Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for an additional 2 minutes from the time of the Senator from West Virginia and then I will conclude.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Byrd. It has been my privilege to work with the Senator on this issue. You have been around far longer than I have been, but I have been around a long time. I have seen Vietnam. I have seen our troops become sitting ducks. I have seen it. It doesn't have to be this way. There are other ways to deal with this. I hope and continue to pray we will have an exit strategy that includes help from the entire civilized world. We know Iraq was a haven for a most brutal tyrant--one of the most brutal in all history, Saddam Hussein. We know that. We know he is essentially gone. That is a plus. But now Iraq has become a haven for the terrorists. It was not supposed to be thus. Doesn't it mean something when the President and his people tell the American people what is going to happen? Doesn't it mean something to say: You know what, we predicted this and this. It didn't happen. We need a new strategy. That is what I was hoping for in this bill. Everything that really was leading toward that got voted down. Senator Byrd's amendments, Senator Kennedy's, others, the ones that were agreed to here have been knocked out, so we do not have the type of reporting requirements that would have shown us progress. Instead, we have a continuation of the status quo. I am very surprised, for example, that the loan turned into a grant. I don't think that is good for taxpayers. I thank you for your patience. I thank my colleague. I pray and hope for a new strategy. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be read and considered.

Mrs. BOXER. It reads: We are writing you today to encourage your swift approval of California Governor Gray Davis' request of a Presidential emergency declaration-- Not just for San Bernardino-- for Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties relative to the high threat of forest fire in these regions. We knew that. The people knew that. We were trying to get help. We said: Due to the drought conditions and the infestation by the bark beetle, our national forests have been met with an unprecedented danger as the bark beetle has attacked over 451,000 acres of trees in these three counties. Because of the unique urbanization in and around the forests, this infestation has created a tinder box of such magnitude that the loss of life and resources would be incomprehensible should fire break out. This is uncanny. Most of the affected trees are on or adjacent to federal lands, making this crisis well beyond the ability of state and local authorities to manage. Therefore, it is critical that the federal government help provide financial assistance for infested tree removal from public and private lands, as well as assist with other mitigation measures. So we didn't just limit it to removal of the bark beetle. We called for other mitigation measures. We said: Now that the State of California has requested a federal emergency disaster declaration, your help at this juncture remains critical and would make a positive impact in those areas of Southern California. We close with this: Mr. President, we appreciate the various burdens being placed upon you-- Because this was at the time we were at war with Iraq-- In these challenging days. However, we urge you to consider this matter as expeditiously as possible since these areas are in need of immediate federal assistance. I say to my colleagues, please, let's not stand up here and point fingers at each other. The fact is, this is a bipartisan group of colleagues begging for help, recognizing the fact that near at-risk communities we have work to do. I am happy this bill is before us today. I am thrilled at that. I thank my friends for helping me protect the health of firefighters and the children and the elderly there, as they did yesterday. All I am saying is: Please, I don't change one word of your brilliant legislation. I don't take a word. I just say, take it up to 70 percent for the communities that live near these at-risk areas. I will close by reading the people who signed this letter. By the way, it is a beautiful representation of California politics, from the most liberal to the most conservative. Signing this letter: Jerry Lewis, Mary Bono, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, David Dreier, Duncan Hunter, Joe Baca, Ken Calvert, Randy Duke Cunningham, Darrell Issa, Bob Filner, and Susan Davis. This isn't the time to have a finger-pointing argument, while I just lost a firefighter because no one declared this a disaster. That was the way it went. Please, let's not do that. Why don't we use this opportunity to come together across party lines, as my colleagues did with the underlying bill, and just realize that this fire says something to us. What it says to us is that these at-risk communities need more attention. I guarantee you, if you support this, and we have a bill that really carries out what President Bush said should be the case--70 percent of the money being used at these communities--we will have made a great leap forward. I hope we won't have a circumstance where we are going: What did you do 7 years ago and 10 years ago and 5 years ago and 4 years ago. I will tell you what I did. I have been saying we have to clear brush around these communities. We have to clear trees, dead and dying trees in these forests. We have to thin. We have to go after the chaparral. We have a lot of work to do. Let's meet somewhere in the middle between those people who want to see more aggressive logging of old-growth trees. I respect your view. I don't attack you. I just don't agree with you. I don't think that is the answer to protecting our communities. The answer is helping us near these at-risk communities. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the 70-percent number was taken out of President Bush's own budget request. This is not an arbitrary figure. It is a figure that was put in his budget. We have put it in the Record. I don't want to talk about 5 years ago. But I will be happy to discuss the forest plans I have supported, because they always dealt with what the problem is, which is making sure we get rid of the brush, we get rid of the infestation, and we don't use this as a way to say the only way to have a healthy forest is to cut down every tree, particularly old growth. Then you don't have any forest. That is not my idea of healthy forests. I don't have to go 5 years to prove where I have been. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this letter, dated April 24, 2003.

Mrs. BOXER. That is all right. That is OK.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, I think that is fairly rude, but I will wait for my time. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, the Senator is talking about me.

Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is talking about my vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. The House bill fails to focus the limited resources for wildfire prevention projects near at-risk communities where these resources are needed the most. We can see the communities right around here. Many are not that populated, but they are communities that would qualify in the underlying bill. In my amendment, more funds would go here. By not focusing its resources near at-risk communities, the House- passed bill keeps homes, businesses, and communities in this wildland/ urban interface area in harm's way. In other words, where the beautiful wildlands meet the suburban-urban communities, that is where we have our problems. This is what we have been talking about. This is what Senator Leahy and I have been talking about and why we know we need more funding. By the way, we have much more funding in that bill. The bill before the Senate is a compromise. It is not enough. It is better, certainly, than where we are, and it is much better than the House bill which actually, to be honest, again, would do absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to help us in this type of circumstance. Now, in the bill before us, that I am amending, we know hazardous fuels reduction projects on non-Federal lands would qualify for the funding. This is important. I thank the authors for that. Additionally, the underlying bill emphasizes the thinning and removal of small- diameter trees for wildfire prevention and seeks to implement standards that protect old-growth trees. Then it says at least 50 percent of the funds should go to these at- risk communities. This is where I am trying to strengthen it and say it ought to be 70 percent. Again, I think this bill is getting better. I was so happy to tell my firefighters we are going to take care of their health. I was happy to tell my communities that the EPA, if this bill becomes law, will monitor the toxins in the air, not the usual pollutants that we follow, but the toxins that are in the air from these fires. So I am happy about that. Again, I hope this amendment will be adopted. I really do not know what the end result will be, but clearly, if you increase the percentage of the funds that you can spend in these communities that are at risk, common sense tells you we will not have the type of fires we are seeing in California today. We cannot waste our resources. We do not have enough resources. In this bill, therefore, the 70 percent ought to be directed here. So we believe there are strong arguments why we need to focus a greater percentage on these high-risk communities. We believe there is precedent setting for this, given the President's request. Mr. President, I am so hopeful we will get agreement on this amendment because, again, it will make this a far better bill. I yield the floor at this time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. Now, if we pass this amendment, we are coming up with a stronger bill because it is just common sense that the real purpose behind this bill should be protection of our people. That is the real purpose. It should not be to make it easier for big loggers to go deep into the forest and take out old-growth trees. I know we protect them in here but not as far as I would want to. The real purpose of this should be to protect our communities. As I said, the House-passed bill certainly did not do that. We will hear a lot of talk from the House side, and I encourage my colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Crapo, and the others to stand strong for the Senate bill because the House bill would do nothing--I say this sincerely--to help us. It would not have helped in our circumstance. I will explain why. The House bill fails to emphasize and prioritize removal of flammable vegetation. This is chaparral. This is not what the House bill deals with. The House bill deals with trees. It also does not allow for projects on non-Federal land where many areas are burning. I don't have the exact stats, but we are looking at maybe 50-50 here on Federal land and non-Federal land. Clearly, if we just have a bill that focuses on Federal land, we are missing a lot of other land and our communities could burn. The bill Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Cochran worked on does not have that prohibition. We need to have a bill that deals with the chaparral, that deals with this vegetation that is going up in smoke, and that does not just deal with the large trees. The Senator from Nevada is here. There is certainly a lot of growth like this in his State, including in Lake Tahoe as well. I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to respond to my friend with great respect because we do not change a thing about your bill, except change the percentage of 50 to 70. We leave you all the flexibility. If a community says they think it is important to go inside the forest to protect a watershed, to protect the supply of water, or there is bark beetle infestation, that is not a problem. The fact is, we just say that the communities ought to have 70 percent of this rather than 50 percent. I say to my friend, who is going to show us pictures here--I don't know if he was present--12 of us, in April, wrote the President about the severe danger. We named three of the four counties that are up in smoke. We begged him to declare a disaster, we begged him. I want you to know who signed that letter: Senator Feinstein and I, Congressman Jerry Lewis, Congresswoman Mary Bono, and the San Diego delegation--Republicans and Democrats. We saw this coming a mile away. The importance of this bill is because we do not know what future Presidents might do. We may have the same trouble in the future, and they just don't pay too much attention to it. We can't get our needs taken care of. This bill is very important, but if we don't take that money and spend it where the people are, then, to me, we have not learned a lesson from these California fires. I thank my colleague very much. I am disappointed we cannot agree. I understand, but I am disappointed. I hope we will have a good vote for expending funds where the people are because that is what we need to do.

Mrs. BOXER. This is a very straightforward amendment. In the underlying bill, 50 percent of the funds are allocated to help communities that are close to areas that are high risk for fire. These are high-risk communities. We have these in our State. We have them up and down the west coast. We have them in the western part of our country. Frankly, we have them in a number of communities. We need to get on top of things before we see this kind of fire. The way to do this is to take as much of the resources as we can and go to these communities--whether they are large or small, it does not matter--and work with them. In April, Governor Gray Davis, our outgoing Governor, declared several counties that are now burning disaster areas because of the bark beetle. We asked the President to please declare an emergency, a disaster, so we could spend what it would take to get rid of those dying trees that sat out there. We knew they were waiting to burn. We predicted--I hate to say this; there were 12 of us in the bipartisan letter, the two California Senators and a bipartisan team from the House--we predicted in almost an eerie way that we would have uncontrollable fires if we did not have this disaster declared. It did not happen. Now we have a chance. A lot of my constituents will not have that chance. But now we will have a future chance to protect communities that are at risk by taking funds in this bill, the majority of them, and putting them toward these communities. I will show a couple of other pictures. The first photo shows what it looks like before the fire engulfs the community. This photo shows what we are dealing with--dreams gone. I have lived in the same house for 38 years in a hillside community. Every time I look at one of these families, I know how I would feel if I lost my home of 38 years with all of my memories--yes, we would move on; we would move ahead, but it is very difficult. Whoever said your home is your castle is right. It does not matter if it is one bedroom or one room or a mansion. It does not matter; your home is your castle. When you are home, this is your domain. This is your place. This is the place for your family. You lose your home, you lose a sense of order. You lose a sense of security. You lose a sense of peace. This is a very hard time for my State. What would this amendment do? I hope it is voted on, and I hope we pass it. It would help protect communities from wildfire by directing 70 percent of the funds for wildfire prevention in the wildland/urban interface; in other words, where the wildland and the urban areas interface, where communities face the greatest risk from wildfire. The amendment happens to be consistent with what the President recommended in his budget for fiscal year 2003. We did not pick this number out of the hat in any way, shape, or form. We actually have precedent for this number. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the USDA Forest Service fiscal year 2003 President's budget.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment to the desk in a moment. Before I do, I wanted to give the Senate an update on what is happening with the fires in California, and pay a very special tribute to a fallen firefighter. As of 3 p.m. today, the fires in California have consumed more than 722,000 acres, or roughly 1,100 square miles. Many of these acres are on public lands. Many are on private lands. More than 2,600 homes have been destroyed, 20 people have been killed, and there are more than 12,000 firefighters battling the flames. These firefighters are very brave. I will show you one of them right now. I rise with a very heavy heart to pay tribute to a fallen California firefighter. It is an honor for me to do this, but it is a very sad moment for me to do this. Steven L. Rucker, a fire apparatus engineer from Novato, CA, was just 38 years old. Novato, CA is nowhere near southern California. Novato, CA is in the northern part of our State, in the San Francisco Bay area. But Steven Rucker and others from his fire department risked their lives and, indeed, Steven gave his life, to help our southern California communities. Steven Rucker comes from my home county, a county where I was a supervisor for 6 years before I went to the House of Representatives, in the early 1980s. He was killed on Wednesday, October 29, at 12:30 p.m., when his unit was overwhelmed by flames as they battled on foot to protect a home threatened by the Cedar Fire in San Diego County. I want to show you a picture of some of the firefighters and what they are up against. Have you ever seen a more telling picture of what these firefighters are up against, standing close to these flames in air that is so polluted it is beyond description? Steve fell. He was nicknamed ``the Ruckster'' by his friends and colleagues. He grew up in Freemont, CA, in the San Francisco Bay Area. He was the youngest of four children. After completing paramedic training in Contra Costa, Mr. Rucker went on to realize his childhood dream of becoming a firefighter in Novato. In his 11 years with the Novato Fire Protection District, Mr. Rucker wore the badge and his honor proudly. His car carried a license plate that read ``Fire Ruck.'' He was known for organizing toy drives and children's events for Christmas and for Easter. Steve Rucker is a true example of why we call firefighters heroes. He bravely and selflessly risked his life time and time again trying to protect the homes of families he didn't even know in a community far from where he lived. Tragically, he has fallen in one of those battles. It is easy to see why we mourn his loss and why his friends and family are so proud of him. I send my sincere condolences to his family, to his wife, and their two young children, the communities of Novato which mourns his loss, and all of the firefighters who had the honor of serving with Mr. Rucker over these years. I know they are devastated by this tremendous loss, and I know the loss is reverberating through the fire lines. I know how hard it is for them to cope with this. In this time of crisis in California, we must carry on, and we will. We always have. People say to me even here in the Senate: Your State always has some kind of crisis, some kind of problem. Why do so many people live there? What draws them there? I always explain that you need to be there to understand the beauty of our State. You need to be there to understand it. You need to be there to understand the incredible diversity of our people. In politics, we reason from one side to the other. Diversity? We have every one. The beauty of our State holds us all together. It has brought us to that State. We will carry on, but we are not going to forget Steve. We are also not going to forget Doug MacDonald. I send my prayers to Fire Captain Doug MacDonald who is a 17-year veteran of that Novato Fire District. Captain MacDonald suffered severe burns and injuries when he went back into the fire to search for his missing colleague, Steve Rucker. Captain MacDonald is in critical condition at the San Diego Burn Center. We pray and pray that he will come home soon. I know his wife and his two children are with him. It says something about Captain MacDonald, and it says something about the Novato Fire Department, that Captain MacDonald, a 17-year veteran, went back and risked his own life to save Steve Rucker. It says a lot about Steve Rucker in that he would inspire people to risk their lives to save him. These firefighters are extraordinary heroes. Yesterday, I was so proud that the Senate overwhelmingly passed my amendment to ensure that those first responders, those firefighters, will receive the best health care available to minimize their injuries when they fight in such natural disasters--fires. I thank the President at this time. He has now declared Riverside County a Federal disaster area. This is now our fifth county, and we have been asking him to do this. We are very glad he has done this because even though we know in Riverside we have had less loss of homes and property, we have homeowners there who will need the help that such a declaration will bring. Before I send my amendment to the desk, I wish to make one more point. We still have fires burning out of control in my State. We still need help, particularly in the San Diego area. We now need, according to Deputy Chief Arta, 26 type I strike teams, we need 48 type III strike teams, we need 2 strike teams of dozers, and we need 15 hand crews at the Cedar Fire in San Diego. For the Paradise Fire--and my understanding is that these fires are about 5 miles apart and the big issue is to stop them from joining. At that Paradise Fire, we need 31 engine strike teams, we need 9 type III strike teams, and we need 33 hand strike crews. I mention this because we still have work to do to wrap our arms around this. We need this help now. We needed it 2 days ago. We have asked everyone who could help us with this--particularly our FEMA Director who is working hard with us to get this equipment--to get these people to help our 12,000 firefighters. I want to look at Steve one more time, our firefighter, our 38-year- old firefighter, from Novato, CA, in Marin County, who traveled miles and miles with his colleagues in that department to help people far away from where he lived. In his name, please send the help to 12,000 firefighters. We need to help them. We need to cut through all of the bureaucracy and all of the excuses. We need to get the help there in San Diego. Look at what is happening. Look at what it looks like. We need help. We are getting a little help from the weather--a little bit of a change, but not enough of a change, in our State. We really do not get the heavy rains in November. In San Diego and Riverside, they do not get that much. We are getting some moist air in from the ocean. That is good. We need more help. We need to be strong, and we need to get this help. We need to see the end date when we will have these fires 100 percent contained. This bill that we are working on today does more than current law to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening. It doesn't do as much as I would like. Senator Leahy wrote a bill which I was proud to co-author that did much more than this bill in front of us. But this bill in front of us is more than current law. It certainly does more than the House bill, which does, in essence, in my view after I have looked at it, hardly anything at all to help these communities--hardly anything at all. We have an opportunity to make this bill even better. Then Senator Bingaman got a couple of amendments through. I thank Senator Wyden for helping get some of these amendments through, Senator Cochran for supporting some of our amendments, and my colleagues on the other side. Amendment No. 2043 (Purpose: To increase the minimum percentage of funds allocated for authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects in the wildland-urban interface)

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this week, as the California wildfires continue to rage, scorching more than 720,000 acres of land, destroying more than 2,600 homes, and taking the lives of at least 20 people, we have learned the costs of not taking the proper steps to protect our vulnerable communities and forests. Last April, I wrote to the President and asked him to declare three of our southern counties disasters areas due to bark beetle infestation. There were 12 of us from both parties who asked for fuels reduction to ease our dangerous situation. Unfortunately, that disaster designation did not happen. In July, I introduced a bill with Senator Leahy, the Forestry and Community Assistance Act, that would have helped protect our forest and communities from wildfires. The bill would have authorized funding for wildfire prevention projects including thinning, cutting of dense underbrush, and prescribed burning. The Leahy-Boxer bill would have authorized $1.25 billion for wildfire prevention projects on National Forest System lands, $1.25 billion for projects on Bureau of Land Management lands, and $2.5 billion for projects on tribal, private and State lands. The bill would have required that 85 percent of the funds be given to wildfire prevention projects within one-half mile of communities that are at risk for wildfire, and projects that are necessary to protect a municipal water supply system. That is the bill I wish we were passing today. We are passing a bill that is far weaker, but it is better than the House bill. It explicitly authorizes projects that protect at-risk communities, watersheds, and lands with insect infestation. The bill also provides that 50 percent of the funds authorized for wildfire prevention projects be used toward at-risk communities. Unfortunately, my amendment to increase this percentage to 70 percent failed. Of particular significance to California, the bill directs the Department of Agriculture to conduct a program encouraging systematic information gathering on insect pests that have caused large-scale damage to forests, including the bark beetle. Also, I am pleased that the Senate passed my amendment requiring the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to monitor the long-term health conditions of firefighters who fought in my area declared a Federal disaster. I am also pleased the Senate passed my amendment requiring that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, monitor the emission of hazardous pollutants in the air in disaster areas. The provision requires that the EPA accomplish this by providing each of its regional offices with a mobile air pollution monitoring network, and publish its findings on EPA's website daily until the danger has subsided. This bill could have been made better if we had passed several amendments that I supported. These included: a Bingaman amendment to allow the Forest Service to borrow funds from the General Treasury for firefighting once its funds have been expended. Currently, once the Forest service depletes its funds, it must borrow from other accounts within the Forest Service's budget to pay for firefighting; the Murray amendment to ensure old growth trees on all lands are protected; the Cantwell amendment to require that in undertaking efforts to prevent wildfires, all possible alternatives be considered; and the Harkin amendment to sunset the legislation after 5 years, allowing Congress to review how well the program is doing. Despite the fact that I wanted a stronger bill, I have decided to support the bill before us, because, while not perfect, it will help make our communities safer.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the memory of a remarkable man, James ``Jack'' Meehan of Santa Cruz, CA, who died on Saturday, October 25, 2003. Throughout his life he compiled an extraordinary record of devotion to his family, his community and our Nation. Jack was an 84-year-old longtime Santa Cruz resident, former Santa Cruz City Planning Commissioner and Santa Cruz Port District Commissioner, pilot, space industry pioneer, community volunteer and beloved husband, father and grandfather. Jack was born and raised in Brooklyn, NY. He married Brenda McGourty in 1942 and she remained his devoted partner for 57 years until her death in 1999. Jack and Brenda had three children: daughter Diana and sons Terry and Tom. He served as an Army air corps pilot in Europe during World War II. After his plane was shot down, Jack's bravery helped him successfully evade capture. We will always be grateful for Jack's heroic service defending our Nation, our freedoms and our way of life. During the 1950s, Jack put his aviation skills to use as a Viking rocket designer and tester in New Mexico. He was a pioneer in this field because the Viking rocket was a precursor to the Vanguard rocket which launched America's first satellite. In 1959, Jack and his family settled in beautiful Santa Cruz. Jack tested satellites at Lockheed Martin in nearby Sunnyvale. He continued to pilot small planes until he gave that up in 1977. But of course, Jack's irrepressible spirit kept him very active, and he began boating in the Monterey Bay. Like everything Jack did, he gave boating his all and joined the Coast Guard Auxiliary, assisting in sea rescues. He also taught weather forecasting and radio communications. In 1981, he was appointed to the Santa Cruz Port Commission, a position to which he was twice re-elected over the next 17 years. He also served as a Santa Cruz City Planning Commissioner. After Jack retired, he was a devoted volunteer for the Santa Cruz County Red Cross. He built HAM radio systems, travelled and practiced his French language skills. Recalls his son Tom, ``Sports cars, TV's, HAM radios and computers were all puzzles to be unwrapped with his tools and insight.'' His daughter Diana commented, ``I most admire that he was brave and loving. He was romantic, tender and funny with my mother. He was a caring father.'' Throughout his life, Jack was constantly helping anyone in need. As one friend and neighbor explained of Jack and Brenda, ``they always served the community.'' Jack had a wonderful sense of humor. Even when he was sick and in the hospital, his caregivers would leave the room smiling because of his joking. ``He had a quick wit that was kind, playful and relentless. He had a distinctive Jack Meehan laugh and you could find him in airports and crowded restaurants by that laugh,'' remembered son Terry. Added son Tom, ``Whenever asked about his favorite time of life, he would always respond `right now, and in the future.' '' James ``Jack'' Meehan is survived by his daughter Diana, sons Terry and Tom and six grandchildren. He was an exceptional man.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. To address this issue, the Global TB Drug Facility, which is part of the Stop TB Partnership at the World Health Organization, is a remarkably successful international mechanism that is effectively providing access to high-quality anti-TB drugs in the world's poor nations. The Global TB Drug Facility procures drugs at low cost through a competitive bidding process, distributes drugs to qualified grantees, and works with Stop TB partners to ensure monitoring and evaluation. In operation just 2 years, the Global TB Drug Facility has reduced the price of anti-TB drugs to just $10 for a full six to eight month course of treatment, and has approved grants to over 40 countries. The Global TB Drug Facility, GDF is so successful that the World Health Organization is using it as a model for providing anti- retroviral drugs and diagnostics in its campaign to reach 3 million people with anti-retrovirals by 2005. Yet, despite its immense effectiveness, the GDF is facing a severe funding crisis. It does not have funding to meet existing commitments next year or to make any new grants for drug purchases. It needs $50 million next year and a minimum of $25 million just to meet existing commitments for 2004. If it does not get its minimum funding, at least 1.8 million TB patients will be put at serious risk and many will die, and we will be interrupting supplies of drugs--creating the perfect conditions to develop a dangerous drug resistant strain of the disease. H.R. 1298, The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, which was passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President, calls for ``substantially increased funding for the Global Tuberculosis Drug Facility.'' The United States provided only $2 million to the GDF in 2002 and just $3 million in 2003. As a crucial part of our global TB effort, the United States should significantly increase our support for the Global TB Drug Facility in 2004. For example, $15 million provided to the TB Drug Facility could provide TB drugs to treat over 1 million people. international narcotics and law enforcement

Mrs. BOXER. I would like to thank the Senator from Vermont for his outstanding leadership on this bill and especially for his leadership on infectious disease issues. As my colleague well knows, tuberculosis is the greatest curable infectious killer on the planet. TB is also the number one killer of people with HIV/AIDS and the biggest killer of young women. We must support the highest possible funding level for global TB programs, especially as we scale up AIDS efforts, and we must ensure that these monies have maximum impact--curing as many people of TB as possible. Ensuring access to drugs is a key component in curing TB.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, Senators McCain and Lieberman, for all their hard work on S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act, and express my full support for this legislation. Unfortunately, this bill did not pass the Senate. This bipartisan legislation would have been a meaningful step in the right direction toward reducing our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions and would have helped address the problem of global warming. There is no question that climate change is one of the most serious environmental challenges facing this nation and the world. We know that climate change is real. The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion supports the idea that climate change is occurring, that it is human- induced, that it will have significant and harmful consequences, and that we need to do something about it. California has a great deal to lose if we do not take steps to halt and reverse climate change. My State enjoys tremendous ecological diversity ranging from our cool and wet redwood forests of the North Coast, to the hot Mojave and Colorado deserts in the southeast, to the vast fertile agricultural stretches in the Central Valley. Climate change is a very real threat to those natural ecosystems. Scientific predictions indicate that human-induced global warming may produce a 3- to 10-degree rise in temperature over the next 97 years. That may not initially sound dramatic. But it would be enough to change the timing and amount of precipitation in my State. This could, for instance, lead to decreased summer stream flows, which would intensify the already significant controversy over the allocation of water for urban, agricultural and environmental needs. Scientists also predict that by the year 2050, California will face higher average temperatures every month of the year in every part of the State. The average temperature in June in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, for instance, could increase by 11 degrees Fahrenheit. The snowpack in the Sierra, which is a vital source of water in the State, is expected to drop by 13 feet and to have melted entirely nearly 2 months earlier than it does now. This means that the precious water on which we now rely for agriculture, drinking water, and other purposes. In light of the threat global warming poses to my State, the Nation, and the world, I believe we must take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Stewardship Act would have required companies in the energy, transportation and manufacturing sectors to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. The bill would have provided tax incentives for the development of energy-efficient technology. The Climate Stewardship Act would have also encouraged the use of environmentally-friendly manufacturing technology. This bill would have provided a reasonable approach to help us achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gases and addressing global warming. I am extremely disappointed that the Senate did not pass this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this goes to the quality of the air. We have learned so much after what happened on 9/11. When we have this type of a fire, if we could look at this smoke here--I have another picture to show. Look at this black smoke just headed right toward these homes. We know there are pollutants we don't really monitor on a daily basis that are getting into people's lungs. I will mention some of these: Benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, asbestos, ethylene, glycol. Those are just a few. The effects of these could be devastating: Premature death, cardiovascular illness, neurological disorder, respiratory problems, and cancer. One atmospheric scientist described it in the L.A. Times this way: When they burn, these homes and businesses are mini toxic waste dumps. This is the quality of the air we are seeing here. In San Diego, every single school has been closed because it is too dangerous for the children to go outside their homes. They are telling the elderly to stay inside with their windows and doors closed. We know the elderly and the children are the most vulnerable to the effects of pollution. I believe we must ensure that the public knows which pollutants they are being exposed to. Today they would not know. My amendment will solve that problem. My amendment will require the EPA to provide each of its regional offices a mobile air pollution monitoring network to go into these areas in the event of a catastrophe and monitor toxic emissions on a continuous and spontaneous basis. The amendment will require this to be done within 6 months. We should begin doing it immediately. We authorized the funding--it isn't much, $8 million--to carry this out. In short, my amendment assures that we will have the ability to monitor emissions of these hazardous air pollutants in the event of a disaster and give the public the information it needs because if they have a child, a sick grandma, someone who has cancer or heart disease, they need to know to keep them in. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment and yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank very much the clerk for reading the amendment. It is a very straightforward amendment. It basically recognizes the fact that our firefighters are our heroes. We certainly learned that. Every American learned that after 9/11. We certainly learned that. Their health has been affected and impacted. We learned we need to do more to monitor their health. Right now, we have 12,000 brave firefighters frantically working with the California Department of Forestry, the U.S. Forest Service, the California Highway Patrol, the Red Cross, and FEMA to contain these fires in terrible conditions. Firefighters are not only from California, but they are from Nevada and Arizona. Other help is on the way from other States. I want to show you a photo of some of the conditions these firefighters are working in at this point. This is the Simi Valley, where you can see the firefighters, how strong they are, and yet how they look so small in front of this unbelievable blaze they are trying to contain. I will show you another picture, another view. This is in San Diego. You can see the incredible black, deadly smoke here. That is filled with toxins and is right over the hill from where they are standing. Many of these firefighters are living in fire camps, spending 24 hours a day in proximity to the smoke from the fires. We know smoke from these fires--because it is coming from homes, and there are cars and businesses--contains heavy concentrations of carcinogens and other toxins. The smoke contains fine particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur, formaldehyde, mercury, and heavy metals and benzene. We also know the accumulation of carbon dioxide can lead to progressive heart problems, to brain dysfunction, and may ultimately lead to coma and death. These are the heroes. These are the heroes. I would hope we would vote 100 to nothing in favor of this amendment. I can't imagine an argument against it. Numerous studies have shown that the higher the particulate matter, the greater the number of emergency room visits and premature deaths. Why do I put it on this bill? Because the purpose of this bill is to reduce the likelihood we will have these kinds of fires. But if we do, we have to recognize it. By the way, even with the bill, we may well have fires in the future. We know health monitoring can identify adverse long-term health consequences caused by prolonged exposure to smoke, leading to early detection and better treatment. Those who are the most in danger are those who are exposed the most; that is, these brave firefighters who are working around the clock to contain the fires. My amendment, again, is quite simple. It directs the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to work with the medical expertise in local areas to monitor the long-term health effects on firefighters who fight fires in disaster areas.