Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I was astounded to see some of the recent news coming out on the economic front, the gap between the middle class and the wealthy, the gap between the rich and the poor, the fact we see in many categories the worst economy in 50 long years in terms of jobs lost in the private sector, in terms of the sluggish growth of the GDP, the number of foreclosures. It is stunning. One has to be concerned that this administration is giving this no attention whatsoever, which was my friend's point. We look at a President who is spending half his time on foreign policy; that is fine. This Congress is going to help in that area because we have a lot of ideas on how to meet the threat Iraq poses. On our side of the aisle, there will be different opinions on how to meet that threat, which will show the strength of our democracy, and that this party is, in fact, a broad umbrella, which is healthy in the long run for the country. The other half of the time seems to be spent on the road campaigning. I agree with my friend. Given the economic statistics--the stock market, we are looking at maybe a $4, $5 trillion loss, the worst in 50 years, and the fact pensions are down--does my friend believe we ought to perhaps come up with something specific to ask the President? For example, he keeps calling us to talk about foreign policy. Why doesn't he call us to the White House to talk about this economy, to get the best ideas of Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents? This isn't partisan. People are suffering out there, Republicans and Democrats, Independents, young and old, for different reasons. So would my friend think that might be a good way for this President to show he cares as much about the everyday issues our people are facing as he does about electing Republicans, and perhaps this would be a way to break through on this economy? Consumer confidence is down. Perhaps that would give a spur to our people and bring us together just as we get together on foreign policy.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I certainly will.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the real heroes of 9/11 were working men and women, and they did not look at their watch and say: Gee, am I working overtime? They just went into those burning buildings. That is important. Mr. President, when I first read the details of the President's Homeland Security Department proposal, I was concerned. And when the House leadership passed the President's proposal without so much as a second glance, I was dismayed. Instead of a creating a blueprint for enhanced domestic security and more efficient Government, the President and a handful of others have created a patchwork proposal. The legislation created by Senator Lieberman stands in distinct contrast to the House-passed bill. I believe the amendment proposed by Senator Byrd builds upon and strengthens the good work of Senator Lieberman and his committee. The Byrd amendment provides for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security--just as the Lieberman bill does. But, instead of immediately moving agencies into the new Department's directorates, the administration would be required to come back to Congress--and to the relevant House and Senate oversight committees--with detailed legislative proposals before any transition actually occurs. Many questions remain unanswered about this Department of Homeland Security. The Byrd amendment would require the President and his advisors to address these questions before agencies are moved into the new Department. If we grant the administration the statutory powers it is demanding without first passing the Byrd amendment and making it part of the final bill we send to the President, we will lose the support, I believe, to get it right. The Byrd amendment would also ensure that the implementation of the Department occurs in a more thoughtful way, with more openness and less secrecy. I will conclude in this way: I am proud to support Senator Byrd's amendment. I hope my colleagues will do so, too. It retains the checks and balances that are so important and that our Founders told us we must do. It also will result in a Department that will be well thought out and that means it will, in fact, protect the people of this country in a much better way than we are being protected today. I thank the Chair very much and yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, do I have 1 minute remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Senator Byrd for allowing me to take some of this time. It is truly an honor for me to rise on behalf of his amendment. If ever there has been a more fierce, more forthright defender of the Constitution and the responsibilities we have as Senators, I can think of none other. Clearly, what we have before us is a bill crafted by Senator Lieberman which is far better than what has come out of the House, far better than what the administration put forward. There is no question in my mind that Senator Lieberman has taken us forward. I have to say, as someone who has been in office for many years, I have come to be very skeptical about a huge reshuffling of agencies in Government and huge moves without lots of time to look at the ramifications. My belief is that in moving so quickly to such a large reshuffling, we are going to bring about less accountability, not more, in terms of how this Government functions. Senator Byrd is saying, yes, we need to create this Department. Let's bring forward some of the best and brightest people to begin to put it together. But let's slow down; let's take a deep breath. Let's make sure what we are doing is going to result in more protection for the American people, more efficiency on behalf of these departments, not less. I am also very concerned about the movement away from rights for people who will work in this Department. Senator Lieberman has been very strong, and I hope he will prevail, but I am very concerned that more than 40,000 people in this new Department who do not deal directly with national security--they may be, for example, a secretary, a file clerk, someone who works in that Department--are going to lose worker protections. I have said before, and I will reiterate it today, that it is a very cynical move, I believe a grab of power on behalf of this administration, to do that to these people. Doesn't the President have more things to occupy himself--and I know he does--than worrying about whether a secretary or a file clerk has the ability to say to the people who supervise her, through her union, through her bargaining unit: I need a better salary; I need better health care; explain to me what my work rules will be? I do not think any President--this one or any future one--should interfere with that. It is very important that people have their dignity. On the one hand, we have the President saying he is creating this new Department and it is so important; on the other hand, what is the first thing he wants to do? He wants to strip away the rights of people. In California over the weekend, I spoke to working men and women, maybe about a thousand of them. I pointed out to them what I have pointed out in this Chamber--and others have pointed it out, too--that the real heroes of 9/11 were not politicians, were not any Senators or Members of Congress. Certainly not. And certainly not anyone sitting in the Oval Office or in the Old Executive Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this moment to reflect on the rich life and legacy of an exceptional Los Angeles leader and friend, Ira Yellin. Ira died of cancer on September 10, 2002, of complications from lung cancer at his home in Santa Monica Canyon. He was 62 years old. This was a sad day for so many people throughout California, whose lives were touched by Ira's unyielding commitment to making our community a more beautiful and better place to live. Although a strong supporter of many civic organizations, Ira was most well-known for his extraordinary dedication to restoration of several of Los Angeles's historic gems. While eating at Grand Central Market, waiting for a train at Union Station or admiring the beautiful restoration of City Hall, we have Ira to thank for helping to restore and maintain these wonderful places. Those who have visited Los Angeles' recently dedicated Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels may also thank Ira, for playing a role in its design. Born in 1940 near Boston, MA, and raised in Van Nuys, CA, Ira often visited downtown Los Angeles with his father, who instilled in his son the passion for city life and the importance of making the world a better place. Years later, Ira attended Princeton University and Harvard Law School, and returned to California where he received a master's degree in law from the University of California, Berkeley. After he finished his studies, he spent a year in the Marines before settling in Los Angeles. In 1967, Ira worked as a lawyer at a Beverly Hills firm while helping to run a non-profit legal advocacy organization. Then, in 1975, he left the firm to work in real estate development and management, overseeing building projects throughout California and on Los Angeles' Westside. However, Ira realized he was more drawn to downtown buildings in need of restoration than the state-of-the-art build on Los Angeles' affluent Westside. In 1985, Ira began his own real estate firm and dedicated his life to the revival of buildings throughout Los Angeles. Ira's passion for turning neglected buildings into treasures for the community made him a great asset to Los Angeles. His dedication to community service benefitted many cultural and civic organizations. Ira was active with the Skirball Cultural Center, the J. Paul Getty Trust and served as past president of the American Jewish Committee. I will miss Ira Yellin. Until the very end, he pursued his vision and turned dreams into realities. Although his presence will be greatly missed, his wonderful work will be long remembered for generations to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud today to recognize the courage of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, Special Agent John Carr, who was recently honored with the Federal Bar Association's, FBA, distinguished 2002 Medal of Valor Award in Los Angeles. For the past 13 years, the FBA has presented the award to federal employees who demonstrate outstanding service in their field of work. Special Agent Carr earned his award for working undercover to catch violent gang members staging a series of home invasion robberies. Carr transformed his look, acquainted himself with the criminals, and pretended to help them in their operation. Carr gave the criminals false information, which led them to traps planned by the ATF. Thanks to Carr's work, many dangerous criminals were caught and taken off our streets. John Carr risked his life working on this assignment. There are not many people who would make such a great sacrifice for others to feel safe in their homes. Through his courage, bravery and steadfast dedication, Carr prevailed in the face of danger. I extend my sincere congratulations to John Carr on this honor, and thank him for his great work.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. What are the rules? Do I have to ask for a specific number of minutes or may I speak until I finish my remarks?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator very much for yielding me the time. As I begin my remarks, I offer my thanks to both Senator Lieberman and Senator Byrd for the work they have done on behalf of the American people and for the principled and deliberative approach they have brought to this very complex issue. I have tremendous misgivings about the size and shape of this Department, which I will address. I do want to seek cloture. I do want to see some finality. I do think this is very important. I was distressed yesterday to hear comments from the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, in which he said the American Government was the laughingstock of the world because of our work rules. That is the first time I have ever heard that the American Government is the laughingstock of the world for any reason. This is the greatest country in the world, and I believe one of the key reason, is our people and their dedication. I know one of the big issues between both sides and some on our side of the aisle, as expressed by Senator Miller yesterday, is we should, in fact, change some of the worker rules and strip some of those rules from this new Department. I want to say respectfully I will fight that with every bone in my body, as will the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Texas, who will oppose what my view is. I want to say this and not linger on it too long because we will have more time. Every single one of the heroes of 9/11--every fireman, every policeman, every emergency worker--happened to be covered by work rules. They never looked at their watch and said, oh, my God, I am working overtime, I had better get out of here, or I am in danger and I should be getting hazardous duty pay. We never saw that. We saw an incredible dedication by workers who cared about what they were doing. I found it tremendously insulting to hear those words in the Senate. I will fight for those workers. We are creating a homeland security office that is supposed to be second to the Pentagon in defending the American people. What do we do to the people who work in that Department? Make them second class. In my opinion, that is disastrous. I have met some of the workers. They are the heroes of tomorrow. They deserve to be treated with respect, not stripped of the worker rules that protect them. We will talk more about that. Briefly, I support the Byrd amendment, and I look forward to having a chance to speak at greater length. This is a huge change in our Government. Under the current plan, much improved from the House--the Lieberman plan is much improved from the House version--we will be taking 170,000 employees and shifting them over to a new Department. Many of these agencies have multiple responsibilities--not just to protect the homeland but, for example, in the Coast Guard search and rescue missions, so important to my home State. In the case of FEMA, when we have an earthquake, if we have a flood, or if there is a hurricane anywhere in the country, FEMA must come and deal with it, deal with the people who suffer losses, deal with the businesses that suffer losses. I don't understand why we have taken those agencies in whole cloth and placed them in the new Department. Senator Byrd says, yes, we need this Department of Homeland Security. He moves forward with the top level people who will be bright and smart, who will be able to look at their challenge and let the Congress know in the ensuing days, weeks, and months what they need to do their job. Senator Byrd is courageous to get out here and slow this train down. I have been in government a long time. I started at local government many years ago. I was on a county board of supervisors. We ran the whole county--the court system, the emergency workforce, transit district, and the rest. One of the lessons I learned: Do not do something that just looks good; do not do something that just sounds good; do not do something just because it protects you politically; do something right. Mostly I learned, don't do something so big, so huge, that there is less accountability rather than more accountability. I thank Senator Byrd. I support the cloture motion. I want to see a streamlined Homeland Security Department. That is what I will work for. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask Senator Lieberman if he will yield 5 minutes to me to speak in favor of cloture on his amendment, and then address the Byrd amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there are times when the achievements of an individual athlete or sports team are so dramatic, so sensational and exciting, that the entire country stops what it is doing to simply watch in wonder. The sport of baseball, in particular, has supplied us with many such moments over the years. I recall the thrill of Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak; Bobby Thompson's ``Shot Heard Round The World'' home run; pitcher Don Larsen's perfect World Series game; Hank Aaron's 715th trip around the bases; Cal Ripken Jr.'s 2,131st consecutive game; and Barry Bond's 71st home run of the season. All of these milestones are embedded in America's sports memory. There is another baseball milestone that I believe deserves a place in the pantheon of remarkable sporting achievements, an accomplishment as exciting as Carlton Fisk's 12th inning World Series home run or ``The Catch'' by Willie Mays in another, earlier World Series. That accomplishment, Mr. President, is the 20-game, American League record winning streak set this season by the Oakland Athletics--the longest win streak in baseball in 67 years. Until the Oakland Athletics rewrote the American League record book, many had considered the 19-game win streak record held jointly by the New York Yankees and the Chicago White Sox to be untouchable. Indeed, there are only three teams in the entire history of baseball--the New York Giants, the Chicago Cubs, and now the Oakland Athletics--that have ever won 20 or more games in a row. This summer, baseball fans from around the world were caught up in the excitement as the Athletics continued to win game after game after game. At work, in the car, and at home, and regardless of time zone, Americans watched with fascination as the Oakland Athletics approached the magic number of 20 victories. I shared in that growing sense of excitement and cheered along with the rest of the country when the team set the new record on September 4th. My hat is off to the Oakland Athletics, to the players and staff, Manager Art Howe, and to the fans. I know how proud the Oakland community is of its team, and of a win streak record that is one for the ages. With this amazing achievement, the 2002 Oakland Athletics have secured a special place in baseball history and lore.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to thank publicly the majority leader, Tom Daschle. Yesterday, Leader Daschle took to the floor and talked about something that, frankly, is just not talked about by this administration, and that is the very sad state of our economy. Somebody needs to focus on that because, while we must devote much of our time to the war against terrorism, while we must devote much of our time to figuring out the best way to meet the threat that Iraq poses in terms of her weapons of mass destruction and the frightening prospect of those weapons being used, while we address those issues, I think we know very well that an administration must also pay attention to domestic needs, to the job needs, the educational needs, the health care needs. We must do both things in a great nation like this. So as the Democratic leader made his statement yesterday, it is stunning to see that, in some categories, this economy under this administration is the worst we have seen in more than 50 years. It is very serious. We must address it. We must have a plan to address it. We must look back at the success of the Clinton administration and other administrations, Democratic and Republican, which had good economic records. We are seeing record stock market losses because there is a loss of confidence. There is a decrease in earnings and there are massive layoffs. We have seen a maiming or loss in private sector jobs--the worst in 50 years--and the weakest economic growth in 50 years. Madam President, I hope this Senate will take care of the two most important things we could do: Foreign policy concerns and also domestic concerns, with a prime focus on this economy and turning it around and giving Americans the kind of confidence they had in the 1990s. That was a good time for America.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise today to speak to the issue of fire suppression in our beautiful national forests, an issue that concerns every American because those are our forests, and the policy that we follow must be a balanced and good policy to make sure we preserve that incredible God-given resource. Many people heard the prayer today, and we think about the spiritual needs and we think about our obligations. I believe one spiritual obligation we have is to preserve in this country the wonder and beauty that God gave us. Madam President, like many of my colleagues, I have watched with frustration and anger and sorrow as millions of acres of forests have been destroyed each year by catastrophic wildfires. This year the fire season has been particularly severe in my State of California, as well as in a number of Western States, such as Arizona and New Mexico. After an extremely destructive fire season in 2000, the Departments of Agriculture and Interior took the promising step of developing what is now referred to as a National Forest Plan. Among other things, the fire plan clearly indicates that priorities should be given to the clearance of brush, undergrowth, near communities and homes. The fire plan clearly says the most important way to stop the damage to the people and to their property is to clear the undergrowth near communities and homes. Consensus emerged around the idea that, yes, there would have to be some thinning of trees and clearing of brush but not clearing of the old-growth trees, which actually take a very long time to burn and are important to keep in our forests. We thought we had an agreement with this administration. Yet recent GAO reports indicate the USDA and the Department of the Interior have been ineffective and inefficient in implementing that fire plan. So what has happened? We have an ineffective and inefficient situation happening in the Department of the Interior and the USDA, and we have out-of-control fires. Well, Senators Craig and Domenici have come forward with what they say is a solution. What is it? Let's be clear. Their amendment proposes to waive the National Environmental Planning Act, known as NEPA, which is a critical law in the Nation, and they would limit the public's ability to challenge agency decisions and restrict what we call judicial review. In other words, a judge would no longer be able to take a look at what is happening and intervene, which is a very important part of our balance of powers. If Senator Byrd were here, he would no doubt hold up the Constitution. The judicial branch is very important and the Craig-Domenici amendment would essentially weaken that leg of our Government in order to allow for the cutting of precious old-growth trees. So the approach of the Craig-Domenici amendment, and the reason I am here--and I see my colleague from Washington and I assume she is here to speak on the same issue, so I will be brief. The approach gives the agencies complete discretion to engage in thinning and salvage logging at will. To me, this is a recipe for disaster. The waiver of environmental safeguards and elimination of judicial review are not steps to be taken lightly, and I believe there is no justification for it because they are not the source of the problem. There is actually evidence to the contrary. In a recent letter to Senator Craig, the GAO determined that only 1 percent of hazardous fuel reduction projects were appealed in 2001 and none had been litigated. GAO found that the list of appellants not only included conservation groups, which have been attacked here as being radical in some way for exercising the rights that citizens have, but GAO found that the other appellants were recreation groups, industry interests, and individuals. If you see a project is destroying our forests, that road should not be closed off to our citizens. The GAO finding confirmed for me that our environmental laws, the appeals process, public participation, and judicial review are not the source of the problem, nor can we blame our forest woes on environmentalists. That isn't the point. The environmentalists are trying to do the right thing. I want to show you two charts of the burned forest area in Oregon that President Bush recently visited. The President tried to simplify the issue and suggest that areas that are thinned will not burn, and areas that are left alone will be subject to catastrophic fire. But that is simply not the case. Here is a chart showing a thinned area. Notice, there are no large trees left. This forest was burned to cinders. There were no large trees there when the fire erupted. See how it looks. Here is a second chart showing an adjacent area that wasn't thinned, left in its natural state, and it did not burn at all. It did not burn at all because these large trees are very slow to burn. Madam President, I don't suggest there is a simple answer to this complex problem, but we need to do a lot more than just trash our environmental laws and say people can no longer go to the courts to protect this God-given resource. In California, the Forest Service took the time to do the necessary environmental reviews. They produced a plan referred to as the Sierra Nevada Framework. We just received a letter from someone I believe you know, Madam President. Our secretary for Natural Resources in California, Mary Nichols, recently wrote in a letter to Secretary Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture: The framework-- Meaning our framework in California-- is the first landscape scale national forest management plan that balances the need for fire risk reduction through fuel treatment with environmental protection. The fuel reduction plan in that framework has been agreed to by most of the mainstream environmental groups. Why? Because it was done thoughtfully and with full consideration of the environmental implication. Secretary Nichols of California goes on to explain that the President's proposal and efforts to undermine existing environmental laws, which is exactly what I believe the Craig amendment does, will only serve to polarize the debate, she says, and it will unravel the good work that has happened in places such as California. There are many people on the other side of the aisle who talk a lot about States rights. Here is a State, my home State, that reveres its national forests and wants to protect them. The State of California will be undercut by this amendment because the amendment would say to our people in California: If you do not like what is happening, if you believe the forests are being destroyed, you are limited in your judicial access. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that thinning and clearing activities should be concentrated in the areas immediately adjacent to communities to protect those communities. A recent study completed by the U.S. Forest Service's Fire Sciences Laboratory in Montana found that the only thinning that is needed to protect homes was within the ``red zone'' of 150 to 200 feet around a building. I wish to quote from the person who is an expert in fire suppression, Jack Cohen. He said: Regardless of how intense the fire is, the principal determinant is based on the home and the exterior characteristics. In terms of protecting houses and other community structures, the immediate vicinity is what is relevant. We need to have buffer zones around communities so those communities are safe, and we need to protect the old-growth forests. Yes, we can thin the underbrush. We must. We should. But we should not cut down the old-growth trees. Yet the Forest Service continues to direct thinning activities to remote areas of our forests where the risk to people and property is minimal. Less than 40 percent of the forest areas that have been thinned are in the so-called wildland-urban interface, which is the buffer zone between communities and forests. There is also abundant scientific evidence that thinning should target small diameter trees and underbrush to most effectively reduce fire risk. Aggressive logging of big fire-resistant trees, while appealing to the timber industry, actually increases the risk of fire. The L.A. Times published a story yesterday, which I will submit for the Record, that explains this well. In general, logging leaves behind highly flammable brush materials; it leads to dense new growth that poses a fire hazard; and the removal of large trees cause soils to dry out, leading to increased fire severity. A scientific assessment completed in the Sierra Nevada in 1996, for instance, found that, ``Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other human activity.'' Yet the Forest Service continues to give high priority to thinning projects that involve large valuable trees. These large trees are fire resistant--and therefore should be the last ones to be removed. But repeatedly they are removed because they are economically valuable in commercial timber sales. In November 2001, the Inspector General at USDA completed an audit of the Forest Service's implementation of the National Fire Plan. The USDA audit ``questioned the propriety of using approximately $2.5 million of National Fire Plan Rehabilitation and Restoration Program funds to prepare and administer projects involving commercial timber sales.'' I want to show a picture of a Forest Service ``thinning.'' What's left is a few trees and absolutely nothing on the ground. The area looks like a tree orchard. While this may be good for the promotion of new timber stands, it hardly preserves any of the ecological values normally associated with a natural forest. The reality is that we have Federal agencies implementing fire projects that make sense if the primary goal is increasing timber volume, but make no sense if the primary goal is reducing the risk of fire while preserving the ecological integrity of our forests. Given the agencies' apparent inability to overcome their timber bias, we would be guaranteeing a future filled with fires if we gave them the broad discretion the Republican amendment would allow. What is needed is language that provides the agencies with specific guidelines and priorities about where thinning and salvage activities should take place. While we have been unable to reach agreement with our Republican colleagues on this matter, I am pleased that I have been able to work constructively with my colleagues Senators Daschle, Bingaman, Reid, and Cantwell to craft an alternative proposal. This alternative will encourage aggressive and focused forest management in the buffer zone areas between communities and forests. This buffer zone, which is defined in the amendment to be within one half mile of community structures, is the area where the Forest Service has said the most aggressive thinning should be done. Such specificity will insure that the Forest Service and BLM make the protection of Californians and others the highest priority. Because of the agencies' propensity to turn thinning and salvage projects into timber sales, this amendment also directs the agencies to protect large trees and prohibit the development of new roads, which are generally associated with the removal of commercial timber. It is unfortunate that we need to be this prescriptive. However, as I have noted, there is good reason to be skeptical that the Forest Service and BLM can be left to their own devices. Without the public watching over them, and without any mechanism for challenging agency actions, the Republican amendment will exacerbate the problem. The agencies will continue to engage in senseless thinning and salvage logging in the middle of remote roadless areas--driven more by a thirst for commercial timber than by the need to protect homes and communities. To me, that is an intolerable outcome and it is the reason I oppose this proposal and have worked with others to craft an alternative. I conclude by saying we have seen some disastrous fires. We have to take action, but we know what we have to do. The studies have been done by the Forest Service, by many of our States, and by the GAO. The Los Angeles Times sums it up very well. They did an exhaustive study and came up with some conclusions. I will share those with my colleagues, and then I will yield to my friend for the rest of our time. I will quote from this article. There was an investigative reporter who went out to study the fires. It ran on September 17: The Bush administration's timber-cutting prescription for the West's wildfire epidemic runs counter to the record of the last half century, when large forest fires erupted on the heels of the heaviest logging ever conducted by the U.S. Fire Service. They had a chart in that newspaper. They showed that where you save the old-growth trees, you save the forests, you save the communities. The facts are in. Let's not use this tragic, horrible spate of wildfires as an excuse to let the loggers cut down the old-growth trees and pocket the money while our forests are left completely devoid of anything that makes them the gift that God gave us. There is an editorial in today's L.A. Times. I will quote from it, and then I will cease: We have to cut the nation's forests to save them. That is how they open. That seems to be the Bush administration's rationale for its misnamed Healthy Forest Initiative, now before the Senate. It goes on to say that the Senate should defeat the Craig amendment and that there are other more reasonable and effective approaches. Existing laws let the Forest Service do its job, provided it files environmental impact reports and stays clear of protected areas. In fact, President Bush can thin as many trees as he wants to right now. He just can't take a saw to the nation's environmental protections in the process. I hope we will not adopt the Craig amendment. We are working on other ways to compromise this matter. I hope we can get together. I yield to my friend from Washington, Senator Cantwell, who has been a leader on the environment since she came to the Senate. I yield my remaining time to her.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4574 To Amendment No. 4472

Mrs. BOXER. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds to determine the validity of mining claims of, or to approve the plan of operations submitted by, the Glamis Imperial Corporation for the Imperial project in California. It has been cleared by the leaders, and I thank them very much. I ask that the Senate adopt it at this time. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I object. I ask if the Senator can complete in 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this week, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat delivered a speech to the Palestinian Legislative Council that I found extremely disappointing. The speech, which was given Monday, did not outline specific steps to end terrorism against the Israeli people and did not offer any new ideas on how to achieve peace in the Middle East. As one senior European diplomat said, ``It was a very shallow speech, repeating the standard phrases he's used for years now.'' Perhaps most disturbing of all was Yasser Arafat's outright refusal to call for an end to the practice of suicide bombings, even after his own interior minister, Abdel Razak Yehiyeh, said that all Palestinians should abandon suicide attacks. The omission is especially glaring given that drafts of the speech made available to the media beforehand explicitly called for the parliament to outlaw suicide bombings against civilians. As someone who has continually worked to rally international support against this disgraceful practice, I am greatly saddened that Yasser Arafat did not have the courage to call for a complete ban on suicide bombings. Given this most recent failure of Yasser Arafat, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues a report issued by Amnesty International titled ``Without Distinction--Attacks on Civilians by Palestinian Armed Groups.'' This report, which was released just weeks before the August recess, documents 128 attacks between September 29, 2000 and May 31, 2002 in which 338 civilians were killed. In the press release issued with the report, William Schultz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, says, ``there is no justification for attacking civilians, and Palestinian leaders must clearly state that all such attacks must cease, whether they take place in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza.'' I ask unanimous consent that the entire press release be printed in the Record. The full report can be found on the Internet at http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel__and__occupied__territories/ index.html.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this week, Yasser Arafat had the opportunity to follow the advice of Dr. Schultz and strongly state that terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, must end. Unfortunately, Yasser Arafat has again fallen short of what he must do so that peace can be achieved in the Middle East.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for what he said on the need to get homeland security right. He touched on the Coast Guard as an example of where we don't want to lose the function of the Coast Guard that is so important to our States--those of us who have waterways and oceans and a search-and-rescue element. I could not agree more with that point. I am also going to be working on the Federal Emergency Management Administration. We know they have come to our rescue many times, and we don't want to lose the ability of that agency to function in a natural disaster, as well as, of course, utilizing them if, God forbid, we have another terrorist attack. I think these are things on which we need to reflect. I am very pleased that Senator Byrd has slowed us up on considering this bill because it is not about an artificial date; it is about getting it right. Mr. President, I am here in a very somber mood. We are approximately 15 hours away from the very moment 1 year ago that our Nation was hit, and I want to take just a moment of the Senate's time--maybe 15 minutes--to reflect on that day and, most of all, to remember the Californians we lost that day, numbering 54. For me, and perhaps for you and many Americans, September has really been a month of excitement and anticipation. I have always loved September. It is the end of the summer, the beginning of a beautiful fall with the changing of the leaves, back to school, and perhaps a little quicker pace, a faster step. September, for most of us, never reminds us of loss, of fear, of shock, of the horrors born of an extreme, unbridled, blind hatred. In September, we found out about those things. We also found out as a Nation what heroism truly is, how strong and united we can be, how we can set aside differences for the greater good and work together. The images of September 11 are deep in our minds and deep in our souls. The pain is there, just under the surface. For some of us in America, it is on the surface, and it will always be on the surface for the families who grieve, for the children who will never know a parent--thousands of them--for communities that were decimated. Today I want to remember those in my State who died on that day. Each was unique. Every one of those planes on that fated day was headed to California. So even though my State was 3,000 miles away from Ground Zero, from the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, we were linked in our sorrow, and we were linked in our outrage. I am going to read the 54 names, and then I am going to talk a little more about some of the people whose families wanted me to just say a little more about them and show their picture to you. David Angell; Lynn Angell; David Aoyama; Melissa Barnes; Alan Beaven; Berry Berenson; Dr. Yen Betru; Carol Beug, and her mother Mary Alice Wahlstrom died together on flight 93. Mary Alice is from Utah. Mark Bingham; Deora Bodley; Touri Bolourchi; Daniel Brandworst, Ronald Gamboa, and their adopted son, David Brandhorst. He was 3 years old. Charles ``Chic'' Burlingame, the captain of American Airlines flight No. 77. Technically, he was from McLean, VA, but his family is from California, and they considered him a Californian, and they said he considered himself a Californian. Thomas Burnett; Suzanne Calley; Jeffrey Collman; Dorothy DeAraujo; Lisa Frost; Andrew Garcia; Edmund Glazer; Lauren Grandcolas; Andrew Curry Green; Richard Guadagno; Stanley Hall; Gerald Hardacre; John Hart; John Hofer; Melissa Hughes; Barbara Keating; Chad Keller; Christopher Larrabee; Daniel Lee; Dong Lee; Joe Lopez; Hilda Marcin; Dean Mattson; Dora Menchaca; Nicole Miller; Laurie Neira; Ruben Ornedo; Marie Pappalardo; Jerrold Paskins; Thomas Pecorelli; Robin Penninger; Marie-Rae Sopper; Xavier Suarez; Alicia Titus; Otis Tolbert; Pendyala Vamsikrashna; Timothy Ward; Christopher Wemmers; John Wenckus. Mr. President, I want these names to be memorialized again today. There is a beautiful song called ``Try to Remember,'' and one of the lines is: Try to remember the kind of September when no one wept except the willow. Sadly, those of us who lived through September 11, 2001, will weep for our lost brothers and sisters, but we will always remember our country, our embrace of freedom, and our democracy. And we will always cling closer to our loved ones. This place, this great democracy, America, will endure. Now I am going to tell you a little bit more about a few of the people we lost in California. Many people noted that the New York Times has run an ongoing biography of the people who were lost on that day. I was talking to Bob Kerrey, the former Senator from Nebraska, and he said this to a group of us: When you read those memorials, what you realize is how wonderful and important each of these people was and what wonderful stories were related from their families, their friends, and their coworkers. What really emerged is why this is such a great country. These people, they do not get in the news. They get up and go about their lives. That is what you are going to find out as I read about these people and show these pictures in memoriam. Lauren Grandcolas Mrs. Grandcolas was a 38-year-old advertising sales consultant when the flight she was on, United flight 93, was hijacked by terrorists. As we all know, that plane crashed in a Pennsylvania field killing everyone on board. We also know of the heroism of the passengers on that plane. Mrs. Grandcolas was born in Bloomington, IN, and attended the University of Texas at Austin where she met her husband, Jack Grandcolas. After graduation, she worked as a marketing director for a law firm and then for PricewaterhouseCoopers. At the time of her tragic death, Mrs. Grandcolas was working as an advertising sales consultant at Good Housekeeping magazine and was researching and writing a nonfiction book to help women boost their self-esteem. Lauren had enthusiasm and passion for life, loved the outdoors and was devoted to physical fitness. She hiked, jogged, kayaked, and enjoyed in-line skating around her neighborhood. Her energy was boundless. She took classes in cooking and gardening, scuba diving, and wine appreciation. Lauren was active with the United Way, March of Dimes, Project Open Hand, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, Breast Cancer Awareness, and Glide Memorial. Her husband Jack recalls she had a heart the size of Texas. Knowing her flight had been hijacked, Lauren left her husband a message on their home answering machine and then loaned her cell phone to another passenger to call loved ones. The joy Lauren felt pursuing new interests and developing new skills was being interwoven in the book she was writing for women. Jack recalls: She made a point to do things that were good for her, and she thought she could extend what she had learned to help other adult women gain confidence. Her sister and I will fulfill her dream by completing the book. Lauren Grandcolas is missed deeply by her family. I wanted to take a moment to tell you a little bit more about her. Nicole Carol Miller This next picture in memoriam is of Nicole Carol Miller. I want to start out by reading a poem that was dedicated to Nicole that was written by her father, David James Miller. It was written last September 11. If I cannot get through this, I will put it in the Record. My daughter's name is Nicole. This is the poem. How I love thee My Nicole. When the thoughts of you come into my mind It's as if a breeze has passed through our rose garden and the sweet savory I smell The taste of roses upon my tongue brings the sweetness of your memory to my mind It comes upon me as the morning dew weighs the roses down Smooth and pleasant are the thoughts of you, as the petals of a rose And once again I am nourished with your love. Nicole Carol was a lovely 21-year-old college student when the flight she was on, United flight 93, was hijacked by the terrorists. That was the plane that was brought down by the passengers in Pennsylvania. Nicole's memory lives on in the hearts of those she loved. She took great joy in life and exemplified this with her wonderful outlook and her tenacious personality. Nicole's radiant smile, which we can see in this photo, could light up the room as she energized those around her. She knew how to be an outstanding friend. She was blessed with two families, her father and stepmother, David and Catherine Miller of Chico, CA, and her mother and stepfather, Cathy and Wayne Stefani, Sr., of San Jose, CA. In her father's words: She had that sweet baby quality. She could make you smile and forget your troubles for a little bit. Friend Heidi Barnes describes Nicole as very friendly and welcoming. She had a big heart, and it was open to everyone. Nicole lived in San Jose, CA, with her mother and stepfather. She attended local schools and graduated from Pioneer High School in 1998. A talented softball player during all 4 years of high school, Nicole won a college softball scholarship during her senior year. Even though she had never been a competitive swimmer, she tried out for the Pioneer High swim team as a freshman and made the team. At the time of her tragic death, she was a dean's list student at West Valley College in Saratoga working part time and weighing whether to transfer to California State University at Chico or San Jose State University. I offer this tribute to Nicole. hilda marcin I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Senate the memory of one of my constituents, Hilda Marcin, who lost her life on September 11, 2001. Mrs. Marcin was 79 years old when the flight she was on, United Airlines Flight 93, was hijacked by terrorists. As we all know, that plane crashed in a Pennsylvania field, killing everyone on board. Mrs. Marcin was born in Schwedelbach, Germany. When she was 7 years old, her family emigrated to the United States to escape oppression. Like many immigrants, her family left all possessions behind and came only with the clothes on their backs. Her family settled in Irvington, NJ, where she attended local schools. She worked seven days a week in the payroll department of the New Jersey shipyards during World War II. A friend arranged a blind date with Edward Marcin and they were married on February 13, 1943. They had two daughters, Elizabeth and Carole. The Marcin family enjoyed participating in school functions, class trips, the PTA, and various church activities. Mr. and Mrs. Marcin were also socially and politically active in Irvington. Mrs. Marcin later worked as a special education teacher's aide. Hilda Marcin embraced life with enthusiasm and made the most of every minute. She adored her family and her granddaughter, Melissa Kemmerer Lata. She was an inspiration to those she touched, including the special needs children in the school where she worked. Her friends admired her positive attitude and her desire and ability to continue working during the later years of her life. Mrs. Marcin treasured freedom and democracy, and her American citizenship. At the time of her death, Mrs. Marcin was flying to San Francisco to live with her younger daughter, Carole O'Hare. She is survived by her daughter, Elizabeth Kemmerer and son-in- law Raymond Kemmerer; daughter Carole O'Hare and son-in-law Thomas O'Hare; and granddaughter Melissa Lata and Melissa's husband, Edward Lata. I offer this tribute to her.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I take this opportunity to bring to the Senate's attention the exemplary career and public service of Kayla J. Gillan. Ms. Gillan has served as General Counsel for the California Public Employees' Retirement System, CalPERS, since 1996, and also worked as Staff Counsel from 1986 to 1990 and as Deputy General Counsel from 1990 to 1996. She led a team of attorneys and other professionals who have worked to support the retirement, health and investment programs benefitting CalPERS members and employers. Ms. Gillan was instrumental in drafting corporate governance principles for the CalPERS Board of Administration, making CalPERS the first fund in the Nation to articulate roles for its Board, leaders, committees and staff. Ms. Gillan also facilitated the CalPERS Board's self-evaluation process and helped the Board implement path-breaking corporate governance policies. She was the principal drafter of all CalPERS corporate governance policy statements since 1992, and met with more than 150 companies to address poor financial performance and corporate governance. Under Ms. Gillan's leadership, the CalPERS legal team successfully fought and won litigation that resulted in a return of over $2 billion to the fund, and the establishment of the principle that CalPERS members have a vested right to a fiscally secure retirement system. She drafted Board policies on securities litigation, including the CalPERS process for evaluating litigation that served as a roadmap for the CalPERS legal team to win the largest securities fraud class action recovery in history. Ms. Gillan has been the recipient of numerous industry honors, such as being named one of the National Law Journal's top 50 women lawyers in the United States in 1998, and was included in that publication's 1995 list of the top ``40 under age 40 attorneys'' in the Nation. Ms. Gillan's expertise, dedication, and leadership should be commended. Her work has resulted in the advancement of corporate governance principles in corporations throughout the United States. Establishing higher standards and clear accountability for corporate governance is vital to the integrity of the American economy, particularly in light of the burgeoning corporate scandals in our markets. I wish Ms. Gillan all the best in her future endeavors.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Right.