Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come before you today to pay tribute to a staunch patient advocate whose dedication and commitment to biomedical research has changed the lives of all around her. Ellen Glesby Cohen was the President and Founder of the Lymphoma Research Foundation of America (LRFA). Ellen founded this organization almost ten years ago after she was diagnosed with a slow growing form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Ellen, being the courageous person she was, decided to turn her experience into something positive by establishing the Lymphoma Research Foundation that is the nation's first and foremost organization dedicated to promoting and funding lymphoma-specific research. Ms. Cohen's efforts on behalf of lymphoma-specific research has led to the Lymphoma Research Foundation awarding close to $3 million to support 92 lymphoma research projects at top universities and cancer centers throughout the nation. The foundation Ms. Cohen founded has been active not only in funding research, but has helped educate the public about the high incidence rates of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by spearheading such initiatives as the National Lymphoma Awareness Week during the second seek of October and an annual Lymphoma Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill. I have been particularly impressed by Ms. Cohen's passion on behalf of lymphoma patients and, consequently, have supported increasing the funding for lymphoma research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ellen is survived by her husband Dr. Mitchell Cohen and her two children Hailey and Josh. While the last decade of Ellen Cohen's life was dedicated to lymphoma research, Ellen's accomplishments as a mother and a wife will forever be remembered even after the day comes that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has been eliminated. Although Ellen's work has already benefitted thousands across the country diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other cancers, I know that she would like us all to continue her fight against this devastating disease by supporting such worthy organizations like the Lymphoma Research Foundation of America. Despite the fact that Ellen is not here physically, her spirit will continue to live on through her family and friends. Thank you Ellen for what you gave to persons everywhere. You will truly be missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, along with many of my colleagues, I voted in support of an amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill when it moved through the Senate to strike an anti-environment rider from that bill. Unfortunately, that amendment failed and the rider remains in the conference report we consider today. For that reason, I must vote against this legislation. I understand that the President has indicated that he will veto this legislation because of this antienvironment provision. The antienvironment rider included in this bill stops changes in the management of the Missouri River called for by existing law. Those changes would ensure that the river is managed not only for navigation, but also for the benefit of the fish and wildlife that depend on the river for survival. It is critical that those changes go into effect promptly because without them several endangered species may become extinct. The Missouri River management changes that this antienvironment rider blocks are called for by a 600-page Fish and Wildlife Service study. The study is itself based upon hundreds of published peer-reviewed studies, and would modify the 40-year-old Corps of Engineers policy of managing the flows of the Missouri River primarily to benefit a $7 million downstream barge industry. That old Corps policy is largely responsible for the endangerment of three species--the piping plover, the least interior tern, and the pallid sturgeon--that depend upon the river for survival. Two other fish species are also headed toward extinction. It is very unfortunate that this provision was included in a bill that otherwise has much to commend it. I appreciate the conferees' hard work in crafting a bill that funds several important California priorities. The Hamilton Wetlands Project funded in this bill would restore approximately 1,000 acres to wetlands and wildlife habitat at Hamilton Army Airfield. The American River Common Elements funded in this bill would result in 24 miles of levee improvements along the American River and 12 miles of improvements along the Sacramento River levees, flood gauges upstream of Folsom Dam, and improvements to the flood warning system along the lower American River. Finally, the Solana Beach-Encinitas Shoreline Feasibility Study funded in this bill would assist both cities in their efforts to battle beach erosion, and would provide needed data for the restoration of these beaches. Projects such as these are extremely important to California. Because of these and the other benefits of this bill for California, I find it unfortunate that I must vote against this legislation. I do so, however, because a vote for this bill is a vote to support an antienvironment rider that may well lead to the irreversible damage of causing the extinction of several endangered species. I expect that this legislation will be taken up by the Senate without this rider in the next few weeks, and that we will move forward with important energy and water projects without doing irreversible damage to our environment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. May I respectfully request about 20 minutes of that time?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, do I have some time remaining on my time?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friends, and I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her patience. This is an important point that she made to me yesterday and to a number of my colleagues. I think the chart that is behind the Senator from Iowa tells a story all America has to see. This tax cut is so enormous, with such enormous tax breaks for those at the top--for example, those over $350,000 will get back $50,000 a year compared to those at $30,000 who will get back a few hundred dollars--that it is impossible for Governor Bush to do anything real for the American people that the American people want. I asked myself, why would it be that his prescription drug policy would only cover 5 percent of the seniors who need it. The easy answer: Even if he wanted to do more--and let's say he does; I will give him that break--he can't do more, because when you look at what he wants to do for the military and what he says he wants to do for education, and it goes on, it does not add up. So what happens to Governor Bush is that he has to take tiny little baby steps for things he thinks are important because he doesn't have the resources because he is committed to this enormous tax break, instead of doing what Al Gore has done, which is to say: Yes, we will give tax breaks, but we will give them to the middle class. We will do it for people who need to send their kids to college by helping them with their tuition. We will do it for people who need health care by making that deductible. We will do it for the people who are working hard every day, struggling and fighting to make ends meet. The last point I will make to my friend is a comment by the president of the Health Insurance Association of America, who said: Private drug-insurance policies are doomed from the start. That is the Bush plan. The idea sounds good but it cannot succeed in the real world. I don't know of an insurance company that would offer a drug-only policy like that or even consider it. This isn't Tom Harkin talking or Harry Reid talking or Mary Landrieu or Barbara Boxer or Zell Miller. This is the head of the Insurance Association of America. I say to my friend, in closing the extra time he has, the chart behind him tells the story, and this quote tells the story. It is truly, unfortunately, a sham prescription drug plan.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question? I think the chart that you have behind you is crucial for people to look at.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. When I go home to meet my constituency, they, as taxpayers, will say to me: Senator, what did you think about page 1030 in that omnibus bill? Did you actually get a chance to vote on it? I will say: In the big sense, I guess you could say I had to vote. It was all in one package. But I had no choice. I wanted to keep the Government going. When I raised that issue, it was not for the technical response, but I am just suggesting to my friend that it is in many ways taxation without representation. In any event, if it does not rise to that level, it is close to that level. I wonder if my friend from Iowa has a comment, or my friend from West Virginia.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield?

Mrs. BOXER. Under the first 4 years of the Bush plan, out of the 34 million seniors, this new benefit would go to less than 700,000 people. And those people have to go through the welfare offices. If there is no other reason to oppose it, there it is. It is a sham. It does not do much for hardly anybody.

Mrs. BOXER. Less than 700,000 people.

Mrs. BOXER. Because I think this is a stunning point that you have made and are amplifying on today. Out of the 34 million senior citizens in this country who are covered under Medicare--not to mention the 5 million disabled; let's throw that out for a moment because they would qualify for the Gore plan; let's just focus on the 34 million--how many seniors are you saying, if everything went right in their States and they were able to get the enabling legislation--they went to the welfare office, they got the stamp of approval--if it all went right, how many seniors are you estimating would be covered under the Bush plan?

Mrs. BOXER. Would my friend yield on this point for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I will be brief. My friend makes such an important point. In this fast moving, global economy we are in, everyone admits education is the key. If all we can do is fund old programs--by the way, they are good; we are not going to walk away from them--but if we cannot address the new challenges--and my friend mentions specifically the digital divide. Senator Mikulski and I have been working on a very good bill. We let thousands and thousands of foreign workers in here when we still have a 4-percent unemployment rate--by the way, the best in generations, but we do have people who need jobs--we do not have a shortage of workers, as Senator Mikulski says, we have a shortage of skills. My friend is so right to point out that when we do not authorize bills and we cannot look at the new solutions and the new challenges, we might as well be living in the last century. I thank my friend for yielding me additional time. I look forward to his presentation on Medicare. I will sit here and listen to his wisdom on that and maybe he can answer a question or two as he goes about his presentation. I thank my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. I would love to have my friend comment on this.

Mrs. BOXER. I agree with my friend. It is pretty distressing to see this happen to the Senate. Senator Byrd said the other day that many of us in this Chamber don't know how the Senate is supposed to work because when we got here, those bricks had started to be pulled out of that foundation. I long for the days when I can tell my grandchildren or great grandchildren that I had a chance to serve in the greatest deliberative body of the land, and that even on a matter that perhaps only one or two Senators cared about, we had the unfettered right to express ourselves on behalf of the people we represent. As I stand here, I represent, with Senator Feinstein, almost 34 million people. Imagine that, 34 million people. They have so many concerns, whether it is the cost of prescription drugs, that I know my friend from Iowa just made a brilliant speech on yesterday--and I hope he will continue that today--whether it is just the normal appropriations process under which they are able to meet their needs, the highways, the public buildings, all the things they need to keep going; making sure we have the water and the power to keep this incredible State going. We would be the eighth largest nation in the world. We count on the Senate to be able to address our needs. I am so grateful to the Senator from West Virginia for making this point because I think the people need to pay attention. As my friend from Iowa has said, it may sound as if it is about rules and things that do not impact them. But it impacts them mightily because when I am muzzled by virtue of the fact we don't get a chance to offer amendments--not that my voice is going to always carry the day, but at least their voice will be heard.

Mrs. BOXER. I agree with my friend. I sit on some authorizing committees, such as the Environment and Public Works Committee. There are so many good bills that we could bring forward, but the leadership does not want to do that. Frankly, I think it is because they would rather not run this place like the Senate. They want to run it like the House with strict controls where the Rules Committee decides what can happen. Frankly, I have to think that there are some amendments on which they don't want to vote. I think we are then forced in the circumstance that my friend from West Virginia--my hero, if I might say, in this Senate-- believes is inappropriate. But we are in a circumstance where we are committed, for example, to vote on a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. We are so committed to making sure that class sizes could be reduced by putting 100,000 new teachers in, and we don't get the education authorizing bill. We only get the appropriations bill. It forces us--I agree with my friend--to be in the situation that is not good for the Senate. As my friend said, it is the ``Dark Ages of the Senate.'' Those are powerful words. This is a man who thinks about that. When he says we are in the ``Dark Ages,'' I think we have to listen. We are in the Dark Ages because we don't want to debate authorizing bills. We are forced to try to offer amendments on appropriations bills, which delays the situation, which makes leadership say they are not going to bring the bill forward, and which makes them send them straight to conference to avoid the chance for amendments. The vicious circle continues. I think I am not being a Senator. We never know how long we are going to be in this Chamber. In many ways, it is up to our electorate. In many ways, it is up to God to give us good health to be here and do this. It is up to our families to see how long they can take it. So we want to have a chance to legislate.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. I am absolutely delighted we are on the same side on this point. The frustration level of Senators, as my friend Senator Harkin pointed out in his very to-the-point-question, is that we have no other option but to turn to these priorities that our people are asking Members to take care of, and try to offer these amendments. Then we have a majority that doesn't want them. I yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would really appreciate the opportunity to comment on some of the Senator's points and then make a couple other points. As I understand it, the Senator controls the time; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from West Virginia, who is, I have to say, the most respected Senator in this Chamber. When he speaks, I do think that both sides listen. I believe that his remarks today are not partisan at all. I think that he has been critical of both sides and he has been critical of the administration. I want to pick up on some of Senator Byrd's remarks. I had the honor of serving on the Appropriations Committee for a period of time. Senator Feinstein now holds that seat, and who knows, maybe some day I will be able to reclaim it. California is such a large State that I think there is a real understanding on my side of the aisle that one of us should be sitting on that committee. In that situation you have a much greater chance to speak for your State, and to talk about the priorities of your State. Right now my dear friend, Senator Feinstein, is recuperating from a terrible fall and a terrible injury to her leg. I want to say to Senator Feinstein--if you are watching, because I know you are in the hospital--we are thinking of you and we wish you well. I will do everything I can to speak for both of us when it comes to the issues that face our State. But, in particular because of her injury, I think at the moment I am on that list. The Senator could add us on that list of the 23 ``have nots,'' although we are praying that Senator Feinstein will be back next week in time to be there. But even if she is back, the fact is, when that private session is called to look at this big omnibus bill-- the Senator from West Virginia has described it--very few will be in that room. I compliment the administration for insisting that the Democratic leadership be in that room. I had the honor to serve in the House for 10 years of my life. It was a great experience for me. I know many others, including the Senator from West Virginia, had that privilege. But I ran for the Senate in a very risky political move--no one thought I would ever make it here-- because I wanted the chance to do more. I wanted the chance to operate under the Senate rules and to offer any amendments that I wanted to at any time. Now I find with this particular leadership that I am precluded from doing that. I am precluded from fighting for my State. When I hear that bills were going straight to the conference and bypassing the Senate and the ability of the Senator from Iowa to offer an amendment--even though he serves on that committee, there is still time even when you are on the committee. You wait until you get to the floor to offer the amendment. We all know that is the way it goes because sometimes you can't win in the committee but you have a chance to make your case on the floor with unlimited debate and an opportunity to show your charts and make your point. I find myself here in a circumstance where I, in behalf of the people of California, basically have no say on these bills. As Senator Byrd rightly points out, I think anyone in this Senate Chamber who says they know what is in a huge omnibus package with 3,000 pages, not to mention report language and colloquy, is simply dreaming because we know there is just so much we are capable of. When you do one appropriations bill at a time, you can concentrate on that and read that bill. You can be briefed on that bill. If you want to offer an amendment, you can do so. You can make your case for your State. There is one issue on which the Senator from West Virginia and I do not agree. I respect his view so much. But I come on a different side. I think it is so important that we should be allowed to raise other important issues that we believe this Senate ought to vote on, even if it voted on it before. I say to my friend that some of these issues are so important. Now that we are in the middle of a Presidential election, they are being raised by both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore, and we ought to have another chance to vote on them.

Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Could I have 5 minutes then?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent, when I complete, Senator Harkin have the floor up to 30 minutes, and if he has to be interrupted by Senator Kennedy, he will end his remarks.