Floor Statements

Mr. President, at the ``March for Women's Lives'' yesterday, I joined the hundreds of thousands of women from across the United States and the world to show support for a woman's right to choose and for access to reproductive health services.

This demonstration comes at a time when women's reproductive rights are in immediate danger. Not only has President Bush done more to roll back women's reproductive health than any president in history, opponents of abortion in Congress have made advances in the assault on the right to choose.

In the past decade, Congress has voted on choice related issues 168 times. Women lost in 136 of those votes.

As if these attacks themselves were not disturbing enough, the fact that they have gone largely unnoticed and unchallenged is even more alarming.

That is why, now, more than ever since Roe v. Wade, it is vital to show President Bush and his friends in Congress that we will fight to maintain women's reproductive rights and access to health care in America.

Since the day George W. Bush took office, his administration has been systematically chipping away at women's reproductive rights.

One of his first acts as President was to reinstate the global gag rule, which prevents U.S. foreign aid from funding any overseas clinic that performs or counsels women on abortion.

The Bush Administration has announced at international conferences that the United States believes that life begins at conception.

They have canceled the United States' contribution to the United Nations' family planning program.

Instead, they have promoted abstinence-only sex education for young people both here and abroad, even though their success at preventing pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases has been questioned.

George W. Bush has also consistently nominated judicial candidates who oppose a woman's right to choose to lifetime appointments on the Federal bench.

Just this month, he signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which, for the first time, puts into Federal law the concept that life begins at conception. This will, in effect, grant a fetus or even a fertilized egg separate rights as a person and can now be used legally to further chip away at a woman's constitutional right to choose.

I offered an alternative to this bill that would have provided the same effect and punishment for offenders in criminal law, but did not address the profound and deeply divisive question of when life begins.

The President also approved a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, which is the first law outlawing abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision. It is also the first time that a medical procedure has ever been criminalized.

This unconstitutional law has not yet been enforced because of lawsuits pending against it in Federal courts in San Francisco, New York and Lincoln, NE.

In disregard for people's privacy, U.S. Justice Department attorneys defending the law have attempted to compel two doctors to turn over private patient abortion records.

Who knows where it will stop? We are on a slippery slope toward granting fetuses greater rights than the mothers who carry them. It may not be long before common forms of contraception, in-vitro fertilization and stem-cell research are banned in the name of the unborn.

These Federal laws, along with more than 350 anti-choice measures enacted by States, are setting legal precedents that abortion opponents will use to challenge Roe v. Wade, which is perilously close to being overturned.

The Supreme Court appears to be only one vote away from reversing Roe v. Wade and taking the decision to have an abortion away from a woman and her doctor and putting it in the hands of politicians.

It is entirely possible that abortion will once again be illegal in this country.

For many women, it has been easy to take the right to choose for granted, because it is all they have ever known.

I remember a time, however, when an estimated 1.2 million women each year resorted to illegal, back alley abortions despite the possibility of death and infection.

I remember that time very vividly. In college during the 1950s, I knew young women who found themselves pregnant with no options. I even knew a woman who committed suicide because she was pregnant and abortion was illegal in the United States.

I also remember the passing of a collection plate in my college dormitory so that another friend could go to Mexico for an abortion.

That is why it is so important to show President Bush that we will NOT just stand back and do nothing while women's rights are taken away.

Women have a fundamental right to determine when and whether to become a mother. The Government should not be able to take that right away.

We cannot go back to a time without choice.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, 8 years ago the Senator from Arizona asked me if I would join with him in a pursuit to give victims basic rights under the Constitution of the United States. It was something I knew a little bit about and I was delighted to do it. What I didn't know a lot about was the drafting of a constitutional amendment and how difficult it was. The next 8 years actually proved to be one of the most rewarding times of my Senate experience.

First, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his collegiality, for the ease with which we have been able to work together, and for his leadership on this issue, which has been absolutely 100 percent unrelenting.

In a time of increasing partisan separation in this body, the friendship, the collegiality, and the leadership has been so appreciated by me. It has been one of the bright spots in my Senate career. I want him to know how much I appreciate it.

I also thank victims, about 30 or 40 of whom are present in the gallery. These are victims who have had terrible things happen to them, but rather than sink back into the depths of despair, have decided they would fight for something so that anyone who had similar things happen to them could have a part in the criminal justice system. Particularly, I would like to acknowledge a few of those victims.

The first is Colleen Campbell. Colleen Campbell has lost two members of her family as a product of murder. Senator Kyl, in his remarks, will make that clear. She has become an ardent supporter of our efforts, and a small pin that Senator Kyl and I are wearing today is the pin which represents a group called ``Force 100.'' These are victims who have been asking Congress to take this action. The pin depicts an angel holding a checkered flag. Her brother, Mickey Thompson, who was murdered, was a race car driver, and therefore the checkered flag. Her son, Scott Campbell, was also murdered. Colleen, a brilliant leader and a wonderful woman, has lost two members of her family--her son and her brother--to murder.

The other was Roberta Roper. Roberta is one of the first people I met. She hails from Maryland. Again, Senator Kyl will say more about the circumstances of that crime.

The third is Steve Twist, who has represented the victims with integrity and steadfastness over these past 8 years, to try to get for them as much as could be possible in the recognition of their rights.

Essentially, bottom line, what we have found after numerous Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearings, committee hearings, markups, putting the victims' rights constitutional amendment out on the Senate floor in a prior session, taking it down because we didn't have the votes, beginning anew in this session, going through the processes in committee, and recognizing that we didn't have the 67 votes necessary for a constitutional amendment--both Senator Kyl and I, as well as the victims and their advocates, decided that we should compromise. There are Members of this body who very much want a statute. There are Members of this body who very much want a constitutional amendment. We have drafted a statute which we believe is broad and encompassing, which provides enforcement rights for victims, provides funding for the Department of Justice victims' rights programs, for legal clinics, for enforcement to carry out this law federally and also to spread the word to local and State jurisdictions to enact similar laws.

We basically provide a set of eight rights:

The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of public proceedings so that you know what is happening as well as notice if the accused is released or escapes from custody--

I can't tell you how many victims who may have testified against their assailant live in dread of the fact that an assailant will be released, they won't know it, they won't be able to protect themselves, and the assailant will come after them. That is not theory. It has happened over and over again. There are cases of that, with which I am intimately, unfortunately, knowledgeable--

The right to be present at public proceedings, not to be barred from a court hearing, not to be barred by a public proceeding involving a plea agreement;

The right to be reasonably heard at critical steps in the process, those involving release, plea, or sentencing; the right to confer with the prosecutor;

The right to full and timely restitution, as provided by law;

The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay;

And the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.

At one time the system of criminal justice in the United States of America provided these rights. Victims had rights until about the mid- 19th century, the 1850s, when the concept of the public prosecutor was developed in our Nation. Up to that time, victims brought cases. Victims hired lawyers. Victims even hired sheriffs to prosecute cases. That changed in the mid-19th century, and in that change the victim became left out of the process.

Nowhere was the need for this legislation made more clear than during the trials over the Oklahoma City bombing.

Because we got involved, the Senate and the House, because victims were not being given the rights afforded to them by prior legislation, victims then went to a district court of appeals and victims were then subsequently still told that they had no standing.

A brief account of the trial in the Oklahoma City bombing case illustrates this point:

During pre-trial conference in the case against Timothy McVeigh, the District Court issued a ruling to preclude any victim who wished to provide victim impact testimony at sentencing from observing any proceeding in the case.

In a hearing to reconsider the issue of excluding victim witnesses, the trial court denied the victims' motion asserting standing to present their claims and denied the motion for reconsideration.

Three months later in February 1997, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected, without oral argument, the victims' claims on jurisdictional grounds finding they had no ``legally protected interest'' to be present at the trial and had suffered no ``injury in fact.''

Congress reacted the next month by overwhelmingly passing the Victims' Rights Clarification Act of 1997, which provided that watching a trial does not constitute grounds for denying the chance to provide a victim impact statement at sentencing. President Clinton signed the bill into law on March 20, 1997.

When the victims filed a motion with the District Court seeking a hearing to assert their rights under the new law, the District Court concluded ``any motions raising constitutional questions about this legislation would be premature and would present issues that are not now ripe for decision.''

The court then entered a new order on victim-impact witness sequestration, and refused to grant the victims a hearing on the application of the new law, stating that its ruling rendered the request ``moot.''

I believe the result would be different if the bill we are considering today was law then. The victims and the families would have had standing, and would have been able to avail themselves of the mandamus proceeding to get a timely ruling on the merits from the Court of Appeals. Perhaps that would not have been necessary--the District Court judge, armed with the standing provision of this bill, perhaps would have reached a different result during the trial.

We have written a bill that we believe is broad. We have written a bill that provides an enforcement remedy; namely, the writ of mandamus.

This part of the bill is what makes this legislation so important, and different from earlier legislation: It provides mechanisms to enforce the set of rights provided to victims of crime.

These mechanisms fall into four categories:

A direction to our courts that they ``shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in the law.''

A direction to the Attorney General of the United States to take steps to ensure that our Federal prosecutors ``make their best efforts'' to see that crime victims are aware of, and can exercise these rights.

A specific statement that the victim of a crime, or their representative, may assert these rights; the result is that, for the first time victims will have clear standing to ask our courts to enforce their rights.

And a new use of a very old procedure, the writ of mandamus. This provision will establish a procedure where a crime victim can, in essence, immediately appeal a denial of their rights by a trial court to the court of appeals, which must rule ``forthwith.'' Simply put, the mandamus procedure allows an appellate court to take timely action to ensure that the trial court follows the rule of law set out in this statute.

These procedures, taken together, will ensure that the rights defined in the first section are not simply words on paper, but are meaningful and functional.

The bill also has two separate resource provisions, which together will authorize the appropriation of $76 million over the next five years to ensure that the federal government assist crime victims in asserting these rights, and to encourage states to do the same: The bill authorizes a total of $51 million over five years for crime victim assistance grants administered by the Department of Justice to establish and maintain legal assistance programs throughout the nation.

These institutions are key to the success of this legislation, for this is how victims' rights will be really asserted and defended--by lawyers, standing up in court, and explaining to judges and prosecutors what the law means, and how it applies in the case at hand. Rights and remedies need articulation to work, and this money will help make that happen.

These grants, championed by my colleague Senator Leahy, provide a total of $25 million over five years for a specific, and critical, purpose: to ``develop and implement'' the type of notification systems that take full advantage of modern technology.

Computers, linked to sophisticated telephone or automatic mailing systems, can help us ensure that the right to notice, set out in the first section of this bill, is not simply abstract, but is made real by a notification system that can provide ``accurate, and timely'' notice to victims' of crime and their families.

This act, of course, binds only the federal system, but is designed to affect the states also. First it is hoped that states will look to this law as a model and incorporate it into their own systems. This law encourages that by allowing both types of grants--legal assistance and victim notification--to be provided to state entities, and for use in state systems, where the state has in place ``laws substantially equivalent'' to this act.

Never before have these three critical components, rights, remedies and resources, been brought together. It has been said ``a right without a remedy is no right at all,'' and this law would couple victims' rights with victims' remedies in a way that has never been done before in the federal system. I believe that taken together we have a formula for success, and this law will work, and hopefully become the model for our States.

So why is the law needed?

Senator Kyl and I have been working on this issue for the past 8 years. We offer this legislation because the scales of justice are out of balance--while criminal defendants have an array of rights under law, crime victims have few meaningful rights.

In case after case we found victims, and their families, were ignored, cast aside, and treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors to busy to care enough, by judges focused on defendant's rights, and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them.

The result was terrible--often the experience of the criminal justice system left crime victims and their families victimized yet again.

Let me be clear. I am not talking about the necessary emotional and psychological difficulties which are almost inevitable in our adversary system. Cross examination can be hard. The legal system sometimes must seem complex and irrational to those who do not work in it. Sometimes judges and juries make decisions that victims of crime do not like. But that is not the problem that this law addresses.

That problem is one of process and fairness. The rights I have spoken about are basic, and do not come at the expense of defendant's rights.

Boiled down, they involve the simple right to know what is going on, to participate in the process where the information that victim's and their families can provide may be material and relevant, and the right to be safe from violence.

I mentioned earlier the dramatic disparity between the rights of defendants in our constitution and laws, and the rights of crime victims and their families. My point is to illustrate that our government, and our criminal justice system, can and should care about both the rights of accused and the rights of victims. That is what this law addresses.

Some have said that current law is adequate. For instance, the Victim of Crime Act of 1984 sets out rights for victims--in fact the bill before us restates many of those rights. But prior laws did not have the critical combination of rights and remedies that we now offer.

In fact, a number of victims' rights laws have been passed:

1982, the Victim and Witness Protection Act, mentioned before, which provided for victim restitution and the use of victim impact statements at sentencing in federal cases;

1984, the Victims of Crime Act, which encouraged the States to maintain programs that serve victims of crime, and established a Crime Victims' Fund, which now matches up to 60 percent of the money paid by States for victim compensation awards;

1990, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, which increased funding for victim compensation and assistance, and codified a victims' Bill of Rights in the federal justice system;

1994, the Violence Against Women Act, which authorized over $1.6 billion over six years to assist victims of violence and prevent violence against women and children;

1996, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, which required courts to order restitution when sentencing defendants for certain offenses;

1996, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which appropriated funds to assist and compensate victims of terrorism and mass violence;

And 1997, the Victim Rights Clarification Act, which reversed a presumption against crime victims observing any part of the trial proceedings if they were likely to testify during the sentencing hearing, an issue which developed during the Oklahoma City bombing case. Specifically, this legislation prohibited courts from (1) excluding a victim from the trial on the ground that he or she might be called to provide a victim impact statement at sentencing, and (2) excluding a victim impact statement on the ground that the victim had observed the trial.

All of these laws represent a step in the right direction. But they are not enough. They don't really work to protect victims' many had hoped. Why is this? I believe it because they fail to provide an effective procedure for victims to assert standing and vindicate their rights. The bill before us builds on these earlier attempts, and goes one very important step farther--linking rights to remedies, and, I hope, fixing the problem with these earlier laws.

Some have asked--why proceed with a statute, rather than a Consitutional amendment? Why a law and not a constitutional amendment?

Senator Kyl and I have been working for many years towards a constitutional amendment to establish these rights. I have always believed that amending the Constitution is the best way to ensure victims' rights are protected in the criminal justice process. But many have disagreed, arguing that we should try, once again, a legislative approach.

It is clear to me that passage of a Constitutional amendment is impossible at this time. If we tried, and failed, it could be years before we could try again. Victims of crime have waited years for progress, and a compromise approach, resulting in the bill now under consideration, will result in meaningful progress.

Will it work? I hope so. The bill before us is a new and bolder approach, than has ever been tried before in our Federal system.

The standing provision, coupled with the mandamus provision, may have the desired effect. This will be a test, and I, for one, will be watching it closely.

I think for both Senator Kyl, and now for Senator Hatch, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking member, who join us as major cosponsors of this bill, that we will follow this bill carefully and we will see whether the enforcement rights contained in this bill are adequate. If not, you can be sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, we will be back with a constitutional amendment.

This bill is named after some of the victims. Both Senator Kyl and I briefly want to state the story of the victims after whom the bill is named. I would like to tell the Senate a little bit about Louarna Gillis, who was 22 years old when she was slain on January 17, 1979, as part of a gang initiation. Her murderer wanted to enter the world of narcotics as part of the Mexican Mafia and was told the quickest way to do so was to murder the daughter of a Los Angeles Police Department officer. Can you believe it? It is true.

Louarna Gillis was targeted by the killer. He knew her in high school. That was the reason he targeted her. The murderer picked her up a few blocks from her home, drove her to an alley in East Los Angeles where he shot her in the head as she sat in the car. He pushed her into the alley and fired additional shots into her back.

Louarna's murderer was apprehended 6 months later. He had a long history of violence, including felony convictions.

Louarna's family was not notified of the arraignment, nor were they notified of other critical proceedings in this case. Her family's rights were largely ignored. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, 11 for first-degree murder, 1 not guilty. Louarna's father, John Gillis, was not allowed in the courtroom.

At the second trial, the murderer pled guilty to second-degree murder to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to 17 years to life. Parole for Louarna's murderer has successfully been blocked by her family to this day. He will be eligible for parole again in the next 6 to 8 months. Louarna's father, a former homicide detective with LAPD, had just left an intelligence assignment working against street gangs and the Mexican Mafia at the time of her murder. Can you imagine?

Mr. Gillis was later appointed by President George W. Bush as the Director of the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. He testified before Congress on July 17, 2002. I said:

I know firsthand the personal, financial, and emotional

devastation that violent crime exacts on its victims. As a

survivor of a homicide victim, I testify . . . with the

unique advantage of understanding the plight that victims and

their families face in the criminal justice system . . . When

a person is victimized by crime, he or she is thrust into a

whole new world in which the State's or the government's

needs take priority.

This is the most devastating time in a person's life, when

they have lost a loved one to homicide or violent crime; they

need protection.

They need to let the court know how this crime has impacted

their lives, because it will have a long-lasting, traumatic

impact in their lives. It's important that they have the

opportunity to say something to defend their loved one.

This terrible story took place in my home State of California. This bill will help fathers like Mr. Gillis: he would be notified of key proceedings, and be able to participate in a meaningful way.

I would like to tell you about Nila Ruth Lynn. Here is her picture. She was 69 years old. She was murdered at a homeowners association meeting on April 19, 2000, when an angry man stormed into the meeting and announced: ``I'm going to kill you.''

He was unhappy with the way the association had trimmed the bushes in his yard the previous month. Nila and another woman were killed and several other men were injured during the rampage. She died on the floor in the arms of her husband Duane. They had been married 49 years and 9 months. Nila left behind Duane and six children. The money the children had been saving for a 50th wedding anniversary gift was instead used to pay for her casket.

Duane Lynn suffered through long delays and continuances in this case. Despite clear State constitutional and statutory rights, Duane was not allowed to make a sentencing recommendation for his wife's murderer. Nila's killer was sentenced to death. Duane wanted the defendant to be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, rather than deal with the continuing appeals involving the death sentence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied its petition for a review of the Arizona Supreme Court's refusal to protect the right. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 8. Here is what he said:

We, as a family of the victim, which was my wife, my love,

the person I still expect to walk through my front door every

day--she was a real person, not just a name and a number on a

document. We could say nothing about the consequences of that

man who took all this away from me. You have no idea what

this feels like. The evil done by a murderer inflicts

tragedy, and that is bad enough. But injuries inflicted by

our legal system are even harder to take. I felt kicked

around and ignored by the very system the government has in

place to protect law-abiding citizens.

This is not the way criminal justice should be practiced in the United States of America. The time has come to give victims of crime the right to participate in the system, the right to notice of a public hearing, the right to be present at that public proceeding, the right to make a statement when appropriate, the right to have restitution, if ordered by a judge, the right to know when your assailant or attacker is released from prison, and the right to be treated by our prosecutors and by our criminal justice system with respect and dignity. That is not too much for the Congress of the United States to strive energetically to achieve for the 22 million victims in this country.

It is with great pleasure that over the years I have worked with Senator Kyl to achieve this. Once again, I cannot thank him too much.

I thank the Chair. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Madam President, I thank the Senator. I do appreciate those words. They mean a great deal to me.

If I might, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, as a cosponsor of the bill.

Madam President, I would like to retain the remainder of my time.

Yes, it is not our intent to restrict victims' rights or accommodations found in other laws. I would like to turn to the bill itself and address the first section, (a)(1), the right of the crime victim to be reasonably protected. Of course, the Government cannot protect the crime victim in all circumstances. However, where reasonable, the crime victim should be provided accommodations such as a secure waiting area, away from the defendant before and after and during breaks in the proceedings.

My understanding of this subsection is the same the Senator's. Too often crime victims have been unable to exercise their rights because they were not informed of the proceedings. Pleas and sentencings have all too frequently occurred without the victim ever knowing that they were taking place. Victims are the persons who are directly harmed by the crime and they have a stake in the criminal process because of that harm. Their lives are significantly altered by the crime and they have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. To deny them the opportunity to know of and be present at proceedings is counter to the fundamental principles of this country. It is simply wrong. Moreover, victim safety requires that notice of the release or escape of an accused from custody be made in a timely manner to allow the victim to make informed choices about his or her own safety. This provision ensures that takes place.

I would like to turn to section 2, (a)(3) of the bill, which provides that the crime victim has the right not to be excluded from any public proceedings. This language was drafted in a way to ensure that the government would not be responsible for paying for the victim's travel and lodging to a place where they could attend the proceedings.

In all other respects, this section is intended to grant victims the right to attend and be present throughout all public proceedings.

This right is limited in two respects. First, the right is limited to public proceedings, thus grand jury proceedings are excluded from the right. Second, the Government or the defendant can request, and the court can order, judicial proceedings to be closed under existing laws. This provision is not intended to alter those laws or their procedures in any way. I ask the Senator is that is his understanding of this section.

Yes. That is my understanding as well. The victim of crime, or their counsel, should be able to provide any information, as well as their opinion, directly to the court concerning the release, plea, or sentencing of the accused. This bill intends for this right to be heard to be an independent right of the victim, and thus cannot prevent the victim from being heard.

It is important that the ``reasonably be heard'' language not be an excuse for minimizing the victim's opportunity to be heard. Only if it is not practical for the victim to speak in person or if the victim wishes to be heard by the court in a different fashion should this provision mean anything other than an in-person right to be heard.

Of course, in providing victim information or opinion it is important that the victim be able to confer with the prosecutor concerning a variety of matters and proceedings. Section 2, (a)(5) provides a right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. This right is intended to be expansive. For example, the victim has the right to confer with the Government concerning any critical stage or disposition of the case. The right, however, is not limited to these examples. I ask the Senator if he concurs in this intent.

I thank the Senator. I join his comments.

I would like to move on to section 2, (a)(7), which provides crime victims with a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. This provision does not curtail the Government's need for reasonable time to organize and prosecute its case. Nor is the provision intended to infringe on the defendant's due process right to prepare a defense.

Too often, however, delays in criminal proceedings occur for the mere convenience of the parties and those delays reach beyond the time needed for defendant's due process or the Government's need to prepare. The result of such delays is that victims cannot begin to put the crime behind them and they continue to be victimized. It is not right to hold crime victims under the stress and pressure of future court proceedings merely because it is convenient for the parties or the court.

This provision should be interpreted so that any decision to continue a criminal case should include reasonable consideration of the rights under this section.

I am eager to hear the Senator's view on this.

Yes.

It is not the intent of this bill that its significance be whittled down or marginalized by the courts or the executive branch. This legislation is meant to correct, not continue, the legacy of the poor treatment of crime victims in the criminal process. This legislation is meant to ensure that cases like the McVeigh case, where victims of the Oklahoma City bombing were effectively denied the right to attend the trial and to avoid federal appeals courts from determining, as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did, that victims had no standing to seek review of their right to attend the trial under the former victims' law that this bill replaces.

I would also like to comment on section 2, (b), which directs courts to ensure that the rights in this law be afforded and to record, on the record, any reason for denying relief of an assertion of a crime victim. This provision is critical because it is in the courts of this country that these rights will be asserted and it is the courts that will be responsible for enforcing them. Further, requiring a court to provide the reasons for denial of relief is necessary for effective appeal of such denial.

Is that the understanding of the Senator?

Yes.

I would now like to address the enforcement provisions of the bill, specifically section 2, subsection (d)(1). This provision allows a crime victim to enter the criminal trial court during proceedings involving the crime against the victim and assert the rights provided by this bill. This provision ensures that crime victims have standing to be heard in trial courts so that they are heard at the very moment when their rights are at stake and this, in turn, forces the criminal justice system to be responsive to a victim's rights in a timely way. Importantly, however, the bill does not allow the defendant in the case to assert any of the victim's rights to obtain relief. This prohibition prevents the individual accused of the crime from distorting a right intended for the benefit of the individual victim into a weapon against justice.

The provision allows the crime victim's representative and the attorney for the Government to go into a criminal trial court and assert the crime victim's rights. The inclusions of representatives and the Government's attorney in the provision are important for a number of reasons. First, allowing a representative to assert a crime victim's rights ensures that where a crime victim is unable to assert the rights on his or her own for any reason, including incapacity, incompetence, minority, or death, those rights are not lost. The representative for the crime victim can assert the rights.

Second, a crime victim may choose to enlist a private attorney to represent him or her in the criminal case--this provision allows that attorney to enter an appearance on behalf of the victim in the criminal trial court and assert the victim's rights. The provision also recognizes that, at times, the Government's attorney may be best situated to assert a crime victim's rights either because the crime victim is not available at a particular point in the trial or because, at times, the crime victim's interests coincide with those of the Government and it makes sense for a single person to express those joined interests. Importantly, however, the provision does not mean that the Government's attorney has the authority to compromise or co- opt a victim's right. Nor does the provision mean that by not asserting a victim's right the Government's attorney has waived that right. The rights provided in this bill are personal to the individual crime victim and it is that crime victim that has the final word regarding which of the specific rights to assert and when. Waiver of any of the individual rights provided can only happen by the victim's affirmative waiver of that specific right.

Does all of this correspond with Senator Kyl's understanding of the bill?

Absolutely. It is a tragic reality that cases may involve multiple victims and yet that fact is not grounds for eviscerating the rights in this bill. Rather, that fact is grounds for the court to find an alternative procedure to give effect to this bill.

I now want to turn to another critical aspect of enforcement of victims' rights, section 2, subsection (d)(3). This subsection provides that a crime victim who is denied any of his or her rights as a crime victim has standing to appellate review of that denial. Specifically, the provision allows a crime victim to apply for a writ of mandamus to the appropriate appellate court. The provision provides that court shall take the writ and shall order the relief necessary to protect the crime victim's right. This provision is critical for a couple of reasons. First, it gives the victim standing to appear before the appellate courts of this country and ask for review of a possible error below. Second, while mandamus is generally discretionary, this provision means that courts must review these cases. Appellate review of denials of victims' rights is just as important as the initial assertion of a victim's right. This provision ensures review and encourages courts to broadly defend the victims' rights.

Mr. President, does Senator Kyl agree?

Yes.

I would like to turn to the next provision, section 2, subsection (d)(5). This subsection provides that a failure to afford a right under the act does not provide grounds for a new trial. This provision demonstrates that victim's rights are not intended to be, nor are they, an attack on defendants' protections against double jeopardy. This provision is not intended to prevent courts from vacating decisions in nontrial proceedings in which victims' rights were not protected and ordering those proceedings to be redone. It simply assures that a trial will not be redone. Thus, defendants' and victims' rights are both protected.

Is that the Senator's understanding?

It is.

Now I would like to turn to the portion of the bill concerning administrative compliance with victims' rights, section 2, subsection (f). The provisions of this subsection are relatively self-explanatory, but it important to point out that these procedures are completely separate from and in no way limit the victim's rights in the previous section.

Is that Senator Kyl's understanding?

Yes.

One final point. Throughout this act, reference is made to the ``accused.'' Would the Senator also agree that it is our intention to use this word in the broadest sense to include both those charged and convicted so that the rights we establish apply throughout the criminal justice system?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, be added as a cosponsor of the legislation before us.

Mr. President, I will say a few words in conclusion to my remarks.

I believe the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, will be coming back to the floor to make a small technical modification to the amendment since questions have been developed and they can be easily taken care of. I believe he will do that. Otherwise, I think everyone who is going to speak on this has spoken.

I would like to end by saying how grateful I am for this day. This is an important day for many of us who care about victims' rights--I think every Member of this Senate--because for the first time we have a strong and comprehensive measure to be able to achieve a compendium of victims' rights. That compendium will give victims access to the criminal justice system so they may retain their dignity; so they have an opportunity to know when there is a trial and be present at the trial; to make statements if there is a public proceeding with respect to a plea bargain; to be there to make a statement; to receive restitution, if offered by a judge; to know when their attacker is released from jail or prison--not too much, but certain basic, elemental rights for anyone who has either been the victim of or has been dramatically affected by a crime.

I am very proud of the work on this. I have worked with Senator Kyl for a long time, and now with Senators Hatch and Leahy as well.

I thank everybody who has been involved.

I particularly would like to thank my staff, Steven Cash and Dave Hantman, who over the years I think have grown more determined to get this job done.

I am hopeful we will have a unanimous vote in this body, that the bill will be accepted by the House, and we will be able to say to victims all across this country there is a Federal statute with a remedy and a method of enforcement that will guarantee the very basic rights in Federal crimes; and also the funding to be able to go out and secure some of those same rights under State law.

I thank everybody. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, since the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, we have celebrated this day as an annual occasion on which to examine our Nation's environmental policies.

Sadly, there is little to celebrate in terms of environmental protection this year and much to worry about.

Just last week, we learned that 474 counties throughout our Nation failed to meet air quality standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. A total of 159 million people--more than half the Nation's population--live in these communities.

In my home State of California nearly 90 percent of State residents live in areas with unhealthy levels of smog. That means that 90 percent of Californians are at increased risk of asthma, reduced lung function and chronic lung diseases.

What is also alarming is that eight national parks, four of which are in California, contain excessively high levels of ozone.

Can you believe that the air in Yosemite, Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Joshua Tree National Parks is harmful to your health?

And then there is the gravest threat to our environment and ultimately, our health--global warming. Climate change is the most important environmental issue facing us today.

I would like to take a minute now to talk about a likely impact of climate change that has not received very much attention--its effect on our water supplies.

The evidence is growing that climate change threatens water supplies throughout the western United States--and especially on the West Coast.

Just recently, researchers at the University of California at Santa Cruz analyzed the impact of global warming on Arctic Sea ice.

What they found was that higher temperatures will cause Arctic Sea ice to melt which will, in turn, reduce the west coast's water supply.

According to the Santa Cruz scientists' models, melting sea ice will create columns of warmer air that change air flow in the atmosphere and deflect storms and needed precipitation away from Western U.S. lands.

Forecasts indicate that Arctic Sea ice may shrink by up to 50 percent in summer months by the year 2050. This could have truly devastating consequences for our Nation's water supplies.

Under the UC-Santa Cruz researchers' models, in 2050, the West Coast, from southern British Columbia to southern California, could receive 30 percent less rain than it does now.

And this is not just a problem for California. The research models show that the melting ice could decrease precipitation as far inland as the Rocky Mountains.

The water infrastructure in the West, particularly in California, is already stretched to the limit this year. Even now we are struggling to provide enough water for our communities, farms, forests, fish, and wildlife. What would we do with 30 percent less precipitation?

The Santa Cruz study is not the only one forecasting reduced water supplies in the West. In fact, many global and regional statistical models agree that the West will see reduced snowpack as a result of rising temperatures.

Under those models, California and the West will receive more winter rain and less snow meaning two things for Western States--increased flooding in the winter and water shortages in the summer.

We are not talking about minor effects.

In February of this year, scientists at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory forecasted reductions in snowpack of up to 70 percent in the coastal mountains over the next 50 years as a direct result of warming temperatures.

In the West, our water infrastructure is based on the gradual melting of snowpack throughout the spring and summer. A 70-percent decline in snowpack would be catastrophic.

The evidence is also mounting that climate change threatens not only our water supplies, but also global biodiversity.

A report published in the January edition of the British journal Nature estimates that 25 percent of Earth's plant and animal species will be wiped out in the next 50 years if global temperatures continue to rise as expected.

This means that more than 1 million of the estimated 5 million land species could face extinction within our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes.

It is time to take global warming seriously and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The consequences of delaying and deferring decisions are severe.

As a country with only 4 percent of the world's population, but which produces 25 percent of carbon dioxide

emissions, the United States has a responsibility to act.

And yet, there are many steps we can take--steps which are broadly supported--that will help protect the environment.

For example, we should continue to promote the production and use of hybrid cars. A few simple steps such as opening up carpool lanes and municipal parking spaces to hybrid cars will encourage motorists to buy these environmentally friendly automobiles.

Congress should also act to bring corporate average fuel economy standards of light-duty trucks and SUVs in line with the requirements for cars.

This one action alone could save a million barrels of oil a day and prevent about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year.

We also know that investments to improve the environment like these pay off.

A study released by the President's Office of Management and Budget last fall found that the social and health benefits of enforcing strong clean-air regulations were five to seven times greater than the costs of adhering to the rules.

The study estimated that, during the 10-year period from October 1992 to September 2002, between $120 billion and $193 billion were saved in reduced hospital stays, emergency room visits, premature deaths and lost workdays as a result of improved air quality.

Just as we have asked so many nations around the world to assist us in the war on terror and in securing and rebuilding Iraq, so, too, should we help those nations who want our assistance in addressing global environmental problems.

On this 35th Earth Day we are reminded here in the Congress of the importance of protecting the planet for future generations.

It is my hope that we will step up and meet this responsibility.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest writers the world has ever known: William Shakespeare. As you may well know, this week marks the 440th birthday of the great author and playwright. As a foremost literary talent of his and every age thereafter, his works have stood the test of time and are still widely celebrated over four centuries later.

Scholars credit William Shakespeare with authoring 37 plays and 154 sonnets over the course of his life. These works continue to both move and entertain today, as they did the people of his time. His plays can be found performed daily the world round in their traditional fashion, and many of his works have been adapted to accommodate modern issues and themes. As a result, his genius and creative achievement have transcended time and touched people of all generations.

I am proud that my State of California shares a large population who take the time to celebrate the life and work of Shakespeare. California is home to some of the largest organizations dedicated to nourishing their communities through both artistic endeavors and educational programs celebrating the Bard's work. Combined, California Shakespeare festivals perform for more than 95,000 Californians annually.

It is my pleasure to congratulate the California Shakespeare Festival on celebrating their 30th anniversary this year. Beginning with a few Berkeley residents performing ``Hamlet'' to local community members, the California Shakespeare Festival has developed into a successful production company that runs four Shakespearian theaters. Through their Artistic Learning Initiative, the festival seeks to inspire and educate young artists of all backgrounds through the gift of Shakespeare's works.

Since 1983, when I was mayor of San Francisco, the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival has brought the works of Shakespeare to large and diverse audiences through their Free Shakespeare in the Park program. In cooperation with the Oakland-East Bay and Silicon Valley Shakespeare Festivals, the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival brings innovative and inspiring professional performances to over 50,000 each summer.

I also recognize the contributions of the American Friends of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to bringing the legacy of William Shakespeare to Washington, DC, with their gift of eight sculptures to the Folger Shakespeare Library. Sculpted by artist Greg Wyatt, the eight pieces are half-size replicas of the Shakespearian-inspired artwork in the Great Garden in Stratford-upon-Avon.

I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating Shakespeare's birthday and the inspirational and lasting works he contributed to our world. William Shakespeare's poems and plays continue to inspire countless generations of young writers, further the world's love of the written word as well as performances, and reminds us all to ``be not afraid of greatness.''

Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his comments, most of which--I think all of which I agree with.

Yes, of course.

Mr. President, as a member of the Judiciary Committee who voted for the bill in committee and worked out two amendments that are substantial, I regretfully rise to urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill. In the course of my remarks, what I hope to do is indicate my reasons for opposing cloture and make some positive suggestions as to how to close the gap on the unresolved issues.

There are only two ways to get a bill on asbestos. I say this to everybody out there who has a legitimate concern and need for a bill. That is, one, unless the two leaders agree or, two, a bill that goes back to the Judiciary Committee and is worked out as a product of that committee's work.

Last July, nearly 9 months ago, the Judiciary Committee passed out a comprehensive asbestos bill. We deliberated and had hearings over several years.

The bill wasn't perfect, but it reflected a substantial step forward in crafting a legislative compromise. A few issues were unresolved. They were to be worked out by members in the intervening time. Since July, labor representatives, defendant companies, insurers, and others have engaged in multilateral negotiations, not only to settle these few unresolved issues, but to renegotiate the entire bill.

The legislation proposed by Senator Hatch, the distinguished chairman of our committee, and Senator Frist, the distinguished majority leader, actually sets the debate backward by taking positions directly contradictory to the will of the majority of the Judiciary Committee. It is a substantially different bill that is on the Senate floor today than was the bill that I voted for in committee.

I don't believe the bill is ready for the floor and I hope to technically explain why. In fact, I have written the chairman of the Judiciary Committee requesting that the bill be returned to committee for future deliberations. We, the Senators serving on that committee, did do our job, and we should be allowed to finish that job and work through the issues necessary to forge a bill that can pass in this body.

Let me explain my concerns. Specifically, the bill Senator Frist proposes to bring to the Senate floor eliminates a crucial startup amendment that guaranteed asbestos victims would continue to have their legal rights until the Trust Fund is fully operational. This was a major deletion. It will cost the Trust Fund an additional $5 billion.

Let me read to you from the CBO letter on that point, which is dated today and sent to Senator Nickles. ``You''--meaning Senator Nickles-- ``also requested that CBO explain the major differences between our cost estimates for S. 1125''--that is the bill that came out of committee--``and S. 2290''--that is the Hatch-Frist bill on the floor. ``On March 24, 2004, in a letter to Senator Hatch, CBO updated its October 2, 2003, cost estimate for S. 1125, principally to reflect new projections about the rate of future inflation, and it assumed a later enactment date for the bill. That letter explains that we now estimate enactment of S. 1125 at the end of fiscal year 2004 would result in claims payments totaling $123 billion over the lifetime of the asbestos fund (about 50 years).''

The bill that came out of committee was originally projected to cost $108 billion. An amendment I made put in a contingency reserve of $45 billion in case more money was needed. What this CBO letter shows is that money would, in fact, be needed. CBO's projections indicate that a $10 billion contingency fund would not be enough to cover the cost. That is major in scope.

The bill we are considering today would cost, according to CBO, $17 billion more than the Committee passed bill. Eleven billion of this increase comes from higher awards values.

Five billion of that $17 billion increase is due to the elimination of my startup amendment. Here is why it costs $5 billion. The startup amendment guarantees that asbestos victims would continue to have their legal rights until the Trust Fund is operational. In other words, they could go to court until the Trust Fund was fully operational. CBO estimates that the Fund would save $5 billion by allowing the private settlement of these claims during this start-up period. That is the implication of eliminating the Feinstein startup amendment made in the Judiciary Committee.

Secondly, the Hatch-Frist bill, as I have said, reduces the asbestos victims' trust fund's contingent reserve from $45 billion to $10 billion. The reason for the original $45 billion contingent reserve was to ensure the solvency of the Trust Fund if the estimates are wrong. If the reserve is not necessary, it is not used. But if it is necessary, it is there. I have already shown you by this CBO letter that it would likely be necessary. CBO predicts that the $108 billion bill we passed last July would actually costs $123 billion because of revised projections. Thus, at the get-go, CBO predicts the Trust would need an additional $15 billion, which is already greater than the $10 billion reserve in the new bill. So why pass a bill that, at its beginning, is not going to have adequate funds?

Thirdly, this bill wipes out final asbestos settlements and trial court judgments granting victims awards. This was one of the points that was left hanging when we passed it out of committee, and the members were supposed to get together and solve this. Well, the members--at least this member--didn't get together. But I gather a judge and one member did get together and, up to this point, there is no solution. The bill before us simply says to everybody that has a trial court judgment that that judgment is wiped out. That is wrong.

This bill also prevents individuals from returning to the tort system for 7 years after the administrator starts processing the claims, even if the trust fund goes bust in its first years of operation.

In contrast, the bill we passed out of committee said that if there is not adequate money, individuals could revert to the tort system at any time.

Now, I am not going to vote for cloture, but I recognize that 18.8 million U.S. workers were exposed to asbestos between 1940 and 1979. The best way to look at asbestos is tiny spears, smaller than grains of sand, that lodge in your lungs, guts, stomach, and, over a period of time, in your organs. It is bad stuff and it ought to be prohibited. This bill ought to prohibit it, for starters.

Our courts are overloaded with claims arising from these exposures. Individuals have brought more than a half million asbestos suits over the last 20 years against 8,400 companies. Approximately 71 companies have filed for bankruptcy due to asbestos lawsuits.

Moreover, the current system doesn't ensure compensation for the sickest victims. Currently, nonmalignant cases get 65 percent of the compensation awards, compared to 17 percent for mesothelioma, and 18 percent for other causes. That is wrong on its face.

As this tidal wave of asbestos cases goes forward, serious questions remain whether existing victims will ever receive the compensation they deserve. For example, because of the extraordinary influx of claims, the Manville trust is only paying 5 cents on the dollar.

So I am one who believes we need a comprehensive solution to the asbestos crisis so that victims who are truly sick get compensated in a timely and fair manner.

I recognize negotiations over the asbestos bill have proceeded at a pace that is satisfying no one, and to advance the debate, I would like to ask the Senate to consider the following core proposals, and let me mention what they are.

The fund must be fiscally prudent. Clearly, it has to have a contingent fund of more than $15 billion. Whether that fund is $20 billion or $25 billion or $30 billion, I think we need to go back in the Judiciary Committee and work the values versus the other provisions in the bill. I showed how eliminating my startup amendment cost the fund $5 billion. That is not my analysis. That is the CBO analysis.

Second, the risk of a delay in the start of a national asbestos trust fund should not be borne by asbestos victims. What do I mean by that? I pointed out the bill eliminates the startup I authored in committee that permitted asbestos claimants to pursue asbestos claims in court until the administrator of the trust fund certifies the fund is fully operational.

The reason this amendment is so necessary is to protect the legal rights of plaintiffs, and it should be restored. Without it, asbestos victims could be left without any recourse if there is a delay in starting up the fund. Under this bill, they cannot go to court. So if the money is not there right upfront or the money is short upfront, they are out in the cold.

The amendment I offered serves as a hammer to get defendant companies and insurers to cooperate with the new trust administrator. And for the third time, I point out, it saves $5 billion, according to the CBO.

I recognize the concern of some in the industry that asbestos claimants who are not yet ill will use the interim period to press a host of lawsuits against defendant companies. To address this, I would like to propose modifying the Feinstein amendment to allow a 6-month stay on asbestos claims upon enactment, except for those claimants facing life-threatening, asbestos-related illness. Thus, the stay would only apply to those who are not ill. I think that is a way out of the problem. For those who are ill, there would be no stay.

Thirdly, I would like to suggest if claims exceed projections and the trust runs out of money, plaintiffs should have immediate access to the tort system in both State and Federal court. The current proposal on the floor would prevent victims from filing claims for 7 years after the trust starts processing them, even if the trust expires in the first or second year of operation. We cannot leave victims in this kind of legal purgatory.

So to address legitimate concerns by defendant companies about forum shopping, I would also like to propose plaintiffs who return to court, if the trust fund collapses, would only be able to file as a member of a class or as an individual in State court jurisdictions where they were exposed or where they currently reside. This would handle the great bulk of forum shopping, if you think about it.

Fourth, I would like to suggest award values should have a sliding scale in order to reflect the individual circumstances of victims. The current asbestos bill applies a one-size-fits-all solution to asbestos awards. An 83-year-old asbestos victim without dependents and a 37- year-old single mother with three small children would both receive $1 million for mesothelioma under the bill, but if we look at the awards given by asbestos trusts, such as the Western MacArthur trust, individual circumstances are definitely taken into account.

For example, mesothelioma victims, under that trust, can receive between $52,000 and $4 million, with an average value of $524,000 in this particular Western MacArthur trust. This sliding scale brings fairness to individual victims' awards. It works in this trust.

I have talked with the managers of the trust. They believe this half- a-million-dollar average takes care of the younger victims and balances that in a fair way against older victims.

Fifth, award values for the trust should be set in a way that prioritizes compensation for the sickest victims whose illnesses can clearly be traced to asbestos. This is the hobgoblin of this whole thing. All of the companies I have spoken to are concerned the trust will be abused, and it will be abused in this way: that smokers would have access without the defined connection to asbestos. Specifically, I think we should not allow the asbestos trust fund to be overwhelmed by smoking claims. This is a deep and valid concern.

In the committee-passed bill--and I want to speak to it--awards in category 7 of the medical values raise the largest specter of uncertainty in terms of smoking claims. This category grants awards to smokers with lung cancer with 15 years of weighted exposure to asbestos but no obvious evidence of asbestos disease, such as pleural plaques or asbestosis.

To prevent these claims from overwhelming the trust resources, I propose title VII, smoking cases, revert to the tort system, both State and Federal court, if the administrator determines at the year-end review that the incidence rates of those smoking claims will exceed projections by greater than 50 percent.

Why do I say that? The tort system historically has been able to handle those cases. So it seems to me if there is a smoking case and it shows neither the evidence of asbestos disease, such as pleural plaques or asbestosis, let a court make that decision. This would deter smokers from misusing the trust fund for illnesses caused by smoking rather than asbestos.

This is the most difficult part of the bill. In all of the medical values and all of the hearings and the medical testimony we heard back and forth, it is clear there is a difficult line of definition here, and that is why the trust fund, which is supposed to be a kind of no- fault fund where a medical valuation can be made quickly and scientifically, may not always be able to make that valuation.

So if the fund is going to be overburdened by smoking cases and the administrator at the end of the year says, Look, we are not going to be able to make next year, he can then file in that year-end review with the Congress the request that those cases go to court.

We would give him that authority. I believe this is a solution to that problem. I am not wed to it, but to my knowledge it is the only one that anyone has come up with so far.

Six, a fair asbestos bill must exempt from the trust fund final settlements as well as trial court verdicts that compensate victims. The Hatch-Frist bill fails to do this. Specifically, the bill would overturn any final settlement that ``requires future performance by any party.'' Thus, if an individual received a $\1/2\ million award 5 years ago to be paid in 10 annual installments, this bill would wipe out the last 5 installments.

Of equal concern, the Hatch-Frist bill would wipe out lawsuits unless they were ``no longer subject to any appeal or judicial review before the day of enactment of the act.'' In other words, this bill would erase any trial verdict favorable to plaintiffs still on appeal.

We should not undermine a litigant's reasonable expectation that he or she can pursue a favorable trial court verdict to its conclusion.

I am also concerned the bill would overturn the final bankruptcy settlements that have formed the $2.1 billion Western Mac Arthur trust. Award recipients of Western Mac Arthur, 90 percent of whom are Californians, include 8,000 claimants who will be paid hundreds of millions of dollars in a very few weeks. The Mac Arthur trust has also set aside funds for 30,000 future claimants. All of this money is taken by this bill and put in the national fund. So this final bankruptcy trust is totally wiped out and 8,000 individuals who are going to be paid in a matter of weeks lose their settlements. It is just not right.

Unlike some other settlements, the Mac Arthur trust places priorities on the sickest patients. A minimum of 80 percent of the awards paid out under the trust goes to asbestos cancer victims. These awards will be based on historical rates of asbestosis awards in California, which are higher than the rest of the nation.

According to attorneys involved with the Mac Arthur trust, almost every present claimant expecting payment

under the Mac Arthur trust will do worse under the Hatch bill than under the trust because of the Hatch bill's requirement that collateral sources of compensation be subtracted from any award.

Remember, this trust is not the only defendant for many of these plaintiffs. Many of the claimants have cases against other defendants and those are all wiped out as well.

Now, I have policy concerns about wiping out the settlements and the fairness, but it is an open question as to whether such a transfer of assets is constitutional. Let me speak about that for a moment. Legal scholars such as Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren have argued that the bill's expropriation of money from settlement trusts would violate the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the taking of ``private property . . . for public use, without just compensation.''

Specifically, there are a number of individuals with a confirmed court order allocating money to them who will have these awards taken away without receiving comparable compensation from the national trust fund. If I have ever heard of a takings case, that is it.

Additionally, the Mac Arthur trust, which is an independent legal entity in its own right, may have a takings claim if its assets are transferred to a national fund without receiving comparable assets in return.

Renowned legal scholar Laurence Tribe takes an opposing view and argues that the conversion of trust assets would be constitutionally permissible. The ultimate outcome of this debate is unknown. But it is clear that the trustees managing the Fuller-Austin and other asbestos trusts have indicated they will file constitutional challenges against the proposed legislation as soon as it is enacted unless changes are made.

I will read from a letter dated July 2, 2003, to me from the Fuller- Austin asbestos settlement trust:

Passage of this legislation undoubtedly will set-off a

firestorm of litigation challenging its constitutionality.

The Trustees' present view is that their mandates under the

Fuller-Austin Trust agreement and the Fuller-Austin plan of

reorganization would require them to file litigation to

challenge the taking of the Trust's assets and the violation

of the rights of its claimants. Other existing trusts

doubtless will reach the same conclusion. The resulting

litigation will likely take years to resolve. In addition, it

will take years to establish the claims handling facility

mandated by the bill and for that entity to become

operational.

We have $4 billion in this fund from bankruptcy trusts, and $2.1 billion additional dollars from the Western Mac Arthur trust. So that tells us something about how this bill is going to start up and whether the money is actually going to be there to pay the people.

In this bill, the people lose their right to go to court. It is a little bit diabolical if one thinks about it for a few minutes. That is why the startup amendment I offered in committee was so important, because it said nothing begins until the fund has its money and is operational. Therefore, those people had recourse. Once the start-up amendment was taken out, they had no recourse, and the CBO report says that is a $5 billion cost item right off the top.

Now, I offer the principles as a basis for compromise on this legislation. I offer this as one who sat through the hearings and the medical testimony and committee debates and participated in bipartisan amendments offered on the bill.

Thanks to Goldman Sachs, we ran numbers after numbers and Goldman Sachs has been good enough to run another set of numbers for me. We have changed some of the values to try to meet some of the concerns. I have those numbers with me.

I ask unanimous consent that the Fuller-Austin asbestos settlement letter to me dated July 2 be printed in the Record.

I also ask unanimous consent that the CBO report dated as of today to Senator Don Nickles also be printed in the Record.

Where we have made some changes--and I would suggest them--is in the second class, raising the Hatch-Frist values from $20,000 to $25,000; in class III, raising the values for asbestosis/ pleural disease B from $85,000 to $100,000; in class VI, other cancers, going from $150,000 to $200,000; in class VII, giving nonsmokers with 15 years weighted exposure a range of $225,000 to $650,000--that is $50,000 more than in the Hatch-Frist proposal; in class VIII, lung cancer with pleural disease, giving nonsmokers a range of $600,000 to $1.1 million--a $100,000 increase; in class IX, giving nonsmokers a range of $800,000 to $1.1 million a $100,000 increase; and for mesothelioma, the last category, a $1.1 million average award on a sliding scale.

These numbers have been run by Goldman Sachs. They total $123.6 billion, as opposed to the $114.4 estimated for the Hatch-Frist proposal.

Because I have not been party directly to any of the discussion, regretfully, the only way I can get my views through, it appears, is through the floor of the Senate. I believe this is much more fair to nonsmokers and I believe the methodology of giving the trust administrator the ability that, if nonsmoker cases rise above a certain percent in the next year, at the end of the previous year the administrator be given the power to put all of those cases into the tort system which will not only act as a deterrent, but will also provide the ability to fund this.

One other point I want to make before I yield the floor has to do with the CBO letter. The CBO letter, in addition to the additional $5 billion that removing my startup amendment would cost the fund, also points out the bill on the floor is different from the bill we passed out of committee because in the

bill we passed out of committee, administrative costs would be appropriated from the general funds of the Treasury. That difference increases costs to the fund $1 billion over its lifetime.

So those are the reasons why CBO determined that the Hatch-Frist bill will cost $17 billion more than the Committee-passed bill.

By way of conclusion, I would very much hope this bill will go back to the Judiciary Committee. I very much hope all members of the Judiciary Committee would have input into this bill. Or a bill should be negotiated between the two leaders, so it is bipartisan. There is no way I see a bill being written in private passing this body. Too many of us have put in too much time to try to get a fair solution to let that happen.

I yield the floor.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, a little before noon 5 years ago today, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris began a killing spree at Columbine High School that left a dozen of their fellow students and a teacher dead, and more than two dozen others wounded.

The Columbine incident was a wake up call to a nation awash with guns, and showed us all once again what one or two grievance killers or malcontents can do with powerful, semi-automatic assault weapons.

Klebold and Harris were troubled young men who chose, tragically, to take out their angst on fellow students.

Twenty or thirty years ago, that decision might have simply led to a fist fight during recess outside on the playground. But now, with the prevalence of high-capacity, high-powered firearms, that decision quickly led to the deaths of more than a dozen innocents, and then the two shooters themselves.

Using several long guns and a TEC-DC9 semi-automatic assault pistol, Klebold and Harris were able to move through their high school with impunity, firing shot after shot in rapid succession, and quickly ending the hopes and dreams of so many youngsters.

Nobody could take them down, because their weapons made them, for all intents and purposes, invulnerable.

And while Columbine was tragic, it was not unique.

Similar grievance killings have occurred across the nation, in every forum:

In a San Ysidro, CA McDonald's in 1984, when a gunman with an Uzi killed 21 and wounded 15 others.

In Stockton, CA, in 1989, when drifter Patrick Purdy walked into a schoolyard with an AK-47 and killed 5, wounding 30 others.

In Long Island, NY, in 1993, when a gunman killed 6 and wounded 19 others on a commuter train--he was only brought down when he finally stopped to reload.

In Pearl, MS, in 1997 when two students were killed.

In Paducah, KY, in 1998 when three students were killed.

In Jonesboro, AR, in 1998 when five were killed, and ten more wounded.

In Springfield, OR, in 1998 when two were killed, and 22 wounded.

In Atlanta, GA, in 1999 when a troubled day trader killed his wife, two children and several people trading stocks.

At a Granada Hills, CA Jewish Community Center when a gunman wounded three and killed one.

At a Fort Worth, TX Baptist church where seven were killed and seven more wounded at a teen church event, all by a man with two guns and 9 high capacity clips, with a capacity of 15 rounds each.

And the list goes on, and on.

Just last week, I spoke at the funeral of San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza, who was shot and killed by a gang member armed with an AK-47 and a 30-round clip. Officer Espinoza took three shots in his back as a gunman fired 15 rounds in just seconds, giving Officer Espinoza and his partner, who was also shot, no time to seek refuge.

Officer Espinoza was a bright young star in the San Francisco Police Department, and he had a promising future and loving family. Now, that future is gone. His wife Renata is without a husband. His beautiful three-year-old girl Isabella is without a father.

These are the real consequences of assault weapons. This is not a political debate about a theoretical issue. This is about the death, and tragedy, and loss.

That is why Senator Warner, Senator Schumer and I are seeking to pass legislation to reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban for another 10 years, before it expires on September 13 of this year.

This amendment received 52 votes in this body just last month, but the NRA scuttled the underlying gun immunity bill rather than allow the assault weapons bill to pass.

As a result, we are running out of time. The ban expires on September 13th of this year. We cannot afford to let these weapons back on our streets. We owe the American people more than that. It is just that simple.

This should really be an easy issue.

After all, this amendment already passed the Senate once.

The President has said many times that he supports the current law, and supports renewing the current law.

Every major law enforcement organization in the country supports renewing the ban, as do countless civic organizations, including: Fraternal Order of Police, National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Education Association, NAACP, and the American Bar Association.

And the list goes on, and on.

More than three-fourths of the American people, and two-thirds of gun owners, support renewing the ban.

In a poll conducted by Mark Penn and Associates October 1-6 of last year: 77 percent of all likely voters supported renewing the assault weapons ban; Only 21 percent opposed renewal; 72 percent of Republicans supported renewing the ban, as did 71 percent of those describing themselves as ``conservatives''; 66 percent of gun owners supported renewal, and only 32 percent of gun owners opposed it.

So one might wonder, why don't we just pass the ban by unanimous consent, get it through the House and have it signed into law tomorrow?

But an interesting dynamic is at work here. An interesting dynamic that relates to one, very powerful interest group that has violated the trust of its members and has used threats, distortions and bullying tactics to fight against common sense gun control at every level, and at all costs.

That group, of course, is the National Rifle Association.

But it is my hope that in the coming weeks, this body will stand up to the NRA and instead listen to the President of the United States, who supports the ban.

Listen to law enforcement all across the nation who know that this ban makes sense, and saves lives.

Listen to the studies that show that crime with assault weapons of all kinds has decreased by 50 to 66 percent since the ban took effect almost ten years ago.

A 1999 National Institute of Justice Study found that crime gun traces of assault weapons fell 20 percent in just the first year following enactment of the ban, from 4,0777 traces in 1994 to just 3,268 in 1995.

Murder rates that year dropped 6.7 percent below what they had been projected to be before the ban, once researchers had isolated for other factors.

Murders of police officers with assault weapons also dropped from about 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and 1996.

A recent study released by the Brady Center shows that the proportion of assault weapons used in crimes fell from a high of 6.15 percent in the year before the ban, to just 2.57 percent by 2001. This is a 58 percent decrease in just 8 years, and includes not only the banned guns, but copycat guns, as well.

The analysis in this study was performed by Gerald Nunziato, who for 8 years served as the Special Agent in Charge of ATF's National Tracing Center. So this is not some fly-by-night study. This is by the one person who perhaps knows what these numbers mean better than anybody.

This follows a statistical analysis by the Department of Justice indicating that banned assault weapons used in crime fell by an even greater percentage--almost 66 percent--between 1995 and 2001.

The bottom line is that this ban has worked.

If we let these guns back on the streets, we open the door to more and more killings.

If we let these guns back on the streets, we tell Steve Sposato, whose wife Jody was killed in the 101 California shooting more than ten years ago, that we have forgotten his pain.

If we let these guns back on the streets, we send an invitation to terrorists to come to America and arm themselves, as recommended in an Al Qaeda training manual. Is now the time to do this?

If we let these guns back on the streets, we ignore ten years of success.

What is the argument for letting these banned guns back on the streets?

Who is clamoring for newly manufactured AK-47s?

Who is clamoring for new TEC-9s?

These are guns that are never used for hunting. They are not used for self defense, and if they are it is more likely that they will kill innocents than intruders.

These guns--and everyone knows it--have but one purpose, and that purpose is to kill other human beings. Why would we want to open the floodgates again and let them back on our streets? There is simply no good reason.

So in the coming weeks I will again offer my amendment to extend the assault weapons ban, and I urge the President to come forward and ``put his money where his mouth is'' in terms of helping us get this legislation passed.

The families of the students killed at Columbine five years ago, Officer Espinoza's wife, and so many other victims fo gun violence demand that we act.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize Philip C. Hopewell, M.D., of San Francisco, CA. A pioneer in pulmonary medicine, Dr. Hopewell is being awarded the Edward Livingston Trudeau Medal in recognition of his lifelong contributions to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of lung disease. Dr. Hopewell has dedicated over 30 years researching national and international tuberculosis control.

Dr. Hopewell's commitment to pulmonary disease serves as an example for all working to preserve the health of this Nation and the world. From the early 1970s, Dr. Hopewell has been concerned with those living with tuberculosis. Dr. Hopewell began his career as a consultant in tuberculosis control to the Nigerian government in the war-affected areas of eastern Nigeria. Later, his interest in tuberculosis control in developing countries was fostered by his work in the Pan-American Health Organization in 1980-1981 and with the Stop TB Partnership, based at the World Health Organization in Geneva in 2003.

Not only has Dr. Hopewell helped countless tuberculosis patients around the globe, he has been instrumental in addressing the problem here at home. Dr. Hopewell has been on the faculty at UCSF, based at San Francisco General, since 1973, where he served as chief of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine from 1989 to 1998 and Associate Dean 1998 to 2004. Today, Dr. Hopewell continues to practice clinical pulmonary and critical care medicine at San Francisco General Hospital, serving as an attending physician on the pulmonary consultation service and in the medical intensive care unit.

In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Hopewell spends a great deal of his time as a researcher. Dr. Hopewell's research has enabled more specific targeting of control interventions and has helped contribute to a nearly 60 percent reduction in the number of new cases of tuberculosis in San Francisco in the past decade. In 1981, Dr Hopewell became involved in the San Francisco tuberculosis control program through the Department of Public Health. From this association, the Frances J. Curry National Tuberculosis Center, directed by Dr. Hopewell was formed. The Curry Center is one of three CDC-funded model centers in the country and provides important opportunities for training and research in many aspects of tuberculosis and tuberculosis control.

Today, I acknowledge Dr. Hopewell for his lifelong accomplishments in tuberculosis research and tuberculosis control. I also acknowledge Dr. Hopewell's numerous leadership positions in pulmonary medicine. He served on the

National Advisory Council of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease, was president of the California Thoracic Society, the North American Region of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, and the American Thoracic Society.

I am pleased to take this opportunity to recognize Dr. Hopewell for his service to the medical community and to our Nation and to congratulate him on being selected to receive the American Lung Association's Edward Livingston Trudeau Medal.

Mr. President, I will vote in support of this conference report today because many of the private pension systems in this nation are on the verge of collapse.

Many companies are staring at an April 15 pension payment date. Without this legislation many companies will not be able to make their payments because of the effect of both the recent economic recession and the requirement that they use a payment calculation that is based on the discontinued 30-year Treasury bond.

I deeply regret the action taken by the conference committee to remove much of the assistance targeted toward multi-employer plans. I will support steps to correct this grievous action.

It is critical, however, that we pass this legislation today because 44 million pensioners are at risk of losing their hard-earned benefits.

While I wish the bill would do more, I believe it is important for several reasons:

One, this bill corrects several problems facing our private pension plans. These plans use the 30-year Treasury bond to determine the interest rate they may assume when making their periodic pension payments.

Because the 30-year Treasury bond is no longer in use by the federal government we must replace this mechanism and this bill does that.

Companies that have fallen behind in their pension payments are required under current law to make catch-up payments, or what we call deficit reduction contribution payments. A company must make these payments in addition to its regularly scheduled pension payments.

These additional payments raise the possibility that many companies will be driven into bankruptcy when it is discovered that they simply do not have the cash available to make these payments. This bill gives companies 2 years of relief from these payments.

This 2-year relief period provides these companies with an opportunity to get back on solid financial ground before beginning these payments again and it goes a long way in preventing the closure of pension plans by helping companies avoid bankruptcy.

Two, this bill targets much needed relief to the airline, steel, and iron industries by allowing them to receive the deficit reduction relief automatically unless they were subject to these catch-up payments in 2000.

These industries, more than most, have been reeling from the lingering effects of September 11, 2001 and the ensuing economic downturn. I have received more than 280 phone calls from United Airline pilots telling me that if this bill does not pass, United Airlines may have to terminate their pension plan as they work through bankruptcy. Management and labor at United Airlines are in total agreement on this issue and I have 35,000 United Airline pension participants in my home State of California.

It is clear that this bill provides more relief to single-employer pension plans than those maintained by a multiple number of employers-- the so-called multi-employer pension plans. I would like to see us address this issue in the near future and I will work with Senator Kennedy to make sure this happens. But, today we have the opportunity to do something good for the 35 million pension plan participants who are participating in mostly single-employer plans.

This legislation is not perfect, but it represents a commonsense approach to help solve the problem facing the majority of pension plans. I supported the Senate version of this bill because it included better assistance for multi-employer plans and I continue to think that the conference committee should have reported a bill that provided these multi-employer plans broader coverage.

While the conference committee did not provide us a bill containing all that I had hoped for, it did report to us a bill that will provide real support to real companies and labor groups.

We must do what we can before these faltering pension plans are driven under by the impending April pension payments.

I cannot support a move to defeat the whole bill because it doesn't address every need.

Thirty-five million pensioners will be assisted by this bill. Companies like C&H Sugar located in Northern California will be helped and more than 35,000 United Airlines pension plan participants who live in California will be helped.

The men and women who have invested their careers in a company should not lose the pensions they are due. But, if we do not pass this conference report, many will and this should not be allowed to happen.

While this legislation is not perfect, it represents movement in the right direction and I support it with the understanding that we need to address the larger issue facing multi-employer plans.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address one of the critical security issues in the post 9/11 world: the existence of hundreds of vulnerable facilities around the world with nuclear materials. If keeping weapons of mass destruction, WMD, out of the hands of terrorists is at the top of our foreign policy agenda, then removing weapons-usable material from facilities where it is susceptible to terrorist theft or should diversion be a top priority for U.S. national security policy.

Yet, currently, there is no single, integrated U.S. government program, with a defined budget and resources, to facilitate the removal of these materials. The legislation I introduce today with Senators Bill Nelson, and Reed will: establish a presidential task force in the Department of Energy on nuclear removal; provide a specific mandate for a program to remove nuclear materials from vulnerable sites around the world as quickly as possible; provide specific direction to allow the use of flexible incentives, tailored to each site, to secure host- country cooperation in removing the nuclear materials, and; authorize $40 million in Fiscal Year 2005 to carry out the functions of this bill.

There are hundreds of facilities around the world that store from kilograms to tons of plutonium or highly enriched uranium, HEU. The State Department has identified 24 of these locations as high priority sites.

President Bush singled out terrorist nuclear attacks on the United States as the defining threat our nation will face in the future. In making the case against Saddam Hussein, he argued: ``If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of uranium a little bigger than a softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.''

What he did not mention is that with the same amount of uranium, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or any terrorist organization could do the same and smuggle the weapon across U.S. borders. And the fact that AQ Khan's network put actual bomb designs on the black market only heightens the need to make sure the ingredients are not available.

In response to this threat, the Administration has focused its efforts on removing vulnerable international nuclear materials through four projects: the take-back to Russia of HEU fuels from Soviet- supplied reactors; the on-going effort to convert Soviet-designed research reactors from HEU to non-bomb-grade fuels; the decades-long effort to convert U.S.-supplied research reactors from HEU to LEU, and; the on-going effort to take back U.S.-supplied HEU.

This represents an important first step, but I am deeply concerned that these efforts are not sufficient and do not adequately address the seriousness of the issue.

The current approach will take 10-20 years to complete at the current rate of about 1 facility per year. This is a time frame out of synch with near-term dangers.

Under the current approach to the take-back of Soviet-supplied HEU, there have been only two successful HEU removals in more than two years, at Vinca and at Pitesti. But the Vinca operation also required the contribution of $5 million from the Nuclear Threat Initiative to complete, because of the administration's claim of inadequate authority to pursue various activities to facilitate Serbian cooperation.

The U.S.-Russian bilateral agreement on a broader take-back effort has taken years to complete--and even once final Russian government approval is secured, there are a wide range of other issues delaying progress within Russia, including the need to prepare environmental assessments of types that have never before been done in Russia, that will require sustained, high-level pressure to overcome.

U.S. efforts to convert HEU-fueled reactors within Russia are still moving slowly on the technical front, in part because of insufficient funding, and we are only now beginning to take the first steps toward providing incentives directly to facilities to give up their HEU.

The scope of the HEU conversion effort in Russia is inadequate. It covers only research reactors. Outside the scope of current efforts are critical assemblies, pulsed powered reactors, and civilian and military naval fuels. This leaves numerous vulnerable HEU stockpiles scattered across the FSU.

Under the current U.S. HEU take-back effort, the return of U.S.- origin HEU fuels, if no new incentives are offered, tons of U.S.- supplied HEU will remain abroad when the program is complete, this is DOE's official projection.

Under the current U.S. HEU reactor conversion effort, if no new incentives are offered, scores of U.S.-supplied reactors may continue to use HEU indefinitely.

A report released last year from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University described a scenario in which a 10 kiloton nuclear bomb is smuggled into Manhattan and detonated resulting in the loss of 500,000 people and causing $1 trillion in direct economic damage.

We must do everything in our power to prevent such an event from ever occurring.

We need a presidential task force in the Department of Energy on nuclear removal. We must provide a specific mandate for a program to remove nuclear materials from vulnerable sites around the world as quickly as possible and provide specific direction to allow the use of flexible incentives, tailored to each site, to secure host-country cooperation in removing the nuclear materials.

And, yes, we need additional funding to get the job done.

This legislation will give our government the direction, tools, and resources necessary to remove nuclear materials from vulnerable sites around the world in an expeditious manner. We have little time to spare. 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, I rise today to introduce legislation to address one of the critical security issues in the post 9/11 world: the existence of hundreds of vulnerable facilities around the world with nuclear materials. If keeping weapons of mass destruction, WMD, out of the hands of terrorists is at the top of our foreign policy agenda, then removing weapons-usable material from facilities where it is susceptible to terrorist theft or should diversion be a top priority for U.S. national security policy.

Yet, currently, there is no single, integrated U.S. government program, with a defined budget and resources, to facilitate the removal of these materials. The legislation I introduce today with Senators Bill Nelson, and Reed will: establish a presidential task force in the Department of Energy on nuclear removal; provide a specific mandate for a program to remove nuclear materials from vulnerable sites around the world as quickly as possible; provide specific direction to allow the use of flexible incentives, tailored to each site, to secure host- country cooperation in removing the nuclear materials, and; authorize $40 million in Fiscal Year 2005 to carry out the functions of this bill.

There are hundreds of facilities around the world that store from kilograms to tons of plutonium or highly enriched uranium, HEU. The State Department has identified 24 of these locations as high priority sites.

President Bush singled out terrorist nuclear attacks on the United States as the defining threat our nation will face in the future. In making the case against Saddam Hussein, he argued: ``If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of uranium a little bigger than a softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.''

What he did not mention is that with the same amount of uranium, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or any terrorist organization could do the same and smuggle the weapon across U.S. borders. And the fact that AQ Khan's network put actual bomb designs on the black market only heightens the need to make sure the ingredients are not available.

In response to this threat, the Administration has focused its efforts on removing vulnerable international nuclear materials through four projects: the take-back to Russia of HEU fuels from Soviet- supplied reactors; the on-going effort to convert Soviet-designed research reactors from HEU to non-bomb-grade fuels; the decades-long effort to convert U.S.-supplied research reactors from HEU to LEU, and; the on-going effort to take back U.S.-supplied HEU.

This represents an important first step, but I am deeply concerned that these efforts are not sufficient and do not adequately address the seriousness of the issue.

The current approach will take 10-20 years to complete at the current rate of about 1 facility per year. This is a time frame out of synch with near-term dangers.

Under the current approach to the take-back of Soviet-supplied HEU, there have been only two successful HEU removals in more than two years, at Vinca and at Pitesti. But the Vinca operation also required the contribution of $5 million from the Nuclear Threat Initiative to complete, because of the administration's claim of inadequate authority to pursue various activities to facilitate Serbian cooperation.

The U.S.-Russian bilateral agreement on a broader take-back effort has taken years to complete--and even once final Russian government approval is secured, there are a wide range of other issues delaying progress within Russia, including the need to prepare environmental assessments of types that have never before been done in Russia, that will require sustained, high-level pressure to overcome.

U.S. efforts to convert HEU-fueled reactors within Russia are still moving slowly on the technical front, in part because of insufficient funding, and we are only now beginning to take the first steps toward providing incentives directly to facilities to give up their HEU.

The scope of the HEU conversion effort in Russia is inadequate. It covers only research reactors. Outside the scope of current efforts are critical assemblies, pulsed powered reactors, and civilian and military naval fuels. This leaves numerous vulnerable HEU stockpiles scattered across the FSU.

Under the current U.S. HEU take-back effort, the return of U.S.- origin HEU fuels, if no new incentives are offered, tons of U.S.- supplied HEU will remain abroad when the program is complete, this is DOE's official projection.

Under the current U.S. HEU reactor conversion effort, if no new incentives are offered, scores of U.S.-supplied reactors may continue to use HEU indefinitely.

A report released last year from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University described a scenario in which a 10 kiloton nuclear bomb is smuggled into Manhattan and detonated resulting in the loss of 500,000 people and causing $1 trillion in direct economic damage.

We must do everything in our power to prevent such an event from ever occurring.

We need a presidential task force in the Department of Energy on nuclear removal. We must provide a specific mandate for a program to remove nuclear materials from vulnerable sites around the world as quickly as possible and provide specific direction to allow the use of flexible incentives, tailored to each site, to secure host-country cooperation in removing the nuclear materials.

And, yes, we need additional funding to get the job done.

This legislation will give our government the direction, tools, and resources necessary to remove nuclear materials from vulnerable sites around the world in an expeditious manner. We have little time to spare. 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, it is my pleasure to honor Henry Mancini, a fine composer, conductor, and arranger. Mr. Mancini was one of the most versatile musical talents and one of America's most celebrated musicians of the twentieth century. He lent his talents to many films and television series, the themes and melodies of which are recognizable to listeners the world over, even if they are unfamiliar with the name of the composer.

April 16 would have been Henry Mancini's 80th birthday. Even though Mr. Mancini passed away in 1994 after a long battle with cancer, his contribution to music and the arts has not been forgotten.

The United States Postal Service will unveil the Henry Mancini commemorative stamp next week. The unveiling ceremony on April 13 will take place at the Music Center Plaza in Los Angeles and will be hosted by our distinguished former colleague, John Glenn, a longtime friend of Mancini. Senator Glenn, it might be added, took a recording of Mancini's timeless classic, ``Moon River,'' on his return to space in October 1998.

In his lifetime, Henry Mancini's masterful talents were recognized with 72 Grammy Award nominations and 20 Grammy wins, eighteen Academy Award nominations and four Oscar wins, and a Golden Globe.

While awards are a notable measure of talent, the scope of Mr. Mancini's work is more impressive than the nominations he received for that work. During the 1950s, Mr. Mancini had a hand in the scores of over 100 films produced by Universal-International Studios. It was also at Universal that Mr. Mancini met Blake Edwards, and together they worked on 26 films over 30 years. These collaborations produced some of Mancini's most popular and award-winning compositions, including the ``Peter Gunn'' television series, ``Breakfast at Tiffany's,'' ``The Pink Panther'' films, and ``Victor/Victoria.''

In all, over 500 of Mr. Mancini's works were published. Mr. Mancini recorded over 90 albums with styles from jazz to classical, including eight albums certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America. As an in-demand concert performer, he logged over 600 symphony performances, and conducted such symphony orchestras as the London Symphony Orchestra, the Israel Philharmonic, the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra.

Andy Williams said at Mancini's 70th birthday celebration: ``The wonders of Henry Mancini will be heard in every corner of the world right up to the minute this planet cools and shrinks to the size of an eighth note.'' But it is more than the music he composed that will be Henry Mancini's legacy.

In honor of Mancini's dedication to educating young musicians, the Henry Mancini Institute was founded in Los Angeles in 1997 by his longtime friend and fellow composer, Jack Elliott. The Henry Mancini Institute's mission is to nurture the future of music by providing comprehensive professional training and multilevel outreach programs that make a direct impact in people's lives. Mr. Mancini himself established scholarships and fellowships at the Nation's top music schools. Many of tomorrow's composers, conductors, and arrangers have benefited from Mancini programs at New York's Julliard School of Music his alma mater, and in Los Angeles at USC and UCLA.

I would also like to recognize the Mancini family, who has gracefully embraced Henry's legacy and allowed for future generations of musicians to celebrate his accomplishments and contributions. My good friend Ginny Mancini, whom he married in 1947, has relentlessly worked to bring about the creation of this stamp, as have their children: Christopher, Monica, and Felice.

Honoring Henry Mancini with this commemorative stamp will serve as a lasting tribute, just as his music is a lasting gift to the world.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Senate for ratifying the International Atomic Energy Agency--IAEA-- Safeguards Agreement by unanimous consent last night.

The Additional Protocol will augment the IAEA's safeguards monitoring system and provide early warning about illicit nuclear weapons-related activities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

By acting swiftly to ratify the treaty, the United States Senate has sent a clear signal to the international community that the United States is committed to not only maintaining a leadership role in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons but also to work closely with other nations in that endeavor.

We know that we cannot go it alone and we will need the help of our friends and allies.

In addition, the Additional Protocol will strengthen the IAEA in its work in dealing with nuclear programs in Iran, Libya and elsewhere and encourage other countries to ratify their own additional protocols.

Clearly, there is much work to be done and the international community will face additional challenges in the near future. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the United States Senate has taken this important step to protect our citizens and our national security interests.

Mr. President, today we honor the life and legacy of Cesar Chavez, a great champion of civil rights and workers' rights.

Cesar Chavez was one of our Nation's strongest advocates for social justice. He believed that the men and women who bring us the food we depend on deserve a safe work environment and a fair wage. He fought for America's farmworkers--men and women who worked so hard to provide a decent life for their families--and challenged all Americans to recognize their plight.

On this day, 77 years ago, Chavez was born at the Yuma, AZ farm his grandfather had homesteaded in the 1880's. Like many families during the Great Depression, his family lost their farm and began years of migrating from town to town throughout the southwest in search of steady work.

Chavez began working at the age of ten. He attended school when he could--thirty-seven different schools, in all--before abandoning his education after the eighth grade to help his family.

In 1945, he joined the Navy, serving in the Pacific just after World War II. Upon returning to the United States, he lived in several different Southwestern communities before settling in East San Jose.

It was there--as he worked in the apricot orchards--that he decided to devote his life to tackling the injustice that so many migrant workers lived under.

In 1952, Chavez became a full-time organizer with the Community Service Organization, a Mexican-American advocacy group. In this position, he organized farmworkers in California and Arizona, worked to stamp out racial discrimination, and built the influence of farmworkers through voter registration drives.

His activism led him to establish the National Farm Workers Association in

Delano, CA in 1962. The new organization eventually became the United Farm Workers of America, the first union representing farmworkers in the United States.

Under the leadership of Chavez, the United Farm Workers successfully improved the once-dismal working conditions for hundreds of thousands of farmworkers throughout the nation. These efforts brought safety improvements, pay increases, benefits and job security to workers who had been among the most exploited.

The union's efforts also brought attention to the health problems facing farmworkers, including the exposure to harmful pesticides that affect workers and their children.

An adherent to the principles of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Chavez used nonviolent means to bring about these changes including economic boycotts, marches, civil disobedience, and fasts.

Chavez once declared to his followers, `Nonviolence is our strength.' This message still rings true as the official slogan for the United Farm Workers Union.

A winner of the highest civilian honor our Nation can bestow--the Presidential Medal of Freedom--which he received posthumously in 1994, Chavez was a true American hero. He was a hero because he spoke up for so many who could not be heard.

Chavez once commented, ``It's ironic that those who till the soil, cultivate and harvest the fruits, vegetables, and other foods that fill your tables with abundance have nothing left for themselves.''

His life and this day remind us that as a society we have a responsibility to protect the rights of all Americans.

As Cesar Chavez often said, ``Si se puede!'' Yes, we can!

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with Senators Domenici, Boxer, and Dayton to allow youth service and conservation corps to partner with public land management agencies to restore and protect public lands threatened by severe fire. I have dubbed this public-private partnership the Healthy Forests Youth Conservation Corps.

Last year, I authored a similar provision that was included in the Senate version of the Healthy Forest legislation. Unfortunately, this provision was stripped out of the bill before it was signed into law.

First, this bill aims to help Federal, State, and local governments implement priority projects using the cost-saving resources of youth corps.

It is estimated that youth corps generate $1.60 in immediate benefits for every dollar in costs. This figure is important given the great need and cost associated with fighting fires.

Every year, land management agencies are charged with conserving, protecting, and maintaining millions of acres of public land. This is a daunting task that requires an incredible amount of human and material resources.

For instance, the Federal Government, alone, is responsible for overseeing 689 million acres of this land. Last year, five Federal agencies reported spending $1.6 billion in 2002 on fire fighting suppression efforts--a whopping $300 million more than the previous record. To fight those fires, 28,000 fire and support personnel were activated--the maximum civilian resources available in the Forest Service on top of the 600 Army troops, and 950 foreign firefighters who joined in the effort.

As an example of what can happen in one State, consider last year's catastrophic wildfires in southern California. Before they were contained, the deadly fires of last fall scorched a total of 738,158 acres, killed 23 people, and destroyed approximately 3,626 homes and thousands of other structures--amounting to the most costly and devastating fire ever to hit California. The insurance payouts alone will cost more than $3 billion, with public expenditures to fight the fires and recover from them running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

And those statistics make no mention of the resources expended to fight fires in other States.

I want to prevent this type of catastrophe in the future. That is why I was an ardent supporter of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act that was signed into law last year.

I also believe that we must use every resource at our disposal to meet this challenge. In my opinion, youth service and conversation corps can play a significant role in reducing the physical and financial strain that public land management agencies bear and help protect our Nation's public lands from wildfires.

Secondly, this bill allows young people, particularly those youth who are people of color, low income, or are at high risk of dropping out of school, to integrate themselves into their communities and to learn skills that could lead to jobs or a greater interest in higher education in the future.

I have seen firsthand the benefits that youth corps bring to their communities and the difference that the work can make in the lives of at-risk youth.

In 1983, I founded the first urban youth corps as mayor of San Francisco, and during that time I saw a great improvement in the quality of life of the corps members and of the city itself.

When we first began the program, we ran it on a million-dollar budget employing 36 disadvantaged young people ranging in age between 18 and 23 years old who needed some direction, wanted a challenge, and wanted to make themselves socially useful.

That first year, we paid corps members $3.35 an hour to repair bathrooms in affordable housing for senior citizens and ex-offenders, build a park in Hunter's Point, clear scotch broom from the Twin Peaks hillside, and fix up Alcatraz Island. And in the 21 years since the program began, it has grown into a multisite, multifaceted agency that engages more than 500 young adults annually who have completed over 3.5 million hours of community service.

It has given thousands of corps members a sense of personal pride, helped to connect them with their community and see for themselves that hard work pays off.

I started the San Francisco Conservation Corps to help young people break out of the cycle of poverty and crime and improve their job skills by giving them guidance and support through labor-intensive activities.

For this same reason, I am introducing this bill with the hope that the success of the San Francisco Conservation Corps can be duplicated nationwide.

Specifically, this bill does the following: It authorizes the Agriculture and Interior Secretaries to enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with existing State, local, and nonprofit youth conservation corps to carry out land management initiatives on public lands.

It directs the Secretaries to give priority for projects that will reduce hazardous fuels on public land, restore land located in near municipal watersheds and municipal waters supplies, rehabilitate land affected or altered by fire, assess lands afflicted or imminently threatened by disease or insect infestation, work to address windthrown land or at high risk of reburn, provide emergency assistance and disaster relief to communities.

It allows the Secretaries to grant, at their discretion, noncompetitive hiring status for corps alumni for future Federal hiring.

It authorizes $25 million for the alliance for fiscal year 2005- fiscal year 2009.

I know this program will not take all of the burden off public land management agencies as they work to protect and restore public lands, and I know this program will not reach every disadvantaged young person in need of guidance and support. But it is a start and I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with Senators Domenici, Boxer, and Dayton to allow youth service and conservation corps to partner with public land management agencies to restore and protect public lands threatened by severe fire. I have dubbed this public-private partnership the Healthy Forests Youth Conservation Corps.

Last year, I authored a similar provision that was included in the Senate version of the Healthy Forest legislation. Unfortunately, this provision was stripped out of the bill before it was signed into law.

First, this bill aims to help Federal, State, and local governments implement priority projects using the cost-saving resources of youth corps.

It is estimated that youth corps generate $1.60 in immediate benefits for every dollar in costs. This figure is important given the great need and cost associated with fighting fires.

Every year, land management agencies are charged with conserving, protecting, and maintaining millions of acres of public land. This is a daunting task that requires an incredible amount of human and material resources.

For instance, the Federal Government, alone, is responsible for overseeing 689 million acres of this land. Last year, five Federal agencies reported spending $1.6 billion in 2002 on fire fighting suppression efforts--a whopping $300 million more than the previous record. To fight those fires, 28,000 fire and support personnel were activated--the maximum civilian resources available in the Forest Service on top of the 600 Army troops, and 950 foreign firefighters who joined in the effort.

As an example of what can happen in one State, consider last year's catastrophic wildfires in southern California. Before they were contained, the deadly fires of last fall scorched a total of 738,158 acres, killed 23 people, and destroyed approximately 3,626 homes and thousands of other structures--amounting to the most costly and devastating fire ever to hit California. The insurance payouts alone will cost more than $3 billion, with public expenditures to fight the fires and recover from them running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

And those statistics make no mention of the resources expended to fight fires in other States.

I want to prevent this type of catastrophe in the future. That is why I was an ardent supporter of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act that was signed into law last year.

I also believe that we must use every resource at our disposal to meet this challenge. In my opinion, youth service and conversation corps can play a significant role in reducing the physical and financial strain that public land management agencies bear and help protect our Nation's public lands from wildfires.

Secondly, this bill allows young people, particularly those youth who are people of color, low income, or are at high risk of dropping out of school, to integrate themselves into their communities and to learn skills that could lead to jobs or a greater interest in higher education in the future.

I have seen firsthand the benefits that youth corps bring to their communities and the difference that the work can make in the lives of at-risk youth.

In 1983, I founded the first urban youth corps as mayor of San Francisco, and during that time I saw a great improvement in the quality of life of the corps members and of the city itself.

When we first began the program, we ran it on a million-dollar budget employing 36 disadvantaged young people ranging in age between 18 and 23 years old who needed some direction, wanted a challenge, and wanted to make themselves socially useful.

That first year, we paid corps members $3.35 an hour to repair bathrooms in affordable housing for senior citizens and ex-offenders, build a park in Hunter's Point, clear scotch broom from the Twin Peaks hillside, and fix up Alcatraz Island. And in the 21 years since the program began, it has grown into a multisite, multifaceted agency that engages more than 500 young adults annually who have completed over 3.5 million hours of community service.

It has given thousands of corps members a sense of personal pride, helped to connect them with their community and see for themselves that hard work pays off.

I started the San Francisco Conservation Corps to help young people break out of the cycle of poverty and crime and improve their job skills by giving them guidance and support through labor-intensive activities.

For this same reason, I am introducing this bill with the hope that the success of the San Francisco Conservation Corps can be duplicated nationwide.

Specifically, this bill does the following: It authorizes the Agriculture and Interior Secretaries to enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with existing State, local, and nonprofit youth conservation corps to carry out land management initiatives on public lands.

It directs the Secretaries to give priority for projects that will reduce hazardous fuels on public land, restore land located in near municipal watersheds and municipal waters supplies, rehabilitate land affected or altered by fire, assess lands afflicted or imminently threatened by disease or insect infestation, work to address windthrown land or at high risk of reburn, provide emergency assistance and disaster relief to communities.

It allows the Secretaries to grant, at their discretion, noncompetitive hiring status for corps alumni for future Federal hiring.

It authorizes $25 million for the alliance for fiscal year 2005- fiscal year 2009.

I know this program will not take all of the burden off public land management agencies as they work to protect and restore public lands, and I know this program will not reach every disadvantaged young person in need of guidance and support. But it is a start and I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts.