Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Byrd's amendment to increase funding for homeland security. A little over a year ago, we experienced the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. As a result, we began to examine where our country had security weaknesses and work to prevent another attack. Unfortunately, the appropriations bill brought forward by the Republicans does not fund homeland security to the level that is needed, which is I why I support Senator Byrd's amendment. Since the September 11 attacks, the State of California and its cities and counties have spent almost $600 million on homeland security, on emergency operations and response, on protecting powerplants and water supplies, on fire and emergency medical services. Our States and cities and counties need our help. The Federal Government cannot abdicate its responsibility. Yet last year, after Congress passed $5 billion in funding to improve homeland security at the national, State, and local levels, President Bush refused to spend that money. It is still needed. Let me mention just a few things the Byrd amendment does. It increases funds for port security by $585 million. Last year, I was a member of the Port Security Conference Committee. We ended up with a good bill to improve security at our Nation's ports. But, there was no way to pay for it, despite my efforts and the efforts of Chairman Hollings. To get the money to our ports, we need to rely on the appropriations bill, so the additional funding in the Byrd amendment is crucial. For over a year now, I have been calling for the Federal Government to protect first responders--police, firefighters, emergency personnel, nurses, and doctors--by immunizing them against smallpox. If terrorists were able to unleash smallpox in the United States, these people would risk their lives to save us and protect us. We need to protect them now. The Byrd amendment provides $850 million to immunize first responders against the smallpox virus. The amendment would also increase funding for the Coast Guard for patrol boats by $40 million. The Coast Guard has many important missions including homeland security, drug security, and environmental work. After September 11, Coast Guard resources needed to be shifted. We now need to provide the Coast Guard with the necessary patrol boats to protect our coastline and ports as well as undertake its other missions. The amendment includes $200 million for airports for the installation of the baggage screening machines. Screening of all baggage was required as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which became law in November 2001. Estimates for the cost of installing these machines are, at a minimum, $2 billion. Los Angeles International Airport estimates that it will spend $135 million, San Francisco $65 million, and Oakland $16 million. So I support the $200 million that Senator Byrd proposes. This is only a downpayment. Congress has also required that cockpit doors be reinforced. But the airlines, for a variety of reasons, are in a difficult financial situation. Senator Byrd's amendment would provide $100 million to strengthen the cockpit doors. Let's not let another terrorist gain control of an airplane. Every day millions of people across the Nation take public transit to work. We need to ensure that these people are protected from a terrorist attack. Senator Byrd's amendment does just that by providing $300,000 in grants to public transit agencies. One of the problems in the aftermath of the September 11 attack was that first responders often could not communicate with each other. This amendment provides $150 million to first responders in our local communities in order to improve communications. That way, if there is another attack, and we all hope there will not be, we can rescue and save as many people as possible. The Byrd amendment also increases funding for border security, for food safety, and for the FBI. The Byrd amendment is vital for our nation's security for our homeland security, for the security of our cities and towns. I urge all Senators to vote for it to ensure that we can prevent more terrorist attacks.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill that addresses a critical gap that now exists in the funding for the clean- up of the Nation's most toxic waste sites. The Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act restores fees on oil, chemical and other industries to ensure that the Superfund Trust Fund, is solvent and that polluters, not American taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up sites that pose a threat to the health and safety of our communities. I am pleased to be reintroducing this bill with Senator Chafee. In the 107th Congress, we worked together on a number of issues as the Chair and Ranking Member of the Superfund Subcommittee of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. I look forward to continuing that relationship. The threats posed by Superfund sites affect communities in every corner of the country. One in every four Americans lives within four miles of a Superfund site. That's 70 million Americans and that includes 10 million children who are at risk of cancer and other health problems. My State of California has the second highest number of Superfund sites in the country after New Jersey. And more that 40 percent of Californians live within four miles of a Superfund site. Anyone who lives anywhere near a Superfund site knows about the terrible damage these industrial sites do to the community. Parents worry if their kids are safe when they find out there is a toxic mess down the street; real estate values go down the drain; and major challenges must be overcome to get the responsible parties to own up to their responsibility. Fortunately, after Love Canal in 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund law to address the serious threat posed by these sites. And this law worked. Great progress was being made. Since the creation of this program, over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four years of the Clinton administration, an average of 87 final cleanups occurred each year. Unfortunately, this program has seen a sharp decline since the start of the Bush administration. The pace of cleanups has slowed to a crawl. Instead of 87 National Priority List sites a year, less than half of that are now being cleaned up. In 2002, only 42 sites were cleaned up. At the same time, the heart of the Superfund law is under attack: the principle that polluters must pay for cleanups. And that is the issue that my bill will address. The Superfund Trust Fund, which includes funds from Superfund fees previously paid by oil, chemical, and other industries, is nearly gone. It will be depleted by 2004. These fees are not large in scope. For example, for every barrel of oil it would only cost 9.7 cents. Manufacturers would only pay $4.45 for every ton of arsenic or mercury they produce. In addition, corporations that have over $2 million in taxable income under the alternative minimum tax would be required to pay only 0.12 percent on taxable income above $2 million dollars. That means that a company that has a taxable income of $2,010,000 would pay only $12. These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small price to pay for a healthy, safe environment. Unfortunately, the polluter's fee expired in 1995. President Clinton repeatedly tried to get it reinstated. President Bush has refused to do so in his past budgets, and indications are that he will not do so in the future. This means that a greater and greater share of the cost of Superfund cleanups will be borne by taxpayers rather than polluters. In fact, the general taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the Superfund in 1995. The figure is rising and American taxpayers will pay 54 percent of the Superfund budget by 2003. This is unacceptable. That is why we are introducing the Toxic Clean- up Polluter Pays Renewal Act. The principle of ``polluter pays'' must be protected, and the Superfund fees must be reinstated. Polluter pays is fair. Polluter pays works. And polluter pays must continue. To shift the burden to all taxpayers is wrong, and we will fight this Administration's attempt to turn it back on the health of the American people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill that addresses a critical gap that now exists in the funding for the clean- up of the Nation's most toxic waste sites. The Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act restores fees on oil, chemical and other industries to ensure that the Superfund Trust Fund, is solvent and that polluters, not American taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up sites that pose a threat to the health and safety of our communities. I am pleased to be reintroducing this bill with Senator Chafee. In the 107th Congress, we worked together on a number of issues as the Chair and Ranking Member of the Superfund Subcommittee of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. I look forward to continuing that relationship. The threats posed by Superfund sites affect communities in every corner of the country. One in every four Americans lives within four miles of a Superfund site. That's 70 million Americans and that includes 10 million children who are at risk of cancer and other health problems. My State of California has the second highest number of Superfund sites in the country after New Jersey. And more that 40 percent of Californians live within four miles of a Superfund site. Anyone who lives anywhere near a Superfund site knows about the terrible damage these industrial sites do to the community. Parents worry if their kids are safe when they find out there is a toxic mess down the street; real estate values go down the drain; and major challenges must be overcome to get the responsible parties to own up to their responsibility. Fortunately, after Love Canal in 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund law to address the serious threat posed by these sites. And this law worked. Great progress was being made. Since the creation of this program, over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four years of the Clinton administration, an average of 87 final cleanups occurred each year. Unfortunately, this program has seen a sharp decline since the start of the Bush administration. The pace of cleanups has slowed to a crawl. Instead of 87 National Priority List sites a year, less than half of that are now being cleaned up. In 2002, only 42 sites were cleaned up. At the same time, the heart of the Superfund law is under attack: the principle that polluters must pay for cleanups. And that is the issue that my bill will address. The Superfund Trust Fund, which includes funds from Superfund fees previously paid by oil, chemical, and other industries, is nearly gone. It will be depleted by 2004. These fees are not large in scope. For example, for every barrel of oil it would only cost 9.7 cents. Manufacturers would only pay $4.45 for every ton of arsenic or mercury they produce. In addition, corporations that have over $2 million in taxable income under the alternative minimum tax would be required to pay only 0.12 percent on taxable income above $2 million dollars. That means that a company that has a taxable income of $2,010,000 would pay only $12. These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small price to pay for a healthy, safe environment. Unfortunately, the polluter's fee expired in 1995. President Clinton repeatedly tried to get it reinstated. President Bush has refused to do so in his past budgets, and indications are that he will not do so in the future. This means that a greater and greater share of the cost of Superfund cleanups will be borne by taxpayers rather than polluters. In fact, the general taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the Superfund in 1995. The figure is rising and American taxpayers will pay 54 percent of the Superfund budget by 2003. This is unacceptable. That is why we are introducing the Toxic Clean- up Polluter Pays Renewal Act. The principle of ``polluter pays'' must be protected, and the Superfund fees must be reinstated. Polluter pays is fair. Polluter pays works. And polluter pays must continue. To shift the burden to all taxpayers is wrong, and we will fight this Administration's attempt to turn it back on the health of the American people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if my friend will yield for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. Every year?

Mrs. BOXER. I know my colleagues are here. I have one point I want to make, and then I am leaving the floor. I think it is an important point. I wonder if my friend can let me know if he agrees. I think America is now learning who benefits from this Bush plan. It is very clear. It is not rhetoric; it is fact. It is a boon to the millionaires and the billionaires, plain and simple. I know people in this very Chamber who have come up and said: This is absurd. We would much rather see a country that invests in its children, invests in its homeland security, and that gives tax breaks to those in the middle. They are fighting to stop this ill-advised plan. You have made the case that it makes no sense. We are talking about deficits as high as the eye can see and people being rewarded who don't need to be helped. It is not going to stimulate this economy. In the long term, it will lead to outrageous deficits. I ask my friend this question: Isn't it bad enough that this is a plan that won't do what we need; namely, have stimulus and long-term prosperity? Isn't it worse that at the same time the President is saying let's cut all these taxes for the millionaires, he is shorting homeland security and education? Our colleague, Paul Sarbanes, said it best when he said we ought to call this plan ``leave no millionaire behind.'' We have President Bush sign a bill called Leave No Child Behind. We are going to get a bill pretty soon here that breaks the promise he made to the children of this country. He stood with Senator Kennedy, he stood with Congressman Miller, the champions of education and children, and now he will not fund it because he wants to give the money back. He is not funding homeland security, and our States are suffering as a result. So the juxtaposition of these two things--a plan that does not do the job, plus shorting our people in terms of education and homeland defense--isn't this a time that we have not seen ever before, a dangerous time for our people?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, Senator Allen and I are introducing the Jumpstart Broadband Act. The Act directs the FCC to set aside an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for unlicensed devices to use to deploy broadband connections. It also directs the FCC to establish rules to minimize interference in that spectrum among devices and to ensure that Department of Defense systems operating in that spectrum are not compromised. We need this legislation to unleash the potential of new, exciting technologies that promise to deliver high-speed broadband connections wirelessly. Currently, congestion and interference from numerous devices such as cordless phones, ham radios, microwave ovens, ham radios and garage door openers is limiting the potential of these new networks. If we can tap the potential of high-speed broadband, then we can provide numerous benefits to the American people as well as create jobs in high tech industries. I know that talking about megahertz and spectrum seems somewhat esoteric. But we strongly believe our bill will have real world implications for families, workers, and communities. Making additional spectrum available for new wireless broadband technologies will help make broadband connections more attractive to consumers by extending the reach of those connections. That means more people will sign up for wired connections, creating jobs in the turbulent telecommunications and high-tech industries. Also, as technologies thrive in this area, manufacturers will also create jobs producing and selling more devices to make the connections work. One such technology is called wireless fidelity, or Wi-Fi for short. In the home, wireless networking can link all the digital products in your house, computers, printers, handheld organizers, DVD players, to each other and to the Internet without cables. Imagine a PC in the bedroom transfering songs to a music system in a car parked in the garage. Imagine an oven being turned on via the Internet by a worker stuck at the office, allowing him to get home to a meal that cooked while he or she commuted. In rural areas, wireless technologies have the potential to allow communities to use signal repeaters to bring Internet connections to places where wires do not reach, or where the signal over the wire is too weak. Another possibility is that current or new technologies can be manipulated to extend the reach of the initial connection longer distances without repeaters. Our legislation will make all of those kinds connections more likely and reliable. The benefits greater use of wireless broadband connections are numerous. For rural health clinics, for example, these new wireless connections would connect them quickly to resources at hospitals in cities hundreds of miles away. For schools anywhere, an efficient wireless connection would save them the cost of knocking down walls to wire the entire school. Senator Allen and I circulated a draft of this legislation in November 2002 and the response we received from the technology and consumer electronics communities was very positive. We made some modifications to address the concerns that some in the cellular community expressed and worked hard to ensure that the new spectrum would allow a variety of new technologies to thrive with minimum rules of operation in the spectrum . Our first modification was to specify that the spectrum would be allocated in the 5 gigahertz band rather than below 6 gigahertz. The previous language was of concern to cellular companies that operate below 3 gigahertz. The second modification was to limit any new FCC rules only to rules that ensure robust and efficient use of the spectrum for broadband delivery devices. It is our hope that this bill will provide the sparkplug necessary to help jumpstart the broadband market. I look forward to working on this bill with Senator Allen and the rest of our colleagues in the 108th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, Senator Allen and I are introducing the Jumpstart Broadband Act. The Act directs the FCC to set aside an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for unlicensed devices to use to deploy broadband connections. It also directs the FCC to establish rules to minimize interference in that spectrum among devices and to ensure that Department of Defense systems operating in that spectrum are not compromised. We need this legislation to unleash the potential of new, exciting technologies that promise to deliver high-speed broadband connections wirelessly. Currently, congestion and interference from numerous devices such as cordless phones, ham radios, microwave ovens, ham radios and garage door openers is limiting the potential of these new networks. If we can tap the potential of high-speed broadband, then we can provide numerous benefits to the American people as well as create jobs in high tech industries. I know that talking about megahertz and spectrum seems somewhat esoteric. But we strongly believe our bill will have real world implications for families, workers, and communities. Making additional spectrum available for new wireless broadband technologies will help make broadband connections more attractive to consumers by extending the reach of those connections. That means more people will sign up for wired connections, creating jobs in the turbulent telecommunications and high-tech industries. Also, as technologies thrive in this area, manufacturers will also create jobs producing and selling more devices to make the connections work. One such technology is called wireless fidelity, or Wi-Fi for short. In the home, wireless networking can link all the digital products in your house, computers, printers, handheld organizers, DVD players, to each other and to the Internet without cables. Imagine a PC in the bedroom transfering songs to a music system in a car parked in the garage. Imagine an oven being turned on via the Internet by a worker stuck at the office, allowing him to get home to a meal that cooked while he or she commuted. In rural areas, wireless technologies have the potential to allow communities to use signal repeaters to bring Internet connections to places where wires do not reach, or where the signal over the wire is too weak. Another possibility is that current or new technologies can be manipulated to extend the reach of the initial connection longer distances without repeaters. Our legislation will make all of those kinds connections more likely and reliable. The benefits greater use of wireless broadband connections are numerous. For rural health clinics, for example, these new wireless connections would connect them quickly to resources at hospitals in cities hundreds of miles away. For schools anywhere, an efficient wireless connection would save them the cost of knocking down walls to wire the entire school. Senator Allen and I circulated a draft of this legislation in November 2002 and the response we received from the technology and consumer electronics communities was very positive. We made some modifications to address the concerns that some in the cellular community expressed and worked hard to ensure that the new spectrum would allow a variety of new technologies to thrive with minimum rules of operation in the spectrum . Our first modification was to specify that the spectrum would be allocated in the 5 gigahertz band rather than below 6 gigahertz. The previous language was of concern to cellular companies that operate below 3 gigahertz. The second modification was to limit any new FCC rules only to rules that ensure robust and efficient use of the spectrum for broadband delivery devices. It is our hope that this bill will provide the sparkplug necessary to help jumpstart the broadband market. I look forward to working on this bill with Senator Allen and the rest of our colleagues in the 108th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act.'' This important legislation will ensure that the fishing of tuna labeled ``dolphin safe'' does not kill, harm or attack dolphins, and that consumers are given accurate information on how the tuna they purchase is caught. My bill will guarantee that tuna products labeled ``dolphin safe'' will be truly safe for dolphins. In 1990, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, introduced by myself in the House and Senator Biden in the Senate, created a ``dolphin safe'' label for consumers. This legislation was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it allowed American consumers to buy tuna bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label with confidence, knowing that their purchase did not trade dolphin mortalities for tuna fishing profit. Dolphin and yellowfin tuna tend to run together in some waters. Dolphin swim closer to the surface to breathe. Under the destructive ``chase and encirclement'' practice, helicopters spot the schools of dolphin. Speedboats deliberately encircle the dolphins and cast a mile- wide net, knowing that the tuna will be below. While the tunas are to be harvested, the hope is that the dolphins will escape the edges of the net and suffocation or capture. This practice is termed ``purse seine netting.'' According to the annual reports of the Marine Mammal Commission and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific alone has decreased from more than 100,000 dolphin kills each year to fewer than 2,000 kills each year since the passage of the ``dolphin safe'' label in 1990. Unfortunately, on New Year's Eve, the Commerce Department announced its plans to make the labeling standard largely meaningless by changing the definition of ``dolphin safe'' tuna to allow the label to be put on tuna harvested through deadly purse seine netting. This flies in the face of all available scientific information. According to the Marine Mammal Commission, ``. . . the results of the [National Marine Fisheries] Service's research program . . . provide evidence that the practice of chasing and encircling dolphins is having adverse effects on the recover of depleted dolphin stocks and that the magnitude of those effects, at both the individual and population levels, may be significant.'' The report prepared by the Commerce Department reached a similar conclusion. It said, ``. . . despite considerable effort by fishery scientists, there is little evidence of recovery, and concerns remain that the practice of chasing and circling dolphins somehow is adversely affecting the ability of those depleted stocks to recover.'' The new rule completely undermines the integrity of the ``dolphin safe'' label, allowing ``dolphin safe'' labels to be placed on dolphin deadly tuna, and misleading the public. These changes fly in the face of the bipartisan legislation that was enacted in response to public outcry and consumer demand. As one who fought in the past to protect dolphins and inform consumers, I believe that the effectiveness of the label will be severely undermined by the change and will allow the continued deterioration of dolphin populations. This administration has once again continued its attack on the environment by weakening protections for marine mammals, ignoring science, and providing yet another favor to industry. Therefore, I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act'' to reinstate the original ``dolphin safe'' label.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the child Support Enforcement Act. This bill will bring much-needed relief to the millions of families who are not receiving the child support they desperately need. The importance of this bill is clear. Each year, nearly 60 percent of the 20 million children who are owed child support receive less than the amount they are due. And more than 30 percent receive no payment at all. California is no exception; preliminary findings from the 2000 Census Report found that of more than 2.3 million Californians who were owed child support, only 39 percent received those payments. Clearly, millions of individuals, largely women and children, are in crisis when it comes to child support. It is time to treat delinquent child support the same way all other bad debt is treated in the tax law. The Child Support Enforcement Act would allow custodial parents to deduct the amount of child support they are owed from their adjusted gross income on their income taxes. This is true for all taxpayers, regardless of whether they itemize. This bill will also penalize the non-custodial parent who is not paying his or her legally obligated child support. It will force the deadbeat parent to add the owed amount to his adjusted gross income. This is not creating new tax law. It is extending current tax law on bad debts to delinquent child support payments. It's that simple. The relief provided in this bill is extremely important for single parents. Child support payments can literally mean the difference between paying rent or being homeless; the difference between putting food on the table or being forced to let children go hungry; the difference between making ends meet or going on welfare. I am pleased to be joined in the effort by Senator Snowe. And Representative Cox has introduced the House version of the bill this week as well. As you can see, this is not a partisan issue. This is a family issue. It will help families and children nationwide. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the late Bob Holstein, an attorney in Riverside, CA. He is survived by his wife, Loretta, and five children. I know they will all miss him very much. A former priest, Bob Holstein cared passionately about people. He did not just speak about peace and social justice, but worked for it every day of his life. He and Loretta regularly provided both the inspiration and the financial means to make projects come to fruition. Riverside's landscape and the lives of countless Californians were changed by their generosity. Bob Holstein counted my late friend and colleague, Congressman George Brown, among his good friends, along with many other government officials. He was also the friend of the University of California, Riverside, where he and Loretta endowed a chair in religious studies. It was also under his careful guidance that the campus built St. Andrew's Newman Center. Upon hearing of his friend's death, Bishop Gerald Barnes of the Diocese of San Bernardino said: ``In a world long on style, Bob Holstein was long on substance. He was genuine. Bob lived what he believed. And what he believed was justice and fairness for all peoples. Particularly the poor and disenfranchised.'' I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Bob Holstein, who dedicated his life to the betterment of his fellow men and women. He will be sorely missed by his friends, colleagues, and by the countless people who live better lives because of his actions.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in tribute to the late Joe Remcho, who died in a helicopter crash in California last Saturday. Joe was a great American an accomplished attorney, a strong advocate for civil liberties, a leading legal scholar, and a trusted advisor to many public officials. Joe's curriculum vitae is varied and impressive. After graduating from Yale University and Harvard Law School, he taught second grade for a year at an inner-city public school. In the early 1970s, with the Vietnam war at its height, the young attorney went to Saigon to serve on the Lawyers Military Defense Committee. After returning to the United States, he moved to California to become the staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Four years later, he established a successful private practice specializing in first amendment, education, and election law. His clients included California's Governor and the State assembly. In 1988, he was honored by his colleagues as California's Trial Lawyer of the Year. Despite his very full docket, Joe found time to serve as an adjunct professor of law at the University of San Francisco, a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission, and a member of California's bipartisan State committees on internet political practices and the Political Reform Act. Above all, Joe Remcho was a warm and wonderful human being a devoted family man, a loving husband and father, and a friend to those who were fortunate enough to know him. I last saw Joe just 2 days before he died. Our families were together, and his strength and warmth were ever present. Whether he was spending a quiet vacation with family and friends or fighting in court to defend the Constitution, Joe Remcho lived his life to the fullest. His death leaves a tremendous void in the lives of all those who knew him, but his memory fills that space with love and admiration.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act.'' This important legislation will ensure that the fishing of tuna labeled ``dolphin safe'' does not kill, harm or attack dolphins, and that consumers are given accurate information on how the tuna they purchase is caught. My bill will guarantee that tuna products labeled ``dolphin safe'' will be truly safe for dolphins. In 1990, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, introduced by myself in the House and Senator Biden in the Senate, created a ``dolphin safe'' label for consumers. This legislation was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it allowed American consumers to buy tuna bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label with confidence, knowing that their purchase did not trade dolphin mortalities for tuna fishing profit. Dolphin and yellowfin tuna tend to run together in some waters. Dolphin swim closer to the surface to breathe. Under the destructive ``chase and encirclement'' practice, helicopters spot the schools of dolphin. Speedboats deliberately encircle the dolphins and cast a mile- wide net, knowing that the tuna will be below. While the tunas are to be harvested, the hope is that the dolphins will escape the edges of the net and suffocation or capture. This practice is termed ``purse seine netting.'' According to the annual reports of the Marine Mammal Commission and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific alone has decreased from more than 100,000 dolphin kills each year to fewer than 2,000 kills each year since the passage of the ``dolphin safe'' label in 1990. Unfortunately, on New Year's Eve, the Commerce Department announced its plans to make the labeling standard largely meaningless by changing the definition of ``dolphin safe'' tuna to allow the label to be put on tuna harvested through deadly purse seine netting. This flies in the face of all available scientific information. According to the Marine Mammal Commission, ``. . . the results of the [National Marine Fisheries] Service's research program . . . provide evidence that the practice of chasing and encircling dolphins is having adverse effects on the recover of depleted dolphin stocks and that the magnitude of those effects, at both the individual and population levels, may be significant.'' The report prepared by the Commerce Department reached a similar conclusion. It said, ``. . . despite considerable effort by fishery scientists, there is little evidence of recovery, and concerns remain that the practice of chasing and circling dolphins somehow is adversely affecting the ability of those depleted stocks to recover.'' The new rule completely undermines the integrity of the ``dolphin safe'' label, allowing ``dolphin safe'' labels to be placed on dolphin deadly tuna, and misleading the public. These changes fly in the face of the bipartisan legislation that was enacted in response to public outcry and consumer demand. As one who fought in the past to protect dolphins and inform consumers, I believe that the effectiveness of the label will be severely undermined by the change and will allow the continued deterioration of dolphin populations. This administration has once again continued its attack on the environment by weakening protections for marine mammals, ignoring science, and providing yet another favor to industry. Therefore, I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act'' to reinstate the original ``dolphin safe'' label.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the child Support Enforcement Act. This bill will bring much-needed relief to the millions of families who are not receiving the child support they desperately need. The importance of this bill is clear. Each year, nearly 60 percent of the 20 million children who are owed child support receive less than the amount they are due. And more than 30 percent receive no payment at all. California is no exception; preliminary findings from the 2000 Census Report found that of more than 2.3 million Californians who were owed child support, only 39 percent received those payments. Clearly, millions of individuals, largely women and children, are in crisis when it comes to child support. It is time to treat delinquent child support the same way all other bad debt is treated in the tax law. The Child Support Enforcement Act would allow custodial parents to deduct the amount of child support they are owed from their adjusted gross income on their income taxes. This is true for all taxpayers, regardless of whether they itemize. This bill will also penalize the non-custodial parent who is not paying his or her legally obligated child support. It will force the deadbeat parent to add the owed amount to his adjusted gross income. This is not creating new tax law. It is extending current tax law on bad debts to delinquent child support payments. It's that simple. The relief provided in this bill is extremely important for single parents. Child support payments can literally mean the difference between paying rent or being homeless; the difference between putting food on the table or being forced to let children go hungry; the difference between making ends meet or going on welfare. I am pleased to be joined in the effort by Senator Snowe. And Representative Cox has introduced the House version of the bill this week as well. As you can see, this is not a partisan issue. This is a family issue. It will help families and children nationwide. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to remember and pay tribute to a most beloved and accomplished constituent, Maryjane Dunstan, who died on December 20, 2002. Although most of us knew her as a California resident for over 50 years, Maryjane was born in Bethlehem, PA, on January 12, 1925, and went on to serve in the Waves during WWII. Her pursuit of education brought her to San Francisco where she earned both a BA and an MA at San Francisco State University. For her excellence as a teacher, she was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to Burma where for 4 years she taught teachers on methods of teaching English, until the political climate in Burma forced her departure in 1962. Upon her return, she embarked on a 20 year career at the College of Marin in Kentfield, CA, including 12 years as the founder and chairwoman of the Communications Department where she developed one of the most innovative classes anyone had ever seen: The Future. Her coauthored textbooks, ``Worlds In The Making'' and ``Star Sight,'' were designed to help students project themselves into a possible and desirable future, and to motivate them to create a human and humane future for all. Those of us who didn't know her through the college, crossed her path as the owner of the Artists Proof Bookstore in Larkspur, Marin County, or through the Literary Luncheons which brought accomplished writers to the community to share their talent. In truth, Maryjane's greatest joy came as she continually provided a rich milieu for people interested in the large and small issues facing the community, intent on her belief that each of us is responsible for improving the quality of life around us. She never tired of working to help community groups analyze and explore problems and to inspire individuals to seek solutions. She understood how to create positive change by fostering thoughtful, informed action. She was always gracious, willingly taking on the small tasks as well as the immense, seemingly impossible projects, always an inspiring role model with her passionate interest in the politics, economy and welfare of her community. For all of this, she has been recognized by her town, her county, and her State. In 1989, she received the Larkspur Citizen of the Year Award from the Larkspur Chamber of Commerce. In April of 1999 the Marin County Commission on Women bestowed upon her the Women of Wisdom, Passion and Vision Award. The Marin County Board of Supervisors proclaimed June 13, 1999, Maryjane Dunstan Day. Also, in 1999 the California State Legislature gave her a Certificate of Recognition for her contributions to improve the lives of women. And the California State Senate gave her a Certificate of Recognition for distinguished service in education. Thanks in large part to Maryjane's work on behalf of low cost and senior housing, the Larkspur City Council approved a 24-unit workforce housing project in December 2002. The developer, the Ecumenical Association for Housing will dedicate the building to her in honor of her work for affordable housing. Maryjane Dunstan leaves a legacy of hope and optimism for any community that is willing to work collaboratively to enhance the quality of life and create viable, peaceful solutions to all kinds of challenges. Maryjane will be greatly missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I make a further unanimous consent request?

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I ask to speak for a minute following the Senator----

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my assistant Democratic leader for the time. During the brief debate we had before we voted to extend these unemployment benefits, the Senator from Pennsylvania asked, What is wrong with you people? What has changed, that you really want to protect now these 1 million people, when several months ago you did not speak as loudly for their inclusion? I state for the record what has happened in this period of time. As we go out and about our States, as I think we all did during this break, we find high anxiety among the people--high anxiety because of this economy. We are seeing more foreclosures than ever. Two million jobs have been lost in the private sector. On top of that we are seeing budget deficits that we have not seen in many years. My friend who is now presiding, my esteemed colleague, understands this anxiety. We have teamed up to work on giving a jump-start to the high-tech sector with a bill on wireless fidelity, which I believe is going to really help this economy. He understands that. We have a sense of urgency about that bill because we know we can turn things around. In my State we have a horrible situation in the northern areas because of what I would call a depression, really, in the high-tech sector. Some of it was to be expected; we went through this huge period of growth. We have some settling down there. But nonetheless, it is a problem. We have thousands of people in northern California who are suffering through no fault of their own. These people, who are intelligent, educated, and excellent workers, are out on the street. They are running out of benefits, and some of them have run out already. That is why we on this side of the aisle believe those million people should not be left out of the equation. I have a State of 35 million people. In terms of its economy, it would be the sixth largest economy in the world. The fact is, the good people in that State need help. Why we on this side of the aisle were so upset and why we kept objecting or reserving the right to object is we wanted to make sure the people's voices were heard. That is what the Senate ought to be, a place where the voice of the people is heard. We have a situation where our States are worse off. They cannot come in and help because they are financially strapped because of the recession. So people are turning to us. Today we took care of some people. I am very proud we did that, but we have left out in the cold a million people. I will not be satisfied, speaking as one Senator, until we have taken care of all those who are in need. The Senator from Pennsylvania also made a comment that just some of the States have problems. This is not true. These million people reside in all of the States. In my own State, the pockets of real trouble are in the north of the State right now; the south of the State is doing better. But individuals all over this country need help. In summary, I say the Democrats are back. We are ready to go to work. We will stay. We will stay late into the night. But we are going to offer, all through this day and all through the coming days, a unanimous consent request saying we need to take care of those million people, those long-term unemployed people whose checks have already run out, who do not know where they are going to get the money to pay the rent, who don't know if they will get evicted, who don't know if they can take care of their children. There is a new term of art that has come about. It is called ``food insecurity.'' Food insecurity--that is a delicate way of saying people are hungry. We are seeing food insecurity. We are seeing housing insecurity. We are seeing joblessness. Can we turn it around? Of course we could turn it around. I have seen the President's plan. In my personal opinion, having looked at where the benefits go, it is a bonanza to the wealthiest in the country, and it is a bust for the middle class. It is a budget deficit disaster. But he has a plan out there. It is a huge plan, and we are going to work to make it better, to get the benefits to those who need them. But if you want to talk about stimulus, talk about the million people who have no money to put bread on the table. In closing, let's help those million people. I intend to stay here all this week and next and into future weeks to make sure we do. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the distinguished career of Riverside County Supervisor Tom Mullen, who will retire on December 13, 2002. Supervisor Mullen's passion for good government and good planning has set a standard for his county and for California. Before his tenure as Supervisor, Tom Mullen worked in the field of law enforcement, serving 11 years with the Riverside Police Department and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. He also served as an aide to former California State Senator Robert Presley, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs for the Riverside County Transportation Commission, and Director for External Program Development for the University of California, Riverside's College of Engineering and Center for Environmental Research and Technology. As Supervisor of Riverside County's Fifth District, Mullen helped develop programs for young people, improve education, improve infrastructure, reduce traffic congestion and make the streets safer by adding more police officers to the beat. In recent years, his focus has been on creating as transportation, habitat and housing blueprint for Riverside County, a plan that will guide the rapid development expected to occur in the coming years. Because of his diligent work and vision, Riverside County's plan has won state and national praise and will give the County a firm guide for the future. During his career in public service, Supervisor Mullen has served with many different organizations and received many awards for his leadership and vision. He served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the March Joint Powers Authority (MJPA) and currently serves as Co-Chairman of the County Child Protective Services Committee. Among Mullen's accolades, he received the Riverside Community College Alumnus of the Year Award in 2000, the Management Leader of the Year Award from UCR's A. Gary Anderson School of Management in 1998 and the good Government Award from the Riverside County Chapter of the Building Industry Association in 1997. It is clear that Supervisor Mullen has made a tremendous impact on the County and on the lives of the people of Riverside. With good economic sense and organization, Tom Mullen has been able to lead one of the nation's fastest growing areas. I commend him and extend my best wishes to the Supervisor, his wife, Kathy Tappan, and his family on this occasion and in the future.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, there is not a person in this Chamber who questions the importance of homeland security or the need to improve the Federal Government's ability to protect our people from terrorism. We all saw what happened on September 11th of last year: There was not enough anticipation or coordination, and not enough accountability. We can and must do better. What happened last September 11th was a tragedy on a monumental scale. It is a date that we will always remember. It is an anniversary that we will always somberly commemorate. But, as I have said before, we must learn from the tragedy of September 11th and ensure that our Nation is never again subjected to such horror. The events of that dark day should spur us to take the necessary steps to establish the instruments and institutions that will provide real protection for the American people. The lessons of September 11th will mean little if we are unable to craft a concrete response to terrorism that demonstrates our unwavering resolve to those who would do us harm. Since shortly after September 11, I have argued that we needed a Cabinet-level Department to address these concerns. That is why, I have decided to vote for the legislation now before the Senate. We are faced with the choice of either this bill or no bill. And I believe that we must move the process forward, and send the all- important message to the people we represent that we are serious about protecting them that we are serious about having better cooperation, coordination, and preparation in the fight against terrorism. That is not to say that I do not have reservations. This bill should have been written differently. I supported an amendment proposed by Senator Byrd that would have made the new department less bureaucratic and would have provided more accountability, not less. It also would have ensured that Congress played a greater role as the department got up and running. Unfortunately, the Byrd amendment was defeated. I was also shocked to see that several special interest riders were added to this bill at the last minute, in the dark of night. I am especially troubled by the new provision that holds harmless any company that makes mercury-based preservatives for vaccines. One example is Thimerosal, which, evidence shows, may be responsible for causing autism in children. What in the world does such a provision have to do with homeland security? I believe this provision will create insecurity in our homeland by sending a message to thousands and thousands of families that their children's health takes a distant second place to the interests of large corporations. This bill should be about homeland security, not family insecurity. With one call from the White House, these special interest additions to the bill could have been eliminated. But that did not happen, and the Daschle amendment to strip them from the bill, which I strongly supported, was defeated. As a result, this bill has been perverted from its original meaning and intent. I expect to work with my colleagues next year to reverse these special interest riders. I am troubled by this bill's treatment of the new department's workers. It gives the President virtually unfettered authority to strip even the most minimal worker protections affecting everything from job classification, pay rates, rules for labor management relations, and the process for firing and demoting employees. These provisions were unnecessary and unfair. Finally, I am concerned about the effect this legislation will have on my State of California on matters that have nothing to do with homeland security. Many existing Federal agencies will be moved lock, stock and barrel into this new department, with little regard to the services that those agencies provide to the American people and to the people of California. The Department of Homeland Security is largely about protection and enforcement. When vital services for the people of this country such as FEMA disaster assistance and the Coast Guard's search and rescue role are thrown into an agency whose mission and purpose is primarily enforcement, I fear that these much-needed services will suffer. However, despite these reservations, I will vote for this bill. We must move forward on protecting the American people from another possible terrorist attack. And creating a new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, which I have supported for the past year, is an important step in that direction. Through my committee assignments and by enlisting the support of my colleagues, I will keep a sharp eye on the new Department of Homeland Security and work to make sure we take the additional steps necessary to truly protect the security of the American people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased today that the Senate is passing legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agency heads to participate in the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. For decades, water allocation in California was conducted through endless appeals, lawsuits, and divisive ballot initiatives. Such battles were painful and they prevented us from finding real solutions to our state's very real water problems. In 1994, a new state-federal partnership program called CALFED promised a better way. Through a plan to provide reliable, clean water to farms, businesses, and millions of Californians while at the same time restoring our fish, wildlife and environment, CALFED was committed to identifying a solution that all water users could share. Over the years, what has made CALFED work is that it employs a consensus approach that balances the needs of the various interests competing for California's scarce water resources. This balance is most clearly articulated in the Record of Decision (ROD) that was agreed to on August 28, 2000 by the Federal Government and the State of California. The CALFED ROD outlines clearly the CALFED Bay-Delta Programs' goals and repeatedly reiterates the need to move forward with these goals in a balanced manner. This legislation authorizes the federal agencies to undertake the actions and activities identified in the ROD. It is our intent that all activities are to be implemented in a manner consistent with the ROD. This legislation is not intended to authorize activities, such as major construction projects, that would otherwise require completion of feasibility studies, permits under section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act and other applicable laws, and project-specific authorizations. In addition, the legislation requires that federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program proceed in a way that is consistent with other laws. I want to particularly thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her continued leadership on this legislation. This bill will help insure that the CALFED Bay-Delta Program continues to play a vital role in meeting California's water needs. Amendment No. 4978

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the distinguished career of Riverside County Supervisor Tom Mullen, who will retire on December 13, 2002. Supervisor Mullen's passion for good government and good planning has set a standard for his county and for California. Before his tenure as Supervisor, Tom Mullen worked in the field of law enforcement, serving 11 years with the Riverside Police Department and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. He also served as an aide to former California State Senator Robert Presley, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs for the Riverside County Transportation Commission, and Director for External Program Development for the University of California, Riverside's College of Engineering and Center for Environmental Research and Technology. As Supervisor of Riverside County's Fifth District, Mullen helped develop programs for young people, improve education, improve infrastructure, reduce traffic congestion and make the streets safer by adding more police officers to the beat. In recent years, his focus has been on creating as transportation, habitat and housing blueprint for Riverside County, a plan that will guide the rapid development expected to occur in the coming years. Because of his diligent work and vision, Riverside County's plan has won state and national praise and will give the County a firm guide for the future. During his career in public service, Supervisor Mullen has served with many different organizations and received many awards for his leadership and vision. He served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the March Joint Powers Authority (MJPA) and currently serves as Co-Chairman of the County Child Protective Services Committee. Among Mullen's accolades, he received the Riverside Community College Alumnus of the Year Award in 2000, the Management Leader of the Year Award from UCR's A. Gary Anderson School of Management in 1998 and the good Government Award from the Riverside County Chapter of the Building Industry Association in 1997. It is clear that Supervisor Mullen has made a tremendous impact on the County and on the lives of the people of Riverside. With good economic sense and organization, Tom Mullen has been able to lead one of the nation's fastest growing areas. I commend him and extend my best wishes to the Supervisor, his wife, Kathy Tappan, and his family on this occasion and in the future.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, there is not a person in this Chamber who questions the importance of homeland security or the need to improve the Federal Government's ability to protect our people from terrorism. We all saw what happened on September 11th of last year: There was not enough anticipation or coordination, and not enough accountability. We can and must do better. What happened last September 11th was a tragedy on a monumental scale. It is a date that we will always remember. It is an anniversary that we will always somberly commemorate. But, as I have said before, we must learn from the tragedy of September 11th and ensure that our Nation is never again subjected to such horror. The events of that dark day should spur us to take the necessary steps to establish the instruments and institutions that will provide real protection for the American people. The lessons of September 11th will mean little if we are unable to craft a concrete response to terrorism that demonstrates our unwavering resolve to those who would do us harm. Since shortly after September 11, I have argued that we needed a Cabinet-level Department to address these concerns. That is why, I have decided to vote for the legislation now before the Senate. We are faced with the choice of either this bill or no bill. And I believe that we must move the process forward, and send the all- important message to the people we represent that we are serious about protecting them that we are serious about having better cooperation, coordination, and preparation in the fight against terrorism. That is not to say that I do not have reservations. This bill should have been written differently. I supported an amendment proposed by Senator Byrd that would have made the new department less bureaucratic and would have provided more accountability, not less. It also would have ensured that Congress played a greater role as the department got up and running. Unfortunately, the Byrd amendment was defeated. I was also shocked to see that several special interest riders were added to this bill at the last minute, in the dark of night. I am especially troubled by the new provision that holds harmless any company that makes mercury-based preservatives for vaccines. One example is Thimerosal, which, evidence shows, may be responsible for causing autism in children. What in the world does such a provision have to do with homeland security? I believe this provision will create insecurity in our homeland by sending a message to thousands and thousands of families that their children's health takes a distant second place to the interests of large corporations. This bill should be about homeland security, not family insecurity. With one call from the White House, these special interest additions to the bill could have been eliminated. But that did not happen, and the Daschle amendment to strip them from the bill, which I strongly supported, was defeated. As a result, this bill has been perverted from its original meaning and intent. I expect to work with my colleagues next year to reverse these special interest riders. I am troubled by this bill's treatment of the new department's workers. It gives the President virtually unfettered authority to strip even the most minimal worker protections affecting everything from job classification, pay rates, rules for labor management relations, and the process for firing and demoting employees. These provisions were unnecessary and unfair. Finally, I am concerned about the effect this legislation will have on my State of California on matters that have nothing to do with homeland security. Many existing Federal agencies will be moved lock, stock and barrel into this new department, with little regard to the services that those agencies provide to the American people and to the people of California. The Department of Homeland Security is largely about protection and enforcement. When vital services for the people of this country such as FEMA disaster assistance and the Coast Guard's search and rescue role are thrown into an agency whose mission and purpose is primarily enforcement, I fear that these much-needed services will suffer. However, despite these reservations, I will vote for this bill. We must move forward on protecting the American people from another possible terrorist attack. And creating a new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, which I have supported for the past year, is an important step in that direction. Through my committee assignments and by enlisting the support of my colleagues, I will keep a sharp eye on the new Department of Homeland Security and work to make sure we take the additional steps necessary to truly protect the security of the American people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased today that the Senate is passing legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agency heads to participate in the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. For decades, water allocation in California was conducted through endless appeals, lawsuits, and divisive ballot initiatives. Such battles were painful and they prevented us from finding real solutions to our state's very real water problems. In 1994, a new state-federal partnership program called CALFED promised a better way. Through a plan to provide reliable, clean water to farms, businesses, and millions of Californians while at the same time restoring our fish, wildlife and environment, CALFED was committed to identifying a solution that all water users could share. Over the years, what has made CALFED work is that it employs a consensus approach that balances the needs of the various interests competing for California's scarce water resources. This balance is most clearly articulated in the Record of Decision (ROD) that was agreed to on August 28, 2000 by the Federal Government and the State of California. The CALFED ROD outlines clearly the CALFED Bay-Delta Programs' goals and repeatedly reiterates the need to move forward with these goals in a balanced manner. This legislation authorizes the federal agencies to undertake the actions and activities identified in the ROD. It is our intent that all activities are to be implemented in a manner consistent with the ROD. This legislation is not intended to authorize activities, such as major construction projects, that would otherwise require completion of feasibility studies, permits under section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act and other applicable laws, and project-specific authorizations. In addition, the legislation requires that federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program proceed in a way that is consistent with other laws. I want to particularly thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her continued leadership on this legislation. This bill will help insure that the CALFED Bay-Delta Program continues to play a vital role in meeting California's water needs. Amendment No. 4978