Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Rabbi Michael Barenbaum on the occasion of his retirement after 27 years as senior rabbi at Congregation Rodef Sholom in San Rafael, California.

Rabbi Barenbaum is a man of great kindness and integrity who carries the Jewish values of caring and compassion with him in everything he does. With his wisdom and intelligence, he has changed thousands of lives for the better.

Under his leadership, Congregation Rodef Sholom has more than tripled in size, and its religious school has become one of the largest in Northern California. Rabbi Barenbaum has attracted thousands of worshipers, including members of other congregations and faiths, through the thoughtfulness of his sermons and the lively, informal spirit of his services.

At the same time, Rabbi Barenbaum has fostered a strong tradition of social action among his congregation. In the 1970s and 80s, he led local efforts to welcome and help settle Jewish emigres from the Soviet Union. He established a Mitzvah Day program that put nearly a thousand congregants to work on dozens of community-service programs throughout Marin County. He has been a leader in ecumenical housing, in aiding the homeless, and in bringing together clergy of all faiths to create services for people in need.

As he heads into a well-deserved retirement, Rabbi Barenbaum has said that he plans to work on establishing a Jewish hospice in the San Francisco Bay Area. After years of moving others to action, he is eager to serve as a volunteer.

Mr. President, here is a man--a real mensch. I am sure that even in retirement, Rabbi Barenbaum will continue to do wonders and inspire others for many years to come.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse building now under construction at Tulare and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.''

It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and persistence which contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse in Fresno for more than a decade.

In the course of his work, Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well received by national court administrators that is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle.

In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the community with whom he worked, produced a major milestone when the groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place.

Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge Coyle earned his law degree from University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained until his appointment by President Reagan.

Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar.

My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge Robert E. Coyle.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to transfer the B.F. Sisk Federal Courthouse in Fresno, CA to the County of Fresno, when the new Federal courthouse is completed.

Fresno County is rapidly growing county in the heart of California's Great Central Valley. The County of Fresno's Superior Court has a serious need for new court space that will grow in the years ahead. The Sisk Building contains courthouses and related space that will help the people of Fresno County meet those needs. The Sisk Building's existing security measures are a perfect fit for Fresno County's justice system.

This legislation is a common sense measure that will allow appropriate utilization of the Sisk Building, while contributing to the ongoing revitalization of downtown Fresno. I am proud that it is yet another opportunity for the Federal Government to improve the lives of Fresno County's people.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve flood protection for Sacramento, CA. The flood control project authorized by this bill has been evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will be conducted in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 5, 2002. This is a companion bill to one that Representative Matsui is introducing today in the House.

Currently, Sacramento has woefully inadequate flood protection. This bill would raise the existing walls of Folsom Dam by seven feet, which would substantially increase flood protection for the Sacramento region. Without this improvement, $40 billion of property, including the California State Capitol, 6 major hospitals, 26 nursing home facilities, over 100 schools, three major freeway systems, and approximately 160,000 homes and apartments, are at risk if there is a devastating flood.

For a city of its size, Sacramento falls shockingly below the flood protection that it deserves. The Folsom Mini-Raise is the critical next step in providing Sacramento necessary flood protection, enabling the system to handle storms far larger than any recorded event in the American River Watershed.

Previous plans to raise the level of the Folsom Dam called for the building of a temporary bridge to handle the traffic that would be disrupted while the Folsom Dam Road was closed during the construction project. Security concerns now warrant an indefinite closure of the Folsom Dam Road.

So, in addition to authorizing the Mini-Raise, this bill authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation to work with the State of California to design and construct a permanent bridge west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam over the American River to replace the current two-lane road over the dam. It will alleviate security concerns by moving traffic away from the dam while still providing the thousands of area commuters with a reliable means of transportation across the river.

This bill would provide important safeguards to the people of one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. By raising Folsom Dam and replacing the road across the dam, we can greatly increase public safety in the Sacramento area. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse building now under construction at Tulare and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.''

It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and persistence which contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse in Fresno for more than a decade.

In the course of his work, Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well received by national court administrators that is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle.

In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the community with whom he worked, produced a major milestone when the groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place.

Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge Coyle earned his law degree from University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained until his appointment by President Reagan.

Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar.

My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge Robert E. Coyle.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to transfer the B.F. Sisk Federal Courthouse in Fresno, CA to the County of Fresno, when the new Federal courthouse is completed.

Fresno County is rapidly growing county in the heart of California's Great Central Valley. The County of Fresno's Superior Court has a serious need for new court space that will grow in the years ahead. The Sisk Building contains courthouses and related space that will help the people of Fresno County meet those needs. The Sisk Building's existing security measures are a perfect fit for Fresno County's justice system.

This legislation is a common sense measure that will allow appropriate utilization of the Sisk Building, while contributing to the ongoing revitalization of downtown Fresno. I am proud that it is yet another opportunity for the Federal Government to improve the lives of Fresno County's people.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve flood protection for Sacramento, CA. The flood control project authorized by this bill has been evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will be conducted in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 5, 2002. This is a companion bill to one that Representative Matsui is introducing today in the House.

Currently, Sacramento has woefully inadequate flood protection. This bill would raise the existing walls of Folsom Dam by seven feet, which would substantially increase flood protection for the Sacramento region. Without this improvement, $40 billion of property, including the California State Capitol, 6 major hospitals, 26 nursing home facilities, over 100 schools, three major freeway systems, and approximately 160,000 homes and apartments, are at risk if there is a devastating flood.

For a city of its size, Sacramento falls shockingly below the flood protection that it deserves. The Folsom Mini-Raise is the critical next step in providing Sacramento necessary flood protection, enabling the system to handle storms far larger than any recorded event in the American River Watershed.

Previous plans to raise the level of the Folsom Dam called for the building of a temporary bridge to handle the traffic that would be disrupted while the Folsom Dam Road was closed during the construction project. Security concerns now warrant an indefinite closure of the Folsom Dam Road.

So, in addition to authorizing the Mini-Raise, this bill authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation to work with the State of California to design and construct a permanent bridge west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam over the American River to replace the current two-lane road over the dam. It will alleviate security concerns by moving traffic away from the dam while still providing the thousands of area commuters with a reliable means of transportation across the river.

This bill would provide important safeguards to the people of one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. By raising Folsom Dam and replacing the road across the dam, we can greatly increase public safety in the Sacramento area. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are making the case about advise and consent but many of our people around the country are worried about what is coming in these next couple of days. The country is on alert. People are asking me, should I really go out and get duct tape? What can I do?

I have been around politics for a very long time. I was elected to the House in 1982. These are the toughest times I have seen, and I have seen some tough ones. We have an economy that is not performing. We have a budget which has turned from surplus to deficit.

The very people who said deficits were terrible when Democrats were in the majority are saying deficits are now fine as long as they are not more than so many percent of the gross national product, no problem. Unfortunately for those people, Alan Greenspan said deficits do matter, and we have an economy that is the worst that it has been in 50 years. On top of that, we have Osama bin Laden who apparently issued a warning to Americans and he told the Iraqi people that if the Americans come in there, do what it takes to hurt them all around the world.

We have the tragedy and sadness of the Shuttle Columbia. We have the news that North Korea possesses perhaps the ability to hit the west coast, where I live and my people I represent live and not far from where the Presiding Officer lives. We have a lot of challenges.

What I say today is measured in my comments because whatever the future holds for us, and I think many people fear it is war, we are going to pull together as one. Looking at all of these challenges I mentioned, and I exclude from that the shuttle tragedy, but the North Korea situation, the Iraq situation, the Osama bin Laden situation, the economic situation, I believe this administration has seen these crises and they have amplified them. I do not think they are solving them. I think they are amplifying them. I do not see the path to a prosperous economy in any of the plans. I see more deficits as far as the eye can see. I do not see a path for job creation. I do not see a path where we are protected in our homeland. I see my local responders saying, Where is the help that was promised?

I do not see that. I do not see a path to peace in Iraq. I see a lot of energy and focus on a path to war. I do not see the path--and I have lived through many administrations, Republican and Democratic. I wish the President would put the same focus and attention on avoiding war and disarming Iraq as he does on war to disarm Iraq. War may be inevitable. It should not be a first resort or a second. It should be a very last.

Looking at North Korea, why are we not talking to them? We have brilliant people in the State Department.

As far as I can tell from my post on the Foreign Relations Committee, we have not elevated this to the same level as Iraq in any way, shape, or form. They keep saying we will resolve this diplomatically. I am glad. But I don't see that focus. What I see is when the North Koreans want to talk, they fly to New Mexico to talk to Bill Richardson. Something is wrong with that. We need to do better.

I see issues turning into problems, turning into crises, and I don't see them being resolved; I see them getting worse. I can tell you, when I go home, people are coming up to me in the supermarket--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--tugging at my sleeve, literally. They say: We are anxious. We are worried. We are scared.

I am waiting for the type of leadership in this administration on all of these issues that will help us see the light at the end of the tunnel. We will pull together as Americans, regardless. The greatest Nation in the world, we will meet our challenges. But there is much more we need to do--not more deficits as far as the eye can see. That is not going to help. Not talk about war, war, war, and ignoring the chance that we can avoid it and achieve the total disarmament of Iraq. I don't see the kind of help to our hometowns, if you will, to get ready.

Someone said it right--this is not original on my part; I believe it was a mayor of one of our Midwest cities. She said when people fear an attack by a terrorist, they are going to call 9-1-1. They are not going to call the Senate, and they are not calling the President. They will call 9-1-1.

What are we doing? We lauded the firemen and the policemen, as well we should have. The best way to honor them is to give them the help they need. Guess what this administration is doing. It is canceling the COPS program. These are the grants to our local law enforcement people who are going to get the 9-1-1 call if, God forbid, there is an attack on our homeland.

This President is spending a lot of money in the budget. But talk to the people back home, and they are not happy with the unfunded mandates they are seeing. We see an unprecedented attack on the environment. Talk about danger, I will tell you about danger. As we worry about chemical and biological attacks, Osama bin Laden, why have we lost the focus on getting him? The President was fierce in his resolve to get Osama bin Laden, and we have not achieved that up until this point. We fear the chemical and biological attack.

Seventy million Americans--and that includes 10 million children-- live within 4 miles of a Superfund site which contains these dreadful chemicals that harm our children and all of us. What have they done? They have slowed the cleanups and are now telling taxpayers they have to pick up all of the costs of that program because they do not want to continue a fee on the polluters, which was something put into place under Republican and Democratic administrations. This is a crisis, and it is being amplified by this administration.

I look around and I see the fund sites proliferating. Under President Clinton, we cleaned up an average of 87 sites a year. It is down to 40 sites. It is down to the taxpayers now picking up the tab, and people are beginning to be very fearful about their children's health.

There are many issues that confront us. I will close with this. Last night, the Republicans stayed in the Chamber to make their point. That was a good thing to do. I am in the Chamber today

to make my point. Give me the information, folks. Tell this man to answer the same number of questions you asked Richard Paez. Tell this man to answer the same number of questions you asked Margaret Morrow to answer. Tell this man to answer the same number of questions and in the same depth as President Clinton's nominees answered. And if you do not like that approach, simply ask him to answer the questions that some of President Bush's nominees answered.

We are not going to stand here and treat this Constitution as some relic. We have equal power with the President. If we were not to ask for these answers, we do not deserve to be here.

I see a couple of my friends on the floor, and I have to say, I am ready to vote on Miguel Estrada as soon as he answers the questions. I am not going to roll over for any President, Republican or Democrat, if they send us people who are either too scared to answer the questions or we are told by some Federalist Society expert to keep your mouth shut and it will go well. It is wrong.

I have some self-respect as a Senator. Do you know who gave it to me? I was not born with it. The people who sent me here--35 million strong--believe me, they did not all send me here, but of those who voted, a majority did. Do you know what I told them? I told them that the makeup of the courts is very important and the power of the courts is very important. I promised them that before I cast a vote, aye or nay on anyone, I would have information and I would always tell you why I was voting yes or no. And I have voted for more than 90 percent of this President's nominees. I don't know how I will vote on this one. I might vote for him if I see his writings. I might. I might not. I may find that he does not come from the center, which is what President Bush promised. We would get judges from the center.

They can stay here all night and talk and talk and talk and talk. But I will be ready to vote when I have seen the answers to the questions, the same kind of questions they asked Margaret Morrow, Richard Paez, and every one of Bill Clinton's nominees.

Double standards do not sell with me. I worked very well with Senator Hatch and colleagues on the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle when I had people I was very interested in getting through the process. And I said to them: You deserve to know every single thing you are asking for, and I will work with these nominees and make sure they give you those answers.

That is respect. That is respect for the job we are supposed to do. I respect this job. I respect the people I represent too much to roll over and say to this President or any other: Send nominees down who will not answer questions. It does not matter to me. It is your choice.

If I were to do that, I would be belying this Constitution. When I got elected to this body, I held up my hand and I swore to protect and defend it. It means everything to me. It is more important than me. It is more important than any other Senator. It is more important than any President. This is the document that has kept us going as the greatest democracy in the world all these years. And God forbid we turn our back on it. If we do, we will not recognize the country we will have.

I see coming, if we roll over on this one, a judge selection process that is essentially a secret process. That is something I cannot support, I will never support, even if I am the only one left who feels that way--and I doubt that will be the case because there are very strong feelings on my side of the aisle that the judicial selection process should be an open process, an honest process, a fair process.

I appreciate the chance to express my views on these issues and other issues. It is time we solve the problems we are facing and not create new ones. A new problem we are creating is judicial nominees who will not talk. That is a new problem. I hope, as a result of what we are doing today, the Republicans will go back, they will chat with Mr. Estrada, they will tell him to answer the questions, and we can get on with a vote and the other important business we have before us.

I yield the floor.

I will be ready in a moment.

I thank the Senator from Alaska. I also thank my friend from Nevada for the time.

Mr. President, normally I have fancy charts. I have not had time to develop those because we just saw some of the riders of the bill.

I take the floor to make the point that I have many problems with this bill in the area of homeland security--as we are told to take duct tape and plastic and get ready for a chemical or biological attack. God forbid. We have shorted homeland security in this bill. We have shorted port security as it relates to inspecting containers at the ports. We have shorted border security, firefighter grants, community policing grants; and in education, we are leaving many children behind. That breaks a promise to them.

To me, this bill is wanting in many ways. In the area of the environment, which I will talk about, brownfield cleanups have been reduced, and the meaning of organic meat has been turned on its head.

It breaks my heart to tell the Senate tonight that I think America's forests are under major attack. It is unbelievable to me that without any debate or discussion, a pilot program has been expanded massively and, in my opinion, it is going to lead to the ruination of our national forests--our forests that belong to the American people. The program I am talking about is called the Forest Stewardship Program, which started 3 years ago. The idea was to allow limited logging on national forest land for the purpose of maintaining healthy forests in accordance with the forest management plan. Now, as I said, this program has been massively extended.

Let me tell you why I think this stewardship project that is in the bill is an attack on American values. I know the hour is late and I do not intend to take a lot of time tonight. But when riders are placed into a bill as massive as this, I can tell you, when the American people wake up in the morning and learn they are going to lose a lot of the old growth trees in this beautiful land of ours, they are not going to be happy.

I think America's forests belong to the people and I don't like to see a giveaway of taxpayer property. I don't like to see an open invitation to destroy our forests. I don't like to see no limits at all on old growth trees. Timber companies will now pick the trees they want, with no veto from the Forest Service on these projects. This also applies to BLM lands. We could see 70 million acres of national forest land open to logging here. That would also include 10 million acres in my home State of California and millions and millions of acres of BLM land.

In my opinion, the very purpose of this rider is it tries to overrule forest land management plans. I argue that the forest land management plans take precedence. But I can assure you, they are going to start these projects. I only hope, since the only way this could be stopped is in court, that it will be stopped in court. There are limits on public participation in these projects.

Let me show you what they did in the dead of night, if I might say, without anyone watching, without any debate, without any discussion, without any public participation. I don't know that anybody can read this chart, but I am going to go through it.

Under current law, we see that 70 million of 191 million acres of national forests and grasslands are affected.

Under this omnibus bill, we would see the same number of acres affected, plus 200 million acres of 260 million acres of BLM land. We are talking about massive amounts of land.

The number of projects now under the Stewardship Program number 28 projects a year. Now there is no limit, no limit at all.

Who is in charge of the projects? Now under the Stewardship Program, it is the Forest Service. They come in and they will tell a private sector commercial logger: This is what you can cut, but do not cut this tree down and do not cut that tree down because they may be old growth, or whatever, for whatever reason. Now we give it away to the timber companies.

We are seeing in the red the differences between the current projects where they were limited to 28 projects a year to no limit.

Let me say to my friends in California who may be watching this debate tonight, 10 million of our 20 million acres of national forests that we love in our State could be under the ax here. I hope you wake up to this because this was done in the dead of night.

There are, under current law, many reasons we allow logging on these 28 projects a year: soil productivity, watershed restoration. There are many reasons why today in these pilot projects you can log. It is very carefully controlled. Mostly it is to reduce fire hazards, promote healthy forest standards, road and trail maintenance, grading a road to maintain a camp site. These are all allowable in this small number of pilot projects. This is what has been added.

Now after the Forest Service turns over this particular part of the forest to a commercial logger, they can actually log for commercial purposes, such as providing wood to lumber mills.

Let me explain this. Where we had a project before that was aimed at keeping the forest healthy, it has been turned on its head, and now it says we are going to turn it over to the commercial loggers. The Forest Service cannot even have any say in it. It is completely up to the commercial loggers what trees they will cut down. Building a new road is allowed, not just maintaining a road.

I am stunned, frankly, that this could happen in a conference without one word of debate. This is a shock to anyone in this country who believes the national forests belong to the people of our country because this is--and I will put this back again to say in summary how I feel about it--this is an attack on American values. We all know that our precious environment is just that. We see a giveaway of taxpayer property. Not one slim dime will come into the Treasury; not one slim dime.

We have an open invitation to destroy our forests without getting anything back for it. There are no limits on old-growth forest logging. Timber companies will pick the trees they want with no veto from the Forest Service, a complete change from what we have had before. We could impact 70 million acres of national forest lands, including 10 million acres in my home State of California and millions of acres of BLM land.

This is clearly an attempt--I underscore--an attempt to overrule forest land management plans, an attempt I hope will not succeed.

Yes.

I say to my friend, he is right, but there is more. For the first time they have now opened up BLM land as well; that is, 200 million acres of the Nation's 260 million acres of BLM land is also opened, and we are talking about no limit on the number of projects.

Under the current law, it is 28 projects a year. It is extraordinary. Who is in charge? As my friend points out, the timber companies.

I thank my friend very much. I know my time is running short. There is nothing I can do here except take a few minutes to call this to the attention of my colleagues and the American people because, as my colleague knows, we cannot amend this report. It is up or down. This is what makes it so egregious to me.

I am ready to go to battle toe to toe any day on this issue, and I am sure my colleagues would give me a fight on it. We would have a vote and take our lumps if we lost and be very happy if we won.

We have a situation where taxpayer property is being given away without 1

cent back to the Treasury. Here we have a situation where, instead of the Forest Service saying, OK, you can cut down a few of these trees, we need it for certain public purposes, they are out of the game. They give it to the logger, and the logger decides what tree to cut down.

I think this is a stunning reversal of a program that started out to be one that was in the public interest.

In closing, I will give you one last example.

Under this new rule--and, again, I apologize for the crudeness of these charts, but we did not know about this until a few hours ago. It is now a stewardship goal, if the Forest Service so states, to provide wood to lumber mills. That becomes a forest stewardship goal. It is unreal.

Our people think we are protecting our forests, but our new goal is to invite the loggers in, with no limits on these projects. I am distraught and disturbed about this. I only hope that the courts will do what they have done in the past and say this is in violation of the forest plans. Maybe they will save us from ourselves. This is miserable.

I wish I could offer an amendment to strip this out. I am prohibited from doing it, but I will bring this back to my colleagues at a time when we have more opportunity to discuss it in detail.

I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, one of our great American composers, Lou Harrison, died recently at the age of 85. Mr. Harrison lived most of his life, including the last 50 years, in California. He taught at a number of universities and had been honored in many ways in recent years, including by a festival of his music at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. He was en route to another festival of his music, sponsored by Ohio State University and the Columbus Symphony Orchestra, when he died. The San Francisco Chronicle recently published a thoughtful obituary written by its chief classical music critic, Joshua Kosman. I would like to print it in the Record in honor of this great man and his rich legacy.

The obituary follows:

Composer Lou Harrison, who delighted Bay Area audiences for

decades with his tuneful, spangly music as well as his

exuberantly generous personality, died of a heart attack

Sunday night in Lafayette, Ind. He was 85.

Mr. Harrison, a resident of Aptos (Santa Cruz County) since

1953, was on his way to Columbus, Ohio, for a weeklong

festival of his music sponsored by the Columbus Symphony

Orchestra and Ohio State University. According to Professor

Donald Harris, Mr. Harrison, who disliked flying, was being

transported in a university van from the Chicago train

station to Columbus on Sunday night. The van had stopped at a

roadside diner when he was stricken. He died at a local

hospital shortly afterward.

``He was just such a great friend to music, to our planet

and to everybody,'' said San Francisco Symphony music

director Michael Tilson Thomas, an advocate who commissioned

an orchestral piece from Mr. Harrison to inaugurate his first

concert season in 1995. ``We're going to miss him greatly.''

``This was an irreplaceable guy,'' said composer Charles

Amirkhanian, executive director of the Other Minds Festival,

which honored Mr. Harrison in 2000. ``The East Coast had

(Aaron) Copland, and we had Lou.''

unabashedly beautiful music

Spirited, rhythmically vibrant and unabashedly beautiful,

Mr. Harrison's music incorporated elements of Asian and

Western styles in a highly personal synthesis. He had a

fondness for the jangly, percussive sounds of Asian music,

and in addition to traditional instruments, his scores often

included such devices as flowerpots, porcelain rice bowls,

garbage cans and oxygen tanks.

Many of these instruments were built in collaboration with

his life partner William Colvig, who died in 2000. Together,

the two men created a large orchestra of idiosyncratic metal

percussion instruments for which Mr. Harrison wrote dozens of

pieces.

He wrote copiously in traditional Western forms as well,

including symphonies, operas, chamber and choral music.

What united all his music, though, was its essentially

melodic nature. Whether shaped by medieval French dance

rhythms, Javanese modes or Korean harmonies, melody always

was Mr. Harrison's primary building block.

``These are melodies that stick with you and are useful for

everyday life,'' Thomas said. ``There are tunes by Lou

Harrison that are ideal for walking up a steep ridge, and

some that are good for falling asleep in a hammock. He had

the gift for finding the tune that had the essence of a

particular experience.''

And in the face of orthodoxies favoring structural

integrity and fearless dissonance, Mr. Harrison was never

afraid to write music that celebrated beauty for its own

sake.

``He was one of the very first composers to bring back the

pleasure principle,'' said composer John Adams. ``For those

of us who came of age during the bad old days when rigor and

theory and the atomization of musical elements was so in

vogue, Lou provided a model of expressivity and sheer

beauty.''

Mr. Harrison also was the last living link to a tradition

of American experimental music that reached back to Charles

Ives--whose Third Symphony had its premiere in 1946 with Mr.

Harrison conducting--and included such influential figures as

Henry Cowell, Harry Partch and John Cage.

Lou Silver Harrison was born on May 14, 1917, in Portland,

Ore., and moved frequently as a child throughout the Pacific

Northwest and the Bay Area. By the time he graduated from

Burlingame High School in 1934, he said, he had attended 18

different schools, ``so I never really put down roots or had

a peer group.''

He studied music briefly at San Francisco State University,

then began private lessons with Cowell, who encouraged his

interest in world music and nontraditional instrumental

techniques. Cowell also introduced him to Cage, who would be

a lifelong friend and artistic collaborator.

After a brief stint at UCLA, where he enrolled in Arnold

Schoenberg's composition seminar, Mr. Harrison moved to New

York in 1943. There he wrote music criticism for the New York

Herald Tribune under the aegis of Virgil Thomson and edited

and premiered Ives' Third Symphony, which won the composer a

Pulitzer Prize.

But Mr. Harrison found New York life too stressful, and

after a two-year teaching engagement at Black Mountain

College in North Carolina, he settled in Aptos for good in

1953. In subsequent years, he taught at Stanford University,

San Jose State University, Cabrillo College and Mills

College. In 1963, he was one of the founders of the Cabrillo

Music Festival, which continues as an annual celebration of

new music.

His nearest survivors are his sister-in-law, Dorothy

Harrison, and two nephews. His body was cremated, but other

arrangements are incomplete.

In recent years, Mr. Harrison's music was a frequent

feature of San Francisco Symphony programs, with the composer

himself, in his trademark red flannel shirt and snow-white

beard, beaming from a loge box. In addition to ``A Parade for

M.T.T.,'' premiered in 1995, the Symphony has performed the

Third Symphony, the Canticle No. 3 and the Organ Concerto.

His music is amply represented on the San Francisco record

label New Albion.

In 1998, Barry Jekowsky and the California Symphony

released a disc of his music, including the Fourth Symphony

with jazz vocalist Al Jarreau as narrator.

Mr. Harrison's interests extended far beyond music. He was

a published poet and a painter, and as a young man had been a

dancer as well--a fact he enjoyed relating to audiences in

his later years, when his girth made the idea seem

incongruous.

committed to gay rights

He was committed to gay rights long before the subject was

common; his 1971 puppet opera ``Young Caesar'' focused on a

gay love affair of Julius Caesar's. He was an ardent pacifist

and political activist.

And he had more exotic passions as well--Esperanto, bio-

diesel, kenaf (a fiber related to the hibiscus that he touted

as an ecologically sound alternative to paper), calligraphy,

American Sign Language and especially straw-bale

construction. His straw-bale house in the Mojave Desert near

Joshua Tree National Park, completed last year, was a joyful

retreat in his final months.

That spirit of all-embracing receptivity and openness to

experience was evident everywhere in his music. As he once

told an interviewer, ``There are so many musics that I'm

attracted to. I'm fortunate that I laid out my toys on a very

large acreage when I was very young.''

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Kerry and McCain in co-sponsoring their bill to award Jackie Robinson the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of his profound and lasting contributions to the cause of equality and civil rights in America.

Jackie Robinson has always been a hero of mine--initially because he was the greatest of all Brooklyn Dodgers when I was a young Dodger fan growing up six blocks from Ebbets Field, and later because I realized how he had changed America forever and for better.

Jackie Robinson was a peerless athlete who excelled in many sports and changed the way that baseball was played. He helped Brooklyn win five pennants and one unforgettable World Championship, when we no longer had to ``wait till next year.''

Even more important, he was a courageous pioneer who overcame tremendous pressure and prejudice to break the color line in major league baseball. It is hard for us today to imagine the obstacles he faced back in 1947, when our nation's schools, military, and public facilities were all strictly segregated. Overcoming taunts, assaults, and death threats, Jackie Robinson played baseball--and played magnificently. His grace, dignity, determination, and tremendous ability made him a hero to millions of Americans of all races and backgrounds.

Jackie Robinson once said, ``A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.'' By this high standard, Jackie Robinson's life had monumental importance. As Senator Kerry pointed out when introducing this bill, Dr. Martin Luther King once said that he could not do what he was doing if Jackie Robinson had not done what he did. As our nation keeps struggling to realize Dr. King's great dream, we can salute Jackie Robinson as one of the fathers of that dream.

I urge all of my colleagues to honor this great American by co- sponsoring and passing this bill to award Jackie Robinson the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could have a significant impact on reducing the threat of terrorism towards our commercial airlines.

Last November, two shoulder-fired SA-7 missiles were launched at an Israeli airliner as it took off from a Kenyan airport. While these missiles missed their target, they are a clear example of an ever- growing threat to all air travel. A similar incident occurred last May when a U.S. military aircraft in Saudi Arabia was believed to be fired upon, also with an SA-7 missile. Saudi authorities later found an empty launch tube near an airbase used by American aircraft. In both cases, al Qaeda remains the primary suspect.

This is a very real and recognized threat. It is estimated that thousands of shoulder-fired missiles are in the hands of non-state actors, rebel groups, terrorists, and other armed non-military factions. Last May, the FBI warned that given al Qaeda's targeting of the U.S. airline industry and its access to these weapons, airlines and law enforcement agencies should remain alert to the potential use of shoulder-fired missiles against commercial aircraft in the United States.

We all know that terrorists will continue to try to attack us at our weakest points. As we continue to increase the screening and security processes for those boarding our airplanes, it is becoming clear that terrorists will need to find another avenue to attack us. These shoulder-fired missiles may be that next avenue.

The bill I am introducing today would equip all turbojet aircraft used by American aircarriers with missile defense systems. These devices involve a series of sensors that identify an incoming missile and a laser or lamp to fool the missile's guidance system. The work automatically without any action by the pilot.

The U.S. government would pay for the devices for the current turbojet fleet, approximately 6,800 aircraft, at an estimated cost of $1 million per plane.

In the meantime, the bill directs the President to use the National Guard and Coast Guard to patrol areas surrounding airports in order to prevent attacks by shoulder-fired missiles. Because these are heat- seeking missiles, aircraft are most vulnerable at lower levels and when their engines are hottest.

Aircraft missile defense systems work. Countermeasures are already in place on many U.S. military aircraft, where they have proven effective.

Shoulder-fired missiles are a serious threat to our airlines, our economy, and the personal safety of every American airline passenger. With a relatively small investment in proven technology to counter that threat, we can provide further protection to air travellers.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could have a significant impact on reducing the threat of terrorism towards our commercial airlines.

Last November, two shoulder-fired SA-7 missiles were launched at an Israeli airliner as it took off from a Kenyan airport. While these missiles missed their target, they are a clear example of an ever- growing threat to all air travel. A similar incident occurred last May when a U.S. military aircraft in Saudi Arabia was believed to be fired upon, also with an SA-7 missile. Saudi authorities later found an empty launch tube near an airbase used by American aircraft. In both cases, al Qaeda remains the primary suspect.

This is a very real and recognized threat. It is estimated that thousands of shoulder-fired missiles are in the hands of non-state actors, rebel groups, terrorists, and other armed non-military factions. Last May, the FBI warned that given al Qaeda's targeting of the U.S. airline industry and its access to these weapons, airlines and law enforcement agencies should remain alert to the potential use of shoulder-fired missiles against commercial aircraft in the United States.

We all know that terrorists will continue to try to attack us at our weakest points. As we continue to increase the screening and security processes for those boarding our airplanes, it is becoming clear that terrorists will need to find another avenue to attack us. These shoulder-fired missiles may be that next avenue.

The bill I am introducing today would equip all turbojet aircraft used by American aircarriers with missile defense systems. These devices involve a series of sensors that identify an incoming missile and a laser or lamp to fool the missile's guidance system. The work automatically without any action by the pilot.

The U.S. government would pay for the devices for the current turbojet fleet, approximately 6,800 aircraft, at an estimated cost of $1 million per plane.

In the meantime, the bill directs the President to use the National Guard and Coast Guard to patrol areas surrounding airports in order to prevent attacks by shoulder-fired missiles. Because these are heat- seeking missiles, aircraft are most vulnerable at lower levels and when their engines are hottest.

Aircraft missile defense systems work. Countermeasures are already in place on many U.S. military aircraft, where they have proven effective.

Shoulder-fired missiles are a serious threat to our airlines, our economy, and the personal safety of every American airline passenger. With a relatively small investment in proven technology to counter that threat, we can provide further protection to air travellers.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent immediately following my remarks, Senator Enzi be recognized for 8 minutes, and Senator Leahy for 10 minutes after Senator Enzi.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the people of my State, California, who have very strong ties to the space program and the shuttle program. Today I pay tribute to the seven astronauts who lost their lives in the Columbia disaster. Our Nation and the world deeply mourn their loss. These seven brave explorers--Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon--gave their lives to extend the frontiers of science. With their mission accomplished, the shuttle and its crew were returning to Earth in triumph. So near to landing, yet so far. As we all know, the flight ended in tragedy.

We know that we gained valuable new knowledge and understanding of space from this mission, from Columbia. But we have lost something that is truly priceless, the lives of seven outstanding men and women who had worlds left to conquer. As we look at their faces, our best and our brightest, we grieve for their families.

I wish to say a few words about three of the astronauts who had special connections with my home State of California.

William McCool, pilot of the Columbia, was born in San Diego, where he spent much of his first 15 years. His NASA assignment capped a distinguished Navy career as a test pilot, avionics researcher, and administrative and operations officer.

Dr. Kalpana Chawla lived and worked in California from 1988 to 1994. After 4 years at the Ames Research Center near Sunnyvale, she joined Overset Methods, Inc., of Los Altos, as vice president and research scientist. There she formed and headed a research team that made important advances in computational field dynamics, particularly in streamlining the flow of air over vehicles during launch.

Like Willie McCool, Kalpana Chawla had character traits that are often associated with California such as a great sense of adventure and a desire to stretch the boundaries in her case of traditional women's work--and she did.

Rick Husband, Columbia's commander, served as an instructor pilot and academic instructor at George Air Force Base in California and attended test pilot school at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Working through a college extension program at Edwards, he then earned a master's degree in mechanical engineering from California State University at Fresno in 1990. In November 2002, citing his role as astronaut and mission commander, the Fresno State Alumni Association honored Colonel Husband at its Top Dog Alumni Awards ceremony. A proud Fresno State alumnus, he wore his red Bulldog sweatshirt in space aboard Columbia.

The people of my State are proud of our connection to these three astronauts. We honor their memory, along with that of their crewmates, Michael Anderson, David Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon. We know, of course, since we did have an Israeli on board, this has become an international tragedy. We send our condolences to the family of Astronaut Ramon and to the Government of Israel.

I stated how proud my people at home are of our connection, not only to these astronauts but to the shuttle program. California was the birthplace of the shuttle. All were built in California, in Palmdale. The Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena was instrumental in development of the shuttle, and most years, shuttle missions ended with landings at Edwards Air Force Base.

So this has hit home to us. We shall forever honor and remember these seven heroes, as we build on their accomplishments and carry on their important work. May God bless their memories and comfort their families and colleagues and inspire future explorers with the courage to follow in their footsteps.

As we honor these courageous men and women, we must also begin the task of finding the answers--answers to the hard questions why and how do we prevent these happenings--questions about the cause of this tragedy and also about the future of space exploration. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight over NASA, I will be asking many questions in the weeks ahead. Could the Columbia disaster have been prevented? We know that space travel cannot be completely foolproof, but are there steps that could have been taken to prevent this weekend's tragedy? Was the shuttle program compromised by budget cuts and cost-cutting?

I support a strong space program, but you can't do it on the cheap. Were safety warnings ignored or, worse yet, suppressed? Were members of NASA's safety advisory board removed after raising these questions?

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that five members of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel--that is more than half the panel--were dismissed shortly after warning about safety problems. And a sixth member of the panel was so disgusted with the dismissals that he quit. There are allegations that these panelists were removed as a result of their critical statements about safety problems. We need to get to the bottom of this matter. I have written to Senator McCain and Senator Hollings, the chair and ranking member of the Commerce Committee on which I serve. I have asked them to invite the members of the safety advisory panel, many of whom were fired, one of whom quit, to give their testimony.

I also asked that Senator John Glenn be invited. He is a major supporter of the space program and he really has important things to say. I spoke with him. I don't even want to quote what he said because I think he knows so much and should say it in his own way, as to what we need to do here. As a former Senator and as an astronaut, he brings an incredible expertise to the table. I know he has the respect of all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Let me say there is one thing that is not an issue in my mind and that is the future of the manned space program. I strongly support that. But now is the time to use this moment to examine the future of space exploration. For example, what is the future role of the space shuttle? Are the existing shuttles sufficient to carry out the mission? Are they in good enough condition--excellent condition, perfect condition--to carry those men and women in the future? What is the role of the International Space Station? Is too great a share of our limited resources being spent on the space station? Is too much money on the space station being spent on maintenance rather than scientific experiments?

I have read that the astronauts are saying they are scientists and they are spending 80 percent of their time on the platform, on the space station, keeping house, doing maintenance on the space station rather than the experiments they really want to do.

What about a possible manned mission to Mars, which seems to have disappeared from anyone's agenda? Most

fundamentally, how do we recommit ourselves to a space program that captures the imagination of America, and what would this take in terms of funding its goals?

So we need to ask all these questions and we need to get the answers. We have to work together, across party lines, to come up with this vision. Whatever we come up with, it needs to be funded, funded in a way so safety will never be at issue; we will know that we have done every single thing we could possibly do.

The family of Columbia's crew has said, ``the bold exploration of space must go on.'' I fully agree with them. But it sits on our shoulders, those of us here who are called upon to fund this program, to make sure we are funding it in the right way; that we are not wasting dollars but that the dollars are going to ensure that the program's goals are met; that there are clear goals; and that safety comes first.

Over the past two decades, shuttle crews have carried out scores of experiments in space that have helped to advance science on Earth. For example, they have studied the effects of gravity on humans, animals, and plants. They have tracked the movement of fault lines on the Earth's crust, something very important to many of our States, particularly mine. They have gauged the impact of typhoons and other storms. They have measured changes of forest cover in remote areas of Alaska and Canada. And they have helped archaeologists locate the long lost city of Umar, a 4,000-year-old settlement on the Arabian peninsula.

Many shuttle missions have included medical researchers who used the environment of space to further their understanding of cell growth, human metabolism, and a variety of diseases.

We have much to be proud of in these days as we mourn.

I will join Chairman McCain and the other members of the Commerce Committee in seeking to determine the cause of the Columbia disaster and outlining the steps we must take to avoid its recurrence. At the same time, I will work to define the goals and the mission of the space program and make sure the funding is there for accomplishing the mission in the safest possible way.

In closing, I can't help but remark that their faces--those beautiful faces--will stay with me for a long time, and that they represent the hope and the promise of our future.

Mr. President, as you sit with me on the Foreign Relations Committee, I know all of our Members on both sides are very concerned that we protect the lives of not only our young people but young people all over the world, and that we will find a way to do that which makes sense for our stronger Nation.

We are reminded when we read what the astronauts say every time a different astronaut goes up: what a fragile planet we live on. It always renews my commitment, as I am sure it does your commitment, Mr. President, that we must protect this planet--the air, the water, the forests, and the wetlands. They are a gift from God.

In memory of those who lost their lives this weekend, we will continue to explore and we will continue to reach for the stars. We should do no less.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I have an airplane to catch. Can the Senator withhold until after the vote?

I so appreciate that.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the ``The SUV Business Tax Loophole Closure Act'' along with

Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton to close a loophole in tax law that some are inappropriately using to deduct a majority of the cost of the largest SUVs on the market.

To encourage small business growth, Congress has created a number of mechanisms for small business owners and the self-employed to be able to deduct a variety of capital expenses immediately. In order to keep people from abusing these deductions to buy passenger cars for personal use and call it a business expense, Congress capped the deduction for car purchases at $7,660 in the first year, and $4,900 in the second year after the purchase.

But to help farmers and small business owners that need pick-up trucks or vans for business purposes, Congress excluded from the car cap those vehicles that weigh more than 6,000 pounds. Vehicles larger than 6,000 pounds are eligible for the full capital expense--$25,000. This tax policy was created before the advent of SUVs, many of which weigh more than 6,000 pounds.

As a result, people who do not need a large vehicle for business purposes are buying the largest Hummer SUVs, Mercedes SUVs, BMW SUVs and other super-sized SUVs and deducting a significant portion of the cost from their taxes immediately. If they were to buy anything smaller than the largest of SUVs, then they would not get the larger tax deduction because the lower weight puts the SUV under the luxury car cap. This distorts the market, pushing up demand for the largest of all SUVs at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

To fix this problem, my legislation places the purchases of SUVs weighing more than 6,000 pounds under the same tax deduction cap placed on the purchase of cars. That would end the market distorting incentive that encourages small business people such as accountants, lawyers, and consultants to buy a Hummer when they do not need a Hummer for business purposes.

Let me give you an example. Karl Wizinsky, a health care consultant in Michigan, bought a $47,000 Ford Excursion earlier this year and was able to write off $32,000 of the purchase price as a business expense. He was not even thinking about buying a new car until he heard about the deduction. In the December 18, 2002 Detroit News article, he said ``We really did it, bought the SUV, because it is a pretty hefty deduction.'' Now, a health care consultant may need to carry medical samples around town but he certainly does not need a 6,000 pound, extra-large SUV to do it and we should not be subsidizing that purchase. The group ``Taxpayers for Common Sense'' estimates that the SUV tax loophole costs government between $840 million and $987 million for every 100,000 SUVs over 6,000 pounds sold to business.

I propose to fix the problem by including extra-large SUVs under the same deduction cap we have in place for cars. In order to ensure that farmers and small business owners can still get the tax credit to purchase trucks for hauling or vans for transporting products, I have carved out SUVs very carefully. The bill specifically allows the larger deduction for any vehicle which: No. 1. does not have the primary load carrying device or container attached; No. 2. has a seating capacity of more than 12 people; No. 3. is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the driver's seat; No. 4. is equipped with an open cargo area, for example a pick-up truck or box bed, of 72 inches in interior length or more; or No. 5. has an integral enclosure, fully enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device and having no body section protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading edge of the windshield. This will allow the larger deduction to continue to be taken for the purchase of vehicles that small businesses and farmers truly need, including pick-up trucks and cargo vans.

I know that Congress never intended for the SUV tax loophole to exist, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to close it.