Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER. I left that out in the list of items that have gone wrong. A $7 trillion surplus disappeared, and we have deficits as far as the eye can see. The last deficit I remember under George Bush 1 was headed to $300 billion. As I remember, it was up to $290 billion. We all pulled together and said this is an outrage. We worked hard under Bill Clinton for 8 years and got that down to a surplus which was healthy for our economy, and we had the biggest economic boom in years. It has all been squandered. World opinion has been squandered. The surplus has been squandered.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. My friend is right. As a matter of fact, the Commerce Committee is holding a hearing to address this problem of people dialing 911 from a cell phone. We have had people who are in the midst of being a victim of a crime dialing 911 and the law enforcement did not know where it was from. It is a crucial matter that has to be resolved. What is amazing is this administration has money to give tax breaks to people at the top. The people who earn over a million dollars a year are going to get back, oh, gosh, an average of about $80,000 a year just from the dividend tax break alone, not to mention an income tax break. They have the money for that, but they do not have the money to help our homeland defense. They have money to give to Turkey--they are talking turkey with Turkey--that is for sure. Reports of an aid package for Turkey started off as a few billion, then it was $6, then $10, then $16. Now I hear it is $26 billion. I think it was Senator Dorgan or Senator Durbin who said maybe our States should change their name to Turkey and they will do better than they are doing now. My friend is right. I have to use a sense of humor because you get upset about these things and you cannot keep being outraged.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield before I close.

Mrs. BOXER. I am absolutely aware of this. I say to my friend, I went through the litany at the beginning of my talk about how other nominees have answered a multitude of questions, and as a matter of fact some have sent previously confidential opinions that they have written. All the other side has to do is say to Mr. Estrada, answer the questions, and then there can be a vote. When my friend raises the environment, I will take a minute to say that we finally got a report that has been languishing in the administration since June. Surprise, surprise, it was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, and after it was leaked, then the administration released it. It has some horrific statistics about what is happening to young people and women of childbearing age in terms of ingestion of mercury through mercury-tainted fish, and the fact that mercury is now emerging as a leading cause of neurological damage and I predict will become an issue in this Senate just the way lead was an issue in other Senates. We finally got this report. We begged for it and then got it. My friend is right: What could be more important than getting this economy going than protecting the health of our children by bringing that report up for debate and open for discussion? Senator Jeffords has a great plan, the Clean Power Act, that will take that mercury out of the air, that will save these children from getting neurological damage. Let's debate it. Let's debate Senator Daschle's plan, his economic stimulus plan, that gives the stimulus to the working people, versus the Bush plan that gives it to the people who do not even have to work because they live off their dividends. I would like to see that debate. If Miguel Estrada really wants this job, he will do what Margaret Morrow did, he will do what Judge Paez did, he will do what Marsha Berzon did, and answer the questions. There were 4 years of questions to Judge Paez. He answered them all. We had to break their filibuster, I say to my friend, and we did. Senator Smith at the time was proud to launch the filibuster. Senator Bob Smith said--and I read it into the Record--this is a filibuster launched because we need to get questions answered, and it is the right thing to do.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Correct.

Mrs. BOXER. I did. I said it. I said there was precedent, and I read off the five cases where previously confidential memos were released. I named the gentlemen--they happened to be all men--who were willing to release it in order to get a vote on their confirmation. So there is adequate precedent for that. There is adequate precedent for answering the questions, and if the Senate has any respect for our work and for the Constitution of the United States, which we have been sworn to uphold, then we will not roll over when any President, this one or any future President, sends a nominee down who cannot even tell if there is one Supreme Court case, in all the hundreds of years, that he disagrees with, cannot even name what jurist he would most emulate. It is beyond the pale, the questions Mr. Estrada refused to answer, because clearly he has been told and trained not to answer any questions. I was proud to come to this Chamber, after my diligent staff went back through the Record and got the quotes of Bob Smith who helped lead the filibuster, who got the quotes of Senator Sessions who then said we should have, after we broke the filibuster, yet another vote to indefinitely delay a vote. It is extraordinary what has happened. In the Record tonight, for all who will read, we have the quotes of Senator Hatch, who called what happened to Paez a filibuster, who called what Senator Sessions tried to do unprecedented. We have the quotes of Senator Smith who said: All I am doing is asking questions to get answers, and now let the people decide. They are going to run some kind of ads in my State saying: Barbara Boxer, shame; she does not like Hispanic nominees. Do you want to know something? To say that is like saying I do not support women's rights and there is going to be a backlash on that. I am the person who recommended the first Mexican-American to sit on a district court in Los Angeles, the person who stood on her feet day after day trying to get Richard Paez his seat. They can do all they want because I think the American people understand we are standing on a principle. If I were the only one on my feet, I would stay on my feet because I think it is wrong to stonewall the Senate and members of the Judiciary Committee who in good will have approved, by the way, an enormous number of judges--and who were just simply saying: Answer the questions; give us the memos; we do not know who you are; we want to have a record; we want to make an informed decision. This is the right thing to do. I dare say to my constituents--and I did when I was home; I said: You may be hearing about this, but I want you to know that you sent me here not to be part of the wallpaper behind me--that is pretty easy--not to go along to get along, but to stand up and do my job as a Senator, and that is not to vote on a judicial nominee who has refused to hand over documents, who has refused to answer questions, who has absolutely no record on which to judge what he is going to do. Once we have that information, I am happy to have a vote and let the chips fall where they may. Iraq On Iraq, I make a rhetorical plea to the administration: You had the whole world in your hand on 9/12; you don't have it in your hand now. Let's get back to being a true leader. Lay out a path for peace. That is an American value, to lay out a path for peace. Lay out a path for peace, not just the path for war. Get this man disarmed, Saddam Hussein, in a way that does not lead to the loss of life and blood of our people and innocent people. And if we do that, we will be back to where we were on 9/12. If we pay attention to other problems in the world, we will be back to where we were on 9/ 12. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse building now under construction at Tulare and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.'' It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and persistence which contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse in Fresno for more than a decade. In the course of his work, Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well received by national court administrators that is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle. In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the community with whom he worked, produced a major milestone when the groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place. Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge Coyle earned his law degree from University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained until his appointment by President Reagan. Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar. My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge Robert E. Coyle.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve flood protection for Sacramento, CA. The flood control project authorized by this bill has been evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will be conducted in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 5, 2002. This is a companion bill to one that Representative Matsui is introducing today in the House. Currently, Sacramento has woefully inadequate flood protection. This bill would raise the existing walls of Folsom Dam by seven feet, which would substantially increase flood protection for the Sacramento region. Without this improvement, $40 billion of property, including the California State Capitol, 6 major hospitals, 26 nursing home facilities, over 100 schools, three major freeway systems, and approximately 160,000 homes and apartments, are at risk if there is a devastating flood. For a city of its size, Sacramento falls shockingly below the flood protection that it deserves. The Folsom Mini-Raise is the critical next step in providing Sacramento necessary flood protection, enabling the system to handle storms far larger than any recorded event in the American River Watershed. Previous plans to raise the level of the Folsom Dam called for the building of a temporary bridge to handle the traffic that would be disrupted while the Folsom Dam Road was closed during the construction project. Security concerns now warrant an indefinite closure of the Folsom Dam Road. So, in addition to authorizing the Mini-Raise, this bill authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation to work with the State of California to design and construct a permanent bridge west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam over the American River to replace the current two-lane road over the dam. It will alleviate security concerns by moving traffic away from the dam while still providing the thousands of area commuters with a reliable means of transportation across the river. This bill would provide important safeguards to the people of one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. By raising Folsom Dam and replacing the road across the dam, we can greatly increase public safety in the Sacramento area. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Rabbi Michael Barenbaum on the occasion of his retirement after 27 years as senior rabbi at Congregation Rodef Sholom in San Rafael, California. Rabbi Barenbaum is a man of great kindness and integrity who carries the Jewish values of caring and compassion with him in everything he does. With his wisdom and intelligence, he has changed thousands of lives for the better. Under his leadership, Congregation Rodef Sholom has more than tripled in size, and its religious school has become one of the largest in Northern California. Rabbi Barenbaum has attracted thousands of worshipers, including members of other congregations and faiths, through the thoughtfulness of his sermons and the lively, informal spirit of his services. At the same time, Rabbi Barenbaum has fostered a strong tradition of social action among his congregation. In the 1970s and 80s, he led local efforts to welcome and help settle Jewish emigres from the Soviet Union. He established a Mitzvah Day program that put nearly a thousand congregants to work on dozens of community-service programs throughout Marin County. He has been a leader in ecumenical housing, in aiding the homeless, and in bringing together clergy of all faiths to create services for people in need. As he heads into a well-deserved retirement, Rabbi Barenbaum has said that he plans to work on establishing a Jewish hospice in the San Francisco Bay Area. After years of moving others to action, he is eager to serve as a volunteer. Mr. President, here is a man--a real mensch. I am sure that even in retirement, Rabbi Barenbaum will continue to do wonders and inspire others for many years to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse building now under construction at Tulare and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.'' It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and persistence which contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse in Fresno for more than a decade. In the course of his work, Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well received by national court administrators that is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle. In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the community with whom he worked, produced a major milestone when the groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place. Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge Coyle earned his law degree from University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained until his appointment by President Reagan. Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar. My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge Robert E. Coyle.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to transfer the B.F. Sisk Federal Courthouse in Fresno, CA to the County of Fresno, when the new Federal courthouse is completed. Fresno County is rapidly growing county in the heart of California's Great Central Valley. The County of Fresno's Superior Court has a serious need for new court space that will grow in the years ahead. The Sisk Building contains courthouses and related space that will help the people of Fresno County meet those needs. The Sisk Building's existing security measures are a perfect fit for Fresno County's justice system. This legislation is a common sense measure that will allow appropriate utilization of the Sisk Building, while contributing to the ongoing revitalization of downtown Fresno. I am proud that it is yet another opportunity for the Federal Government to improve the lives of Fresno County's people.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve flood protection for Sacramento, CA. The flood control project authorized by this bill has been evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will be conducted in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 5, 2002. This is a companion bill to one that Representative Matsui is introducing today in the House. Currently, Sacramento has woefully inadequate flood protection. This bill would raise the existing walls of Folsom Dam by seven feet, which would substantially increase flood protection for the Sacramento region. Without this improvement, $40 billion of property, including the California State Capitol, 6 major hospitals, 26 nursing home facilities, over 100 schools, three major freeway systems, and approximately 160,000 homes and apartments, are at risk if there is a devastating flood. For a city of its size, Sacramento falls shockingly below the flood protection that it deserves. The Folsom Mini-Raise is the critical next step in providing Sacramento necessary flood protection, enabling the system to handle storms far larger than any recorded event in the American River Watershed. Previous plans to raise the level of the Folsom Dam called for the building of a temporary bridge to handle the traffic that would be disrupted while the Folsom Dam Road was closed during the construction project. Security concerns now warrant an indefinite closure of the Folsom Dam Road. So, in addition to authorizing the Mini-Raise, this bill authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation to work with the State of California to design and construct a permanent bridge west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam over the American River to replace the current two-lane road over the dam. It will alleviate security concerns by moving traffic away from the dam while still providing the thousands of area commuters with a reliable means of transportation across the river. This bill would provide important safeguards to the people of one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. By raising Folsom Dam and replacing the road across the dam, we can greatly increase public safety in the Sacramento area. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to transfer the B.F. Sisk Federal Courthouse in Fresno, CA to the County of Fresno, when the new Federal courthouse is completed. Fresno County is rapidly growing county in the heart of California's Great Central Valley. The County of Fresno's Superior Court has a serious need for new court space that will grow in the years ahead. The Sisk Building contains courthouses and related space that will help the people of Fresno County meet those needs. The Sisk Building's existing security measures are a perfect fit for Fresno County's justice system. This legislation is a common sense measure that will allow appropriate utilization of the Sisk Building, while contributing to the ongoing revitalization of downtown Fresno. I am proud that it is yet another opportunity for the Federal Government to improve the lives of Fresno County's people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will be ready in a moment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, he is right, but there is more. For the first time they have now opened up BLM land as well; that is, 200 million acres of the Nation's 260 million acres of BLM land is also opened, and we are talking about no limit on the number of projects. Under the current law, it is 28 projects a year. It is extraordinary. Who is in charge? As my friend points out, the timber companies.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Alaska. I also thank my friend from Nevada for the time. Mr. President, normally I have fancy charts. I have not had time to develop those because we just saw some of the riders of the bill. I take the floor to make the point that I have many problems with this bill in the area of homeland security--as we are told to take duct tape and plastic and get ready for a chemical or biological attack. God forbid. We have shorted homeland security in this bill. We have shorted port security as it relates to inspecting containers at the ports. We have shorted border security, firefighter grants, community policing grants; and in education, we are leaving many children behind. That breaks a promise to them. To me, this bill is wanting in many ways. In the area of the environment, which I will talk about, brownfield cleanups have been reduced, and the meaning of organic meat has been turned on its head. It breaks my heart to tell the Senate tonight that I think America's forests are under major attack. It is unbelievable to me that without any debate or discussion, a pilot program has been expanded massively and, in my opinion, it is going to lead to the ruination of our national forests--our forests that belong to the American people. The program I am talking about is called the Forest Stewardship Program, which started 3 years ago. The idea was to allow limited logging on national forest land for the purpose of maintaining healthy forests in accordance with the forest management plan. Now, as I said, this program has been massively extended. Let me tell you why I think this stewardship project that is in the bill is an attack on American values. I know the hour is late and I do not intend to take a lot of time tonight. But when riders are placed into a bill as massive as this, I can tell you, when the American people wake up in the morning and learn they are going to lose a lot of the old growth trees in this beautiful land of ours, they are not going to be happy. I think America's forests belong to the people and I don't like to see a giveaway of taxpayer property. I don't like to see an open invitation to destroy our forests. I don't like to see no limits at all on old growth trees. Timber companies will now pick the trees they want, with no veto from the Forest Service on these projects. This also applies to BLM lands. We could see 70 million acres of national forest land open to logging here. That would also include 10 million acres in my home State of California and millions and millions of acres of BLM land. In my opinion, the very purpose of this rider is it tries to overrule forest land management plans. I argue that the forest land management plans take precedence. But I can assure you, they are going to start these projects. I only hope, since the only way this could be stopped is in court, that it will be stopped in court. There are limits on public participation in these projects. Let me show you what they did in the dead of night, if I might say, without anyone watching, without any debate, without any discussion, without any public participation. I don't know that anybody can read this chart, but I am going to go through it. Under current law, we see that 70 million of 191 million acres of national forests and grasslands are affected. Under this omnibus bill, we would see the same number of acres affected, plus 200 million acres of 260 million acres of BLM land. We are talking about massive amounts of land. The number of projects now under the Stewardship Program number 28 projects a year. Now there is no limit, no limit at all. Who is in charge of the projects? Now under the Stewardship Program, it is the Forest Service. They come in and they will tell a private sector commercial logger: This is what you can cut, but do not cut this tree down and do not cut that tree down because they may be old growth, or whatever, for whatever reason. Now we give it away to the timber companies. We are seeing in the red the differences between the current projects where they were limited to 28 projects a year to no limit. Let me say to my friends in California who may be watching this debate tonight, 10 million of our 20 million acres of national forests that we love in our State could be under the ax here. I hope you wake up to this because this was done in the dead of night. There are, under current law, many reasons we allow logging on these 28 projects a year: soil productivity, watershed restoration. There are many reasons why today in these pilot projects you can log. It is very carefully controlled. Mostly it is to reduce fire hazards, promote healthy forest standards, road and trail maintenance, grading a road to maintain a camp site. These are all allowable in this small number of pilot projects. This is what has been added. Now after the Forest Service turns over this particular part of the forest to a commercial logger, they can actually log for commercial purposes, such as providing wood to lumber mills. Let me explain this. Where we had a project before that was aimed at keeping the forest healthy, it has been turned on its head, and now it says we are going to turn it over to the commercial loggers. The Forest Service cannot even have any say in it. It is completely up to the commercial loggers what trees they will cut down. Building a new road is allowed, not just maintaining a road. I am stunned, frankly, that this could happen in a conference without one word of debate. This is a shock to anyone in this country who believes the national forests belong to the people of our country because this is--and I will put this back again to say in summary how I feel about it--this is an attack on American values. We all know that our precious environment is just that. We see a giveaway of taxpayer property. Not one slim dime will come into the Treasury; not one slim dime. We have an open invitation to destroy our forests without getting anything back for it. There are no limits on old-growth forest logging. Timber companies will pick the trees they want with no veto from the Forest Service, a complete change from what we have had before. We could impact 70 million acres of national forest lands, including 10 million acres in my home State of California and millions of acres of BLM land. This is clearly an attempt--I underscore--an attempt to overrule forest land management plans, an attempt I hope will not succeed.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend very much. I know my time is running short. There is nothing I can do here except take a few minutes to call this to the attention of my colleagues and the American people because, as my colleague knows, we cannot amend this report. It is up or down. This is what makes it so egregious to me. I am ready to go to battle toe to toe any day on this issue, and I am sure my colleagues would give me a fight on it. We would have a vote and take our lumps if we lost and be very happy if we won. We have a situation where taxpayer property is being given away without 1 cent back to the Treasury. Here we have a situation where, instead of the Forest Service saying, OK, you can cut down a few of these trees, we need it for certain public purposes, they are out of the game. They give it to the logger, and the logger decides what tree to cut down. I think this is a stunning reversal of a program that started out to be one that was in the public interest. In closing, I will give you one last example. Under this new rule--and, again, I apologize for the crudeness of these charts, but we did not know about this until a few hours ago. It is now a stewardship goal, if the Forest Service so states, to provide wood to lumber mills. That becomes a forest stewardship goal. It is unreal. Our people think we are protecting our forests, but our new goal is to invite the loggers in, with no limits on these projects. I am distraught and disturbed about this. I only hope that the courts will do what they have done in the past and say this is in violation of the forest plans. Maybe they will save us from ourselves. This is miserable. I wish I could offer an amendment to strip this out. I am prohibited from doing it, but I will bring this back to my colleagues at a time when we have more opportunity to discuss it in detail. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are making the case about advise and consent but many of our people around the country are worried about what is coming in these next couple of days. The country is on alert. People are asking me, should I really go out and get duct tape? What can I do? I have been around politics for a very long time. I was elected to the House in 1982. These are the toughest times I have seen, and I have seen some tough ones. We have an economy that is not performing. We have a budget which has turned from surplus to deficit. The very people who said deficits were terrible when Democrats were in the majority are saying deficits are now fine as long as they are not more than so many percent of the gross national product, no problem. Unfortunately for those people, Alan Greenspan said deficits do matter, and we have an economy that is the worst that it has been in 50 years. On top of that, we have Osama bin Laden who apparently issued a warning to Americans and he told the Iraqi people that if the Americans come in there, do what it takes to hurt them all around the world. We have the tragedy and sadness of the Shuttle Columbia. We have the news that North Korea possesses perhaps the ability to hit the west coast, where I live and my people I represent live and not far from where the Presiding Officer lives. We have a lot of challenges. What I say today is measured in my comments because whatever the future holds for us, and I think many people fear it is war, we are going to pull together as one. Looking at all of these challenges I mentioned, and I exclude from that the shuttle tragedy, but the North Korea situation, the Iraq situation, the Osama bin Laden situation, the economic situation, I believe this administration has seen these crises and they have amplified them. I do not think they are solving them. I think they are amplifying them. I do not see the path to a prosperous economy in any of the plans. I see more deficits as far as the eye can see. I do not see a path for job creation. I do not see a path where we are protected in our homeland. I see my local responders saying, Where is the help that was promised? I do not see that. I do not see a path to peace in Iraq. I see a lot of energy and focus on a path to war. I do not see the path--and I have lived through many administrations, Republican and Democratic. I wish the President would put the same focus and attention on avoiding war and disarming Iraq as he does on war to disarm Iraq. War may be inevitable. It should not be a first resort or a second. It should be a very last. Looking at North Korea, why are we not talking to them? We have brilliant people in the State Department. As far as I can tell from my post on the Foreign Relations Committee, we have not elevated this to the same level as Iraq in any way, shape, or form. They keep saying we will resolve this diplomatically. I am glad. But I don't see that focus. What I see is when the North Koreans want to talk, they fly to New Mexico to talk to Bill Richardson. Something is wrong with that. We need to do better. I see issues turning into problems, turning into crises, and I don't see them being resolved; I see them getting worse. I can tell you, when I go home, people are coming up to me in the supermarket--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--tugging at my sleeve, literally. They say: We are anxious. We are worried. We are scared. I am waiting for the type of leadership in this administration on all of these issues that will help us see the light at the end of the tunnel. We will pull together as Americans, regardless. The greatest Nation in the world, we will meet our challenges. But there is much more we need to do--not more deficits as far as the eye can see. That is not going to help. Not talk about war, war, war, and ignoring the chance that we can avoid it and achieve the total disarmament of Iraq. I don't see the kind of help to our hometowns, if you will, to get ready. Someone said it right--this is not original on my part; I believe it was a mayor of one of our Midwest cities. She said when people fear an attack by a terrorist, they are going to call 9-1-1. They are not going to call the Senate, and they are not calling the President. They will call 9-1-1. What are we doing? We lauded the firemen and the policemen, as well we should have. The best way to honor them is to give them the help they need. Guess what this administration is doing. It is canceling the COPS program. These are the grants to our local law enforcement people who are going to get the 9-1-1 call if, God forbid, there is an attack on our homeland. This President is spending a lot of money in the budget. But talk to the people back home, and they are not happy with the unfunded mandates they are seeing. We see an unprecedented attack on the environment. Talk about danger, I will tell you about danger. As we worry about chemical and biological attacks, Osama bin Laden, why have we lost the focus on getting him? The President was fierce in his resolve to get Osama bin Laden, and we have not achieved that up until this point. We fear the chemical and biological attack. Seventy million Americans--and that includes 10 million children-- live within 4 miles of a Superfund site which contains these dreadful chemicals that harm our children and all of us. What have they done? They have slowed the cleanups and are now telling taxpayers they have to pick up all of the costs of that program because they do not want to continue a fee on the polluters, which was something put into place under Republican and Democratic administrations. This is a crisis, and it is being amplified by this administration. I look around and I see the fund sites proliferating. Under President Clinton, we cleaned up an average of 87 sites a year. It is down to 40 sites. It is down to the taxpayers now picking up the tab, and people are beginning to be very fearful about their children's health. There are many issues that confront us. I will close with this. Last night, the Republicans stayed in the Chamber to make their point. That was a good thing to do. I am in the Chamber today to make my point. Give me the information, folks. Tell this man to answer the same number of questions you asked Richard Paez. Tell this man to answer the same number of questions you asked Margaret Morrow to answer. Tell this man to answer the same number of questions and in the same depth as President Clinton's nominees answered. And if you do not like that approach, simply ask him to answer the questions that some of President Bush's nominees answered. We are not going to stand here and treat this Constitution as some relic. We have equal power with the President. If we were not to ask for these answers, we do not deserve to be here. I see a couple of my friends on the floor, and I have to say, I am ready to vote on Miguel Estrada as soon as he answers the questions. I am not going to roll over for any President, Republican or Democrat, if they send us people who are either too scared to answer the questions or we are told by some Federalist Society expert to keep your mouth shut and it will go well. It is wrong. I have some self-respect as a Senator. Do you know who gave it to me? I was not born with it. The people who sent me here--35 million strong--believe me, they did not all send me here, but of those who voted, a majority did. Do you know what I told them? I told them that the makeup of the courts is very important and the power of the courts is very important. I promised them that before I cast a vote, aye or nay on anyone, I would have information and I would always tell you why I was voting yes or no. And I have voted for more than 90 percent of this President's nominees. I don't know how I will vote on this one. I might vote for him if I see his writings. I might. I might not. I may find that he does not come from the center, which is what President Bush promised. We would get judges from the center. They can stay here all night and talk and talk and talk and talk. But I will be ready to vote when I have seen the answers to the questions, the same kind of questions they asked Margaret Morrow, Richard Paez, and every one of Bill Clinton's nominees. Double standards do not sell with me. I worked very well with Senator Hatch and colleagues on the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle when I had people I was very interested in getting through the process. And I said to them: You deserve to know every single thing you are asking for, and I will work with these nominees and make sure they give you those answers. That is respect. That is respect for the job we are supposed to do. I respect this job. I respect the people I represent too much to roll over and say to this President or any other: Send nominees down who will not answer questions. It does not matter to me. It is your choice. If I were to do that, I would be belying this Constitution. When I got elected to this body, I held up my hand and I swore to protect and defend it. It means everything to me. It is more important than me. It is more important than any other Senator. It is more important than any President. This is the document that has kept us going as the greatest democracy in the world all these years. And God forbid we turn our back on it. If we do, we will not recognize the country we will have. I see coming, if we roll over on this one, a judge selection process that is essentially a secret process. That is something I cannot support, I will never support, even if I am the only one left who feels that way--and I doubt that will be the case because there are very strong feelings on my side of the aisle that the judicial selection process should be an open process, an honest process, a fair process. I appreciate the chance to express my views on these issues and other issues. It is time we solve the problems we are facing and not create new ones. A new problem we are creating is judicial nominees who will not talk. That is a new problem. I hope, as a result of what we are doing today, the Republicans will go back, they will chat with Mr. Estrada, they will tell him to answer the questions, and we can get on with a vote and the other important business we have before us. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Kerry and McCain in co-sponsoring their bill to award Jackie Robinson the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of his profound and lasting contributions to the cause of equality and civil rights in America. Jackie Robinson has always been a hero of mine--initially because he was the greatest of all Brooklyn Dodgers when I was a young Dodger fan growing up six blocks from Ebbets Field, and later because I realized how he had changed America forever and for better. Jackie Robinson was a peerless athlete who excelled in many sports and changed the way that baseball was played. He helped Brooklyn win five pennants and one unforgettable World Championship, when we no longer had to ``wait till next year.'' Even more important, he was a courageous pioneer who overcame tremendous pressure and prejudice to break the color line in major league baseball. It is hard for us today to imagine the obstacles he faced back in 1947, when our nation's schools, military, and public facilities were all strictly segregated. Overcoming taunts, assaults, and death threats, Jackie Robinson played baseball--and played magnificently. His grace, dignity, determination, and tremendous ability made him a hero to millions of Americans of all races and backgrounds. Jackie Robinson once said, ``A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.'' By this high standard, Jackie Robinson's life had monumental importance. As Senator Kerry pointed out when introducing this bill, Dr. Martin Luther King once said that he could not do what he was doing if Jackie Robinson had not done what he did. As our nation keeps struggling to realize Dr. King's great dream, we can salute Jackie Robinson as one of the fathers of that dream. I urge all of my colleagues to honor this great American by co- sponsoring and passing this bill to award Jackie Robinson the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could have a significant impact on reducing the threat of terrorism towards our commercial airlines. Last November, two shoulder-fired SA-7 missiles were launched at an Israeli airliner as it took off from a Kenyan airport. While these missiles missed their target, they are a clear example of an ever- growing threat to all air travel. A similar incident occurred last May when a U.S. military aircraft in Saudi Arabia was believed to be fired upon, also with an SA-7 missile. Saudi authorities later found an empty launch tube near an airbase used by American aircraft. In both cases, al Qaeda remains the primary suspect. This is a very real and recognized threat. It is estimated that thousands of shoulder-fired missiles are in the hands of non-state actors, rebel groups, terrorists, and other armed non-military factions. Last May, the FBI warned that given al Qaeda's targeting of the U.S. airline industry and its access to these weapons, airlines and law enforcement agencies should remain alert to the potential use of shoulder-fired missiles against commercial aircraft in the United States. We all know that terrorists will continue to try to attack us at our weakest points. As we continue to increase the screening and security processes for those boarding our airplanes, it is becoming clear that terrorists will need to find another avenue to attack us. These shoulder-fired missiles may be that next avenue. The bill I am introducing today would equip all turbojet aircraft used by American aircarriers with missile defense systems. These devices involve a series of sensors that identify an incoming missile and a laser or lamp to fool the missile's guidance system. The work automatically without any action by the pilot. The U.S. government would pay for the devices for the current turbojet fleet, approximately 6,800 aircraft, at an estimated cost of $1 million per plane. In the meantime, the bill directs the President to use the National Guard and Coast Guard to patrol areas surrounding airports in order to prevent attacks by shoulder-fired missiles. Because these are heat- seeking missiles, aircraft are most vulnerable at lower levels and when their engines are hottest. Aircraft missile defense systems work. Countermeasures are already in place on many U.S. military aircraft, where they have proven effective. Shoulder-fired missiles are a serious threat to our airlines, our economy, and the personal safety of every American airline passenger. With a relatively small investment in proven technology to counter that threat, we can provide further protection to air travellers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could have a significant impact on reducing the threat of terrorism towards our commercial airlines. Last November, two shoulder-fired SA-7 missiles were launched at an Israeli airliner as it took off from a Kenyan airport. While these missiles missed their target, they are a clear example of an ever- growing threat to all air travel. A similar incident occurred last May when a U.S. military aircraft in Saudi Arabia was believed to be fired upon, also with an SA-7 missile. Saudi authorities later found an empty launch tube near an airbase used by American aircraft. In both cases, al Qaeda remains the primary suspect. This is a very real and recognized threat. It is estimated that thousands of shoulder-fired missiles are in the hands of non-state actors, rebel groups, terrorists, and other armed non-military factions. Last May, the FBI warned that given al Qaeda's targeting of the U.S. airline industry and its access to these weapons, airlines and law enforcement agencies should remain alert to the potential use of shoulder-fired missiles against commercial aircraft in the United States. We all know that terrorists will continue to try to attack us at our weakest points. As we continue to increase the screening and security processes for those boarding our airplanes, it is becoming clear that terrorists will need to find another avenue to attack us. These shoulder-fired missiles may be that next avenue. The bill I am introducing today would equip all turbojet aircraft used by American aircarriers with missile defense systems. These devices involve a series of sensors that identify an incoming missile and a laser or lamp to fool the missile's guidance system. The work automatically without any action by the pilot. The U.S. government would pay for the devices for the current turbojet fleet, approximately 6,800 aircraft, at an estimated cost of $1 million per plane. In the meantime, the bill directs the President to use the National Guard and Coast Guard to patrol areas surrounding airports in order to prevent attacks by shoulder-fired missiles. Because these are heat- seeking missiles, aircraft are most vulnerable at lower levels and when their engines are hottest. Aircraft missile defense systems work. Countermeasures are already in place on many U.S. military aircraft, where they have proven effective. Shoulder-fired missiles are a serious threat to our airlines, our economy, and the personal safety of every American airline passenger. With a relatively small investment in proven technology to counter that threat, we can provide further protection to air travellers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.