my 2 hours when he is done. I will, in fact, do that because many of the points Senator Inhofe makes--it is cherry-picking information.

I think it is very important that we have this debate. In many ways, it is good we are chairman and ranking member--and the last time it was the opposite--because I do think certainly the Senate gets the benefit of the broad viewpoint on this subject of global warming.

I yield the time back to Senator Lieberman.

Mr. President, for me, today is one of the most important days in my career because, with the introduction of the Lieberman- Warner bill, today will be remembered, in my view, as the turning point in the fight against global warming. Let me explain why I make that very sweeping statement.

First, this bill represents a bipartisan breakthrough on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. When I took the gavel of the committee 9 months ago, I said that global warming was the challenge of our generation, a challenge that I believed our committee could meet with knowledge, with bipartisanship, and in pursuit of that knowledge we have held 18 global warming hearings and 2 scientific briefings this year in the Environment Committee.

At our very first hearing in January, we invited all Senators to come to the committee and share their perspectives. More than one-third of the Senate took part in that historic event. Since then, we have heard from more than 120 witnesses, ranging from utility executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, religious leaders, and Nobel Prize winners. Indeed, yes, we had Al Gore, we had members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we also heard from business community leaders who have formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. We heard from mayors, Governors, and leaders of both parties, from many different States, cities, and counties across America.

Then a wonderful thing happened: Senator John Warner, who is the ranking member on Senator Lieberman's Global Warming Subcommittee, decided it was time that he play a lead role in crafting a landmark environmental law which will take its place beside the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other great bipartisan environmental legislation.

Senator Warner, this decision of yours is giving heart and hope to literally not only the people of the United States of America but all the people who share our planet. I know in your beautiful State of Virginia how proud they are. We had a hearing with you and with Senators Mikulski and Cardin, and we heard about the impact of global warming already taking place on the Chesapeake. Your Governor was also there. So this is a great moment.

I cannot tell you how touched and moved I am that Senator Warner has joined Senator Lieberman. It is a wonderful moment in history. This, I believe.

We would never leave a child alone in a hot, locked car, and I believe the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will not leave this issue of global warming burning for another generation to address. It is our responsibility, and we must act.

Today, with the introduction of this bill, we are taking the first immensely important legislative step to meet the challenge of global warming with hope and not with fear and with approaches that are carefully thought out and some already successfully tried out, like a cap-and-trade system that has been so successful in addressing acid rain. Also in this bill, which I am very proud of, is a section on energy efficiency, which has been so effective in lowering per capita energy use, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions in my own home State of California.

For the past 50 years, the United States of America has been the world leader in environmental protection. Laws such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Superfund Act have achieved so much for our Nation and so much for our people. They have cleaned up our rivers and lakes, improved the quality of our air, and protected our drinking water supplies. Each of those laws--if you go back and study them--became a reality because Congress started on the path that, over time, would lead to enactment of strong legislation. The same is true for what we face today in global warming. We must start on the path to pass strong legislation.

I have been working very closely with Senators Warner and Lieberman as they have assembled their bill, as have many other colleagues. I praise my friends for including so many people, including the occupant of the chair, Senator Casey, who was quite involved in crafting the green jobs portion of the bill. I have been so impressed with the effort they have invested, seeking out the views not only of other Senators but outside groups and business leaders, environmentalists, everybody, pro and con, with whom they have met. They have put great work into this effort. I am proud of that.

In my own conversations with them, I have laid out some important principles that I believe must be reflected in legislation to address this challenge.

First, the most important thing is that any bill has to include real, mandatory cuts in global warming pollution. Any bill we pass must set the Nation on the path to achieving the emissions reductions that will avoid dangerous climate change. Under the Lieberman-Warner bill, we anticipate reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020. This will send a strong early signal to the marketplace, which is a very important part of getting where we need to go.

The second necessary element is the flexibility to respond to new information because all of us know that daily we face new reports, new scientists telling us new things we didn't know before. So I ask my colleagues if they would include what I call a look-back provision in the bill. The bill must include provisions for continuing to review the science. We want to have our work based on science, and it has to happen at regular intervals. We have to know whether we are doing enough, too much, or if we have to do even more.

Third, we must establish a cap-and-trade program for global warming pollution like the one that worked so well

in curbing acid rain. A cap-and-trade system will put a market price on carbon, driving greater efficiency and new technology, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Fourth, we must protect the pioneering State efforts that are already underway. The States have been leading the way on this issue and doing it in the most bipartisan fashion. In my own State of California, we have seen trailblazing there with a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature. I believe my State has the gold standard bill. A total of 29 States have completed comprehensive climate action plans, and many have set mandatory reduction targets. We don't want to interfere with their work.

Fifth, it is a moral imperative to do what we can to ease the impacts of global warming--not only on the American consumer but on world populations suffering from drought, floods, and famine. The religious community has worked very closely with all of us on this moral imperative.

Finally, a bill must take into account the actions of countries that are not making progress toward a clean, sustainable energy future and must help level the playing field. Countries that want to export goods into the United States must take steps consistent with our global warming policy or be accountable for their emissions.

All of these elements I have mentioned are included in the Lieberman- Warner bill. Some of us may want to make them stronger, and some of us may want to make them weaker. But here is the important point: We have the framework. Every single issue anyone could raise about global warming has been raised and addressed in this bill, giving us a perfect place to start.

I thank all of my colleagues who have introduced bills to deal with global warming. Each bill has made an important contribution to the debate, and I know each bill has helped Senators Warner and Lieberman craft an excellent piece of legislation. We have this framework. We can build on it; it embodies all of the key concepts. The bipartisan progress on the bill is a reflection of how far we have come and brings us that much closer to the day we will have comprehensive legislation to deal with this great challenge of our generation.

It is with great pride that I yield the floor to Senator Joe Lieberman.

Yes.

Yes, I am with you.

Mr. President, I will take 1 minute. As I said to Senator Lieberman, before Senator Inhofe and I go to a hearing we are having in the Environment and Public Works Committee, I thank my colleagues for participating in this conversation. Senator Inhofe is right. This is a very important moment in time. The cost of doing nothing, according to the leading economist on this topic in the world, Nicholas Stern, is five times what the cost will be to address this issue now. So let's be wise about what we do.

The second point is, I am looking forward to Senator Inhofe's 2 hours on the Senate floor. I really am. Mr. President, I say to Senator Inhofe, I am giving him a compliment.

I said, I am looking forward to hearing Senator Inhofe for 2 hours on the Senate floor, and I hope he will stay for my 2 hours when he is done. I will, in fact, do that because many of the points Senator Inhofe makes--it is cherry-picking information.

I think it is very important that we have this debate. In many ways, it is good we are chairman and ranking member--and the last time it was the opposite--because I do think certainly the Senate gets the benefit of the broad viewpoint on this subject of global warming.

I yield the time back to Senator Lieberman.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the extraordinary efforts of one of the universities in my home State of California--Santa Clara University.

Twenty-eight SCU students are here in Washington this week to compete in the Solar Decathlon to build the most livable and energy efficient solar-powered house.

As one of only 20 university teams worldwide chosen by the U.S. Department of Energy to participate, the SCU team is making tremendous strides both on the Mall and in California to lead the charge in sustainable living. They are setting a fantastic example for youth throughout the Nation, and for future generations, in how we can work to save energy and reduce global warming pollution.

The SCU students have studied the innovative problem solving methods that are a staple of Silicon Valley and have incorporated those approaches in their work. They have gone above and beyond to demonstrate that people can have affordable, beautiful, functional housing that also saves energy, protects our environment, and reduces pollution.

In June, the SCU team started building their solar-powered home and then transported it across the country last month. Their state-of-the- art ``green'' home is fully equipped with bamboo I-beams, developed by the SCU engineering team, retractable walls, ``smart'' windows and solar thermal panels, in addition to generating its own solar electricity. The solutions to our environmental challenges lie in new technologies like these.

Buildings are responsible for 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. This means that taking the steps to make our homes more efficient will ensure a better, greener future for generations to come. Building energy efficient homes and buildings, increasing our use of solar power, and expanding the use of clean, renewable energy sources are some of the best ways to reduce the pollution that causes global warming.

I again commend the students of Santa Clara University for making the trip to Washington and for their efforts to blaze the trail for a better, cleaner environment.

I am greatly concerned about the environmental impacts of the federally owned obsolete vessels in Suisun Bay, CA, on the marine environment. We need to ensure that these vessels are properly cleaned and disposed of, and minimize the impacts of these ships by addressing any remaining contamination.

I am grateful that Chairman Mikulski and the CJS Subcommittee have agreed to accept my amendment to provide funding out of NOAA's operations, research, and facilities program to conduct sampling and analysis of heavy metals and other contaminants to better understand the degree of toxic contamination, and to develop appropriate remediation recommendations that use the best available science and environmental practices.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for allowing us these few minutes to mark a very, I think, emotional moment for all of us and a very important moment for the health and the safety of the people of our Nation.

The work of Senator Murray, that of Senator Wellstone in the past, and that of Senator Isakson, cannot be overstated. Because when the book is written on how a bill becomes a law, what you learn is that on something that has just a hint of controversy to it, you have to go through so many hurdles and so many late-night meetings and so many hours, and that is why the staffs deserve so much credit. In the Environment and Public Works Committee, Bettina Poirier, Grant Cope, and Erik Olson are very important, and from the HELP Committee, Bill.

Let me say, many countries have banned asbestos. As Senator Murray said, if you would ask a person in the street: Is asbestos banned? They would say, yes. But there was a court case many years ago which overturned that ban. So we have seen a tremendous amount of asbestos in the workplace, in consumer products, and the like. We still have more work to do. We have to get this through the House. We think there are friends in the House, remembering the wonderful Congressman Vento whom Senator Isakson mentioned, in his memory.

Certainly we feel very good that the beloved Congressman will get this honor after his death. We want to say, his wife has been an extraordinary person in pushing this through.

Today Senators Murray and Isakson got a standing ovation from the men and women who are suffering either from mesothelioma or their families who were there representing them or some whose families are here, although their loved one has perished. In this press conference I read a poem written by a beautiful woman, a Californian who lost her husband, and her agony as she watched her husband literally disappear before her eyes. I met a woman today whose son died at age 33 from mesothelioma. They can't figure out exactly where the exposure came from. I saw his picture when he was 31, a vibrant, beautiful young man, his emaciated face, still handsome a couple years later, and then he was gone. This bill is so important, that we join the nations of the world who have already banned asbestos and say, there are moments here you feel proud of, you feel kind of proud of, you feel not so proud of. Today I am so proud of my colleagues. The day I learned I had jurisdiction over this matter in committee was a joyful day for me, because I knew we could pull it off because we had Johnny Isakson on the Republican side who would take the lead. We worked across party lines. And to Patty Murray, I would say: There is a snag, call Johnny. And they would talk.

So we are here this day. It is emotional. It is a wonderful moment. I congratulate Senators Murray and Isakson. I am so proud I was in the right place at the right time to help them.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading my amendment. I had it read because it is such common sense. I think if you went out on the street and you asked any American: Do you think there are people serving in the military who, within the last 5 years, were convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or a sex crime or a hate crime or making a terrorist threat that was a phony terrorist threat? They would say: Oh, no; no one like that would be let in, not if they did something like that within the last 5 years.

That is what leads me to this commonsense amendment. It is hard for me to believe I have to fight for this. This amendment may not pass, which is stunning to me when I think of how clear the issue is.

I guess I would ask a mom or a dad who has a son or a daughter over there, would they want their child in a foxhole with someone who was convicted twice of assault with a deadly weapon. Do you want someone in a foxhole with your son or daughter who was convicted of a sex crime? I think they would say no.

So here is where we are. In recent years, the U.S. Army in particular has dramatically increased the number of waivers it grants for admission into its ranks of those convicted of a felony. Now, let me be clear. It is against the rules to allow anyone to come into the military who has a felony conviction. However, there is a loophole which says waivers can be granted in certain circumstances.

Now, I totally understand. For example, let's say as a young man or woman some potential recruit tried drugs because it was the thing in his school. He did it, but he regrets it and is over it. He was convicted, but he has promised never to use drugs again. OK, give someone a chance. That is the American way. Give someone a chance. But for these particular felonies, which I will outline again and explain what they are, I think if someone has been found guilty within the last 5 years, it is an open-and-shut case.

Now, I understand the Army is under incredible strain right now and is facing a difficult recruitment environment. I realize there may be times that they are going to ask for these waivers. I know they do it for health reasons and other things, but there is a point at which it goes too far; that is, the point at which it is dangerous. When you hear about the increase in felony recruitment, you will agree it is alarming. Rather than strengthening our military, it weakens our military.

Listen to these numbers: In 2004, the Army granted 360 waivers to recruits with felonies on their records. In 2005, the number grew to 571. And in 2006, the number grew to 901. The 901 figure is a 59- percent increase over the 2005 number, and a 150-percent increase over the 2004 figure. So I believe the spirit of the law that allows these waivers is being violated. Nobody thought that it would reach these proportions.

Again, I think people deserve a second chance in this country if they have served their time and they are rehabilitated. That is why I have in this amendment a 5-year cooling off period so we know that they have been clean for 5 years of these types of crimes. But the Army should not drastically lower its standards because it cannot find enough recruits, and it should not seek out individuals who have had disturbing personal histories involving violence.

I just read in the newspaper the other day that the military is going to these criminals if they are undergoing rehab. They go right there. Army recruiters actually attended a job fair for ex-convicts in Houston in August of 2006. Many experts believe this is leading to a spike in gang activity in the military. Listen to this FBI report: ``Gang related activity in the U.S. military is increasing.'' This is a direct quote. ``Members of nearly every major street gang have been identified on both domestic and international military installations.'' According to this report, these members can ``disrupt good order and discipline'' while in the military.

Here is the alarming part, and this is the FBI--the Federal Bureau of Investigation--speaking, not Senator Barbara Boxer or any other Senator. Upon discharge, ``they may employ their military training against law enforcement officials and rival gang members and such military training could ultimately result in a more organized, sophisticated and deadly gang as well as an increase in deadly assaults on law enforcement officials.'' The FBI is saying that an abuse of these waivers is leading to a more dangerous America, more dangerous for law enforcement--more gangs.

This is not what our country needs. It is not what our wonderful brave men and women in uniform need right now. They have enough problems to deal with in Iraq. They are in the middle of a civil war. This President has no plan to get them out. While the military says there is no military solution, this President is doing nothing about a long-term solution. We find our young men and women in harm's way in the middle of a civil war in a mission that has changed about five or six times, and now they have to worry that they are serving next to someone who has been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arson, terrorist threatening, or sexual misconduct--imagine, with all they have to worry about.

I am going to share with my colleagues a chart that I do not believe has ever been made public before. This is the list of all the different felony waivers that have been granted--adult, juvenile, and the total. Look at this list of waivers that has been granted. I am going to go through, for my colleagues and for the American people to see, what crimes have been committed by recruits.

I mentioned the top two and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, then arson, attempt to commit a felony, breaking and entering, burglary with burglary tools, a bad check worth less than $500, embezzlement, forgery, hate crime, larceny, narcotics, negligent vehicular homicide, riot, robbery, sexual misconduct, stolen property knowingly received, terrorist threatening, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, criminal libel, illegal or fraudulent use of a credit card--$500 or more-- perjury or subornation of perjury, car theft, mail--abstracting, destroying--indecent acts with a minor, manslaughter, kidnaping or abducting a child. Kidnaping or abducting a child? We took in three recruits.

What I have attempted to do is pick out the ones I believe would be an open-and-shut case here of where we would not want someone recruited into the military who has been convicted of these particular crimes: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arson, hate crime, sexual misconduct, or terrorist threatening. There were 13 of those.

I want to protect our men and women in uniform. I have deep respect for them. In my State, we have lost more than any other State--23 percent those killed in Iraq have been from or based in my State. I want the men and women from my State and every other State to feel comfortable that their buddies will truly be their buddies and that they share the same values of right and wrong. I want to keep it that way.

Larry Korb, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, said, ``The more of those people you take the more problems you are going to have and the less effective they are going to be.'' This is Larry Korb, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan: ``The more of those people you take the more problems you are going to have.''

GEN Barry McCaffrey, who commanded U.S. forces during the gulf war, said, ``By and large these are flawed recruits. Those getting waivers won't be sergeants.'' General McCaffrey pointed to the lessons of postwar Vietnam. ``It took us a decade to take a fractured Army and turn it around. We don't have 3 years this time.'' That is Barry McCaffrey.

Retired LTG William Odom, who was the Army's chief intelligence officer from 1981 to 1985, has called the increase in waivers ``disturbing.'' The Army's chief of intelligence for 4 years called the increase in waivers ``disturbing.''

The last thing our servicemembers need to worry about is whether there are violent felons in their ranks. It sets back the quality of our forces. It can severely set back our mission.

I would like to share one particular story about lowering standards. I think we are all very familiar with the story of PVT Steven Green. As you will remember, Private Green is the soldier charged with the deaths of an Iraqi family of four. According to the reports, Private Green went to the home of an Iraqi family with three other soldiers. He ended up raping the 14-year-old daughter before killing her and setting her body on fire. He is also alleged to have killed the other family members. This turned into an international news story that once again brought negative attention to our country, infuriating Iraqis and making the lives of our troops that much more difficult.

Private Green was admitted to the Army after being given a waiver. In the case of Private Green, it was a waiver for a misdemeanor offense, and I am not even stopping that with my amendment. I am not even stopping that with my amendment. I am going to the most egregious crimes. That story illustrates the potential consequences of going down a path where standards are dramatically lowered.

Let me spell out specifically how my amendment addresses the issue. The amendment simply says the military cannot offer a waiver for enlistment to the Armed Forces to individuals convicted of these felonies: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arson, hate crime, sexual misconduct, or terrorist threatening. They cannot get a waiver if they have committed any of these and they were convicted of it in the last 5 years.

If someone stands up and says: Give people a second chance, then they have not read my amendment because we are giving people a second chance. We are saying: If you are clean for 5 years, OK. And we are not even touching all these other waivers--unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, car theft, even indecent acts with a minor. I will tell you, if I had my way, I would put that one on--and kidnaping--but I just picked five.

So we provide for a cooling-off period, and we believe that cooling- off period--5 years clean--will give the military some information that people are, in fact, on the straight and narrow path.

Unfortunately, we do not see the global challenges we face going away. We need our men and women in uniform not only to be soldiers but to be ambassadors to the world. They are the best we have. This amendment helps to ensure we have the right men and women to do that job. I hope we will get support for this amendment. I say to my colleagues who vote against this amendment, the only message you are sending to the people who are serving honorably is: You know what, we are so desperate, we are willing to put you at risk.

Again, I ask a rhetorical question: How would you feel if your son or daughter or grandson or granddaughter wound up in an awful situation with someone who had committed and was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon?

There is one more thing I would like to do before I yield the floor, and that is to describe these felonies, how they are defined.

Arson, generally, is the malicious burning of another's dwelling. It can be intentional or a fire set with reckless disregard of obvious risks, in some States. Seven waivers were granted for arson.

Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is the intentional creation of reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm by use a deadly weapon. An example would be pointing a gun at someone, pointing a knife, swinging a baseball bat, threatening violence or harm with a weapon in a manner to create a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm--40 waivers for that.

Terrorist threatening: intentionally making false statements regarding a weapon of mass destruction such as placement on a government or school property--essentially placing a fake WMD on government property without permission; threatening to cause death or serious injury for the purpose of terrorizing others, their property, school, or teachers; a false statement that could cause dangerous evacuation from buildings or airports. It could be bomb threats, threats of poison-laced letters, or threats of mass shootings at school. Waivers granted there.

Hate crimes. Most of the States penalize crimes of violence or intimidation based on race, color, religion, national origin, and when we are looking at our military we are looking at the face of diversity, and someone who has been convicted of a hate crime within the last 5 years--I think they need to think about what this country stands for and how it is based on equality for all before they are taken into the military.

Sexual misconduct. Rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, sodomy of a minor--those are nonwaiver, but the category that is waiverable is solicitation of sex, indecent exposure, illegal possession of pornography.

So these are crimes which I think simply are too much to ask our men and women in uniform to deal with in new recruits.

I would point out something else. Because the Army has been so desperate to get new recruits, they are paying tens of thousands of dollars, and now we have a situation where these convicted felons are getting this money, to boot. It may not be that many people--maybe we are talking about 100. Overall, it has been 90+. We are making a point here that our men and women in uniform deserve better protection than this. We fight so hard, and we must fight to get them the bulletproof vests, to get them the up-armored HMMWVs

to protect them from IEDs, from all the horrors they face. Yet we allow into the military--indeed, we pay bonuses to get into the military-- people who have been convicted of very serious crimes. It is not fair, it is not right, it is not just, and I hope there will be strong support for this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

OK. We will ask for that later.

Madam President, I note the Senator is waiting to be heard. I will be brief, but I do want to respond.

I so appreciate the fact that Senator Inouye spoke to our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. But I do think we need to use our own brains and our own common sense. I do think when I look in the eyes of parents who are sending their kids into the military, they need to know, they need to know that in addition to the dangers of this war, in addition to the danger of being thrust into the middle of a civil war, they should not have to deal with the danger of a convicted felon who has used a gun and put that gun against somebody's head within the past 5 years.

We all know that the committees are very close to the military. I understand that. But is not there a time for us to stand up and show a little spunk and spine here and state the obvious, that although we all support waivers, because there are certain cases where a waiver may make sense, there is such a thing as an abuse of a waiver. If you look at the numbers and see we are up to almost 1,000 of these waivers, things are getting out of control.

Now, I know that both the Armed Services Committee, the authorizers and the Appropriations Committee, which are very powerful committees, do not like this amendment. They want me to go away. They have offered now twice, the authorizing and appropriations: Will you not take a study and go away?

Yes, I want to have a study. But, no, I do not think we should walk away from this. This is a commonsense amendment. This takes five of the whole list of crimes--and I will repeat what they are: arson, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, sexual crimes, hate crimes, and making a terrorist threat.

I think for this year, do not pay bonuses to these people who have been convicted of these crimes for the last 5 years and do not take them into the military. That would send a signal to the military that they need to do their own study. It is stunning to me that we would have to have a study about this--the DoD does not even want to study this thing. They just want to meet the recruitment goal.

We all want them to meet their recruitment goals, but if it means putting someone, a dangerous criminal, next to one of my men and women in uniform, no thank you. It is tough enough to survive Iraq. We have worked with veterans on this amendment so we have gotten it to the point where, yes, we give people a chance to turn over a new leaf.

I am disappointed that Senators Inouye and Stevens do not support this amendment, but I am not surprised. I am going to keep talking about this issue because this status quo is not good for our troops.

I yield the floor

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Madam President, I have sent a modification of my amendment to the desk.

I thank the Senator.

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

Madam President, I understand I have 2\1/2\ minutes, followed by Senators Inouye and Stevens, and then there will be a motion to table my amendment. I hope to convince colleagues who may be listening to this debate to vote no on the motion to table.

I think this amendment deserves to be heard. It doesn't deserve to be shut down. The amendment is my modified amendment, which I sent to the desk. It basically says there can be no more waivers granted for folks who want to join the military who have been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arson, a hate crime, sexual misconduct, threatening a terror attack, kidnapping or abducting a child, or indecent acts with a minor.

If we can show you this chart, right now, it is against the military policy to allow any of the people into the military who have been convicted of a felony. But there is a waiver process. What has happened is--and we all agree that there are occasions when there ought to be a waiver now and then--we have seen an alarming increase in these waivers because the Army, in particular, is having a hard time meeting its recruitment goals. We see in 2004 that the Army granted 3 of the 60 waivers to recruits who had felonies on their record. In 2005, they granted 571. In 2006, they granted 901 waivers. That is a 59-percent increase over the 2005 number. It is a 150-percent increase over the 2004 figure.

So what we have seen is an alarming increase in the number of waivers. What my amendment simply says is: Enough of this for seven felonies. Again, the seven felonies are aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which is someone who has been convicted, perhaps, of putting a gun to someone's head and threatening them with bodily harm; arson, someone who obviously has started a fire and put other people's lives in danger; hate crimes, and we discussed that at length. As a matter of fact, we have a fine amendment that Senator Kennedy offered and that is now on the Defense authorization bill, which would say that people have a right to be free of hate crimes because of the fact that they may be different than the next person. Here you send people like this into the military, and this is one of the most diverse institutions we have.

In conclusion, we are saying, please, don't table this amendment. The others are sexual misconduct, terrorist threatening, indecent acts with a minor, and kidnapping or indecent acts with a child. You don't want somebody like that next to your son or daughter who is serving honorably in the military.

I hope you vote no on the motion to table. I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I support the resolution offered by Senator Kerry on the current crisis in Burma.

In his April 16, 1963, letter from a jail cell in Birmingham, AL, Dr. King wrote that ``freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed.''

The people of Burma, are demanding freedom. They are peacefully marching in the streets to demand freedom from an oppressor that is one of the world's worst human rights abusers. They are demanding freedom from a government that restricts the basic freedoms of speech and assembly, engages in human trafficking, discriminates against women and ethnic minorities, uses children as soldiers and laborers, imprisons arbitrarily, abuses prisoners and detainees, and rapes and tortures.

This military junta is now engaged in an attempt to violently suppress the Burmese people who refuse to be silenced anymore. Those who have taken to the streets are doing so at great personal risk. Thousands were killed in a similar uprising in the summer of 1988. This brutal regime is responsible for the destruction of 3,000 villages and the displacement of 2 million people. The people of Burma are saying enough is enough.

Dr. King also wrote from his jail cell that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' That is why this resolution is so important and why I am so proud to be a cosponsor. It sends a strong message to those marching in the streets of Rangoon and Mandalay that the United States is witness to what is happening. It also says that the United States is working to rally the international community behind the Burmese people as they strive for justice after years of oppression.

This resolution recognizes that we can all play a positive role in bringing justice and peace to Burma, and that we must work with the international community to pressure the Burmese Government to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid. It also calls on the United Nations to play a unique role in furthering dialogue toward reconciliation and concurs with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations decision to demand an end to the violence, the release of all political prisoners, and a political solution to the crisis. Finally, this resolution rightly urges that China end its military assistance to the Burmese regime, and that it no longer block the efforts of the United Nations Security Council to condemn the oppressive action of the Burmese junta.

I want to end with a quote from the icon of freedom in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi: ``We will prevail because our cause is right, because our cause is just . . . History is on our side. Time is on our side.''

We must continue to stand beside the people of Burma in that cause.

Mr. President, I rise today to continue my support for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program--an essential effort to ensure the health of our Nation's children. Since the inception of this program, I have agreed with the goals of this program and strongly believe that it is necessary to meet our responsibilities and fulfill our commitment to children.

Although I wholeheartedly support the compromise agreement on the reauthorization of this program, it is exactly that: a compromise.

For the past 10 years, the Children's Health Insurance Program has helped

provide health care for millions of children from working families that do not qualify for Medicaid, but can't afford private insurance. These are the children of working families whose companies do not offer health insurance to their employees.

As the cost of health insurance rises and an increasing number of employers are unable or unwilling to provide health insurance to their employees and their families, the number of families who do not have health insurance has continued to rise.

While the number of the uninsured continues to rise, the percentage of low-income children without health insurance has dropped more than one-third since the creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Currently the Children's Health Insurance Program provides coverage for 6.6 million children nationwide. This reauthorization would provide health care coverage for an additional 3.2 million children who are uninsured today. In California, an estimated 250,000 children will be added.

The Children's Health Insurance Program has always enjoyed the bipartisan support of our Congress, our Governors, and our President-- and the legislation we are voting on today reflects that spirit of cooperation.

I am glad to see that we have worked with many of our Republican colleagues on an issue so critical to the health of children across this Nation.

This bipartisan, bicameral agreement is largely based on the legislation passed by the Senate in July, which would fund outreach and enrollment efforts, allow States to use information from food stamp programs and other initiatives for low-income families to find and enroll eligible children, and give States the option to cover pregnant women for prenatal care vital to healthy newborn children.

In desperation and defiance, opponents of the Children's Health Insurance Program have made outrageous allegations maligning the effectiveness and success of this program.

Critics have claimed that this program extends to eligibility to wealthy families in America--this could not be further from the truth. In my own State of California, the average family income of children covered by this program is just 163 percent of the Federal poverty level--less than $34,000 a year for a family of four.

There have been claims that Children's Health Insurance funding goes to illegal immigrants--this is completely false. The reality is that undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. Actually, there are restrictions within this program which deny health insurance to low-income children who are legal immigrants.

The President is spending $10 billion each month in Iraq, but has threatened to veto a bill that will provide 10 million children with access to health care. Under the President's proposal, he is willing to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program with an increase of $1 billion a year--the cost of 3 days in Iraq.

If we fail to renew this program or if the President vetoes this bill as he has threatened to do, it is the children who will pay the price.

As we near the September 30 deadline to reauthorize this program, I strongly urge and implore that the President reconsider his position on this bill. The need of children knows no partisan or political barriers, and should not have to overcome the obstacles created by the President.

There is not a man or woman in this chamber who wouldn't do everything within their power to ensure the health of their own children--we should do no less for the children of our Nation.

The Members of this Congress have overwhelmingly expressed a commitment to children's health. Earlier this year, we passed a budget resolution which set aside $50 billion for the Children's Health Insurance Program, reaffirming our commitment to the continued success of this program.

We can still do more and we will, but this bill is a step forward in the right direction.

I would like to thank Senators Baucus and Rockefeller, Senators Grassley and Hatch and the members of the Finance Committee who worked so tirelessly to bring this legislation forward in a bipartisan way, and keep the focus of this bill where it should be--on the children.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act. This bipartisan legislation will protect nearly 200,000 acres of pristine and ecologically sensitive lands in Riverside County as Wilderness or Potential Wilderness, the highest level of protection and conservation for Federal public lands in American law.

Over the past year, I worked with my colleague, Representative Mary Bono, who represents the areas protected in this bill. Together, we worked to reach consensus with local officials, environmentalists, businesses, sportsmen, and Indian tribes. The result is this bipartisan, bicameral bill.

Riverside County contains some of California's, indeed, America's, most spectacular desert and mountain vistas and landscapes. The breathtaking lands protected in this bill also provide habitat for threatened bighorn sheep and the desert tortoise, as well as many other species such as mule deer, mountain quail, and bald eagles.

Specifically, the bill protects 150,531 acres of lands as wilderness, highest level of protection and conservation for Federal public lands in American law. Another 41,100 acres of land would be designated as potential wilderness. Once the final inholding claims are settled by the National Park Service, these lands will become ``wilderness'' without the necessity of an additional act of Congress. In the meantime, these lands will be managed by the Park Service as ``wilderness.''

The bill also designates 31 miles of river as wild and scenic on four California Rivers: North Fork San Jacinto River, Fuller Mill Creek, Palm Canyon Creek, and Bautista Creek. These rivers are biologically important watersheds in this dry part of my State.

Many of these lands were included in my statewide wilderness bill, the California Wild Heritage Act, which I reintroduced in February.

The bill has broad, local support including from Riverside County supervisors, municipalities, chambers of commerce, environmentalists, sportsmen, and businesses. The bill includes important provisions clarifying that Federal agencies could use all the tools necessary to fight and prevent wildfires. The wilderness boundaries were drawn in consultation with local communities and tribes.

I look forward to working with local interests and all of my colleagues to see this important legislation enacted.