Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Hatch to introduce legislation to reauthorize and improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and to extend the authorization of the Missing Children's Assistance Act. We would extend both laws through 2008. This bill follows in the footsteps of the recently enacted PROTECT Act legislation, and presents another milestone in our efforts to safeguard all of our children.

In the 29 years since it became law, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act has helped some of the most vulnerable children in our country. A Justice Department report released last year estimated that 1.7 million young people either ran away from home or were thrown out of their home in 1999. Other studies have suggested an even higher number. This law and the programs it funds provide a safety net that helps give these young people a chance to build lives for themselves. It is slated to expire at the end of this fiscal year, and Congress should not allow that to happen.

Under the Act, ever State receives a Basic Center grant of at least $100,000 to provide housing and crisis services for runaway and homeless youth and their families. Community-based groups around the country can also apply for funding through the Transitional Living Program, TLP, and the Sexual Abuse Prevention/Street Outreach grant program. TLP grants are used to provide longer-term housing to homeless youth between the ages of 16 and 21, and to help them become self- sufficient. The Outreach grants are used to target youth who have engaged in or are at risk of engaging in high-risk behaviors while living on the street.

In my State, the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth and Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington receive grants under these programs and have provided excellent services both to young people trying to build lives on their own and to those who are struggling on the streets. Reauthorizing this law will allow them to continue their enormously important work.

This bill would improve the TLP by extending the period during which older homeless youth can receive services, to ensure that all homeless youth can take advantage of TLP services at least until they turn 18. It would also amend the grant allocation formula to allow between 45 and 55 percent of funding to be used for TLP services, an increase from the current statutory maximum of 30 percent. In practice, TLP services have proven so critical that the appropriations committees already allocate 45 percent of the fund to TLPs, and this change will bring the authorizing statute in line with reality.

The bill would also make permanent the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to make grants explicitly to help rural areas meet the unique stresses of providing services to runaway and homeless youth. Programs serving runaway and homeless youth have found that those in rural areas are particularly difficult to reach and serve effectively, and this bill recognizes that fact.

In addition, we take steps in this bill to ensure that runaway and homeless youth are aware of the educational opportunities available to them, and to increase coordination between HHS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The improvements proposed in this bill to the Missing Children's Assistance Act build on provisions included in the PROTECT Act legislation that we enacted earlier this year. In that bill, we authorized National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, ``NCMEC'', activities through 2005 and authorized the Center to strengthen its CyberTipline to provide online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in distribution of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. The legislation we introduce today would extend NCMEC through 2008. Now more than ever, it is critical for Congress to give the Center the resources it needs in order to pursue its important work. A missing or abducted child is the worst nightmare of any parent or grandparent, and NCMEC has proved to be an invaluable resource in Federal, State, and local efforts to recover children who have disappeared.

Although this is a very good bill on the whole, I am disappointed that Senator Hatch did not agree to remove a provision that was included in the House bill that prohibits grantees from using any funds provided under this program for needle distribution programs. This is a superfluous provision that simply repeats what is already law. In addition, it is unnecessary because no grantee under this program operates needle exchange programs or has expressed interest in doing so. The inclusion of this needless provision, however, does not change the fact that this is still a good bill.

These programs have received tremendous bipartisan support over the years, and the House has already passed this bill by a vote of 404-14. The Senate should consider this bill as promptly as possible.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to address the growing concern over the future of our Nation's Federal forest lands. The debate over the administration's proposed Healthy Forests Initiative indicates just how important these public lands are and calls for Congress to provide visionary leadership over the future of these lands. My bill, the Forestry and Community Assistance Act, strives to provide that vision through a balance of sound land stewardship and immediate active management to address the wildfire risk to communities and the forest health needs of our Federal and private forest lands.

The catastrophic fires that plague our western national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands are not a new phenomenon. Forest fires are part of the natural landscape. However, the intensity of these fires and the impacts of them on the urban interface due to past management decisions must be appropriately addressed. This a complex issue requiring prudent and deliberate thought, not rash reaction that cuts the public out from the debate over the future of their Federal lands.

The administration claims that over 190 million acres are in need of treatment. By its own admission, treating even a small fraction of these acres will take almost a decade. Most people believe it will be much longer and could cost billions of dollars. Unfortunately, we do not have the time or money to take the broad, unfocused approach the administration proposes in H.R. 1904.

We need to take a step back and work together on a bill that will target funding and projects first to help those communities at greatest risk from wildfires. My bill, the Forest and Community Assistance Act, will expedite fire threat reduction projects on high-risk forest lands nearby communities, private property, and municipal watersheds. It provides new authority for Federal land management agencies to enter into cooperative agreements with local and State government, homeowner associations, and local fire districts to plan and execute thinning projects across ownership boundaries.

It would do all of this without compromising environmental laws, the public input process, or judicial review. The administration, through H.R. 1904, is suggesting that they should be able to get around all of these. They are wrong. Those who we entrust with the management of our public lands should be held to the highest standards of accountability. To end the open dialog with the American public, remove objective oversight, and, when necessary, limit review of decisions by the judiciary is irresponsible. These are the American public's lands, not the lands of a small minority who want to bypass over 30 years of environmental laws and jurisprudence.

The administration continues to argue that these problems have been created by unnecessary analysis, appeals, and lawsuits. It still boggles the imagination that an agency with a $4.84 billion budget, such as the Forest Service, is brought to its knees by thirteen lawsuits as recently noted in a May 2003 General Accounting Office report.

Maybe the devil is in the details, but as a former States attorney and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of my greatest concerns with the House bill, H.R. 1904, is its encroachment into the judicial branch. H.R. 1904 not only interferes with how the courts should manage their dockets, but it further tips the scales of justice in favor of the government. This is not the appropriate role of this Congress or of the executive branch. As noted, by my good colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, in a debate last week on another bill, ``the separation of powers is one of the most distinct advantages of this democracy. It is the longest living government on the face of the Earth today because it is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but it has a Constitution. That Constitution we all swear to uphold and defend. Part of that Constitution is the separation of powers concept.'' H.R. 1904 violates that concept.

The Forestry and Community Assistance Act of 2003 allows for public involvement, requires compliance with environmental laws, and allows for judicial review, while allowing work to be completed in an expedited manner. Further, my bill works towards addressing the health of our Nation's Federal lands by placing an emphasis on addressing the large-scale insect and disease epidemics that are harbingers of an unhealthy forest. The bill would also conserve lands in a healthy forest reserve program to provide protection for species at risk. Lastly, but not of least significance, the Forestry and Community Assistance Act focuses on providing economic and technical assistance to rural communities that depend on this Nation's natural resources for a living.

I hope that my colleagues will take a very close look at H.R. 1904 and recognize that it goes much further than its claims of addressing wildfire. I hope my colleagues will recognize that we need to take a different approach.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Hatch to introduce legislation to reauthorize and improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and to extend the authorization of the Missing Children's Assistance Act. We would extend both laws through 2008. This bill follows in the footsteps of the recently enacted PROTECT Act legislation, and presents another milestone in our efforts to safeguard all of our children.

In the 29 years since it became law, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act has helped some of the most vulnerable children in our country. A Justice Department report released last year estimated that 1.7 million young people either ran away from home or were thrown out of their home in 1999. Other studies have suggested an even higher number. This law and the programs it funds provide a safety net that helps give these young people a chance to build lives for themselves. It is slated to expire at the end of this fiscal year, and Congress should not allow that to happen.

Under the Act, ever State receives a Basic Center grant of at least $100,000 to provide housing and crisis services for runaway and homeless youth and their families. Community-based groups around the country can also apply for funding through the Transitional Living Program, TLP, and the Sexual Abuse Prevention/Street Outreach grant program. TLP grants are used to provide longer-term housing to homeless youth between the ages of 16 and 21, and to help them become self- sufficient. The Outreach grants are used to target youth who have engaged in or are at risk of engaging in high-risk behaviors while living on the street.

In my State, the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth and Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington receive grants under these programs and have provided excellent services both to young people trying to build lives on their own and to those who are struggling on the streets. Reauthorizing this law will allow them to continue their enormously important work.

This bill would improve the TLP by extending the period during which older homeless youth can receive services, to ensure that all homeless youth can take advantage of TLP services at least until they turn 18. It would also amend the grant allocation formula to allow between 45 and 55 percent of funding to be used for TLP services, an increase from the current statutory maximum of 30 percent. In practice, TLP services have proven so critical that the appropriations committees already allocate 45 percent of the fund to TLPs, and this change will bring the authorizing statute in line with reality.

The bill would also make permanent the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to make grants explicitly to help rural areas meet the unique stresses of providing services to runaway and homeless youth. Programs serving runaway and homeless youth have found that those in rural areas are particularly difficult to reach and serve effectively, and this bill recognizes that fact.

In addition, we take steps in this bill to ensure that runaway and homeless youth are aware of the educational opportunities available to them, and to increase coordination between HHS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The improvements proposed in this bill to the Missing Children's Assistance Act build on provisions included in the PROTECT Act legislation that we enacted earlier this year. In that bill, we authorized National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, ``NCMEC'', activities through 2005 and authorized the Center to strengthen its CyberTipline to provide online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in distribution of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. The legislation we introduce today would extend NCMEC through 2008. Now more than ever, it is critical for Congress to give the Center the resources it needs in order to pursue its important work. A missing or abducted child is the worst nightmare of any parent or grandparent, and NCMEC has proved to be an invaluable resource in Federal, State, and local efforts to recover children who have disappeared.

Although this is a very good bill on the whole, I am disappointed that Senator Hatch did not agree to remove a provision that was included in the House bill that prohibits grantees from using any funds provided under this program for needle distribution programs. This is a superfluous provision that simply repeats what is already law. In addition, it is unnecessary because no grantee under this program operates needle exchange programs or has expressed interest in doing so. The inclusion of this needless provision, however, does not change the fact that this is still a good bill.

These programs have received tremendous bipartisan support over the years, and the House has already passed this bill by a vote of 404-14. The Senate should consider this bill as promptly as possible.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to address the growing concern over the future of our Nation's Federal forest lands. The debate over the administration's proposed Healthy Forests Initiative indicates just how important these public lands are and calls for Congress to provide visionary leadership over the future of these lands. My bill, the Forestry and Community Assistance Act, strives to provide that vision through a balance of sound land stewardship and immediate active management to address the wildfire risk to communities and the forest health needs of our Federal and private forest lands.

The catastrophic fires that plague our western national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands are not a new phenomenon. Forest fires are part of the natural landscape. However, the intensity of these fires and the impacts of them on the urban interface due to past management decisions must be appropriately addressed. This a complex issue requiring prudent and deliberate thought, not rash reaction that cuts the public out from the debate over the future of their Federal lands.

The administration claims that over 190 million acres are in need of treatment. By its own admission, treating even a small fraction of these acres will take almost a decade. Most people believe it will be much longer and could cost billions of dollars. Unfortunately, we do not have the time or money to take the broad, unfocused approach the administration proposes in H.R. 1904.

We need to take a step back and work together on a bill that will target funding and projects first to help those communities at greatest risk from wildfires. My bill, the Forest and Community Assistance Act, will expedite fire threat reduction projects on high-risk forest lands nearby communities, private property, and municipal watersheds. It provides new authority for Federal land management agencies to enter into cooperative agreements with local and State government, homeowner associations, and local fire districts to plan and execute thinning projects across ownership boundaries.

It would do all of this without compromising environmental laws, the public input process, or judicial review. The administration, through H.R. 1904, is suggesting that they should be able to get around all of these. They are wrong. Those who we entrust with the management of our public lands should be held to the highest standards of accountability. To end the open dialog with the American public, remove objective oversight, and, when necessary, limit review of decisions by the judiciary is irresponsible. These are the American public's lands, not the lands of a small minority who want to bypass over 30 years of environmental laws and jurisprudence.

The administration continues to argue that these problems have been created by unnecessary analysis, appeals, and lawsuits. It still boggles the imagination that an agency with a $4.84 billion budget, such as the Forest Service, is brought to its knees by thirteen lawsuits as recently noted in a May 2003 General Accounting Office report.

Maybe the devil is in the details, but as a former States attorney and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of my greatest concerns with the House bill, H.R. 1904, is its encroachment into the judicial branch. H.R. 1904 not only interferes with how the courts should manage their dockets, but it further tips the scales of justice in favor of the government. This is not the appropriate role of this Congress or of the executive branch. As noted, by my good colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, in a debate last week on another bill, ``the separation of powers is one of the most distinct advantages of this democracy. It is the longest living government on the face of the Earth today because it is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but it has a Constitution. That Constitution we all swear to uphold and defend. Part of that Constitution is the separation of powers concept.'' H.R. 1904 violates that concept.

The Forestry and Community Assistance Act of 2003 allows for public involvement, requires compliance with environmental laws, and allows for judicial review, while allowing work to be completed in an expedited manner. Further, my bill works towards addressing the health of our Nation's Federal lands by placing an emphasis on addressing the large-scale insect and disease epidemics that are harbingers of an unhealthy forest. The bill would also conserve lands in a healthy forest reserve program to provide protection for species at risk. Lastly, but not of least significance, the Forestry and Community Assistance Act focuses on providing economic and technical assistance to rural communities that depend on this Nation's natural resources for a living.

I hope that my colleagues will take a very close look at H.R. 1904 and recognize that it goes much further than its claims of addressing wildfire. I hope my colleagues will recognize that we need to take a different approach.

Mr. President, shortly before Senator Thurmond retired from the Senate, I included a tribute in the Congressional Record on his long career. As the Senate notes his passing so soon after his retirement, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my earlier remarks from September 24, 2002.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, with my friend the senior Senator from Iowa, the FBI Reform Act of 2003.

This legislation stems from the lessons learned during a series of Judiciary Committee hearings on oversight of the FBI that I chaired beginning in June 2001. The important changes which are being made under the FBI's leadership after the September 11 attacks and the new powers granted the FBI by the USA PATRIOT Act have resulted in FBI reform becoming a pressing matter of national importance.

Since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks later that fall, we have relied on the FBI to detect and prevent acts of catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American people and the institutions of our country. The men and women of the FBI are performing this task with great professionalism at home and abroad. We have all felt safer as a result of the full mobilization of the FBI's dedicated Special Agents, its expert support personnel, and its exceptional technical capabilities. We owe the men and women of the FBI our thanks.

For decades the FBI has been an outstanding law enforcement agency and a vital member of the United States intelligence community. As our hearings and recent events have shown, however, there is room for improvement at the FBI. To fully rise to its current challenges, the FBI must face and understand the mistakes of the past and make the changes needed to ensure that they are not repeated. In meeting the international terrorist challenge, the Congress has an opportunity and obligation to strengthen the institutional fiber of the FBI based on lessons learned from recent problems the Bureau has experienced.

This view is not mine alone. When FBI Director Mueller testified at his confirmation hearings in July 2001, he forthrightly acknowledged ``that the Bureau's remarkable legacy of service and accomplishment has been tarnished by some serious and highly publicized problems in recent years. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the FBI lab, Wen Ho Lee, Robert Hanssen and the McVeigh documents--these familiar names and events remind us all that the FBI is far from perfect and that the next director faces significant management and administrative challenges.'' Since then, the Judiciary Committee has forged a constructive partnership with Director Mueller to get the FBI back on track.

Congress sometimes has followed a hands-off approach about the FBI. But with the FBI's new increased powers, with our increased reliance on the Bureau to prevent terrorism, and with the increased funding provided by the Congress should come increased scrutiny and accountability. Until the Bureau's problems are resolved and new challenges overcome, we should be taking a hands-on approach.

Indeed our hearings and other oversight activities have highlighted tangible steps the Congress should take in an FBI Reform bill as part of this hands-on approach. Among other things, these hearings demonstrated the need to extend whistleblower protection, end the double standard for discipline of senior FBI executives, and enhance the FBI's internal security program to protect against espionage as occurred in the Hanssen case.

Director Mueller once said it is ``critically important'' that he ``hears criticisms of the organization . . . in order to improve the organization.'' I could not agree more. More than ever, the FBI must be open to new ideas, to criticism from within and without, and to facing up to and learning from past mistakes.

During the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act of 2001. Unfortunately, our bipartisan efforts were stymied by an anonymous Republican hold, which prevented the bill from being considered on the floor. While we did eventually succeed in passing three of the bill's important reform provisions as part of the Department of Justice authorization act, other needed reforms were senselessly blocked. These reforms, which remain as important and urgent as ever, are included in the bill we introduce today.

There are five key elements of our bill.

First, it strengthens whistleblower protection for FBI employees and protects them from retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.

Second, it addresses the issue of a double standard for discipline of senior executives by eliminating the disparity in authorized punishments between Senior Executive Service members and other Federal employees.

Third, it establishes an FBI Counterintelligence Polygraph Program for screening personnel in exceptionally sensitive positions with specific safeguards.

Fourth, it establishes an FBI Career Security Program, which would bring the FBI into line with other U.S. intelligence agencies that have strong career security professional cadres whose skills and leadership are dedicated to the protection of agency information, personnel, and facilities.

And fifth, it requires a set of reports that would enable Congress to engage the Executive branch in a constructive dialogue building a more effective FBI for the future.

The FBI Reform Act is designed to strengthen the FBI as an institution that has a unique role as both a law enforcement agency and a member of the intelligence community. As the Judiciary Committee continues its oversight work and more is learned about recent FBI performance, additional reforms may prove necessary. Especially important will be the lessons learned from the attacks of September 11, the anthrax attacks, and implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and other counterterrorism measures.

We need to help the FBI become as effective, as accountable and as agile as the American people need it to be to counter the threat of terrorism on our shores.

Strengthening the FBI cannot be accomplished overnight, but with this legislation, we take an important step into the FBI's future.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, with my friend the senior Senator from Iowa, the FBI Reform Act of 2003.

This legislation stems from the lessons learned during a series of Judiciary Committee hearings on oversight of the FBI that I chaired beginning in June 2001. The important changes which are being made under the FBI's leadership after the September 11 attacks and the new powers granted the FBI by the USA PATRIOT Act have resulted in FBI reform becoming a pressing matter of national importance.

Since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks later that fall, we have relied on the FBI to detect and prevent acts of catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American people and the institutions of our country. The men and women of the FBI are performing this task with great professionalism at home and abroad. We have all felt safer as a result of the full mobilization of the FBI's dedicated Special Agents, its expert support personnel, and its exceptional technical capabilities. We owe the men and women of the FBI our thanks.

For decades the FBI has been an outstanding law enforcement agency and a vital member of the United States intelligence community. As our hearings and recent events have shown, however, there is room for improvement at the FBI. To fully rise to its current challenges, the FBI must face and understand the mistakes of the past and make the changes needed to ensure that they are not repeated. In meeting the international terrorist challenge, the Congress has an opportunity and obligation to strengthen the institutional fiber of the FBI based on lessons learned from recent problems the Bureau has experienced.

This view is not mine alone. When FBI Director Mueller testified at his confirmation hearings in July 2001, he forthrightly acknowledged ``that the Bureau's remarkable legacy of service and accomplishment has been tarnished by some serious and highly publicized problems in recent years. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the FBI lab, Wen Ho Lee, Robert Hanssen and the McVeigh documents--these familiar names and events remind us all that the FBI is far from perfect and that the next director faces significant management and administrative challenges.'' Since then, the Judiciary Committee has forged a constructive partnership with Director Mueller to get the FBI back on track.

Congress sometimes has followed a hands-off approach about the FBI. But with the FBI's new increased powers, with our increased reliance on the Bureau to prevent terrorism, and with the increased funding provided by the Congress should come increased scrutiny and accountability. Until the Bureau's problems are resolved and new challenges overcome, we should be taking a hands-on approach.

Indeed our hearings and other oversight activities have highlighted tangible steps the Congress should take in an FBI Reform bill as part of this hands-on approach. Among other things, these hearings demonstrated the need to extend whistleblower protection, end the double standard for discipline of senior FBI executives, and enhance the FBI's internal security program to protect against espionage as occurred in the Hanssen case.

Director Mueller once said it is ``critically important'' that he ``hears criticisms of the organization . . . in order to improve the organization.'' I could not agree more. More than ever, the FBI must be open to new ideas, to criticism from within and without, and to facing up to and learning from past mistakes.

During the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act of 2001. Unfortunately, our bipartisan efforts were stymied by an anonymous Republican hold, which prevented the bill from being considered on the floor. While we did eventually succeed in passing three of the bill's important reform provisions as part of the Department of Justice authorization act, other needed reforms were senselessly blocked. These reforms, which remain as important and urgent as ever, are included in the bill we introduce today.

There are five key elements of our bill.

First, it strengthens whistleblower protection for FBI employees and protects them from retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.

Second, it addresses the issue of a double standard for discipline of senior executives by eliminating the disparity in authorized punishments between Senior Executive Service members and other Federal employees.

Third, it establishes an FBI Counterintelligence Polygraph Program for screening personnel in exceptionally sensitive positions with specific safeguards.

Fourth, it establishes an FBI Career Security Program, which would bring the FBI into line with other U.S. intelligence agencies that have strong career security professional cadres whose skills and leadership are dedicated to the protection of agency information, personnel, and facilities.

And fifth, it requires a set of reports that would enable Congress to engage the Executive branch in a constructive dialogue building a more effective FBI for the future.

The FBI Reform Act is designed to strengthen the FBI as an institution that has a unique role as both a law enforcement agency and a member of the intelligence community. As the Judiciary Committee continues its oversight work and more is learned about recent FBI performance, additional reforms may prove necessary. Especially important will be the lessons learned from the attacks of September 11, the anthrax attacks, and implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and other counterterrorism measures.

We need to help the FBI become as effective, as accountable and as agile as the American people need it to be to counter the threat of terrorism on our shores.

Strengthening the FBI cannot be accomplished overnight, but with this legislation, we take an important step into the FBI's future.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act that will help bring recognition to New England's largest river ecosystem and help the communities along the river protect and enhance their natural, cultural and recreational resources. I am pleased to add Senators Jeffords and Gregg as original cosponsors of this bill.

For years, our offices and our States have worked together to help communities on both sides of the river develop local partnerships to protect the Connecticut River valley of Vermont and New Hampshire. This valley is a scenic region of historic villages located in a working landscape of farms and forests.

Citizens on both sides of the river know just how special this region is and have worked side by side for years to protect it. The two States came together to create the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, which help coordinate the efforts of towns, watersheds and other local groups to implement the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. This Plan has become the blueprint for how communities along the river can work together, with the States of Vermont and New Hampshire and with the Federal Government to protect the river's resources.

The Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act would help carry out the recommendations of the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan and help communities along the river protect their cultural, natural and recreational resources. This Act would provide the Secretary of Interior with the ability to assist the States of New Hampshire and Vermont with technical and financial aid for the Upper Connecticut River through the Connecticut River Joint Commissions. The people living in the Upper Connecticut Watershed region would be able to learn about the river and be given knowledge on how to protect it. Also, the Act would assist local community efforts to continue cultural heritage outreach and education programs while enriching the recreational activities already active in the Connecticut River Watersheds of Vermont and New Hampshire.

The bill also will require that the Secretary of Interior establish a Connecticut River Grants and Technical Assistance Program to help local community groups develop new projects and build on existing ones to enhance the river basin. Over the next few years, I hope this bill will help bring new recognition to the Connecticut River as one of our Nation's great water resources.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act that will help bring recognition to New England's largest river ecosystem and help the communities along the river protect and enhance their natural, cultural and recreational resources. I am pleased to add Senators Jeffords and Gregg as original cosponsors of this bill.

For years, our offices and our States have worked together to help communities on both sides of the river develop local partnerships to protect the Connecticut River valley of Vermont and New Hampshire. This valley is a scenic region of historic villages located in a working landscape of farms and forests.

Citizens on both sides of the river know just how special this region is and have worked side by side for years to protect it. The two States came together to create the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, which help coordinate the efforts of towns, watersheds and other local groups to implement the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. This Plan has become the blueprint for how communities along the river can work together, with the States of Vermont and New Hampshire and with the Federal Government to protect the river's resources.

The Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act would help carry out the recommendations of the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan and help communities along the river protect their cultural, natural and recreational resources. This Act would provide the Secretary of Interior with the ability to assist the States of New Hampshire and Vermont with technical and financial aid for the Upper Connecticut River through the Connecticut River Joint Commissions. The people living in the Upper Connecticut Watershed region would be able to learn about the river and be given knowledge on how to protect it. Also, the Act would assist local community efforts to continue cultural heritage outreach and education programs while enriching the recreational activities already active in the Connecticut River Watersheds of Vermont and New Hampshire.

The bill also will require that the Secretary of Interior establish a Connecticut River Grants and Technical Assistance Program to help local community groups develop new projects and build on existing ones to enhance the river basin. Over the next few years, I hope this bill will help bring new recognition to the Connecticut River as one of our Nation's great water resources.

Mr. President, I support this amendment of my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

A couple of months ago, at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the President spent a good deal of time talking about the global AIDS crisis, the worst public health threat in human history. I commend him for that, and for going to Africa, which highlighted the devastation caused by AIDS there.

President Bush has shown real leadership on AIDS, although it is important to mention that a bipartisan group in Congress has been pushing for stronger action on AIDS for years.

A short time after the President's Coast Guard Academy speech, we passed the United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act, which authorized $15 billion over 5 years to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. That was consistent with what the President proposed in his State of the Union address back in January. It was an important step. It showed that we are beginning to take the AIDS pandemic seriously.

But that was an authorization bill. It did not appropriate any money. For all intents and purposes, it was like writing the check with out enough money in the bank.

Let me explain. The President's budget request contains only $1.9 billion of the $3 billion we authorized for AIDS for fiscal year 2004. $1.9 billion is a good step, but we should do more. It remains to be seen whether the promise of that authorization bill--a promise with which I agree--will be fulfilled.

The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is the first real test of that.

The United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act also called for up to $1 billion for the Global Fund to fight AIDS and TB and Malaria. Again, a promise. For fiscal year 2004, the President has only budgeted $200 million for the Global Fund, which is one-fifth of the amount authorized. It is also a cut of $150 million from what was appropriated last year.

There is another problem. While the President's fiscal year 2004 budget for Foreign Operations includes approximately $1.3 billion to combat HIV/AIDS, it robs Peter to pay Paul to pay for increases in HIV/ AIDS programs, as the President's budget would cut other essential international health programs from 5 to 63 percent.

Child survival and maternal health programs are cut by 12 percent. These are the programs that provide lifesaving child immunizations. They also help to reduce the 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths each year that could be avoided. Instead, the President's budget cuts these programs by 12 percent.

It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases like measles. Measles kills 1 million children--not 100,000 or 200,000--but 1 million children a year. Again, this is something which is easily preventable. Every one of us can just go to the doctor's office and get our children and grandchildren immunized against measles. In many poor nations, parents and grandparents do not have that luxury. They need our help.

The President's budget cuts funding for programs which combat measles, polio, SARS, ebola and other deadly diseases by 32 percent.

These are not my numbers, these are the administration's numbers. These numbers are in the President's budget.

These cuts will hurt children the most in countries where vaccines costing a few pennies make the difference between life and death. That is not acceptable.

If somebody said to us, look at those five children, you can save their lives by spending a dollar, would we do it? Of course, we would do it.

These are not Democratic or Republican programs. I have been joined time and again by colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support these health programs in both the Senate and the House.

Anyone who knows anything about public health knows that building the health infrastructure in developing countries is essential if you are going to effectively combat AIDS. It is the same thing with child nutrition. It is the same thing with maternal health. You don't fight AIDS in a vacuum. It isn't an either/or proposition. People who are malnourished, who are in poor health, who have weak immune systems, who are at risk of other infections, are far more vulnerable to AIDS. It is common sense.

Mr. President, we hear a lot of speeches here. We may feel good about giving those speeches, but I do not feel

good about lofty rhetoric that bears little resemblance to reality, especially when it deals with a catastrophe like AIDS. The President's budget falls short. The allocation for Foreign Operations falls short. We have to do something.

Senator Byrd's amendment builds on an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman to the State Department Authorization a couple of weeks ago. That amendment, which passed 78-18, called for full funding--$3 billion, for the first year of the President's $15 billion AIDS initiative, even if it means exceeding the budget ceilings. This amendment does not exceed the ceilings.

This amendment would provide full funding of the United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act. It is what we said we would do. Senator Byrd's amendment would do it.

His amendment would provide the additional $750 million we authorized for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. And it would provide $350 million for CDC and NIH programs to combat AIDS. That is what we said we would do when we passed the AIDS authorization bill, and again when we passed the Bingaman amendment.

If we are going to lead, and especially if we are going to ask others to do more, we are going to have to stop playing shell games with the foreign aid budget. We are going to have to start keeping our promises.

Leadership is good policy. Leadership means resources. Leadership is not a press release.

Let's stop the rhetoric. Let's do what needs to be done to stop the 15,000 new HIV infections that occur each day. Then the United States can show the promise and the moral leadership a great Nation should show.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Reserving the right to object, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska is referring to the district court judge; is that correct?

Reserving the right to object, the district judge is strongly supported by both the Senators, Democrat and Republican Senators, of the nominee's State. After appropriate consultation, we have no objection to a voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this nominee.

Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm the first new judge to the Fourth Circuit from North Carolina in 23 years as well as a nominee to the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. I want to thank Senator Edwards for his efforts to resolve the impasse that has stalled so many nominees from North Carolina. Part of his reward will be the service that Judge Allyson Duncan will soon be providing to the people of North Carolina as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. When Senator Edwards obtained a hearing for Judge Duncan last month, her nomination had already progressed further than the Republican majority had allowed the nominations of Judge James Beaty, Judge James Wynn, and Judge Rich Leonard to proceed when they were nominated to the Fourth Circuit by President Clinton from 1995 through 2001. This confirmation means that North Carolina once again is represented on the Fourth Circuit.

In addition, Judge Duncan will be the first African-American woman to serve on the Fourth Circuit, a circuit that did not have an African- American judge until President Clinton appointed Roger Gregory 2\1/2\ years ago.

A good way to see how much faster we are proceeding on judicial nominations for a Republican President is to compare where we are in July of this year to July of any year during the last Democratic administration when the Republicans controlled the Senate. Over the last 6\1/2\ years of Republican control under President Clinton, the Republicans allowed only 19 judicial confirmations, on average, by July 16, and included only 4 circuit court nominees, on average, by this time. We have now doubled the number of judicial confirmations and more than doubled the number of circuit court confirmations.

On this day, in 1995, only 27 judicial nominations had been confirmed; in 1996, only 10; in 1997, only 6; in 1998 the confirmations totaled 33; in 1999, only 9; and in 2000 the confirmation total by this point of the year was 29. Today, we confirm the 37th and 38th judges so far this year. We have already confirmed more judges in only the seventh month of this year than the Republican majority was willing to confirm in all of 1999, in all of 1997, and more than twice as many as the Republican majority was willing to consider during the entire 1996 session. Vacancies in the courts stand at less than half of what they were during the Clinton years and we have more Federal judges serving than ever before.

Today, we confirm the 10th judge to the Courts of Appeals. This is more than were confirmed in all of 4 of the past 6 years when the Republicans were in the majority--in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. And in the 2 other years, the Tenth Circuit nominee was not confirmed until much later in the year.

As I have noted throughout the last 3 years, the Senate is able to move expeditiously when we have consensus nominees. I am delighted that these North Carolina nominees have the support of Senator Edwards and Senator Dole and that we have been able to move forward so expeditiously to confirm them. Unfortunately, far too many of this President's nominees have records that raise serious concerns about whether they will be fair judges to all parties on all issues.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. President, I have an inquiry. How much time is available on this side?

Mr. President, while both the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Kentucky are on the floor, I want to take a minute to praise them for their outstanding statements. I strongly support the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act that Senator McConnell, Senator Feinstein, and others have introduced and sheparded through the Senate earlier this year.

I have lost count of the number of times my good friend from Kentucky has come to the Chamber to send an important message to the very brutal and very corrupt regime in Burma. Senator McConnell's message has been: Your conduct is outrageous. It should not be allowed to stand. Aung San Suu Kyi is the democratically elected leader of Burma, and she and her fellow opposition leaders must be immediately released.

The Senator from Kentucky and those who join with him are absolutely right. Our country, the greatest democracy history has ever known, must stand for democratic principles around the world. This legislation helps the United States do just that.

Since the McConnell-Feinstein legislation was introduced--and passed by the Senate 93 to 1, something we do not see too often around here-- it has helped send a clear signal to the administration, ASEAN members, and the international community that we need to increase the pressure on the illegitimate regime in Burma.

We have seen some good first steps taken by the State Department, including a ban on remittances, expansion of visa restrictions, and a strong statement by Deputy Secretary Armitage on Friday.

But, U.S. action can only go so far. There has to be active pressure from Burma's neighbors in Southeast Asia. I single out Thailand, Japan, and China. These nations have to disavow what we all know has been a failed policy of engagement.

In many cases, engagement can be a good thing. In many cases, engagement can help resolve difficult international issues. This is not one of those times.

Mr. President, I am glad to see some postive developments have occured on this issue in Asia. The ASEAN nations have taken the unprecedented step of expressing concern with the situation in Burma. The Japanese have suspended some forms of aid to the regime.

But that is not enough. Other leaders in the region have to make unequivocal statements saying what we in the United States Senate are saying: Aung San Suu Kyi is the democratically elected leader of Burma and the military junta has to release her and her followers.

The world needs to do more. The U.N. has to become more involved. The Security Council should be briefed by U.N. Special Envoy Razali Ismail on the situation in Burma and Security Council action should be seriously considered.

My purpose in speaking, obviously, is to support this legislation. However, I wanted to take a moment to praise the deep and personal effort by the Senator from Kentucky on Burma. He has shown courage, but, perhaps more importantly, he has demonstrated tremendous persistence in keeping our attention focused on Burma. Sometimes we forget some of what we say is heard and has an impact in other parts of the world. In some cases, it may not be make it back to our own States, but it is heard in the parts of the world where is makes a big difference. This is one of those times.

I will do the same. Should we ask for the yeas and nays?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time of the quorum call not be charged either to the Republican or Democratic side.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, has an amendment which would require the Department of Defense to share with the relevant congressional committees information about those who are being held as enemy combatants. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment.

The amendment safeguards any national security concerns by authorizing the Secretary of Defense to provide this information in classified form where national security requires it. It is a cautious amendment. It does not force the administration to change the way it designates or treats enemy combatants, but merely secures the ability of Congress to carry out the oversight that our laws, our Constitution, our traditions, and our practice require us to do.

Although the cases involving enemy combatants detained within the U.S. have been well publicized, we know very little about those who are being detained in Guantanamo Bay. Because they are held outside U.S. territory, the courts have found they do not have the power to review their detention. I do not doubt some of these detainees are dangerous individuals who wish the United States harm, but doubts have been raised on behalf of some of these detainees, and I think the Congress should have the information necessary to make judgments about this situation.

I hope this amendment will be adopted. It will make the Department of Defense to make decisions more quickly as to whether to charge many of the individuals it is currently holding. No one advocates haste that will compromise ongoing intelligence gathering or hurt our national security, but at the same time, the United States cannot be in the position of indefinitely detaining individuals without charging them with any wrongdoing. That is inconsistent with United States traditions and will continue to cause us difficulty in our relations with the nations of citizens who are being held, ranging from Pakistan to Great Britain. It also puts us in a difficult situation when we tell other countries not to do what we are doing.

Indeed, according to the New York Times, the President's decision to certify two British nationals for trial before a military tribunal created friction between our two nations, as Prime Minister Blair arrives to address a joint meeting of Congress tomorrow.

Let me be clear, this amendment does not require any enemy combatant to be charged, let alone released, but it does ask the Secretary of Defense to explain where the investigatory process stands in the case of each detainee.

Finally, I hope this amendment will encourage the administration to make decisions about what charges he intends to bring, if any, against Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, U.S. citizens currently being held indefinitely without charge in the United States. Their detentions have raised grave legal questions, and it is deeply discomforting to see in this case American citizens held indefinitely, in a legal twilight zone, without access to counsel or those protections to which we believe U.S. citizens are generally entitled, and also those protections that we preach to the rest of the world we uphold and we ask them to uphold when one of our citizens is being detained in their country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Daschle- Graham amendment. This amendment expresses the strong sense of Congress that members of the Guard and Reserve should be made eligible for the TRICARE health insurance program.

I am the co-chair of the Senate's National Guard Caucus, and I have watched closely as over 200,000 members of the Guard and the Reserves have been called to duty for the war in Iraq. Our reservists have distinguished themselves in every respect, underscoring that our Nation's defense rests--as it has been since our founding--on our citizen soldiers.

We have a responsibility to ensure that this force is as effective as possible. Yet a recent GAO report indicated that almost 20 percent of our reserves do not have access to adequate health insurance. This means that we are deploying men and women to fight when they are not as healthy as possible.

This resolution makes the strong statement in support of a cost-share program that ensures that reservists and their families have coverage. It puts the body's weight behind the strong report language in this bill and follows on the Senate's 85 to 10 vote during our consideration of the Defense authorization bill in favor of this innovative cost- share program.

The defense conferees are currently reviewing this provision, based on legislation I crafted along with Senators DeWine, Daschle, and Smith, and a strong vote today would send a signal that a final bill should include health insurance eligibility.

I urge all my colleagues to vote again to support this effort.

Amendment No. 1271

(Purpose: To require reports on U.S. Operations in Iraq)

Mr. President, this nomination from Washington State has the support of the Democratic Senators from that State. Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell have both worked hard to establish a bipartisan process for making recommendations to the President for Federal judicial vacancies in their State. They are to be commended for their work. They support the nomination of Lonny R. Suko, whose nomination is a product of Washington's bipartisan selection commission.

With this confirmation today, the third so far this week, the Senate will have confirmed 136 judicial nominees of this President. These include 36 confirmed just this year. That number equals the number of judges confirmed during all of 1997, exceeds the 34 judges confirmed in all of 1999, and is more than double the number of judges confirmed in the entire 1996 session. Thus, we are well ahead of the pace that the Republican majority used to maintain when reviewing President Clinton's nominees.

We have reduced judicial vacancies to the lowest number in 13 years and currently have more Federal judges on the bench than at any time in our history.

Working with home State Senators from both parties helps make the confirmation process proceed more smoothly as we have demonstrated over and over and demonstrated again today.

I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today

Mr. President, I would like to take this chance to thank

Chairman Stevens for his leadership in funding the Army Peer-Reviewed

Breast Cancer Research Program at $150 million in this bill. I would

also like to take a moment to enter into a colloquy with the

distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee about the report

language in the committee report on cost-sharing in such medical

research. Mr. Chairman, when I read this report language, it seems

clear that the intent of the language is to determine if there is some

way to contain medical research costs within the defense budget.

We all know that the Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research

Program, BCRP, has proven to be efficient and highly effective, and the

committee has supported its efforts strongly. The flexibility of this

program allows the Army to administer it in such a way as to maximize

its limited resources. The BCRP is able to quickly respond to current

scientific advances, and is able to fill gaps by focusing on research

that is traditionally underfunded. It is also responsive, not just to

the scientific community, but also to the public.

I thank the chairman. I would also like to clarify the

language in this provision about the agencies to perform the study. Am

I right in reading the word ``consultation,'' in reference to the

offices, institutes, and bureaus performing the study, to mean a

continual process of discussion and collaboration? Consultation almost

always involves more than simple briefings, but a consistent, mutual

back-and-forth designed to ensure the objectivity, soundness, and

fairness of a research process.

I personally hope that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health

Affairs will go even beyond that notion and rely heavily on the

expertise of the Institute of Medicine, which has reviewed programs

like the Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Programs on several

occasions.

I thank my good friend from Alaska for his support of

programs like the Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program.

Recently one of the staunch advocates of this program in my home State

of Vermont, Patt Barr, passed away. One of my lasting memories of Pat

is seeing her standing in the hallway here in the Capitol, well past

midnight, patiently explaining to individual Senators why the

Department of Defense should include funds for breast cancer research

in its medical budget. Mr. Chairman, your support and spirit has keep

her legacy living on.

laser peening