Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, December 12, 2007, at 10 a.m., in order to hear testimony on the recently released GAO report regarding funding challenges and facilities maintenance at the Smithsonian Institution.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to ban the use of phthalates in toys.

This legislation will ban the use of six types of phthalates in toys, which are linked to birth defects. Phthalates are plasticizing chemicals used in a variety of everyday products, including cosmetics, nail polish, paint, and shower curtains. Alarmingly, they are used in a variety of children's toys, such as rubber ducks, teething rings, and bath toys.

This legislation will ban the manufacture, sale or distributions of toys and childcare articles that contain more than .1 percent of DEHP, DBP, or BBP.

It will also ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of toys and childcare articles for use by children 3 years old or younger that contain more than .1 percent of DINP, DIDP, or DnOP.

It clearly states that phthalates cannot be replaced with other dangerous chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, possible carcinogens, or chemicals that cause reproductive or developmental harm.

Phthalates are used in a variety of PVC, polyvinyl chloride, plastic products to make them soft and pliable. Phthalates are not chemically bonded to PVC molecules. When a child places a plastic toy with phthalates into his or her mouth, these phthalates leach out of the plastic product and into the child's system.

Phthalates are found in many common children's toys: rubber ducks, soft bath books, teethers, and even dolls. In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle sent 16 common children's toys to a Chicago lab for testing to see if they exceeded the .1 percent limit proposed in this legislation. The results should alarm parents everywhere. One teether contained a phthalate at five times the proposed limit. A rubber duck sold at Walgreens had 13 times the proposed limit of DEHP, a carcinogenic phthalate. The face of a popular doll contained double the proposed phthalate limit.

While the science is still evolving, we know that exposure to phthalates can cause serious long-term health effects. Phthalates interfere with the natural functioning of the hormone system, and can cause reproductive abnormalities, many resulting from low levels of testosterone.

In 2005, Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester School of Medicine found that pregnant women with high levels of phthalates in their urine were more likely to give birth to boys with a birth defect that is a key indicator of low testosterone levels.

Men with high phthalate levels have lower sperm counts and damaged sperm DNA.

Phthalate exposure has also been linked to premature birth and the early onset of puberty. They may be a factor in some cancers.

Young children, whose bodies are still growing and developing, are particularly vulnerable when exposed to phthalates in the toys around them.

In the face of this troubling science, at least 14 other nations have acted to ban or restrict the use of phthalates in children's products. Examples include: the European Union's ban, upon which this legislation is modeled, has been in effect since 2006; the Argentina Ministry of Health imposed a ban in 1999; and Japan banned toys containing DEHP and DINP intended to be put in the mouth of children up to the age of 6.

My home State of California recently became the first state to ban phthalates in toys and other products intended for children. California parents will now know that the toys they give their children are not placing them at risk for serious health problems.

It is time for the rest of the country to follow the lead of California, the European Union, and other nations. Without action, the U.S. risks becoming a dumping ground for phthalate laden toys that cannot legally be sold elsewhere. American children deserve better.

Opponents of this ban will argue that we cannot safely replace phthalates, and that these replacements could place children at an even greater risk. The experience in the European Union certainly suggests otherwise.

Facing the phthalate ban, European manufacturers began to develop alternatives. Danisco, a Danish company, has introduced a phthalate alternative that has been approved for use in both the U.S. and the European Union.

Manufacturers have found ways to make safe, phthalate free toys for European Union children, and there is no reason that they should not do the same for American children.

There is much we do not know about the chemicals that surround us. Evidence is demonstrating that phthalates are posing a risk to children. I strongly believe that products not known to be safe should not be in the hands and mouths of children.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to provide all American children with the same safe toys available in Europe and California.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to ban the use of phthalates in toys.

This legislation will ban the use of six types of phthalates in toys, which are linked to birth defects. Phthalates are plasticizing chemicals used in a variety of everyday products, including cosmetics, nail polish, paint, and shower curtains. Alarmingly, they are used in a variety of children's toys, such as rubber ducks, teething rings, and bath toys.

This legislation will ban the manufacture, sale or distributions of toys and childcare articles that contain more than .1 percent of DEHP, DBP, or BBP.

It will also ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of toys and childcare articles for use by children 3 years old or younger that contain more than .1 percent of DINP, DIDP, or DnOP.

It clearly states that phthalates cannot be replaced with other dangerous chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, possible carcinogens, or chemicals that cause reproductive or developmental harm.

Phthalates are used in a variety of PVC, polyvinyl chloride, plastic products to make them soft and pliable. Phthalates are not chemically bonded to PVC molecules. When a child places a plastic toy with phthalates into his or her mouth, these phthalates leach out of the plastic product and into the child's system.

Phthalates are found in many common children's toys: rubber ducks, soft bath books, teethers, and even dolls. In 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle sent 16 common children's toys to a Chicago lab for testing to see if they exceeded the .1 percent limit proposed in this legislation. The results should alarm parents everywhere. One teether contained a phthalate at five times the proposed limit. A rubber duck sold at Walgreens had 13 times the proposed limit of DEHP, a carcinogenic phthalate. The face of a popular doll contained double the proposed phthalate limit.

While the science is still evolving, we know that exposure to phthalates can cause serious long-term health effects. Phthalates interfere with the natural functioning of the hormone system, and can cause reproductive abnormalities, many resulting from low levels of testosterone.

In 2005, Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester School of Medicine found that pregnant women with high levels of phthalates in their urine were more likely to give birth to boys with a birth defect that is a key indicator of low testosterone levels.

Men with high phthalate levels have lower sperm counts and damaged sperm DNA.

Phthalate exposure has also been linked to premature birth and the early onset of puberty. They may be a factor in some cancers.

Young children, whose bodies are still growing and developing, are particularly vulnerable when exposed to phthalates in the toys around them.

In the face of this troubling science, at least 14 other nations have acted to ban or restrict the use of phthalates in children's products. Examples include: the European Union's ban, upon which this legislation is modeled, has been in effect since 2006; the Argentina Ministry of Health imposed a ban in 1999; and Japan banned toys containing DEHP and DINP intended to be put in the mouth of children up to the age of 6.

My home State of California recently became the first state to ban phthalates in toys and other products intended for children. California parents will now know that the toys they give their children are not placing them at risk for serious health problems.

It is time for the rest of the country to follow the lead of California, the European Union, and other nations. Without action, the U.S. risks becoming a dumping ground for phthalate laden toys that cannot legally be sold elsewhere. American children deserve better.

Opponents of this ban will argue that we cannot safely replace phthalates, and that these replacements could place children at an even greater risk. The experience in the European Union certainly suggests otherwise.

Facing the phthalate ban, European manufacturers began to develop alternatives. Danisco, a Danish company, has introduced a phthalate alternative that has been approved for use in both the U.S. and the European Union.

Manufacturers have found ways to make safe, phthalate free toys for European Union children, and there is no reason that they should not do the same for American children.

There is much we do not know about the chemicals that surround us. Evidence is demonstrating that phthalates are posing a risk to children. I strongly believe that products not known to be safe should not be in the hands and mouths of children.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to provide all American children with the same safe toys available in Europe and California.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007.

The bill before us today would authorize an increase in Federal funding for the operation and development of passenger rail services, reauthorize Amtrak for an additional 6 years, and provide much needed reform of the Nation's rail system.

This legislation makes an important first step to establish high- speed rail systems throughout the United States.

A strong national rail system provides Americans with a practical transportation alternative, helps to alleviate traffic congestion on our Nation's highways and reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

This legislation would also require an increase in financial and operation transparency and accountability at Amtrak, reduce Federal operating subsidies, and improve train performance and customer service.

Today, Amtrak serves nearly 25 million riders each year at more than 500 stations across 46 States.

Amtrak is also one of the Nation's largest providers of contracted commuter service for State and regional authorities. Over 60 million commuters in California, Maryland, Connecticut, Washington, and Virginia take Amtrak to work each year.

California's partnership with Amtrak represents the largest State- supported passenger rail program in the United States. Each day, Amtrak operates approximately 70 intercity trains and 100 commuter trains in California.

Amtrak's corridors in California are also among the busiest in the Nation, with more than 10 million Californians boarding Amtrak during fiscal year 2006.

The Pacific Surfliner service from San Diego through Los Angeles is the second busiest corridor in the United States with over 2.5 million riders in 2006.

The Capitol Corridor service between Sacramento and San Jose is the third most traveled corridor in the country with over 1 million riders in 2006.

Home to two of the Nation's top five most congested cities in the United States, my home State of California understands the importance of viable travel alternatives.

Passenger rail services have helped ease highway congestion, reduce automobile emissions and improve the State's air quality.

California is well ahead of the curve on developing a transportation system that has low environmental impact yet meets the growing needs of the California economy.

But there is still much more work to be done.

It is expected that California's population will grow to more than 50 million people by 2030.

California would need to build about 3,000 additional lane-miles on intercity highways and over 90 new gates and five new airport runways to serve the expected population in 2030.

The State of California and the California High-Speed Rail Authority are working to develop a high-speed rail system which would stretch from San Francisco, Oakland and Sacramento in the north, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south.

With trains operating at speeds up to 220 mph, the travel time from downtown San Francisco to Los Angeles would be just under 2\1/2\ hours.

As envisioned, California's high-speed train system could accommodate nearly 120 million passengers annually by 2030.

This state-of-the-art rail system would take millions of cars off the road, ease traffic congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and allow people to travel faster, safer and more comfortably.

To move our great Nation into the next era of modern, efficient, environmentally friendly transportation, all levels of public and private finances and resources must be brought to bear. This legislation is an important first step.

Investment in America's passenger rail system is important for California. It is important for this Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, the urban demands we have placed on our water supplies and ecosystem have resulted in significant water shortages in communities across the Nation. Water quality and quantity are in jeopardy if local, State, and Federal Governments do not support the implementation of cost-effective projects that enhance and increase potable water supplies.

Therefore, I am introducing this bill to authorize programs that will facilitate a comprehensive water supply and watershed project in southern California. Leaders and agencies across five counties in the Santa Ana Region of southern California have partnered to develop a comprehensive plan which addresses regional needs of their communities; communities whose population exceeds 3 million citizens. These communities are committed to leveraging over $1 billion in local and State funds to match the Federal Government's investment. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gary Miller, together with Representatives Ken Calvert, David Dreier, Edward Royce, John Campbell, Dana Rohrabacher and Loretta Sanchez.

Specifically, this bill would fund three distinct projects, which together will help address water needs of 64,000 households and increase the region's water supply by 31,000 acre-feet per year in an environmentally sustainable manner.

This legislation could serve as a model for communities nationwide to help meet the challenges imposed by decreasing snow pack and precipitation and scarce potable water supplies that will be exacerbated by climate change.

This bill would authorize the Federal Government to spend $10 million on a cost shared basis to create wetlands along the Santa Ana River, providing an expanded natural treatment system to purify the River before it replenishes Orange County's groundwater supplies. Like all of the projects in the plan, the construction of natural treatment systems using wetlands minimizes the impacts on the environment, reduces carbon emissions, and improves the quality of our groundwater supplies without costly control technologies.

An authorization of $25 million in the expansion of groundwater desalination in the Chino Basin would increase desalination from the current 9,000 acre-feet per year to 40,000 acre-feet per year. This element of the program would provide a new fresh drinking water supply for Jurupa Community Services District, Santa Ana Mutual Water Company in Riverside County, and the cities of Norco, Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario in San Bernardino County. These communities serve the needs of millions of citizens.

Because the Santa Ana River watershed crosses multiple jurisdictions, this legislation seeks to complement the ability to produce reclaimed water in one area with expanded desalination projects in the neighboring Chino Basin, providing a four-fold increase in the ability to desalinate groundwater supplies. The Chino Basin groundwater desalters will be the primary drinking water supply for over 40,000 new homes in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

The Groundwater Replenishment System, which is expected to be fully operational in just weeks, is the largest indirect potable reuse project in the world. The focal point of the system is membrane purification technology. Thus, $12 million is being requested to build an advanced water filtration technologies research center to find better, more cost-effective approaches to water purification as it relates to municipal water supply needs.

This regional plan will decrease reliability on imported water supplies from the Colorado River and California's deteriorating Bay- Delta water supply system. It will also allow for banking millions of gallons of water in our groundwater basin, protecting the region against natural disasters that could disrupt the delivery of water to Southern California from the fragile Delta and Colorado systems.

I am proud of the commitment our regional agencies have made to develop a response to meet the current and future demands for water supply. The regional plan has broad community support, solves multiple water supply problems, reduces energy consumption, restores habitat, and provides significant jobs and economic benefits to one of the Nation's most densely populated areas. I look forward to timely consideration of this legislation that could provide the road map to solving water demands across the country.

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

Mr. President, the urban demands we have placed on our water supplies and ecosystem have resulted in significant water shortages in communities across the Nation. Water quality and quantity are in jeopardy if local, State, and Federal Governments do not support the implementation of cost-effective projects that enhance and increase potable water supplies.

Therefore, I am introducing this bill to authorize programs that will facilitate a comprehensive water supply and watershed project in southern California. Leaders and agencies across five counties in the Santa Ana Region of southern California have partnered to develop a comprehensive plan which addresses regional needs of their communities; communities whose population exceeds 3 million citizens. These communities are committed to leveraging over $1 billion in local and State funds to match the Federal Government's investment. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gary Miller, together with Representatives Ken Calvert, David Dreier, Edward Royce, John Campbell, Dana Rohrabacher and Loretta Sanchez.

Specifically, this bill would fund three distinct projects, which together will help address water needs of 64,000 households and increase the region's water supply by 31,000 acre-feet per year in an environmentally sustainable manner.

This legislation could serve as a model for communities nationwide to help meet the challenges imposed by decreasing snow pack and precipitation and scarce potable water supplies that will be exacerbated by climate change.

This bill would authorize the Federal Government to spend $10 million on a cost shared basis to create wetlands along the Santa Ana River, providing an expanded natural treatment system to purify the River before it replenishes Orange County's groundwater supplies. Like all of the projects in the plan, the construction of natural treatment systems using wetlands minimizes the impacts on the environment, reduces carbon emissions, and improves the quality of our groundwater supplies without costly control technologies.

An authorization of $25 million in the expansion of groundwater desalination in the Chino Basin would increase desalination from the current 9,000 acre-feet per year to 40,000 acre-feet per year. This element of the program would provide a new fresh drinking water supply for Jurupa Community Services District, Santa Ana Mutual Water Company in Riverside County, and the cities of Norco, Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario in San Bernardino County. These communities serve the needs of millions of citizens.

Because the Santa Ana River watershed crosses multiple jurisdictions, this legislation seeks to complement the ability to produce reclaimed water in one area with expanded desalination projects in the neighboring Chino Basin, providing a four-fold increase in the ability to desalinate groundwater supplies. The Chino Basin groundwater desalters will be the primary drinking water supply for over 40,000 new homes in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

The Groundwater Replenishment System, which is expected to be fully operational in just weeks, is the largest indirect potable reuse project in the world. The focal point of the system is membrane purification technology. Thus, $12 million is being requested to build an advanced water filtration technologies research center to find better, more cost-effective approaches to water purification as it relates to municipal water supply needs.

This regional plan will decrease reliability on imported water supplies from the Colorado River and California's deteriorating Bay- Delta water supply system. It will also allow for banking millions of gallons of water in our groundwater basin, protecting the region against natural disasters that could disrupt the delivery of water to Southern California from the fragile Delta and Colorado systems.

I am proud of the commitment our regional agencies have made to develop a response to meet the current and future demands for water supply. The regional plan has broad community support, solves multiple water supply problems, reduces energy consumption, restores habitat, and provides significant jobs and economic benefits to one of the Nation's most densely populated areas. I look forward to timely consideration of this legislation that could provide the road map to solving water demands across the country.

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

Madam President, I wish to inform all Senators that the Committee on Rules and Administration has updated the U.S. Senate Travel Regulations. The Ethics Committee recently issued guidance to the Rules Committee that making more than one reservation for official travel with a participating airline would not constitute a gift under Senate rule XXXV, the Gift Rule. Consistent with the Ethics Committee's guidance, the transportation expenses section of the U.S. Senate Travel Regulations has been updated to address the issue of making more than one reservation on scheduled flights.

The following statement has been added to I.B of the transportation expenses section, found on page IV-64 of the U.S. Senate Handbook:

3. A Member shall be permitted to make more than one

reservation on scheduled flights with participating airlines

when such action assists the Member in conducting his/her

official business.

This change is effective immediately.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the updated U.S. Senate Travel Regulations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Lott and Cochran to introduce legislation that will help make flood insurance more affordable for working families across the country.

This bill makes a substantial change to the National Flood Insurance Program by reducing flood insurance premiums for those living near recently decertified levees.

This is critical in California and the Gulf States, where several levees no longer meet national certification standards.

Here is how the bill works: If a national flood map update results in the decertification of a levee, those living nearby will be required to purchase flood insurance. This legislation makes those now required to pay flood insurance eligible for a 50 percent discount on premiums for 5 years. Levee decertification will force some homeowners to pay upwards of $1,000 per year for new flood insurance policies from the National Flood Insurance Program; according to FEMA premium estimates for high-risk residential areas.

This bill will save most families in a newly zoned high-risk residential area more than $500 each year, or roughly $40 each month.

The goal of the 5-year reprieve is to give the responsible agencies time to bring the levees up to standard.

When the levees are strong again, the homeowners will no longer be required to purchase flood insurance. The financial burden would be lifted.

This grace period helps those who need it most and softens the harsh and expensive consequences that accompany FEMA's Map Modification process.

Additionally, the 5-year limit allows this legislation to accomplish these objectives in a manner that is fiscally responsible.

Our colleagues in the House recently passed legislation H.R. 3121, that seeks to ensure the continued viability of the National Flood Insurance Program.

My colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Dennis Cardoza, authored an amendment similar to this legislation, which passed by voice vote and is now included in the House's proposed changes.

The House bill encourages broader participation, increases financial accountability, and eliminates unnecessary rate subsidies.

Additionally, the bill makes the updating and modernization of flood maps a priority, and requires a thorough review of the Nation's flood protection systems.

Under the new requirements, FEMA will work in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers and local communities to inventory their flood control systems and reassess their levels of protection.

However, as FEMA remaps and reexamines flood threats, many households will find that they are no longer as safe as they thought.

In California alone there are more than 136 communities that contain at least one levee that will be impacted by the deaccreditation process.

These communities contain levees that will be, or may have already been, remapped and decertified for not providing protection from the 1 percent annual chance flood.

Many of the families in these impacted communities have lived in their homes for years, and believed that the levees in their backyards protected them from the threat of dangerous and costly flooding.

As a result of the changing risk, homeowners who were previously exempt from mandatory flood insurance may now be required to purchase flood insurance.

That is why I believe this bill is necessary. The Homeowners Flood Insurance Protection Act lightens this burden.

For nearly 40 years, the National Flood Insurance Program has been instrumental in making flood insurance readily available to all Americans: Communities have partnered with the Federal Government to adopt and enforce floodplain management and, in turn, receive federally-backed insurance policies; and through the development of effective floodplain management strategies, millions of families have been protected from flooding and saved from the devastating costs associated with flood damage.

But today, the program is in danger.

After the record-breaking losses of nearly $20 billion suffered as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, it is clear that the program needs to be updated.

This expansive project will allow communities to formulate responsible floodplain development plans and prepare for catastrophic flooding. The project will also ensure that the National Flood Insurance Program charges fair rates for their flood insurance premiums.

Now, I support the National Flood Insurance program and recognize the importance of mandatory purchase requirements.

The problem is that homeowners who have paid their taxes and helped to pay for the upkeep of these levees, will now find themselves forced to pay an additional insurance premium because of a failing levee.

Many of these individuals in my State and across the country are low- income earners and this increasing burden threatens to break the bank.

Coupled with rising energy, health care and home mortgage costs, the unexpected additional expense of flood insurance may be too much for some families.

That is why we need to offer this assistance.

We must act soon to overhaul our Nation's flood insurance program.

However, it is also our responsibility to mitigate the impact of the levee decertification process on thousands of unsuspecting families across the country.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Lott and Cochran to introduce legislation that will help make flood insurance more affordable for working families across the country.

This bill makes a substantial change to the National Flood Insurance Program by reducing flood insurance premiums for those living near recently decertified levees.

This is critical in California and the Gulf States, where several levees no longer meet national certification standards.

Here is how the bill works: If a national flood map update results in the decertification of a levee, those living nearby will be required to purchase flood insurance. This legislation makes those now required to pay flood insurance eligible for a 50 percent discount on premiums for 5 years. Levee decertification will force some homeowners to pay upwards of $1,000 per year for new flood insurance policies from the National Flood Insurance Program; according to FEMA premium estimates for high-risk residential areas.

This bill will save most families in a newly zoned high-risk residential area more than $500 each year, or roughly $40 each month.

The goal of the 5-year reprieve is to give the responsible agencies time to bring the levees up to standard.

When the levees are strong again, the homeowners will no longer be required to purchase flood insurance. The financial burden would be lifted.

This grace period helps those who need it most and softens the harsh and expensive consequences that accompany FEMA's Map Modification process.

Additionally, the 5-year limit allows this legislation to accomplish these objectives in a manner that is fiscally responsible.

Our colleagues in the House recently passed legislation H.R. 3121, that seeks to ensure the continued viability of the National Flood Insurance Program.

My colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Dennis Cardoza, authored an amendment similar to this legislation, which passed by voice vote and is now included in the House's proposed changes.

The House bill encourages broader participation, increases financial accountability, and eliminates unnecessary rate subsidies.

Additionally, the bill makes the updating and modernization of flood maps a priority, and requires a thorough review of the Nation's flood protection systems.

Under the new requirements, FEMA will work in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers and local communities to inventory their flood control systems and reassess their levels of protection.

However, as FEMA remaps and reexamines flood threats, many households will find that they are no longer as safe as they thought.

In California alone there are more than 136 communities that contain at least one levee that will be impacted by the deaccreditation process.

These communities contain levees that will be, or may have already been, remapped and decertified for not providing protection from the 1 percent annual chance flood.

Many of the families in these impacted communities have lived in their homes for years, and believed that the levees in their backyards protected them from the threat of dangerous and costly flooding.

As a result of the changing risk, homeowners who were previously exempt from mandatory flood insurance may now be required to purchase flood insurance.

That is why I believe this bill is necessary. The Homeowners Flood Insurance Protection Act lightens this burden.

For nearly 40 years, the National Flood Insurance Program has been instrumental in making flood insurance readily available to all Americans: Communities have partnered with the Federal Government to adopt and enforce floodplain management and, in turn, receive federally-backed insurance policies; and through the development of effective floodplain management strategies, millions of families have been protected from flooding and saved from the devastating costs associated with flood damage.

But today, the program is in danger.

After the record-breaking losses of nearly $20 billion suffered as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, it is clear that the program needs to be updated.

This expansive project will allow communities to formulate responsible floodplain development plans and prepare for catastrophic flooding. The project will also ensure that the National Flood Insurance Program charges fair rates for their flood insurance premiums.

Now, I support the National Flood Insurance program and recognize the importance of mandatory purchase requirements.

The problem is that homeowners who have paid their taxes and helped to pay for the upkeep of these levees, will now find themselves forced to pay an additional insurance premium because of a failing levee.

Many of these individuals in my State and across the country are low- income earners and this increasing burden threatens to break the bank.

Coupled with rising energy, health care and home mortgage costs, the unexpected additional expense of flood insurance may be too much for some families.

That is why we need to offer this assistance.

We must act soon to overhaul our Nation's flood insurance program.

However, it is also our responsibility to mitigate the impact of the levee decertification process on thousands of unsuspecting families across the country.

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

Mr. Presdient, 5 years have passed since we lost our distinguished colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, in a tragic plane crash. That crash also took the lives of his wife Sheila, their daughter, Marcia, three loyal staffers, and two pilots.

That sad day the Senate lost a passionate, gifted, and respected colleague and friend.

Paul was a political science professor, with a sharply honed intellect. But his heart was as big as his mind, and he was a committed advocate for the less fortunate.

He was elected in 1990 and quickly became a strong, crusading voice in the Senate.

Paul fought for increased education funding, for improvements in the minimum wage, for affordable, accessible health care, for campaign finance reform, for legislation to protect small farmers, and for legislation to expand insurance coverage for the mentally ill.

Paul helped lead the successful opposition to an energy bill in 1991 that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.

Paul was a champion of the dispossessed around the world--in Latin America, in Africa, and in Asia.

In 1996, when I voiced concern over the treatment of women and girls by the Taliban, Paul was one of the few open to the idea that the United States should do something.

In 1999, Paul and I introduced the International Trafficking of Women and Children Victims Protection Act to address these heinous crimes and to hold to account nations that fail to meet minimum international standards.

Paul cared deeply about Tibetan autonomy. The last time we worked together was to cosponsor legislation to encourage dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government--and to protect the identity of the people of Tibet.

He would have been pleased to see the Congressional Gold Medal--the Nation's highest civilian honor--awarded to the Dalai Lama earlier this month.

Paul was eloquent. He was compassionate. And he is missed. I feel honored to have been his friend and colleague. I will never forget him, and the Senate is better for his service.

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

Mr. President, either my colleague Senator Boxer or I have updated the Senate each day on the California wildfire situation. Senator Boxer is in California now, and I believe the President is as well. I wish to give a brief update to the Senate.

So far, this is the largest evacuation of people in California history. It is the largest evacuation in the United States since Katrina. San Diego remains the worst of the burning regions.

As of this morning, the President has approved individual assistance programs that will allow FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to make payments for rental assistance, home repair, and pay for some home replacement costs.

As soon as the fires die down and the wind in places is easing, FEMA will set up centers. I urge Californians, who have been evacuated from their homes, who have had their homes partially

burned or burned to the ground, to go to FEMA centers and see what assistance is available to you.

This morning, on television, I heard a family speak. I think they are from Escondido. I think they have a few acres--12. They had a home. They have children. The home was burned down, but the father said: We have fire insurance.

Then I heard of another family, with four young children, and no fire insurance. The father has no relatives in the area. Fortunately, the wife has a mother with whom the family will be in the near term. But they said: We don't know what we will do.

For those people who are in the ``We don't know what we will do'' category, this is the job of FEMA, to be out there, to open those centers, and to offer help and aid to these people.

So please, Californians, use this.

More than 950,000 people have been ordered evacuated.

More than 420,000 acres have burned. That is roughly 656 square miles. If you think of it, it is a huge area.

More than 6,000 firefighters are battling 19 active fires. They range from north of Los Angeles to San Diego, and they have crossed the Mexican border.

More than 1,155 homes have been destroyed and 68,000 are threatened.

Two deaths are reported so far. I believe there are others.

Now, if the winds die down today, we will be able, hopefully, to get a handle on it. The vast bulk of the damage now is occurring in populated areas.

The good news: The canyon fire in Malibu is 75 percent contained.

The bad news: Most of the other fires are uncontained and out of control.

Interstate 5, the main artery between San Diego and Los Angeles, was closed in both directions earlier, near Camp Pendleton, because of smoke. Northeast of San Diego, the town of Julian has been evacuated.

I am particularly concerned about the coming days and the Herculean task of feeding, caring, and providing shelter to hundreds of thousands of displaced Californians. We have more than 10,000 in Qualcomm Stadium, another 2,000 at the clubhouse at the Del Mar Race Track.

The Red Cross is doing great. Thank you, Red Cross. Thank you, Red Cross volunteers. They are manning at least three shelters that I know about, and up to this point food, water, and sanitary facilities have been adequate.

I think there is a lot of food for thought for Californians in what is happening in terms of the future, and perhaps it is too early to begin to talk about it.

I do not think there is any blame to be cast on anyone. I think everyone is responding: the Governor, the mayors, Homeland Security, FEMA, and, of course, the President. I am very grateful for this, and I know I am joined by my colleague Senator Boxer. She will be back tonight, and I know she will have stories to tell on the floor of the Senate tomorrow.

But I think we need to think a little bit in the future, particularly those of us who come from local government. I spent 18 years in local government, 9 as a county supervisor and 9 as a mayor, and there is one thing I know, and that is that local governments control zoning. I think the local governments have to begin to look at their zoning about the siting of new housing developments in floodplains in the northern part of the State, around levees and the siting of large subdivisions in the path of Santa Ana winds in parched, dry areas of the State where these winds blow hard and hot.

In this case, at least up to this point, we believe power lines blew down. The winds were so forceful they actually turned large container trucks on their side, and the fires were so strong and burned so hot that they melted the metal of automobiles so that, literally, nothing was left. It could sweep off of a ridge and within minutes come down that ridge and just devour homes and take pieces of board, which are called embers, and send them a mile or two away to start a new fire.

In San Diego 4 years ago, there was the cedar fire. It destroyed 2,000 homes. And now there is this fire in the same area.

So the question comes: Would local officials be well advised to take a look at zoning codes and to begin to protect areas that are prone to catastrophic wildfire from housing developments?

Secondly, community fire plans. Community fire plans are very good. Communities can come together--they did it in the cedar fire area, and they have done it quite successfully--to be able to establish fire plans: how they keep a fire break from their house, what they can take down, the kind of ground cover they should have, the kind of roof that is fire resistant, the siding that is fire resistant--and actually get some Government help to implement these fire plans. This is now going on in the Nevada Tahoe area and in the California Tahoe area as well.

So I believe very strongly that local officials should exercise their zoning control to see that citizens in the future are protected by staying out of heavily fire-prone and heavily flood-prone areas. I will be having more to say about that in the future.

It is also pretty clear to me that we have to develop some Government-helped catastrophic insurance. I have been very concerned. Allstate Insurance Company pulled out of California, and they pulled out of California because they said: It is catastrophe prone, it is fire prone, it is earthquake prone, and we--Allstate--don't want any part of it. So they are not insuring in California any longer. This must not be allowed to happen. Companies must not be allowed to cherry- pick the United States and only insure areas that are safe and secure and say to other areas: You are on your own.

So we are kind of rethinking this area. I think the State of California, which has an earthquake authority which helps underwrite insurance in earthquake-prone areas, perhaps should also develop a flood and fire authority where they can enter into the same kind of undertaking. Just think about what it would be like to have four children standing in front of a television camera and saying: My house burned down. With it, all my possessions, all my children's possessions, all our photographs and albums and memories, and virtually everything we held dear, and we have no insurance. Think about it. Think about how you would feel if you were in that situation.

So I think there is going to be a lot of food for thought coming out of these fires in terms of public policy, and I am delighted that my colleague, Senator Boxer, is there, and I look forward to her report tomorrow. I believe we will have much more to say about the public policy that goes into the future for our State and other States that are catastrophe prone.

I will just tell my colleagues one other little story. I received a call a while ago from the head of the San Francisco Fine Arts Museum saying that they had an opportunity to bring two paintings to show in San Francisco from the Met, and the insurance for those two paintings was $8 billion, just to bring them out for show. Why? Because insurance was being denied because California was a catastrophe-prone area. This is just one other example of what is ricocheting out there under the surface now, and I think this body has to become involved. Any one of us can have a catastrophe. Any one of us can have a major bombing. Any one of us can have a major earthquake, a major flood, or major fires. I think it is up to us to see that we have in place the regulations and the laws that enable people to get the insurance they need on a cost- effective basis to be able to restore their lives and rebuild once again.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Enzi amendment. I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for the work they have done on this bill. But this amendment significantly disadvantages at least nine jurisdictions facing HIV/AIDS crises throughout the country because it essentially would prevent any stop- loss provision enacted by the House from going into effect.

Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, and the rest of the HELP Committee worked tirelessly for most of last year to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act. I voted for this reauthorization, and I recognized at the time that the method of counting HIV/AIDS victims had to change to more clearly reflect living victims. However, this then mandated huge cuts to vital programs, despite the fact that States and eligible metropolitan areas were assured that no jurisdiction would face destabilizing losses.

The HELP Committee staff provided GAO data during the debate projecting that San Francisco would receive approximately $17.1 million in fiscal year 2007. But San Francisco did not receive that amount. Their formula award totaled $14.6 million, which is $2.5 million less than estimated.

A compromise was to offset losses by clearly making available supplemental award funding so that the Health Resources and Services Administration could consider the funding losses when awarding this supplemental funding. This amendment seeks to do away with all of this.

Despite these estimates and built-in protection, several areas of the country received significant funding cuts when the 2007 awards were announced earlier this year.

The San Francisco eligible metropolitan areas, which also include Marin and San Mateo Counties, lost approximately $8.5 million. That is just those three counties--an $8.5 million loss. This accounts for 30 percent of the Ryan White funding--a loss too great for any jurisdiction to absorb in 1 year.

It didn't surprise me when San Francisco lost money in 2007. The city knew it would likely face losses. But the protections put in place clearly were not adequate. The loss of one-third of total funding is clearly destabilizing. To be very candid with you, I find it highly objectionable.

This isn't only unique for San Francisco. Five other cities also lost 20 percent or more of their funding: Hartford, CT, 32.1 percent; New Haven, CT, 23.7 percent; Nassau-Suffolk County, NY, 21.7 percent; Ponce, Puerto Rico, 28.9 percent; Caguas, Puerto Rico, 34.3 percent.

No jurisdiction can absorb cuts of this magnitude in 1 year without significant harm to those they serve. To address this, the House of Representatives included a stop-loss provision to cap the losses faced by these jurisdictions in their version of the fiscal year 2008 Labor- HHS appropriations bill. This provision limits the fiscal year 2007 losses for eligible metropolitan areas, or EMAs, to 8.4 percent--not 30 percent but 8.4 percent--which is a manageable amount. Transitional grant areas will have their losses capped at 13.4 percent.

So there is a willingness to respond to the mandate; that is, change your method of counting and, secondly, absorb reasonable cuts. I don't think that

is too much to ask. I think this is overkill.

I was the mayor who first found AIDS, and I can take you back to 1981 and I can tell you what it was like. You won't like it. What I tried to do in the task force of the Conference of Mayors was to bring mayors into the modern day. San Francisco essentially led the Nation in the fight against AIDS. I think to have to take a 30-percent cut, when we are seeing some regeneration of AIDS, is a terrible mistake.

Senator Enzi's amendment could nullify the House's solution. Let me be clear. Under the House language, San Francisco would still lose $2.3 million. All of the cities will still face significant cuts. This provision is designed not to stop all reductions but to limit them to a level that can be absorbed in 1 year. The House provided funding for the stop-loss on top of a $23 million increase for part A of the Ryan White CARE Act. So virtually every area across the country sees an increase in funding. But these areas take a dramatic 30-percent cut in funding. I don't think that is right, and I don't believe we should accept it.

The Government Accountability Office examined the impact this stop- loss provision would have on jurisdictions in 2008. In addition to benefiting the 11 jurisdictions whose cuts are reduced, the House bill results in increased funding for 42 of the remaining 45 jurisdictions. The very minor cuts projected in the remaining three jurisdictions are less than one-tenth of 1 percent. A reduction of 30-percent is simply not manageable.

The provision makes no changes to the underlying reauthorization. It doesn't prevent it from moving forward at all. It caps the total losses faced by any jurisdiction in fiscal year 2007 with a one-time solution. It doesn't reopen the reauthorization so carefully crafted by Senators Kennedy and Enzi and their committee.

The epidemic, as I mentioned, is far from over in San Francisco. AIDS continues to be the second leading cause of premature death in the city and counting. Nearly 23,000 people are currently living with HIV/AIDS in San Francisco, which is more than at any point in the epidemic. Listen to that--nearly 23,000 people in San Francisco are living with HIV now, and that is more than at any point during the epidemic. In addition, the population of San Francisco living with HIV/AIDS is increasingly impoverished, homeless, and struggling. Many have serious medical needs.

About 2 weeks ago, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that San Francisco doctors diagnosed 15 HIV patients with Kaposi sarcoma. That is a form of cancer commonly found in patients early in the epidemic but had become rare.

I will never forget, in a staff meeting I had with department heads back in 1981, when the director of public health said: Madam Mayor, something is happening. We are finding patients with large purple lesions all over their bodies, and we don't know what it is.

His name is Merv Silverman. I said: Merv, find out what it is and come back and tell me.

Three weeks later, they came back, and it was the discovery for the first time of AIDS in this country. So I feel very sensitive about it. I started the first AIDS program in the Nation. We funded it with property tax dollars. That is how we became a leader in the area.

To take a 30-percent cut when we have the largest number of HIV/AIDS victims in our history in the city, to me, is discriminatory, wrongheaded, and it need not happen. So I very much hope this body will respond.

I understand Senator Enzi wants to protect the reauthorization and the funding formula he authored, but I think we have to admit that the impact on some areas of the country was not anticipated. Fixing these unintended consequences does not require reopening the legislation. It can be addressed with a one-time solution that will still leave some cities with a decline in funds; that means the House solution of stop- loss.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Enzi amendment, which would strike a dastardly blow to a city that has seen too much suffering, as well as others.

I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I don't think it is fair to take a 30- percent cut in 1 year when you have the largest number of HIV/AIDS victims in the history of the epidemic in a city that has suffered such as no other city in America. I am not saying there shouldn't be cuts. I voted for the reauthorization knowing there would be cuts. What I am talking about is the level of cuts and the way these cuts fall because they decimate programs in an area that was ground zero on AIDS in the United States.

If you are going to take cuts, take those cuts so the communities involved in fighting HIV with prevention, with education, with care, with treatment, with drugs, with all of it, can essentially meet the mandate, which is to prevent the suffering of AIDS in HIV patients and also to prevent the disease from spreading. That is not easy to do, I can tell you that firsthand.

You take a 30-percent cut in 1 year and you decimate these programs. That is why the House put the stop-loss in. Take a moderate cut, and we will stand up like men and women and we will take that cut. Take a third cut and it is much more difficult and you affect services to people. That is all I am saying.

So I would very much hope the Senate would understand the need and the compassion to defeat this amendment and, once again, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Through the Chair, Mr. President, if I may, to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, first of all, it is my knowledge that the cut to San Francisco and to 11 other jurisdictions is very large. With respect to the reauthorization of Ryan White, we do not agree that it applies only to the fiscal year 2007 cuts. It takes resources, actually, from other jurisdictions. The Pelosi fix in the House ensures a significant increase for title I that would both reduce cuts to a manageable level for 11 jurisdictions and still increase for other jurisdictions. So this isn't taking money away from other jurisdictions, as I understand it. The provisions in the House bill increases funding for 42 of the remaining 45 jurisdictions under title

May I ask how much additional time I have?

A minute 10. I am not sure I should yield it to the Senator.

I beg your pardon? Whose side did you say?

Oh. Then I will yield. If the mind is open, I am happy to yield.

I would be happy to yield my remaining minute to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes to do what Senator Boxer did yesterday, which is essentially to update the Senate on the catastrophic fires in California. I offer these words on behalf of Senator Boxer and myself.

Today there are 14 fires, big fires, burning in California. The bulk of them are uncontained and out of control. The containment factor is very small. More than half a million people have been told to evacuate their homes. More than 309,000 acres have been destroyed by fire, over 400 miles, from north of Los Angeles to San Diego and now across the Mexican border, and more, we fear, will be destroyed.

The deaths, fortunately, today are limited to one, with 34 injured throughout southern California, some of them firefighters. High wind and high temperatures persist. A red flag warning is in effect for the California coast from Monterey to the Mexican border. More than 1,000 homes have been destroyed; 11,500 are now threatened. Today more than 100 commercial buildings have been destroyed, and 2,000 are threatened; 52 outbuildings have been destroyed and 550 are threatened.

Health warnings have been issued because of smoke and particulate matter. As you know, these fires are driven by hurricane and gale-force Santa Ana winds, which are hot and contrary to the prevailing westerly flow, east to west. They are fueled by bone-dry brush from years of drought and virtually no humidity. Humidity is below 10 percent.

Fires are raging still in Malibu, at Lake Arrowhead in Irvine and Santa Clarita. The Arrowhead area is particularly dangerous because there are half a million acres of pine-beetle infested dead trees waiting to go up.

Of course, they are raging in San Diego County, which is bearing the brunt of two major fires which well could join. Already, the 300,000 people in San Diego County alone have been told to evacuate. More than 10,000 of them are now taking refuge in Qualcomm Stadium, home to the San Diego Chargers. These people will be there for 48 to 72 more hours and possibly more.

Sanitary supplies are going to become a problem. It is going to be a real effort to get food and water to these evacuees and the hundreds of thousands of people displaced around southern California.

Both Senator Boxer and I spoke to the Governor, and he has declared a seven-county disaster area. Yesterday the President declared southern California a disaster area to be able to speed the Federal Emergency Management Agency's relief, which is critical.

This is going to be a real test of FEMA. We are going to learn whether FEMA actually learned from the hurricane in New Orleans, a test of whether FEMA has gotten its act together post-Katrina.

FEMA must act quickly and urgently to get help to California. The State is going to need cots; it is going to need blankets; it is going to need water, food, and, most importantly, those sanitary facilities that are needed for the people who are camping out today, sleeping in cars, located in schools, or in Qualcomm Stadium.

Most importantly, this help has to be spread throughout the 14 different fire areas. It is not going to be enough to simply put it in one place.

Last night, the Secretary of the Interior informed me that the fires have crossed the line and are entering into Baja California, Mexico, and urged Mexican authorities to begin to speak out.

These fires are fast moving. You see them at a distance on a hill, and you do not believe you will be affected because the winds are contrary to what you expect. Then, suddenly, within a short period of time, 2 hours, the fire is upon you.

So people must be alert, and they must evacuate these fire areas. The military is pitching in. Fifteen hundred National Guard personnel are actively engaged or directly supporting firefighting efforts. We have 550 Active-Duty marines, 17,000 California National Guard personnel are available. I believe we have more than 5,300 State of California firefighters on the line, and hundreds more from local jurisdictions. Today, a combination of National Guard, Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, are either supporting firefighter efforts or are prepared to pitch in.

The problem is, with the wind and dense smoke, it is difficult for a plane or helicopter to know where they are going. Simply put, this is a disaster of huge proportions. It is catastrophic in terms of property loss and environmental damage.

Hopefully, it is not going to be a huge catastrophe in terms of loss of life. I do not think there is anything other than a catastrophic health incident that is more serious to a person or family than losing their home by flood or fire.

I know Californians will respond in their traditional stalwart and generous manner to help their neighbors. Both Senator Boxer's and my heart go out to all Californians today.

I ask unanimous consent that the specific statistical roundup of these larger fires be printed in the Record.

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

That is fine.

Mr. President, I too rise to discuss the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick and to explain why I will vote in favor of cloture and in favor of confirming him to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

There has seldom been an appellate nominee to whom I have given more thought than I have given to Judge Southwick. I am very much aware of the concerns many on my side of the aisle, in the House of Representatives, and in the community feel.

I have reviewed Judge Southwick's record and the transcript of his confirmation hearing. I have read the many letters, both pro and con, and I have spent about an hour or more talking with him in person.

What emerged for me was an understanding that Judge Southwick is a qualified, sensitive, and circumspect person. I think the personal qualities of an individual often get lost in our debates about judicial nominees. These nominees are not just a collection of prior writings or prior judicial opinions. They are, first and foremost, people; and the kind of person they are is, in fact, important. In my conversations with Judge Southwick, I have gotten a sense of the type of person that I believe him to be. He is not either insensitive or a racist but one who is thoughtful and analytical and a strong believer in the law. As an appellate court judge, he evaluates the specific legal issues of the case before him, not necessarily the veracity of the parties involved as would a trial judge.

I know some of my colleagues are opposed to this nomination. Concerns have been raised about his judicial record, particularly with regard to civil rights and the rights of gays and lesbians. I assure my colleagues that I have taken these concerns seriously. I gave them careful consideration and made my best judgment, which is all any of us can do.

While I respect the views of my colleagues who oppose this nomination, I also respectfully disagree. I think Judge Southwick made mistakes by concurring in the two opinions in question, but I don't think those rulings define his views. I don't believe they outweigh the other factors that suggest Judge Southwick should be confirmed.

As I see it, there are three factors that weigh in favor of confirmation. They are:

First, the qualifications and character of the judge himself;

Second, the need to fill this long-time vacancy in the Fifth Circuit which the judicial branch has designated as a judicial emergency;

And third, my very strong belief that when a future Democratic President sends up a judicial nominee who becomes controversial, the test should be whether the nominee is within the judicial mainstream and is qualified by education, experience, and temperament to be a sound judge or Justice in the Federal court system of our great country.

When I weighed those factors against the concerns I have heard, I decided to vote in favor of Judge Southwick in committee. They also will form the basis for my vote on Judge Southwick tomorrow.

The first factor I wish to address is his qualifications and character. I don't think anyone disagrees that Judge Southwick is an experienced appellate court judge. He sat on the State court of appeals in Mississippi for 11 years, from January 1995 to December of 2006. He has heard roughly 7,000 appeals.

How many judges have we confirmed without nearly that kind of experience? This is a large number of cases.

There is no organization better positioned to evaluate the performance of judges in Mississippi than the Mississippi State bar, and they awarded Judge Southwick their Judicial Excellence Award in 2004, after he had been on the State court bench for 10 years. That award describes him as: ``A leader in advancing the quality and integrity of justice,'' and as ``a person of high ideals, character, and integrity.''

Isn't that the kind of judge we want to see on the bench?

I think those views from the bar association from his home State are important. I also think it is significant that the American Bar Association, which evaluates every judicial nominee that comes to the Senate for confirmation, unanimously rated Judge Southwick ``well qualified''--their highest rating. In fact, the evaluation by the ABA for him to serve on the Fifth Circuit is stronger than it was when he was nominated to a district court last year.

For that nomination, the ABA was not unanimous in finding him ``well qualified.'' But they were for the appellate court.

The Judiciary Committee approved that nomination, but the 109th Congress ended without further action on it. Now, Judge Southwick stands before us with a unanimous recommendation for the Fifth Circuit from the ABA.

I am also impressed, as Senator Specter spelled out, by his record of military service to our country. I find it singular among the judges in the 15 years I have served on the Judiciary Committee.

This judge joined the U.S. Army Reserves in 1992 at the age of 42. To do that, he had to get an age waiver.

How many would do that?

He had already achieved professional success as a lawyer. At the time, he was serving as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. Still, he felt a sense of duty to his country, and he did not let his age or his promising civilian legal career stop him.

He volunteered in 2004 for a unit that was going to be deployed to Iraq. That unit, the 155th Brigade Combat Team, was, in fact, deployed, and he was with it.

Judge Southwick was 53 years old at the time. He had a wife and family and a prestigious job as a judge on the State court of appeals. Yet, from January to December 2005, he served in Iraq--first as a Deputy Staff Judge Advocate at Forward Operating Base Duke, and then as Staff Judge Advocate for the 155th Brigade at Forward Operating Base Kalsu.

How many judges have done that? Shouldn't that count for something?

Well, it counts to me, Mr. President. To me, it is a clear indication of the character of the man, and I deeply respect him for this military service.

The second factor that is important, in my judgment, is the need to fill this vacancy on the Fifth Circuit. It has been vacant for 7 out of the last 8 years. Judge Southwick is the third nominee for the position--not the first or the second, but the third.

The vacancy opened in August 1999--7 years ago--and went unfilled for more than 4 years. Then, in 2004, the President used a recess appointment to place Charles Pickering on the bench. The Senate did not confirm Judge Pickering to the seat, and since the end of 2004, it has been vacant again. Michael Wallace was nominated for it, but that nomination wasn't approved by the Judiciary Committee.

So at this time the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has declared this seat to be a ``judicial emergency.''

Now, I am not suggesting that we should confirm whomever the President nominates just because a seat has been vacant for a long time, or because the seat has been designated a judicial emergency. But I hope this urgent need to fill a longtime vacancy will help tip the balance in the nominee's favor. By any measure, 7 years is too long for a vacancy to remain open.

The third factor that weighs in favor of confirmation for me is my strong belief that we have seen too much delay and controversy over qualified nominees for too many years.

There are plenty of examples of long delays in the confirmation process when President Clinton was in office and the Senate was under the Republican control. For example, when Ronnie White had the support of Senator Bond and was voted favorably out of the Judiciary Committee twice, it took more than 2\1/2\ years for the nomination to come to the floor, and then the nomination was rejected.

William Fletcher was a well-qualified Ninth Circuit nominee in the 1990s. Unlike Judge White, at least Judge Fletcher was confirmed by the Republican Senate--thanks in large measure to Senator Hatch--but not until he had waited for 3\1/2\ years.

During that period of time, I had calls from prospective judges, saying: I don't know what to do. Do I stay the course, or withdraw? What do I do about my family? These are real problems and we ought to respond to them.

I also share the views of my colleague, Senator Lott, that we must improve the confirmation process. He recently wrote an op-ed column in which he explained his vote to confirm Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Since the Senator is sitting here, let me quote him:

I probably wouldn't agree with Justice Ginsburg on any

philosophical issue, but she

was qualified to serve by education, experience, and

temperament. Elections have consequences, and she had

President Clinton's confidence.

That is the way it was. I have used the same analysis to arrive at my position on Judge Southwick. I probably would not agree with him on certain philosophical issues, but I think he is qualified to serve by education, by experience, and by temperament.

Critics of this nomination have pointed to two opinions: one that reinstated an employee who had been fired for using an egregious racial slur, and another that denied a woman custody of her child for reasons that included--but were not limited to--her involvement in a same-sex relationship.

These are 2 opinions out of 7,000 cases that he heard or that he sat on. They are opinions he joined, not ones he wrote. One was a majority opinion joined by four other judges on his court, and one was a concurring opinion in a case where he also joined the majority opinion.

Ultimately, the case involving the racial slur was reversed by the State supreme court and remanded for consideration of a different penalty. The ruling of Judge Southwick's court in the child custody case apparently was not appealed to the State's high court.

Critics of Judge Southwick have also pointed to certain rulings that, in their view, suggest that Judge Southwick will be hostile to workers, minorities, and those who lack power and privilege in our society. These are serious concerns. But I don't think these cases accurately reflect Judge Southwick's views. This is only my best judgment, based on my own discussions with him.

The racial slur case, Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, involved, as has been stated, a State employee who had used a racial slur in reference to an African-American coworker. The State agency fired the employee, and she appealed to an administrative board, which ordered her reinstated.

Judge Southwick joined a majority opinion that upheld the board's decision to reinstate the employee. The opinion stated that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision of the board.

I believe he should not have joined the court's opinion, but I don't think his decision to concur in that opinion should disqualify him from being a Federal judge.

After our meeting in person, I asked the judge to put his thoughts in writing, and he did. I found the letter convincing.

Mr. President, I will quote some of this letter:

The court said that the use of the word ``cannot be

justified'' by any argument. It could have gone far beyond

that legalistic statement. Captured in this one terrible word

is a long, dark, sad chapter in our history. This racial slur

is unique in its impact and painful to hear for many,

including myself. I said at my hearing that this is the worst

of all racial slurs. Its use is despicable. All people of

good will should make their rejection of the word clear. The

opinion had an opportunity to express more fully and

accurately the complete disgust that should greet the use of

this word. Such a statement would certainly be consistent

with my own beliefs that this is the worst kind of insult. As

I testified, everyone took this issue extraordinarily

seriously. I regret that the failure to express in more depth

our repugnance of the use of this phrase has now led to an

impression that we did not approach this case with sufficient

gravity and understanding of the impact of this word.

The letter goes on to say:

I always tried to treat everyone who came before me as a

judge with respect. I gave a memorandum to each of my law

clerks that they were to use no disparaging words towards

anyone in a draft opinion, no matter what the appeal was

about. From the bench and in my opinions, I followed that

same rule. I believe that everyone whom I encounter, whether

as a judge or in some purely private capacity, is deserving

of my respect.

I took a broad view in looking for staff. I was one of the

original ten judges on the Court of Appeals, taking office in

January 1995. In my second year on the court, I became the

first white judge to hire an African-American law clerk on

that court. I could not have been more pleased with her work,

and she went on to be a partner in a major Mississippi law

firm. I was equally pleased with the two additional African-

American clerks I hired before I left the court.

Judge Southwick concludes by saying:

Until the last two months, my fairness and temperament had

not been subject to criticisms. The recent concern may have

arisen from the fact that only one piece of evidence was

being used, namely, the racial slur opinion. A much better

explanation of my own abhorrence of this slur clearly could

have been written. I have tried in this explanation to

express my disgust for the use of that word and to present

some of the evidence from my own life to prove my commitment

to furthering the civil rights of all.

In the second case, the child custody case, which is called S.B. v. L.W., Judge Southwick's court affirmed a decision to deny custody of a child to a mother who was in a same-sex relationship. The lower court had based its opinion on several different factors, such as employment, financial stability, and stability of the environment, and not just the sexual orientation of the mother.

In fact, a major concern in the case was that the mother was planning to move to a new city, and the mother had admitted that the move was not in the daughter's best interest. She said she did not know where her daughter would attend school, and also that she would be devoting a lot of time to starting a new business after the move.

Judge Southwick joined the majority opinion, upholding a lower court's decision that the best interests of the child would be better served by being in the father's custody. He also joined a concurring opinion written by another judge.

When asked about the case at his hearing, Judge Southwick said that he had joined the concurring opinion because it followed State law at the time, which was governed by Supreme Court precedent that has since been overruled. Judge Southwick conceded at the hearing that under current law the analysis of the case, and perhaps the result, would be different.

Again, the question is whether his decision to join the opinion is grounds for disqualifying him from a Federal judgeship. To me, simply stated, it is not.

So I am voting in favor of Judge Southwick because I think, based on the letter he wrote to me, on my discussions with him, and on his record, he is not outside of the judicial mainstream.

That is the primary criterion I use when evaluating an appellate nominee, and I expect future nominees of Democratic Presidents to be treated in the same way.

I believe the concerns that have been raised about Judge Southwick are outweighed by his record of service to our country, his long experience as an appellate court judge, and the temperament I have come to know in my discussions with him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII with respect to the Southwick nomination be waived.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.