Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to explain in 1 minute a very important amendment that will really improve this bill. This amendment is endorsed by the AARP--they feel very strongly about it--in addition to the other major seniors organizations to preserve Social Security and Medicare. In the bill right now, there is a benefit shutdown when you reach $4,500 worth of purchased drugs. That means seniors will face a $1,300 deficit before they start getting the benefit. I will just implore my colleagues, there is not any other prescription drug plan in this country that does this. This is a really terrible problem for our people. Just when they need help the most, they stop getting help.

I conclude, since we have so little time, by reading what AARP says:

AARP members find the notion of a gap in coverage to be a

major barrier to enrolling in a Medicare drug benefit. They

tell us that they are unaware of similar features in any of

the insurance products they routinely purchase.

In closing, they say:

. . . we urge the Senate to eliminate this coverage gap.

Please make this bill better, friends. It is the least we can do for seniors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing a bill today that will provide the necessary resources to protect the 21 historic California missions for future generations. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein.

The California missions represent some of our Nation's oldest historical treasures. Furthermore, they are important illustrations of the historical, cultural and architectural heritage of the State of California. Yet, until recently, little had been done to preserve the missions and their artifacts. They are in dire need of structural repair and restoration.

The California missions are the most visited historic attractions in the State, drawing more than 5 million tourists a year. The missions also serve an important role in educating our children in the history and the early settlement in California. We must make restoration and protection of the missions a priority.

In 1998, the California Missions Foundation, a charitable corporation, was established in the State of California to fund the restoration and repair of the California missions and the preservation of the Spanish colonial and mission-era artworks and artifacts of the California missions. The Foundation is leading a statewide campaign to raise funds to repair the missions and preserve their precious artworks and artifacts. But they need help.

My legislation would provide $10 million for the restoration of the California missions through a Department of the Interior grant program to be administered over 5 years. These funds would supplement the private and State funds that have been dedicated to preservation of the missions.

The House version of the bill has been introduced by Representatives Sam Farr and David Dreier. It has the support of a majority of the California congressional delegation. It is my hope that this legislation can move forward quickly, so we can restore and protect these national treasures.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing a bill today that will provide the necessary resources to protect the 21 historic California missions for future generations. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein.

The California missions represent some of our Nation's oldest historical treasures. Furthermore, they are important illustrations of the historical, cultural and architectural heritage of the State of California. Yet, until recently, little had been done to preserve the missions and their artifacts. They are in dire need of structural repair and restoration.

The California missions are the most visited historic attractions in the State, drawing more than 5 million tourists a year. The missions also serve an important role in educating our children in the history and the early settlement in California. We must make restoration and protection of the missions a priority.

In 1998, the California Missions Foundation, a charitable corporation, was established in the State of California to fund the restoration and repair of the California missions and the preservation of the Spanish colonial and mission-era artworks and artifacts of the California missions. The Foundation is leading a statewide campaign to raise funds to repair the missions and preserve their precious artworks and artifacts. But they need help.

My legislation would provide $10 million for the restoration of the California missions through a Department of the Interior grant program to be administered over 5 years. These funds would supplement the private and State funds that have been dedicated to preservation of the missions.

The House version of the bill has been introduced by Representatives Sam Farr and David Dreier. It has the support of a majority of the California congressional delegation. It is my hope that this legislation can move forward quickly, so we can restore and protect these national treasures.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will not object at all. I want to understand, I thought I already had 15 minutes from yesterday. I am just clarifying that point.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for being brief and to the point. I am also glad he went first because I could not disagree more with what he said. It gives me a really good jumping- off place for my comments this morning.

I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Graham's amendment to strike section 105 from the Senate Energy Bill, and I thank him and Senators Feinstein, Wyden, and Cantwell for their heroic efforts in the committee itself to remove this section so we would not have to have this fight on the Senate floor.

The Senator from Texas called this amendment a know-nothing amendment. I call it an amendment that stands up for American values. What could be more of an American value than protecting and honoring the environmental legacy given to us by God, a legacy we must protect. It is our duty to protect. Section 105, which I wish to strike, would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory and analysis of oil and gas reserves beneath the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, including the moratorium areas. Let me repeat that. This is such a radical proposal that it would allow harmful analysis to go on, and I will explain why, beneath the waters of an area or areas in our country where they are so precious, they are so beautiful, they are so respected by the people we represent, that they have been subjected to moratoria by this Congress for 20 years now.

By the way, that tracks how long I have been in Congress actually, just about. I have supported that all the time, and this provision undermines the premise behind these moratoria, which is to protect these magnificent areas from activities such as the ones authorized in this bill.

It may sound very simple to say, oh, we are going to analyze what resources lie off our coasts and in our ocean, but when we realize the kind of work that will go on--seismic surveys, sediment samplings, other destructive exploration technologies that harm ocean habitat and marine life--it is worth getting upset about.

To this point, this bill is really an abomination. I do not know how else to put it. I am known to be very direct. It brings back nuclear energy, and I compliment the Presiding Officer today for his work to try and strip the subsidies to the nuclear power industry from this bill. We do not even know what to do with the nuclear waste we have. It is dangerous. It lasts for thousands of years. We do not even know what to do with it, and now this Senate has decided to turn away from the Wyden-Sununu amendment and say to nuclear power companies, before we know what to do with this waste, we are going to back you up, we are going to give you a loan guarantee so if you want to build a nuclear powerplant, you can go get a $3 billion loan guarantee from the Federal Government. So if there is a crisis, if there is a problem, if the plant does not work, you are going to be bailed out by the taxpayers.

Well, on behalf of the taxpayers of California, we are a State that has turned away from a couple of our nuclear powerplants because we have had problems--and now we are encouraging it. That is what this bill does. This bill has a safe harbor provision for ethanol.

Maybe ethanol will be fine, but we are not sure. A blue ribbon panel in EPA said they are not sure. If there are problems, if people get sick, if children are harmed, there is a safe harbor for the companies making ethanol. What a corporate give-away is this bill. And now we are turning our back on 20 years of bipartisanship and 20 years of leadership from Republican and Democratic Presidents and saying, go into those precious areas in the ocean, drill your heart away and we are going to tell you, as the Senator from Texas said, oh, that is a good thing for the country.

Wrong. It is a bad thing for our country. It is a bad thing for our children. It is a bad thing for their children because we would be undermining the protections for these valued, sensitive coastal areas and ignoring again this bipartisan moratoria we have had for years on the Outer Continental Shelf.

By the way, we beat this back 2 years ago. I cannot wait to tell the people of California what is happening. I am saddened by it, but I cannot wait to tell them because they need to hear it. This is another environmental rollback that is deadly serious. It was tried 2 years ago and it did not succeed, but I am not sanguine this time because we have had changes in this particular body.

Two years ago, Senator John Kerry and I offered an amendment, which was included in the manager's amendment, to strip this deadly language out and to preserve the moratorium, and it passed.

Now, I will tell my colleagues why my people in California are so adamantly opposed to drilling off our coast. A very long time ago, 34 years ago, there was an incident that was so horrific that Californians who were around then will never forget it, and their children are told stories. In 1969, disaster struck when a major oil spill occurred from a platform 6 miles offshore from Santa Barbara, CA. Over 4 million gallons of oil poured into the ocean, contaminating the waters, killing thousands of animals and ruining over 200 square miles of Santa Barbara's coastline. Prior to that event, Santa Barbara's beaches were considered a recreational paradise with some of the most beautiful coastline in our country. After the spill, these same beaches smothered with a slick coating of oil, resulting in a loss of millions of dollars in tourism and recreation and broken hearts all over my State. Local governmental officials, community leaders, grassroots organizations, conservation groups, and citizens rallied for justice after the destruction of their coast. They decided then that absolutely no more drilling should be permitted off the coast.

Due to the Santa Barbara spill in California, there is strong and enduring support for the protection of our oceans and our coastlines, and any candidate for any office coming into my State saying we ought to go back to the days of drilling off that coast is not going to get the support of Democrats, is not going to get the support of Republicans, is not going to get the support of independents, and everybody else in between. They can sugar-coat it any way they want. We know the truth. We saw it in Santa Barbara. We made a decision that any potential benefits that might be derived from future oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal treasures. I will show a picture of my coastline because it is worth looking at.

My friends on both sides of the aisle who support this underlying amendment, if they think they are helping the economy, they are not. The economy of mine and other coastal States relies on a beautiful and clean environment. The economic benefits of our California beaches are very clear. Two-thirds of California residents visit one of the State beaches at least once a year. In 2001, there were at least 132 million visits to California beaches by people from outside the State. These are your constituents. Maybe it is even you. Maybe you even came with your family to our beaches. These visits generated $61 billion in total spending in my State. That is an economic boom.

There are some in this Senate who think the only economic boom to their States is drilling on precious areas. That is a good debate. But the people of California have made this decision. They have decided they do not want it. They understand the commercial fishing industry relies on a beautiful unspoiled coast and ocean. It is a $554 million industry with 17,000 jobs, and they say no to this bill; the shipping industry, 8.6 billion and 179,000 jobs. We are talking tourism, we are talking fishing, we are talking shipping, and we are saying no to this bill.

This Graham amendment will help us preserve that economy. These are hard economic times in our State. The last thing we need is to go back. Tourism, beautiful beaches, a clean ocean, that is what my State is about. We saw what happened in Santa Barbara. We made that decision. We have permanently banned new oil and gas development in State waters. How can we go out adjacent to State waters to the Outer Continental Shelf and run the risk of destroying this value of our State? It is about California's economy. It is also about a beautiful environment.

I will show a couple of other pictures of this breathtaking environment. This is our southern California coast. The picture we show now is Malibu Beach.

We are talking about $61 billion in total spending each year because of our magnificent coast and our ocean. When it is added up, the underlying bill is destructive to our environment, which Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in my State agree must be preserved. It undermines our economy.

By allowing predrilling activities to occur, our coast is threatened, commercial fishing jobs are at risk, fishing jobs are at risk, tourism is at risk, California's economy is at risk, and the beauty of California's coastline is at risk. That goes for every State along my coast, be it Washington, Oregon, or California.

As I look back to the bipartisanship we have had with the President in the past, Republicans and Democrats, this is the first time we have seen this move.

What is the history of Federal moratoria? For two decades Federal waters off the coast of California have been protected from additional offshore oil and gas development through a series of temporary bans. President George H.W. Bush signed an executive memorandum in 1990 which placed the 10-year moratorium on new oil and gas leasing. He did not try to go in there with seismic testing and destructive methods. He did not get up and say, we better drill there and find out what is there. He understood it. President Clinton understood it. He extended this moratorium to 2012.

Section 105 of this Energy bill completely ignores this moratoria by promoting destructive exploratory drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. In a letter to me, the California Coastal Commission states the provision ``would seriously undermine the longstanding bipartisan legislative moratoria . . . that has been included in every appropriations bill for more than 20 years.'' We must defeat efforts to undermine the protection of our coast and the rights of coastal States and local governments to make decisions to protect their coasts. Section 105 of the Energy bill is intended for one purpose, I say to my colleagues, and one purpose only. You can dress up a pig and you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. In this case, it is to promote oil and gas development on our precious coast.

Republicans in my State don't want that. Democrats in my State don't want that. Independents in my State don't want that. By allowing the Secretary of the Interior to use invasive, exploratory technologies, including the seismic surveys--sections 105 permits activities that have detrimental impacts on the marine environment, including air pollution from machinery and disturbance to the sea flora. While these seismic surveys sound innocent, let me explain what we are talking about.

Huge boats with large acoustic equipment go out into the ocean, a high-pressure air gun sends out constant high-decibel explosive pulses through the water and deep into the sea floor. We know these sounds have been reported to cause significant damage to fish and their ability to locate prey and avoid predators. As a result, the survival of fish populations is threatened by this technology. That is why the commercial fishing business in my State opposes this bill. These explosive pulses are also within the auditory

range of many other marine species, including whales. In fact, when this technology was used in the Bahamas and off the coast of Mexico, it caused whales to become disoriented and as a result to be fatally stranded on beaches.

Seismic surveys are accompanied by extraction of numerous samples from the sea floor. These samples are collected by dropping large hollow metal tubes from ships to vertically puncture the sea floor. Reports from Environmental Defense show the collection of these samples damages the ocean floor and harms the habitat of numerous species.

The Graham amendment is supported by the California Coastal Commission, in addition to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Sierra Club, Coast Alliance, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and the League of Conservation Voters.

This is a serious issue for the most populous State in the Union and for the entire west coast. I urge my colleagues who say they care about what people believe, care about the values of the American people, to seriously look at the danger and the damage this is going to cause. We stripped it out of the appropriations bill a couple years ago, and it is back now. I hope my colleagues will strip it out again. If you do not, there are going to be a lot of outraged citizens in this country when they find out what could happen from the underlying bill. I again urge colleagues to support this Graham amendment.

Since my colleague from Washington is in the Chamber, Senator Cantwell, let me say to her--I mentioned this in her absence--how much I appreciated the heroic effort she made in the committee to strip this out of the bill. I hope we will be successful today.

I thank my colleague. I yield the remainder of my time to the managers of the bill, and I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, this amendment is to close a loophole in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program.

Last year, in response to the September 11 attacks, I worked along with our former colleague Senator Bob Smith to pass the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act, which allowed passenger and cargo pilots who volunteer and receive special training to have guns in the cockpit as a last line of defense.

The bill passed the Senate 87-6 as an amendment to the Homeland Security bill.

Unfortunately, during the Homeland Security conference, cargo pilots were left out of the program.

This amendment will close this dangerous loophole in the law and add an important new layer to our homeland security by allowing cargo pilots to participate in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program.

With less security than passenger aircraft, cargo planes are tempting targets for terrorists. These planes do not have strengthened cockpit doors, Federal Air Marshals, trained cabin crew, or alert passengers on board.

Cargo planes are usually more vulnerable on the tarmac than passenger aircraft. Most cargo planes are parked in remote areas with relatively easy access; many operate at airfields that do not have the same level of security as passenger airports.

Late last year in Fargo, ND, a mentally unbalanced woman walked across a runway, boarded a cargo aircraft, entered the cockpit, and asked the crew to fly her to California.

Just think what a terrorist could do. A terrorist could hijack a cargo plane and fly it into a building, nuclear power plant, or other target on the ground.

Cargo pilots must be given a last line of defense to keep terrorists from gaining control of their aircraft.

We need to close this gap in our homeland security.

I am sorry. I was concentrating on my remarks.

Yes.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Lott has second- degreed Senator Specter's amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, with a study. Something can be studied and studied but, frankly, this would gut what we are trying to do in our amendment. I do not mind a study, but I think the time for studying this has passed.

I want to show my colleagues an important op-ed that appeared in the USA Today on June 9: ``Evidence Points to FAA's Laxity on Plane Maintenance.''

It specifically cites the overseas gaps that are happening. There are 629 foreign repair stations certified by the FAA to service U.S. aircraft. They point out that they may not be strictly

monitored because of their distance from U.S.-based airline operations, increasing the potential risk for error.

That is an opinion of an expert on safety, Michael Barr, director of the University of Southern California's aviation safety program.

I think all of us want to see safety. One obvious place is making sure that we cut down on the number of aircraft that are overhauled abroad. That is why I think Senator Specter's amendment is so important, for the safety and security of the flying public. We all have worked very hard in the Commerce Committee to improve our aviation security, and I do believe our system is more secure than it was.

We have much more to do. My colleagues have heard me speak about the importance of the missile defense system, against shoulder-fired missiles, and there will be a lot more on that subject. But while we are improving our security at our airports in this country and rooting out potential threats among employees in the United States, meaning employees who work for the airlines, there are no security regulations or standards for foreign repair stations that work on U.S. aircraft.

I know the Senate is rushing to get through with this very important bill, but there is a huge gap in our aviation security. There is a huge safety concern that I have that Senator Specter's amendment will remedy. It is important to remember that foreign repair stations work on planes that not only fly internationally but planes that serve domestic routes as well.

There is a huge gap in our aviation security, and foreign repair stations do not have the same standards. Senator Lott wishes to study this matter, and I am glad he wishes to study it, but we all know that the underlying amendment is the one that would bring about the changes. The underlying amendment would require foreign repair stations to meet the same safety standards required at domestic repair stations.

Specifically, under the Specter amendment, foreign repair stations would have to institute a drug and alcohol testing program of its employees if they want to work on American aircraft.

I say to my friends in the Senate, the people at these foreign stations are not even tested for drugs and alcohol, but American workers are required to have drug and alcohol tests.

There is no drug and alcohol testing program of employees on these foreign repair stations. We demand it in our own country. Our employees go through it and we do not have it at these foreign repair stations. We want these foreign repair stations to agree to FAA inspections.

In addition, the Under Secretary of Homeland Security must complete a security review and audit of all foreign repair stations. The foreign repair stations must address security issues identified by the Homeland Security Department within 90 days, and if they do not prove to the FAA and to the Homeland Security Department that they are not meeting our heightened security needs, FAA must revoke the certification of that repair station.

After all of the work that has been undertaken to improve our aviation security, and I must say on both sides of the aisle we have seen this work, we must not allow this loophole to continue. We do not know who is working on our planes at foreign repair stations, and I would hate to be a Senator who voted to study the issue but not to move quickly to solve the problem if, God forbid, there is an accident because some employee in a foreign repair station was either inebriated or high on drugs or perhaps even was terrorist connected.

We owe the American people safe and secure skies, and I think the Specter amendment is critical to preventing terrorism and unnecessary accidents. My colleagues want a study? Then they are saying they do not think this is a problem.

Evidence points to FAA's laxity on plane maintenance, and if we do not adopt Senator Specter's amendment, I think we are making a big mistake. These planes not only fly internationally but nationally.

I have a parliamentary inquiry. Are we going to vote on Senator Lott's second degree at a time certain?

Another question. If that fails, will we then be voting on the Specter amendment? And have the yeas and nays been ordered on that?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the FAA Authorization Act. However, I must express my serious concerns that two sections in the bill on streamlining, sections 47701 and 47703, may be interpreted in a manner that the committee never intended. The purpose of these sections is to cure delays that have occurred because of interagency wrangling and bureaucratic disputes. These sections call for the relevant agencies to undertake concurrent planning and environmental reviews for critical airport projects in order to ensure that the projects move forward expeditiously. They are not designed to circumvent NEPA and should be so used.

Mr. President, 13 years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, won an election in Burma with 82 percent of the vote.

It was a clear sign that the Burmese people had rejected its military rulers that had been in place since 1962. Unfortunately, the people of Burma were denied its true leader when the military regime arrested Suu Kyi and thousands of her supporters.

For the past 13 years, Suu Kyi has courageously pushed for democratic reform in Burma through nonviolent means even through she spent a great deal of this time under house arrest. For her bravery and dedication to freedom and democracy, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

Last year, the military rulers of Burma released Suu Kyi from house arrest. But, apparently, the strong support Suu Kyi continues to receive from the Burmese people was too much for the ruling military regime.

On May 30, in a northern Burmese town 400 miles from Rangoon, supporters of the military regime attacked Suu Kyi's convoy and had her arrested. Suu Kyi and thousands of her supporters were reportedly injured in the attack. Scores of Suu Kyi supporters were reportedly killed.

The international community must not let this act of brutality stand. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor and support Senator McConnell's legislation to increase sanctions on Burma.

This legislation will impose a total import ban on Burmese goods, freeze the military regime's assets in the United States, tighten the visa ban on Burmese Government officials, and make it U.S. policy to oppose any new international loans to Burma's current leaders.

This is an important step. It is also important to make sure that the international community and regional powers do their part to provide real and sustained pressure on Burma's illegitimate rulers.

I was pleased to see that the United States has sent formal diplomatic requests to 11 nations in the region asking them to pressure the Burmese Government on the release of Suu Kyi.

I also sent a letter to the Japanese Ambassador asking his nation to put more pressure on Burma's military rules after Japan's Foreign Minister indicated that this incident would not set back democratization efforts in Burma. I know our Japanese friends will help us in this important issue of human rights and provide a stronger condemnation of the attack on Suu Kyi.

All nations, the international community, and regional organizations must take a stand against this outrage carried out by Burma's military leaders. We must do our part to support this brave woman and her followers.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Lugar, and Senator Cantwell.

Mr. President, I am very delighted to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Lugar, and Senator Cantwell. I think it is quite a pro-ethanol amendment because what we are trying to do here is encourage the development of ethanol that is produced from agricultural residues.

This amendment will, in fact, promote the production of agricultural residue ethanol. I want to tell my colleagues why this is important. I believe that biomass ethanol derived from agricultural residue could be a significant source of ethanol in California and also throughout the United States. Every State has agricultural waste, including those producing corn.

I hope my colleagues who have the production of corn, wheat, sugarcane, rice, barley, beets, or oats in their States will realize this amendment is very important to them. I also believe the use of agricultural residue ethanol will make it easier for many of our States--certainly for California--to meet an ethanol mandate without price spikes and gasoline shortages as it increases the flexibility that the country has to meet this mandate.

What is agricultural residue ethanol? I am sure if people are watching, they are thinking: This cannot be interesting. To me, it is very interesting because it is fuel made from the fibrous portion of plants, as is ethanol, but it differs from conventional ethanol in the following significant ways.

First, the manufacturing process does not consume fossil fuels but rather uses plant byproducts and waste to create the energy to run the process. So, in a time in our history when we are trying to lessen our dependence on fossil fuel, I think this amendment is quite an important statement for us to make. I am very proud that Senator Lugar agrees because he is someone with much experience in this area.

Second, the raw material does not compete as a food source for humans and is available today based on existing farm practices.

Third, it uses existing waste products, thus decreasing disposal needs.

Ethanol made from agricultural residue, such as rice, wheat straw, and sugarcane waste, can be locally produced and does not require that corn and other commodities be grown just to make ethanol.

What we are talking about is using the residue, not growing food just to produce ethanol at a time when we are throwing food away because we have an overabundance in many of these areas. And, then we have been very energy inefficient by using the fossil fuel to develop the ethanol. What we are saying is the waste of agricultural materials is going to be put to good use.

Is this a pie-in-the-sky idea? No, it is not. In 1999, Sacramento Valley produced enough rice straw waste--500,000 tons of which is burned in the field--to

produce 100 million gallons of agricultural residue ethanol.

By putting these agricultural wastes to good use, converting them into energy resources, agricultural ethanol residue production reduces landfill disposal and open-air burning. We are using the waste we otherwise would dispose of either by burning, which dirties the air, or throwing it into a landfill. This will improve air quality and water quality.

Further, agricultural residue ethanol reduces greenhouse gases by more than 90 percent compared to gasoline. I reiterate, agricultural residue ethanol reduces greenhouse gases by more than 90 percent compared to gasoline. And it also creates markets for unused agricultural products that are generally expensive to dispose of. Agricultural residue ethanol can give our farmers and our rural communities enhanced economic security.

We clearly know that as a new technology, agricultural residue ethanol faces an uphill struggle to break into the ethanol market.

Right now we know, when we look at the marketplace, that there is much room to grow here if we look at the numbers. We only have a very small number of gallons that are being derived from anything other than corn. So we have a chance. This, again, is not a pie-in-the-sky idea.

Currently, the only commercial facility is the Iogen facility in Canada which converts wheat straw into fermentable sugar and the sugar into bioethanol. Iogen Corporation's goal is to produce 180,000 gallons of ethanol annually. I believe we should promote these types of facilities in the United States of America. Our amendment, I believe, will ensure this.

We provide in our amendment more incentives for this type of agricultural residue ethanol production in the United States of America. As this mandate hits my State of California, and other States, where they have to spend a lot of money to bring that ethanol into to the State, it is going to be very cost competitive to import this type of ethanol from Canada. Why do we want to do that when we have the ability, if we have wheat, corn, beets, oats, barley, or rice, to name a few? We can do this in our country, and we can have a whole new industry. We can make ethanol more affordable to those of us who live in States far away from the Midwest.

In the underlying bill, there is a 1.5-gallon credit for numerous types of biomass ethanol. This means that a gallon of biomass ethanol counts as 1.5 gallons in meeting the bill's mandate. So there is a little incentive to use biomass ethanol, and I am very proud of that because we worked hard on that issue in our committee.

What we want to do, it seems to me, is increase that credit to 2.5 gallons if the ethanol is made from agricultural residues. The fact is that agricultural residues provide us with an amazing opportunity and a promising opportunity to produce ethanol that has the potential of providing many economic and environmental benefits.

We are very pleased to offer this amendment. Right now, up to this point, we have seen amendments that people have viewed as anti-ethanol. This is an amendment that should bring us together. It should unite us because there are so many other crops that could be used--and, by the way, are going to be used--but we want to incentivize those agricultural crops.

That is what our amendment does. Senator Lugar, Senator Cantwell, and I are very pleased to offer this amendment. We are very hopeful it will be adopted. We are very hopeful we will not have opposition.

Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor. I also suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I cannot thank enough both of my colleagues, my friends, from New Mexico, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman.

I want to make sure Senators understand exactly what we do. We increase the credit to 2.5 gallons if the ethanol is made from agricultural residue. It is giving an incentive to our farmers who produce rice, wheat, barley, oats, sugar beets, and others, an incentive to use the waste.

I was going to have a rollcall vote on this, but given the assurances of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, who have stated very clearly and have told me they will not drop this amendment in conference--can I rely on that commitment? I ask both my friends one more time.

You will do your very best?

Meaning you will not drop it in conference, which is what you told me?

And my other friend, my ranking member, has made the same pledge?

I see the Democratic leader is on the Senate floor. It would be a wonderful thing if he could speak out on this amendment as well. We have both Senators from New Mexico, and Senator Lugar. I am trying not to put the Senate through a rollcall vote. If I have these strong commitments, it will make me feel a lot better about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle. I know he is working endless hours to get this amendment finished. I think this enhances the amendment, I really do. I am very grateful.

Before I ask for a voice vote, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

How much time remains?

I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell.

Mr. President, I have a couple of minutes remaining. I know we are going to set our amendment aside.

I wanted to close this debate again by thanking Senator Lugar for his leadership, Senator Cantwell for her leadership, and both Senators from New Mexico as well as Senator Daschle for their help.

I think any Senator who has corn in their State, wheat in their State, sugarcane in their State, rice, barley, beets, oats, apples, or any fructose-rich product is going to be very happy with this amendment.

In order to use the agricultural residue and make it into ethanol, it is going to require a little incentive. Although the underlying bill has a slight incentive, experts tell us it is not enough to really move forward on this very good way to make ethanol. I think it will really help those States that are far away from the Midwest.

By the way, it does not hurt any State because corn will still be used.

I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues very much.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I think for anyone in this Chamber who cares about the health and safety of people--I know that is every one of us--this amendment is very important.

A waiver of liability is in this underlying bill for renewable fuels. My amendment to the renewable fuels portion of this Energy bill will ensure that all motor vehicle fuels and fuel additives are held to the same liability standards by striking the safe harbor and adding the following language. This is the language of my amendment:

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a renewable fuel used or intended to be used as a motor vehicle fuel, or any motor vehicle fuel containing renewable fuel, shall be subject to liability standards that are not less protective of human health, welfare, and the environment than any other motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive.

Is this not a fair idea? As we go into this whole new production of ethanol, be it derived from corn or be it derived from agricultural residues or municipal waste or wherever we wind up getting it, renewable fuel should be subject to the same liability standards as any other motor vehicle fuel.

We have expenses in this area--where we have added MTBE, for example, to fuel. We found out later it was very dangerous. It hurt a lot of our communities. I will get into that later.

The safe harbor language in this underlying bill waives all product liability design defect claims, including the failure to warn the people. Any claim that has not been filed by the date of enactment of this section will be forever barred.

We should not be doing this. We don't know all the impacts of what we are doing today. Why would we give a safe harbor to ethanol or various refiners of ethanol?

I have to say to those who will oppose me--and there will be many, and I know that, and I accept that--if ethanol is so safe--I pray it is; maybe it is, by the way--if it is so safe, why have the companies involved in its production transferred this liability provision in the bill? I think anytime someone says my product is 100 percent safe, but give me a waiver from liability, protect me from a lawsuit if something happens--you have to say who wins and who loses in this situation. Requests for this kind of special interest free pass require a very close look. And I hope we will take a look.

The interests behind this bill have gotten a loophole that eliminates a big chunk of the liability they would have under the law if they damaged the public health or the environment. The exemption language in the bill raises a red flag right away. It begins:

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or state

law. . . .

Mr. President, you and I have been around here long enough to know that when we start off with ``notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law,'' the public is going to be losing rights.

The bill goes on to say that ``Renewable fuel--ethanol cannot be found to be defectively designed or manufactured.''

Imagine, the bill says ``Renewable fuels cannot be found to be defectively designed or manufactured.''

Compliance with laws and regulations is not necessary for getting the liability waiver. There is only a limited compliance requirement under the Clean Air Act.

Again, we all pray and hope that there will be no danger from widespread use of ethanol. The liability exemption, however, is dangerous because there are many unanswered questions about ethanol. We know there are real benefits to it, such as fewer carbon monoxide and toxic air emissions, but there are questions about adverse effects.

According to EPA's ``1999 Blue Ribbon Panel Report on Oxygenates in Gasoline,'' ethanol is extremely soluble in water and would spread into the environment. It may further spread plumes of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene because ethanol may inhibit the breakdown of these toxic materials.

This isn't Senator Boxer talking. This isn't the people who want this amendment talking. This isn't environmental groups talking. This isn't the American Lung Association talking or anybody else. This is EPA's 1999 Blue Ribbon Panel Report on Oxygenates in Gasoline.

Studies demonstrate that ethanol increases the size and migration of benzene plumes. Researchers say more ground water wells will experience contamination from MTBE and benzene, a known carcinogen, if ethanol leaks into water supplies. There are also questions about the impact of ethanol on sensitive populations, such as children. We already know we have seen in our children more and more problems lately, more and more problems because they are so much more sensitive to pollutants in the environment.

Questions surrounding ethanol's effect on public health and the environment should be answered before Congress grants a broad waiver from liability for its harmful effects. We should err on the side of caution and we should err on the side of protecting the taxpayers.

Supporters of this liability exemption argue that immunity from product liability design defect claims is not so broad. They are going to tell you we keep every other claim in place but we only will limit product liability design defect claims. But this ignores the fact that product defect claims are the clearest way to hold accountable manufacturers whose products cause injury to public health or the environment. Litigation in California involving drinking water contaminated by MTBE rests on claims that MTBE was defective in design. In a landmark case, decided in April 2000, a San Francisco jury found that, based on the theory that MTBE is a defective product, several major oil companies are legally responsible for the environmental harm to Lake Tahoe's ground water. The jury found that many of these same oil companies acted with malice because they were aware of the dangers but withheld information.

So here you go, Mr. President. You can see it, a jury of our peers-- not Senators, not people behind a microphone--found out that the product MTBE, which is an additive to gasoline, as is ethanol, was defective in design. The verdict came forward based on the product liability issue.

In that case, the oil companies knew the risks of MTBE. They did not warn anyone and--guess what--Lake Tahoe could have gotten stuck with a $45 million cleanup bill. If it was not able to sue under the defective product claim, that $45 million would have to come from the taxpayers who live in Lake Tahoe. Let's see what the MTBE cleanup cost would be. According to recent estimates, it would cost $29 billion to clean up MTBE. MTBE, an additive to gasoline--when it was added, everyone stood up and said: Oh, it is safe. It is wonderful. It will clean up the air. It did. But it polluted the water. People can't drink the water.

If you ever smelled water that is contaminated by MTBE, you would know no one could drink it. It has a foul odor and it is yellow in color. This is what it is going to cost. If we waive the liability for the companies that make MTBE, guess who gets stuck with the $29 billion bill. The taxpayers, instead of the people who made that product. That is not right.

By the way, in the House version of this bill, they not only give a safe harbor to ethanol, they give it to MTBE, which is a total, complete outrage. I

hope everyone understands that. It is in the House bill. I am happy it isn't in the Senate bill. I hope we can get rid of it in the conference.

Companies are responsible for this, not the taxpayers.

Now, this is the issue. Again, people will stand up and say: Oh, we are only waiving this very small area in liability law. They say: Product liability design defect is all we are waiving.

Well, let's look at what the judge said in the MTBE case. He threw out the negligence claim. He said that did not apply. He threw out the nuisance claim. He said that did not apply. The only thing that applied was defective product liability--and that is what my colleagues are going to waive for the makers of renewable fuels.

My colleagues, please listen to me. I know you want to have an ethanol bill. Bless your heart. Go for it. But do not waive liability for the manufacturers of ethanol because someday it could come back to haunt you.

If ethanol is so safe, you do not need to do this. It makes no sense.

You talk to my colleagues: Ethanol is safe. It has been out there since the 1970s. It is safe, it is safe, it is safe. I guess maybe they have not read the 1999 special EPA Blue Ribbon Report, which says: Danger, maybe there is a problem. But for them to waive defective product liability and to say that is the only thing they are waiving, when it is the only thing the courts have said is an opportunity, makes no sense at all.

I had one of my colleagues come up to me yesterday and say: Well, Senator Boxer, you voted for a safe harbor in the Y2K bill when the computer companies had to do a very quick fix on computers. I say to my friends, I did that. That only happens once in 1,000 years, and there is no direct impact on health and safety. So let's not confuse one safe harbor and another safe harbor.

So, clearly, we know this is kind of a shuck and a jive situation: Oh, we are only going to throw out one little part of liability law. But guess what. It is the only one that works. We do not want communities to be left holding the bag if there is a problem in the future because that is a pretty heavy bag for the local community and the local taxpayers to pick up--its cleanup costs, its possible health problems and its water pollution and possible air pollution.

I am going to get to the issue that the supporters will raise: That this is a mandate and, therefore, the suppliers deserve this liability exemption.

Congress regularly mandates that manufacturers meet a variety of guidelines and requirements, but we do not exempt all manufacturers from State and Federal product liability design defect laws.

When gasoline leaks today, there is no loophole. The polluter pays, despite the fact that Congress regulates gasoline. Congress mandated the installation of airbags in automobiles, made them mandatory. Congress said: You must have airbags. You remember that battle. The automobile companies said: We don't want them. (Of course, now they are saying they are happy to have them.) But, in any case, we mandated them. But if there is a problem with airbags, we did not give a liability waiver to the automobile companies. If that product is defective, the product is defective and people have to be held accountable and responsible.

I thought that was what we stood for in the Senate. We talk about accountability. We talk about responsibility. We talk about people taking responsibility for their actions, and yet we are going to give some of the biggest companies in the world a waiver from liability. Shame on us if we do this. It is not as if we did not have experience before, doing it with MTBE. It is not as if we do not know that the cost to clean up MTBE is in the tens of billions of dollars. If the companies were off the hook, it would be the local taxpayers who have to pay.

Again, supporters of this liability loophole claim ethanol is safe so no one needs to worry about this liability exemption. So, again, I ask a question--a rhetorical question--if you are not worried about any ill-effects from ethanol, why are you fighting me so hard on this? Why not join hands with me and say we are going to treat ethanol like we treat every other product?

I, again, want to read the language I have added in this amendment which I hope will be adopted:

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a renewable fuel used or intended to be used as a motor vehicle fuel, or any motor vehicle fuel containing renewable fuels, shall be subject to liability standards that are not less protective of human health, welfare, and the environment than any other motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive.

That is all I am saying. I am not holding ethanol to a different standard. I just spoke in support of ethanol made from agricultural residues. I think those folks have to meet safety standards, and one way to make sure they do is to not take away their liability. Ethanol should be subject to liability standards as strong as any other fuel additive. No more, no less. We are not making it any harsher. We are not making it any easier on them. We should not shift the burden of cleaning up problems caused by ethanol to our local communities, our mayors, our city council people, our Governors, and the rest.

No public policy is served by immunizing the refiners and chemical companies from responsibility in the future if it turns out that this was a problem and they knew it, and they didn't tell anyone about it.

How much time remains on my side, Mr. President?

I will take another couple minutes. Then I will reserve the remainder and allow my colleagues to argue this case.

Let me tell you who is on my side. Who is on the side of making sure that we don't give the safe harbor liability waiver for renewable fuels? Many local and State governments, water utilities support my amendment, public health, consumer and environmental organizations. These include the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; the American Water Works Association, which together represent water systems serving 180 million Americans across the country. Do you know why they are with me on this? They may be stuck cleaning up the water supply. They can't afford it. This is almost like putting an unfunded mandate on local people if, in fact, there are problems with ethanol. And that is why the American Water Works Association is for my amendment.

Continuing the list of those who oppose the liability waiver: Association of California Water Agencies; National Association of Water Companies; South Tahoe Public Utility District. Do you know why they are for it? Because they know if they didn't have the chance to sue on this, they would have to bear the cleanup responsibility from MTBE contamination. The City of Santa Monica and Orange County Water District likewise know the effect that ground water contamination can have. They are with me.

How about these groups? American Lung Association is for the amendment; American Public Health Association; California Clean Water Action; Citizens for a Future New Hampshire, Cahaba River Society; Citizen's Environmental Coalition; Clean Water Action; the Consumer Federation of America; Environmental Defense; Ecology Center; Environmental Working Group; Friends of the Earth; League of Conservation Voters; Mono Lake Committee; National Sludge Alliance; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the New Jersey Coalition Against Tonics; the New Jersey Environmental Federation; Physicians for Social Responsibility; the Sierra Club; Rivers Unlimited; Spring Lake Park Groundwater Guardians; and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

That is just a partial list of the folks out there who are saying to Senators: Please, if you are going to move ahead with a new product like this--it is not a new product, but it is certainly going to be a product that is going to now be ubiquitous across the country--if you are going to do this, then make sure you take every caution and every protection not to waive the protections the American people now have from a defective product.

And, once more, just let's be clear on this. There are no other ways for communities to recover costs if this turns out to be a mistake. Negligence, out the window; nuisance, out the window. It is defective product liability the courts have said is the only way people can go.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I am going to yield a couple of minutes to my friend from New Mexico. Before I do, I wish to point out that I consider this an ethanol-friendly amendment because I believe there will be much more confidence in ethanol as an additive to our gasoline if people know there are no special waivers of liability, that this fuel will have to be subjected to the same rigorous standards in a court of law should something go wrong.

I do not envision this as an unfriendly amendment, although I know some of my colleagues feel otherwise.

It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

Mr. President, this debate is winding down and my colleagues are here to offer other amendments. I am going to finish shortly.

At this point in the debate, we ought to get real about what this is. There are certain matters that are right in society and there are certain matters that are wrong. It is not right to give special protection to one particular manufacturing group in this country that no one else gets. In a way, it is a subsidy given to those people because if there is a problem in the future with ethanol, guess who is going to pick up the tab? Guess who is going to pay the bill? Not the people who caused the problem but the taxpayers. That is wrong.

If we had a wonderful history, if we did not have communities in trouble because of MTBE and other additives we thought would be great, it would be different.

I see my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, is in the Chamber for another amendment. The Citizens for a Future New Hampshire support the Boxer amendment because they do not want to be left holding the bag if something happens.

There is right and there is wrong. This issue, to me, is very clear: It is right to protect the people; it is wrong to give a special interest waiver to a particular manufacturer.

There is private special interest and there is public interest-- taxpayers versus those who would pollute.

Finally, when my colleagues say they are only banning one type of option for citizens who are injured, namely effective product liability, that is all they are doing. People can still use the nuisance claim and the negligence claim and all of these other claims.

I hope they know they are forgetting recent history where there was a court case on MTBE, also an additive to gasoline, and what did the court say? The nuisance claim, denied; the negligence claim, denied. The only claim that could hold up, the only claim that could save the taxpayers of Lake Tahoe, who had a mess with MTBE, was defective product liability.

My colleagues stand up and say that is the only thing we are doing. They called it a narrow safe harbor. Well, it is an enormous safe harbor because it is the only place people can go to get recompense if ethanol turns out to be a problem.

My colleague from Missouri says there is a study in this underlying bill. Well, I am glad there is a study, but he is ignoring the fact that there has already been a study in 1999 by EPA's blue ribbon panel, and this is what they said: Ethanol is extremely soluble in water and would spread if leaked into the environment. It may further spread plumes of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and ethanol may inhibit the breakdown of these toxic materials.

It says it may inhibit. That means it may be a problem. If my colleagues, in their zeal to have ethanol in every single State in this country--and, by the way, it will be--and if they are so sure it is safe, then why on Earth are they saying ethanol should get special treatment, and why do they close down the door on the only area where people have found they have a chance to get cleanup money from the polluters? The answer is, they do not know if it is safe.

We hope it is safe. We hoped MTBE would be safe, and it has poisoned hundreds of wells in this country. Hundreds of water systems have shut down because of MTBE. And if it was not for the product liability claim being open to citizens, who would have to clean up the mess? Not the companies that caused it but the taxpayers in those areas.

So it seems to me, if I might use the word ``disingenuous,'' to say that ethanol is 100 percent safe, but we want a safe harbor so no one can sue if something goes wrong.

I was not born yesterday. That is obvious. I know when somebody says they have the safest product in the world but give me special protection so that no one can ever sue me, my antenna goes up, just as a person with common sense, and I say that is not right.

Researchers say that more ground water wells will experience contamination from MTBE and benzene, which is a carcinogen, if ethanol leaks into water supply, and there are the questions about the impact of ethanol on sensitive populations, our children.

Now, there is not one Senator who does not want to protect kids. Come on. We know that. Most of us are parents. A lot of us are grandparents. We are aunts, we are uncles. We want to protect our children and we want to protect the Nation's children. How can we close our eyes, then, to what we are about to do if we do not agree to this Boxer amendment? What we are doing is saying that the makers of this product do not have to worry about a thing in terms of harming our kids.

Our kids, because of the developmental stage they are in--they are growing, they are changing, their hormones are starting--they are very sensitive to contaminants. We know that. That is why I wrote the Children's Environmental Protection Act, and parts of it have been passed by the Senate. I am so proud of it. Is it not better to say up front to a manufacturer--any manufacturer--if they harm children, we can take them to court and they are going to have to clean up the mess and clean up their product?

Oh, no, not if they are making ethanol. They are going to have special exemption. It breaks my heart to see us do this. I figure I will lose this amendment only because we tried it once before and we did lose it.

I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute, to close.

So there are unanswered questions surrounding ethanol. There are unanswered questions according to the EPA special panel in 1999, and all the Senator from California is saying to her colleagues is this: Just make sure this product, which is going to be a new product in several States, that it does not have special advantages so that if something happens, the makers of the product do not get off scott-free. That is not right. It is un-American. It is not fair. It is an unfunded mandate on our communities.

I was happy to hear Senator Bond say he does not support a waiver for MTBE--good for him--because we need to strip that out of the House bill. But this is a new day. This is a new additive, and we should hold it to the same responsibility as we hold all other additives, all other products. Because if MTBE had this waiver, communities all over this country would be in trouble.

I thank my colleagues very much for listening to me. I feel very strongly about this. I hope we will have a good ``aye'' vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays, and also ask the amendment be set aside for a vote at a later time.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: May I ask the managers of the bill approximately what time they expect to be voting on the Boxer amendment?

That is fine. I say to my friend, could I have 1 minute at that point, and a minute on the other side, to explain the amendment?

I ask unanimous consent at this point.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order. It is a complicated amendment. I would like to be able to explain it.

Mr. President, in 90 seconds I want to tell you why this amendment is so important. I offer it on behalf of myself and Senator Durbin, a strong supporter of ethanol, Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Clinton, Jeffords, and Lautenberg.

My amendment simply removes the safe harbor provision in the bill, which treats ethanol like no other fuel, giving consumers and communities no legal recourse if it turns out that the water is polluted or the air is polluted or people get sick from this increased amount of ethanol. Believe me, I hope ethanol is totally safe. But no one is sure. Just read the 1999 blue ribbon EPA panel. They raise some serious questions. Of course, the ethanol manufacturers say ethanol is 100 percent completely safe. Then I ask why they demand this safe harbor provision. Look at what happened to the last gasoline additive we promoted, MTBE. This is the cost to our people because of MTBE pollution: $29 billion. My friends, if we had had the same safe harbor for MTBE as some of us are seeking for ethanol, this would not have fallen completely on your taxpayers and your communities. I call this an unfunded mandate.

People who oppose this say they only are putting forward a very narrow safe harbor. They say everyone will have a lot of ways to go. But the truth is that defective product liability is the only remedy. The courts have said no to negligence and no to nuisance. The only claim they have is defective product liability.

All we do is say treat ethanol as we do any other additive.

I urge an aye vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the Boxer-Lugar- Cantwell amendment, which encourages production of agricultural residue ethanol, is going to be accepted by a voice vote with a promise to fight for it in conference.

Our amendment says that if you produce ethanol from the residue of agricultural crops, you get a special incentive. So if your State grows corn, rice, sugar, apples, wheat, oats, barley, and other crops high in fructose, this amendment would help your farmers, your rural communities, and your States meet the ethanol mandate. Again, it simply gives an incentive to produce ethanol from agricultural residue.

I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for accepting the amendment. I am happy to take it by voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 25th anniversary of Marin Services for Women.

Since 1978, Marin Services for Woman MSW, has helped women recover from drug and alcohol abuse. It is the only agency in Marin County that provides alcohol and drug treatment programs designed to meet the specific needs of women and their families.

MSW works tirelessly to ensure the physical and emotional health of Bay Area women by working one-on-one with individuals and providing them with specialized treatment. MSW's treatment philosophy is a comprehensive, gender-specific, culturally responsible approach to alcohol and drug recovery. MSW respects and encourages each client's strengths and provides social, economic and political empowerment.

Throughout its 25 years of service, MSW has successfully provided a safe haven for women seeking recovery by providing female staff role models who reflect the diversity of the client population; residential and outpatient services that address the addiction patterns of women; and intensive case management to assist with employment status, access to housing, and use of outside health and social services. MSW's success in advancing community recovery by providing specialized treatment tailored to each individual woman has set a standard for care in the Bay Area.

For 25 years, Marin Services for Women has served as a beacon for women who have nowhere else to turn. Their dedication to the community is inspiring and impressive. I congratulate Marin Services for Women on their 25th anniversary and wish them another 25 years of success.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention the exemplary achievements and outstanding service of Officer Michael Siebert of the San Francisco Police Department.

The American Legion, Department of California has chosen Officer Michael Siebert as its Law Enforcement Officer of the Year. Officer Siebert is receiving this award for his dedication to the betterment of his community and to law enforcement.

Officer Michael Siebert has dedicated himself to raising funds for children with catastrophic childhood diseases. In 1998, Officer Siebert volunteered to travel to Sydney, Australia, to take part in its ``Crop- A-Cop'' fundraising event. This event featured officers who raise charity funds earmarked for children with cancer. As part of the event, officers would shave their heads to demonstrate to children going through the horrors of chemotherapy that it was okay to have no hair. Not only did Officer Siebert shave his head, but he also returned to ``Crop-A-Cop'' in Australia the following year.

Through his efforts, in 1999, this event debuted in the United States. Not only did he succeed in having the San Francisco Police Department and the Sheriff's Department participate, but Officer Siebert enlisted agencies all over the State of California to take part. This year marked the fourth year of Officer Siebert's ``Buzz the Fuzz'' fundraiser.

Officer Siebert is an inspiration to all. Californians are extremely proud of Officer Siebert's dedication to his police work, the community, and to children who bravely face the devastation of cancer. He is most deserving of this award and the outpouring of admiration he receives from colleagues and friends. I am honored to pay tribute to him, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Officer Michael Siebert much continued success in his law enforcement career.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to recognize a constituent, Joe Cenoz, who will, at the end of the month, mark his 50th year of exemplary service to the American Legion California Boys State program.

Since 1935, the Boys State program has brought together high school boys from across their States to immerse them in a week of education about, and simulation of, their State government. The California program began in 1938, and Mr. Cenoz is the first counselor in the history of the California Boys State program to reach 50 years of service. His work has touched the lives of nearly 50,000 young Californians and 3,000 staff members who have served with and under his guidance.

Mr. Cenoz began his 50 years of service with the California Boys State program in 1951 as a city counselor. In 1955, he also assumed the role of political party counselor, helping to guide the Boys State delegates through the process of partisan politics. In 1961, Mr. Cenoz was elevated to the role of county counselor. In this role, he worked with the delegates of the three cities that made up the county, while continuing his role as political party counselor.

In 1974, Mr. Cenoz moved to the role of assistant chief counselor, guiding the California Boys State counseling staff and delegates through the week-long program. He became the chief

counselor in 1981, assuming overall responsibility for the activities that make up the California Boys State program. The 2003 California Boys State session will be Mr. Cenoz's 23rd serving as chief counselor.

In 1980, Mr. Cenoz was invited to join the staff of Boys Nation. Boys Nation is an extension of the Boys State program. Annually, two boys from each Boys State program around the country are selected to represent their home States at the 10-day Boys Nation program in Washington, DC.

Mr. Cenoz has been a leader outside of the California Boys State program as well, serving in the U.S. Navy and the Navy Reserve as a submariner from 1941 to 1953. He served in both World War II and the Korean war. Additionally, Mr. Cenoz served as a police officer with the city of Pomona, beginning in 1951, and retiring at the rank of lieutenant in 1980.

Mr. Cenoz's actions demonstrate his dedication to serving his country and the State of California, and I offer my hearty congratulations to him for his 50 years of service to the California Boys State program.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention the exemplary achievements and outstanding service of Officer Clayton Harmston of the San Francisco Police Department.

The American Legion, Department of California has chosen Officer Clayton Harmston as its Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for Valor. Officer Harmston is receiving this award for the extraordinary heroism he displayed in the line of duty on July 7, 2002.

On that day, Officer Harmston and his partner stopped a vehicle that was operating in a suspicious manner. During the vehicle stop, Officer Harmston approached the passenger, who was just paroled from State prison. The passenger refused to submit to a search and immediately attacked Officer Harmston. A struggle ensued, Officer Harmston was knocked to the ground face-first, and then the parolee drew his loaded weapon on Officer Harmston. Although injured and dazed, Officer Harmston demonstrated great presence of mind and warned his partner of the gun. When Harmston's partner distracted the parolee, Officer Harmston displayed remarkable courage by attempting to pull the gun away from the parolee. During the struggle, the parolee shot Officer Harmston who was able to roll away to cover, where a gun battle began. The gunman was struck and fell to the ground, refusing to release his weapon until it was taken from his grip.

Officer Clayton Harmston, despite his injuries, used all his abilities and resources to protect his partner and ultimately end this dangerous situation. Officer Harmston is an inspiration to all. It is because of the courage and valor of police officers such as Clayton Harmston that our streets are safer.

Californians are extremely proud of Officer Harmston. He is most deserving of the American Legion, Department of California's Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for Valor award and of the admiration that he receives from colleagues and friends. I am honored to pay tribute to him, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Officer Harmston much continued success in his law enforcement career.

Mr. President, I oppose the Pentagon's plan for a new round of military base closures in 2005. California has already endured more than its fair share of previous base closures. Of the 97 major military installations closed nationwide since 1988, 29 were in California. That's 30 percent of all major facilities closed.

Californians are all too familiar with the serious impact of closed military facilities on their communities. Jobs are lost, small businesses close down, and what is left is infrastructure that is difficult to reuse. In many cases, environmental contamination makes large tracts of land off limits until decades of cleanup are complete. By the Pentagon's own estimates, some closed California bases won't be fully cleaned up until 2069.

The former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento is a good example of the failure of the Department of Defense to clean-up bases that were closed through the BRAC process.

Rob Leonard, the former head of Sacramento's Military Base Conversion office, recently testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee about the status of McClellan. According to Mr. Leonard's testimony, 6 years ago the estimated cost to clean-up McClellan was $832 million and was projected to take 30 years. Today, the cost is estimated to be $1.3 billion and is anticipated to continue far beyond 2033.

At the same time, however, he goes on to say that ``over the past two years the Air Force appropriation requests for the McClellan environmental program have not been fully supported by the Department of Defense and Congress; and as a result, the clean-up schedule has been adversely affected.''

Another example is the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. This base, which was closed in the 1993 round of BRAC, will not be cleaned- up until 2034 at the earliest. The DOD's own estimates say that it will still take at least $77 million to complete the work. Contamination on the base, including a nine acre hazardous-waste dump, has led to delays in the reuse and redevelopment of the site.

These former California bases are not the exception--they are the norm. Consider the estimated clean-up completion dates for the following California bases: George Air Force Base--2031; Castle Air Force Base--2038; Tustin Marine Corps Air Station--2038; Moffett Field Naval Air Station--2032; and Fort Ord--2031.

It seems to me that the military should finish one job before it starts another. The DOD should concentrate on cleaning up what has already been closed so that these bases can be put to productive use by local communities.

Given that the Department of Defense continues to drag its feet on cleaning up BRAC sites while pushing for broad exemptions from environmental standards leads me to believe that it simply does not understand the importance of a safe and clean environment.

The Pentagon should focus its energy and resources on cleaning up the bases it has already closed rather than pursue another painful round of military base closures. I hope my colleagues share this view and I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his amendment.

Will the Senator yield? I know my friend from Arkansas has a very important meeting tonight, on behalf of her children, as it turns out. That is why she is the perfect person--I ask my friend, before he leaves the floor--to have brought this to us, because she knows children's needs very well, after raising the most beautiful twin kids who I happen to know personally and consider them friends.

I guess my question to my friend--and I will be brief on this question--is this: Does my friend have any idea--and I don't expect him to know--how many of these kids come from California? He talks about 12 million. Does he have any notion? I would say to my friend the answer is about 10 percent, about 10 percent of those kids.

I want to say to my friend that in this tax cut, if we do not fix it the way my friend from Arkansas wants to fix it--and make no mistake, it could have been done already, all this rigmarole and parliamentary procedure aside. In California people who make between $10,000 and $20,000, their average tax cut--does my friend have any idea what it might be?

I will just take a minute. I would say it is important to note that the people in California--and I assume this is true of the people in the State of Tennessee, in the State of Arkansas, and perhaps New York as well--the people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, their average tax cut, which the President signed into law and most Democrats voted against and most Republicans voted for--their average tax cut is $7. These are working people. They are working. They are getting their hands dirty. They are keeping this country going. The top elite few get hundreds of thousands back and these people get $7 a year.

If they have children, they are suffering, and all my friend from Arkansas is saying is: Give these families a little fairness. They pay payroll taxes. They pay sales taxes. They have to live. And, by the way, giving them a check is going to stimulate this economy, not by giving it to people like Leona Helmsley. She has everything she needs, thank you very much. I don't mean to pick on her particularly--but Warren Buffett has said it well himself. He doesn't need it. He has his kids and their kids and their future kids and their future kids covered. He has every generation of Buffetts covered.

All we are doing is fighting for the people who need us the most.

I thank my friend from Arkansas for her courage and I want to say how much I support her and how much I am looking forward to voting in favor of her amendment.

I am very pleased to take a few moments to recognize the many important accomplishments of Dr. Karen J. Harshman as she retires as superintendent of the Fontana Unified School District. Dr. Harshman has led Fontana schools through a period of unprecedented growth and during a time of increased demands on schools, and has done so with great success.

Dr. Harshman began her career in education as a substitute teacher. Since that early assignment, she has been a teacher, coordinator, principal, director, and assistant superintendent. She also serves as an instructor at local college campuses, guiding new teachers and administrators as they learn the educational ropes.

Since 1994, Dr. Harshman has lead the Fontana Unified School District as its

superintendent. During her tenure as superintendent, Fontana has seen phenomenal growth. Six schools have opened under her leadership, and the district currently ranks 17th in size in the State of California. Educational excellence has become a more prominent emphasis during her tenure, and Dr. Harshman has focused the efforts of the district on improving student performance through a variety of innovative programs known throughout California and beyond.

Dr. Harshman's accomplishments are not limited to Fontana Unified School District or education. Soroptimist International of Baldy View recently awarded her the Women Helping Women Award for bringing the American Cancer Society Relay for Life to Fontana and for her work with breast cancer survivors. Importantly, the award was also given for her lifelong work mentoring women. The Association of California School Administrators selected her as the Region 12 Superintendent of the Year for 2002. Dr. Harshman is also active in the Fontana Rotary Club, the Fontana Chamber of Commerce, and the Chaffey College Foundation.

A portion of Dr. Harshman's biography reads that ``she looks forward to every single day knowing that she is involved in the most important work on the planet.'' I invited all of my colleagues to join me in commending Dr. Karen Harshman for her great leadership doing ``the most important work on the planet''--educating our children.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention an exceptional educator--Michele Pecina, the principal of James Monroe Elementary School in Madera, CA.

Michele Pecina was recently named California's National Distinguished Principal of the Year by the National Association of Elementary School Principals. She will receive her award in November in Washington, DC.

For 9 years, Michele Pecina has been the principal at James Monroe Elementary School. Under her expert guidance, the school was named a California Distinguished School in 1997 and has also received two Bell awards from the California School Boards Association. Michele Pecina believes in her students and teachers and demonstrates that belief to them every day. The result is they believe in themselves. their success in school, and in life, is remarkable.

Californians are extremely proud of Michele Pecina. I am honored to pay tribute to her. I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Michele Pecina continued success as she continues her exceptional work in education.