Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will read it. That is why they said I could mention on the national radio address that they support my amendment--a $1,300 cost after you hit $4,500. Let's take the case of someone who has $7,000 a year in drug costs-- and many people do. Their estimated annual premium? At least $420, maybe a little more. Their deductible? $275. They pay 50 percent of the cost of their medication, $2,113, until they get to $4,500. Now comes the benefit shutdown where they have to pay 100 percent of the cost between $4,500 and $5,812. It is actually $1,312. Then they get a good catastrophic benefit where they pay 10 percent. Look at what the senior is paying for this benefit: $4,239 out of a $7,000 bill. The point is, because of this benefit shutdown and the huge penalty, a lot of our senior citizens would get a better drug benefit if they went to Canada and bought their drugs. This is a fact. They would be better off if they went to Canada and bought their drugs. But we can fix it today. We can end this benefit shutdown, and then the benefit will be far better. Another way to look at the benefit shutdown is to see how unfair it is to our beneficiaries. You are paying your monthly premium every single month; $35 is what we are suggesting. But it could go up. We haven't reined in what they could charge you. Anyone who has dealt with insurance companies and HMOs knows that costs go up. Even Medicare has had to raise its costs a little bit. But by the way, because Medicare administrative costs are so low, at 3 percent, compared to these companies which could be as high as 25 percent, Medicare keeps the costs down. But under this bill, you only get Medicare if you can't get a private company. So I am telling you, we are going to have seniors maybe facing increases in their premiums. But let's give it a shot. Let's say it is only $35. It is $35 a month every single month. And guess what happens in October, if you have this kind of $500-a-month expense--just to use that as an example--you do not get that benefit for almost 3 months out of the year. What kind of plan is this? Fortunately, it is voluntary so people have to think long and hard if it makes sense for them to do it. And I will give credit where credit is due. For our lowest income people, it may be a decent deal. But for your average recipient, to have to explain why they get no benefit for 3 months puts us in a terrible situation. It harkens back to the days when we did a catastrophic benefit and seniors took it. Then when they realized what it was, they were so angry, they were just throwing themselves on legislators' automobiles to protest. I am not kidding. This happened. I don't want to see that happen. I want to see us do a good bill, one that is really straightforward, not confusing. So we have a real problem for our vulnerable citizens. The last chart I am going to show is this chart because I said I would read to you from AARP's letter that they sent me. I hope colleagues will listen to what they say: AARP members find the notion of a gap in coverage to be a major barrier to enrolling in a Medicare drug benefit. They tell us that they are unaware of similar features in any of the insurance products they routinely purchase. Our members do not understand why coverage would cease at a time when their drug expenses increase. The continued existence of this benefit gap threatens the workability of the benefit by jeopardizing adequate enrollment, and thus the program's ability to spread risk. Therefore, we urge the Senate to eliminate this coverage gap. Mr. President, that is exactly what my amendment does. Let me go through this one argument at a time. AARP members find the notion of a gap in coverage to be a major barrier to enrolling in a Medicare drug benefit. Well, clearly, Mr. Novelli and the AARP understand the fact that you have a barrier when you know that perhaps for 3 months, even though you are paying your premium, you get no benefit. Again, we have studied all the plans. Virtually no plan in America has a benefit shutdown. So let's make this bill better. Let's see the next thing AARP says: They tell us that they are unaware of similar features in any of the insurance products they routinely purchase. Absolutely. Only in the Congress could somebody come up with this way to save money. It is ridiculous. You are penalized if you are really sick. You are penalized if you are really sick because if someone gets cancer and has to buy very expensive drugs, or a family member gets Alzheimer's and they are trying to treat the disease in a way so they can have their loved one around longer, that is when they get hit with a benefit shutdown. How unfair is that? Our members do not understand why coverage would cease at a time when their drug expenses increase. The continued existence of this benefit gap threatens the workability of the benefit by jeopardizing adequate enrollment, and thus the program's ability to spread risk. What does that mean? It means that as seniors learn what this program is about, they may well come to the conclusion, depending on the size of their drug bill, that they are better off making a trip to Canada. They will save more than going through all the rigmarole--Senator Clinton showed on a chart the rigmarole you have to be involved in, and because the way the bill has tried to really privatize this benefit, you are at the risk of the marketplace. The risk of the marketplace is OK when you are buying a car; it is OK if you are buying a dishwasher. You are at the risk of the marketplace. Yes, if it was a year when people held back and didn't produce a new product, OK, you are disadvantaged; OK, that is the risk. But to put seniors at the risk of the marketplace for drugs is a very bad idea indeed. Therefore, we urge the Senate to eliminate this coverage gap. This letter is signed by William Novelli, executive director and CEO of AARP. It is a nonpartisan organization that supports this amendment strongly. We want to close this gap. We want to stop this benefit shutdown. Again, a very graphic way to show what happens to you is to say that seniors will pay half of their annual drug cost from $276 to $4,500--that is their 50 percent benefit--and then they face a $1,300 benefit shutdown, just at the time they need their medicine the most. It makes no sense. You know, $1,300 may not sound like a lot to some of our Senators here. We get good pay and, by the way, we have a pharmaceutical benefit in our health plan. It is a very good one. It is an excellent one. You know what. It doesn't stop when you hit a certain level. Our pharmaceutical benefit just keeps on going. It just keeps on coming, as do pharmaceutical benefits in practically all the plans in America today. Just think about the administrative overhead to figure this one out. You are going along and, all of a sudden, this red arrow kicks in: Stop. I want to know how much it is costing us to administer this kind of deal. You can imagine, you get a note in the mail. Your benefit stops. You have paid $4,500. You go back and check your records. No, I didn't, I have only paid $4,200. You call up the administrator: You have made a mistake. Well, no, I didn't. Well, yes, you did. How many hours will a senior who is confused and upset have to spend on the phone? How many hours will an administrator have to spend working on the details of this? Too long, I can tell you that. This plan, as it is before us, if this amendment doesn't pass, pulls the rug out from underneath the people who are going to need the help the most. So if we are in this in order to offer a plan that people will utilize, then let's support this amendment. It is as simple as that. Many seniors take medicines to manage chronic health problems. I discussed that at the beginning. How wonderful is it that today we can avoid horrible outcomes by taking pills that will help keep our blood pressure down, regulate our heart rate, keep our insulin in check--I could go on and on and on. Some of our seniors are cutting their pills in half because they cannot afford it. How tragic would it be if, after they think they are going to have this great benefit, they find out they could do better going up to Canada and buying the pills because maybe it comes out to 25 percent when all is said and done, when you put in the benefit shutdown, the premiums cost, and the deductible. It just may not add up. How sad it would be if, after all the hoopla we are associating with this bill, the bill itself is inadequate. I received a letter from a constituent in San Marcos, CA. She has an annual prescription drug cost that will top $10,000. Well, she will be hit with this benefit shutdown. Another constituent from Indio, CA, told me she has made five trips to Mexico over the last several years to purchase her prescriptions. This senior drives all day long to Mexico in order to purchase affordable heart medicine that she needs to survive, that she needs so that she can wake up every day and see her grandchildren, and take a walk, and have a quality of life. She is awaiting a benefit that will make it easy for her to go down to her corner pharmacy and say: Here is my card; I am ready to go. But this particular senior is going to be shocked to find out that if she is in the category of the benefit shutdown, it is going to cost her $1,300, plus at least $35 a month, plus a deductible. A retired physician from Marina del Rey told me that a pill he takes for heart disease went up 600 percent--from $15 to $85. So for seniors who have to take an assortment of medicine to manage chronic diseases, the cost really starts to add up. I have 4 million senior citizens who are part of the Medicare Program in my State. If you take the population of Delaware, that is five Delawares. That is how many senior citizens I have, and they deserve a break. Unfortunately, this bill gives them a break, a break in coverage. Let's close that break in coverage. Let's close that gap, stop the benefit shutdown, and let's have a bill of which we all can be proud. Again, this benefit shutdown is unheard of if we look at all the plans. It would not happen to you, Mr. President, if you have FEHBP. It will not happen to your wife, your kids, or you. It does not happen to me. I do not walk in and they say: Oh, Senator, sorry, you are in that time of the year; gee, just for these 3 months, you do not get any benefit at all. I guarantee you, if our plan did that, there would be shouting at the caucus lunches: What kind of plan do we have that we walk in, in the middle of the year, and somebody tells us we do not have coverage? We are paying our premium. We would not stand for it. Why are we giving a plan to the seniors we represent that is far worse than the plan we have? Because we want to give tax breaks for the wealthy few, and so we cannot afford to do this? This is not a costly fix. CBO is telling us it is $60 billion out of a $400 billion bill. Let's figure out a way to pay for it. It is easy. I can tell you right now the administrative costs in this bill range from 15 percent to 25 percent. That is $100 billion. Why are the administrative costs so high? The private sector is doing it, not Medicare. Medicare has a 3-percent overhead. The private sector has a 10- to 20-percent overhead. Let's take the bill back and figure it out and close this benefit shutdown. I do not want to be the Senator who stands up and votes for this with a smile on my face and then have a senior stand up and say: Senator, I walked into my pharmacy in October. I have $500-a-month drug expenses, and guess what, I have no benefit. I had to pay $1,300 out of my own pocket just when I needed the drugs the most. Why are you doing this to me? Why don't you do it to yourself? That is what I hope they say. I am so happy we are discussing a Medicare drug benefit, believe me. I share the views of a lot of my colleagues that it is time we have one, but to have this plan, the only plan in the country virtually that has a benefit shutdown, is an embarrassment to me. We do not have it in the Senate plan. They do not have it over in the House, I assure you of that. We should not have a benefit that starts and stops. What is really frosting Senator Graham is that seniors even have to pay a premium during this benefit shutdown. So he has an amendment--we have not voted on it yet--that says at least for October, November, and December, do not charge seniors a premium. It is the same as if someone walked in a store and said: I want to buy a TV set, here is my money; I am going to pay it off over 3 months, here is my money. And they say, thank you very much; you are not getting a TV set; we will deliver it in 3 months. But you advertised it. No, you have to pay me 3 months, and then I will send you your TV set. In a free market economy, this is a very sick idea. This does not make any sense. In our society, if you put money down, you pay for a benefit, you pay for a product, you get it. I think Bob Graham has a good idea: If you are going to do this to seniors, then do not make them pay their premium. At least show some regard for the person. You are a senior; you are on several drugs; you are feeling good; the medicine really helps you; you have signed up for the plan; you have paid your deductible; you start getting your 50 percent benefit; and, boom, it is over, when you reach $4,500. Your benefit shuts down. I cannot say it enough. It is unheard of to pay a $1,300 penalty for sickness. I cannot say it enough. You have signed up. A few months go by, and you add the costs up in your head trying to figure out how much your medicine is costing. You realize you are going to hit the $4,500 benefit shutdown. Your doctor says you need to keep taking the medicine because you are worse, and he knows you are worried about entering the benefit shutdown. You are going to be hit with the full cost of those drugs for that period. What are you going to do? You sit down and you crunch the numbers. You ask: How can I cut costs? You may well skip your medicine; you may well cut the pills in half; and you may well threaten your health and your life. The benefit shutdown is wrong. It goes against everything we do in this country. Nobody else does this. It is not that expensive to fix. You are going to need a calculator every time you try to figure out what you have to save. You are going to need a good accountant. A shutdown is going to cause trouble with the administration of this benefit. People will be calculating: Gee, Mr. Thomas has used $3,925. Let's get him on the watchlist. Mrs. Boxer over there, she has used $4,000. Then suddenly you are cut off. You call up and you do not understand it. It is going to take hours to explain it to a senior citizen. In closing my discussion of this amendment--and I will be asking for the yeas and nays on this amendment--the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the AARP, the two biggest senior citizen organizations in this country, endorse this amendment. I am to again read from Mr. Novelli's letter because this says it all in a very clear way, and I hope my presentation has demonstrated that everything Mr. Novelli, the CEO of AARP, has stated is true: AARP members find the notion of a gap in coverage-- That is benefit shutdown-- to be a major barrier to enrolling in a Medicare drug benefit. They tell us that they are unaware of similar features in any of the insurance products they routinely purchase. Our members do not understand why coverage would cease at a time when their drug expenses increase. The continued existence of this benefit gap threatens the workability of the benefit by jeopardizing adequate enrollment and thus the program's ability to spread risk. Therefore, we urge the Senate to eliminate this coverage gap. Signed William Novelli, AARP. I thank the AARP because I know they are calling colleagues and explaining this. Just remember, do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. Do my colleagues want to have their drug benefit changed so that just when they need their pharmaceutical product the most, they tell you it is not covered for you; it is not covered for your wife; it is not covered for your husband; it is not covered for your children? Mr. President, you do not want that. Why are we doing it to the seniors? At least give them a break and close down this benefit shutdown because if we do not, if we do not vote for this amendment, people are going to be at our doors because they are not going to understand it. If my colleagues vote for this amendment and we fix this, we can truly say we have made this a far better plan, a plan more like our own, a plan more like the other 100 plans I have looked at. I yield the floor. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the true spirit of making this bill work, making it a bill that isn't confusing for our seniors, a bill that doesn't cause a hardship, as the existing bill does, for those who are the sickest. In this amendment I have the support not only of several colleagues but of the AARP, which very strongly supports it. As you know, they have been choosing their amendments very carefully. Also we are supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. So we have both the largest senior citizen organizations backing this amendment. I was proud to give the national Democratic radio address on Saturday. I did it on this particular issue. The issue I will be addressing through this amendment is ending the benefit shutdown that occurs in this bill just at a point in time when seniors need their benefit the most. I will explain it because it isn't that complicated once you explain it. Let me take a step back and say the best thing about the bill before us is it starts a Medicare benefit prescription drug benefit for our seniors. We have been talking about this for years. We have been pushing it for years. Since Medicare was created 38 years ago, seniors have been waiting for a prescription drug benefit. I must say, the older I get the more I realize the revolution we have seen in medicine, one that is now one of prevention. If one takes a high blood pressure medicine, if one can't control it any other way, it becomes absolutely a lifesaving benefit. If one doesn't do that or one can't afford to do that, the chances of stroke or heart disease go up immeasurably. So the best thing about the bill before us is that it begins something so many of us have fought for so long. Unfortunately, the plan is wanting. The plan needs to be improved. It is very complicated. I have read this from a Senator on the Republican side. I heard from a Senator on the Democratic side: No one really understands this. That was a reference to Senators. I have a handle on what this bill does. I have had to work; I have had my staff work. I am fortunate to have a good staff. I have talked to my colleagues. But if it took me so long to figure this out, what will it do to our people. One of the improvements we should make is this amendment I offer. I want to explain exactly what I mean when I say a benefit shutdown. It has been called a number of things--a coverage gap, a donut hole. But a benefit shutdown really explains it because here is what happens. You are going about your business. You are paying your premium. You are getting your 50-percent benefit after you pay your deductible. And bingo, you hit a certain point and what happens? No more benefit. I have studied 100 different plans that offer a benefit. Ninety-nine of them don't have any of this. One of them has this, but it is a very rich plan and the benefit shutdown is very small. So this is the only plan I have ever seen in existence that has this ridiculous benefit shutdown. I don't understand why it happened, but I guess the bill was a compromise so that is why we have it. Let me explain what it means. I will show a couple of charts to you. After a senior pays $275 in a deductible, they start getting 50 percent of the cost of the drug reimbursed. So it is a 50-percent benefit, once you have paid your deductible. By the way, every month you have at least a $35 premium. Now all of a sudden, you get to $4,500 worth of drugs and your benefit shuts down and the next $1,300 you have to pay out of your own pocket. I know the State of the Presiding Officer is not much different from mine in the sense that our seniors are mostly low income. Many of them are living on their Social Security checks, maybe a little more, but since the market went down, many of them are relying on their Social Security checks. For them to have to pay $1,300 right in the middle of a year is absolutely outrageous. That is why AARP is supporting my amendment. They sent out a letter on my amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask a couple questions. The Senator used the term ``donut hole.'' I used the phrase ``benefit shutdown.'' It's all the same. But on the chart, between the yellow and the red, is a big white space. That means that between $4,500 and $5,800 essentially there is no benefit. This is a cost. My friend is right. All we had to do is tighten up a little bit on what our colleagues wanted to do for the people who earn $1 million a year. It would not have taken that much. The cost of this, after the $400 billion, is $60 billion. We got that from CBO, a $60 billion cost. My question is basically this: Does he not believe, when you really take a look at this, the administrative costs of making this work are going to be quite large? Think about the accounting that has to go into it, to track everybody's benefit. You have to do it twice. Once between $4,500 and $5,800, and then it goes to 90 percent. I am convinced, I say to my friend, there will be some administrative savings here. Also I would make the point that because this bill--I know he agrees with me on this--relies too much on the private sector, the administrative costs are sky high. Medicare runs a 3 percent administrative cost. The private sector runs between 15 and 25 percent. As a matter of fact, in the House bill they are saying it is a 25 percent cost of the entire bill. So I say to my friend, this particular amendment is not that large a cost when you really look at administrative costs going in. The reason I do not offset it, I say to my friend, is because I think our smart Senators and their smart staffs can sit down and figure out a way to pay for this thing where you can take a lot out of administration. I just wonder if my friend agrees that the complication involved here is worth removing.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to explain in 1 minute a very important amendment that will really improve this bill. This amendment is endorsed by the AARP--they feel very strongly about it--in addition to the other major seniors organizations to preserve Social Security and Medicare. In the bill right now, there is a benefit shutdown when you reach $4,500 worth of purchased drugs. That means seniors will face a $1,300 deficit before they start getting the benefit. I will just implore my colleagues, there is not any other prescription drug plan in this country that does this. This is a really terrible problem for our people. Just when they need help the most, they stop getting help. I conclude, since we have so little time, by reading what AARP says: AARP members find the notion of a gap in coverage to be a major barrier to enrolling in a Medicare drug benefit. They tell us that they are unaware of similar features in any of the insurance products they routinely purchase. In closing, they say: . . . we urge the Senate to eliminate this coverage gap. Please make this bill better, friends. It is the least we can do for seniors.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing a bill today that will provide the necessary resources to protect the 21 historic California missions for future generations. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. The California missions represent some of our Nation's oldest historical treasures. Furthermore, they are important illustrations of the historical, cultural and architectural heritage of the State of California. Yet, until recently, little had been done to preserve the missions and their artifacts. They are in dire need of structural repair and restoration. The California missions are the most visited historic attractions in the State, drawing more than 5 million tourists a year. The missions also serve an important role in educating our children in the history and the early settlement in California. We must make restoration and protection of the missions a priority. In 1998, the California Missions Foundation, a charitable corporation, was established in the State of California to fund the restoration and repair of the California missions and the preservation of the Spanish colonial and mission-era artworks and artifacts of the California missions. The Foundation is leading a statewide campaign to raise funds to repair the missions and preserve their precious artworks and artifacts. But they need help. My legislation would provide $10 million for the restoration of the California missions through a Department of the Interior grant program to be administered over 5 years. These funds would supplement the private and State funds that have been dedicated to preservation of the missions. The House version of the bill has been introduced by Representatives Sam Farr and David Dreier. It has the support of a majority of the California congressional delegation. It is my hope that this legislation can move forward quickly, so we can restore and protect these national treasures. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing a bill today that will provide the necessary resources to protect the 21 historic California missions for future generations. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. The California missions represent some of our Nation's oldest historical treasures. Furthermore, they are important illustrations of the historical, cultural and architectural heritage of the State of California. Yet, until recently, little had been done to preserve the missions and their artifacts. They are in dire need of structural repair and restoration. The California missions are the most visited historic attractions in the State, drawing more than 5 million tourists a year. The missions also serve an important role in educating our children in the history and the early settlement in California. We must make restoration and protection of the missions a priority. In 1998, the California Missions Foundation, a charitable corporation, was established in the State of California to fund the restoration and repair of the California missions and the preservation of the Spanish colonial and mission-era artworks and artifacts of the California missions. The Foundation is leading a statewide campaign to raise funds to repair the missions and preserve their precious artworks and artifacts. But they need help. My legislation would provide $10 million for the restoration of the California missions through a Department of the Interior grant program to be administered over 5 years. These funds would supplement the private and State funds that have been dedicated to preservation of the missions. The House version of the bill has been introduced by Representatives Sam Farr and David Dreier. It has the support of a majority of the California congressional delegation. It is my hope that this legislation can move forward quickly, so we can restore and protect these national treasures. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOXER

Mr. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment is to close a loophole in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. Last year, in response to the September 11 attacks, I worked along with our former colleague Senator Bob Smith to pass the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act, which allowed passenger and cargo pilots who volunteer and receive special training to have guns in the cockpit as a last line of defense. The bill passed the Senate 87-6 as an amendment to the Homeland Security bill. Unfortunately, during the Homeland Security conference, cargo pilots were left out of the program. This amendment will close this dangerous loophole in the law and add an important new layer to our homeland security by allowing cargo pilots to participate in the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. With less security than passenger aircraft, cargo planes are tempting targets for terrorists. These planes do not have strengthened cockpit doors, Federal Air Marshals, trained cabin crew, or alert passengers on board. Cargo planes are usually more vulnerable on the tarmac than passenger aircraft. Most cargo planes are parked in remote areas with relatively easy access; many operate at airfields that do not have the same level of security as passenger airports. Late last year in Fargo, ND, a mentally unbalanced woman walked across a runway, boarded a cargo aircraft, entered the cockpit, and asked the crew to fly her to California. Just think what a terrorist could do. A terrorist could hijack a cargo plane and fly it into a building, nuclear power plant, or other target on the ground. Cargo pilots must be given a last line of defense to keep terrorists from gaining control of their aircraft. We need to close this gap in our homeland security.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Another question. If that fails, will we then be voting on the Specter amendment? And have the yeas and nays been ordered on that?

Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry. I was concentrating on my remarks.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand Senator Lott has second- degreed Senator Specter's amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, with a study. Something can be studied and studied but, frankly, this would gut what we are trying to do in our amendment. I do not mind a study, but I think the time for studying this has passed. I want to show my colleagues an important op-ed that appeared in the USA Today on June 9: ``Evidence Points to FAA's Laxity on Plane Maintenance.'' It specifically cites the overseas gaps that are happening. There are 629 foreign repair stations certified by the FAA to service U.S. aircraft. They point out that they may not be strictly monitored because of their distance from U.S.-based airline operations, increasing the potential risk for error. That is an opinion of an expert on safety, Michael Barr, director of the University of Southern California's aviation safety program. I think all of us want to see safety. One obvious place is making sure that we cut down on the number of aircraft that are overhauled abroad. That is why I think Senator Specter's amendment is so important, for the safety and security of the flying public. We all have worked very hard in the Commerce Committee to improve our aviation security, and I do believe our system is more secure than it was. We have much more to do. My colleagues have heard me speak about the importance of the missile defense system, against shoulder-fired missiles, and there will be a lot more on that subject. But while we are improving our security at our airports in this country and rooting out potential threats among employees in the United States, meaning employees who work for the airlines, there are no security regulations or standards for foreign repair stations that work on U.S. aircraft. I know the Senate is rushing to get through with this very important bill, but there is a huge gap in our aviation security. There is a huge safety concern that I have that Senator Specter's amendment will remedy. It is important to remember that foreign repair stations work on planes that not only fly internationally but planes that serve domestic routes as well. There is a huge gap in our aviation security, and foreign repair stations do not have the same standards. Senator Lott wishes to study this matter, and I am glad he wishes to study it, but we all know that the underlying amendment is the one that would bring about the changes. The underlying amendment would require foreign repair stations to meet the same safety standards required at domestic repair stations. Specifically, under the Specter amendment, foreign repair stations would have to institute a drug and alcohol testing program of its employees if they want to work on American aircraft. I say to my friends in the Senate, the people at these foreign stations are not even tested for drugs and alcohol, but American workers are required to have drug and alcohol tests. There is no drug and alcohol testing program of employees on these foreign repair stations. We demand it in our own country. Our employees go through it and we do not have it at these foreign repair stations. We want these foreign repair stations to agree to FAA inspections. In addition, the Under Secretary of Homeland Security must complete a security review and audit of all foreign repair stations. The foreign repair stations must address security issues identified by the Homeland Security Department within 90 days, and if they do not prove to the FAA and to the Homeland Security Department that they are not meeting our heightened security needs, FAA must revoke the certification of that repair station. After all of the work that has been undertaken to improve our aviation security, and I must say on both sides of the aisle we have seen this work, we must not allow this loophole to continue. We do not know who is working on our planes at foreign repair stations, and I would hate to be a Senator who voted to study the issue but not to move quickly to solve the problem if, God forbid, there is an accident because some employee in a foreign repair station was either inebriated or high on drugs or perhaps even was terrorist connected. We owe the American people safe and secure skies, and I think the Specter amendment is critical to preventing terrorism and unnecessary accidents. My colleagues want a study? Then they are saying they do not think this is a problem. Evidence points to FAA's laxity on plane maintenance, and if we do not adopt Senator Specter's amendment, I think we are making a big mistake. These planes not only fly internationally but nationally. I have a parliamentary inquiry. Are we going to vote on Senator Lott's second degree at a time certain?

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the FAA Authorization Act. However, I must express my serious concerns that two sections in the bill on streamlining, sections 47701 and 47703, may be interpreted in a manner that the committee never intended. The purpose of these sections is to cure delays that have occurred because of interagency wrangling and bureaucratic disputes. These sections call for the relevant agencies to undertake concurrent planning and environmental reviews for critical airport projects in order to ensure that the projects move forward expeditiously. They are not designed to circumvent NEPA and should be so used.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for being brief and to the point. I am also glad he went first because I could not disagree more with what he said. It gives me a really good jumping- off place for my comments this morning. I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Graham's amendment to strike section 105 from the Senate Energy Bill, and I thank him and Senators Feinstein, Wyden, and Cantwell for their heroic efforts in the committee itself to remove this section so we would not have to have this fight on the Senate floor. The Senator from Texas called this amendment a know-nothing amendment. I call it an amendment that stands up for American values. What could be more of an American value than protecting and honoring the environmental legacy given to us by God, a legacy we must protect. It is our duty to protect. Section 105, which I wish to strike, would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory and analysis of oil and gas reserves beneath the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, including the moratorium areas. Let me repeat that. This is such a radical proposal that it would allow harmful analysis to go on, and I will explain why, beneath the waters of an area or areas in our country where they are so precious, they are so beautiful, they are so respected by the people we represent, that they have been subjected to moratoria by this Congress for 20 years now. By the way, that tracks how long I have been in Congress actually, just about. I have supported that all the time, and this provision undermines the premise behind these moratoria, which is to protect these magnificent areas from activities such as the ones authorized in this bill. It may sound very simple to say, oh, we are going to analyze what resources lie off our coasts and in our ocean, but when we realize the kind of work that will go on--seismic surveys, sediment samplings, other destructive exploration technologies that harm ocean habitat and marine life--it is worth getting upset about. To this point, this bill is really an abomination. I do not know how else to put it. I am known to be very direct. It brings back nuclear energy, and I compliment the Presiding Officer today for his work to try and strip the subsidies to the nuclear power industry from this bill. We do not even know what to do with the nuclear waste we have. It is dangerous. It lasts for thousands of years. We do not even know what to do with it, and now this Senate has decided to turn away from the Wyden-Sununu amendment and say to nuclear power companies, before we know what to do with this waste, we are going to back you up, we are going to give you a loan guarantee so if you want to build a nuclear powerplant, you can go get a $3 billion loan guarantee from the Federal Government. So if there is a crisis, if there is a problem, if the plant does not work, you are going to be bailed out by the taxpayers. Well, on behalf of the taxpayers of California, we are a State that has turned away from a couple of our nuclear powerplants because we have had problems--and now we are encouraging it. That is what this bill does. This bill has a safe harbor provision for ethanol. Maybe ethanol will be fine, but we are not sure. A blue ribbon panel in EPA said they are not sure. If there are problems, if people get sick, if children are harmed, there is a safe harbor for the companies making ethanol. What a corporate give-away is this bill. And now we are turning our back on 20 years of bipartisanship and 20 years of leadership from Republican and Democratic Presidents and saying, go into those precious areas in the ocean, drill your heart away and we are going to tell you, as the Senator from Texas said, oh, that is a good thing for the country. Wrong. It is a bad thing for our country. It is a bad thing for our children. It is a bad thing for their children because we would be undermining the protections for these valued, sensitive coastal areas and ignoring again this bipartisan moratoria we have had for years on the Outer Continental Shelf. By the way, we beat this back 2 years ago. I cannot wait to tell the people of California what is happening. I am saddened by it, but I cannot wait to tell them because they need to hear it. This is another environmental rollback that is deadly serious. It was tried 2 years ago and it did not succeed, but I am not sanguine this time because we have had changes in this particular body. Two years ago, Senator John Kerry and I offered an amendment, which was included in the manager's amendment, to strip this deadly language out and to preserve the moratorium, and it passed. Now, I will tell my colleagues why my people in California are so adamantly opposed to drilling off our coast. A very long time ago, 34 years ago, there was an incident that was so horrific that Californians who were around then will never forget it, and their children are told stories. In 1969, disaster struck when a major oil spill occurred from a platform 6 miles offshore from Santa Barbara, CA. Over 4 million gallons of oil poured into the ocean, contaminating the waters, killing thousands of animals and ruining over 200 square miles of Santa Barbara's coastline. Prior to that event, Santa Barbara's beaches were considered a recreational paradise with some of the most beautiful coastline in our country. After the spill, these same beaches smothered with a slick coating of oil, resulting in a loss of millions of dollars in tourism and recreation and broken hearts all over my State. Local governmental officials, community leaders, grassroots organizations, conservation groups, and citizens rallied for justice after the destruction of their coast. They decided then that absolutely no more drilling should be permitted off the coast. Due to the Santa Barbara spill in California, there is strong and enduring support for the protection of our oceans and our coastlines, and any candidate for any office coming into my State saying we ought to go back to the days of drilling off that coast is not going to get the support of Democrats, is not going to get the support of Republicans, is not going to get the support of independents, and everybody else in between. They can sugar-coat it any way they want. We know the truth. We saw it in Santa Barbara. We made a decision that any potential benefits that might be derived from future oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal treasures. I will show a picture of my coastline because it is worth looking at. My friends on both sides of the aisle who support this underlying amendment, if they think they are helping the economy, they are not. The economy of mine and other coastal States relies on a beautiful and clean environment. The economic benefits of our California beaches are very clear. Two-thirds of California residents visit one of the State beaches at least once a year. In 2001, there were at least 132 million visits to California beaches by people from outside the State. These are your constituents. Maybe it is even you. Maybe you even came with your family to our beaches. These visits generated $61 billion in total spending in my State. That is an economic boom. There are some in this Senate who think the only economic boom to their States is drilling on precious areas. That is a good debate. But the people of California have made this decision. They have decided they do not want it. They understand the commercial fishing industry relies on a beautiful unspoiled coast and ocean. It is a $554 million industry with 17,000 jobs, and they say no to this bill; the shipping industry, 8.6 billion and 179,000 jobs. We are talking tourism, we are talking fishing, we are talking shipping, and we are saying no to this bill. This Graham amendment will help us preserve that economy. These are hard economic times in our State. The last thing we need is to go back. Tourism, beautiful beaches, a clean ocean, that is what my State is about. We saw what happened in Santa Barbara. We made that decision. We have permanently banned new oil and gas development in State waters. How can we go out adjacent to State waters to the Outer Continental Shelf and run the risk of destroying this value of our State? It is about California's economy. It is also about a beautiful environment. I will show a couple of other pictures of this breathtaking environment. This is our southern California coast. The picture we show now is Malibu Beach. We are talking about $61 billion in total spending each year because of our magnificent coast and our ocean. When it is added up, the underlying bill is destructive to our environment, which Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in my State agree must be preserved. It undermines our economy. By allowing predrilling activities to occur, our coast is threatened, commercial fishing jobs are at risk, fishing jobs are at risk, tourism is at risk, California's economy is at risk, and the beauty of California's coastline is at risk. That goes for every State along my coast, be it Washington, Oregon, or California. As I look back to the bipartisanship we have had with the President in the past, Republicans and Democrats, this is the first time we have seen this move. What is the history of Federal moratoria? For two decades Federal waters off the coast of California have been protected from additional offshore oil and gas development through a series of temporary bans. President George H.W. Bush signed an executive memorandum in 1990 which placed the 10-year moratorium on new oil and gas leasing. He did not try to go in there with seismic testing and destructive methods. He did not get up and say, we better drill there and find out what is there. He understood it. President Clinton understood it. He extended this moratorium to 2012. Section 105 of this Energy bill completely ignores this moratoria by promoting destructive exploratory drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. In a letter to me, the California Coastal Commission states the provision ``would seriously undermine the longstanding bipartisan legislative moratoria . . . that has been included in every appropriations bill for more than 20 years.'' We must defeat efforts to undermine the protection of our coast and the rights of coastal States and local governments to make decisions to protect their coasts. Section 105 of the Energy bill is intended for one purpose, I say to my colleagues, and one purpose only. You can dress up a pig and you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. In this case, it is to promote oil and gas development on our precious coast. Republicans in my State don't want that. Democrats in my State don't want that. Independents in my State don't want that. By allowing the Secretary of the Interior to use invasive, exploratory technologies, including the seismic surveys--sections 105 permits activities that have detrimental impacts on the marine environment, including air pollution from machinery and disturbance to the sea flora. While these seismic surveys sound innocent, let me explain what we are talking about. Huge boats with large acoustic equipment go out into the ocean, a high-pressure air gun sends out constant high-decibel explosive pulses through the water and deep into the sea floor. We know these sounds have been reported to cause significant damage to fish and their ability to locate prey and avoid predators. As a result, the survival of fish populations is threatened by this technology. That is why the commercial fishing business in my State opposes this bill. These explosive pulses are also within the auditory range of many other marine species, including whales. In fact, when this technology was used in the Bahamas and off the coast of Mexico, it caused whales to become disoriented and as a result to be fatally stranded on beaches. Seismic surveys are accompanied by extraction of numerous samples from the sea floor. These samples are collected by dropping large hollow metal tubes from ships to vertically puncture the sea floor. Reports from Environmental Defense show the collection of these samples damages the ocean floor and harms the habitat of numerous species. The Graham amendment is supported by the California Coastal Commission, in addition to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Sierra Club, Coast Alliance, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and the League of Conservation Voters. This is a serious issue for the most populous State in the Union and for the entire west coast. I urge my colleagues who say they care about what people believe, care about the values of the American people, to seriously look at the danger and the damage this is going to cause. We stripped it out of the appropriations bill a couple years ago, and it is back now. I hope my colleagues will strip it out again. If you do not, there are going to be a lot of outraged citizens in this country when they find out what could happen from the underlying bill. I again urge colleagues to support this Graham amendment. Since my colleague from Washington is in the Chamber, Senator Cantwell, let me say to her--I mentioned this in her absence--how much I appreciated the heroic effort she made in the committee to strip this out of the bill. I hope we will be successful today. I thank my colleague. I yield the remainder of my time to the managers of the bill, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will not object at all. I want to understand, I thought I already had 15 minutes from yesterday. I am just clarifying that point.

Mrs. BOXER. I object.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, 13 years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, won an election in Burma with 82 percent of the vote. It was a clear sign that the Burmese people had rejected its military rulers that had been in place since 1962. Unfortunately, the people of Burma were denied its true leader when the military regime arrested Suu Kyi and thousands of her supporters. For the past 13 years, Suu Kyi has courageously pushed for democratic reform in Burma through nonviolent means even through she spent a great deal of this time under house arrest. For her bravery and dedication to freedom and democracy, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. Last year, the military rulers of Burma released Suu Kyi from house arrest. But, apparently, the strong support Suu Kyi continues to receive from the Burmese people was too much for the ruling military regime. On May 30, in a northern Burmese town 400 miles from Rangoon, supporters of the military regime attacked Suu Kyi's convoy and had her arrested. Suu Kyi and thousands of her supporters were reportedly injured in the attack. Scores of Suu Kyi supporters were reportedly killed. The international community must not let this act of brutality stand. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor and support Senator McConnell's legislation to increase sanctions on Burma. This legislation will impose a total import ban on Burmese goods, freeze the military regime's assets in the United States, tighten the visa ban on Burmese Government officials, and make it U.S. policy to oppose any new international loans to Burma's current leaders. This is an important step. It is also important to make sure that the international community and regional powers do their part to provide real and sustained pressure on Burma's illegitimate rulers. I was pleased to see that the United States has sent formal diplomatic requests to 11 nations in the region asking them to pressure the Burmese Government on the release of Suu Kyi. I also sent a letter to the Japanese Ambassador asking his nation to put more pressure on Burma's military rules after Japan's Foreign Minister indicated that this incident would not set back democratization efforts in Burma. I know our Japanese friends will help us in this important issue of human rights and provide a stronger condemnation of the attack on Suu Kyi. All nations, the international community, and regional organizations must take a stand against this outrage carried out by Burma's military leaders. We must do our part to support this brave woman and her followers.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Lugar, and Senator Cantwell.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.