Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to reflect on the proud history of Hollywood High School, which is celebrating its centennial on September 13. In some ways, Hollywood High School lives up to its name. Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, and Lana Turner were on the school's roster. Carol Burnett was the editor of the school paper. And scores of other celebrities received their education at Hollywood High. Hollywood High has certainly grown significantly from its humble beginnings.

It opened in 1903 on the second floor of a former bakery located on Highland Avenue. It had an enrollment of 56 students, and only three teachers were on the payroll. Two years later, construction on a Roman- temple style building was underway at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue, and this is where the school still stands today.

Over the years, Hollywood High's student population grew to include not

only Hollywood celebrities, but also leaders in American government, and in many other fields. Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher graduated from Hollywood High, as did Judge John Aiso, the first Nisei appointed to the federal bench.

Hollywood High School provides a myriad of services to students interested in the performing arts. In partnership with Paramount Studios, it administers the New Media Academy. Hollywood High also has a winning debate team, award-winning dance and drill teams, and a Performing Arts Magnet Center.

Mr. President, it is clear that Hollywood High has enjoyed a colorful and successful history, and I congratulate the school, staff and students on this special occasion.

Mr. President, I wish to reflect on the 75-year history of Camp San Luis Obispo in my home State of California. A celebration of this special anniversary will be held on August 22, 2003. Established in 1928, Camp San Luis Obispo then Camp Merriam has served our state and nation well: as a training site for the California National Guard, as a training and staging base for the U.S. Army during World War II and the Korean War, and now as the home of the Guard's California Military Academy.

Camp San Luis Obispo was established in the years following World War I, when it was recognized that a training site for the Guard was needed. The federal government began using the camp just before World War II. The camp was active throughout the war, and by the end of the war in 1944, it had expanded to 15,433 acres and had the ability to serve more than 20,000 troops. During the Korean War, the Army trained soldiers at the Southwest Signal School that opened in 1951.

In July 1965, the State of California regained control of the camp. With the closure of California military installations during the past ten years, the centrally-located Camp San Luis Obispo has served as a resource for Guard and Reserve units.

During the past 75 years, Camp San Luis Obispo has provided an important service to the California National Guard and to our nation. This historic camp has served as a training site during some of our nation's most difficult national security challenges.

I congratulate Camp San Luis Obispo on this milestone, and commend the California National Guard for their noble service over the years.

Mr. President, history books written about California always comment on the natural beauty of the State because our natural treasures have always been one of the things that makes California unique. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I am introducing the California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 in an effort to pass the first statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984.

I introduced a similar bill last year and was thrilled that the 107th Congress passed legislation to designate 56,000 acres of my bill as wilderness within the Los Padres National Forest. It was a wonderful first step. The California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 represents the next step.

This legislation will protect more than 2.5 million acres of public lands in 81 different areas, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22 rivers. Every acre of wild land is a treasure. But the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious, including: the old growth redwood forests near the Trinity Alps in Trinity and Humboldt Counties; the pristine coastline in the King Range in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties; the Nation's sixth highest waterfall, Feather Falls, in Butte County; the ancient Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains in Inyo and Mono Counties; and the oak woodlands in the San Diego River area.

The bill protects these treasures by designating these public lands as ``wilderness'' and by naming 22 rivers--including the Clavey in Tuolumne County and the Owens in Mono County--as ``wild and scenic'' rivers. These designations mean no new logging, no new dams, no new construction, no new mining, no new drilling, and no motorized vehicles. Mining, logging and grazing activities that are currently permitted would be allowed to continue.

Protection of the areas in this bill is necessary to ensure that these precious places will be there for future generations. Because much of our state's drinking water supply is made up of watersheds in our national forests, this bill also helps ensure California has a safe, reliable supply of clean drinking water.

This bill would also mean that the hundreds of plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas will continue to have a safe haven. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include the bald eagle, Sierra Nevada Red Fox, and spring run chinook salmon, among others.

In short, this bill preserves, prevents, and protects. It preserves our most important lands, it prevents pollution, and it protects our most endangered wildlife.

That is why this bill is so widely supported. Thousands of diverse organizations, businesses, and others see the importance of this legislation and have given it their support. Additionally, over 400 local elected officials have voiced support for the protection of their local areas.

Despite the tremendous support for this bill, it is not without opponents. They will say this bill is too large and goes too far. Yet this bill is similar in size to other statewide wilderness bills that have already passed Congress. The 1984 California Wilderness Act protected approximately 2 million acres and 83 miles of the Tuolumne River. A more recent wilderness bill, the California Desert Protection Act, protected approximately 6 million acres of desert areas.

It is important to note that only 13 percent of California is currently protected as wilderness. This bill would raise that amount to 15 percent. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness--approximately the size of Yosemite National Park--lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people, these development pressures are only getting worse. If we fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands or wild rivers left to protect.

The other big question that has been raised is whether this bill will limit public access to these areas. I do not believe this will be the case. While wilderness designation means the wilderness areas are closed to mountain bikers, they remain open to a myriad of recreational activities, including horseback riding, fishing, hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, cross country skiing, and canoeing. Mountain bikers and motorized vehicles have 100,000 miles of roads and trails in California that are not touched in my bill. Furthermore, numerous economic studies suggest wilderness areas are a big draw that attract outdoor recreation visitors, and tourism dollars, to areas that have received this special designation.

One important change has been made to the legislation after concerns were raised about wildfire prevention and control near at-risk communities. The bill I am introducing today protects communities by allowing Federal, local and State agencies to perform fire and emergency response activities in wilderness areas. I worked extensively with the California Department of Forestry on this legislation, and they have expressed their support for the language in the bill.

Those of us who live in California have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur and Joshua Tree. These are places that Californians cannot imagine living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future generations--for our children's children, and their children. This bill is the place to start and the time to start is now.

Mr. President, history books written about California always comment on the natural beauty of the State because our natural treasures have always been one of the things that makes California unique. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I am introducing the California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 in an effort to pass the first statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984.

I introduced a similar bill last year and was thrilled that the 107th Congress passed legislation to designate 56,000 acres of my bill as wilderness within the Los Padres National Forest. It was a wonderful first step. The California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 represents the next step.

This legislation will protect more than 2.5 million acres of public lands in 81 different areas, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22 rivers. Every acre of wild land is a treasure. But the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious, including: the old growth redwood forests near the Trinity Alps in Trinity and Humboldt Counties; the pristine coastline in the King Range in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties; the Nation's sixth highest waterfall, Feather Falls, in Butte County; the ancient Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains in Inyo and Mono Counties; and the oak woodlands in the San Diego River area.

The bill protects these treasures by designating these public lands as ``wilderness'' and by naming 22 rivers--including the Clavey in Tuolumne County and the Owens in Mono County--as ``wild and scenic'' rivers. These designations mean no new logging, no new dams, no new construction, no new mining, no new drilling, and no motorized vehicles. Mining, logging and grazing activities that are currently permitted would be allowed to continue.

Protection of the areas in this bill is necessary to ensure that these precious places will be there for future generations. Because much of our state's drinking water supply is made up of watersheds in our national forests, this bill also helps ensure California has a safe, reliable supply of clean drinking water.

This bill would also mean that the hundreds of plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas will continue to have a safe haven. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include the bald eagle, Sierra Nevada Red Fox, and spring run chinook salmon, among others.

In short, this bill preserves, prevents, and protects. It preserves our most important lands, it prevents pollution, and it protects our most endangered wildlife.

That is why this bill is so widely supported. Thousands of diverse organizations, businesses, and others see the importance of this legislation and have given it their support. Additionally, over 400 local elected officials have voiced support for the protection of their local areas.

Despite the tremendous support for this bill, it is not without opponents. They will say this bill is too large and goes too far. Yet this bill is similar in size to other statewide wilderness bills that have already passed Congress. The 1984 California Wilderness Act protected approximately 2 million acres and 83 miles of the Tuolumne River. A more recent wilderness bill, the California Desert Protection Act, protected approximately 6 million acres of desert areas.

It is important to note that only 13 percent of California is currently protected as wilderness. This bill would raise that amount to 15 percent. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness--approximately the size of Yosemite National Park--lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people, these development pressures are only getting worse. If we fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands or wild rivers left to protect.

The other big question that has been raised is whether this bill will limit public access to these areas. I do not believe this will be the case. While wilderness designation means the wilderness areas are closed to mountain bikers, they remain open to a myriad of recreational activities, including horseback riding, fishing, hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, cross country skiing, and canoeing. Mountain bikers and motorized vehicles have 100,000 miles of roads and trails in California that are not touched in my bill. Furthermore, numerous economic studies suggest wilderness areas are a big draw that attract outdoor recreation visitors, and tourism dollars, to areas that have received this special designation.

One important change has been made to the legislation after concerns were raised about wildfire prevention and control near at-risk communities. The bill I am introducing today protects communities by allowing Federal, local and State agencies to perform fire and emergency response activities in wilderness areas. I worked extensively with the California Department of Forestry on this legislation, and they have expressed their support for the language in the bill.

Those of us who live in California have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur and Joshua Tree. These are places that Californians cannot imagine living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future generations--for our children's children, and their children. This bill is the place to start and the time to start is now.

Will my friend yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

First of all, I thank the Senator for his, as usual, very concise reasoning over where we are. We are at a bit of an impasse because of what my colleague said.

I want to ask my friend, is he aware that for the Kuhl nomination both Senators from her State oppose her confirmation? Is my colleague aware of that?

I want to further say to my friend, when Bill Clinton was President and Orrin Hatch was chair of the Judiciary Committee, if one of the two Senators from that particular State did not send back a permission slip--or, as we call it around here, a blue slip--the nomination never moved forward.

Is my colleague aware that rule is changed by the chairman and, indeed, ignoring Senators' views? I would say through the Chair, is my colleague aware that Senator Hatch changed that rule?

Mr. President, I have one last question for my colleague through the Chair.

I just want to say, as someone from a State that has been painfully hurt by the electricity scams that went on on the west coast--and I think Senator Cantwell has put it best when she relays the story that when she goes home--and I can tell her, it happens to me, too--people say: Why isn't Ken Lay in jail--Ken Lay, the head of Enron Corporation?

They ask me about Jeff Skilling who came before the Commerce Committee and defended these schemes. He didn't know anything about all the schemes that came to light that hurt the people of California to the tune of probably an $11 billion theft.

So I ask my friend, through the Chair, this question: We have no control over when and if ever Ken Lay goes to jail or the other scoundrels who did this to the people of the west coast by making these phony shortages and stealing their money for things they need to survive. We don't control that. The administration does, through the Attorney General's Office. I hope they are moving aggressively, but it is awful slow.

What we do control is this Energy bill and this electricity title. My friend is so right to try and protect his people and the people from every State in the Union from what my people went through in California and Senator Cantwell's people went through.

I am asking my question. Isn't it true, I say to my friend, that this is the only way the Congress can assert itself since we have no control over what happens in the courts, that we can do something about sparing your people and the other people around this country from what California went through?

Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank my colleague from Washington for her continued leadership and information about what is a very complicated matter. It isn't easy to understand and follow all the market manipulation that occurred in our Western States. But she has explained it. I intend to do so as well.

Let me say this: When the majority leader says we have to have an Energy bill, I agree we need an Energy bill. However, we need a good Energy bill. We don't need a bad Energy bill. If we have an Energy bill which doesn't attack what happened in the west coast, then I want to say to my colleagues from every State in the Union--and I will be speaking for about 15 or 20 minutes--I will tell every colleague here from every State in the Union their people could very well go through what my people went through in California.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, the reason I waited for 2 hours this morning to speak today is to send a warning to my colleagues. Read what you are about to do. I find it incredible that instead of continuing on the present path--which is to amend the electricity title in a way that would make it better, in ways that would protect the American people from the type of scam we witnessed in the west coast, which in my State alone cost us about $9 billion, if not more, and which is responsible for about a third of the problems we are facing financially in my State--instead of fixing that electricity title, what do we have? We have an amendment filed stopping our ability to make any changes to it, and which, by the way, eviscerates all of the 21 amendments we have worked so hard on during the 8 days we have been on this bill, including amendments by Republicans and Democrats alike, dealing with biomass, LIHEAP, oil independence, clean coal, hydrogen, and so on.

Even the 21 amendments we worked so hard on have been left out of this bill which is now pending, and if we go to it, those 21 amendments will be gone.

I also hope that leadership is working now to straighten out where we are. We are in chaos, in my opinion, right now.

When the majority leader says we need an Energy bill, I want to say we need a good Energy bill.

The last thing we need is a bad Energy bill. Let's look at this bill. This bill has an electricity title which goes forward with deregulation in the face of the disaster we had on the west coast. Why colleagues would go ahead with this is beyond me.

But I have to say, in California, every single member of the legislature--Republican and Democrat--years ago voted for such a bill. It was signed by Pete Wilson, who is the one who brought it to the legislature. And it led to a total disaster. So maybe my colleagues don't understand the fact that this is one where you better read every line and you better understand what you are voting for because this one could come back to bite you really hard.

In the bill we have huge subsidies for nuclear power. We don't even know what to do with the waste. I see my colleague from Nevada crossing the floor. He is struggling with this. What are you going to do with the waste that lasts thousands of years that is so dangerous? We don't even know. But this subsidizes new nuclear powerplants.

This bill has done nothing about fuel economy--zilch. The amendment that passed was backed, frankly, by the big auto companies, and it does nothing, at a time when we are hoping to change our dependence on foreign oil.

What we have is a bill that ignores what happened to us in California. I see that my senior Senator is here. And no one knows better than she and I what this has meant to our people. And we are trying to be good colleagues to our colleagues to say: Wait. Stop. Time out. Don't go down that path that we went down.

In the midst of the crisis, I got a letter from a gentleman who lives in Bishop, CA. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

This gentleman wrote to me. His name is Zack Ranch. Actually, his wife wrote:

I am writing to ask your help. Our family has owned and

operated an alfalfa ranch in the Hammil Valley since 1965.

Our crop is irrigated in the summer with water pumped from

wells, by electric pumps. We have just been informed by

Edison that our power rate will double this summer, and will

possibly be raised beyond that in the future. Since we have a

narrow profit margin to begin with, this will effectively put

us out of business. Edison has told us that there is to be no

break for farmers. In the past, we have been on a ``time of

use'' program in the summer where we pump only during off

peak hours, but we aren't able to find if this program will

continue. Any information you can offer, or any help you can

give us, will be greatly appreciated.

Well, we lost so many small businesses and farmers during this period. It would have been worse if the State did not go in. Governor Davis, at that time, took over from the power companies and protected the people from the types of increases that consumers in Washington had, although we went up 25 percent, which is very hard to take, especially for a small business that is working on a small profit margin.

Let me show you a chart that demonstrates what happened to us at the height of our problems. This is the Enron scam. I would say to you, Mr. President, in this bill it is even going to be worse for your people because this bill has done away with the one agency that protects you against big mergers; it has essentially eviscerated the power of the

This is a letter we got ahold of in the Commerce Committee where the lawyers were, in essence, going into all of these schemes and basically telling Enron they were running afoul of State law, and yet the schemes continued. They went on and on.

Here are the rest of the strategies used that Senator Cantwell is trying to do away with, trying to do away with these schemes. That is why she has a number of amendments.

Death Star:

Enron gets paid for moving energy to relieve congestion

without actually moving any energy or relieving any

congestion.

This is detailed in the letter I just put in the Record.

Load Shift:

By knowingly increasing the congestion costs, Enron is

effectively increasing the costs to all market participants

in the real time market.

This is a great one. Exporting California power:

This strategy appears not to present any problems, other

than a public relations risk arising from the fact that such

exports may have contributed to California's declaration of a

Stage 2 Emergency.

They were taking power out of my State, robbing my State of its power. Be careful. This could happen to you. As Senator Dorgan said, he gets cheap power. In this bill that cheap power can be brought out of his State and suddenly they are faced with a lack of power. Is this the kind of Energy bill we need so badly, to take these schemes and allow them to happen in your States?

Inc-ing Load:

The answer is to artificially increase (inc) the load on

the schedule submitted to the ISO.

It is all fraud. It has all been exposed. We know now why we faced the kind of crisis we faced. Yet we can't get colleagues to listen to Senator Cantwell, to vote for her amendment. Then we get yelled at that we are not doing the right thing for the country.

I don't understand what is going on here. If we truly care about our constituents as we say we do, if we truly want to fight for our families, if we care about our small businesses, why would we pass a bill that allows these scams to continue? Why do we have to get lectured about the fact we are derailing something? I am trying to spare what happened to me and my constituents in my State from happening to you and your constituencies in your States. For that, we are being called obstructionist.

This is another way to look at what happened. Our demand for electricity in California during our crisis period went up 4 percent. Remember, I told you, we were the most energy efficient. The reason it went up 4 percent is we are growing. I must remind you, I represent 35 million people. We have the fifth largest economy in the world. So our electricity demand went up 4 percent and our wholesale cost of electricity went up 266 percent.

No business could survive if our State hadn't come in and taken over

when the power companies went under. Our power companies went under. Our electric utility companies went under. It is hard to imagine. They had been in business for 100 years or more.

I know my friend from Texas is raring to give her statement so I won't go on anymore.

I think before there are charges of obstructionism, we ought to take a deep breath and think about what happened to the largest State in the Union, when we were scammed by the private sector, by people with no morality, by people with no ethics, by people who should be in jail. We were scammed, and we are trying to prevent that from happening all over the country.

Instead, what we have is a bill that makes it easier for these scams to continue. What we have is a bill that continues on this path that will hurt consumers all over the country.

What Senator Cantwell has been fighting for is the opportunity to offer amendments. With what has happened here now, that is no longer possible. So, yes, some of us are going to continue to tell the story. Some of us are going to say: Let us learn from history. This isn't ancient history; this is 1999 and 2000.

What we want to do is make sure we have a system that will protect small business and will protect families and will protect us all from robber barons who come in and set up elaborate scams, giving them names: Death Star, Fat Boy, Get Shorty, Inc-ing, Ricochet. This isn't just some one person who had a thought. This was a conspiracy to harm consumers.

As Senator Cantwell said, electricity is a necessity. It is more than a commodity. You can do without a new suit; you can do without a pair of shoes if you already have one; but you cannot do without electricity, if you are in business or if you live in some of the desert areas in my State where senior citizens can get a heatstroke if they don't have their air-conditioner on. Senator Cantwell and I and others simply want to make sure that what happened to us does not happen to us again and what happened to us does not happen to you in your States.

I thank the Senate for its indulgence. I am very hopeful that our leaders are working out a way for us to walk away from this electricity title which is so damaging and move forward with a bill that doesn't hurt the people we represent. None of us wants to do it. Let's not do it.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is very interesting that you said this because when we heard from Mr. Wolfowitz in front of the Foreign Relations Committee where we had a hearing on the rebuilding of Iraq, the first thing he said matched what Mr. Bremer said, who is in charge of the rebuilding. He said: Those people over there need jobs. They need to get the economy going. They need jobs.

And I say to my friend, isn't there something ironic about that, that there is a total understanding of what the folks in Iraq need, when I could say in my State and yours and all through America, this should be the priority of the President in this country.

I ask unanimous consent that at the completion of my remarks, Senator Baucus be recognized for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. President, before Senator Feingold leaves the Chamber, I thank him for his comments. Since he is my seatmate on the Foreign Relations Committee, which in itself is an honor for me, I recall that we were very skeptical from the start about going it essentially alone in Iraq. He and I have pressed very hard to work through the U.N. weapons inspectors and to have the whole world breathing down Saddam's neck. Now, as it turned out, we essentially did it alone and we are bearing the burden of these tragic deaths every day, deaths that are almost going, I hate to say, unnoticed now, although some of us talk about the brave soldiers we are losing.

When it comes to the funding of this war, we are up to $45 billion to $50 billion a year, even without the rebuild. As my friend knows, because he has been a major force for fiscal responsibility, we cannot even share that burden. Even when countries such as the Poles come forward, and we are grateful to them for sharing the burden on the ground, we are paying for it. How can we sustain these costs at a time when our deficits are skyrocketing?

So we are in a bit of a mess, and I hope the President will move more forcefully toward internationalizing the rebuilding of Iraq and sharing the burden because that is the answer. That is what a real leader has to do.

We all said that the 21st century would be America's century but that does not mean we do it alone. It means we lead the world against tyrants and against the war on terror. So I wanted to thank my friend before he left the Chamber.

Nomination of Carolyn B. Kuhl

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a judicial nomination that has gotten no attention on the Senate floor thus far and yet we are going to have a vote on this nomination, as I understand it, tomorrow, the nomination of a woman from California which was ill advised from the start because there was no advice and consent done at all from this administration, at least to this Senator.

When I was notified that this nomination was going forward, I had several meetings with the Bush administration people and I asked, why are you choosing someone who is so far out of the center and so far to the extreme right, when the President said he would govern from the center?

In fact, I will never forget the night he declared victory, after the Supreme Court made their ruling, and the President came out, very appropriately, and I thought somberly, and said, I am going to bring this country together and I am going to govern from the center. I took him at his word.

When President Clinton was in office, I got a pretty stern lecture from Chairman Orrin Hatch, for whom I have

great respect. He said, Barbara, I want you to know that if you recommend any judges that are outside the center, forget about it. It is not going to happen. We are not going to let it happen. We want moderates.

I do not understand why that does not apply now. It applied to President Clinton. It ought to apply to President Bush. When President Bush said, I want to govern from the center, I took him at his word.

When the Constitution says the Senate shall be part of the advice and consent function, that does not mean we roll over and play dead to any President, be he or she Democrat or Republican. It means the President should seek our advice and must win our consent.

So when we see a judicial nominee come to this floor, where one of the home-state Senators never even sent back what we call the blue slip, which is sort of the permission slip, giving permission to move forward, when we see that being ignored after it said for many years on the slip, this nomination will not go forward unless you send back the slip--I ask unanimous consent that the blue slip be printed in the Record.

There is a note from Senator Hatch when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton administration, which I would like to read. The blue slip we used to receive from Senator Hatch said: ``Please return this form as soon as possible . . . No further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips''-- that means from each Senator--``have been returned by the nominee's home State Senators.''

That is what we all used to receive from Chairman Hatch. That was his former policy. Then all of a sudden it changed when the President changed.

So on process, this was a nomination that should not be before us. Then the bar kept being raised. Senator Feinstein said, let's have a hearing on this nominee and let me see whether I think she ought to move forward. Senator Feinstein listened, asked deep questions, pondered, and then said, no. And she will express for herself why she said no.

So we have two home State Senators against this nomination. What happens? The nominee is coming to the floor for a vote. We have not even debated it or discussed it.

I wanted to apologize to my friend from Montana, because I know he is talking on another subject, but this is crucial. I predict this Senate will not give the go-ahead to this nominee and I want to make the record clear as to why.

It is pretty clear that if we look at the values shared by the American people on such matters as privacy, civil rights, women's rights, access to the courts, whistleblower protection, legal intimidation, the right to the disabled and the environment, on every single one of these very key American values this nominee is way outside the mainstream. There are years of actions that prove what I have said.

I do not relish this situation. Everyone who knows me knows that I fight so hard for women's rights and for women to move forward and to break the glass ceiling, but when we see the record of this nominee, I have no choice. I do not deserve to be here if I do not make the case against this nomination and why I believe the proceedings should not move forward.

So let me first show how many groups are against this nominee and how controversial this nomination is. I am going to go through these. I am not going to read every name on it but I want to give a sense of this list: the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Justice--I am skipping some--Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Association of Flight Attendants, Breast Cancer Action--and I am going to explain why--Breast Cancer Fund, California Women's Law Center, Clean Water Action, Committee for Judicial Independence, Communications Workers of America, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Feminist Majority.

Let's go to the next chart. I am skipping many of these because of the time constraints I feel but let me continue. Foundation for a Smoke-Free America--and I will explain why they got involved--Friends of the Earth, Japanese American Citizens League, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Los Angeles African American Women's Political Action Committee, Mineral Policy Center, MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council. Again, I am reading a partial list here.

Another list, and this is incredible. This is one judicial nominee that is coming before us the day before we leave when we are in the middle of an Energy bill that the other side says is so important. They are throwing at us one of the most controversial nominees one could find. Office and Professional Employees International Union, Progressive Jewish Alliance, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association, Sierra Club, Smokefree Educational Services, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, UNITE, United American Nurses, United Farm Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Again, I am reading a partial list.

The last chart: Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees; Wilderness Society; Women's Committee, Labor Committee for Latin American Advancement; Women's Leadership Alliance; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and a number of members of the California delegation. This gives a sense of the breadth of opposition.

Let me start off telling a story why so many people are so upset about this nomination. It has to do with a case Judge Kuhl decided in the California courts that deals with a woman who is a cancer victim. I will read this woman's public statement.

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 re-live it.

This is a woman who was harmed by Judge Kuhl in a way she will never forget for the rest of her life.

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

the fear, and certainly not the emotional pain or

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.

She continues:

As a cancer survivor, I trusted that my doctor would make

decisions in my best interest and my doctor violated that

trust. The injustice, however, did not end there.

Judge Kuhl heard my case and found no fault in the doctor's

actions. She ruled that it was my obligation to protect my

privacy in his exam room. That I should have battled cancer

and my doctor's judgment at the same time. And, she denied my

request to allow a jury trial to determine if the intrusion

was highly offensive to a reasonable person.

We were taught not to question our doctors and I know as a

medical health professional that I have an obligation to

protect my client's privacy. I was shocked to find that the

doctor did not honor this obligation and I think that is why

Judge Kuhl's decision was unanimously reversed on appeal. If,

however, there is any duty for a citizen to ask questions as

a standard to protect our rights to privacy, it lies with the

Judiciary Committee.

The point is, a woman has breast cancer. She goes to the doctor for a

brutally difficult exam. She is humiliated in the office of that doctor by a total stranger, a drug salesman she later finds out, and Judge Kuhl rules against this woman, against her privacy rights, and tells her she should have asked, she should have known to ask who this stranger was that her doctor brought into the room.

This is someone the Bush administration wants to promote and give a lifetime judgeship to?

I can tell you what the breast cancer groups say. They normally do not get involved in these fights, but they are involved in this one. This is from Breast Cancer Action:

On behalf of Breast Cancer Action and our over 8,000

members in California, I am writing in support of your

opposition to the nomination of Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

They say:

Based on Kuhl's refusal to protect fundamental woman's

rights in cases such as this, the BCA opposes her nomination.

This is highly unusual.

We have another letter from another organization I want to share.

How can anyone be so cold and heartless as to tell someone suffering like this that they have to ask, Who is in the room? in a doctor's office?

The Breast Cancer Fund wrote:

Quite simply, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl does not show the level

of sound judgment necessary for an appellate court judge.

I know we have mostly men in the Senate, although we are moving forward with about 14 women. But any woman in the Senate will tell you, going for that type of an exam, even if you are totally healthy and not just coming out of a breast cancer operation, it is very difficult, it is very nerve racking, it is very embarrassing.

To have a woman judge rule against Ms. Sanchez-Scott's privacy is extraordinary to me. To have these kinds of letters from groups like this is extraordinary, and it ought to be extraordinary to every single Senator who should vote not to allow this nomination to go forward.

I will quickly go through the other issues where Carolyn Kuhl is outside the mainstream. We mentioned she is outside the mainstream on privacy rights. She is outside the mainstream on civil rights.

Kuhl urged the Reagan administration to adopt a position

that would grant tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University.

More than 200 lawyers in the Justice Department's civil

rights division signed a letter in opposition to this

position. The New York Times (May 26, 1983) characterized her

as part of a ``band of young zealots'' who urged the legal

switch.

She went forward and defended tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University even though it discriminated on the basis of race. Is this someone we want to elevate? She is outside the mainstream on civil rights.

She is also outside the mainstream on access to the courts. What makes our country so great is that we have the ability to go to the courthouse door and get into that courtroom. We have that right as Americans.

She argued that organizations do not have standing to sue in Federal court on behalf of their members. She called on the Supreme Court to reject the principle of associational standing, effectively undermining the ability of unions to enforce labor laws.

So if you believe, as she does, that a union does not have a right to sue on behalf of the members, that even, say, the NRA, the National Rifle Association, does not have a right to sue, whether the Chamber of Commerce should not have the right to sue, whether an environmental organization should not have the right to sue on behalf of its members, then go ahead and support her. But that undermines a basic, fundamental principle of our laws that organizations have standing to sue on behalf of their members. Whether it is the PTA or any other group, they should have the right and have their day in court.

Carolyn Kuhl is outside the mainstream on women's rights. As I go through this, I hope everyone understands it is not as if there were not other people who could have been nominated in California, great people who were Republicans in my State. And I begged the administration to do it. They said: Send a list. And I sent them a list of several wonderful Republicans in my State who would have been great nominees. No, they were going to go forward with this extreme nomination--whatever their reasons, I cannot say--even in the face of the two home State Senators' opposition.

Carolyn Kuhl supported a gag rule on title X funds, filing an amicus brief on behalf of the American Academy of Medical Ethics, an organization which represents more than 25,000 doctors who oppose abortion. She argued for restricted access to contraception, imposing additional requirements on recipients of title X funds.

We all know our country is divided on the right to choose. My State is very strongly pro-choice, that is true. But in the country it is split. I cannot believe we are split on the issue of contraception. Here we have a nominee who is for limiting access to contraception. This is outside the mainstream on women's rights. She ruled against a rape victim in favor of an insurance company when she had the opportunity to rule in favor of that victim and get that victim support.

She supported a restriction on access to abortion and urged reversal of Roe.

This is when she worked for the Department of Justice. This is what she said:

. . . Roe v. Wade is so far flawed . . . that the Court

should reconsider that decision and . . . abandon it.

That is what she argued.

On the environment, Kuhl represented a large oil company that wanted to avoid cleaning up polluted land.

Is that an American value, to stand on the side of a polluter and say let the people take care of it if an oil company polluted their land? I say it is outside the mainstream on the environment.

Legal intimidation--and this is very serious:

Kuhl ruled against an individual subjected to intimidation

and legal costs as a result of speaking out against Medicare

and insurance fraud. In unanimously overturning Judge Kuhl's

decision--

Unanimously overturning Judge Kuhl's decision--how far out of the mainstream can you be when a court that is dominated by Republicans overturns you unanimously?--

the California State Court of Appeals found her ruling

``would prolong both the [individual] defendant's predicament

and the [corporate] plaintiff's outrageous behavior.

Outside the mainstream on tobacco.

Kuhl was part of a team representing a tobacco company in

its effort to manipulate public policy.

That was the case State of Minnesota et al v. Philip Morris et al. On the wrong side, out of the mainstream.

She was out of the mainstream on exposing corporate fraud. Kuhl challenged the ability of whistleblowers to expose fraud against the Government.

Imagine, instead of taking the side of the whistleblowers--and who are whistleblowers? People who are willing to come out and tell the truth. She challenged the ability of whistleblowers to expose fraud against the Government. The case was United States ex rel Jason R. Madden v. General Dynamics Corporation.

She also misrepresented the U.S. Government's position on the constitutionality of the Federal whistleblower law in United States ex rel Rohan v. Newert, in 1993.

Outside the mainstream on rights for the disabled. She argued airline carriers do not have to abide by antidiscrimination statutes relating to the disabled.

Do you know whom she took on in this case? The Paralyzed Veterans of America.

It is hard for me to believe this record. It is hard for me to believe you are going to have to vote to move this nomination along. Why do we have all these groups very upset? Because they understand what her record has been. Fighting on the side against paralyzed veterans--it is unbelievable. Let me just say we will have a little more debate on this tomorrow, but I want my colleagues to understand that the way this nomination came to this Senate was just plain wrong. It went against Senator Hatch's own rules that he laid down when President Clinton was President. He said you had to have both Senators sending back their slips to allow this to go forward. Senator Hatch has changed that rule now that we have a different president.

Then, when we had two Senators against this nomination--we never expected it would be here--when I spoke to the President's men, they said:

``Give us some ideas of some mainstream people you might support. I was happy to do it. I sent them a list of wonderful people.

As a matter of fact, one of the people I recommended is known to the Senator from Oregon. One of the people I recommended for this position was known to the Presiding Officer.

Instead of reaching out to the Senators from California and coming in with a consensus nominee, for whatever reason the President chose to continue with this nomination. I can tell you, in all my years, I have never seen such an outcry from the people of this country.

I will close. A letter was sent to Senator Feinstein on May 6, 2003, by Shirley Hufstedler, a former Ninth Circuit judge, and the first U.S. Secretary of Education. She said:

I do not question Judge Kuhl's skill as a highly trained

lawyer. I am troubled by her lack of candor before her Senate

hearing and by her apparent insensitivity to the impact her

rulings have on some of the people who have come before her

as a judge.

That is an important point about which I didn't tell you. There were a number of statements Judge Kuhl made before the committee that, when asked in further detail after the hearing, she had to correct and clarify what she had said to the members of the Judiciary Committee. She said, Oh, I made a mistake. I was wrong. I didn't exactly say it right.

So whether you look at her performance before the Judiciary Committee, her actions within the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan years, her actions as a private lawyer, or her actions as a California judge, it all adds up to outside the mainstream, way outside the mainstream. And it goes against what I believed President Bush made as a commitment to the American people--that he would govern from the center.

I have voted for many judges here, probably 90 percent, maybe high 80s. Many were judges I did not agree with, who were conservative, who would not view the world as I view it. It is very rare--very rare--that I have taken to the floor to make this point. I do not do it lightly.

This is not a personal attack. I have met Carolyn Kuhl. She is delightful to talk to. But this is not about personalities and it is not about gender and it certainly is not about religion. It is about whether or not the advice and consent of the Senate was really sought in this. It is about how Senators were disregarded, the home State Senators who wanted to cooperate, who put forward names, and it is about her lifetime of fighting for everything that is outside the mainstream of America.

I do not think, after that decision on the breast cancer victim, and that alone, that someone who would be that insensitive to say to someone who was fighting breast cancer that you have to come in and you have to ask your doctor who is in the room with you, that it is your job--that kind of decision fails the test of compassion, sensitivity and, above all, the law. She was wrong on the law. She was overturned on the law.

For all those reasons, I beg my colleagues to stop this nomination from going forward. Let's get another nominee, a Republican nominee, I am sure--which President Bush has every right to do--but one who comes from the mainstream, with mainstream values and mainstream life.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator for her leadership on this amendment. I know there are several other amendments she will be offering.

The Senator has explained very clearly what has happened to real people who are trying to pay their bills on something that is absolutely necessary for life itself.

I ask my colleague a question on this point. In California, where we had this all begin, there was some ill-advised legislation signed into law by then-Governor Pete Wilson which brought this deregulation to my State. Is my colleague aware that the rates started to double, triple, and more, in our State, that our State government under Governor Gray Davis said, the people cannot afford this. He went out and said that he would, in fact, take care of this crisis.

As a result, our State is in deep debt. About a third of our debt can be related directly to what the electricity companies did with their schemes that you are going to be explaining and I will be talking about later.

Is my colleague aware that a third of the problem in California is directly related to the energy scam?

Will the Senator yield for just a moment on this point? I am going to go into a markup and then return.

My colleague points out that what she is attempting to do in this amendment, of which I am so proud to be a cosponsor, is to make sure what happened to Washington and Oregon and California is not going to happen to any other State, be it Kansas, be it Illinois, be it anywhere else.

For the life of me, I guess I need to say to my friend, does she understand why anyone in this Chamber, knowing what happened to our States, knowing what happened to our businesses,

knowing what happened to our consumers, knowing what happened, in the case of California, to our State budget because our Governor protected the consumers from these rates--can my friend understand why there would be one vote against her amendment, given what we know happened to us?

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor several times this year to eulogize our young men and women who have died during the war in Iraq, as well those who have been killed during the postwar period.

Today, I want to honor and remember three additional Americans who were from California or were based in California who have died since the war officially ended.

Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class David J. Moreno, age 26, of Gering, NE, was killed July 17 in Iraq. David was assigned to the Naval Medical Center, Fourth Marine Division Detachment, San Diego, CA.

Marine LCpl Jason Andrew Tetrault, age 20, of Moreno Valley, CA, was killed in Kuwait on July 9 in a vehicle accident. He was assigned to the 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was the quarterback for the Moreno Valley High School football team. He loved the outdoors, and told his family that he was looking forward to returning to California's beaches and seeing the Pacific Ocean again.

Marine LCpl Cory Ryan Geurin, age 18, of Santee, CA, was killed in Iraq on July 15. He graduated from West Hills High School in suburban San Diego and was the captain of the school's wrestling team his senior year. Cory was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA.

Mr. President, 58 individuals who were from California or based in California have died while serving our country in Iraq. The people of California, as well as all Americans, mourn their loss. I continue to pray for the safety of all of our troops and hope that they will soon be reunited with their families. I also continue my call for burden sharing in postwar Iraq so that American soldiers will not be singled out.

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

Mr. President, is it necessary to lay aside an amendment that is pending so that I can offer an amendment?

I make that request.

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

Mr. President, I think this amendment is very important in making sure we stay ahead of the threat that the FBI has identified as being very real to our people. I am going to show you what the FBI said about the threat of shoulder-fired missiles.

The FBI said that:

. . . given al-Qaeda's demonstrated objective to target the

U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian-made

MANPAD systems, and recent apparent targeting of U.S.-led

military forces in Saudi Arabia, law enforcement agencies in

the United States should remain alert to potential use of

I have completed my remarks. I wonder if we could just accept the amendment. Then I have one more amendment I would like to speak about 6 or 7 minutes on, and then we could lay that one aside.

Wonderful.

Sure, wonderful.

I have completed my statement. I didn't know if the Senator wanted to move along. I would be happy to yield the floor at this time.

Mr. President, I thank the committee very much. I cannot tell you how much I look forward to the day that the Department has agreed on a particular system, and that we can begin the installation of the system I think will send a very good message to the flying public. We will stay on top of this until we see it through.

Amendment No. 1331

(Purpose: To investigate the expenses caused by Secret Service

activities)

Mr. President, I send a second amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I know that each of us wants to do everything we can to help our first responders--the men and women who are called to duty as a result of a Federal action. Well, one of the areas where our local people have just been left out to dry all through of the years--this is not a partisan issue, whether in a Democratic administration or a Republican one--is that they have to pay the costs of security details when a leader comes into the State, be it a domestic leader like the President, a Presidential candidate, the Vice President, or their families, or a foreign dignitary.

It is really critical, it seems to me, particularly in light of the rough economic times that our States are seeing,

that we begin to address this issue. I was a little stunned when I got into this after a constituent talked to me about this. I was stunned to learn that there is really no place in the Federal Government where we have this information.

The Secret Service does its job brilliantly. They don't worry about the cost to the local people. They call up the local people and say that a Cabinet Secretary is coming, or a foreign dignitary, or the President, or a candidate, and this is what they need. They need A to Z and they lay it out. Guess what. The cost is borne by our local agencies at home.

So simply, my amendment requests a report from the Department of Homeland Security on expenses incurred by local police as a result of Secret Service requirements.

We all know, when there is an orange alert, what happens in our hometowns, because we also know when there is an orange alert--that means a heightened state of alert--if there is a problem, people don't call the President or the Senate or the House; they call 911. We know that is what happens.

Right now, even in this bill, as far as it goes, I don't think it goes far enough to help our people. Here is a whole other matter that we have never really looked at. As we see that our police departments and fire departments are facing layoffs, it seems to me that we need to do something to help them. As a first step to do that in an area that has never been looked at, I think we ought to look at what happens to the various agencies.

I have a very detailed letter from the California Highway Patrol. They detailed all the expenses that they had from 2002 to 2003. I am not going to go into every detail of every hour, and I am not going to put that in the Record because Senator Cochran informed me, through his staff, that the Secret Service doesn't want this to be public information. I find it very odd, frankly. I don't think it should be a classified issue. But if the Secret Service says they need it classified, so it shall be. However, I will tell you that the aggregate cost in that 1 year just for the California Highway Patrol, in 69 different details they were ordered to do, was $700,000. That may not seem like a lot by the standards we face here, but I can assure my colleagues, in my State, every dollar now makes a difference. Sometimes these agencies may get reimbursed, but they usually do not, and the burdens of these requests are adding up. They add up in additional overtime and transportation costs that these agencies cannot afford.

We want to know: How big is this number? I think it would be very important for every one of our States because every one of our States hosts these dignitaries and we want to do what is right, and we will do what is right, but let's find out because we do care about these unfunded mandates, what it is costing our people.

I am not in any way being critical of the Secret Service. They are doing their job, and they do it extremely well, but they are not acting alone in these cases. They are calling local police. Simply put, we want to find out the costs and the burdens on our States. I have no idea what it would be. I just have this one letter that details one area of costs, and, I might say, it is an off election year. In this election year coming up, we are not only going to have the President, his entourage, his family, and the Vice President, but we are going to have the Democratic nominee and his or her entourage, I have to say, and family. These are major costs. It is not fair to our people not to try to reimburse them for these costs.

Again, this amendment will start the ball rolling. In some ways, I wanted to write an amendment that just said our local people should be reimbursed right now for all the expenses they face when Secret Service says to them: You must provide these many cars and these many police and this much protection. But I wanted to lay the groundwork for everyone because, as I say, I think when we get the report back, every one of us will be impacted because at least most of the States are receiving these calls from Secret Service all the time. In my case, for just one agency, it is $700,000 for 1 year, 69 details.

I am very pleased both Senators Cochran and Byrd have agreed to have this amendment. We made a couple of changes at the request of Senator Cochran to keep these numbers classified. Again, I have problems with understanding why the aggregate number has to be kept classified. I do not see what anyone learns if they find out an aggregate number. We have an aggregate number for the Secret Service, so I do not know why we cannot have an aggregate number of what the costs are to our States. But that is a fight for another day. We do not have to pursue that at all today. Today, I am very pleased we will take the first steps toward getting this information.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment and ask that the amendment be laid aside. At the time Senator Cochran thinks is appropriate, I will be happy to have a vote on it at that time. Is it appropriate, Mr. President, that I ask for the yeas and nays?

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his request?

I thank the Chair. I wanted to thank Senator Cochran for his support, although not enormous support, but support for this amendment. Senator Cochran, I want to address your comments, and I thank you for your support, although I say not the most enthusiastic, but nonetheless I am very appreciative.

What I said was your support was not enthusiastic, but I appreciate it nonetheless. I wanted to answer your point that you were worried about how to collect this information. I want to tell you that our States have very clearly documented----

I am happy to do that, Mr. President. I wanted to mention to Senator Cochran, because he made some criticism of how we would get these numbers, that it was very easy for the highway patrol in my State to compile the numbers because all of our States are in a budget crunch and they all have to document the numbers in their States.

So all the Secret Service has to do, or Department of Homeland Defense, is to simply ask our States for these numbers. I can assure the Senator from Mississippi that our States are reeling, they are hurting, and it would be very simple for them to do this.

I have not placed this letter into the Record because of the concerns of the Senator that these numbers should be classified. I do not agree with that, but I respect it. So I am not going to place this in the Record.

The bottom line is it would be very simple for our States to document these numbers, and I hope I am proven right. I will discuss this with the Department of Homeland Security because clearly the purpose of my amendment is not to cause anybody any extra trouble. It is simply to be fair to our States, our police departments, and our first responders.

Again, I want to thank Senators Byrd and Cochran for agreeing to this amendment. The reason I want to have a record vote on it is clear. This is the first time we will ever be asking that this be documented. So I wanted to have a solid vote on it so it would not get lost in the shuffle. I have no need to speak any further. I am most appreciative that both of these amendments appear likely to be agreed to.

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

Madam President, I start by thanking the chairman and ranking member for their support of this amendment.

Basically, we have a wonderful Secret Service unit in our Federal Government. They are very professional and they do a wonderful job in protecting our dignitaries, both foreign and domestic--whether it is a President, Vice President, a Presidential candidate, the Vice President, their families, or the head of a foreign power. It is absolutely a fact that they are the best there is.

A lesser known fact is that when those dignitaries visit our States-- Arkansas, California, Missouri--our law enforcement personnel are asked to help the Secret Service and, of course, they do it. But they don't get reimbursed for the cost of doing that. This is beginning to sting our people at home.

My amendment will simply let us know the extent of the problem. I have a letter from the California Highway Patrol, and they tell me that last year they spent over $700,000.

I hope we will have a unanimous vote on this. I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I want to express my support for Sail San Francisco--a nonprofit organization that provides a range of services to visiting international tall ships and training ships.

These services, which include docking, technical assistance, and hospitality, were formerly provided by the U.S. Navy in the Bay Area. In the wake of the base closure process, this assistance is no longer available. Over the past several months, Sail San Francisco has coordinated with foreign consulates to facilitate the visit of several foreign navies, playing a valuable role that is filled by the U.S. Navy at other ports throughout the country.

It is my hope that when the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations bill is considered in conference, it is possible to provide $800,000 for Sail San Francisco's naval/tall ships education programs.

Mr. President, I want to express my support for Sail San Francisco, a nonprofit organization that provides a range of services to visiting international tall ships and training ships.

These services, which include docking, technical assistance and hospitality, were formerly provided by the U.S. Navy in the Bay Area. In the wake of the base closure process, this assistance is no longer available. Over the past several months, Sail San Francisco has coordinated with foreign consulates to facilitate the visit of several foreign navies, playing a valuable role that is filled by the U.S. Navy at other ports throughout the country.

It is my hope that when the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations bill is considered in conference, it is possible to provide $800,000 for Sail Francisco's naval/tall ships education programs.

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

Madam President, I have been working on an amendment that I trust would get support from both sides of the aisle, and I would like, at this time, to send this amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the previous amendment be laid aside.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I am glad the clerk was able to read this amendment because I think it is a very straightforward amendment, not one of those that is convoluted.

Essentially, my amendment is an assurance that the American people will receive the full and accurate costs relating to the operations in Iraq; will know more about the monthly costs therein; will know more about the contribution of our coalition of the willing and other nations that may come in, both in terms of their support of military personnel and their monetary support, and other support; and also will have detailed reports on the casualties.

This is a very important amendment because, quite frankly, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee myself, we do not have the information we need. I am going to attempt to prove that as I go through my points.

Basically, the amendment would require that each month--every 30 days--the Secretary of Defense send a report to the congressional committees with specific information. You have heard that information read by the clerk, so I will not go into that until my summary.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Landrieu and Murray be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Madam President, last August, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I serve, began a series of hearings on U.S. policy toward Iraq, hearings that began under the leadership of Senator Biden, and have continued with our current chairman, Senator Lugar.

From the very first hearing, my position on this issue was very clear. I felt if our policy toward Iraq was going to be successful, it should be done in conjunction with our allies and in coordination with international institutions, such as NATO and the United Nations.

Why did I feel that way? Because I felt that the burden of this situation should be shared by the world. Surely, the world has something at stake if there is stability in Iraq, and that burden ought to be shared.

The fact is, for many different reasons--and I am not going to rehash them--the burden has not been shared. And this situation is very different than the first Persian Gulf war, where George Herbert Walker Bush built a very broad international coalition to share the burdens of war.

All we have to do is look at the cost. That is one example. The estimated cost of the first gulf war was $61 billion total. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, and some of that came in the form of in-kind services that also counted toward the estimate. So our allies picked up roughly 85 percent of the cost of the first gulf war. Our allies also provided a quarter of the military force on the ground.

How different is this current situation? We have 146,000 troops in Iraq, and they are dying every day. I have come to the floor to eulogize those who have died who had any connection to California. Let me say, since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1, 15 of those who were either from California or based in California have been killed. In the total of all those killed, 56 have been from California or based in California. This war is touching the people of my State very deeply.

So here are 146,000 troops from our country in Iraq, and the British, our top ally, have 12,000 troops. They certainly have been our deepest friends in this particular situation. They have 12,000 troops. We have 146,000. Poland and Australia have a small number of troops. All these troops are greatly appreciated. But you cannot come close to the type of international coalition that we had in the first Persian Gulf war or, more important, what we need to have today so that the burden does not fall so hard on our families.

Last night, I heard a report on CNN about a little child that would just break your heart. He was there with his mom. You never can script a child. This little boy said: I was supposed to

have my daddy home, and this is the second time, but the President changed his mind again.

Clearly, the President doesn't want to see little kids crying for their parents. No one does. But what it means is we need to internationalize the troops in the field so we do not have to carry this burden. We also need rules and regulations so we keep to our word about the length of the terms served over there, and that is an issue that will come back again. We had a vote on that yesterday.

For a moment I rise to talk about the money. In a hearing on July 9 before the Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was unable to recall the monthly cost of U.S. operations in Iraq. The committee actually had to go into a recess so the Secretary could get the information.

This is unacceptable. I have the transcript from that hearing. I am going to read from it.

Senator Byrd:

Mr. Secretary, what is the current monthly spend rate to

support our ongoing military operations in Iraq?

Mr. Rumsfeld:

I'll have to get you that for the record.

It's a combination of appropriating funds, as you know,

sir, know better than any, plus the expenditures of funds

taking place from Iraqi frozen assets, from Iraqi siezed

assets and from U.N.-Iraqi assets under the oil-for-food

program. And I can certainly have Dr. Zakheim come up and

provide a very precise answer as to what's currently being

spent.

Senator Byrd:

Do you recall a figure? Can you give us an estimate? I've

heard the figure of $1.5 billion a month.

Secretary Rumsfeld:

I would not want to venture a guess and be wrong, sir.

Senator Byrd:

Well, somebody ought to know.

Secretary Rumsfeld:

Well, they do know. We'll be happy to brief you on that.

Well, I'd like to know now.

Well, we'd have to adjourn . . .

Well, OK.

Madam President, how do you come before the Armed Services Committee without an estimate of the cost? I don't quite understand it.

Secretary Rumsfeld says these expenditures are in a variety of categories, et cetera.

This is what Senator Byrd said:

I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I've been around here

going on 51 years and I'm on the Appropriations Committee,

and we want to fund our military and meet the need. But there

must be some figure, some amount that we can cite as an

amount that we're spending monthly in Afghanistan and the

same with respect to Iraq.

Secretary Rumsfeld:

I'm sure there is, and we'll get it for you.

Senator Byrd:

Very well. That'll be another figure we hope to have when

we return, Mr. Chairman, I would hope.

And Secretary Rumsfeld says:

In that case not likely. That fast?

Senator Byrd:

Well, you like to have figures fast when it comes to

appropriating money.

Secretary Rumsfeld:

That's for sure.

Senator Byrd:

I would [like to] know, on behalf of the Appropriations

Committee and the Congress, how much we're spending.

Secretary Rumsfeld:

We'll try and get it for you.

Then Senator Byrd says:

Well, anyhow, so much for that . . .

I ask unanimous consent to print these conversations in the Record.

If anything that happens in the Senate means anything at all, if we are not just spinning our wheels when we have committee hearings, we ought to learn what to do when things are not going right. I suggest things are not going right when a man as intelligent as Secretary Rumsfeld cannot answer a simple question like what it is costing us every single month.

We have found out from the Department of Defense Comptroller that the cost of U.S. operations in Iraq has cost $48 billion thus far. The cost per month is $4 billion, not what Senator Byrd thought, 1.3 or 1.4; it is $4 billion. And given that we are going to be in Iraq for years, not months, according to everyone, how does the administration propose we pay for this, given the tax cuts they have created, deficits as far as the eye can see, and the international community has pledged only $1.7 billion so far, and it is costing us $4 billion a month?

Sometimes it is hard for my constituents--to understand these dollars. What I have done today in a handmade chart--forgive me, it is not the most beautiful-looking chart, but I think it says it all--is ask, how do we know exactly what $45 billion a year is that we are now currently spending on Iraq? I thought I would take a look at selected issues that we care about in the Senate in a bipartisan way and tell the people of this country, as well as remind my colleagues what we are spending on these things compared to $45 billion a year in Iraq.

We spend on the Drug Enforcement Agency--that is the agency that does everything to get the bad guys who are trying to push drugs on our children and interdicting drugs at the border--in a year, $1.6 billion. We are spending $45 billion in Iraq, and we still have people waiting in line to get treatment on demand for their drug habit. We can't take them. We don't have enough money. But we are spending $45 billion in Iraq.

On higher education, across party lines, we have worked so hard to make sure we have enough money for education. Let's look at higher education--the kinds of grants and loans we give out to deserving middle-class families so that their kids can get a college education. We spend $23.4 billion on higher education in a year. We are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq.

Afterschool programs: I have a special feeling for those because I wrote

the law. Senator Ensign, on the other side of the aisle, and I teamed up on that one. We are spending $1 billion a year on afterschool programs, and we have thousands and thousands and thousands of children on waiting lists whom we cannot accommodate because we don't have the money. But we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq, and that is before the major reconstruction starts.

We are all talking about Head Start. The President has a plan to give it back to the States. I oppose that fiercely. This is a program that works for poor families. Be that as it may, whether it is a block grant or a Federal program, we are spending $6.7 billion a year on Head Start. Millions of children are waiting to get in. We are spending $45 billion a year on Iraq.

Highways: There isn't one Senator in this body who would say their State doesn't need highway funding. We are spending $31.8 billion a year on highways. By the way, that comes from the gas tax our citizens pay. That is less than we are spending for a year in Iraq.

NIH, the National Institutes of Health: Again, there is no one I have ever met whose family or friends have not been touched by cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or heart disease. The bottom line is that we are spending $27.1 billion a year to find cures for these diseases. And we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq.

Veterans' health: These are people who have served this Nation proudly. We have made a commitment to take care of them. We are going to have a whole lot more veterans coming back from this war. We want to meet our commitments. How much do we spend a year on veterans' health? We spend $23.9 billion on all of the veterans' health. We are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq.

The Transportation Security Agency: I sit on the Commerce Committee, we know what we have to do to make sure our public is protected from these terrorists who are still in our country. There are declassified reports that say there are tens of thousands in our country. Will they strike again? We are doing everything to make sure the President has the resources he needs. But, bottom line, what are we spending on the TSA to protect the flying public? It is $5.2 billion.

There is a lot more we have to do, such as retrofit airplanes so if there is a shoulder-fired missile a terrorist gets hold of and shoots that at a plane, there will be a missile defense system through the technology that is on our military planes. We want them on civilian aircraft. This is a bipartisan issue. We don't have enough money for that. But we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq.

Coast Guard: Again, they are out there protecting us from drugs that are being smuggled, from human cargo that is being smuggled, and looking out for terrorists. That costs $6.1 billion a year.

The EPA enforces our laws for clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, and Superfund sites. They are terribly underfunded. The Superfund sites that were to be cleaned up under this administration were cut in half. We don't have the money. As a matter of fact, the ``polluters pay'' is falling on taxpayers, and yet $8.1 billion is all we are spending, compared to $45 billion in Iraq.

My last example is the Superfund Program. If anybody has a Superfund site in their State, they know these are highly polluted sites that need to be cleaned up so that there can be economic development on those sites and so that our children and all of our people can be protected from these poisons. That is $1.3 billion, and we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq.

Why did I go through this? Because sometimes people's eyes glaze over when they hear numbers. Mine tend to do that. We have to put this into perspective. We are spending $4 billion a month. Secretary Rumsfeld eventually came up with those numbers later. So we know that is a fact. That is what we are spending. That is $45 billion a year, and we don't come close to spending that on the priorities of the American people. We don't even come close.

So why is my amendment important? Because it is going to tell the American people how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq and how much of a contribution our allies, our friends, are making. It is also going to tell us the details of when people get wounded or killed--how did it happen and why did it happen? We need that information. We need it on behalf of the American people. That is for sure.

In closing, again, this is a very straightforward amendment. It is written in plain English. It is very clear.

I will close my statement by reading the amendment one more time. I cannot imagine why my friends on the other side would object to this. I hope they don't object. The fact is, the American people deserve to know what is happening to their tax dollars. They don't have to have a situation where someone comes up and Senator Byrd asks a question-- regardless of who it is on either side of the aisle--and says, gee, I don't know. That is not acceptable.

Here is how the amendment reads:

Not less than once every 30 days, the Secretary of Defense

shall submit a report to the Congressional Defense Committee,

the House International Relations Committee, the Senate

Foreign Relations Committee that contains the following

information:

(a) Total and monthly costs of U.S. operations in Iraq;

(b) Number of U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq and

the immediate region;

(c) Total and monthly contributions made by foreign

governments and international organizations in support of

U.S. operations in Iraq;

(d) Number of foreign military personnel serving in support

of U.S. operations in Iraq;

(e) Defense articles and services offered by foreign

governments and international organizations in support of

U.S. operations in Iraq;

(f) Total number of U.S. casualties as a result of U.S.

operations in Iraq by date and cause;

(g) All contracts in excess of $10 million entered into by

the U.S. Government for the reconstruction of Iraq.

On this last one, as someone who has fought hard to end that sole source contract to Halliburton, I am very worried that this could repeat itself. That sole source contract was worth many billions--at least $7 billion or $8 billion. It didn't go out for bid. It was going to go forward and we stopped it. I thank Senator Warner for teaming up with me to stop it.

On August 14, we are supposed to get the follow-on contract. I hope that will happen. I am counting on it. Let us not be sanguine about this whole military procurement situation. I served on the Armed Services Committee for many years on the House side. You turn your back one minute and there is another contract; it didn't go out for a bid, it is costing a fortune, and you wind up with $7,000 coffee pots on airplanes. I have been there and I have seen that. So all contracts in excess of $10 million entered into by the U.S. Government for the reconstruction of Iraq--we will know about that, I say to colleagues.

So I think if the Senate has some regard for its own power, its own role in this entire matter, then the Senate will go on record and support this very simple amendment, just asking for information on a monthly basis so we can stay ahead of the curve.

With that, Madam President, I finish my statement. I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is a sad day when one Senator will rename an amendment of another Senator who simply wants to know what it is costing my taxpayers every single day.

If the Senator is right and this has already been done, he did not complain about it then. He did not stand up and say: We want this report, but, gee, we should not have it because it is too much work.

The bottom line is, I have seen the report to which the Senator refers. It is nine pages, and it is estimates. It is not costs incurred. I have asked as recently as today to find out the contribution of other countries, and I have asked it of people in very high-up positions, and they do not have the answer.

Senator Cochran talks about the news: The news knows this; just turn on CNN, they know it. That is not what I was sent here to do, watch CNN. I do not want to give up my power of the purse to CNN or to Fox News or to MSNBC. He talked a long time about the press. If I wanted to be a reporter, I would have stayed a reporter. I was a reporter for a while. But people sent me here to get the facts and figures.

If the Senator believes it is a waste of time and it is a matter of bookkeeping to find out the total monthly cost of United States operations in Iraq so I can stand up at a townhall meeting and tell the people what it costs--if he thinks that is a waste of time, then I am confused. Why are we here? Why are we bothering?

Why are we bothering? If he thinks it is a waste of time to find out how many U.S. personnel are serving in the region, then I am very confused. There was a Presidential candidate who was asked that question, and he said between 100,000 and 200,000. He was right, but he was chastised. Why did he not know it was 146,000?

So perhaps the Senator believes it is not important to know in any given month how many people are serving in Iraq. I think it is, because, guess what, they are my constituents. I have lost 50 of them. So I would like to know who is over there.

I also would like to know, when one of our Americans dies, the circumstances surrounding that. I want to know what the coalition of the willing is actually doing, not what the Senator talks about, estimates.

See, he is talking about a report that talks about estimates. I am talking about what actually has occurred, and what costs have been incurred. The Senator never mentioned the fact that I am going after these contracts. Maybe that is because he does not want to go after them. The fact is we see a contract let to Halliburton, a sole-source noncompetitive bid. What does it cost? It could have cost $9 billion except some of us found out about it, and happily Senator Warner agreed with me and we came together, and this is supposed to be ended. But it could happen tomorrow.

So I would call the Senator's position, since he has now characterized my position, the stonewall position. I could throw around charged words, too. I could call his words the cover-up-the-true-costs position. That was not my intent. I do not stand here, after a Senator is sincere, to try and demean what they do. I do not think that is right.

But since it was done to me, I say people who do not support this are not interested in knowing the truth, are not interested in getting the facts, are trying to hide something from the American people.

Now maybe the Senator feels $45 billion a year is a little bit of money. I do not know where he comes from. Maybe that is a little bit of money. Where I come from, that is a lot. We spend $1.6 billion in all on drug enforcement in this country. We are spending $45 billion, roughly, but the Senator feels we do not have to have some report that basically tells us how it is being spent. He calls it redundant when it is not at all redundant, because it is not about estimates, which is the report he is talking about, but it is about actual costs incurred.

One thing I thought we could come together on in this Senate is the people's right to know how their money is being spent, and the people's right to know, if troops are lost, what are the conditions, why did it happen, and the people's right to know who is sharing the burden of these costs.

I have spoken to families who have heard from their loved ones that our people over there are more scared now than they were during the hot war, where they performed so brilliantly. I am hearing the words ``sitting ducks'' used now. It is not a happy situation. We have to work to bring down the burden on our troops, and the financial burden on our people, and we could do that with leadership. At least the Senate ought to know the true costs, not the estimated costs. What I am talking about is accountability, and anyone can stand up and say it is redundant, but the fact is it is far from redundant because I saw the report my friend talks about and it has nothing to do with this. It is about estimates and projections. This is about reality.

So I hope that notwithstanding the opposition I have heard today, which I think frankly is couched in a way which was not fair, that my colleagues will vote for this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator

Byrd to assure that the deployments of National Guard and Reservists do

not exceed 180 days. The amendment further mandates that Guard and

Reservists are not deployed more than once in a 60-day period.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I asked many

questions of the administration as it made its case for war. Two of the

questions that were never answered involved the length of our

deployment and the ability of the international community to share the

burden of rebuilding Iraq.

Because of the failure of the administration to answer these

questions, some of our troops face the possibility of spending more

time than expected in Iraq. Our Guard and Reservists have fought

bravely. We have to see that they are rotated home and replaced with

other troops on a timely basis.

I want to read part of a letter I received from one Californian

asking that a Marine Reserve Unit return to the United States:

The members of the Marine Reserve unit ANGLICO are

important members of our society. They are hard working

citizens who contribute to our economy. Their families are

feeling the financial strain of their continued and

unnecessary absence. These Marines are eager to come home to

contribute to the continued success of our surrounding

communities. I am asking you to please look into this matter

and help facilitate the homecoming of our Marines.

Because of security concerns, the DoD was unable to shed any light on

when this particular unit was to return home. But it highlights the

sacrifice our communities are making to support this action in Iraq.

I believe the U.S. should fulfill its duty and provide for the

reconstruction of Iraq. However, I call on the President to ask our

allies to help share the burden and I ask him to ensure that

our Guard and Reservists are rotated out of Iraq on a regular basis.

Mr. President, I rise today to tell you of two of

my constituents from Merced, CA. I recently met with both of them and

learned how the availability of home hospice and home health care in

their homes improved their lives.

I had the opportunity to visit Carmel Flinders, a 93-year-old retired

teacher with an engaging personality and a voracious appetite for

reading books who lives at her home in Merced. On Christmas Eve, she

was preparing for a large family gathering and unfortunately broke her

hip and had to be rushed to Sacramento for surgery. Thanks to home

health care paid for by Medicare, Carmel was able to return home and

resume her life, supported by home health care workers and family

members. She had the help of Rigo Mayoral, a caring physical therapist,

who works for California Home Care and Hospice. She also benefitted

from the assistance of Kim Holmes, a gifted nurse recently named Home

Health Nurse of the year. It was inspiring to meet Carmel Flinders and

the health care workers who have contributed to her strong recovery.

Americo Martignoni, and his wife, Eleanor, lived in the lovely home

that they built more than 40 years ago. Americo was a retired farmer

and veteran who was able to live at home with hospice care for the last

11 months. He was visited every week by Kerry Cheek, a licensed

vocational nurse, and also assisted by Kaye Moyer, a certified home

health aide. A lung cancer patient, with an indomitable spirit, Americo

loved Eleanor's polenta and her legendary biscotti. These special

people have a wonderful and supportive family of which they are so

proud. Home hospice care, paid through Medicare, improved their lives

while saving dollars. Mr. Martignoni died on July 7th at his home. He

was a remarkable man and I extend my deepest condolences to his wife

Eleanor and his family.

Medicare will soon celebrate its 38th birthday. It is gratifying to

see this program at work, making a difference in the lives of my

constituents. I saw the importance of this program through the eyes of

two remarkable Americans, Carmel Flinders and Americo

Martignoni.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the California

Affordable Quantity and Quality Water Act of 2003, CAL-AQQWA.

Nowhere is the need for a comprehensive water policy that includes

innovative recycling and reuse principles more urgently felt than in

California. Water agencies and elected officials throughout the State

are constantly planning, and struggling, to balance California's

agricultural, municipal, industrial and environmental water needs.

This challenge becomes all the more acute in the face of the State's

declining Colorado River surplus allocation and growing population.

California is facing an annual loss of about 800,000 acre feet from the

Colorado River. And population forecasts project an additional 15

million residents in California over the next 20 years.

Unfortunately, funding to pursue and implement much-needed,

environmentally beneficial water infrastructure projects is not readily

available, and many good water management ideas are left languishing on

the shelf. CAL-AQQWA can help move many of these ideas forward and into

production.

There are two sections in this bill. The first section authorizes

expedited feasibility studies for 22 water projects in California.

Funding priority would be given to projects that would provide

environmental and other benefits. Costs for these studies would be

shared between the local sponsors and the Federal Government.

Studies in this bill explore a variety of innovative water supply

strategies, including groundwater recharge; recycled water distribution

for landscaping, wetlands restoration, agricultural use, industrial

use, and general irrigation; surface water storage alternatives;

groundwater storage; desalination; conservation; and groundwater

demineralization. If fully implemented, these water projects may

provide up to 630,000 acre feet of water per year in California. These

additional acre feet would allow local authorities to decrease their

dependence on imported water sources.

The second section of this bill increases funding for the

Environmental Protection Agency's Conservation Grant programs,

including $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 for the drinking water state

revolving loan program. EPA conservation grants provide funding for

measures that include: urban conservation, low-flow toilets, water

meter installation or retrofit, desalination projects, wastewater

treatment system upgrades for compliance with Clean Water Act

requirements, and groundwater recharge facilities projects.

Water agencies and local officials throughout California are

constantly struggling to meet all of our state's water needs. My hope

is that this legislation will bring us closer to meeting the challenges

facing our growing population by studying and expanding the proven

benefits of water conservation and recycling.

Let me conclude by noting that seven of the studies in the bill would

be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. I support moving forward

with additional Corps studies. But I also recognize we need to reform

the Corps. As part of any reform effort for the Corps, I would like to

see that costly or controversial Corps projects be subject to

independent review; that any environmental harm caused by Corps

projects be fully mitigated in a timely manner; that the public will

have access to the information necessary to fully participate in the

Corps' planning process; that the Corps' procedures for determining

project costs and benefits will be modernized; and that Corps projects

will be designed and operated in a manner that protects our precious

natural resources.

I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill, and I

ask for their support.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the California

Affordable Quantity and Quality Water Act of 2003, CAL-AQQWA.

Nowhere is the need for a comprehensive water policy that includes

innovative recycling and reuse principles more urgently felt than in

California. Water agencies and elected officials throughout the State

are constantly planning, and struggling, to balance California's

agricultural, municipal, industrial and environmental water needs.

This challenge becomes all the more acute in the face of the State's

declining Colorado River surplus allocation and growing population.

California is facing an annual loss of about 800,000 acre feet from the

Colorado River. And population forecasts project an additional 15

million residents in California over the next 20 years.

Unfortunately, funding to pursue and implement much-needed,

environmentally beneficial water infrastructure projects is not readily

available, and many good water management ideas are left languishing on

the shelf. CAL-AQQWA can help move many of these ideas forward and into

production.

There are two sections in this bill. The first section authorizes

expedited feasibility studies for 22 water projects in California.

Funding priority would be given to projects that would provide

environmental and other benefits. Costs for these studies would be

shared between the local sponsors and the Federal Government.

Studies in this bill explore a variety of innovative water supply

strategies, including groundwater recharge; recycled water distribution

for landscaping, wetlands restoration, agricultural use, industrial

use, and general irrigation; surface water storage alternatives;

groundwater storage; desalination; conservation; and groundwater

demineralization. If fully implemented, these water projects may

provide up to 630,000 acre feet of water per year in California. These

additional acre feet would allow local authorities to decrease their

dependence on imported water sources.

The second section of this bill increases funding for the

Environmental Protection Agency's Conservation Grant programs,

including $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 for the drinking water state

revolving loan program. EPA conservation grants provide funding for

measures that include: urban conservation, low-flow toilets, water

meter installation or retrofit, desalination projects, wastewater

treatment system upgrades for compliance with Clean Water Act

requirements, and groundwater recharge facilities projects.

Water agencies and local officials throughout California are

constantly struggling to meet all of our state's water needs. My hope

is that this legislation will bring us closer to meeting the challenges

facing our growing population by studying and expanding the proven

benefits of water conservation and recycling.

Let me conclude by noting that seven of the studies in the bill would

be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. I support moving forward

with additional Corps studies. But I also recognize we need to reform

the Corps. As part of any reform effort for the Corps, I would like to

see that costly or controversial Corps projects be subject to

independent review; that any environmental harm caused by Corps

projects be fully mitigated in a timely manner; that the public will

have access to the information necessary to fully participate in the

Corps' planning process; that the Corps' procedures for determining

project costs and benefits will be modernized; and that Corps projects

will be designed and operated in a manner that protects our precious

natural resources.

I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill, and I

ask for their support.