Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, is it possible for me to yield for 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the $87 billion supplemental conference report, and I want to take a few minutes to explain why I support this conference report, even though I have serious misgivings about some of its provisions. I support this conference report because I believe the United States now has an inescapable responsibility in Iraq. We must stay the course and to do that, we must provide our troops in the field with the resources necessary to complete their mission. The defense title of this conference report provides nearly $65 billion for that purpose, including important funding to improve the safety of our troops by securing Iraqi small arms caches which are the source of much of the munitions used to attack U.S. forces. We must rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and assist in resurrecting a viable Iraqi economy. We must see that a stable government is put in place. We must prevent civil war. And we must see to it that Iraq does not become a base for terror and instability throughout the region. Nothing could be more disastrous for U.S. national security than, after bringing about regime change, if our nation were to turn tail and run and not accomplish the mission. We would send precisely the wrong message to both our friends and our foes around the world. If the United States were to pull out without completing the job, I believe that we would see civil war and a return of the Baathist regime, perhaps headed by someone as bad or worse than Saddam. For many of us, the challenges that we now face in Iraq illustrate the shortcomings of a doctrine of unilateral preemption and preventive war. When we use force against a state and seek regime change we are left with an inescapable role: Nation building. This conference report is not perfect. Far from it. But it is critical that we do not leave the hard work of post-war reconstruction undone. When the supplemental bill was before the Senate, I did what I could to see if it was possible to structure at least some of this package as loans--and the Senate adopted an amendment which would have made $10 billion of the reconstruction loans. That provision, unfortunately, was dropped in Conference over my objections and those of many of my colleagues. I also worked with Senator Domenici to include additional reporting language in this bill. This amendment, which was adopted by the Senate, provided Congress and the American people real oversight over what the administration's plans were in Iraq and how the money in this supplemental was being spent. Unfortunately, many of these reporting requirements were also stripped out in conference. I also supported efforts to include provisions in this bill so that there would be greater international contributions to the reconstruction effort, to see if Iraqi oil could be quickly bought on- line to underwrite costs, to earmark some of the funds to be spent in Iraq on domestic priorities instead, and to try to pay for this supplemental by deferring the large tax cut for those Americans earning more than $340,000 a year. So if I had my way in putting this package together we would have before us a very different conference report. Unfortunately, all these options were either debated and voted down by the Senate when we considered this bill earlier or, in the case of the loan provision, stripped out by the Republican majority in conference. I would also like to note a provision of this bill that strikes close to home for me and my constituents. I am pleased that the conference report provides $500 million for FEMA disaster relief activities associated with recently declared disasters, such as the wildfires in California. Representative Jerry Lewis and I sponsored this funding as a downpayment on what we all can expect to be a costly reconstruction effort in southern California. We in California are resilient, and I hope that this funding will help us to bounce back quickly from the catastrophic fires still burning in California. So in the final analysis, even without the inclusion of many of the Iraq provisions I would have liked to have seen in this bill, I have come to the conclusion that the United States must step up to the plate and meet its obligations in Iraq. The United States must win the peace in Iraq. The United States must also seek to repair the breach that exists between our nation and some of our friends and allies in the international community. As I stated on the floor earlier when the Senate considered this supplemental, it is my sincere hope that in the reconstruction of Iraq, the United States can repair some of this damage by working with our allies, the United Nations, and the international community. The United States has lost a great deal of good will throughout the world in the past year due to the perception that the American attitude has become ``our way or the highway.'' We must signal clearly and unambiguously that our attitude has changed and that we welcome the full partnership of others in the international community in Iraq. On balance I find that I must support this conference report. Our national security and the safety and well-being of our troops demand it. Indeed, how the United States approaches the reconstruction of Iraq may well prove to be one of the greatest tests of American leadership since World War II. To fail in this endeavor could well escalate chaos in the Middle East and Gulf region, lead to civil war in Iraq, and allow Iraq to become a base for terror. I believe that it is important that Congress supports this conference report and that we stay the course in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes on my amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, with respect to Uganda, I would like to read testimony from a Ugandan HIV/AIDS director before the House regarding the promotion of prevention by the President of Uganda. Let me quote this: For some, he promoted a message of delaying sexual debut. For others, he urged them to be faithful to one partner and to use a condom. It was his three-part message that was effective in Uganda. In my personal experience, I believe this three-part message is critical. Currently, one-third of all prevention funds must be reserved for abstinence until marriage programs. This earmark limits the amount of funds available for other prevention programs, including preventing mother to child transmission. There are literally 5 million to 10 million orphans already from AIDS in Africa, and it is going to be much more. All we are saying, is that the one-third earmark should not apply to programs that give a pregnant woman a 90 percent chance of preventing the transmission of AIDS to the unborn child. That is all we are doing in this amendment, providing some flexibility. Remember this overwhelming statistic. The estimates are there will be in excess of 20 million orphans by 2010 in Africa. There should be flexibility. Our amendment allows the people on the ground to design a HIV/AIDS prevention program that is most effective at stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much of my time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, looking at the scope of the HIV/AIDS tragedy, 40 million people are infected with HIV worldwide and 30 million of these people are from sub-Saharan Africa, approximately 70 percent of the world's total. As of 2001, 21.5 million Africans had died of AIDS, and at least 50 million new cases are projected by 2010 in five countries alone: China, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, and Russia. It is estimated that two-thirds of the 45 million new HIV infections expected to occur during this period could be averted with effective prevention. That is where we must go. This amendment does not aim to change the one-third earmark for abstinence until marriage. This amendment aims to provide some flexibility so that the people on the ground have the opportunity of tailoring the most effective prevention program. The way in which we do it is, first, we reserve at least one-third of funds for the prevention of the sexual transmission of HIV, rather than one-third of all prevention funds, for abstinence-until-marriage programs. Secondly, our amendment defines an abstinence-until-marriage program as any program that places a priority emphasis on the public health benefits of refraining from sexual activity outside of marriage. Our amendment gives the administration, local communities, and HIV/ AIDS workers on the ground maximum flexibility to design HIV/AIDS prevention strategies that are most effective in stopping the spread of AIDS. One of the things we know, for example, is that Nevirapine, given to a pregnant woman, can stop the spread of HIV to her unborn child. In removing the one-third earmark from that program, you are able to use prevention dollars in a much wiser way. Let me be clear: Our amendment does not strike the one-third earmark for abstinence until marriage programs. Rather, it ensures the United States can fund programs that are most successful in increasing abstinence among young people. We believe this is a pro-abstinence, results-oriented amendment. It balances congressional priorities with public health needs. I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1977.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors, in addition to Senators Snowe and Murray, Senators Clinton, Jeffords, and Durbin.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words. Actually, Senator Craig was one of the earliest people with whom we began to work on these issues, from the California perspective, many years ago on the Quincy Library Group. That began to develop kind of an across-the-aisle bond. Then when Senator Wyden became ranking member of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests in the Senate Energy Committee, he really took a great interest in this subject as well. So it has been a terrific pleasure for me to work with him as well. He has carried this out in an absolutely superlative way. I also want to thank Senator Daschle, Senator Lincoln and Senator Pryor, who have been a crucial part of this legislation, Senator McCain, Senator Cochran, Senators Crapo and Domenici. I am looking for people in the Chamber who have been part of this effort. I hope the American people are proud of us tonight. I believe we have worked as the American people want us to work--not out of mean-spirited partisanship but rather, sitting together and working across the aisle to work out compromises. That is what this bill is. We had to cement certain compromises in order to see that the bill covered the United States fairly and also met the concerns of both sides of the aisle. This bill is funded. It is about double the amount of money that we have had in the past to treat those lands that are at high risk of catastrophic fire. The House bill is not funded. Additionally, this bill leaves intact a collaborative citizen participation process in an administrative review procedure. It leaves intact the ability for judicial review, but it truncates it in a way that allows us to move more aggressively on the 20 million acres that are encompassed in this bill. It is interesting to me to hear people say: Oh, they are just going to log all the forests. In fact, that has never been the case. There has always been a set number. In this bill, it is 20 million acres. We have 54 million acres across the United States that is at the highest risk of catastrophic fire. In my State alone, we have 8.5 million acres. It is going to take a new mindset for people if we are going to be able to do what we need to do. Since Senator Craig mentioned the Old Fire, which is currently burning in California, I just wanted to give you all a brief update. Currently, I have my State director at the command center in San Bernardino. I just want to report that with respect to the Old Fire, which is the huge fire they thought would consume all of Lake Arrowhead and a number of other threatened mountain towns where there are 50,000 to 60,000 residential homes, they have had a good day today. It began to rain this morning, the fog is in, and the air remains moist. They couldn't see the smoke for the fog, and for the first time on the fire lines, there is a sense of optimism that these heroic crews are going to be able to get a hold on this fire. Most importantly, they were able to bulldoze a line ahead of that fire. Over five hundred homes have been lost in that particular fire so far. Hopefully, there will not be many more lost, and, hopefully, within a matter of a few days that huge fire can be put under control. As we know, the town of Julian, which is a gold mining town in the San Diego area, has eight firefighters. All eight firefighters fighting these fires have lost their homes. One distinguished firefighter, Steven Rucker, who came down on mutual aid from the city of Novato in northern California lost his life. I think we all salute him. There is an enormous lesson in these devastating fires currently burning in my home State, and it is that the land has to be managed. The forests have to be managed. We have to do the right thing for our constituents. We are pushed and we are pulled by conflicting interests. I believe the Senate version of this bill is a good bill. It is a good bill from the interests of the public, and that is what has to count in this matter. I thank the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Cochran, who has been instrumental in leading this effort; Senator Domenici, my friend and colleague, and Senator Harkin, the ranking member on the Agriculture Committee. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain- Lieberman amendment. I would like to begin by thanking the distinguished Senators from Arizona and Connecticut for their work on this bill. Their efforts are moving the Senate and the country forward on this very important issue. I strongly believe that it is time for the United States to take real action against climate change. The science is solid. It is time to stop debating whether to do something and start discussing how to do it. This modest bill is an affordable and crucial step forward. It is time to act. The McCain-Lieberman amendment would create the infrastructure needed to track and trade greenhouse gas emissions and require the U.S. to return to year 2000 emissions levels by 2010. The amendment would give us 7 years to reach year 2000 level emissions. Because of the recession, our national emissions actually went down in 2001. So we are actually at about year 2000 levels right now. So we have 7 years just to get back to our current level of emissions. This is a modest step but it is a step forward. As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. has a duty to act. With only 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the world is already reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The world is counting on us to do the same. If we continue to ignore the problem, it will only get worse. If we wait, we will need to make bigger cuts in our emissions and we will have less time. Action will become more expensive rather than less. I understand that many people are concerned about the costs of any efforts to reduce emissions. I also want to make sure that whatever program we wind up with is a good deal for the American people. I strongly believe that the cap and trade program in this bill is a good deal for America. Concerns about the cost of action are important. But I want to ask my colleagues to consider very carefully the cost of doing nothing. The evidence is getting stronger and stronger that climate change will be very expensive. According to the best available research, not acting will cost my State dearly. Our large population, our geography, and especially our reliance on snow runoff for water make California extremely vulnerable to global warming. Frankly, the models predicting the impacts of global warming on California are frightening. Climate change threatens the agricultural and natural resource industries that are central to California's economy and quality of life. As the Senate knows, I am especially concerned about the future of California's water supply. More than 36 million people live in California right now, and we expect to have 50 million people by 2020. Even without climate change, it would be a struggle to supply enough water for all of these people. But report after report indicates that climate change will further threaten a water supply that is already tight. Models from NASA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, and the Union of Concerned Scientists all indicate that climate change is likely to increase winter rain and decrease snowfall in California. More winter rain means winter flooding. Less snow means less water for the rest of the year. But California's natural environment as we know it depends on gradual runoff from snow. Furthermore, we have spent billions of dollars on water infrastructure in California that depends on this runoff. And yet we already struggle to provide enough water for our farms, our cities, and our fish and wildlife. As my colleagues know, I have worked hard to plan for the future of California's water supply. Climate change threatens even to make those plans insufficient. We are already seeing alarming changes. According to scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the past century has seen a decline in spring and summer runoff in some California streams. In 1910, half of the Sacramento River's annual runoff took place between April and July. Today, that number is closer to 35 percent and is continuing to decline. We can no longer count on this runoff. We are also already seeing a rise in sea level. Average sea level has risen considerably in San Francisco since 1850, with the most marked increase occuring since 1925. My colleagues from coastal states understand the potential cost of rising sea levels to coastal communities. We are seeing other effects of climate change throughout the world: The Union of Concerned Scientists has found that the global sea level has risen about three times faster over the past 100 years than the previous 3,000 years. In July, the World Meteorological Organization released an unprecedented warning about extreme weather events. According to the organization's press release, ``recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase.'' According to the World Meteorological Organization, the United States experienced 562 tornadoes in May of this year. The tornadoes killed 41 people. This was 163 more tornadoes than the United States had ever experienced in one month. We are seeing similar record extremes around the world. These extreme weather events are a predicted result of climate change. Climate change is also affecting some of our most treasured places. Last November, the Los Angeles Times published an article about the vanishing glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana. Over a century ago, 150 of these magnificent glaciers could be seen on the high cliffs and jagged peaks of the surrounding mountains of the park. Today, there are only 35. And the 35 glaciers that remain today are disintegrating so quickly that scientists estimate the park will have no glaciers in 30 years. Closer to home for me, on October 12 of this year, the Los Angeles Times reported that glaciers in the Sierra Nevada are disappearing. Many of these glaciers have been there for the last thousand years. We are seeing similar melting around the world, from the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania to the ice fields beneath Mt. Everest in the Himalayas. Dwindling glaciers offer a clear and visible sign of climate change in America and the rest of the world. We are already seeing some of these changes. The science tells us to expect even more. The evidence that climate change is real is overwhelming: including reports from the National Academies of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and even the Congressional Budget Office. To quote a CBO report released in May, ``scientists generally agree that continued population growth and economic development over the next century will result in substantially more greenhouse gas emissions and further warming unless actions are taken to control those emissions.'' The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the Earth's average temperature could rise by as much as 10 degrees in the next 100 years--the most rapid change in 10,000 years. The latest evidence also indicates that climate change is likely to lead to more forest fires. Models indicate that warming will lead to dryer conditions in many places. Furthermore, warming is allowing bark beetles to spread farther north and to higher altitudes than ever before. In parts of Alaska, bark beetles now have two generations per year instead of one, leading to drastic increases in population and destruction of our forests. As we know too well, dry conditions and insect kill makes our forests into tinder boxes. I strongly believe that we have the evidence that we need in order to act. Not addressing climate change will cost us dearly. Yet, so far, the United States has not really taken action against climate change. Not only are we not part of the Kyoto Protocol, but the administration refuses to take part in shaping another solution. This is a big mistake. We emit more greenhouse gases than any nation on Earth. The world is counting on us, and we have a responsibility to help. We should be a leader--not an obstacle--when it comes to combating global warming. In his speech to the joint session of Congress--which many of us cited as among the best we have ever heard--British Prime Minister Tony Blair challenged the U.S. to take action now. Mr Blair said: Climate change, deforestation, the voracious drain on natural resources cannot be ignored. Unchecked, these forces will hinder the economic development of the most vulnerable nations first and ultimately all nations. Mr. Blair went on to say: We must show the world that we are willing to step up to these challenges around the world and in our own backyards. If this seems a long way from the threat of terror and weapons of mass destruction, it is only to say again that the world security cannot be protected without the world's heart being won. So America must listen as well as lead. Prime Minister Blair is right. If we fail to act now, we will face devastating consequences in the future. We will impose those same consequences on future Americans and the rest of the world. Continued failure to act will also further strain our relationships with our allies. These relationships are already tense enough. The administration has said that we need more research before acting. I agree that we should continue to study climate change. But we also need to start reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases now. Prime Minister Blair has committed to a 60 percent cut in Britain's emissions by 2050. We need to make sure the U.S. is not left behind. The McCain-Lieberman amendment is the right place to start. This is a modest amendment. We would need to be back to our current level of emissions by 2010. In reality, much of the reduction in ``net emissions'' will come through increased carbon sequestration in forest and agricultural land. Emissions could actually increase as long as there is enough sequestration to offset the increases. The amendment is comprehensive. The amendment covers six greenhouse gases and the vast majority of our greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment is low cost. Repeated analyses have shown that cap-and- trade programs are the most cost effective way to reduce emissions. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this amendment would cost less than $20 per household over the life of the program--we can afford this cost. The amendment would not lead to rapid fuel switching to natural gas. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, coal use would actually continue to increase under this amendment. Natural gas use would decrease from business as usual because the bill would spur conservation measures. During the latest energy crisis, California showed that conservation can make a huge difference. This bill will help us create better incentives for conservation. Even the Energy Information Administration, EIA, says that this amendment would not result in fuel switching. EIA was concerned about the costs of the original Climate Stewardship Act. I believe that the agency's models are flawed and biased toward higher costs. But even those models indicate that this amendment will cost little and will not lead to price spikes. There is a lot of misinformation floating around about this amendment. Some of the models were analyzing the Kyoto Protocol, which would have required a 20 percent emissions reduction by 2010. This amendment requires us to get back to our current emissions by 2010, an entirely different proposition. Other models are based on an ``energy shock.'' Coming from California, I am quite familiar with energy crises. Shocks happen when businesses do not have time to prepare. This amendment is not a shock. We are giving industry 7 years' warning. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 7 years is enough time for the economy to adjust without job losses. Businesses throughout the country have shown that efforts to reduce emissions can increase efficiency and actually save companies money. Voluntary programs simply are not doing the job. We need to give incentives for all companies to increase efficiency and cut emissions. We need to move forward with a national solution to climate change. So far, we have placed all of the burden on the states. I am proud to say that California has been a leader. California has created a registry of greenhouse gas emissions that will be a model for the nation. Several other states are already looking to adopt the California Climate Action Registry's standards. Similarly, California has a groundbreaking regulation affecting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. Many states are moving forward, and they are now pressing harder for Federal action. Local officials are also pressing for a national plan. My colleagues know that I am partial to mayors. Recently, 155 mayors, including 38 from my State alone, signed a statement calling for national action. State and local programs are important and I applaud these efforts. But we need national leadership on this issue. The McCain-Lieberman approach has widespread public support. According to a recent national poll, three-fourths of Americans support this approach to global warming--including solid majorities from both parties. We need to listen. We know that agreement on climate change is possible in the Senate. The Senate has passed a modest provision in the Energy Bill 2 years in a row. The Foreign Relations Committee has recognized the urgency of the issue for our diplomatic relations. It is time for the entire Senate to go on record on this important topic. We need to show Americans and the rest of the world that we are listening and that we are doing something about climate change. I believe we can unite behind this bill and move the debate forward. As Mr. Blair said, we have a responsibility to listen and to lead. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to give the Senate an update on the wildfires sweeping across Southern California--as the Senate continues to debate legislation to change our Nation's forest policy. The situation in my State is at a critical juncture. If the weather continues to improve--as it is expected--then firefighters may be able to get a handle on the fires which continue to burn. This would be good news indeed. I would also like to report that FEMA will shortly be announcing 6 permanent field sites where victims of the fire can go for assistance and 4 additional mobile sites. It is critical that the FEMA centers get opened as soon as possible-- so that the help gets where it is needed most. There are nine large fires currently raging in the State--all of which have caused considerable damage. In total, these fires have burned over 650,000 acres--about the size of Rhode Island. Twenty people have been killed. This includes a firefighter from Marin County who was killed by a fast moving wall of fire associated with the Cedar fire. Twenty-four hundred homes have been lost in five counties, and thousands more structures have been burned. There are some 13,000 firefighters waging a battle against the fires. True to form, these firefighters have given everything they have to put out the fires and are exhausted. Our thoughts and our prayers go out to these men and women--and to the family of the firefighter who died--we know that these firefighters are doing everything possible to save lives, homes, and private property. Let me now go through some of the fires to let you know what is happening. The Cedar Fire in San Diego has become the largest wildfire in California history. It has burned 250,000 acres--and 6 days old, it is only 15 percent contained. Thus far, 22 injuries have been reported as a result of this fire, and 7 civilian fatalities confirmed by the San Diego Sheriff's Department. Additionally, 1,300 Structures have been destroyed. The fire has destroyed 90 percent of the town of Cuyamaca, and today, it threatens the communities of Pine Hills, Mt. Laguna, Ramona and Julian. Plans to aggressively protect the historic town of Julian are in place. Overnight, 300 structures were destroyed in Cuyamaca and Harrison. The Old Fire in San Bernardino is also burning out of control and continues to pose a major threat to Lake Arrowhead, Big Bear, and other mountain communities. This fire also began 6 days ago. It has consumed 60,000 acres thus far and is only 10 percent contained. Massive resources have been expended to fight this fire, including 2,175 firefighters, 10 helicopters, 40 fire crews, 280 engines, and 7 air tankers. There have been three injuries to date and two civilian deaths. Conservative estimates suggest that 550 residential structures and 10 commercial structures have been destroyed. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are 50,000-60,000 homes and 2,000 commercial properties in the area threatened by this fire. More than 50,000 people have been evacuated from communities like Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear. Firefighters are doing what they can to protect these communities from going up in flames, but this is difficult because of the thousands of trees killed by the Bark Beetle, which have become kindling in this fire. The Grand Prix fires also continues to rage in San Bernardino, near the community of Fontana. This fire has consumed 70,000 acres, destroyed 60 residences and 60 other structures, and has resulted in 27 injuries. This fire began 10 days ago, and is 40 percent contained. Today, 1,600 firefighters, 12 helicopters, 42 fire crews, 159 engines, and 30 bull dozers are committed to this fire. It is hoped that weather conditions will allow firefighters to get better control of this fire today. Moving North, the Simi fire threatens the community of Stevenson Ranch. The good news with this fire is that it did not move into the canyons and cut a path toward Malibu. But when the wind shifted, the fire turned toward a sub-development on the northern end of Los Angeles County. This fire has consumed 105,560 acres and destroyed 16 structures and 64 other buildings. Thus far, there have been 5 injuries as a result of this fire, and the fire is only 35 percent contained. Now, firefighters are trying to keep this fire away from homes and have thus far been successful. Today is a critical day for this fire. Cooler temperatures may allow a fire line to be completed along Potero Canyon, and this would go a long way toward bringing this fire under control. Like the other fires, massive resources have been deployed to fight this fire, including: 1,389 firefighters, 9 helicopters, 236 engines, 6 air tankers, and 27 bulldozers. The Piru fire continues to burn in Ventura county, near the community of Fillmore. Thus far, 62,000 acres have been consumed, and the fire is only 30 percent contained. The fire began a week ago, has caused 20 injures and destoyed 8 structures. But this fire remains dangerous. The fire is moving towards fuel- laden areas in the Los Padres National Forest, and we have to watch this one closely. The Padua fire--near Claremont, CA--is smaller than the other ones, but it has caused considerable damage nonetheless. Latest reports show that it has burned almost 10,000 acres, and the good news is that it is 50 percent contained. This fire has caused 15 injuries, destroyed 59 structures, and threatens 500 homes in the community of Mt. Baldy. The resources directed at this fire include 691 firefighters, 17 fire crews, 80 engines, and 4 bulldozers. Some good news from the Whitmore fire, near Shasta, CA. This fire which has burned approximately 1,000 acres is 80 percent contained. There have been no injuries as a result of this fire, and it is expected to be contained today. It is my great hope that this happens. Good news also with the Tuk Fire, 10 miles east of Orick, CA, south of Crescent City. This fire has burned only 315 acres and is 80 percent contained. Officals are hoping that this fire will be fully contained today as well. The mountain fire, which burned just under 10,000 acres in Riverside, CA, has been 100 percent contained. Fire officials will continue to complete burnout operation in near the fire edge, and pending favorable weather, should be completed soon. This fire was serious--it caused 6 injuries and 61 structures. Fire crews and equipment are coming in from other States. The governor of New Mexico has offered equipment, and I understand that other States have offered help as well. As crews become weary and fatigued, it will be increasingly important to get reinforcements from other States--and I will do what I can to make sure this happens. In terms of victim assistance, help is on its way. As I mentioned, FEMA will be establishing four permanent centers in affected communities, and four mobile centers. Additionally, if any Californian needs help, they can call my San Diego or Los Angeles office, and we will do anything we can to ensure that they get the appropriate assistance. This is a terrible time for Californians, but in times of crisis, people pull together and do what they can to help one another. It is my hope that these fires can be quickly contained--with limited casualties and loss of property. This event has truly been a wake up call, and I hope that we learn how critical it is to manage our lands, to ensure that catastrophic fires like these can be prevented.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is correct, through the Chair, if I may. We have discussed this and both of us wanted to protect the collaborative process. We wanted to protect the ability of individuals to go to meetings, to state their issues, to have those issues considered. The only change I see in this is twofold. The first is that they will have the environmental review to look at, which is important in understanding what you differ with in the environmental review and then being able to make the case. Secondly, the number of alternatives is reduced from five to nine to one. There is a good reason for that. As I pointed out earlier, if we were talking about a network of highways or something like that, you may want five to nine alternatives to be considered. We are talking about an area which has been designated in the highest risk of catastrophic fire. Therefore, the alternative would be one. For example, do you believe there is too much thinning? Do you believe there is too much burning? Would you do mechanical in what proportion to burning to thin this area out? There would be the ability to come in with one precise alternative. Of course, the other alternative that some might argue for is to do nothing. They would have that ability as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. You have been a great ranking member and I have enjoyed every minute.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I just say, thank you for the help that has come from Oregon. It is a long way away. But we are very grateful. New Mexico is sending help. Nevada--the Senator from Nevada is on the floor--sent help. Arizona has sent help. We are very grateful for that. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his comments and for his support. I have worked with him on this issue now for a long, long time. As you know, California has great and challenging forests. As I delved into the issue and became more and more involved and traveled over forests on helicopters and walked through forests, I realized how much they had changed from the time I was a child in California. I also thank the bipartisan group of Senators who have tirelessly negotiated this legislation, particularly the Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden. He and I, on our side, have worked with a group of Republicans, knowing that both of us face States that are deeply challenged by forest fire. The need to develop a piece of legislation was crystal clear to both of us. This is very difficult, I think, for both of us because the prevailing environmental view has always been not to touch our forests, and that is what fire suppression was all about. Senator Wyden has been stalwart. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with him and his staff. I know my staff has also very much appreciated the collegiality and also the exchange of ideas. I thank him very much. Also, Senators Baucus, Craig, Crapo, Cochran, Domenici, Kyl, Lincoln, and McCain--we were all partners in forging this compromise consensus bill. With what is happening in California, I don't think I need to tell anybody that there has been an alarming increase in catastrophic wildfires that have raged through our forests and neighboring communities all across this great land, because nearly 27 million acres have burned nationally in the past 5 years alone, and 2.1 million of those acres are in California. There are 57 million acres of Federal land at the highest risk of catastrophic fire, including 8.5 million in my State alone. People in California don't realize that much of our forest is in what is called the highest risk of catastrophic fire--for many, many different reasons. But that is where they are today. This is far from the natural condition of our forests. It is because this century-old policy of suppressing ground fires has allowed so much flammable brush to accumulate so dangerously in many of our forests, especially in dry areas at low to moderate elevations. This legislation is not a logging bill, as some would typify it--I think falsely. This legislation would allow the brush to be cleaned out and it would also provide the first statutory protection for old-growth stands and large trees ever in the history of this Nation. I have heard people fault it, saying it is not this and it is not that--but it is, and no one has submitted legislation prior to our doing so in this particular area. I want to be very clear. This is pro-environment legislation and it seeks to reverse some of the damage we have done to our forests and restore their healthy condition. Pictures show the story, I think more powerfully than words. Like the old adage, a photo is worth a thousand words. That is really true. Let me show you this first picture. This picture goes back to 1909, and it reminds me a little bit of the conditions of the Sierras when I used to ride through them as a child. You didn't have to go on trails; you used to ride through the forest. This is a picture of Grandview Point at Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona in 1909. You see the buggy and horses, and you see the open nature of the forest. You don't see much ground fuel. You don't see brush. Let me show you the next photo. It shows the forest closing in, due to fire suppression. From 1909, in the top picture, you will see it open. This is all the same identical forest. You will see the openness all throughout this forest as far back as you can see. Then you will see the next one, 1942. Look at these little juniors, look at them popping up all over the forest. Then you will see in the last picture in 1992, following a fire. This is the problem increasingly with these forests. This picture is from the Pearson Natural Area in the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. Now, look at another picture. This is the crowded, unthinned area, Ponderosa Pine in California. You will see one of these problems. This picture is not following a forest fire. This is the natural condition of this forest. It is just awaiting a catastrophic fire. Now, let me show you where fire suppression doesn't just exist in pines. I would like to show you a photo of some of California's most magnificent trees. This is the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias in the southern Sierra Mountains. It is interesting to look at it. This is a man right here. This will show you how big those giant sequoias are. This was taken in 1890. Look at the clear space around those sequoias. Now go to 1970. This is the same tree and look at what has happened. This is a catastrophic fire waiting to happen. What will happen if there were fire back here, let's say, involving these two trees? It would not necessarily be catastrophic, because it would not burn hot enough on the fuel to take out the canopy. The sequoias are basically fire resistant and it would resist it. Fires today run the risk--because of the underbrush, because of the nonnative species, and because of the fuel ladder--of really taking out the canopy of old majestic and great trees. We had a fire in the Sequoias, and we were just lucky that where the fire took place, it didn't reach these trees. I would like to show you a picture of a fire in a Ponderosa pine forest that has been altered by decades of fire suppression. Look how this fire is burning. It is not confined to the ground. It is rising up into the trees and doing substantial damage. Look at this photo of fire in a stand where the brush and smaller trees have been cleared out. Note that the fire, unlike this fire, is confined to the ground. That is what we are trying to achieve in this bill so that when a fire does occur it is confined to the ground and does not do damage to old-growth trees, to other trees in the area, and to property and life. Finally, this is a picture showing how thinning can protect the forests. This is the 2000 Clear Creek Fire in the State of Idaho. The upper area in the photo was unmanaged, and it burned severely. You can see that right through here where the fire burned. Now you can see where the fire stopped. The lower area survived the fire and remained green and healthy because of one reason: It had been thinned. This is elegant testimony to what happens when it isn't managed. Where fuel is not removed, it burns fiercely. It stops where it is managed and there are fuel breaks, and the forest is cleared of fuel. I want to emphasize that not all of our forests have been affected by fire suppression. Many of our forests--particularly those in the wetter areas and higher mountain elevations--have changed little, if at all, from fire suppression. Fires in these forests occur only rarely. In some cases, hundreds of years can pass between fires. But fire suppression has changed these forests little. We can largely leave them alone under the legislation. The only exception is forest areas near communities where we want to reduce the hazardous fuel to ensure public safety. This is how our amendment would work. The bipartisan amendment directly addresses these threats to our forest health and our communities. We established an expedited hazardous fuels reduction program for 20 million acres at the highest risk of catastrophic fire. Some opponents of this bill are saying everything is up for this project--wrong. This project is confined to 20 million acres of the highest risk of catastrophic fire among the 54 million acres which the Forest Service has identified at highest risk of catastrophic fire. It would authorize $760 million annually for the removal of fuel. That is a $340 million increase over current funding. The House bill has no money for title I to do this in that bill. It leaves 50 percent of the funds to be used for fuel reduction near communities. This is a compromise that Senator Wyden and I made to be able to provide incentives for others who may not have as many populated areas as some of us do to also have an opportunity to have fires thinned near urban watersheds, municipal watersheds, areas of infestation, and other critical areas that are in need of thinning to prevent catastrophic fire. And the remainder of funding is for municipal watersheds or endangered species habitat or areas that have suffered just as I have said. The legislation also requires that large fire-resistant old-growth trees be protected from logging immediately. Most people do not know that. But there is immediate protection for large fire-resistant old- growth trees. It mandates that forest plans that are more than 10 years old and most in need of updating must be updated with old growth protection consistent with the national standard within 2 to 3 years. Within that 20 million acres there is a real effort to say that old forest plans must be brought to the fore and dealt with quickly within 2 or 3 years. While forest-specific old growth is being developed, large and fire- resilient trees would be immediately protected in the new project authorized by this legislation. The bill prevents logging of the largest most fire-resistant trees in the guise of fuel reduction. Where old-growth forests have not been altered by fire suppression, existing old-growth conditions must be maintained. And in other old-growth stands where brush and other highly flammable fuels have accumulated through this century-old policy of suppressing ground fires, brush will be cleared out to protect the stands from catastrophic fire. And local forest managers will write specific prescriptions for their forests. All of these prescriptions will be consistent with the more general national old-growth protection standards in the bill. Additionally, the agreement improves and shortens the administrative review process. I want to talk about this. There has been a lot of things said. A lot of things were just plain wrong. We have been trying to correct them wherever we can. Where we tried to shorten the process, we tried to make it more collaborative and less confrontational. It is critical that the Forest Service be able to spend scarce dollars as it is doing vital work on the ground rather than being mired in endless paperwork. The legislation we have submitted fully preserves multiple opportunities for meaningful public involvement. People can attend a public meeting on every single project. They can submit comments during both the preparation of the environmental impact statement and during the administrative review process. I guarantee that the public will have a meaningful say in these projects. The legislation changes the environmental review process in this way. It does this so that the Forest Service still considers the effect of the proposed project. But it does it in a way so that the Forest Service can focus its analysis on the project proposal. One reasonable alternative is required--I want to explain this--that meets the project goals and the alternative of not doing the project, instead of the five to nine alternatives now required. We are not talking about a freeway or a highway being located where you might want to look at five to nine different alternatives. We are talking about one specific project that has been designated for hazardous fuels reduction and how you carry out that hazardous fuel reduction. There might be debate on whether it should be mechanical thinning, or burning, or a combination of the two. There might be a debate on exactly which trees people want to remain inviolate. All of that is possible. But the requirement, in addition to the alternative of doing nothing, is reduce one alternative--one sound alternative--that can be considered. This legislation replaces the current Forest Service administrative appeal with an administration review process that will occur after the Forest Service finishes its environmental review of the project but before it reaches its decision. This new approach is similar to the process adopted by the Clinton administration in 2000 for review of forest lands and amendments to those plans. The process will be speedier and less confrontational than the current administrative appeal process and have more information available to those who want to know more about the project. Perhaps the most controversial area is the area of judicial review. I will turn to that. I emphasize that cases will be heard more quickly under the legislation, abuses of the process will be checked, but nothing alters the citizen's opportunity for a fair and thorough court review. Parties can sue in Federal court only on issues raised in the environmental review process. We believe this is a commonsense provision that allows agencies the opportunity to correct their own mistakes before everything gets litigated. Lawsuits must be filed in the same jurisdiction as the proposed project. This was in-house language. This has been supported. It is a good idea. We go to the Federal court in the area where the hazardous fuels project is proposed, not to a Federal court in New York City or somewhere else. Courts are encouraged to resolve the case as soon as possible. This is not mandatory language, it is suggested language. It means that any judge reading the bill will understand how seriously we take this. We urge them to conclude their deliberations expeditiously. A preliminary injunction would be limited to 60 days, not going on and on and on. An individual who gets a preliminary injunction can come back before the court and make an argument as to why the injunction should be continued, and the judge has the ability and the prerogative to continue that injunction if he or she sees fit. This provision, we believe, sends a signal to the courts not to delay important brush-clearing projects indefinitely unless there is a good reason to do so. Then there is what is called balance-of-harm language in the bill that says the court must weigh the environmental benefit of doing a given project against its environmental risk as it reviews the case. I deeply believe this amendment is balanced, that it is a significant improvement from the House-passed bill. I cannot support the House- passed bill. Senator Wyden cannot support the House-passed bill. The Democrats who are on this bill cannot support and will not support the House-passed bill. Ergo, in this Chamber, the House-passed bill will not have the 60 votes required to move it along. There are many ways in which this amendment improves on the House- passed bill. I know Senator Wyden went into that in great detail. I will mention three of them. First, this bill is focused on the highest priority language where we need to undertake brush-clearing projects to restore forest health. As I said, it is limited to 20 million of the 54 million acres at highest risk of catastrophic fire. These lands include the wildland/urban interface as defined by the communities needing protection, lands where fires would significantly threaten municipal water supply, lands significantly harmed by insect, disease, or wind throw and endangered species habitat. Second, we have protected both old-growth stands and large trees across the landscape. The projects expedited by this act, I believe, will truly restore forest health. Finally, the Senate agreement removed a provision of the House-passed bill that could have threatened the fair and impartial judicial review of Forest Service actions. This provision would have tilted the playing field in forestry litigation by requiring a court to defer to the Federal agency's views in deciding whether to issue an injunction. So for these three reasons alone, I believe our bipartisan amendment to title I significantly improves the bill which I otherwise could not support. Now, many people have said this bill would not do anything in California. That is just not right. I will speak to that for a minute because we have terrible fires burning, 10 huge fires, 3 huge major fires: Every day, burning homes; every day, the victim of excess vegetation and hazardous fuel that has built up over many years and has not been removed. The fires in southern California are burning in two basic vegetation types: chaparral and the pine forests in the San Bernardino Mountains. The exclusion to that is the fire burning up north, east of Redding. In both of these vegetation types, treatments of fuels will reduce the risk. The first area where the southern California fires are burning is the pine forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. I want you to take a look at these forests and look at the homes in the middle of this forest: House, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, house. Do you notice the yellow forest? That is all dead and dying and infested bark beetle forest. There are 44,000 homes located in the Big Bear/Arrowhead area where this fire is now on two sides, moving. Look at these homes. Look at the dead and dying trees. Does anyone believe they have a chance of surviving if this forest is not cleaned? We have tried in appropriations bills to get more money--and we have been able to get some money in this year and last year for more removal of bark beetle-infected forests--but clearly this is an exact area of urban interface that is in catastrophic, highest risk of fire. No one could tell me that if a hazardous fuels mitigation project had been carried out around this area, these homes and tens of thousands like them would not have been saved in this fire. Everyone, look at this. That is what this bill means. If you are going to vote against this bill, just know that. This is correct and elegant testimony. About 474,000 acres in this forest. The San Bernardino/San Jacinto, often both private and public lands, were experiencing severe tree loss ranging from 10 percent of all the trees in a given area to 100 percent. That has been known for quite some time. It has had years of drought. It has bark beetles. It has root disease. It has dwarf mistletoe. They have all reached epidemic proportions. The cost assessment by the County Assessor's Office of these homes and those surrounding them is $8 billion. A century ago, this forest was fairly open, with mostly larger trees. Experts estimate there were likely 40 to 50 trees per acre back then. The difference today is staggering. The Forest Service estimates there are now 500 trees per acre in much of the San Bernardino Mountains--40 trees before fire suppression; 500 trees today. That is also eloquent testimony to what happens with the fuel ladders that are generated by the overcrowded forests. This is more than 10 times the density of trees that existed a century ago. It is startling, it is dramatic, and it is a huge difference. So this is what we have created with a century of ``do not cut a tree'' fire suppression: extremely dense, unhealthy forests. The Senate agreement would get projects moving quickly to thin these forests and restore them to health. The San Bernardino Forest would be among the highest priority areas to receive hazardous fuel treatments under the legislation. All the insect-infested areas would fall within the priority areas for treatment. With the expedited administrative review process, we could treat these acres more quickly. Environmental analysis would focus on the work that needs to be done, not multiple theoretical alternatives. We know we need to thin these forests. We do not need to study 6 or 12 different ways to do it. The expedited administrative review process would also help us past the confrontational delays caused in the current appeals process, and the additional funding the bill authorizes would also help. Finally, we have spoken to Republican colleagues who have agreed to add a $50 million authorization for emergency grants to States and localities for dealing with situations exactly like those in the San Bernardino Mountains today. So there is money to help communities do their wildfire plans to help them move to develop areas they believe need this thinning, and these grants help additionally. Communities could clear evacuation routes from mountain areas, like the Lake Arrowhead region, to ensure that people have a chance to escape in the event of a catastrophic fire. One family trying to escape with two children in their car was burned to death because the car could not move faster than the fire. Brush would be cleared around shelter-in-place locations like schools in case people do not have the opportunity to escape in time. Communities would obtain funding for evacuation drills and other advanced planning. I am very grateful the other side agreed to add this $50 million segment. The Senate bill will also help prevent chaparral fires. Some have said: Oh, no, it won't. Here is Scripps Ranch. This is a large subdivision outside San Diego. You see the fire--miles of fire line approaching the ranch. The legislation authorizes significantly more money for hazardous fuel reduction efforts. We authorize a total of $760 million. That is $340 million above current funding. Again, the House bill has no dollars for this kind of public land mitigation. Our bill does. Moreover, there is an understanding that the bill's sponsors will work to continue to increase funding substantially. Let there be no misunderstanding on this point, these funds are available to be used in brush areas like chaparral as well as in forested areas. Second, the legislation requires at least 50 percent of the funding goes to community protection. This is a significant improvement over current law which does not require any set amount of hazardous fuel reduction go for community protection. Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for communities to plan their own defense through community wildlife protection plans. That is a problem. People who live in dry Southern California areas want the trees, want the bushes, want the fuels on the ground. Historically they have resisted putting together community fire protection plans. That is folly. They have to do it. In chaparral, it is important to get community support behind prescribed fires to clear out the brush. So far, as I said, many communities have been reluctant to support prescribed fires because of the perceived risks of these fires. But community wildfire plans will give the community the ability to choose whether it wants the risks of prescribed fire--or some cutting or thinning--or the much greater risks of wildfire. Community wildfire plans will play an important role in gaining popular support for a workable way to defend these dry communities. Another key issue--I am just about through--in chaparral is reducing the risk of homes burning on private land. The community wildfire plans provided for in this bill will help in this area, too, because they are required to include recommendations to reduce homes igniting throughout the community. We owe it to our communities to do the best we can to protect them from catastrophic fire. I wish--I truly do, from the bottom of my heart--the California wildfires would be quickly extinguished and controlled. We need to do everything we possibly can. I might report the regional forester called this morning. We have been pushing the White House and the Defense Department to lend every piece of available equipment--C-130s, Sea Stallion helicopters with buckets, tankers--everything they have. For the first time, I got the report that they have everything they need now to fight these big fires. I am very grateful for that and express my gratitude.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, if I may, I would like to thank you, Senator. I appreciate the chairmanship of this committee, your working with Senator Wyden and I. I am delighted to hear what you have said about the emergency supplemental and getting the report language back in. Thank you very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is very kind.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the Senator from Idaho. It has been a pleasure for me to work with him on this issue. I think we have been working now for close to 3 years, beginning with the Quincy Library Group in California to try to forge a different forest policy, and also to recognize that our forests are overburdened with undergrowth, with non-indigenous species; and so fires, when they happen, burn hotter and do much more destruction than they have done historically. I thank the Senator for his sympathy for what our State is going through. I want to tell you that I just spoke with the White House, with Mr. Rove, because I had heard from Mr. Blackwell, the regional forester, that the forest fire has taken a turn, because the winds have changed, and is now heading for half a million acres of bark beetle- infested forests near Lake Arrowhead and 44,000 homes are now in jeopardy. This is just huge. I hope that anyone listening will begin to bring in some military help, more C-130s. With the winds down, the C-130s can work. Perhaps this area can be worked from the air. But the fire is advancing so strongly and also like a spear into San Diego itself, and over the Santa Monica mountains into Malibu. So we have a real maelstrom on our hands. We think we have a good bill. We believe we have the only bill that can be accepted by this body, and I am hopeful that the leadership will bring this bill to the floor very shortly. I think we need to put everything aside and just get a bill passed. The Senator is right about streamlining the administrative review process. Our bill does that. It does so in a way that it does not prevent collaboration, does not prevent public testimony, but it streamlines the process. I think we have handled judicial review in a way that we can agree makes it truncated; temporary injunction, 60 days, and if you want another, you have to come back and justify it. It is the Federal court in the area of the project. We have the first old-growth protection which will be codified in the history of this country. It is a good bill. I hope that those who might want to place amendments on this bill will really not do so, so we can pass a bill and get it moved on so the 20 million acres that are in this bill, which we know are at the highest risk of catastrophic fire, can be dealt with quickly. The Senator and I have talked. The Appropriations Committee has been helpful in getting additional dollars for bark beetle infestation. But for 3 years now, we have known this was going to happen. The day is upon us and we must do right by our forests. So I am very grateful for the Senator's help and collaboration on this.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Snowe and Senator Murray as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Vermont for their comments. I very much appreciate them. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the fiscal 2004 foreign operations bill to provide the administration with greater flexibility in how it funds HIV/AIDS prevention programs. We believe this amendment is critical to our efforts aimed at stopping the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus and providing a safe and healthy future for millions of people around the world. Time is not on our side, and we must act now. Our amendment does two things. First, it reserves at least one-third of the funds for prevention of sexual transmission of HIV rather than one-third of all prevention funds for ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs. This recognizes that HIV prevention includes many types of activities, and those that target the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS such as abstinence-until-marriage programs are really only a subset. Second, our amendment defines an abstinence-until-marriage program as any program that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, providing information that emphasizes the public health benefits of refraining from sexual activity outside of marriage. Earlier this year I was proud to join my colleagues in passing the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003. This is a historic piece of legislation that expressed our resolve to see the United States take a leadership role in the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The bill recognized that prevention, along with care and treatment, is an essential component of that fight. The bill, as passed by both Houses and signed by President Bush, contains language that recommends for fiscal year 2004 and 2005 that at least one-third of all global HIV/AIDS prevention funds be set aside for abstinence-before-marriage programs. This sense of the Senate provision becomes a mandate for fiscal year 2004 through 2008. Our amendment simply clarifies the congressional intent of this provision and increases the flexibility of how HIV/AIDS prevention funds are spent. In order to fulfill our goal of stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS, we should not tie the hands of workers on the ground by limiting the use of HIV/AIDS prevention funds. A brief glance at some of the numbers related to the HIV pandemic demonstrates the importance of funding a wide range of prevention activities. Worldwide, 40 million people--that is huge--are infected with HIV; 29.4 million people are infected in sub-Saharan Africa alone. That is 70 percent of the world's total. As of 2001, 21.5 million Africans had died of AIDS. That is 21.5 million Africans dead from AIDS. The national intelligence council projects at least 50 million new cases of HIV by 2010 in five countries alone: China, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, and Russia. Fifty million new cases in five countries. That is a huge pandemic. Currently fewer than 1 in 5 persons at risk for HIV/AIDS worldwide have access to prevention. Yet UNAIDS and the World Health Organization have conducted research that shows that two-thirds of the estimated 45 million new HIV infections expected to occur between now and 2010 could in fact be averted with effective prevention. Two-thirds of 45 million anticipated cases could be prevented. That is a very critical figure for us to make use of. Passing the global HIV/AIDS bill was an important first step to meeting that challenge. Our amendment builds on that endeavor and increases the effectiveness of the legislation. Let me be clear. Our amendment does not strike the 33 percent earmark for abstinence-until-marriage programs. It simply expands the definition of abstinence-until-marriage and gives the administration maximum flexibility to fund programs that successfully increase abstinence among young people. The key word is ``successful.'' All Senators, including myself, know that abstinence is a key strategy in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, and the importance we place on those programs is reflected in the legislation. What we are trying to do--and I am trying to do--is give the administration and the people on the ground the flexibility needed to design HIV prevention programs that meet the needs of a given community. Different programs work better in different communities. There is no real one-size-fits-all program. A May 2003 report from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation highlights that proven AIDS prevention programs involve behavior change programs, including delay in the initiation of sexual activity, faithfulness, correct and consistent condom use, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted disease, promoting voluntary counseling and testing, harm reduction programs for HIV drug users, preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS from mother to child, increasing blood safety, empowering women and girls, controlling infection in health care settings, and devising programs geared toward people living with HIV/AIDS. Let's take a closer look at one of these prevention programs: preventing the transmission of HIV from mother to child. We have seen great strides in recent years in this area. Studies have shown that combining drugs such as Nevirapine with counseling and instruction on the use of such drugs reduces mother-to-child transmission by 50 percent. And we have tens of millions of AIDS orphans in Africa alone. So it is a really important program. Such cost-effective prevention programs are not related to abstinence and should not be constrained by the 33 percent earmark in funds for prevention. Our amendment will allow local communities to spend money on HIV prevention that is most effective in that community. If the most effective program in a community is the promotion of abstinence until marriage, my amendment will not preclude funding for such a program. Ensuring that the earmark applies only to programs related to preventing the sexual transmission of HIV would free up additional resources for non-abstinence programs while at the same time maintaining the importance of abstinence-until-marriage activities. In fact, my amendment would not prevent the United States from spending more than one-third of funds for the prevention of the sexual transmission of HIV on abstinence-until-marriage programs if the administration decided that was the most effective use of those funds. We believe the United States should have the flexibility to fund programs that are successful in leading to increased abstinence. In response to a letter I wrote to Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, Paul V. Kelly inquiring about the definition of an ``abstinence-until-marriage'' program, Secretary Kelly responded: Achieving the HIV/AIDS prevention goals of the President's Emergency Plan will require a comprehensive and sustainable approach recognized by both the Plan and the law. The ``ABC'' model [Abstain, Be faithful, Use condoms], has been used successfully to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission in Uganda as well as Zambia and Ethiopia. These successes show that promoting behavior change and healthy lifestyles, including abstinence and delayed sexual initiation, mutual monogamy, faithfulness and fidelity in marriage and reduction in the number of partners, consistent and correct use of condoms, and avoidance of substance abuse, are successful in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. This tells me that this administration understands that the most effective way to prevent HIV is a multipronged approach. We should be able to fund programs that place a priority emphasis on abstinence but also discuss other methods as outlined under the ABC approach. For example, the United States Agency for International Development has sponsored Zambia's HEART, Helping Each Other Act Responsibly Together, HIV/AIDS prevention program, a mass media campaign that promotes HIV/AIDS prevention through messages about abstinence, consistent condom use, and the fact that ``you can't tell by looking'' if another person is HIV-positive. A 2001 impact survey of youth aged 13 to 19 found that many of the respondents chose to remain abstinent because of the campaign. In fact, respondents were more likely to report that they chose to abstain than to report condom use. This confirms what I have long believed: if young people are given the necessary information and education, they will make an informed and health decision regarding their sexual activity. If programs like the HEART program in Zambia are successful in increasing abstinence, we should not turn our back on them or limit the amount of resources available because they discuss multiple prevention strategies. Again, this amendment is about giving our Government and other countries the flexibility to get the job done. Cultural differences, epidemiology, population age groups, and the stage of the epidemic in a given community will all play roles in how an effective HIV/AIDS prevention program is designed. This amendment is pro-abstinence, it recognizes that there is more to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS than preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, it balances congressional priorities with public health needs, and it preserves the administration's flexibility in deciding which programs to fund that would be most likely to increase abstinence. It is a commonsense amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank Senators Snowe and Murray for cosponsoring this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Governor Michael Leavitt to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and to speak more generally on my concerns regarding the impact of EPA policies on environmental issues in California. I have many concerns about the Bush administration's commitment to advancing strong environmental policy. However, because I believe that it is important for a President to be able to select his own Cabinet, I do not oppose the President's nomination of Governor Leavitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is only in exceptional cases that I believe the Senate in its role of advice and consent should reject a nominee. Governor Leavitt will be assuming leadership of the EPA at a critical time. The Agency stands at a crossroads in its mission. I strongly believe that the administration's environmental policies thus far have moved the EPA in the wrong direction. It will require strong leadership from Governor Leavitt to steer EPA back onto a progressive course. Many environmental issues must be addressed in the coming 2 years on both a national and State level. I look forward to working with Governor Leavitt if confirmed as Administrator of the EPA, and I am certain that together we will be able to find innovative and efficient solutions to the environmental problems confronting California. I would like to discuss a few of the issues. First, I would like to begin by asking Governor Leavitt to take a definitive stance in the battle against climate change. There is strong evidence that most of the global warming that has occurred during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Shamefully, the White House under the Bush administration has chosen to disregard this worldwide problem by thwarting efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And given the overwhelming evidence of U.S. culpability regarding greenhouse gas emissions, EPA needs to take a strong stance regarding the enactment of stringent rules and regulations. The United States must catch up to the rest of the modern world in the battle against climate change. Voluntary programs are not sufficient. They barely work--and certainly not to the extent necessary to reduce emissions. We must work to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to merely reducing emissions intensity in the manner proposed by the White House. Even if we achieve the administration's goals of reducing emissions intensity by 18 percent, the actual amount of emissions will still likely increase. The recent revisions to the Clean Air Act's New Source Review rules are one example of the Bush administration's disregard for air quality control. These revisions allow aging and inefficient power plants whose permits are up for renewal to continue operating in the exact same manner--environmentally speaking--that they did decades ago. For example, a coal power plant can conduct major repairs and parts replacement, without updating the pollution control equipment. It has been years since the problem associated with clean air and powerplants became apparent to everyone, and yet the current administration has pushed through regulations that will let the pollution continue unabated. I look forward to the upcoming Senate debate and vote on the McCain- Lieberman climate change bill this week. In anticipation of this vote, I encourage the Agency to take a firm stance on climate change. I want to turn now to address a very important issue for California voters: the joint State-Federal CALFED program designed to improve California's water supply, fishery resources and water quality. I have been extremely disappointed to date at EPA's lack of involvement in CALFED. EPA can and should take a role in CALFED's water quality program. I urge the next Administrator of EPA to work closely with California on water quality. Here are some important steps EPA could take: The CALFED plan proposes to take action on wastewater treatment, bromide reduction at municipal water intakes and new efforts to stem contaminants from abandoned mines. These actions will be spliced with source water protection, new health effects research on Delta water, as well as comprehensive monitoring and assessment of Delta drinking water quality. Finally, to assure progress, public and peer review processes will monitor compliance with drinking water standards, and measure performance against consumer water rates. If EPA partners with California on this program, the benefits could include better tasting water at lower costs, a longer life for Californians' plumbing and consumer appliances, and more reliability from recycling and groundwater storage programs. A decade ago, there were efforts to deregulate a portion of the radioactive waste stream and allow these wastes to be either recycled into consumer products or disposed of in local municipal landfills. This effort created such a firestorm of public concern that the Congress prohibited it in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Since that time, there has been no effort to try again to deregulate radioactive waste--until now. Recently, the EPA has announced that in the next few weeks it intends to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider deregulating the manner of disposal of radioactive wastes. This action would allow radioactive wastes to be sent to landfills that were neither designed nor licensed to handle such wastes. Radioactively contaminated materials could also be recycled into consumer products, where they could end up in everything from children's braces to spoons and automobiles. These are not theoretical risks. The Los Angeles Times has reported that the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, CA shipped hundreds of tons of radioactively contaminated metals from decommissioned old reactors to a metal recycler in San Pedro. That radioactively contaminated metal was then melted down and shipped out into the consumer metal supply. It is my understanding that these Advanced Notices of Proposed Rulemaking--designed to once again try the controversial deregulation of radioactive waste--are being held until after the confirmation of the EPA Administrator has been addressed. It is my hope that Governor Leavitt, if confirmed as the new Administrator, will take a hard look at this issue and block this misguided proposal. I know I will be keeping a close eye on the matter. I would like to now move on to an issue of paramount importance to California. The degraded air quality in California has reached a crisis point. It is imperative that EPA addresses the various factors contributing to air pollution in California with immediate regulatory efforts. A bit of statistical background is necessary to understand the breadth of the air quality problems. California has the worst air quality in the Nation. For example, Los Angeles is the only area in the country that has ``extreme non- attainment'' for air pollution standards. Two thousand three has been the worst year for smog in southern California since 1997. The Los Angeles basin has experienced unsafe levels of ozone approximately every other day since the first of May. Legislators and regulators from California are working together to address the sources of air pollution. I am fighting to remove language inserted into the VA/HUD spending bill that would prohibit California from limiting the amount of pollution that can be released from small engines, those that are less than 175 horsepower, such as lawnmowers and small tractors. The California Air Resource Board recently approved landmark regulations--which were written with significant input from the small engine industry--that would set strict pollution standards on engines of 25 horsepower or less, but these regulations would effectively be preempted if the language in the VA/HUD bill is signed into law. These small engines release a disproportionately large amount of pollution based on their size. In California alone, these engines emit the pollution equivalent of 18.3 million cars. Appropriate regulations could cut the emissions from small engines in half. The EPA must take another look at regulating the obscene amount of pollution that comes from small engines such as lawnmowers and leaf blowers. It is my sincere hope that upon confirmation, Governor Leavitt will direct the EPA to examine this issue further. The EPA can also help improve California's air quality by granting California a waiver to the Federal mandate requiring States to add oxygenates such as ethanol to its gasoline. Ethanol is a highly volatile substance. According to the California Department of Environmental Quality, ethanol actually appears to have resulted in an increase in the amount of volatile organic gases that are released into the atmosphere. These gases are implicated in increase levels of smog and ozone in our air. Ethanol use has increased tremendously in California. In fact, 70 percent of the gasoline used in southern California and 57 percent of that in northern California is now blended with ethanol. In fact, the conference committee on the energy bill is debating an ethanol mandate that would almost triple the amount of ethanol used in the Nation's gas supply. California, however, can meet clean air standards without ethanol or MTBE. These oxygenates are not necessary to achieve cleaner air. It is imperative to examine the role of increased ethanol use on current higher smog levels. Winston Hickox, Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, concluded that: . . . our current best estimate is that the increase in the use of ethanol-blended gasoline has likely resulted in about a one percent increase in emissions of volatile organic gases (VOC) in the SCAQMD [South Coast Air Quality Management District] in the summer of 2003. Given the very poor air quality in the region and the great difficulty of reaching the current federal ozone standard by the required attainment date of 2010, an increase of this magnitude is of great concern. Clearly, these emission increases have resulted in higher ozone levels this year than what would have otherwise occurred, and are responsible for at least some of the rise in ozone levels that have been observed. I urge the EPA to stop the legal wrangling, accept the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and issue the waiver to improve California air quality. I now want to discuss my concerns surrounding two specific water contamination issues in California: groundwater contamination by perchlorate, and the deplorable state of the New River that flows along the border between California and Mexico. Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man-made chemical that is used as the primary ingredient of solid rocket fuel propellant. Widespread perchlorate contamination was found in California drinking water in 1997, most of it from the manufacture and improper disposal of the chemical. According to the EPA, perchlorate poses a serious health risk to human health because it interferes with the proper function of the thyroid and can potentially cause tumors. I urge Governor Leavitt, if confirmed as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to both hasten and increase EPA's efforts to identify and hold accountable those entities that have contaminated California's groundwater. To date, perchlorate has been detected in more than 300 groundwater wells operated by 80 different agencies throughout California. Collectively, these agencies serve 24.8 million people. In the Inland Empire, a 7-mile plume has contaminated 22 drinking water wells, jeopardizing water supplies for approximately 500,000 residents. The next EPA Administrator must direct the Agency to use its powers under Superfund law to compel the companies responsible for this contamination to participate in its cleanup. On a broader scale, the next EPA Administrator must direct the Agency to set a federal drinking water standard for perchlorate as soon as possible, both to clarify clean-up standards and to provide oversight for the cleanup efforts. There have been recent suggestions that it will take another 6 years before the EPA can issue a clean-up standard. Six years is an unconscionable delay given that we are discussing pollution of our drinking water supply. EPA should take conduct site-specific assessments to evaluate the level of perchlorate contamination, and when appropriate, provide replacement water for the communities suffering from contaminated water. This is a matter of utmost urgency for California because human health is at stake. I strongly believe the EPA must both accelerate and strengthen its response to this problem. I also want to draw the EPA Administrator's attention to the status of the New River, which flows along the border between California and Mexico. The New River has been consistently named one of the most polluted rivers in the United State by American Rivers. The New River flows North from the Mexicali Valley into California's Imperial Valley, carrying with it vast quantities of urban runoff, such as raw sewage, industrial and municipal wastes, such as pollution from factories, and agricultural runoff, including pesticides. Here is one startling statistic: Every day, the river pumps between 20 to 25 million gallons of raw sewage into California. This is such a massive amount of horrific pollution flowing into California every day that we desperately need the help of EPA and the Federal Government to develop a solution to this problem. The EPA has worked in Mexico to build two sewage treatment plants; however, I urge the agency to focus efforts on clean-up strategies in California. In Utah, Governor Leavitt demonstrated his commitment to clean water when he supported the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. This legislation helped reduce salt and agricultural drainage, and has had beneficial ramifications in California as well. I applaud Governor Leavitt's efforts in this arena, and I would very much like to see his Clean Water Initiatives expanded to include other imperilled rivers such as the New River in California. I must also voice my concern about the status of the Superfund Trust Fund. In 1980, citizen concern and outrage over highly toxic sites led to the creation of the EPA Superfund program to locate, investigate, and then clean the most hazardous sites nationwide. Superfund has not been renewed since it expired in 1995, leaving dwindling Federal dollars to clean-up contaminated sites. This is a big shift from the Clinton administration, when taxes on chemical and petroleum products provided up to $3.7 billion to clean up toxic waste sites. As a result, the EPA is cleaning up 31 percent fewer Superfund sites, and taking in 64 percent less in fines per month than it did during its peak. There are 96 sites in California that are currently on the Superfund national priorities list, the second highest number in the Nation behind New Jersey. Approximately 40 percent of Californians live within four miles of a contaminated Superfund site. One site in particular, the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County owned by Rocketdyne, has been at the center of years of controversy regarding clean-up standards and funding. A partial meltdown occurred there in 1959, and over the years other accidents and spills resulted in widespread chemical and radioactive contamination, which the federal government has been attempting to clean up. EPA has played a key role in overseeing the cleanup. I have been repeatedly promised by EPA that EPA would maintain that role, that it would ensure that contamination at the facility will be remediated to EPA's CERCLA, i.e., Superfund, standards, and that EPA will conduct a thorough radiation survey of the site to those CERCLA, standards to find the remaining contamination that needs to be cleaned up. Recently, there have been indications that the administration may be pulling back from those commitments. DOE has said it doesn't want the promised EPA survey to go forward and that it wishes to remove only 5500 cubic meters of radioactively contaminated soil This plan would leave behind 400,000 cubic meters of soil DOE concedes are contaminated above EPA's primary cleanup goal, and then release the site for unrestricted residential use. Children could end up playing atop the strontium-90 and cesium-137 from a past reactor meltdown if EPA does not stand firm and stick to the commitments it has made to me. I take the longstanding promises by EPA seriously, and will be closely watching to see that a new Administrator lives up to them. Governor Leavitt has set an encouragingly progressive precedent in his interactions with the Department of Energy, particularly during his work to remove uranium mine tailings from the Colorado River at Moab, Utah. Now we ask the Governor, in his role as Administrator of EPA, to continue that protective stance. I applaud Governor Leavitt in his past efforts to ensure that the Department of Energy behaves in an environmentally responsible manner, and I urge the Governor to martial all available resources to continue cleaning Superfund sites. Among the most serious issues we face as a country is the risk of terrorism, and among the most worrisome of those threats is that a radiological dispersal device--a so-called ``dirty bomb''--could be detonated. The Homeland Security Agency, with input from a number of other agencies including EPA, has been attempting to develop cleanup standards to remediate the radioactive contamination that could result from such an event. Some agencies have pushed for cleanup standards far more lax than EPA historically has viewed as protective of human health and the environment. Given the concern many in this Chamber have about EPA's public pronouncements regarding health risks from the World Trade Center tragedy, I will be looking to the EPA Administrator to stand firm in insisting that any cleanup standards established for the aftermath of a ``dirty bomb'' terrorist event be fully protective of human health and the environment. These standards should be no less protective than EPA's existing standards for cleaning up radioactive contamination from non-terrorist causes such as spills and accidents. I support the nomination of Governor Mike Leavitt, and look forward to working with him and the Environmental Protection Agency.