Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to pay homage to the remarkable contributions of Dr. Donald Pinkel and Professor Dr. Hansjorg Riehm to the cure of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL, once an invariably lethal disease. On December 4, 2003, distinguished colleagues from 12 nations will honor these outstanding physicians in San Diego, CA.

ALL is the most common cancer in children. Forty years ago, very few children were cured. Since that time, the cure rate has improved dramatically. I am informed that thanks in part to the leadership and vision of Dr. Pinkel and Professor Dr. Hansjorg Riehm, about 80 percent of ALL patients are now cured in developed nations. Dr. Pinkel's development of effective presymptomatic central nervous system therapy and Professor Dr. Hansjorg Riehm's development of effective post induction intensification halved the number of relapses and deaths. Tens of thousands of children, their families, friends and neighbors in many countries have benefitted. Dr. Pinkel and Professor Dr. Riehm stand united in their desire that effective therapy be available to children with ALL, both in the developed world and in the developing world.

I am informed that during his years at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in the 1960s, Dr. Pinkel introduced the concept of presymptomatic central nervous system therapy and cured one-half of children with ALL. Previously, many children had achieved temporary remission from leukemia, only to suffer return of leukemia or relapse in the central nervous system, subsequent bone marrow relapse, and death. Presymptomatic central nervous system therapy remains a cornerstone of ALL therapy throughout the world.

Professor Dr. Hansjorg Riehm and his colleagues in the Berlin Frankfurt Munster Group introduced effective postinduction intensification in the late 1970s. This concept involves implementing stronger therapy after the patient is in remission. Previously, patients received brief intensive induction therapy followed by presymptomatic central nervous system therapy and prolonged mild maintenance therapy. Most patients achieved remission, but many suffered leukemic relapse and death. With application of effective post induction intensification, the number of relapses fell and the chance for cure increased. Professor Riehm's strategy of post induction intensification has been applied throughout the world with similar success.

We know how tragic it is when children and their families struggle with life-threatening disease. The dramatic improvement in the cure rate of ALL gives children and those who cherish them just cause for greater hope. Literally tens of thousands of children in many nations have survived and grown up to realize their hopes and dreams due to the remarkable contributions of Dr. Pinkel and Professor Dr. Riehm. I am certain that children's lives are ample thanks, but I would like to add California's thanks for these physicians' lifetimes of accomplishments. Our Nation and world are fortunate to have benefitted from their work.

Mr. President, I discuss why I am voting against cloture on the FAA Reauthorization bill.

This bill includes some very good provisions, including funding for our Nation's airports and two provisions that I was able to include in this bill--certification of flight attendant anti-terrorism training and allowing trained cargo pilots to carry guns in the cockpit.

However, these good provisions do not make up for the threat to the safety of air travel that this bill will cause.

On June 12, 2003, Senator Lautenberg's amendment to the FAA bill passed 56 to 41. His amendment, which I supported, would have prevented the Administration from privatizing the U.S. air traffic control system. The House bill had a similar provision.

However, during the conference process the provisions in both bills were ignored. This summer, Republican conference leaders filed a conference report that specifically sanctioned privatization at up to 69 airports, some of which are the busiest in the country in terms of flight operations. For instance, Van Nuys airport in California is the eighth busiest airport in the country in terms of flight operations.

When that clearly did not have the support of the Congress, the conference report was rewritten, and the privatization language was dropped. But, the language prohibiting privatization was not reinserted, and the administration has indicated it intends to go forward.

Privatizing the controllers is a bad idea. The system is not broken, and we should not try to ``fix'' it. Our air traffic controllers did a valiant job after the terrorist attacks on September 11 by closing air space and by landing all of the planes safely. We should not mess with success.

Safety must be a top priority in air travel. Privatization puts that safety at risk.

I am happy to yield to my colleague.

I am glad Senator Kyl brought up the Kuhl nomination because I will be talking a little bit about that nominee and her background and the number of people from all sides of the spectrum who oppose this nominee and the fact there is a very serious case involving a breast cancer patient who she ruled against in terms of her privacy rights. I will get into that. Judge Kuhl was overturned immediately. I will get into that and why it is we have taken a stand on a handful of these very extremist, very controversial judicial nominees.

First, I remind us of the scorecard. If I were the Republicans and I got 168 of

the judges I wanted and only was turned down for 4, I would do what my mother said when I was a kid: ``Honey, if you get 90 percent of what you want, say thank you, give the person a hug, and leave the room.''

Instead, what do we have? We do not have smiling, we do not have thank you's. We have 30 hours of wasted time to hear people complain and whine about the fact they did not get four.

Somebody wrote a book once, called ``All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.'' I honestly think this is the most childish situation. The President gets 168 and does not get 4 and his party is up in arms.

How does that compare to President Clinton? Let's take a look at that. President Clinton had 63 nominees blocked, or 20 percent of his nominees. President Bush has, up to now, four--I suspect if we get these new two women we are talking about coming forward on Friday, hopefully, there will be six, but tonight there are four. That is 2 percent, and we have complaining going on.

I do not get it. I feel like Barbara in Wonderland. It makes absolutely no sense. I cannot figure it out. It is like the kid who comes home from school and says to his dad, ``Dad, I got 98 percent; aren't you proud of me?'' Dad says, ``What happened to that other 2 percent?'' What is it about? We all learn to be gracious when we win. When we win 98 percent, we should be gracious.

Here are the names of the Clinton nominees who were blocked. Fifteen times more judicial nominees blocked than that of President Bush. Why were they blocked? The other side felt, for whatever reason, maybe they did not feel they came from the mainstream.

I remember speaking to Senator Hatch. He actually called me into his office. We had a very good talk. This is when he was chair of the Judiciary Committee and President Clinton was President. He said to me: ``I just want you to know, Barbara, if your side sends over from California liberal judges, they will never go anywhere. Do not send me liberal judges.''

I said: ``Orrin, I get it. I am a pragmatist. I have a committee advising me. I will so instruct them.'' We got almost all of our nominees through.

When President Bush was elected, I said to Senator Hatch: ``I hope you are not going to send us rightwing nominees, because they are out of the mainstream and this President promised us mainstream nominees.''

Remember the night the Court decided he had won the election? The President came out--I will never forget it--we needed healing, and he came to the mike. It was very healing. He said: ``I will govern from the center. I am a uniter, not a divider.''

Yet we see some of these nominees who are coming down who are so far off to the right they are falling off the charts. I want to be clear. I want to say this unequivocally to my colleagues. I don't deserve to be here if I don't exercise the right given to me in the Constitution of the United States, which I revere. If I don't exercise that right, I do not deserve to be here. If I don't stand up and block some of these people, I do not deserve to be here. It is as simple as that. You can come to my State, you can call me every name in the book, it does not matter to me, because my constituents want me to stand up for what is right. What is right is to support mainstream candidates for the judiciary and stand up to extremist nominees and those who are out of the mainstream. I have to do it. It is my job.

Do you want to come and talk about it for 30 hours when we could be doing other things? That is fine with me. I can talk about it for 630 hours. That is how strongly I feel in my heart about what we have done.

What does the Constitution say about our job? The Constitution says: The President--that means this one and every other one--must seek the Senate's advice and consent. It does not say ``sometimes.'' It does not say ``usually.'' It does not say ``when you feel like it.'' It says very clearly, the President must seek the Senate's advice and consent. That does not mean notifying Senators, ``This is who we are coming up with.'' It means sitting down with us. It means talking to us. I have to say, this administration falls short.

When Carolyn Kuhl was nominated, I said to Alberto Gonzales, the President's man on this, Give me some time. I wanted to support a woman for this judgeship. Members know my record. I said, Let me get back to you. Lo and behold, what did I find out? I want to tell you what I found out.

First I found out about this case. Think of yourself as the woman in this circumstance, perhaps as her husband or as a relative. A woman had a mastectomy. It is a brutal operation. She is frightened. She is sick. She is going to the doctor for a followup exam. She is in the office. The doctor has another person in the office, dressed in a white coat, and the exam takes place. This other gentleman is leaning over this woman in one of the most embarrassing moments, her most frightened moments, her most humiliating moments, and he is fanning her. He is involved in this. He is staring at her the whole time. When she leaves the doctor's office on the way out, something did not feel right to her. She asks the receptionist, ``What doctor was that in the office with me?'' The receptionist said, ``That was no doctor; that was a drug salesman.''

The woman was appalled. A drug salesman had been in this room with her without her permission, without her knowledge.

The bottom line of all of this, she sues. The case comes before Judge Kuhl, who is a new judge in the State. Judge Kuhl rules against this woman. The case is appealed and Carolyn Kuhl is overturned.

Is this someone you think should be rewarded with a lifetime appointment? I say not.

Let's see what the National Breast Cancer Coalition has written. This is a group that does not get involved in politics. This is a group that does not get involved. They were so upset, they said:

We cannot afford to have Judge Kuhl on the court of appeals

where she will have a greater effect on women with and at

risk of breast cancer and our family and friends.

The National Breast Cancer Coalition getting involved in a judicial nomination. I will tell you, if I did not stand up for the women across this country--how many of us get breast cancer? About one in nine. If I did not stand up for them, I do not deserve to be here.

So if you want to talk about it for 30 hours, for 40 hours, for 50 hours, count me in--count me in--because if I were to roll over and allow someone such as that to get on the bench, someone who is hostile to women, someone who is hostile to civil rights, someone who is hostile to privacy rights, someone who is off the deep far right end of the spectrum, I do not deserve to be here because I promised my constituents I would support mainstream judges. I have supported many judges, 90 percent of the judges President Bush has brought forward. But once in a while you have to take a stand.

Let's look at the number of groups that are against Carolyn Kuhl's nomination, which is going to be brought up on Friday. I cannot even read all of these to you. It would take too long. But I will give you a few: the AFL-CIO, the American Association of University Women, the American Federation of School Administrators, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Breast Cancer Action, the Breast Cancer Fund, the Women's Law Center, Clean Water Action, Communication Workers, Defenders of Wildlife, the Feminist Majority, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free America, Friends of the Earth, the International Federation of Professional Technical Engineers, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, NARAL, Moveon.org, National Breast Cancer Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, National Employment Lawyers Association.

It goes on and on and on, and there are reasons why these groups have gotten involved in this. Because all you have to do is see the record of this woman and you understand why these groups are against her.

Office and Professional Employees International Union----

No, I will not. People for the American Way, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Planned Parenthood, Pride at Work, Progressive Jewish Alliance, the Sierra Club, Smoke Free Educational Services--this goes on--Taxpayers Against Fraud, United American Nurses. It goes on and on.

There is more: the Wilderness Society, the Women's Leadership Alliance; the Members of the California delegation: the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee--all the women of California who are on the Democratic side in the Congress.

So you want to talk about it for 30 hours? We will talk. We will talk.

This is from 102 law professors from across the United States on Judge Kuhl:

Judge Kuhl has spent her entire professional life--in the

Government, in private practice, and on the State bench--

aggressively promoting an extremist agenda that is hostile to

women, minorities, injured workers, and the environment.

Judge Kuhl's record goes back to when she worked in the Reagan administration and tried to persuade the Reagan administration to say that it was OK that Bob Jones University get a tax deduction. She was called part of a band of zealots who did that.

So you want to talk about Judge Kuhl. I know her record inside out. I wanted to support a good woman from California. My whole life is spent promoting women but not women who would be hostile to other women and hostile to the guy who maybe needs to join an organization and perhaps get into a law suit. She does not even like the fact there are juries. She does not like the fact there are juries.

So here we are. It is a quarter to 12 at night. I am all perky now. The reason is, I feel deeply about this. This is a chance to stand here and say, ``What are you doing?'' to the other side of aisle. You have 168. You did not get four. You are whining and you are complaining and you are crying and you are marching into the Senate and you are stopping progress.

What about the millions of jobs that have been lost? Three million jobs lost, 2.6 million in manufacturing. Let's talk about that for 30 hours--instead of crying, crying about not getting 100 percent but only 98 percent of what you want.

I ask for 1 more minute, and then I will turn it over to my colleague from New York.

So here we see the problems. We have lost jobs. You do not want to talk about that. I think right now I ought to ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative session and proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 3, S. 224, the bill to increase the minimum wage, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Was there an objection?

Just finishing up my minute, this proves my point that they want to complain about four judges who already have jobs. But they do not want to deal with the people who are unemployed and this terrible economic situation we have in our country today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how many minutes do I have?

Well, here we go, more of complaining and more upset from the other side. They just did not get 100 percent of what they wanted. They only got 98 percent. The score is 168 to 4. Other charts can be printed, but here is the truth. Do my colleagues want to see it another way? Here are the names of the people we have confirmed to the Federal bench for George Bush, 168 strong, and there are 4 we believe are out of the mainstream, who we believe would actually hurt the rights of our people to privacy, to dignity, to fairness, to justice, and we have stood up and we have said, no. The other side cannot believe they did not get 100 percent of what they wanted. Maybe in their life they get 100 percent of what they want. Most of us do not. Most of us work hard for what we believe and we are happy to get maybe close to what we want.

We have more complaining and more bickering, more upset, 30 hours taken away from other issues. This is where we are. We even had Senator Graham stand up and throw out this fact: No one is going to apply for judgeships. No one is going to apply for lifetime judgeships that pay a lot of money because Democrats stood up and said 4 did not meet the test of fairness, 4 were outside the mainstream and, yes, 168 were fine. So now people are not going to apply for judgeships anymore? Well, if I spoke to someone who said, do you think I ought to apply for a judgeship, the first thing I would say is, well, your odds are pretty good, 168, and only 4 did not make it. So I would say your chances are pretty good.

Then we hear all this talk about we Democrats are doing something different, we have never filibustered, never, even though on the Senate Web site itself there is discussion that there have been filibusters, and Chuck Schumer put that in the Record.

Let me read something much more recent than that one. This is just a couple of years ago, when we had the Berzon and the Paez nominations. The other side today is saying those were not filibusters. Well, let's hear what Republican Bob Smith said as he launched, yes, a filibuster.

I wish my colleagues would listen, but it is okay, their minds are made up. He said: It is no secret that I have been the person who has filibustered these two nominees.

Let me say that again. A couple of years ago, Bob Smith said: It is no secret that I have been the person who has filibustered these two nominees, Judge Berzon and Judge Paez.

The issue is, why are we here? What is the role of the Senate in judicial nominations? The Constitution gives the Senate the advise-and- consent role. We are supposed to advise the President and consent if we think the judge should be put on the court.

Republican Bob Smith, who led the filibuster against two Californians, goes on to say--do I remember it? It is etched in my mind forever. These were two terrific people who were held up, one for 4 years and one for 2 years, and then we finally got them to the floor and Bob Smith launched a filibuster

saying a filibuster in the Senate has a purpose. It is not simply to delay for the sake of delay. It is to take the time to debate, to find out about what judges' thoughts are, et cetera.

Can we please not have a debate over whether the other side ever launched a filibuster? They admitted it. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record at this time.

Let me quickly say about Judge Kuhl, Senator Hutchison said, in fact, that Judge Kuhl showed a lot of compassion to this victim who went into a doctor's office and was subjected to the humiliation of having a drug salesman witness her exam without her permission. Senator Hutchison said she was very, very kind to this victim.

Let's see what the victim says about Judge Kuhl.

My name is Azucena Sanchez-Scott. I am a survivor of breast

cancer and Judge Kuhl's courtroom. I stand before you now

because I want to tell my story so that other people will

never have to relive it.

Nothing about my cancer is easy. Not the chemotherapy, not

the fear, and certainly not the emotional pain of

disfigurement. As a person battling cancer each visit to the

doctor brings questions about my future and my health. That

is where I was when my doctor and a stranger walked in. The

doctor offered no introduction and proceeded to examine me

and asked that I disrobe. It was only when I left the office

and inquired with the receptionist that I learned that the

stranger was a sales representative for a drug company with

no medical reason for being there.

The bottom line, Carolyn Kuhl ruled against this woman, and when Senator Hutchison said she allowed the case of the doctor to go forward, that is what Judge Kuhl said. Then she retracted that and said: I made a mistake; I never had the doctor's case before me.

So let's get the facts straight here. Why do you think we have three major breast cancer organizations--Breast Cancer Action, Breast Cancer Fund, the National Breast Cancer Coalition--asking us to defeat Carolyn Kuhl? Not because Carolyn Kuhl was compassionate. But because of the opposite reason: She turned her back on a woman in need, on a sick woman. And Carolyn Kuhl was overturned in a unanimous vote by the court of appeals. For that, my friends want to promote her to this lifetime appointment.

I say if I caved in to that, again, I do not deserve to be here. Sometimes you have to stand up for people who need protection. Carolyn Kuhl had that chance. She took a hike. She ruled against this woman. This woman has been scarred in more ways than one from that experience.

Here we are. It is 12:45. We could be working on issues that really matter to people instead of rehashing these judgeships. They got almost everything they wanted. But they are going to pound their fists and say the same thing over and over, ``This has never happened before''-- despite the fact it has and make it sound as if we are being unfair when we are not. We are just doing our job. But there we are.

Look at what we could be doing. We have lost almost 3 million jobs in this country. This President has the worst record of any President since Herbert Hoover on private-sector employment. Why don't we spend 30 hours talking about that? Why don't we pass the 6-year highway bill? We got it out of our committee thanks to Senator Reid and Senator Inhofe today. Why not bring that bill down, I say to my friend, Senator Reid? Let's vote on the 6-year highway bill. Do you know how many jobs we would create in this country? In my State, 80,000 jobs.

Let's pass a manufacturing jobs tax credit so that manufacturing stops leaving this country. Let's raise the minimum wage. I tried to do that by unanimous consent. The other side objected. They do not want to do that.

With our salary, we make the minimum wage for a year in just a couple of months here. But no, they are spending 30 hours talking about 4 people who already have jobs and they do not want to talk about the 3 million jobs that were lost. They do not want to protect overtime. As a matter of fact, they tried to take it away from workers. They do not want to extend unemployment insurance.

Nothing is getting done that really matters to people. That is a sad, sad situation.

Long-term unemployment: These are the people who have been out there and out there--2 million, plus. That is a terrible record. Long-term unemployment tripled since George Bush took over.

How about the tax cuts? Let's look at how fair they are. They are 80 times larger for millionaires than for middle

income households earning about $50,000 to $75,000.

The Bush economic record? The only administration going back to Eisenhower with a decline in manufacturing output--big manufacturing job losses.

No, we cannot talk about that. We cannot have an action plan to get people back to work. And I have not even talked about school construction, which would really employ a lot of people. I visit some of my schools and the tiles are falling off the ceiling. No, we cannot talk about that. We do not have time. But we have time to discuss, for 30 hours, judgeships that we have gone over and over. And they are winning. They got 168 through and they did not get 4. They are worried about 4 people; I am worried about 3 million people. I am worried about the unemployed in my State, the people without health insurance.

I will tell Members what else I am worried about. We have a President who has rolled back so many environmental laws--I have them on a scroll and I cannot show them because it is not allowed by the Senate rules. But I will hold this up. If I took this scroll and I rolled it across the Chamber, it would go from one end to the other. It goes on and on and on. It is small print. It shows all of the environmental rollbacks of this administration.

Just 2 weeks ago they came up with an incredible idea. When there are PCBs on your land--those are the most toxic chemicals there are; they are carcinogens--we always had a rule if you had PCBs on your land you had to have a plan to clean it up and EPA had to oversee it. No. Gone. Now you can sell your land and God help the people who buy it with PCBs on it.

Superfund under President Clinton, 80 sites a year we cleaned up--the most toxic sites. Now we are down to 40 a year.

How about arsenic and playground equipment? In the latest hit of the administration, they announced they will allow the use of arsenic- treated lumber for playground equipment. Wake me up when this environmental nightmare is over.

It is 12:35 in the morning and I can still feel it in my heart that we are doing the wrong thing tonight. Why not try to reverse this horrible record and protect our children and protect the health of our people and get our people working again? Instead, we are debating 168 to 4.

I close with this, and I will probably dream about these numbers all night--what is left of the night. They got 168, and they did not get 4. They cannot accept the fact that 98 percent is pretty good. I don't know what else we are supposed to do, but I will say, whatever it takes, I will not be intimidated into voting for nominees that are so far right they would roll back the hands of time. They will not protect the health of the people, the privacy of the people, the safety of the people. I am not going to do that.

I was sent here on a promise that I would stand up for the people of my State. That is what I intend to do. With 168 to 4, they ought to be smiling instead of whining.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for so many things. He has been so strong on this whole issue of making sure we do not put on the bench folks who are so outside the mainstream that they would set us back. Because you have a very strong position as a top Democrat, you have allowed to be approved 168 of George Bush's nominees.

He has talked to us in depth, as well as other Members of the Judiciary Committee, about the four, up to now, who the Senator believes are far outside that mainstream. In order to protect the rights of our people, this is not some argument about a football game, that you are beating us 168 to 4. It is about protecting the people we represent, protecting their rights, protecting their health, making sure they are treated equally before the law. All the things that we as a great country, the greatest in the world, have given to our citizenry, could be overturned if we wind up having a court system that is radical and that moves away from those freedoms.

So if nothing else, I hope people in America understand that the Republicans in the Senate are complaining because they did not get all of their President's nominees. So we have made the point over and over.

Today, we are going to add two more, I believe, to this list and it will be 168 to 6, for a 97 percent success rate. Why are we doing that? Why do we think we are going to stop two of these candidates today-- actually, we have stopped a third before and we will do that again. Because they do not reflect the values of this country in their decisions. I could go over them one by one; I don't have the time to do that. And they would be dangerous.

Here is the interesting thing. We have sitting in the committee two nominees who cleared the committee, Mark Filip and Gary Sharp, one from Illinois, one from New York, and all you have to do is bring those out. They have full support. You will be back up to 98 percent before the day's end.

I say to my friends, I do not deserve to be a Senator if I do not exercise the power our Founders gave us explicitly in the Constitution, the power of advice and consent. It does not say sometimes advice and consent. It does not say maybe advice and consent. It does not say if you feel like it. It does not say if there is a Democrat in power or Republican. It says the Senate has the power to advise and consent. This does not mean rolling over for any Member.

That is the key point. Do the people of America want a rubberstamp Senate or do they really want Senators who take their responsibility seriously and look at each nominee seriously?

The power we were given is a very important power. I will explain that to the people of my State. If they want a Senator who will be a rubberstamp for a President of either party, they need to think long and hard about Senator Boxer because I am not their girl. I am not going to do that. That is not why I am here.

So anyone reading the Constitution knows that Senator Leahy and members of the Judiciary Committee--and I see the Senator from Illinois here--they are just doing their job.

The Republicans have spoken almost 40 hours. I lost track after 30 hours. They are telling us essentially: Don't do your job; be a rubberstamp. We are not going down that path.

I am happy to yield.

Absolutely. I will show the number of women's organizations who oppose Carolyn Kuhl. I am glad the Senator raised this question.

It is particularly interesting that today we have three women before the Senate. I say to my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, as a woman who has been in public life, actually elected to my first office in 1976, making sure that women have an equal opportunity, making sure that women move into positions of leadership has been one of the hallmarks of my career.

Now we hear people on the other side saying anyone who votes against these women is not in favor of women.

Let me state from the bottom of my heart--and I will get to that issue of privacy--the worst thing that can happen to the women of this country--to your daughters, to your nieces, to your aunts, to your grandmothers, for that matter, to your moms--the worst thing is to have a woman in power who rules against the interests of women. Carolyn Kuhl is one such woman. Janice Brown is one such woman. And Priscilla Owen. And those are the three

who come before the Senate today in a package. Each of them, if you look at their decisions, has been hostile to women.

I will talk about the Carolyn Kuhl case. Before Carolyn Kuhl, as a sitting State judge, comes a case in which a woman is explaining that she went to a physician for a followup mastectomy examination, a very humiliating, difficult, painful moment for that woman. That woman has written us and her story is in the Record. I have placed it in the Record.

The woman simply said to Judge Kuhl: My privacy was violated because I went to my doctor and the doctor allowed in the room a drug salesman. The doctor did not ask me, the doctor never told me.

This drug salesman was leaning over the table, was fanning this woman with a fan, was involved in this intimate exam.

Every woman in this country knows that if that happened to them, they would be humiliated beyond belief. This woman had the courage to sue. Carolyn Kuhl ruled against the woman, and the excuse is, she allowed the case against the doctor to go forward. Untrue. That particular case never was before her. The issue was breach of privacy. She ruled against the woman. Carolyn Kuhl had to write an apology to the committee for misstating what actually had happened.

Yes.

My friend is right.

Let me say that, fortunately, her decision was overruled unanimously by the State appellate court. This is the State appellate court. There are lots of Republicans on that court. They saw this was a terrible decision.

Here is the list of women's groups against the nomination of Carolyn Kuhl. It includes Breast Cancer Action, Breast Cancer Fund--on and on-- Women's Leadership Alliance. And the same list--actually a few different names, for Janice Brown and for Priscilla Owen. These women do not care about women advancing. They have not cared about the equal rights of women.

Let's have some backbone here and stand up when we think these nominees are good for the people and oppose them when we know they have been bad for the people and they will do worse yet.

Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the dedication of Squaw Valley Park in Placer County, CA.

Two decades ago, the Placer County Board of Supervisors and local community partners began their search for an ideal site for a community park. Their final choice was Squaw Valley, located within the Tahoe National Forest. Squaw Valley, which is internationally renowned as the site of the 1960 VIII Winter Olympic Games, is one of the crown jewels of the Sierra Nevada.

This park is also significant because its creation is the result of historic legislation, signed by President Clinton on July 29, 1998, allowing the U.S. Forest Service to conduct land transactions through sale rather than land exchange. I was proud to support this new approach because it saves taxpayers money through a much expedited transaction process.

When completed next spring, Squaw Valley Park will provide an exceptional recreational environment in which local residents and visitors will be able to enjoy this breathtaking region of California. I commend all those who have made the dream of Squaw Valley Park a reality.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about Veterans Day, the day we honor millions who have served in our Armed Forces. We give thanks to those who risk their lives and, frankly, who are risking their lives as we speak. They have done it and they are doing it now out of love of country.

We also mourn those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. As American casualties mount in Iraq, Veterans Day takes on a very special meaning. Many in our country have lost loved ones in Iraq, and every day we all pray for the safe return of our men and women in uniform.

In my home State of California, we have lost 73 from California or based in California. The burden is heavy for their relatives--mothers, dads, children, friends. Yet we know they went over there, in many cases, following their families in a rich military tradition and, in some cases, because they wanted to stand up and be counted for their country.

They have courage and dignity. It is our responsibility to only send them into harm's way when we know what we are doing; to only send them into harm's way when we have a plan; to only send them into harm's way when we have an exit strategy, and these are issues we will continue to work on because some of us, I am afraid, do not see that plan and do not see that exit strategy.

I wish to say on a personal note that November 11 is also my birthday. I say that because as a child, I was so proud I was born on what was called Armistice Day because Armistice Day reflected a day of peace, the end of a war, the end of the war to end all wars, which World War I was known as. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be. There were more wars. In 1954, Congress changed the name of Armistice Day to Veterans Day to pay homage to all of our veterans.

I regret I am not able to spend today with veterans in my State. I really had wanted to do that, but I do appreciate this opportunity to pay tribute to them on the floor of the Senate.

One more point on veterans. Earlier today I introduced legislation to help our future veterans by reimbursing States and localities that continue to pay their government employees who are Guard and reservists--such as policeman and firefighters--when they are called to active duty. This legislation will go a long way to help the families of these Guard men and women and reservists make ends meet.

In many cases, the local and State governments are paying their salaries and are falling behind. It seems to me that is the least we can do, is reimburse for those funds. I hope others will join me in this legislation. By the way, many of our States and counties and cities are already doing this, and their budgets are hurting.

This is a war that was, in fact, voted on here and executed by the President. Therefore, it seems to me the least we can do is reimburse local agencies who are putting out the funding.

Yes, that is my clear understanding and the clear intent of the legislation. The bill lays out in great detail the serious threat Syrian actions pose to United States interests. Our expectation is that, unless the President can make the certification described in section 5, subsection (d) of the bill, he must impose sanctions on the Syrian Government. The national security waiver was only included to address currently unforeseen instances where U.S. national security interests would truly be threatened should such sanctions go forward. We expect the President to use the waiver only for such exceptional circumstances, and not on a routine basis as a way to circumvent congressional intent as so clearly expressed in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.

Amendment No. 2148

Mr. President, under the order, I have how much time remaining on my side?

Does the Senator from Illinois wish to make a few comments? How much time does he need?

I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Illinois, and then I will use the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am very pleased we are going to vote on the Syria Accountability bill, a bill I first introduced with Senator Santorum in April of 2002. It has had a very bumpy ride. I am glad the ride will soon end smoothly; at least that is my sense.

On April 18, 2002, with a list of 45 cosponsors, I introduced this bill with Senator Santorum.

On that day, I said:

We cannot afford to rest for one second in pursuing those

who believe that purposely killing innocent civilians is a

legitimate means to political ends. We cannot give

concessions to terrorists nor can we reward them by giving

into their demands. This will only lead to more terror.

With that, Senator Santorum and I introduced the Syria Accountability Act because we knew at that time--and we know today--that by a variety of means the Government of Syria is supporting terrorist groups. It needs to end.

In the 108th Congress, May 1, 2003, now with a total of 81 cosponsors, we introduced our bill again and at that time we said:

If we are serious about peace in the Middle East and a

cessation of terrorism here at home, then we must confront

the Government of Syria in a way that will not lead to war

but to a diffusing of tensions and a more peaceful world.

The administration opposed our bill very strongly. In fact, Secretary Powell came before the Foreign Relations Committee and when Senator Lugar and Senator Biden said to him, do you support or oppose the Syria Accountability Act, Secretary Powell said it would not be helpful to pass it.

I did not agree with him then and I do not agree with him now. When Secretary Powell went to see the head of Syria, what was one of the first things he said to him? He said, you ought to shape up because there is a bill in the Senate, the Syria Accountability Act, and those folks over there are serious.

It proved my point that, in fact, for us to be tough on terrorism gives the State Department the backup they need. I think, frankly, it will be very helpful for us to pass this bill today.

Now, the administration has moved off their opposition and they are neutral on this bill. They are neither for it nor against it. The good news is, the leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee, finally I think, have decided that maybe Boxer and Santorum have been on the right track. So this is a very big day for us because we have gone through a pretty tough legislative ride. We did not get hearings in the committee. We could not move it.

In addition to Senator Santorum, my original cosponsor of this, I do want to thank Senator Byrd, who made suggestions to perfect our bill, Senator Lugar who worked with Senator Byrd and others, Senator Biden, who agreed to let this come up in an expedited fashion, and over on the House side Representatives Eliot Engel and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen helped us quite a bit in moving this bill.

So it is, in fact, a day that is important. What we are basically saying in our bill is that if Syria does not shape up they are going to face sanctions from this Government. If Syria does not stop supporting terrorism, if Syria does not stop the development of weapons of mass destruction, if Syria does not end its occupation of Lebanon and cease support for the terrorists operating in Iraq, they are going to face a series of escalating sanctions.

The fact is that we have 81 cosponsors--and I see Senator Santorum on the floor now. He worked his side of the aisle, I have worked mine, and we were able to really get these cosponsorships up. On October 15, the House passed its version of the bill 398 to 4. So I have to say we are on to something.

Let me say from the bottom of my heart what I think we are on to. We are on to the premise that the truth shall set you free. We cannot have relationships with Syria and close our eyes to the truth, and the truth is that Syria is, in fact, supporting terrorism in ways that are very clear. They are a major supporter of Hezbollah, an international terrorist organization that has carried out numerous attacks against Americans and Israeli civilian targets. They have operated freely in the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon over the past 20 years. Other terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command all maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities inside Syria or in areas of Lebanon under Syrian control.

Anyone who has traveled to the region knows that one of the saddest stories in the world is the story of Lebanon and how its people have lost any control over their own destiny. As we fight for democracy in the world, we have to remember that. This was a country at one point that was absolutely considered the Paris in the Middle East, and it has really been lost because it has been taken over in a hostile takeover, I might say, by the power of Syria.

So all of these issues, getting Syria to turn its back on terrorism and not allow these organizations to operate within their borders, Syria allowing the Lebanese people to have a life of freedom and democracy or at least self-determination, however they determine it, these are issues that are crucial. As long as they keep up the status quo, the goal of Middle East peace is quite elusive.

Twenty thousand Syrian troops and security personnel continue to occupy Lebanon and again, as I said, undermine its political independence. It is a direct violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 520. What does that say? That resolution calls for strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon.

We also know that Syria is developing weapons that are very dangerous, and that they are not doing enough to prevent terrorists from entering into Iraq. In fact, the terrorist who was attempting to blow up an Iraqi police station was found to be carrying a Syrian passport.

This has to stop. Nations must be held accountable for the proliferation of terrorism and they must be held accountable if they are not doing all they can to pursue Middle East peace or at least allow that peace to take place.

So this legislation has taken a bumpy road. When Senator Santorum and I got together to work on it, people said that is quite a combination. They said if those two can get together on anything, eventually we know we are going to win.

It has taken us almost 2 years but we could not be happier. We want to thank the 80 other Senators who are cosponsors of this bill. We, again, thank Senators Lugar and Biden for allowing this bill to come directly to the floor today. We think it is a historic day.

Our goal is to prevent war and to lay out markers for Syria. We do not want to go to war with Syria. We just want to say, in a truthful way, these are the things that you have been doing wrong. Please meet these markers. Help us. Help us in the world. If you don't, we are going to have some sanctions and they are spelled out. I think others have spelled them out. The idea behind this bill is to avoid a confrontation and instead have a relationship that is respectful between our two nations. I think today we will go a long way to that end.

I believe all my time is used up at this point so I will yield the floor and I hope we will be voting shortly on this.

Mr. President, today is Veterans Day--a day to honor the service of those brave men and women who have fought for and defended our country.

This Veterans Day has special meaning as 130,000 Americans are serving in Iraq, and many in this country have lost loved ones in Iraq in the past year.

Americans can be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are serving today. They are continuing to show the courage, dignity, and bravery with which our veterans, who we honor today, have served in the past.

That rich tradition includes those Americans who serve in the Guard and Reserves. In the 12 years since the first war in Iraq, more than 525,000 members of the Guard and Reserves have been mobilized--more than twice the number that were mobilized in the previous 36 years.

When they are called up to active duty, they leave their civilian jobs--and their civilian salaries--behind. Most take a pay cut--and are glad to do so to serve our country. But when that active duty service becomes an extended tour of duty, the financial strain on the families left behind can be enormous.

To close this pay gap, some State and local governments make up the different between military and civilian pay for their employees who have been activated. Unfortunately, with strains on State and local budgets across the country--as well as the increased demand for more police and firefighters to help fight terrorism and enhance our homeland security--such payments to our Guards and Reservists are a financially difficult option--or not an option at all--for most State and local governments.

That is why I am today introducing the Service to the Country Reimbursement Act. Under my bill, the Federal Government would reimburse State and local governments for the costs of paying the different between the civilian salary and the military pay of a Guard or Reserves member who is activated for more than 30 days.

This legislation will encourage State and local governments to make those payments in order to keep the families financially whole, ensuring that the families of those who serve our country in the Guards and Reserves will not be financially penalized because of the service being made to our country.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. And I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today is Veterans Day--a day to honor the service of those brave men and women who have fought for and defended our country.

This Veterans Day has special meaning as 130,000 Americans are serving in Iraq, and many in this country have lost loved ones in Iraq in the past year.

Americans can be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are serving today. They are continuing to show the courage, dignity, and bravery with which our veterans, who we honor today, have served in the past.

That rich tradition includes those Americans who serve in the Guard and Reserves. In the 12 years since the first war in Iraq, more than 525,000 members of the Guard and Reserves have been mobilized--more than twice the number that were mobilized in the previous 36 years.

When they are called up to active duty, they leave their civilian jobs--and their civilian salaries--behind. Most take a pay cut--and are glad to do so to serve our country. But when that active duty service becomes an extended tour of duty, the financial strain on the families left behind can be enormous.

To close this pay gap, some State and local governments make up the different between military and civilian pay for their employees who have been activated. Unfortunately, with strains on State and local budgets across the country--as well as the increased demand for more police and firefighters to help fight terrorism and enhance our homeland security--such payments to our Guards and Reservists are a financially difficult option--or not an option at all--for most State and local governments.

That is why I am today introducing the Service to the Country Reimbursement Act. Under my bill, the Federal Government would reimburse State and local governments for the costs of paying the different between the civilian salary and the military pay of a Guard or Reserves member who is activated for more than 30 days.

This legislation will encourage State and local governments to make those payments in order to keep the families financially whole, ensuring that the families of those who serve our country in the Guards and Reserves will not be financially penalized because of the service being made to our country.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. And I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Feinstein-Boxer amendment, and I note that there are a number of others on that amendment as well. I hope colleagues will realize this amendment will make this bill better, will make this bill stronger, and I am going to take a few minutes to explain why in as simple a way as I can.

I stand here very proud that my State treasures privacy and they acted on that value. After years of struggle, California put into law the most tough financial privacy standard in the Nation.

Others can say oh, that is not true, and they can quibble, but the facts are the facts. Every consumer group that you ask, any group that is objective on the subject, will tell you that our law is the best and is far better--certainly than the House bill, and better than the bill that is before us today.

I do want to compliment my friend. You have made some good advances here. I will talk about that in my statement. But we can do better, and I offer this amendment with Senator Feinstein in a very friendly way, in the hopes that maybe we can make this better.

The struggle to pass SB-1, California's financial privacy law, was very long and very transparent. I want to say that State Senator Jackie Speier did an unbelievable job. For 4 years, she worked with banks on behalf of the consumers. The industry invested more than $20 million in lobbying expenses and campaign contributions during those 4 years but eventually a wonderful thing happened. The banks came to the table and they negotiated with Senator Speier. The fact is, there was a reason. They saw the handwriting on the wall. They saw that there was going to be a State initiative. They had already gathered 550,000 signatures quickly and Senator Speier's provision for more strict privacy was supported in the polls. How about this? California Democrats in the polls supported this initiative by 96 percent; and California Republicans, 88 percent; Independents, 90 percent.

So Senator Speier had touched on a very important value of Californians. I really do believe if you took a poll today, just a really carefully worded one which went into every State in the Union, there would be support for this Feinstein-Boxer amendment to make this bill stronger.

I will explain it.

The committee went ahead and did some good things. It includes fraud alerts for consumers and protection for credit card numbers on receipts and free credit reports.

It is very important they say that you can't go outside and share the information with outside companies. That is great. I salute Senators Shelby and Sarbanes for that progress.

However, there is one major problem Senator Feinstein and I are addressing in this amendment. We are saying, first of all, if a State wants to go further than you have, we ought to have that chance. Your bill ought to be a ceiling. All good wisdom doesn't reside here. We always like to think it does, but it doesn't.

A lot of our States are ahead of us, and they want to do more. Yet California finds itself left out because there is no preemption for our State. We know we are not going to get that. We have 35 million people in our State. We can't get an exemption. We understand that. We are simply asking you follow the lead of our State on this one because I think it is the fair thing to do.

Some people listening today might say, Well, the committee bill says you can't go outside and share information. But you can share it with your own affiliates that are in your little corporate family. What is wrong with that? That is a logical question until you look at the banking industry and look at how big these families can get.

Let us take a look at some of these families for which this bill would allow affiliate sharing.

Let us take a look at Citigroup. They are small? They have 1,630 affiliates.

Bank of America. How well I remember the proud history of that bank in my State. They have 1,323 affiliates.

JP Morgan, 967 affiliates; Wachovia Corporation, 886 affiliates; Wells Fargo, 671; Bank One, 253.

When you say to all of these people you cannot share information outside your family, you are in essence saying you can share it within your families. We are talking about thousands of affiliates that will get every bit of information about you and your financial transactions. My colleagues can stand up here from night until morning and argue with me on the point that we are wrong on this. I know we are right. This is the right thing to do to protect our constituents.

Let me show you Bank of America affiliates. I want to show it in a way that is pretty graphic. I will not read every one of their affiliates. I am going to truncate and do this quickly.

We have nine charts listing all of these. These are Bank of America banks: Commonwealth National Bank, First National Bank, National Bank of Howard County, and American State Bank. I can't even pronounce some of these. Bank of America Mexico; Finacero Bank of America. They will know your transactions. That is just the first Bank of America chart. Let us look at one other. We do have nine of these. I will go quickly.

Here is another one. Let us go to Bank of America insurance companies and look at who they own: First National Insurance Services, American Fidelity and Liberty, Bank of America Insurance Services, Inc., and Home Focus Services. I don't know what they do, but they will know what you do. General Fidelity Life. How about Boatman's Insurance Agency? You do business with any one of these and more than a thousand affiliates will know how much you earn, what your Social Security number is, how did you pay, if you missed a payment, what your likes and dislikes are.

Let us show a couple of others.

Bank of America and other affiliated companies: Oakland Trace Redevelopment, Holly Springs Meadows, LLC, East Nashville Housing. You go into a bank in California and East Nashville will know what you are worth.

Dallas-Ft. Worth Affordable Housing, Old Heritage New Homes, Texas Corporate Tax Credit Fund, and it goes on. Michigan, Osbourne Landing Limited, it goes on and on. West Wood Manor Development, Elk Ridge Apartments.

The point I am making--and I will show one last chart. We have 9 of these charts listing Bank of America's 1,600 affiliates, for anyone who really cares enough to examine each and every one of these affiliates.

Our point is we could go on and on and make our point with each and every chart, but I am going to spare my colleagues. They have worked long and hard already today. Here is the point: Do not share. That is a simple message. This Senate supported ``do not call.'' We said people deserve their privacy. If you don't want to get a call at night, you shouldn't have to get a call at night.

We are saying if you decide--and our amendment simply says you have to opt out automatically under this Feinstein-Boxer amendment--your information would be shared, you have to take an affirmative step and opt out. If you are a person who believes in your right to privacy, and you don't want some company over in The Netherlands to know what you are about, because there is one here--Bank of America Netherlands. How about Odessa Park? These are worldwide affiliates. We are very proud of Bank of America. Good for them. They have all of these affiliates. But not good for them if they start to share information.

Under the underlying bill, they can share all sorts of information with every one of these affiliates. Guess what. You get turned down for a loan, let us say, because of information that was shared among the affiliates. You have absolutely no right to know who told who what, where, and when. What if it was wrong? There is no redress. There is no way to correct the record.

All I can say is I have heard the debate, and I have heard our amendment taken out of context: Oh, gee, that amendment will make it worse for people. Wrong. I will tell you who is supporting our amendment--people who have fought their whole lives for consumers and for the rights of people to have privacy. That is who is supporting us.

The AARP, which represents many seniors, supports our amendment; the ACLU fights for civil liberties and privacy; Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Privacy Times, U.S. PIRG. These are people who absolutely know our amendment is a step in the right direction.

I have a couple of other points to make. I will make them as quickly as I can.

I want to share with you some of the quotes that were made by the big banks when California passed its law. Did they complain about it? Not at all. This is what they said.

This is Diane Colborn who lobbies for Personal Insurance Federation. She called this workable, reasonable compromise a ``balanced measure that will provide meaningful protections to consumers while also addressing the workability concerns that our members and customers had.''

Jim Bruner, who lobbies for the Securities Industry Association, appeared before our committees in California. He said the measure is a ``good, workable, reasonable bill.''

The ink didn't dry on that bill before they came up here and started wining and dining and talking to people--I guess you can't wine and dine anymore, and that is a good thing--about why this bill couldn't go too far. Don't go too far; it is a burden. I am so sorry about that. I was so excited when California passed the privacy protections.

In closing my remarks, I will read some newspaper editorials.

From the New York Times: ``Buyer Beware,'' just written a few days ago.

This (affiliate sharing) is a dark and unmapped universe in

which banks, credit card companies and insurers have free

rein to share detailed records among thousands of affiliates,

with customers largely powerless and unknowing. Bank

balances, buying habits, investment profiles and more can be

tapped into in ways that invite fraud, marketing assaults,

identity theft and unfair credit decisions.

The Senate measure contains no real solution for

indiscriminate data sharing. Far preferable is an amendment

to be offered by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer

of California that would require advance notice from

businesses so consumers would have a chance to block planned

sharings that reached beyond relevant credit issues.

Rejection of this amendment would only compound businesses'

temptation to be marketers rather than the protectors of the

privacy of the American consumer.

We know in the underlying bill you cannot share for marketing purposes, but there is a giant loophole dealing with preexisting relationships, making it confusing and complicated. That is why I believe the Feinstein-Boxer amendment will cure these problems.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

The financial services industry is guilty of a nasty bait-

and-switch on the people of California. Its lobbyists worked

with privacy advocates to help shape the law into what the

industry called a reasonable and workable compromise. All the

industry said it hoped for was a uniform privacy standard

across the nation.

Yet immediately after the California law was approved,

industry lobbyists went to Washington to try to erase it from

the boxes. The only national standard they are interested in

is one that gives them the unfettered right to sell their

customers' personal financial details to the highest bidder.

That was the San Jose Mercury News, in the heart of Silicon

Valley. This is a newspaper that very often is on the cutting

edge of the way we ought to be thinking about financial

issues.

I close with an editorial from The Los Angeles Times, October 29, entitled ``Put Privacy on the List.''

Congress promised voters that it would improve consumer

rights with regular reviews of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,

initially passed 33 years ago to balance the competing

interests of business and consumers. Bills in the House and

Senate would make it easier for consumers to see credit

reports and report identity theft. But the legislation

wouldn't help consumers keep private their bank balances,

spending patterns and other sensitive data. Congress could

cover this gaping problem by adopting the amendment crafted

by Feinstein and Boxer, which keeps alive the protections at

the heart of SB 1.

Colleagues, I know sometimes we get bills where deals have been cut, deals have been made, and everyone has put their hand out like after a sports game, saying: OK, on blood oath, we will not take amendments. I have been here long enough to know that.

I hope some colleagues will be open to this. We have done the right thing. Strong percentages of the American people--if it mirrors California, it would be 80 percent and above--support making sure that your personal-private financial data cannot be shared within a family of a company which could include thousands--1,600, 2,000, who knows--as more and more mergers go on. We do not want that information to be shared.

That is exactly the right course to take. I am hopeful we will get a strong vote on the Feinstein-Boxer amendment.

I yield the floor.

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I am very pleased to say both Senator Sarbanes and Senator Shelby have signed off on this amendment.

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

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor.

Very briefly, this amendment closes what I consider to be a little bit of a loophole in the marketing opt-out provision of the bill. We do two things. The underlying bill says the marketing opt-out expires after 5 years, unless a consumer opts out

again. We make the first opt-out permanent as long as the consumer wants it.

Secondly, the definition of a preexisting relationship with a company, with an affiliate, is drawn in such a way, it is very broad. So what we say is, a person will be deemed to have this preexisting relationship with the affiliate if they have purchased, rented, or leased a service or good from the affiliate during the 18-month period before the information sharing takes place or they have inquired about an affiliate's product in the 3 months before the sharing takes place.

By adopting this simple amendment, we keep financial institutions from violating consumer rights. I am very pleased that both sides of the committee have signed off on this, and I would be happy to take a voice vote on this at this time.

Mr. President, I have been yielded 10 minutes by the minority leader, which I would like to use at this time.

I start off by first saying this is a very hard time for our country. Clearly, for my State, the kind of horror we have seen from these uncontrollable fires has been just unspeakable. Finally, we are getting them contained. At this point, we have lost 3,400 homes. Some 750,000 acres have burned. We have had 20 deaths, one of them a fireman from my home county.

For me, the bill that is before us is a mixed bag in many ways. It does have funding for these disasters. It does have money for our brave, courageous, and extraordinary heroes and, of course, I support all of that. What I do not support is the fact that many of the provisions have been dropped that would have made a difference in our policy there. We are going down a path that is bringing the American people pain deep within their hearts that one just cannot even measure.

I have long talked about shoulder-fired missiles and what they can do to aircraft. We have seen that in the starkest possible way. I feel so much sadness given what is happening in my State. I am glad the President is coming there tomorrow. I am writing a letter to FEMA. I have been calling Director Michael Brown, who has been very compassionate, to set up disaster centers. I have been calling on him to work with me in encouraging the mortgage companies to be as good to their mortgage holders as Fannie Mae has been, giving them a chance to recoup and getting those individual and business loans to start rebuilding, which we will. We will rebuild.

I went back to look at my own record on fire issues since maybe 5, 6, 7 years ago. We have been urging for so many years that communities close to national forests be paid special attention. So there will be more time to talk about all of that.

Today, I wish to eulogize our young men and women who have died during the war in Iraq, as well as those who have been killed during this postwar period. I simply want to call attention to the Californians who have died in this conflict. We have lost 73 young people in this war from California. My

colleagues will note that there are 72 on this list behind me. We just learned of the first woman from California today. That puts us up to 73. I want to read their names. I am not going to tell my colleague about each and every one of them. I am going to put that in the Record:

Michael Bitz, Jose Garibay, Jorge Gonzalez, Thomas Mullen Adams, Jose Gutierrez, Randal Kent Rosacker, Michael Vann Johnson, Jr., Ryan Beaupre, Therrel Shane Childers, Brian Matthew Kennedy, Kendall Damon Watersbey, Kevin Nave, William White, Joseph Menusa, Jesus Suarez Del Solar, Patrick T. O'Day, Francisco Flores, Aaron Contreras, Donald May, Robert Rodriguez, Michael Lalush, Brian McGinnis, Christian Gurtner, Erik Silva, Benjamin Sammis, Chad Bales, Mark Evnin, Eric Smith, Travis Ford, Devon Jones, Duane Rios, Edward Smith, Jesus Medellin, Juan Garza, Jr., Jeffrey Bohr, Jr., Jesus Gonzalez, Riayan A. Tejeda, David Owens, Jr., Jason Mileo, Troy Jenkins, Osbaldo Orozco, Jose Rodriguez, Jakub Kowalik, Douglas Marencoreyes, Andrew Lamont, William Moore, Timothy Ryan, Aaron White, Kirk Straseskie, Jonathan Lambert, Atanacio Marin, Ryan Cox, Andrew Chris, Travis Bradachnall, Paul Nakamura, David Moreno, Andrew Tetrault, Cory Geurin, Evan Ashcraft, David Perry, Daniel Parker, Kylan Jones-Huffman, Pablo Manzano, Joseph Robsky, Jr., Joshua McIntosh, Sean Silva, Jose Casanova, Sean Grilley, Michael Hancock, Jose Mora, Steven Acosta, Paul Velazquez, and this is the first woman to die in this war from California, Karina Lau, age 20, of Livingston, killed on November 2 in Iraq. Karina was onboard a Chinook helicopter when it was attacked. She was assigned to B Company, 16th Signal Battalion, 3rd Signal Brigade, in Fort Hood, TX.

We send our deepest love and sympathy to all of these families.

This is what is happening in Iraq. Maybe we do not see the bodies coming home but this is what is happening in Iraq. It was not supposed to be thus. I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee and they told us we would be welcomed as liberators. They said the purpose was to get the weapons of mass destruction, and the purpose was to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

If those were the purposes, it is time now to rethink what we are doing there. That means, it seems to me, to admit that it is not going the way the American people were promised.

We are told 80 percent of Iraq is safe. We have been told that by many people. We have been told that by Paul Wolfowitz. We have been told that by Ambassador Bremer. I am going to take them at their word-- 80 percent of Iraq is safe. Then why do we have to have only our young people, with a few others sprinkled in, in those areas? What we need to do is bring in the peacekeepers, if things are safe in those areas, 80 percent of the country. We should concentrate our force in the area of the country that is so very dangerous. We should get help from the entire world to do that. This burden cannot keep on falling on America's families.

Many reporting requirements were dropped from this bill. I asked for a specific report detailing the extent to which U.S. military personnel have been replaced by international troops or Iraqi forces in secure areas of Iraq--the 80 percent solution I talked about. The conference report requires a report on U.S. efforts to increase the number of international troops, but basically it has dropped the portion where we talk about that 80 percent of the country.

I ask for an additional 2 minutes from the time of the Senator from West Virginia and then I will conclude.

I thank Senator Byrd. It has been my privilege to work with the Senator on this issue. You have been around far longer than I have been, but I have been around a long time.

I have seen Vietnam. I have seen our troops become sitting ducks. I have seen it. It doesn't have to be this way. There are other ways to deal with this.

I hope and continue to pray we will have an exit strategy that includes help from the entire civilized world. We know Iraq was a haven for a most brutal tyrant--one of the most brutal in all history, Saddam Hussein. We know that. We know he is essentially gone. That is a plus. But now Iraq has become a haven for the terrorists. It was not supposed to be thus. Doesn't it mean something when the President and his people tell the American people what is going to happen? Doesn't it mean something to say: You know what, we predicted this and this. It didn't happen. We need a new strategy.

That is what I was hoping for in this bill. Everything that really was leading toward that got voted down. Senator Byrd's amendments, Senator Kennedy's, others, the ones that were agreed to here have been knocked out, so we do not have the type of reporting requirements that would have shown us progress.

Instead, we have a continuation of the status quo. I am very surprised, for example, that the loan turned into a grant. I don't think that is good for taxpayers.

I thank you for your patience. I thank my colleague. I pray and hope for a new strategy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, Senators McCain and Lieberman, for all their hard work on S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act, and express my full support for this legislation. Unfortunately, this bill did not pass the Senate. This bipartisan legislation would have been a meaningful step in the right direction toward reducing our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions and would have helped address the problem of global warming.

There is no question that climate change is one of the most serious environmental challenges facing this nation and the world. We know that climate change is real. The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion supports the idea that climate change is occurring, that it is human- induced, that it will have significant and harmful consequences, and that we need to do something about it.

California has a great deal to lose if we do not take steps to halt and reverse climate change. My State enjoys tremendous ecological diversity ranging from our cool and wet redwood forests of the North Coast, to the hot Mojave and Colorado deserts in the southeast, to the vast fertile agricultural stretches in the Central Valley. Climate change is a very real threat to those natural ecosystems.

Scientific predictions indicate that human-induced global warming may produce a 3- to 10-degree rise in temperature over the next 97 years. That may not initially sound dramatic. But it would be enough to change the timing and amount of precipitation in my State. This could, for instance, lead to decreased summer stream flows, which would intensify the already significant controversy over the allocation of water for urban, agricultural and environmental needs.

Scientists also predict that by the year 2050, California will face higher average temperatures every month of the year in every part of the State. The average temperature in June in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, for instance, could increase by 11 degrees Fahrenheit. The snowpack in the Sierra, which is a vital source of water in the State, is expected to drop by 13 feet and to have melted entirely nearly 2 months earlier than it does now. This means that the precious water on which we now rely for agriculture, drinking water, and other purposes.

In light of the threat global warming poses to my State, the Nation, and the world, I believe we must take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

The Climate Stewardship Act would have required companies in the energy, transportation and manufacturing sectors to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. The bill would have provided tax incentives for the development of energy-efficient technology. The Climate Stewardship Act would have also encouraged the use of environmentally-friendly manufacturing technology.

This bill would have provided a reasonable approach to help us achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gases and addressing global warming. I am extremely disappointed that the Senate did not pass this legislation.

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.

I would like to thank the Senator from Vermont for his outstanding leadership on this bill and especially for his leadership on infectious disease issues. As my colleague well knows, tuberculosis is the greatest curable infectious killer on the planet. TB is also the number one killer of people with HIV/AIDS and the biggest killer of young women.

We must support the highest possible funding level for global TB programs, especially as we scale up AIDS efforts, and we must ensure that these monies have maximum impact--curing as many people of TB as possible. Ensuring access to drugs is a key component in curing TB.

To address this issue, the Global TB Drug Facility, which is part of the Stop TB Partnership at the World Health Organization, is a remarkably successful international mechanism that is effectively providing access to high-quality anti-TB drugs in the world's poor nations. The Global TB Drug Facility procures drugs at low cost through a competitive bidding process, distributes drugs to qualified grantees, and works with Stop TB partners to ensure monitoring and evaluation.

In operation just 2 years, the Global TB Drug Facility has reduced the price of anti-TB drugs to just $10 for a full six to eight month course of treatment, and has approved grants to over 40 countries.

The Global TB Drug Facility, GDF is so successful that the World Health Organization is using it as a model for providing anti- retroviral drugs and diagnostics in its campaign to reach 3 million people with anti-retrovirals by 2005.

Yet, despite its immense effectiveness, the GDF is facing a severe funding crisis. It does not have funding to meet existing commitments next year or to make any new grants for drug purchases. It needs $50 million next year and a minimum of $25 million just to meet existing commitments for 2004. If it does not get its minimum funding, at least 1.8 million TB patients will be put at serious risk and many will die, and we will be interrupting supplies of drugs--creating the perfect conditions to develop a dangerous drug resistant strain of the disease.

H.R. 1298, The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, which was passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President, calls for ``substantially increased funding for the Global Tuberculosis Drug Facility.''

The United States provided only $2 million to the GDF in 2002 and just $3 million in 2003. As a crucial part of our global TB effort, the United States should significantly increase our support for the Global TB Drug Facility in 2004. For example, $15 million provided to the TB Drug Facility could provide TB drugs to treat over 1 million people.

international narcotics and law enforcement

Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the memory of a remarkable man, James ``Jack'' Meehan of Santa Cruz, CA, who died on Saturday, October 25, 2003. Throughout his life he compiled an extraordinary record of devotion to his family, his community and our Nation. Jack was an 84-year-old longtime Santa Cruz resident, former Santa Cruz City Planning Commissioner and Santa Cruz Port District Commissioner, pilot, space industry pioneer, community volunteer and beloved husband, father and grandfather.

Jack was born and raised in Brooklyn, NY. He married Brenda McGourty in 1942 and she remained his devoted partner for 57 years until her death in 1999. Jack and Brenda had three children: daughter Diana and sons Terry and Tom.

He served as an Army air corps pilot in Europe during World War II. After his plane was shot down, Jack's bravery helped him successfully evade capture. We will always be grateful for Jack's heroic service defending our Nation, our freedoms and our way of life.

During the 1950s, Jack put his aviation skills to use as a Viking rocket designer and tester in New Mexico. He was a pioneer in this field because the Viking rocket was a precursor to the Vanguard rocket which launched America's first satellite.

In 1959, Jack and his family settled in beautiful Santa Cruz. Jack tested satellites at Lockheed Martin in nearby Sunnyvale. He continued to pilot small planes until he gave that up in 1977. But of course, Jack's irrepressible spirit kept him very active, and he began boating in the Monterey Bay. Like everything Jack did, he gave boating his all and joined the Coast Guard Auxiliary, assisting in sea rescues. He also taught weather forecasting and radio communications.

In 1981, he was appointed to the Santa Cruz Port Commission, a position to which he was twice re-elected over the next 17 years. He also served as a Santa Cruz City Planning Commissioner.

After Jack retired, he was a devoted volunteer for the Santa Cruz County Red Cross. He built HAM radio systems, travelled and practiced his French language skills. Recalls his son Tom, ``Sports cars, TV's, HAM radios and computers were all puzzles to be unwrapped with his tools and insight.''

His daughter Diana commented, ``I most admire that he was brave and loving. He was romantic, tender and funny with my mother. He was a caring father.'' Throughout his life, Jack was constantly helping anyone in need. As one friend and neighbor explained of Jack and Brenda, ``they always served the community.''

Jack had a wonderful sense of humor. Even when he was sick and in the hospital, his caregivers would leave the room smiling because of his joking. ``He had a quick wit that was kind, playful and relentless. He had a distinctive Jack Meehan laugh and you could find him in airports and crowded restaurants by that laugh,'' remembered son Terry. Added son Tom, ``Whenever asked about his favorite time of life, he would always respond `right now, and in the future.' ''

James ``Jack'' Meehan is survived by his daughter Diana, sons Terry and Tom and six grandchildren. He was an exceptional man.