Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Judge Cormac Carney for the Central District of California.

Judge Carney is a bright, young judge with truly impressive credentials. Judge Carney graduated cum laude from UCLA, where he earned All-American honors as a wide receiver. He attended Harvard Law School, worked as a partner for the prestigious law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, and has served with distinction as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.

I am confident he will prove a valuable addition to the bench in the Southern District of California.

Today's vote on Judge Carney marks a milestone event for California's bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee, which Senator Barbara Boxer and I set up with the White House.

Judge Carney is the eighth judge to come out of the advisory committee. Nearly every one of these judges has passed out of the committee by a unanimous vote.

With Judge Carney's confirmation, the committee will have filled all the current district court vacancies in California.

This if the first time in recent memory that all of California's authorized district court judgeships are filled.

I would like to give credit to Jerry Parsky and the White House for working constructively with the California Senate delegation in a bipartisan manner to get these judgeships filled.

The results of the committee's efforts speak for themselves. On average, these eight California judges have received Senate confirmation within 114 days of their nomination.

In contrast, during the last year of the Clinton administration, district court nominees took an average of 196 days to get confirmed.

We have confirmed these nominees efficiently and without rancor. This process has enabled the best and the brightest legal minds of our state to gain admission to the Federal bench.

I hope the Senate sees our efforts in California as a model of how the judicial nominations process could work.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. I very much respect the distinguished Senator from Nevada. However, I think this amendment is enormously destructive. If America is going to become an arrogant nation, do things only our way, this is a good way to begin. I believe it would be a tragic and a terrible mistake.

The amendment is couched in such words that no one would know exactly what it means. It reads:

No funds made available in this Act for purposes of

reconstruction in Iraq may be provided, to a person who is a

citizen of or is organized under the laws of France or

Germany, unless such person is a resident of or organized

under the laws of the United States.

Just to know how this would affect an employee of a given company, an officer of a given company, or anyone else, I think creates a whole miasma of very real problems. I think to use the word ``despicable'' perhaps is hyperbole. I think there is a legitimate point of difference between European nations and the United States with respect to how to handle Iraq. Culturally there are differences. Diplomatically there are differences. But to pass a piece of legislation that puts America's No. 1 allies in a position of being an absolute enemy of this country, I think is a terrible thing to do. I would hope we would vote down this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to respond. The fact is, there are dozens of countries in this world that disagreed with what the United States is doing. I am one who voted to authorize the President with the use of force. Most of the larger countries in the world disagree.

Additionally, the French and the Germans, in many ways in the war against terror, have been helpful to the United States. Those of us who serve on the Intelligence Committee know this. We know that intelligence comes from both of those nations which is instrumental in helping in the war on terror.

The unilateral approach of this country is subject to some concern by other countries. That is not necessarily a bad thing. This is the first time in America's history we have unilaterally, with Great Britain, with the help of a couple thousand Australians, and with some tacit support of other countries in different ways, some public, some not public, essentially invaded another sovereign nation. There is a difference of opinion as to whether we should have stayed at the United Nations. I happen to share that view. I believe we should have worked to have made this more multilateral. I believe we should have taken the time to do so. But we chose not to do that. The administration chose not to do it.

For the Senate to pass this amendment--you might as well include a whole host of other countries in this--sets us upon a very bad course of action. I would think we would want everyone's help in the rebuilding of Iraq. I would think we would want everyone's help in the establishment of a secure and stable and open and free and, perhaps one day, democratic, new Iraqi government. To place two of America's staunchest allies, France and Germany, that have shown their solidarity with us over the years from the time--certainly the French from the time our country was founded, the Germans certainly subsequent to World War II, and not to understand that there are strong antiwar feelings in both of these countries is shortsighted.

What this Senate should try to do is bring people together, bring our allies together, to reduce America's unilateral courses in the world, to work with our friends. This does not help.

I hope there will be an overwhelming vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of points on this amendment. I ask the distinguished Senator two questions. The first is, is he aware that Germany has allowed over 60,000 U.S. troops to pass through U.S. Air Force bases in Germany--all troops bound for Iraq? Is he aware that the Germans have helped in many ways?

Second, is he aware that there are already contracts out from our Department of Defense with firms that would be nullified under this bill? Also, I would like to ask the question, if he does know, to what extent would those contracts be nullified by this legislation?

Mr. President, if I might, I would like to read an editorial that was published in the Los Angeles Times. I think it is pertinent. It was published on the 30th of last month, a few days ago. It is entitled, ``Move Past the Grudges.''

The United States should act to review tattered alliances

that will be needed in the fight against terrorism.

It goes on to point out:

Blair visited Bush at Camp David last week and readily

acknowledged the bruises left by the rancorous United Nations

debate before the war. When Bush was asked about the many

nations that declined to join the Iraq war alliance, he

replied only that the United States and Britain had plenty of

Western allies that continue to stand with us. Blair,

however, frankly conceded that many countries disagree with

what we are doing. How that divide is handled now and after

the war will affect global relationships for years to come.

Mr. President, I could not agree more. I don't know why we have any need to be small, to be rancorous, and to be bitter. Right now, we have our men and women in harm's way, and the battle is turning and it is favoring our side. The hope should be that we can put this conflict to an end, that we can mend the wounds, that we can rebuild the country, that we can show to the entire Muslim/Arab world that America is indeed an open, fair, democratic country, and we care about the Muslim people.

I don't believe any purpose is served by this amendment. I don't believe the world is going to be a better place because we pass this amendment. I don't believe we are going to be able to restore or bind any wounds with this amendment. I believe we will drive deeper the scars into the psyche of America with this amendment. I believe we will spread apart our alliances with this kind of amendment. I hope this amendment is not a harbinger of things to come on the floor of the U.S. Senate because I believe it does disrespect to a strong, able, competent, and compassionate United States of America. I urge its defeat.

Mr. President, I was going to call up an amendment about interoperable communications, but the text of our amendment is being worked out by the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. I believe it is going to be successfully worked out, so I would like to say a few words about what I would like to see happen.

This emergency supplemental provides $2 billion through the Office of Domestic Prepareness for State and local governments and first responders for homeland security.

It also states in the Conference Report that $30 million of the $2 billion should go to provide ``technical assistance to States for a variety of activities'' and mentions ``assistance with interoperable communications and equipment'' as one such activity.

But nowhere is there a specific earmark for interoperable communications, and none of the $30 million mentioned for ``technical asssistance'' will go directly to the people who need it most-- policemen, firefighters, and emergency assistance personnel.

And even if some fraction of the $30 million does trickle down to public safety first responders, this is simply not enough to make a dent in the problem.

There are, today, about 2.5 million public safety first responders operating in the U.S., located at 18,000 law enforcement agencies, 26,000 fire departments, 6,000 rescue departments, and many other agencies as well.

They have historically depended on their own radio systems, even though sometimes these systems are often incompatible with other agencies with whom they work.

As a result, law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical service (EMS) teams can't talk to each other.

For example, while police received a radio message that the World Trade Center was going to collapse on September 11, firefighters never received the message because they use different radios.

A report from the University of New Hampshire-based ATLAS Project states:

From numerous interviews gathered as part of a fire

department inquiry into the events of September 11th, it

would appear that non-interoperability was at least partially

responsible for the loss of 343 firefighters at the World

Trade Center.

According to an article in The New York Times on January 30, 2002, the New York Fire Department's most senior commanders report that:

they had little reliable radio communications that morning,

could not keep track of all of the firefighters who entered

the towers and were unable to reach them as the threat of

collapse became unmistakeable. . . . So poor were

communications that on one side of the trade center complex .

. . a city engineer warned officials that the towers were at

risk of ``imminent collapse.'' Those he told could not reach

the highest-ranking fire chief by radio. A messenger was sent

across, dodging flaming debris and falling bodies, to deliver

it in person. He arrived with the news less than a minute

before the first tower fell.

Let me give some other examples.

Interoperability was also a problem at both the Littleton, Colorado shooting spree at Columbine High School. During that horrific attack, over 2000 students and teachers were effectively held hostage and 15 were killed and 23 wounded.

Forty-six separate agencies responded during the incident. Many of these responders were operating on different emergency radio channels, and in different parts of the radio spectrum. Some operated on VHF frequencies, some on an Ericsson 800 megahertz system, some on an analog 800 megahertz system, and some on a digital 800 megahertz trunked system.

According to an internal report by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office:

With such varying systems being used, not only were

agencies prevented from communicating directly with each

other, but groups with similar functions also could not

communicate via radio. Ideally, groups with the same

responsibility, such as the various SWAT teams or those

officers setting up inner or outer perimeters would have

their own channel to use in order to report and obtain vital

information about their particular area.

In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Federal, State, and local first responder agencies also couldn't talk to each other.

Things were so bad that agencies resorted to using ``runners'' to carry

messages from one command center to another. To ensure that all agencies were on the same page, these runners often had to run between different agencies repeating the same message.

This is the same method of communication used thousands of years ago by the ancient Greeks and Romans. We all know--Senator Byrd especially--the story from 490 B.C. of the man who ran 26 miles from the plains of Marathon to the city of Athens to report victory in the Battle of Marathon and warn the people in the city of impending attack. In some ways, we are no better off today, 2,500 years later.

It is outrageous that our emergency communications systems can be reduced to levels that existed 2\1/2\ millennia ago.

And even if runners are not needed to transit messages physically from agency to agency, lack of interoperability can still spell disaster.

Lack of interoperability always means that precious minutes are lost and lives are put at risk.

The bottom line is that Congress has not provided enough money for interoperable communications--and that means we are needlessly jeopardizing the safety of our public safety first responders and the citizens of our country.

The fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill only provides $45 million in dedicated money for interoperable communications--only $12 million of which is likely to go directly to first responders. Twenty million dollars was given to the COPS program for interoperability, but $8 million of this amount was earmarked for other purposes--$5 million to the National Institute of Standards to develop minimum standards and $3 million for research and development through the National Institute of Justice's Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement-- AGILE--program.

Another $25 million was given to FEMA under the Emergency Management Planning and Assistance account. However, my staff has been told that this money will probably go to State emergency management agencies.

There is another $400 million for equipment grants and $750 million for fire grants, but only some of this could be used for interoperable communications. There was only about $50 million set aside specifically for interoperable communications in fiscal year 2002.

And I mentioned earlier, that there is $30 million in the supplemental for ``technical assistance'' to the States, some of which could be used for interoperable communications.

In my view, providing only $12 million in dedicated money directly for first responders for fiscal year 2003 is simply not enough.

We have talked with the International Chiefs of Police. We have talked with all the national firefighting and first responding organizations. They are all strongly in support of increasing this amount.

I must tell you, I am delighted that both the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member have responded, and I am assured there will be added, in the managers' package, an additional amount which will go directly to first responders.

Now, let me make one point. I recently heard from a Los Angeles city councilman, Jack Weiss, about one potential solution. It is a device called ACU-1000, which is also available in a mobile version called the First Responder Vehicle. ACU-1000 is manufactured by JPS Communications, which is owned by Raytheon.

Now, here is how the First Responder Vehicle works: They take an SUV, and fill it with software that converts the different frequencies into a compatible network that allows first responders, using different communication devices, to talk to each other. So a local community, such as one of yours, I say to the Presiding Officer, or one of mine, can purchase this vehicle for $150,000 to $200,000 and thus allow first responders to coordinate using diverse, incompatible communications systems.

A public safety first responder will drive the SUV to an emergency. Then Federal agency, State agencies, local agencies, the National Guard, police officers and firefighters can all talk to one another. This can be done for as little as $150,000 a unit.

While my amendment is for $400 million, I am hopeful that as much as the chairman and the ranking member believe is possible can be appropriated and earmarked for interoperable communications in the supplemental and go directly to these first responding communities.

I also ask that the Record reflect that Senator Mikulski, Senator Dodd, Senator Durbin, and Senator Dayton are also very concerned about this issue and that they worked on the amendment with me. I thank them all very much.

The bottom line is that it is easy to solve this problem and that solving the problem is going to save lives. If you are going to protect the homeland, you have to enable those who first respond to a major crisis to be able to communicate.

Once again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with me to include money for interoperable communications in the supplemental. I look forward to this issue being resolved in the manager's package, but I would like to reserve the right, in the event something goes wrong, to call up the amendment.

I certainly will.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I appreciate that. I was a mayor for 9 years. I required all of the departments to have portable radios. Every Monday we would test their radio systems at 7:30 because, in the event of an earthquake, at that time there was no other way for all the city departments to talk to one another except over a radio system. So I know firsthand the importance of interoperable communications.

I appreciate the comments. Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would restore fiscal year 2003 funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, to the level of funding Congress provided in fiscal year 2002.

Specifically, my amendment would provide an additional $315 million in supplemental funding to the SCAAP program, to bring the total fiscal year 2003 appropriations to the same amount that was appropriated in fiscal year 2002--$565 million.

Most of my colleagues have had to deal with the question of illegal immigration. Just the sheer number of illegal immigrants in our country--estimates range from 9 to 11 million--suggests that Federal strategies to curb illegal immigration have failed.

While only a relatively small percentage of the illegal immigrant population have committed crimes, nonetheless, even that small percentage represents a significant burden on State and local governments, which are forced to apprehend, prosecute, and incarcerate those who prey on our communities.

Today most States are encountering their largest deficits in more than 60 years. Indeed, the fiscal consequences of illegal immigration have contributed to this challenge. In fiscal year 2002, for instance, States and counties incurred more than $13 billion in incarceration expenses. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to help shoulder the burden that its failures have created. The Federal Government alleviated some of that burden by providing $565 million to the States in fiscal year 2002.

Increasingly, States and local counties are relying on SCAAP funding to help supplement their homeland security activities.

Clearly, our local governments would spend the $13 billion they have spent incarcerating criminal aliens on other fiscal priorities, such as homeland security.

The amendment I offer today would not only provide a more equitable level of funding to help reimburse States for the costs they incur for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens, it would also help free up funds that State and local governments may need for their first responder activities.

Without adequate funding, this fiscal burden will continue to fall on many of our local law enforcement agencies--including sheriffs, police officers on the beat, antigang violence units, and district attorneys offices.

At a time when cash-strapped State and local governments are being asked to do even more to protect our homeland, we cannot afford to eliminate vital funding that already falls far short of what local governments spend to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens.

SCAAP payments have never matched the true costs to the States dealing with this problem, but they have nevertheless been critical additions to prison and jail budgets. They have also symbolized the Federal Government's obligation to pay for the results of its failed immigration strategies.

Counties and sheriffs offices across the country, and not just those along the border, are very concerned because of the severe cuts in funding this year. I have received letters from county executives and sheriffs from Virginia, Wisconsin, New York, and other States who are facing critical cuts in their law enforcement budgets because of the anticipated shortfall in SCAAP funding. Those amounts will be cut drastically.

I ask unanimous consent that I may submit for the record, a chart comparing the amount of SCAAP money States received in fiscal year 2002 to the amount they will receive with the fiscal year 2003 SCAAP allocation of $250 million.

Our Nation is facing one of the most challenging periods in our Nation's history. And, we want, to the best extent possible, our constituents to feel secure in their homes and in their communities.

At a time when the Nation is focused on enhancing security within our borders, our States, and our local communities, a vital program like SCAAP should not be vulnerable to being underfunded or eliminated altogether.

The control of illegal immigration is a Federal obligation and we owe it to our States and local communities to provide them with the critical Federal assistance they need to continue doing their job.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to four more Californians who have died in combat in Iraq, as well as to nine other Americans who were stationed in California and have made the ultimate sacrifice in our efforts to liberate the Iraqi people. Most of these men have left family in California.

So far, of the 44 Americans who have died, 10 were from California, while another 9 were stationed there. This accounts for around 45 percent of all those killed in action.

But first, I would like to take a moment to remind my colleagues about the two servicemen killed and another wounded late last week in Geresk, Afghanistan, when they were ambushed by Taliban forces while on a reconnaissance patrol.

As America focuses almost exclusively on the conflict in Iraq, we must not forget the bravery and sacrifice of men such as SGT Orlando Morales, SSG Jacob Frazier, and others in America's larger, global war on terror.

Of the four Californians I would like to recognize today, two of them, members of the 1st Tank Battalion of 29 Palms, were killed when their tank plunged off a bridge near Nasiriyah, during a heavy sandstorm. Both of them were still legal residents.

LCpl Patrick T. O'Day: One of these was 20-year-old Patrick O'Day, who was born in Scotland and came to the United States when he was just 3. He learned to read around the same time and quickly impressed his family and surprised his kindergarten teacher.

He was captain of the wrestling team at Santa Rosa Middle School and a 2001 graduate of Santa Rosa High School, where he met his future wife Shauna. They were married in October of last year, and they are expecting their first child in September.

His younger brother, Thomas, said that Patrick was ``always someone that could make anyone in the room laugh. When he came into a room, everyone knew he was there. He could change the atmosphere very quickly. . . . He was just so much fun to be around.''

PVT Francisco A. Martinez Flores: Francisco Martinez Flores was also in the tank that plunged in the Euphrates River. He was born in Guadalajara, Mexico, and settled in Duarte, CA, when only a little boy.

He attended Maxwell Elementary School and graduated from Duarte High School in 2000, where he was a popular and outgoing football player with a passion for fixing up old cars.

He had expressed a desire to be ``a great soldier'' ever since he was a young boy. ``[The Marines] returned to me a true man,'' said his mother, Martha, who had gone back to Mexico to bury her father when her son was deployed to the gulf. She never had the opportunity to say goodbye.

Francisco Martinez Flores was to become a U.S. citizen in 2 weeks. But the 21-year-old marine was killed before he could take an oath of allegiance to the country he died fighting for.

LCpl Jesus Suarez del Solar: Just 20, Cpl Suarez had already served in Afghanistan, and was ready to returning to combat, this time in Iraq. This past December, he had married his longtime girlfriend Sayne. They had a baby boy, Erik.

``I'm very proud of Jesus,'' said his father, Fernando. ``I want Americans to know that immigrants that came to the United States, we did not come to take their jobs. We came here to give them our blood, so they can have freedom and they can have a world free of terrorism. That's why my son died.''

Known as something of a charmer and even a bit of a flirt, he graduated in 2001 from Valley High School, in Escondido, a town about 30 miles north of San Diego. His principal, Janice Boedeker, said that ``Jesus wanted to become a marine from the time I met him, as a junior in high school. He was just a wonderful kid with maturity beyond his years.''

``He was so excited about being a part of the infantry and the Marine Corps,'' Boedeker said. ``I always ask kids about their goals what they want to do. There was never a question with him. I remember he wrote in big, capital letters: MARINES.''

One of his teachers, Tom Gabriella, remembered how Jesus ``felt he could build a solid life around the Marine Corps. . . .Once, he gave a presentation to a class. He always had a big smile on his face.''

GySgt Joseph Menusa: Born in the Philippines, Joseph Menusa came to the United States when he was 10 and grew up in San Jose. A veteran of the first gulf war, he was killed in battle on Thursday, March 27. He was a graduate of Silver Creek High, Class of '89.

He was working his way up the ranks and was in the process of gaining his U.S. citizenship when he received his deployment orders to the gulf.

On the eve of his deployment, Sgt Menusa told his wife Stacy why he had to go. ``He said he was in charge of these young kids and he was the only one who had ever seen combat. He needed to be their guide.''

Capt Tuan Pham, who was born in Vietnam and worked with Sgt Menusa as a Marine recruitment officer in San Francisco, had this to say about his friend: ``We are both naturalized Americans and believe in the ideals of what this country represents. He paid the ultimate price for something we all believe in--freedom.''

Of those Americans stationed in California, most were from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force based at Camp Pendleton, in San Diego County. While from all across the country, these men were so much a part of the local community, where the mood is somber, yellow ribbons are everywhere, and the flags at half mast.

I would also like to commend the local newspaper, the San Diego Union Tribune, for doing an impressive job of providing much of the information on those stationed at Camp Pendleton.

2Lt Therrel S. Childers, Harrison County, MS: While most youngsters pick a new career more often than they outgrow their sneakers, Lt Therrel Childers, the son of a Navy Seabee, first decided he wanted to be a marine when only 5 years old.

He joined the Marines a month after he graduated from high school; they sent him to college and promoted him. 25 years after he first glimpsed his future, Second Lieutenant Childers was fatally injured on a battlefield in Iraq.

``We're proud of him,'' his mother said from her Powell, WY, home. ``He died doing what he believed in.'' He approached his life with a unique intensity that made him successful both in his career and in the classroom.

His professors at The Citadel, in Charleston, SC, saw the dedication

that made him a good marine. ``When he decided to study French, he wanted to speak French perfectly,'' said one of his professors, Guy Toubiana. ``It really bothered him if he was making a couple of mistakes.''

His intensity sometimes made him the butt of jokes, but somehow he remained a likable guy, perhaps because he maintained his sense of humor. And despite his military surroundings, he still had a sensitive side. ``He was very warm,'' Toubiana said.

The 30-year-old spent his limited free time climbing mountains, running road races, and mountain biking. Perhaps he would be most proud that marine friends remember him as someone they could count on.

John Bacon, who met Childers at The Citadel, said Childers would always show up to help lift a heavy sofa on moving day. ``He was a type of person that would never let you down,'' Bacon said. ``The world lost a great man.''

Marine Cpt Ryan Anthony Beaupre, St. Anne, IL: Cpt Ryan Beaupre, who was single, abandoned an accounting career to join the Marines in 1996. ``He always wanted to fly, but his parents wanted him to get a college degree first,'' said Bob Themer, a friend of the family's.

Beaupre, who was from St. Anne, IL, and graduated from Illinois Wesleyan University, and worked in accounting for a year. ``Then he came home and told them he could do more as a marine,'' Themer said.

Beaupre lived in an Encinitas apartment overlooking the sea, where he often surfed, said neighbor Ron Holdsworth. He remembers a comment the marine made after military helicopters flew by their building one day.

``At the time, we were in Afghanistan fighting, and he said, `The thing about being a marine is you know when your brother marines are fighting, you can't sit still. You want to go help them.' ''

Navy Hospital Corpsman Michael Vann Johnson, Jr., Little Rock, AR: Navy corpsman Michael Vann Johnson, Jr., was killed Tuesday while tending to a marine wounded in battle in Iraq. He was hit in the head by shrapnel from a grenade and fatally injured, his sister, Janisa Hooks, told the Associated Press in Little Rock, AR, where Johnson was born and raised.

Only 25 years old, Johnson was a hospital corpsman who had been assigned to travel with Camp Pendleton-based marines in Iraq.

``He provided medical care right up to the time he was killed,'' said Doug Sayers, spokesman for the San Diego Naval Medical Center, where Johnson had been stationed.

Johnson had worked at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot since June 2001, helping oversee the health care of thousands of recruits, Sayers said. ``A big hole has been ripped in the soul of the clinic down there,'' Sayers said.

Johnson's mother Jana Norfleet said she had recently received a letter from her son saying that he was going to be all right. She said he wrote that ``God had twisted a guardian angel around him.''

Marine Cpl Brian Matthew Kennedy, Houston, TX: ``He gave his life in an effort to contribute to the freedom of the Iraqi people,'' Mark Kennedy of Houston wrote in a statement about his 25-year-old son, Brian. ``We are so very proud of him and his service to his country.''

But sitting at home, staring at a photograph of his handsome, athletic son in his marine dress uniform, reminiscing about Brian's love of football and lacrosse, patriotism and pride seems overwhelmed by a father's pain. ``We just miss him terribly already,'' the father said. ``He was a wonderful man.''

Sgt Michael V. Lalush, 23, Troutville, VA: Sgt Michael Lalush-- pronounced LAW'-lish--was always busy trying to fix things, said Linda McMillan, a family friend who knew the sergeant from birth. He always had his hands in equipment, tinkering with lawnmowers and cars. As a teenager, he dragged home a pink 1965 Volkswagen Beetle, rebuilt and repainted it, and in no time was driving it around the neighborhood.

Lalush moved to Virginia with his family in 1994 from Sunnyvale, CA, settling in a quiet house on a hilltop overlooking farmland about 20 miles north of Roanoke.

A tall, gangly boy who eventually sprouted several inches above his parents, Lalush was anything but the stereo typically domineering military man, McMillan said. He was quieter, more sensitive, she said. He loved his sister Danielle and depended on his family.

More than anything, Lalush wanted to be a pilot and he wanted to be a marine. After graduating from Lord Botetourt High School, Lalush left for boot camp at Parris Island in South Carolina. He was transferred to Camp Lejeune, NC, and then to Camp Pendleton.

SSgt Donald C. May, Jr. Richmond, VA: SSgt Donald May, Jr., followed both parents into the Marine Corps and, just like his dad, became a tank commander. He disappeared in Iraq nearly a week ago and his mother learned Monday he had been killed.

May and his crew were in the 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, based at the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms,

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would allow private, non-profit medical facilities which service industry-specific clients to be eligible for hazard mitigation and disaster assistance. Under the current law, institutions such as these are limited in their ability to receive the Federal funds needed for both preparedness and response in the case of emergencies.

In particular, I speak today of the Motion Picture & Television, MPTF, Hospital, located in the earthquake-prone San Fernando Valley. Set up more than 80 years ago to provide members of the entertainment industry with vital medical care and social services, the MPTF Hospital is the only institution of its kind in the United States.

With an acute care hospital, six outpatient facilities staffed with primary care physicians, a children's center, retirement facilities, and programs for the elderly, the MPTF Hospital provides comprehensive care for a significant sector of the population of the greater Los Angeles community. It is the only non-profit institution providing industry-specific health and human services to the entertainment industry and to the general public.

This legislation is important because in the aftermath of the Northridge Earthquake of 1994, considered one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, the MPTF Hospital was unable to receive federal assistance to repair structural and equipment damages suffered from the earthquake. Furthermore, that same year, the California Senate enacted legislation requiring all hospitals to be seismically retrofitted by 2010. The costs of both the reparations and structural upgrades are enormous, and the MPTF Hospital cannot receive federal funds because as an institution serving an industry-specific clientele, it does not qualify under the current definition of a ``private, nonprofit facility'' within the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, Stafford Act.

To address this problem, this legislation broadens that definition to include tax-exempt facilities that provide medical services to specific occupational or industry segments of the general public.

Under this change, facilities such as the MPTF Hospital would have the opportunity to apply for federal assistance under the Stafford Act, alongside other private, nonprofit institutions.

There is no up-front cost stemming from this amendment to the Stafford Act. This bill simply puts the MPTF Hospital on equal footing with other critical care facilities when applying for Federal disaster assistance.

This legislation is timely and necessary. Hospitals such as the MPTF deserve an opportunity to apply for Federal funding, and desperately need this financial assistance in order to both meet California's 2010 deadline for seismic retrofitting and respond adequately to future disasters. I call on this body to enact this legislation promptly.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would allow private, non-profit medical facilities which service industry-specific clients to be eligible for hazard mitigation and disaster assistance. Under the current law, institutions such as these are limited in their ability to receive the Federal funds needed for both preparedness and response in the case of emergencies.

In particular, I speak today of the Motion Picture & Television, MPTF, Hospital, located in the earthquake-prone San Fernando Valley. Set up more than 80 years ago to provide members of the entertainment industry with vital medical care and social services, the MPTF Hospital is the only institution of its kind in the United States.

With an acute care hospital, six outpatient facilities staffed with primary care physicians, a children's center, retirement facilities, and programs for the elderly, the MPTF Hospital provides comprehensive care for a significant sector of the population of the greater Los Angeles community. It is the only non-profit institution providing industry-specific health and human services to the entertainment industry and to the general public.

This legislation is important because in the aftermath of the Northridge Earthquake of 1994, considered one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, the MPTF Hospital was unable to receive federal assistance to repair structural and equipment damages suffered from the earthquake. Furthermore, that same year, the California Senate enacted legislation requiring all hospitals to be seismically retrofitted by 2010. The costs of both the reparations and structural upgrades are enormous, and the MPTF Hospital cannot receive federal funds because as an institution serving an industry-specific clientele, it does not qualify under the current definition of a ``private, nonprofit facility'' within the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, Stafford Act.

To address this problem, this legislation broadens that definition to include tax-exempt facilities that provide medical services to specific occupational or industry segments of the general public.

Under this change, facilities such as the MPTF Hospital would have the opportunity to apply for federal assistance under the Stafford Act, alongside other private, nonprofit institutions.

There is no up-front cost stemming from this amendment to the Stafford Act. This bill simply puts the MPTF Hospital on equal footing with other critical care facilities when applying for Federal disaster assistance.

This legislation is timely and necessary. Hospitals such as the MPTF deserve an opportunity to apply for Federal funding, and desperately need this financial assistance in order to both meet California's 2010 deadline for seismic retrofitting and respond adequately to future disasters. I call on this body to enact this legislation promptly.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Privacy Act of 2003.''

This legislation would establish, for the first time, a comprehensive national system of privacy protection.

It would: require companies to gain consumers' written consent prior to selling their most sensitive personal information including personal health information, financial information, Social Security numbers, and drivers' license data; and require companies to provide consumers' notice and an opportunity to refuse to allow their less sensitive personal information to be sold.

Simply put, this legislation would give consumers more control over how their personal information is used.

The personal information of today's consumer is too vulnerable to abuse. With access to sensitive data so widely available--often just at the touch of a keyboard--it is easy to understand why identity theft has become one of the country's fastest growing crimes.

Recent statistics on the growth of identity theft suggest we have no time to waste in protecting personal privacy.

Identity theft is the number one consumer complaint reported to the Federal Trade Commission. American consumers filed approximately 163,000 identity theft complaints with the FTC in 2002. Fully 43 percent of all the complaints the FTC receives are about identity theft.

An estimated 700,000 cases of identity theft occur each year. The average victim spends an average of 175 hours over a two-year period clearing off an average of $17,000 fraud off their credit reports.

My own State, California, has more victims than any other state. The FTC recorded 30,738 identity theft cases last year from California consumers alone.

While modern technology has increased the threat to personal security and privacy, the protections for individual privacy have not kept pace. Our country's privacy laws form an incomplete and inconsistent patchwork.

For example, Americans enjoy the highest level of privacy protection concerning the names of the movies they rent at a video store. But, at the same time, it is perfectly legal to sell another person's Social Security number over the Internet.

The Privacy Act would establish a Federal privacy standard that adjusts the level of privacy protection according to the sensitivity of the information at issue.

The legislation provides the highest level of protection for a person's most sensitive data--personal financial data, health data, driver's license information, and Social Security numbers.

For this sensitive data, the bill gives the individual ultimate control over whether or not his or her information is shared. If an individual does not actively decide to permit sharing of personal data, the data is not disclosed.

Specifically, this legislation tightens the privacy provisions of the Financial Services Modernization Act, commonly known as the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act. Under Gramm-Leach-Bliley, a bank can share a customer's personal information with other companies so long as it gives consumers notice and the right to opt-out of the data sharing.

The problem with opt-out is that most people toss out their privacy notices from banks along with the rest of the unrelenting pile of commercial solicitations they receive. Since the passage of Gramm- Leach-Bliley, banks have sent out over one billion privacy notices.

According to available published information, fewer than 5 percent of bank customers have opted out of sharing their personal information, and for many financial institutions, the response rate has been less than one percent.

It is not surprising that consumers do not respond overwhelmingly to these notices, since, by some estimates, the average American household received a dozen of these notices. A consumer should not have the burden of constantly monitoring how his or her most sensitive personal information is shared with other companies.

Accordingly, the Privacy Act prohibits the sale or disclosure of sensitive personal financial information to third parties unless the consumer affirmatively consents or opts in.

This legislation also toughens Federal financial privacy laws for affiliate sharing and joint marketing. An affiliate is a company that is linked by common ownership with another company. Under Federal law, a bank can share with affiliates or joint marketing partners regardless of whether the consumer wants this information shared.

The Privacy Act of 2003 would require that banks give consumers the option of opting out of the sharing of their personal financial information with the bank's affiliates or joint partners.

Some banks argue that affiliates are just branches of an organization, and a bank should for efficiency purposes be able to share data within the entire organization. In an era where a bank had one or two affiliates, that might be true.

But, now, some companies are so big that if a customer has no control over

affiliate sharing, then the customer is unable to prevent the disclosure of their data to hundreds of companies. For example, in recent testimony before Congress, U.S. PIRG reported that Citibank has 2,761 affiliates, Key Bank had 871 affiliates, and Bank of America has 1,576 affiliates.

Similarly, a customer must be able to restrict a bank's sharing of personal information with its joint venture partners if the customer wants to maintain control over his personal information.

I would also like to describe several other key components of the financial privacy section.

The bill prohibits banks from denying a customer a financial product or financial service just because the customer chooses to not disclose his personal information to third parties, affiliates, or joint venture partners. However, the bill does allow banks to offer incentives to customers to encourage them to permit the sharing of their personal information.

Additionally, the bill permits banks to disclose, but not sell, personal information to third parties for vital public interest purposes such as identifying or locating missing and abducted children, witnesses, criminals and fugitives, parents delinquent in child support payments, organ and bone marrow donors, pension fund beneficiaries, and missing heirs.

Just as with financial data, personal health data deserves the most stringent privacy protections.

The recently adopted Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations set a basic opt-in framework for disclosure of health information. But more can be done to protect patient privacy.

The regulations only prohibit ``covered entities''--namely health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouses--from selling a patient's health information without that patient's prior consent.

Meanwhile, non-covered entities such as business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers are not subject to this opt-in requirement, except through contractual arrangements.

This legislation would preserve the privacy of health information wherever the information is sold. Any business associate, life insurer, school or non-covered entity trying to sell or market protected health information would, like covered entities, have to get the patient's prior consent.

Drivers' license data also is given the strongest level of protection under this bill.

With its recent amendments, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, DPPA, offers some meaningful protections for drivers privacy.

For example, under the DPPA, a State Department of Motor Vehicles must obtain the prior consent, Opt-in, of the driver before ``highly sensitive information''--defined as the driver's photograph, image, Social Security number, medical or disability information--can be disclosed to a third party.

However, loopholes remain. Other sensitive information found on a driver's license deserves equal protection.

The Privacy Act would expand the definition of ``highly sensitive information'' to include a physical copy of a driver's license, the driver identification number, birth date, information on the driver's physical characteristics and any biometric identifiers, such as a fingerprint, that are found on the driver's license.

Thus, this bill would ensure consumers have control over how their motor vehicle records and driver's license data are used.

I would like to take a moment to highlight the Social Security number section of the privacy bill, which reflects over four years of negotiation with Senator Hatch, Senator Gregg, Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, and other Senate colleagues. I have also introduced this section as a stand-alone bill, Senate bill 228.

It is crucial to protect Social Security numbers because the numbers are the key to a person's identity. Many identity theft cases start with the theft of a Social Security number. Once a thief has access to a victim's Social Security number, it is only a short step to acquiring credit cards, driver's licenses, or other crucial identification documents.

Not surprisingly, members of the public have flooded our Federal agencies with pleas for assistance. Reports to the Social Security Administration of Social Security number misuse have increased from 7,868 in 1997 to 73,000 in 2002--an astonishing increase of over 800%.

The Feinstein/Gregg compromise bars the sale or display of Social Security numbers to the public except in a very narrow set of circumstances.

Display or sale is permitted if the Social Security number holder consents or if there are compelling public safety needs.

Government entities will have to redact Social Security numbers from electronic records that are readily available to the public on the Internet.

Moreover, State governments will no longer be permitted to use the Social Security number as the default driver's license number.

The legislation, however, recognizes that some industries rely on Social Security numbers to exchange information between databases and complete identification verification necessary for certain transactions.

Thus, the bill directs the Attorney General to develop regulations allowing for the sale or purchase of Social Security Numbers to facilitate business-to-business and business-to-government transactions so long as businesses put appropriate safeguards in place and do not permit public access to the number.

Recognizing that not all personal information merits the same restrictions, the bill permits businesses to collect and sell nonsensitive personal information, e.g., name, phone number, address, to third parties so long as they give customers notice and the opportunity to opt-out of the sale.

The opt-out standard for non-sensitive information means that if a person fills out a warranty card, signs up for a computer service, or submits an entry for a sweepstakes, the business must notify him before it sells his personal information to other businesses or marketers.

This framework guarantees basic privacy protections for consumers without unduly impacting commerce.

To further minimize the regulatory burden of these privacy rules, the bill sets up a safe harbor so that industries and industry-sponsored seal programs which have already adopted Notice-and-Opt Out information policies, will be exempt from the regulatory requirements of the legislation.

To ensure uniformity of the laws across all 50 states, the bill preempts inconsistent state laws regarding the treatment of non- sensitive information.

A jumbled patchwork of State privacy laws helps neither businesses nor consumers. Consumers will have confused expectations about what information is protected.

Another distinguishing characteristic of the Privacy Act of 2003 is that it protects the privacy of information regardless of the medium through which it is collected.

Other privacy proposals have tried to confine privacy legislation to the Internet.

These proposals unfairly discriminate against high technology users. Put simply, companies and other entities can misuse personal information from off-line sources just as easily as with on-line sources.

For example, telemarketers who besiege consumers with phone calls during the dinner hour do not typically get customer information from the Internet. Much of the identifying information used to make these calls comes from consumers filling out and mailing back warranty and registration cards.

Regardless of how information is collected, it should get equal protection.

This legislation codifies steps Congress can take to protect citizens from identity thieves and other predators of personal information.

It restores to an individual more control over his or her most sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers, health information, and financial information. It also sets reasonable guidelines for businesses that handle our personal information every day.

A byproduct of our information economy--personal information is much more vulnerable to exploitation than ever before.

Every American has a fundamental right to privacy, no matter how fast our technology grows or changes. A

person should be able to have control over how their most sensitive personal information is used.

But our right to privacy only will remain vital, if we take strong action to protect it.

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

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Privacy Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Anti- Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003, comprehensive legislation aimed at preventing and punishing a terrorist attack at or through one of our nation's 361 seaports. I would like to thank Senator Kyl for joining me in sponsoring this bill.

Currently, our seaports are the gaping hole in our nation's defense against terrorism. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, about 13 million containers, twenty-foot equivalent units, came into United States ports in 2002.

However, the U.S. government inspected only about two or three percent of these containers--they rest were simply waved through. In addition, in almost every case, these inspections occurred after the containers arrive in the United States.

The problem is that a single container could contain 60,000 pounds of explosives--10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City--and a single container ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time.

Containers could easily be exploited to detonate a bomb that would destroy a bridge, seaport, or other critical infrastructure, causing mass destruction and killing thousands.

Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb'' could also be installed in a container and shipped to the United States. The odds are that the container would never be inspected.

And, even if the container was inspected, it would be too late. The weapon would already be in the United States--most likely near a major population center.

In addition, any attack on or through a seaport could have devastating economic consequences.

Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 percent of U.S. trade. Every year U.S. ports handle over 800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion.

The West Coast labor disruption last year cost the U.S. economy somewhere $1-2 billion a day--a total of $10-20 billion. A terrorist attack would have an ever graver impact.

The U.S. would likely shut down all major U.S. ports, bringing thousands of factories to a standstill and leaving retailers with bare shelves within days. And this shut down will have a ripple effect around the globe, raising the cost exponentially.

In its December 2002 report, the Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force discussed the implications of a possible terrorist attack at a seaport. Here is what they said:

If an explosive device were loaded in a container and set

off in a port, it would almost automatically raise concern

about the integrity of the 21,000 containers that arrive in

U.S. ports each day and the many thousands more that arrive

by truck and rail across U.S. land borders. A three-to-four-

week closure of U.S. ports would bring the global container

industry to its knees. Megaports such as Rotterdam and

Singapore would have to close their gates to prevent boxes

from piling up on their limited pier space. Trucks, trains,

and barges would be stranded outside the terminals with no

way to unload their boxes. Boxes bound for the United States

would have to be unloaded from their outbound ships. Service

contracts would need to be renegotiated. As the system became

gridlocked, so would much of global commerce.

I am particularly concerned about such an attack because such an enormous proportion of U.S. foreign trade passes through my home state of California.

Last year, 6.2 million imported containers--48 percent--passed through California, 5.7 million just through two ports alone: the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach.

That means that, if terrorists succeeded in putting a weapon of mass destruction into a container undetected, there is about a one in two chance that this weapon would arrive and/or be detonated in Southern California.

And the problem is not just with containers.

Nearly one-quarter of all of California's imported crude oil is offloaded in one area. A suicide attack on a tanker at an offloading facility in this area could leave Southern California without refined fuels within a few days.

There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are seeking to exploit vulnerabilities at our seaports right now.

Indeed, the Al Qaeda training manual specifically mentions seaports as a point of vulnerability in our security.

In addition, we know that Al Qaeda has already tried to attack American interests at and through seaports in the past. Let me mention some examples.

In October 2001, Italian authorities found an Egyptian man suspected of

having ties to Al Qaeda in a container bound for Canada. He had false identifications, maps of airports, a computer, a satellite phone, cameras, and plenty of cash on hand.

In October 2000, Al Qaeda operatives successfully carried out a deadly bombing attack against the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Yemen.

In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Evidence suggests that the explosives the terrorists used were shipped to them by sea. And the investigation of the embassy bombings concluded that Bin Laden has close financial ties to various shipping companies.

We cannot afford to be complacent. Terrorists can be very patient. We cannot forget the successful attack on the World Trade Center on September 11 took place eight years after a relatively unsuccessful attack on the same target.

I introduced legislation in the last Congress to offer a comprehensive solution to the problem of seaport vulnerability. I am pleased that some of its provisions we adopted in some form by recent regulatory changes as well as the Maritime transportation Security Act of 2002 and Trade Act of 2002.

For example, one provision in my bill required shippers to provide manifest information to Customs at least 24 hours before departure from a foreign port. Soon after the bill was introduced, Customs published a draft regulation with the same requirement.

This requirement is now being enforced. However, Customs is still not getting all relevant information from every important party involved in the shipping process.

In addition, I am pleased that, especially in the last six months, Customs has aggressively promoted its Container Security Initiative (CSI). One of the core elements of this initiative involves placing U.S. Customs inspectors at major foreign seaports to pre-screen cargo containers before they were shipped to America.

Most of the biggest ports in the world are now participating in CSI. However, Customs has posted relatively few inspectors overseas and I believe that CSI can and should be expanded further.

The Maritime Transportation Safety Act of 2002 and Trade Act of 2002 also included a number of security measures.

However, in my view, many of these measures do not go nearly far enough, particularly in the areas of criminal penalties, pushing back the border, minimum port and security standards, employee identification cards, research and development, and so on. And even the strongest provisions in these bills are, in some cases, years away from implementation.

The bottom line is that, while we have made some modest improvements in seaport security in the last year, much more remains to be done. And, crucially, much remains to be done right now.

In fact, I believe that our seaports remain almost as vulnerable today as they were before September 11. That is why I am introducing the Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003.

This legislation builds on improvements made to our laws in the last year but goes much further than those changes to ensure the security of our seaports.

The Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003 does three main things:

First, the bill ensure that our criminal laws apply to deter and punish terrorists who choose to strike against our seaports. The bill closes a number of loopholes in our criminal laws to ensure that terrorists are held accountable for any attacks. Let me provide a couple of examples.

If a person blows up an airplane, he commits a crime. However, if he blows up a oil tanker, he does not commit a crime--unless he is doing it to injure the person.

If a person distributes explosives to a non-U.S. national, he commits a crime. But if the same person sows mines in the San Francisco harbor, he does not commit a crime.

Specifically, the bill would: Make it a crime for terrorists to attack a port or a cruise ship or deploy a weapon of mass destruction at or through a seaport. Make it a crime to put devices in U.S. waters that can destroy a ship or cargo or interfere with safe navigation or maritime commerce. Update our federal criminal piracy and privateering laws and increase penalties. Make it a crime to use a dangerous weapon or explosive to try to kill someone on board a passenger vessel. Make it a crime to fail to heave to (that is, to slow or stop) a vessel at the direction of a Coast Guard or other authorized federal law enforcement official seeking to board that vessel or to interfere with boarding by such an officer. Make it a crime to destroy an aid to maritime navigation, such as a buoy or shoal/breakwater light, maintained by the Coast Guard if this would endanger the safe navigation of a vessel. Make it a crime for terrorists or criminals to try to attack U.S. citizens or U.S. marine live by putting poisons in the water off shore. Require the Attorney General to issue regulations making it easier to determine the extent of crime and terrorism at seaports and improve communication between different law enforcement agencies involved at ports.

Second, the bill would help improve physical security at seaports by beefing up standards and ensuring greater coordination. Specific provisions would: Designate the Captain-of-the-Port as the primary authority for seaport security at each port. This would enable all parties involved in business at a port to understand who has final say on all security matters. Require minimum federal security standards for ports. These standards include restrictions on private vehicle access, a prohibition on unauthorized guns and explosives, and unauthorized physical access to terminal areas. They would also mandate that terminal areas at ports have a secure perimeter, monitored or locked access points, sufficient lighting, and son on. Mandate that all Customs inspectors have personal radiation detection pagers. Require all port employees and contractors to have biometric smart identification cards. Require Captains-of-the-Port to keep sensitive information on the port secure and protected. Such information would include, but not be limited to maps, blueprints, and information on the Internet.

Third, the bill would ensure that we devote our limited cargo inspection resources in the most efficient and effective manner. The bill would improve our shipment profiling system by requiring additional information from more relevant parties to the shipping process, and it would substantially improve container security. Specifically, it would establish a comprehensive risk profiling plan for the Customs Service to focus their limited inspection capabilities on high-risk cargo and containers. Under this plan, all relevant parties in the shipment process would provide electronically relevant and timely information to enable Customs to determine which shipments to inspect. Impose steep monetary sanctions for failure to comply with information filing requirements, including filing incorrect information (the current penalty is only up to a few thousand dollars). The Seaport Commission found that about \1/2\ of the information on ship manifests was inaccurate. Push U.S. security scrutiny beyond our nation's borders and improve our ability to monitor and inspect cargo and containers before they arrive near America's shores. If a weapon of mass destruction arrives in a U.S. port, it is too late. Require the use of high security seals on all containers coming into the U.S. Require that each container to be transported through U.S. ports receive a universal transaction number that could be used to track container movement from origin to destination. Require all empty containers destined for U.S. ports to be secured. Authorize pilot programs to develop high-tech seals and sensors, including those that would provide real-time evidence of container tampering to a monitor at a terminal. Require ports to provide space to Customs so that the agency is able to use non-intrusive inspection technology. In many cases, Customs has to keep this technology outside the port and bring it in every day, which prevents some of the best inspection technology (which is not portable) from being used. Require the Department of Homeland Security to take the relative number of imported containers received at each port into account in exercising its discretion in determining the allocation of funds appropriated for seaport security grants.

I believe that the Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003 would make a

significant contribution to protecting America from terrorist attacks at or through our seaports. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.;

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Privacy Act of 2003.''

This legislation would establish, for the first time, a comprehensive national system of privacy protection.

It would: require companies to gain consumers' written consent prior to selling their most sensitive personal information including personal health information, financial information, Social Security numbers, and drivers' license data; and require companies to provide consumers' notice and an opportunity to refuse to allow their less sensitive personal information to be sold.

Simply put, this legislation would give consumers more control over how their personal information is used.

The personal information of today's consumer is too vulnerable to abuse. With access to sensitive data so widely available--often just at the touch of a keyboard--it is easy to understand why identity theft has become one of the country's fastest growing crimes.

Recent statistics on the growth of identity theft suggest we have no time to waste in protecting personal privacy.

Identity theft is the number one consumer complaint reported to the Federal Trade Commission. American consumers filed approximately 163,000 identity theft complaints with the FTC in 2002. Fully 43 percent of all the complaints the FTC receives are about identity theft.

An estimated 700,000 cases of identity theft occur each year. The average victim spends an average of 175 hours over a two-year period clearing off an average of $17,000 fraud off their credit reports.

My own State, California, has more victims than any other state. The FTC recorded 30,738 identity theft cases last year from California consumers alone.

While modern technology has increased the threat to personal security and privacy, the protections for individual privacy have not kept pace. Our country's privacy laws form an incomplete and inconsistent patchwork.

For example, Americans enjoy the highest level of privacy protection concerning the names of the movies they rent at a video store. But, at the same time, it is perfectly legal to sell another person's Social Security number over the Internet.

The Privacy Act would establish a Federal privacy standard that adjusts the level of privacy protection according to the sensitivity of the information at issue.

The legislation provides the highest level of protection for a person's most sensitive data--personal financial data, health data, driver's license information, and Social Security numbers.

For this sensitive data, the bill gives the individual ultimate control over whether or not his or her information is shared. If an individual does not actively decide to permit sharing of personal data, the data is not disclosed.

Specifically, this legislation tightens the privacy provisions of the Financial Services Modernization Act, commonly known as the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act. Under Gramm-Leach-Bliley, a bank can share a customer's personal information with other companies so long as it gives consumers notice and the right to opt-out of the data sharing.

The problem with opt-out is that most people toss out their privacy notices from banks along with the rest of the unrelenting pile of commercial solicitations they receive. Since the passage of Gramm- Leach-Bliley, banks have sent out over one billion privacy notices.

According to available published information, fewer than 5 percent of bank customers have opted out of sharing their personal information, and for many financial institutions, the response rate has been less than one percent.

It is not surprising that consumers do not respond overwhelmingly to these notices, since, by some estimates, the average American household received a dozen of these notices. A consumer should not have the burden of constantly monitoring how his or her most sensitive personal information is shared with other companies.

Accordingly, the Privacy Act prohibits the sale or disclosure of sensitive personal financial information to third parties unless the consumer affirmatively consents or opts in.

This legislation also toughens Federal financial privacy laws for affiliate sharing and joint marketing. An affiliate is a company that is linked by common ownership with another company. Under Federal law, a bank can share with affiliates or joint marketing partners regardless of whether the consumer wants this information shared.

The Privacy Act of 2003 would require that banks give consumers the option of opting out of the sharing of their personal financial information with the bank's affiliates or joint partners.

Some banks argue that affiliates are just branches of an organization, and a bank should for efficiency purposes be able to share data within the entire organization. In an era where a bank had one or two affiliates, that might be true.

But, now, some companies are so big that if a customer has no control over

affiliate sharing, then the customer is unable to prevent the disclosure of their data to hundreds of companies. For example, in recent testimony before Congress, U.S. PIRG reported that Citibank has 2,761 affiliates, Key Bank had 871 affiliates, and Bank of America has 1,576 affiliates.

Similarly, a customer must be able to restrict a bank's sharing of personal information with its joint venture partners if the customer wants to maintain control over his personal information.

I would also like to describe several other key components of the financial privacy section.

The bill prohibits banks from denying a customer a financial product or financial service just because the customer chooses to not disclose his personal information to third parties, affiliates, or joint venture partners. However, the bill does allow banks to offer incentives to customers to encourage them to permit the sharing of their personal information.

Additionally, the bill permits banks to disclose, but not sell, personal information to third parties for vital public interest purposes such as identifying or locating missing and abducted children, witnesses, criminals and fugitives, parents delinquent in child support payments, organ and bone marrow donors, pension fund beneficiaries, and missing heirs.

Just as with financial data, personal health data deserves the most stringent privacy protections.

The recently adopted Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations set a basic opt-in framework for disclosure of health information. But more can be done to protect patient privacy.

The regulations only prohibit ``covered entities''--namely health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouses--from selling a patient's health information without that patient's prior consent.

Meanwhile, non-covered entities such as business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers are not subject to this opt-in requirement, except through contractual arrangements.

This legislation would preserve the privacy of health information wherever the information is sold. Any business associate, life insurer, school or non-covered entity trying to sell or market protected health information would, like covered entities, have to get the patient's prior consent.

Drivers' license data also is given the strongest level of protection under this bill.

With its recent amendments, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, DPPA, offers some meaningful protections for drivers privacy.

For example, under the DPPA, a State Department of Motor Vehicles must obtain the prior consent, Opt-in, of the driver before ``highly sensitive information''--defined as the driver's photograph, image, Social Security number, medical or disability information--can be disclosed to a third party.

However, loopholes remain. Other sensitive information found on a driver's license deserves equal protection.

The Privacy Act would expand the definition of ``highly sensitive information'' to include a physical copy of a driver's license, the driver identification number, birth date, information on the driver's physical characteristics and any biometric identifiers, such as a fingerprint, that are found on the driver's license.

Thus, this bill would ensure consumers have control over how their motor vehicle records and driver's license data are used.

I would like to take a moment to highlight the Social Security number section of the privacy bill, which reflects over four years of negotiation with Senator Hatch, Senator Gregg, Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, and other Senate colleagues. I have also introduced this section as a stand-alone bill, Senate bill 228.

It is crucial to protect Social Security numbers because the numbers are the key to a person's identity. Many identity theft cases start with the theft of a Social Security number. Once a thief has access to a victim's Social Security number, it is only a short step to acquiring credit cards, driver's licenses, or other crucial identification documents.

Not surprisingly, members of the public have flooded our Federal agencies with pleas for assistance. Reports to the Social Security Administration of Social Security number misuse have increased from 7,868 in 1997 to 73,000 in 2002--an astonishing increase of over 800%.

The Feinstein/Gregg compromise bars the sale or display of Social Security numbers to the public except in a very narrow set of circumstances.

Display or sale is permitted if the Social Security number holder consents or if there are compelling public safety needs.

Government entities will have to redact Social Security numbers from electronic records that are readily available to the public on the Internet.

Moreover, State governments will no longer be permitted to use the Social Security number as the default driver's license number.

The legislation, however, recognizes that some industries rely on Social Security numbers to exchange information between databases and complete identification verification necessary for certain transactions.

Thus, the bill directs the Attorney General to develop regulations allowing for the sale or purchase of Social Security Numbers to facilitate business-to-business and business-to-government transactions so long as businesses put appropriate safeguards in place and do not permit public access to the number.

Recognizing that not all personal information merits the same restrictions, the bill permits businesses to collect and sell nonsensitive personal information, e.g., name, phone number, address, to third parties so long as they give customers notice and the opportunity to opt-out of the sale.

The opt-out standard for non-sensitive information means that if a person fills out a warranty card, signs up for a computer service, or submits an entry for a sweepstakes, the business must notify him before it sells his personal information to other businesses or marketers.

This framework guarantees basic privacy protections for consumers without unduly impacting commerce.

To further minimize the regulatory burden of these privacy rules, the bill sets up a safe harbor so that industries and industry-sponsored seal programs which have already adopted Notice-and-Opt Out information policies, will be exempt from the regulatory requirements of the legislation.

To ensure uniformity of the laws across all 50 states, the bill preempts inconsistent state laws regarding the treatment of non- sensitive information.

A jumbled patchwork of State privacy laws helps neither businesses nor consumers. Consumers will have confused expectations about what information is protected.

Another distinguishing characteristic of the Privacy Act of 2003 is that it protects the privacy of information regardless of the medium through which it is collected.

Other privacy proposals have tried to confine privacy legislation to the Internet.

These proposals unfairly discriminate against high technology users. Put simply, companies and other entities can misuse personal information from off-line sources just as easily as with on-line sources.

For example, telemarketers who besiege consumers with phone calls during the dinner hour do not typically get customer information from the Internet. Much of the identifying information used to make these calls comes from consumers filling out and mailing back warranty and registration cards.

Regardless of how information is collected, it should get equal protection.

This legislation codifies steps Congress can take to protect citizens from identity thieves and other predators of personal information.

It restores to an individual more control over his or her most sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers, health information, and financial information. It also sets reasonable guidelines for businesses that handle our personal information every day.

A byproduct of our information economy--personal information is much more vulnerable to exploitation than ever before.

Every American has a fundamental right to privacy, no matter how fast our technology grows or changes. A

person should be able to have control over how their most sensitive personal information is used.

But our right to privacy only will remain vital, if we take strong action to protect it.

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

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Privacy Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Anti- Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003, comprehensive legislation aimed at preventing and punishing a terrorist attack at or through one of our nation's 361 seaports. I would like to thank Senator Kyl for joining me in sponsoring this bill.

Currently, our seaports are the gaping hole in our nation's defense against terrorism. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, about 13 million containers, twenty-foot equivalent units, came into United States ports in 2002.

However, the U.S. government inspected only about two or three percent of these containers--they rest were simply waved through. In addition, in almost every case, these inspections occurred after the containers arrive in the United States.

The problem is that a single container could contain 60,000 pounds of explosives--10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City--and a single container ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time.

Containers could easily be exploited to detonate a bomb that would destroy a bridge, seaport, or other critical infrastructure, causing mass destruction and killing thousands.

Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb'' could also be installed in a container and shipped to the United States. The odds are that the container would never be inspected.

And, even if the container was inspected, it would be too late. The weapon would already be in the United States--most likely near a major population center.

In addition, any attack on or through a seaport could have devastating economic consequences.

Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 percent of U.S. trade. Every year U.S. ports handle over 800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion.

The West Coast labor disruption last year cost the U.S. economy somewhere $1-2 billion a day--a total of $10-20 billion. A terrorist attack would have an ever graver impact.

The U.S. would likely shut down all major U.S. ports, bringing thousands of factories to a standstill and leaving retailers with bare shelves within days. And this shut down will have a ripple effect around the globe, raising the cost exponentially.

In its December 2002 report, the Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force discussed the implications of a possible terrorist attack at a seaport. Here is what they said:

If an explosive device were loaded in a container and set

off in a port, it would almost automatically raise concern

about the integrity of the 21,000 containers that arrive in

U.S. ports each day and the many thousands more that arrive

by truck and rail across U.S. land borders. A three-to-four-

week closure of U.S. ports would bring the global container

industry to its knees. Megaports such as Rotterdam and

Singapore would have to close their gates to prevent boxes

from piling up on their limited pier space. Trucks, trains,

and barges would be stranded outside the terminals with no

way to unload their boxes. Boxes bound for the United States

would have to be unloaded from their outbound ships. Service

contracts would need to be renegotiated. As the system became

gridlocked, so would much of global commerce.

I am particularly concerned about such an attack because such an enormous proportion of U.S. foreign trade passes through my home state of California.

Last year, 6.2 million imported containers--48 percent--passed through California, 5.7 million just through two ports alone: the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach.

That means that, if terrorists succeeded in putting a weapon of mass destruction into a container undetected, there is about a one in two chance that this weapon would arrive and/or be detonated in Southern California.

And the problem is not just with containers.

Nearly one-quarter of all of California's imported crude oil is offloaded in one area. A suicide attack on a tanker at an offloading facility in this area could leave Southern California without refined fuels within a few days.

There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are seeking to exploit vulnerabilities at our seaports right now.

Indeed, the Al Qaeda training manual specifically mentions seaports as a point of vulnerability in our security.

In addition, we know that Al Qaeda has already tried to attack American interests at and through seaports in the past. Let me mention some examples.

In October 2001, Italian authorities found an Egyptian man suspected of

having ties to Al Qaeda in a container bound for Canada. He had false identifications, maps of airports, a computer, a satellite phone, cameras, and plenty of cash on hand.

In October 2000, Al Qaeda operatives successfully carried out a deadly bombing attack against the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Yemen.

In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Evidence suggests that the explosives the terrorists used were shipped to them by sea. And the investigation of the embassy bombings concluded that Bin Laden has close financial ties to various shipping companies.

We cannot afford to be complacent. Terrorists can be very patient. We cannot forget the successful attack on the World Trade Center on September 11 took place eight years after a relatively unsuccessful attack on the same target.

I introduced legislation in the last Congress to offer a comprehensive solution to the problem of seaport vulnerability. I am pleased that some of its provisions we adopted in some form by recent regulatory changes as well as the Maritime transportation Security Act of 2002 and Trade Act of 2002.

For example, one provision in my bill required shippers to provide manifest information to Customs at least 24 hours before departure from a foreign port. Soon after the bill was introduced, Customs published a draft regulation with the same requirement.

This requirement is now being enforced. However, Customs is still not getting all relevant information from every important party involved in the shipping process.

In addition, I am pleased that, especially in the last six months, Customs has aggressively promoted its Container Security Initiative (CSI). One of the core elements of this initiative involves placing U.S. Customs inspectors at major foreign seaports to pre-screen cargo containers before they were shipped to America.

Most of the biggest ports in the world are now participating in CSI. However, Customs has posted relatively few inspectors overseas and I believe that CSI can and should be expanded further.

The Maritime Transportation Safety Act of 2002 and Trade Act of 2002 also included a number of security measures.

However, in my view, many of these measures do not go nearly far enough, particularly in the areas of criminal penalties, pushing back the border, minimum port and security standards, employee identification cards, research and development, and so on. And even the strongest provisions in these bills are, in some cases, years away from implementation.

The bottom line is that, while we have made some modest improvements in seaport security in the last year, much more remains to be done. And, crucially, much remains to be done right now.

In fact, I believe that our seaports remain almost as vulnerable today as they were before September 11. That is why I am introducing the Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003.

This legislation builds on improvements made to our laws in the last year but goes much further than those changes to ensure the security of our seaports.

The Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003 does three main things:

First, the bill ensure that our criminal laws apply to deter and punish terrorists who choose to strike against our seaports. The bill closes a number of loopholes in our criminal laws to ensure that terrorists are held accountable for any attacks. Let me provide a couple of examples.

If a person blows up an airplane, he commits a crime. However, if he blows up a oil tanker, he does not commit a crime--unless he is doing it to injure the person.

If a person distributes explosives to a non-U.S. national, he commits a crime. But if the same person sows mines in the San Francisco harbor, he does not commit a crime.

Specifically, the bill would: Make it a crime for terrorists to attack a port or a cruise ship or deploy a weapon of mass destruction at or through a seaport. Make it a crime to put devices in U.S. waters that can destroy a ship or cargo or interfere with safe navigation or maritime commerce. Update our federal criminal piracy and privateering laws and increase penalties. Make it a crime to use a dangerous weapon or explosive to try to kill someone on board a passenger vessel. Make it a crime to fail to heave to (that is, to slow or stop) a vessel at the direction of a Coast Guard or other authorized federal law enforcement official seeking to board that vessel or to interfere with boarding by such an officer. Make it a crime to destroy an aid to maritime navigation, such as a buoy or shoal/breakwater light, maintained by the Coast Guard if this would endanger the safe navigation of a vessel. Make it a crime for terrorists or criminals to try to attack U.S. citizens or U.S. marine live by putting poisons in the water off shore. Require the Attorney General to issue regulations making it easier to determine the extent of crime and terrorism at seaports and improve communication between different law enforcement agencies involved at ports.

Second, the bill would help improve physical security at seaports by beefing up standards and ensuring greater coordination. Specific provisions would: Designate the Captain-of-the-Port as the primary authority for seaport security at each port. This would enable all parties involved in business at a port to understand who has final say on all security matters. Require minimum federal security standards for ports. These standards include restrictions on private vehicle access, a prohibition on unauthorized guns and explosives, and unauthorized physical access to terminal areas. They would also mandate that terminal areas at ports have a secure perimeter, monitored or locked access points, sufficient lighting, and son on. Mandate that all Customs inspectors have personal radiation detection pagers. Require all port employees and contractors to have biometric smart identification cards. Require Captains-of-the-Port to keep sensitive information on the port secure and protected. Such information would include, but not be limited to maps, blueprints, and information on the Internet.

Third, the bill would ensure that we devote our limited cargo inspection resources in the most efficient and effective manner. The bill would improve our shipment profiling system by requiring additional information from more relevant parties to the shipping process, and it would substantially improve container security. Specifically, it would establish a comprehensive risk profiling plan for the Customs Service to focus their limited inspection capabilities on high-risk cargo and containers. Under this plan, all relevant parties in the shipment process would provide electronically relevant and timely information to enable Customs to determine which shipments to inspect. Impose steep monetary sanctions for failure to comply with information filing requirements, including filing incorrect information (the current penalty is only up to a few thousand dollars). The Seaport Commission found that about \1/2\ of the information on ship manifests was inaccurate. Push U.S. security scrutiny beyond our nation's borders and improve our ability to monitor and inspect cargo and containers before they arrive near America's shores. If a weapon of mass destruction arrives in a U.S. port, it is too late. Require the use of high security seals on all containers coming into the U.S. Require that each container to be transported through U.S. ports receive a universal transaction number that could be used to track container movement from origin to destination. Require all empty containers destined for U.S. ports to be secured. Authorize pilot programs to develop high-tech seals and sensors, including those that would provide real-time evidence of container tampering to a monitor at a terminal. Require ports to provide space to Customs so that the agency is able to use non-intrusive inspection technology. In many cases, Customs has to keep this technology outside the port and bring it in every day, which prevents some of the best inspection technology (which is not portable) from being used. Require the Department of Homeland Security to take the relative number of imported containers received at each port into account in exercising its discretion in determining the allocation of funds appropriated for seaport security grants.

I believe that the Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003 would make a

significant contribution to protecting America from terrorist attacks at or through our seaports. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.;

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the 24 young American men who have died in the conflict in Iraq.

I would like to pay particular tribute, however, to the six men from my home State of California, and to talk briefly about each of them.

To date, the young men of California account for one-fourth of all the Americans that have made the ultimate sacrifice. To date, nearly 120,000 men and women now stationed in the Middle East, many of them in harm's way, are either from California or were stationed there before being deployed.

It is often said that California receives too much from the Federal Government--too much of the appropriations pie. But when you consider our population is 35 million and you remember that, on average, Californians pay more in federal taxes than they receive in Federal programs, this is simply not the case. And Californians are playing a very prominent role in liberating the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

Of the six Californians that have died so far, two were not yet citizens, while one was a direct descendant of the second and sixth Presidents of the United States.

Together, they embody the depth and breadth of America's armed forces men and women from all walks of life, willing to give their lives to defend our freedoms.

The first four I would like to honor--Corporals Jorge Gonzalez, Randal Kent Rosaker, and Jorge Garibay, and SGT Michael Bitz--were killed on March 23, in heavy fighting outside the town of An Nasiriya.

Two were fathers with infant children that they never met, a third a son who followed his father into the military.

Twenty year-old Cpl Jorge Gonzalez was part of the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. He grew up in Rialto, with his parents, Rosa and Mario, and five siblings. He was an avid soccer player, and a graduate of El Monte High School.

His last visit home was at Christmas. There, his younger sister Nancy, who was never affectionate with her brother, hugged and kissed him before he left. ``I knew I had to do that,'' she said.

He also left behind his wife Jazty and their 3-week-old baby boy, Alonso, who he never knew. He had hoped to retire from the Marines in a year and become a policeman.

Before leaving he told his anxious mother,: ``Don't worry, mom. If I die a Marine, I'll die honored.''

Marine Sgt Michael Bitz, a part of the 2nd Assault Amphibious Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, was just 31 years old. He grew up in Port Hueneme.

He loved being a Marine so much, he reenlisted last fall. He loved his wife Janina so much that they had just renewed their vows. When he left for the gulf, they were expecting twins, Caleb and Taylor, who are now a month old. They also have a 2-year-old son, Joshua, and a 7 year- old son, Christian, from an earlier marriage.

In his last phone call to his mother, Donna, Sargeant Bitz was able to tell her that he loved her--and in his last letter he said that he was her warrior. In classic Marine-style, she always called her ``ma'am.''

Cpl Randal Kent Rosacker was also a member of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. He was a rough-and-tumble athlete who loved the outdoors and ever since he was a boy he knew he wanted to follow his father, Rod, into the military.

Cpl Rosacker grew up in San Diego, the son of a Navy man. He played football, baseball and wrestled for the Serra High School Conquistadors. His wrestling coach, Steve Stone, recalled when Randal broke his hand senior year, just before an important game.

``Well, we heard some thudding on the wall in the lockeroom,'' he said. ``We walk in, and Randy had broken off his cast. He said: 'Coach, tape it up. I'm ready to go.'''

His former baseball coach, Chris Herrin, said that Rosacker's teammates could always count on him. ``He was the kind of guy who you would want fighting for your country,'' Herrin said.

His grandmother, Patricia, said her grandson died doing something he loved--serving America. ``He believed in what he was doing,'' she said. He was just 21 years old.

Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Cpl Jorge Garibay played football at Newport Harbor High School, in Costa Mesa. He, too, was just 21 years old.

One of his teachers, Janis Toman, described him as a hard worker who frequently returned to the high school campus in full uniform, to encourage students to do their best.

Ms. Toman received a letter from Cpl Garibay just a few hours before learning of his death, as she packed him a care package. ``He wrote of simple things that we take for granted but make soldiers happy,'' she said. ``Things like moving from a small tent to a bigger one.''

``I want to defend the country I plan to become a citizen of,'' he wrote to her. He also left a tape recording before his deployment for his beloved Uncle Urbano, whom he regarded as a surrogate father.

In the tape he said: ``I'm being called to represent and serve my country. I don't know if I'll return, and I want you to know that I love you and how much I appreciate the support and love you have given me over the years.''

LCpl Jose Gutierrez was the first American killed in combat. He was struck by enemy fire while fighting alongside fellow Marines near the southern Iraqi port city of Umm al Qasr. He was 22 years old.

LCpl Gutierrez arrived in the United States when he was a 16 year old orphan, having left poverty-stricken circumstances in Guatemala City and a country racked by a brutal civil war.

He traveled over 2,000 miles by foot, north through Mexico, in search of a better life here in the United States.

Like so many immigrants, his past was soon eclipsed by his new life as an American. He was taken in by the Mosquera family, of Lomita, CA. Nora and Max Mosquera had begun helping immigrant foster children when their own children had grown.

``He joined the Marines to pay back a little of what he'd gotten from the U.S.,'' Max Mosquera said. ``For him it was a question of honor.''

A tall and quiet young man who enjoyed soccer and chess, Jose learned English quickly and had plans to study architecture.

``He was such a good kid,'' remembered Robert Nobles, a physical education teacher at North High in Torrance, where Corporal Gutierrez graduated in 2000.

I have been told that news of his death has resonated throughout Guatemala. Every major newspaper, radio and TV station carried his story. He has been portrayed as a brave and selfless young man--which he most certainly was.

Navy LT Thomas Mullen Adams grew up in comfort, in the suburb of La Mesa, as a member of a family that traces its roots directly to John Adams, one of America's most important Founding Fathers.

He graduated from Grossmont High School in 1993 and the United States Naval Academy in 1997.

He received flight training in Pensacola, FL, and inherited his love of flying from his father, John, an architect who helped design the aerospace museum in San Diego.

Promoted to lieutenant in the year 2000, Adams won two National Defense Service Medals, three sea service deployment ribbons, and other awards.

``He's one of these amazingly clean-cut, all-American kids,'' his aunt, Elizabeth Hansen, told the San Diego Union Tribune Newspaper. ``He's the kind of kid that if you had a very special daughter, you would hope that she would snag him. He was just amazingly bright, funny, and kind.''

In October 2002, Lieutenant Adams was assigned as an exchange officer with the British Royal Navy's 849th Squadron, now on the aircraft carrier Ark Royal.

An avid soccer fan who had volunteered to go to Japan with the carrier Kitty Hawk in time for the World Cup finals last summer, he joined a local team near his base in Helston, England.

Lieutenant Adams's family said he particularly enjoyed his time with the Royal Navy for two reasons: Every ship had a pub onboard, and he was allowed a weekly 20-minute phone call home. He died with the Royal Navy when the helicopter he was flying collided with another helicopter over the Persian Gulf. He was just 27 years old.

Mr. President, we all wish for a quick resolution of this war to limit casualties, military and civilian, American, allied, and Iraqi. We wish that American and coalition forces will be able to liberate the people of Iraq soon, and that our men and women will be able to return home to their families. Until then, however, they remain in our thoughts and our prayers, along with those who have already fallen.

All Americans owe an enormous, an almost incalculable debt to these young men who were willing to sacrifice their own futures for the future of this country they so dearly loved so that we, as a people, might be safe and free. Their sacrifices must never be forgotten.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, S. 351.

Whether we are at war, as is currently the case, or at peace, members of the armed services should not be treated unfairly by the Tax Code as a result of their decision to serve our county.

Inequities in the Tax Code that disadvantage men and women in uniform not only make it harder for them to support their families and themselves, but also threaten our own security by making it harder for the armed services to recruit talented service men and women.

We have a responsibility to eliminate any disincentives to serving in the United States military, and this bill does much to fulfill that goal.

The two most important provisions in this bill are relaxed rules on the treatment of capital gains on the sale of a home by military personnel, and an above-the-line deduction on travel expenses for members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Anyone who has ever served in the military or grown up in a military family knows that frequent travel is a way of life for those in uniform. A U.S. Marine might spend a year or two at Camp Pendleton, in my home State of California, then transfer to Quantico, and finally end up at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

Under current law, that Marine might not qualify for the home sale capital gains exclusion available to most homeowners, due to his or her frequent postings to different bases, or to combat duty abroad. This bill corrects that inequity, and makes it easier for all military personnel to sell their home tax free.

National Guard and Reserve members would also benefit under the bill from an above-the-line deduction for travel expenses up to $1,500. This puts those who serve on the National Guard and Reserve on equal footing with those who travel on company business and do not pay for those expenses out of after-tax income.

No one who chooses to serve in the Guard or Reserve should have to pay for a plane ticket or hotel room out of their after-tax income in order to join their unit when called up for duty.

This bill also contains a number of smaller, but no less important, provisions designed to ease the tax burden on military personnel, such as the treatment of service academy appointments as scholarships when personnel apply to tuition programs and Coverdell Education Savings Accounts.

I wish we could do more in the Senate to keep our soldiers, pilots, and sailors out of harm's way during the current conflict in Iraq. I wish we could pass a bill that guarantees that each and every one of them returns home safely to their husbands, wives, children, and parents.

We cannot do that. But by passing this bill we can improve their financial security and make it easier for them to continue to serve and to protect our country.

I urge my colleagues to support the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 23.

Although I believe this budget, as amended on the floor of the Senate, is better than the resolution passed by the Budget Committee, it is still fiscally irresponsible, and I cannot support it at this time.

This budget, if passed, would increase the fiscal year 2004 budget deficit by $138 billion above the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, baseline, to $338 billion. This does not include the cost of the war or the reconstruction of Iraq, which is likely to push the budget deficit above $400 billion.

The resolution contains a $350 billion tax cut which we cannot afford, and which would be financed entirely through deficit spending.

The resolution does not adequately address numerous domestic spending priorities, such as education and homeland security.

Despite having been amended to reduce the size of the tax cut from $726 billion to $350 billion, this budget would still add more than $1.3 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years when interest costs are included.

Our budget deficit this year alone is likely to surpass $400 billion, even before the new tax cuts proposed in this budget go into effect. While the administration pushes for new tax cuts, our fiscal situation continues to deteriorate.

Just last night, CBO released a report that indicates that even with no changes in tax law, the Government will take in $30 billion less in 2003, and $60 billion less between 2004 and 2008.

In the same report, CBO estimated that the President's tax cut package would have at most a small stimulative effect on economic growth, and might not increase growth at all.

While the effect this budget will have on the economy is uncertain, we can be certain that it will increase our debt. In fact, net public debt will exceed $5 trillion by the end of the decade, and interest payments on the debt will double over the next 10 years, from $155 billion this year to $310 billion in 2013.

Only at the very end of the 10-year budget period, and under the most optimistic scenario, would we return to surplus.

There is an urgent need to fund many priorities which are not dealt with in this budget, and those needs are not likely to disappear over the next decade.

Those priorities include, among others: The war in Iraq and the subsequent reconstruction of Iraq, the President's No Child Left Behind education initiative, homeland security, and a full prescription drug benefit in Medicare.

Thanks to the success of an amendment offered by Senator Feingold, the budget does include a $100 billion war reserve fund to be used to cover the cost of the war in Iraq. The reserve fund is not paid for, however, and will increase the deficit substantially in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

Moreover, the ultimate costs of the war and postwar reconstruction are still unknown, and could be substantially higher than $100 billion.

With regard to domestic spending, the limits set out in this budget are extremely low. The President's No Child Left Behind initiative would go largely unfunded, and funding for homeland security is not adequate to meet the security needs of cities, towns, and counties across the country.

Many priorities that are important to Californians are either cut or eliminated altogether, most notably funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. If that program is eliminated, the burden of processing and incarcerating criminal aliens will fall entirely on thinly stretched State law enforcement budgets.

I believe that bipartisan cooperation is crucial to the Federal budget process, and such cooperation requires both sides to forgo certain new spending initiatives and new tax cuts.

In an attempt to bridge the gap, I cosponsored a bipartisan amendment offered with Senators Carper, Chafee, Lincoln, and Landrieu.

Unlike the final resolution being voted on today, our substitute budget included significant tax relief for low- and middle-income families that is paid for over a 10-year period by freezing future tax cuts for taxpayers in the two highest income tax brackets.

That budget would have balanced the budget in 2009, 3 years before the underlying resolution.

That budget would have required tough choices with regard to discretionary spending, but it would have been entirely revenue neutral over the 10-year budget period and would not have added any new debt whatsoever.

When faced with the choice between supporting a bad budget and no budget at all, I must choose the latter.

I support a budget which faces our fiscal needs head on, even when an economic downturn forces us to make tough choices, and which resists the temptation to further increase the debt burden on future generations of taxpayers. Mr. President, this is not that budget.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to another American--and another Californian-- killed in the line of duty. His name: LT Thomas Mullen Adams, of La Mesa. He was only 27.

Yesterday, I spoke of LCpl Jose Gutierrez, a young immigrant from Guatemala who was struck down trying to liberate the Iraqi port city of Umm al Qasar. Corporal Gutierrez was an orphan who first settled in a homeless shelter in Hollywood, before being taken in by foster parents.

Lieutenant Adams, on the other hand, grew up in comfort, in the suburbs, as a member of a family that traces its roots directly to John Adams, one of America's most important Founding Fathers.

On the surface, there seems little in common with Corporal Gutierrez and Lieutenant Adams. But together, they embody the depth and breadth of America's Armed Forces--men and women from all walks of life, willing to give their lives to defend our freedoms.

Lieutenant Adams graduated from Grossmont High School in 1993 and the United States Naval Academy in 1997.

He received flight training in Pensacola, FL, and inherited his love of flying from his father, John, an architect who helped design the Aerospace Museum in San Diego.

Promoted to lieutenant in the year 2000, Adams won two National Defense Service Medals, three Sea Service Deployment Ribbons and other awards.

``He's one of these amazingly clean-cut, all-American kids,'' his aunt, Elizabeth Hansen, told the San Diego Union Tribune newspaper. ``He's the kind of kid that if you had a very special daughter, you would hope that she would snag him. He was just amazingly bright, funny and kind.''

In October of 2002, Lieutenant Adams was assigned as an exchange officer with the British Royal Navy's 849 Squadron, now on the aircraft carrier Ark Royal.

An avid soccer fan who had volunteered to go to Japan with the carrier Kitty Hawk in time for the World Cup finals last summer, he joined a local team near his base in Helston, England. Lieutenant Adams' family said that he particularly enjoyed his time with the Royal Navy for two reasons: every ship had a pub on board, and he was allowed a weekly 20-minute phone call home.

``This is an extremely close family, and none of us will ever be the same,'' said his aunt, Elizabeth Hansen. ``All of us just remember him as a fun-loving guy with a wry sense of humor and we can't imagine going forward without him.''

I can only hope that they do go forward. And it is to his family--to his parents, John and Marilyn, and his younger sister, Cari--that I extend my deepest sympathies.

All Americans owe an enormous--an almost incalculable--debt to LT Thomas Mullen Adams, who accepted great risk and was willing to sacrifice his future for the future of the country he so clearly loved, so that we, as a people, might be safe and free. His sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by myself and my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, to restore the international affairs function 150 account to the President's request. I firmly believe that if we are to win the war against terror and decrease global poverty, we must use every tool at our disposal to do so.

At the constituent breakfasts I hold every Thursday in Washington, DC, for visiting Californians, I often ask: ``What percentage of the Federal Budget do you think we spend on foreign aid?'' The answers are fascinating and thought provoking: Some say 10 percent, others offer 15 percent, and even some think 20 percent is the right answer.

My constituents are surprised--even shocked--when I tell them that, in fact, the United States spends less than 1 percent of our budget on foreign aid. That is less than half of what it was just 15 years ago and it is barely 0.1 percent of GDP. The United States spends less than $30 a year for each of its citizens helping those in the developing world, compared with a median per capita of $70 by other industrialized nations.

In fact, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States in recent years ranks next to last among 21 industrialized donor countries in per capita foreign assistance.

Most Americans, however, recognize the benefits of foreign aid and support a robust international assistance package. A survey conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland found that, on average, Americans believe that 14 percent is an appropriate percentage of the Federal budget for foreign aid.

While we are far from that mark, I was pleased that President Bush announced last year before a summit in Monterrey, Mexico, an important new initiative to begin to restore the foreign aid budget to the high water mark of the cold war years and increase foreign assistance spending by $5 billion over the next 3 years

In announcing the program he stated,

The advancement of development is a central commitment of

American foreign policy . . . We work for prosperity and

opportunity because they are right. It's the right thing to

do. We also work for prosperity and opportunity because they

help defeat terror.

I and a bipartisan group of 35 other Senators wrote to President Bush to express our strong support for his initiative and to urge him to make a substantial first commitment to that effort in his fiscal year 2004 budget request.

That request, announced in February, contained $28.5 billion for the international affairs budget, including increased spending for the fight against HIV/AIDS and $1.3 billion for the proposed millennium challenge account.

I was disappointed, then, that the budget resolution passed out of the Budget Committee cut $1.15 billion from the President's request and reduced funding for the millennium challenge account to $300 million. Senator Lugar and I have drafted an amendment to restore the President's request of $28.5 billion.

In fact, I strongly believe that the United States should devote additional funds above the President's request to the international affairs budget. However, under the current fiscal circumstances and in the context of this budget, I understand that meeting the President's request is the best opportunity to make a statement about the importance of increasing foreign assistance.

I understand that the offset used in this amendment--the function 920 account--is not ideal, but we must move forward on our commitment to build a robust international affairs budget, and the Lugar/Feinstein amendment is the best vehicle to do so at this time.

Restoring the President's international affairs budget request is key to protecting our national security and our standing as a leader in the effort to reduce global poverty. The Senate, by accepting this amendment, will rise to the challenge.

As the men and women of our Armed Forces prepare to go into harm's way, we are reminded once again about the serious costs--in financial and human terms--of military conflict and postwar reconstruction. We will be doing our soldiers, sailors, and airmen a grave disservice if we do not make every effort to avoid the need for such conflicts in the future.

Our foreign aid budget, at a dramatically smaller cost and loss of life, can protect our national interests and the safety and security of all Americans.

One of the tragic mistakes of the post-cold-war era was the fact that the United States turned its back on Afghanistan after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We shifted our attention elsewhere, and the Taliban and al-Qaida moved in. The Afghan people, especially women and girls, suffered under a brutal dictatorship and terrorist camps flourished.

We are all aware of the consequences. We spent billions to remove the Taliban from power and it will cost billions more to rebuild Afghanistan. However costly an aid package would have been for the people of Afghanistan at the end of the cold war, it certainly would not have compared with the costs we have met so far.

No one doubts the strength of our Armed Forces. Our service men and women are the best in the world and the military component is key to defeating al-Qaida and other international terrorist organizations. Yet our troops cannot do the job on their own and we will not win the war on terror without making use of all the tools at our disposal to provide safety and security for all Americans.

By fulfilling President Bush's request and increasing the foreign aid budget, we will attack the conditions that foster terrorism in the developing world: poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and illness.

Terrorists prey on the hopelessness, anger, fear, and alienation of the poor and provide an easy way out of the misery of the developing world. Foreign aid by providing education, health care, shelter, and food promotes tolerance, understanding, and political stability.

Such attitudes and conditions are crucial if we are to help build prosperous democracies who will then become important allies and partners in facing a wide range of global challenges in addition to terrorism: Narcotics trafficking, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, aiding refugees, and building market economies. And we can build such allies far cheaper through a robust foreign aid budget than through costly military interventions.

Foreign aid not only protects our national security, it promotes the best of America and American values and sustains our influence in the world. Simply put, it brings out the best of who we are as a people.

Imagine a child in the developing world who attends a school built with American assistance, who studies textbooks purchased with American assistance, and who eats a meal provided by American assistance. How effective will the words of terrorists be on such a child? How prone to anti-Americanism will that child be?

Former German Chancellor Helumt Kohl often spoke of his memories as a child in postwar Germany, receiving soup off of an army truck from an American soldier. This is what foreign aid does: It gives hope to those who have none and shows them that Americans care.

In the days and weeks ahead, we will witness the power of our Armed Forces. By passing this amendment, the Senate will demonstrate the power of American goodwill and our commitment to helping those in need and safeguarding our own interests. This is a significant first step for the United States to reclaim its status as a leader in providing foreign assistance, and I look

forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to build on this initiative.

Mr. President, I urge everyone to vote for this amendment. This would restore the President's number for the Millennium Challenge account. This account is very specific. It is to go for economic assistance and improvements in undeveloped countries. I think all of us know that our budget in this area is surprisingly small. We rank next to last in industrialized countries. As Mr. Lugar has so ably pointed out, the Iraq war should show us the need, indeed, is great.

I hope everyone on this side of the aisle will vote to restore this $1.15 billion and offset it with the account 920.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true hero--to one of the first Americans to have fallen in combat in Iraq and make the ultimate sacrifice. His name: Jose Gutierrez, a lance corporal in the United States Marine Corps. He was just 22 years old.

Corporal Gutierrez arrived in the United States when he was a 16 year old orphan, having left poverty-stricken circumstances in Guatemala City and a country racked by a brutal civil war.

He traveled over 2,000 miles by foot, north through Mexico, in search of a better life here in the United States.

Like so many immigrants, his past was soon eclipsed by his new life as an American. He was taken in by the Mosquera family of Lomita, CA. Nora and Max Mosquera had begun helping immigrant foster children when their own children had grown.

``He joined the Marines to pay back a little of what he'd gotten from the U.S.,'' Max Mosquera said. ``For him it was a question of honor.''

A tall and quiet young man who enjoyed soccer and chess, Jose learned English quickly and had plans to study architecture.

He became an infantry rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment. He enlisted exactly 1 year ago, on March 25, 2002, and arrived at Camp Pendleton, CA, in early September.

Corporal Gutierrez died in battle, around 4 a.m. on Friday. He was struck by enemy fire while fighting alongside fellow marines near the southern Iraqi port city of Umm al Qasr.

``He was such a good kid,'' remembered Robert Nobles, a physical education teacher at North High in Torrance, where Corporal Gutierrez graduated in 2000.

I have been told that news of his death has resonated throughout Guatemala. Every major newspaper, radio and TV station carried his story. He has been portrayed as a brave and selfless young man--which he most certainly was.

I have also heard that it has been difficult to locate his one blood relative, his sister, who still lives in poverty in Guatemala City. The sister is arranging to have his body sent back to Guatemala, whereas a social worker in Los Angeles, Wendy Perlera, an acquaintance of Corporal Gutierrez, wants to bring his body back to L.A.

Wherever Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez is finally laid to rest--in the country of his birth or the country which he was willing to give his life for--he will not be forgotten.

Our thought and our prayers are with his family--with his sister in Guatemala and with the Mosquera family, who provided him with the emotional and financial support to pursue his dreams.

The fact that he died so young--just 22--is tragic. Indeed, the loss of any young life is a tragedy. The fact that he was willing to fight-- and die--for his adopted homeland, has earned him the lasting admiration of Americans everywhere.