Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased my friend has raised this issue of Amtrak rail passenger service in this country, a system owned by the American people. I am glad to see one of our leaders on this issue on the floor, Senator Carper. He and Senator Biden have been extraordinary on this issue. I am here to join because a lot of people think it is just a Northeast issue. If you look at California--and we are highly impacted--in the year 2001 we had 8 million passenger trips in California related to Amtrak. My friend is right on the issue of national security. But it is not only national security, which is huge; it is also economic security for our people.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for bringing up the issue of women in sports. It has meant a great deal for women and girls to have these opportunities. The Senator talked about when his wife was in school and all she could do was cheer for the team. I know Mrs. Reid. She and I are about the same age. That was exactly my experience. I am very happy to say my daughter was able to play soccer. I see the young girls today reaching for the stars--and attaining them. I wonder what the order is at this point in terms of the time division?

Mrs. BOXER. Our time runs out at 3:30?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I take to the floor today to call attention to an alarming trend that I see happening in this country. It is a decline in the quality of life for our people in this country. It is beginning. I am concerned it will continue. Clearly, I am not talking today about the tragedy that hit on 9-11. Of course, that had an impact across the board in terms of worrying about our children and concern for our communities. I am setting that aside. What I really want to talk about is the business of this Government that is keeping our people safe from a couple of things. One is crime in the streets. The other is the quality of our air, our water, our neighborhoods in terms of this environment that we so cherish. I am very concerned we are beginning to see fallout from policies that are occurring in this administration that has been in power now for 17 months. We first get the alarming news that after 9 years of decline, there is a very large change in the crime rate. We see increases in the murder rate. We learn of increases across the board from reading the newspaper. We have an expert, Patrick Murphy, who basically worries that we have eliminated the COPS program because this administration does not support it. It has put 100,000 police on the beat. We need to do more. That is having an impact. Also, we are seeing cuts in aid to States and localities in the criminal justice area. We are seeing these cuts because this administration just does not have that as a priority. They have as a priority cutting taxes for people who earn over $1 million a year. That is the truth. It costs money to put a policeman on the beat, to protect a neighborhood, a street, a school. If it is more important to give tax breaks to people who do not need it, that is the price we are going to pay. It is beginning to come home to roost. Another area where we are beginning to see decline is in the quality of life in the environment. We already know this administration is cutting in half the Superfund sites that are going to be cleaned up. I have a chart that shows the number of cleanups we did under the Clinton administration, and the number of cleanups that are now being proposed by the Bush administration. In the red here, the average number for the last 4 years of the Clinton administration was 86 sites cleaned up each and every year. That means 86 neighborhoods reclaiming an area that was so toxic and polluted there could be no economic development. Those sites were cleaned up. When the Bush administration came in, they promised they would clean up 75 sites. We were not happy about that--we saw that was a reduction of 10 sites and that would mean 10 communities in trouble, property values declining, quality of life declining, children's health declining, and so on--but listen to what happened. After we adjusted to the fact that we were going to see 11 sites fewer cleaned up, we now see their proposal is to actually go to 47 sites. They are cutting in half the number of Superfund sites to be cleaned. Why? Because it is not a priority. It is more important to them to give money to people who earn over $1 million. That is the bottom line. There is not enough money to put cops on the beat, not enough money to clean up these sites. It is a very troubling trend. These communities were counting on these cleanups, and they are not going to happen. These sites are not isolated. In my own State of California, 40 percent of the people live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. So we are talking about a real problem. But more than that, there are many other problems that we see. I urge people who may be listening to go to a Web site that we have set up, on our side, to detail the various rollbacks that we are seeing in terms of the environment. Go to this Web site: democrats.senate.gov/environment, and, you can see what we are talking about. We are going to show you the sites that have been abandoned, the rollbacks of this administration because there are so many I cannot fit them on one chart. I will show two charts that detail the various rollbacks and broken promises of this administration. You can see it is just impossible to take the time because there are 100 rollbacks in clean air, clean water, and safety and health for our people. It causes a lot of concern. Senator Jim Jeffords, who is the chair of the Environment Committee on which I serve, is highly upset about the Superfund situation and highly upset at the fact that there are rollbacks now being proposed on the Clean Air Act. Madam President, you have two beautiful young children. You know when they breathe dirty air, the impact on their lungs is far greater than when you and I breathe that same air. The bottom line is by rolling back the Clean Air Act, as they plan to do, our children are going to suffer. We have a situation where the President has now proposed a rollback of the Clean Air Act. Senator Jeffords is trying to learn on what they based this decision. He has asked the EPA for information similar to the information I asked them for on the Superfund sites. I want to be able to tell you which of your constituencies are not going to have their Superfund sites cleaned up. I want to be able to tell the same to my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues. I cannot get the information. Things have gotten so bad that we have had to ask, at the time, the inspector general to help us get this information on Superfund, and Senator Jeffords is going to have to call together our committee and issue a subpoena to get information in terms of the rollback of the Clean Air Act. Let me sum up this way: I am concerned the priorities of this administration are leaving our people vulnerable, vulnerable to high crime rates, vulnerable to dirty air and dirty water. I think the chickens are coming home to roost. Maybe it is all theoretical, except when you find out it is not somebody else's Superfund site that is not being cleaned up but it is yours. Let me show you the sites across the country. Every single State except North Dakota has a Superfund site, and the purple reflects the Superfund sites. These are the most toxic, most dangerous sites. I am here today as the chair of our environmental team. I am proud Senator Daschle has appointed me. I have a very good team of Democratic Senators with whom I am working, and I will come to the floor again to bring you up to date on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to reflect on the 50-year history of the City of Fontana, which is celebrating its official 50th anniversary on Tuesday, June 25. Incorporated in 1952, the City of Fontana has every reason to be proud of its rich history. One can just look at its intricately detailed city seal for a glimpse of Fontana's heritage. On the right side of the seal appears a vineyard, representing the time when Fontana had one of the largest vineyards in the world. Also illustrated are chicken ranches and citrus groves, reminding us of the agricultural community Fontana once was. Although land in the Fontana area was secured as early as 1813, it was not actively developed until the early 1900's, when the Fontana Development Company acquired it and began a community called ``Rosena.'' The name was changed to ``Fontana'' in 1913. In 1913, A.B. Miller founded the town-site of Fontana, and made it into a diversified agricultural community. Nearly 30 years later, as America geared up for World War II, Fontana was selected as the site for a West Coast steel mill and soon became Southern California's leading producer of steel and other related products. The mill operated until 1984. Today, Fontana is a growing community and is the home of the California Speedway, a world class track for auto racing. Mr. President, it is clear that the City of Fontana has truly thrived since its early beginnings. Its population has grown from 13,695 to 139,100, and the city provides a full range of valuable services to its residents. I am proud to serve the people of Fontana, and wish them all a wonderful anniversary celebration and many more years of prosperity.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, On the occasion of his retirement, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the outstanding accomplishments of Dr. James Lare during his tenure as a professor at Occidental College. Dr. Lare's commitment to Occidental College goes back more than 50 years, when he was an undergraduate student at the college. In 1962, he became a faculty member and has now served the college for 40 years. Many of Dr. Lare's colleagues can attest to his extraordinary years of service and contributions to the college and its students. An expert in American government, European comparative politics, public administration, urban politics and public policy, Dr. Lare has served as a mentor and inspiration to his students, many of whom have flourished on Capitol Hill and in local government. His work on many different projects and on many different committees has strengthened the school and has touched the lives of his colleagues and students. In addition to his professional career, Dr. Lare is a model community leader. He is a member of many diverse organizations, including CORO Associates, the Public Affairs Internship Support Group; the Sierra Club; the Los Angeles World Affairs Council and he serves as Treasurer of the California Center for Education in Public Affairs, Inc. Dr. Lare also served our Nation in the United States Army Reserve. Mr. President, it is clear that Dr. Lare has been an outstanding teacher and is an exceptional citizen who has enhanced the lives of those privileged to cross his path. I extend my very best wishes to him as he begins his much deserved retirement.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I voted for S. 2600, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. But I did so with reservations. I recognize the need for a Federal backstop for terrorism insurance, and although I believe the way this bill is designed is flawed, it is better than the status quo. Insurers are not making enough terrorism insurance available in key areas and rates are rising astronomically because insurers cannot count on a Federal backstop to possible losses in the event of another terrorist attack. I would have preferred that we create a risk-sharing pool that would not have placed so heavily a burden on the taxpayer. In a risk-sharing pool, insurance companies would pay a percentage of their premiums into a pool. In the event of an attack, affected companies could pay claims out of the pool after each meets its individual responsibility for covering losses. If the pool were ever depleted, then the government would lend the pool the money to cover remaining claims. In that way, the taxpayer would eventually be made whole. The structure we are approving today will put the taxpayer on the line for losses as soon as a company's individual retention level is met. And the taxpayer will never be paid back. In addition, I am also concerned about the lack of consumer protections in the bill. Not only does the bill fail to provide Federal protection from price gouging, it preempts States from protecting consumers through the prior approval process. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in California and the Consumer Federation of America have raised concerns that long-standing State systems for protecting consumers will be thrown out the window. I worked on an amendment to replace the State preemption language in the bill with language stating that terrorism insurance rates shall not be subject to a waiting period greater than 60 days under any State law. This would have allowed California and 21 other States to retain oversight for prior approval over increases in terrorism insurance rates while also making sure that the insurance is made available quickly. In a colloquy on the issue, Senator Dodd has committed to working with me as this bill goes to conference. As a result, I did not offer my amendment. But given the number of Americans involved, the taxpayer exposure to risk, and the leverage that insurers will have over consumers, I believe we must allow States to protect consumers. Though I voted in favor of moving this process forward, I will remain vigilant throughout the rest of the process and hope to see improvements in the legislation made in the conference committee.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I recognize the need to move forward on this terrorism insurance bill. I had filed an amendment regarding the state preemption language in this bill. I will not offer that amendment, but I wonder if the Senator from Connecticut will engage in a colloquy with me about that provision.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. This bill would preempt state law with regard to the prior approval or a waiting period of terrorism risk insurance. Specifically, section 7 states, ``rates for terrorism risk insurance covered by this Act and filed with any State shall not be subject to prior approval or a waiting period, under any law of a State that would otherwise be applicable.'' This language would preempt the law of the State of California and 21 other States where prior approval mechanisms for increases in insurance rates have been put into place to keep insurance companies from gouging consumers. The bill before us does allow States to invalidate excessive rates after the fact. But it will do nothing for consumers who have already paid too much. Prior approval mechanisms are the only way to protect consumers before sky-high rates go into effect. I understand that my colleagues who support this legislation want terrorism insurance made available as quickly as possible. And that is the reason for his preemption--to speed up the process. I agree. So to meet both the need for quick insurance availability and the desire to allow states to review rates for at least some period before they go into effect, I had proposed an amendment to replace the blanket State preemption language in the bill with more narrow language. My amendment would have said that terrorism risk insurance would not be subject to a waiting period greater than 60 days under any State law. This would allow California and other States to retain oversight for prior approval over egregious increases in terrorism insurance rates while also making sure that the insurance is made available quickly. Given the number of Americans involved, the taxpayer exposure to risk, and the leverage that insurers will have over consumers, I believe we must allow States to protect consumers. I hope my colleague from Connecticut will be willing to work with me on this.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am very pleased that today the Senate is approving two Optional Protocols to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Optional Protocol on Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, also known as the Child Soldiers Protocol, aims to prevent children under the age of 18 from directly participating in hostilities. The second treaty, the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography aims to strengthen efforts to put a stop to the trafficking and exploitation of children. Last March, I chaired a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on these two Protocols that featured members of the State, Justice, and Defense Departments. I appreciate the cooperation the committee received from these agencies in making ratification of these two treaties possible. The hearing also featured a panel of private witnesses that was led by Jo Becker, a tireless advocate on the issue of banning the use of child soldiers. During her testimony, Ms. Becker pointed out that in Afghanistan, two generations of children have been subject to recruitment, first into the resistance to Soviets forces, and then into various warring factions. It is well-known that the Taliban recruited children from the religious schools in Pakistan. The Child Soldiers Protocol requires parties to the treaty to (1) take ``all feasible measures'' to ensure that individuals under the age of 18 do not take a ``direct part'' in hostilities; (2) ban involuntary recruitment into the armed forces for those under the age of 18; and (3) raise the minimum age for voluntary recruitment into the armed forces from the current benchmark of 15 years of age to that of 16 or higher. Under current law, the minimum age for voluntary recruitment in the U.S. is already set at 17. Why is ratification of the child Soldiers Protocol important? Right now, an estimated 300,000 children under the age of 18 are currently fighting in more than 30 conflicts around the world. In places like Sierra Leone, children have been kidnapped by rebel groups, given drugs, and forced to commit atrocities. Child soldiers not only lose their childhood, they develop psychological scars, they suffer physical injuries, and, in the worst cases, they die. Listen to the story of a 16-year old girl who was abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda: One boy tried to escape, but he was caught . . . his hands were tied, and they made us, the other new captives, kill him with a stick. I felt sick. I knew this boy from before. We were from the same village. I refused to kill him and they told me they would shoot me. They pointed a gun at me, so I had to do it. The boy was asking me. ``Why are you doing this?'' I said I had no choice. After we killed him, they made us smear his blood on our arms . . . They said we had to do this so we would not fear death and so we would not try to escape . . . I still dream about the boy from my village who I killed. I see him in my dreams, and he is talking to me and saying I killed him for nothing, and I am crying. Here is another story from a former child soldier in Sierra Leone: ``Most times I dream, I have a gun, I'm firing, I'm killing, amputating. I feel afraid thinking that perhaps these things will happen to me again. Sometimes I cry...'' And finally another says, ``my schoolmates and I met our old teacher, and we knocked him down. We killed the teacher and we took his books and burned them.'' I am proud that the Senate is taking action today to put an end to these stories. Formally adopting the protocol's standards for U.S. military operations will enable the U.S. to be able to effectively pressure other governments and forces to end the use of children within their own military ranks. The second treaty the Senate is approving today is the Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. The Sale of Children Protocol requires parties to the treaty to make sure that these acts are fully covered by penal or criminal law. The abuse of children is a global problem. Millions of boys and girls under the age of 18 are bought and sold each year. Girls are particularly vulnerable. According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), girls appear to be forced into the sex industry at increasingly younger ages, partly as a result of the mistaken belief that younger girls are unlikely to be infected with HIV or AIDS. Let me mention just a few atrocious examples: A 15-year-old boy from Mali watched the torture and subsequent deaths of two other forced laborers who tried to escape from a coffee plantation in the Ivory Coast. A 14-year-old girl from Mexico was brutally raped and then prostituted for months by traffickers in Florida who lured her there by promising a job in the restaurant industry. An 11-year-old in Thailand was included in a sexually explicit videotape produced by a pornographer in the United States. Under the Protocol, countries are encouraged to cooperate to protect children trafficked across borders. The Optional Protocol also calls on nations to ensure that children who have been sexually trafficked, exploited or sexually abused receive services to ensure a complete physical and psychological recovery. Ratification of this treaty is important to protect these vulnerable children. These children cannot often get help on their own--not only because of their young age--but also because they have no birth certificates or official documents. They are, in effect, ``invisible.'' Earlier this year, both of these protocols attained the necessary 10 ratifications to make them operative. The Child Soldier Protocol entered into force on February 12. The Sale of Children Protocol entered into force on January 18. Once again, I am pleased that the United States is adding its name as a ratifying party to these two treaties and I hope that more nations join us in expanding international protections for children.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to take this moment to salute the incredible 25-year record of SunLine Transit Agency, which provides service to the Coachella Valley. SunLine Transit Agency is a leader in clean fuels technology, operating all its transit buses and other vehicles on alternate fuels. SunLine is clearly ahead of its time. It was the first public transit agency in the nation to convert its fleet to cleaner burning natural gas, the first to co-develop, with private and public sector partners, renewable hydrogen generation and education facilities, and the lead agency in the Coachella Valley's award-winning U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities program. SunLine's clean fuel buses have driven 25 million clean air miles, and have carried 4 million passengers per year in 1999, 2000 and 2001. SunLine has hosted visitors from near and far, including foreign ministers, ambassadors, energy officials, automakers and energy providers. It has also helped other transit properties and fleet operators around the world convert to clean fuels. I had the great pleasure to tour SunLine's state-of-art facilities and meet its wonderful staff. Last February, I presented the agency with my Conservation Champion Award and took a ride in its hydrogen powered SunBug. As I stood under the brillant blue sky of the Coachella Valley, I felt proud knowing that California's SunLine Transit Agency is leading the way for the nation with innovative approaches to provide renewable energy. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Richard Cromwell, III, General Manager and CEO of SunLine, and all of SunLine's staff. They have successfully made it a leader for California and the Nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I would like to honor two students from my State of California: Heidi Bowerman and Katie Olson. They have been selected to present their award winning projects at the National Museum of American History on June 12, 2002. The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History is celebrating National History Day by reflecting on this year's theme: Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History. The program asks students to research history topics of their choice related to the year's theme, and then create exhibits, performances, documentaries and papers, which they then enter in competitions at the district, State and national levels. Heidi and Katie's projects were two of seventeen projects that were selected out of more than half a million students across America. Katie's exhibit is titled: ``Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.'' Katie attends Santa Rose High School in Santa Rosa, CA, and her teachers were Will Dunn and Whitney Olson. Heidi's performance is titled: ``Aristocracy to Communism: The Revolution that Reformed a Nation.'' Heidi attends Alta Sierra Intermediate School in Clovis, CA, and her teachers were Carole Smoot and Linda Linder. I am so proud to have two accomplished young women representing the State of California in receiving this impressive award. Their achievements, along with the other student award winners, should serve as an inspiration to all students.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the estate tax needs to be reformed, but it should not be repealed. Repealing the estate tax would benefit only the extremely wealthy at an exorbitant cost to the American people. We can help small businesses and family farmers by reforming the estate tax. That is the choice before us. Let's start with a few facts. Ninety-eight of every 100 people who die face no estate tax whatsoever. Only the richest 2 percent of Americans do. Estates worth in excess of $5 million paid about 51 percent of the estate tax in 1998. This tax does not oppress the children of multi-millionaires, they still inherit millions. But it does provide us with funds for investment in the public good. It is completely appropriate that the wealthiest estates contribute some portion in taxes to help create opportunities for others to reach their full potential. Repealing the estate tax would make the rich richer at a heavy cost to the rest of us. Between 2013 through 2022, permanent repeal of the estate tax would cost us $740 billion. That is $740 billion we could use for homeland defense, investments in education and infrastructure, and to provide the funds to save Social Security and Medicare. It is true that a few small businesses and family farms are subject to the estate tax. But of the 2.3 million people who died in 1998, just 1,418 of those had more than half of their estates in a family-owned business or farm. We can and should exempt many of these families from the estate tax through responsible reform. Furthermore, while the estate tax affects a relatively small number of wealthy Americans, it can have a detrimental effect on small businesses and families who live in areas that have high property values, such as Silicon Valley. Under current law, the first $675,000 of one's estate is exempted from Federal tax. In some parts of California, however, where median home prices exceed $500,000, moderate-income individuals must content with taxes paid only by the wealthiest residents in other regions. I strongly support helping these families by reforming instead of repealing the estate tax. The reform I supported and that Senator Dorgan introduced would make estates of up of $4 million--and $8 million for couples--exempt from the estate tax. And it would permanently repeal the estate tax for family-owned farms and businesses. That is real reform that benefits those who need the help, not another giveaway to the richest among us. Instead of focusing our efforts on making the very wealthy wealthier, we should be working on helping hard-working Americans and investing in meeting their needs.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was deeply disappointed that the Senate did not have enough votes to move forward on the hate crimes bill--even though a clear majority of the Senate supports this important measure. During the debate, many of my colleagues addressed the constitutionality of this legislation, and the role that the Federal Government should play with regard to hate crimes. What speaks volumes to me about the importance of this legislation--and the reason the Senate's inaction is so disappointing--are the stories. The people behind the numbers. The victims and the survivors. In the strong hope that we will revisit this matter in the near future, let me share some of these stories--some of the awful realities of the crimes we are talking about. The most recent happened just last week in Riverside, CA. Last Thursday, two gay men were stabbed repeatedly in the back outside a popular gay bar. One of these men, 40-year-old Jeffrey Owens, died hours later. Michael Bussee, 48-years-old, managed to survive. According to the media reports, both men had come to the bar to celebrate a friend's birthday. After leaving the bar with their partners, Jeffrey Owens wanted to show everyone the pictures he had taken on a recent trip to Joshua Tree National Park. When he went to retrieve the pictures in his car, a man approached Michael Bussee, punched him, and then stabbed him in the back. Noting the commotion, Jeffrey Owens approached the perpetrator, and was stabbed four times in the back. Before stabbing Jeffrey, the attacker screamed a homophobic slur. Apparently, neither man knew how badly he had been hurt. Jeffrey Owens didn't even realize he had been stabbed until he stepped out of the car at the county hospital in Moreno Valley, when his friends saw his blood-soaked seat. Jeffrey Owens died hours later, after two operations. Michael Bussee was treated and released. There are countless other stories I could share with you, but I will only touch on a few of them here today. On September 7, 2000, a Los Angeles resident was charged with murder and hate crimes for allegedly killing a 65-year-old Hispanic man, Jesus Plascensia, by running him over at least twice in a parking lot. Authorities say she made comments about her hatred of Hispanics after she murdered him and referred to him as ``dead road kill.'' On September 18, 2001, someone threw a Molotov cocktail through the window of a Sikh family's home in San Mateo, CA. The fuse was lit but, due to some miracle, the firebomb did not explode as it hit the head of a 3-year-old child in the house. In Santa Barbara, CA, a 37-year-old gay man named Clint Scott Risetter was killed after an alleged arsonist poured gasoline over him while he slept and set him on fire. The perpetrator says he killed Risetter ``because he was gay,'' and because he had ``a lot of hatred toward gay people.'' And the list goes on and on. These stories are what make this bill so vitally important. This bill would extend current Federal hate crime protection--which covers race, religion, color and national origin--to gender, sexual orientation and disability. It would also make it easier to prosecute hate crimes at the Federal level. It is an extremely important tool to help our already overtaxed State and local law enforcement by allowing Federal assistance, when necessary, in the investigation and prosecutions of hate crimes. It would provide Federal assistance to State, local and Indian law enforcement officials who have run up extraordinary expenses in connection with their investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. It would also provide training grants to help local law enforcement officers identify, investigate, prosecute, and prevent hate crimes. Finally, it would allow the Justice Department to back up local law enforcement by removing arcane obstacles that prevent effective prosecution of hate crimes motivated by race, color, religion, or ethnicity. This bill has broad support from notable law enforcement agencies and state and local leaders, including 22 state Attorneys General, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and others. With this broad-based support, and with the need so clearly urgent, this bill should be immediately passed. Two years ago we stressed the importance of passing hate crimes legislation. We cited the examples of James Byrd, Jr., of Matthew Shepard, and others. And we passed it. Here we are, two years later, making the same arguments and conducting the same debates. This time, the victims have new names: most recently, in my State of California, names such as Jeffrey Owens, Michael Bussee, Jesus Plascensia, and Clint Scott Risetter. The time to act is now. It is my hope that we will pass this vital legislation by the end of this year.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, it is. It is short-term thinking. It is not good for this country. If you want to talk about patriotism, the most patriotic thing you can do, it seems to me, is drive a car that doesn't use all that foreign oil. It is very hard to get such a car, an American car particularly. It is interesting my friend raised this because he is right. The Senate was weak on this, shamefully weak. But we did not get any help from Vice President Cheney when, on June 18, 2001, he announced to General Motors executives that the Bush administration has no plans to pursue higher fuel efficiency standards. That set the tone. When this administration came in, many of us did say there were so many ties to energy, so many ties to oil companies, that we were very worried. But some of us thought maybe, because of that, the administration would bend over backwards to be fair, to lean on this issue. We were sorely disappointed. If one could sit down and really think it through, we are talking about a very unwise strategy on the part of this administration to not look ahead, to not plan for the future, to not care about your grandchildren or my grandchildren having the opportunity to see the beauty of this country; to not worry that much if the quality of the air goes down or the quality of the water; to convince yourself the environmental laws are a burden on industry. That is disproven and untrue. My friend talks about California. We have been the leader on environmental protection. We have found when you clean up the environment you create jobs. There has been study after study. One of our best exports happens to be environmental technologies. So by turning away from a clean and healthy environment as a goal to help our people, you are also blocking a very important piece of our economy, a place where we are way ahead. I remember when the wall fell in eastern Europe, one of my friends who went there said: The trouble is, now you can actually see the air. They had not done anything about air pollution. I know my friend is leaving. I am about to end what I am saying. But I thank him so much for tying together this horrific anti-environmental record, the anti-environmental record of this administration, to the whole issue of corporate greed, of corporate irresponsibility. We are seeing more and more of the big corporations really turning their back on the people they are supposed to serve, frankly--their customers; the people they are supposed to help, their employees; their shareholders, just using this very shortsighted type of reasoning that this administration uses, which is get it all now and don't worry about the future. If you take the issue of CO2 emissions, we had a President who promised that, although he was against Kyoto, he would come up with a plan to cut those emissions back. That is the problem that causes global warming. I don't know of any respected scientists today who say global warming is not a dreadful problem. What it could do to our agricultural products, what it could do to our Nation, what it would mean for the world, is devastating. It is not a question of panicking about it. It is a question of doing something about it. It is not that hard to do, if we set our mind to it. This administration's Environmental Protection Agency sent a report to the United Nations where they admitted, yes, there is global warming and, yes, it is caused by human beings, and, yes, it is bad. Now this administration, this President, is backing away from his own administration, what they said. He said: Gee, I really don't agree with that ``bureaucracy.'' I don't get it. This is his Environmental Protection Agency. And the thrust of the report, even though it admitted there were problems, basically said there are these problems but we have to learn to live with them. I do not understand why people go into Government, would join the Environmental Protection Agency, would run for President or the Senate or the House to say: ``You know, it's a problem.'' And throw up their hands. That is not what we are about. Our job is to find solutions to problems, to lay those problems out. I know the Senator who is in the Chair is taking the lead in finding solutions to the problem of the high cost of prescription drugs, not only for our seniors but for all of our citizens. She is working long and hard on that, day in and day out, and with her leadership and that of others in the Senate, we are going to come up with a good plan. I know our leader, Tom Daschle, is going to come up with a very good plan that we can all back, on all fronts, dealing with Medicare but also dealing with the pricing of prescription drugs. You could throw up your hands and just say, ``Isn't this awful, prices are going up,'' and walk away. Why would we deserve to be here if we took that attitude? Why do we deserve to be here if we do not protect people's health--by getting them prescription drugs, but also preventing the health problems that you get when you have dirty air and water and high levels of arsenic and high levels of lead in children's blood. It is one thing to react at the end of it when they have these illnesses. We need these pharmaceuticals. It is another thing to prevent these problems because many come from a very unhealthy environment. I am sorry to say that this administration's record in 2001--and let's show 2002--an average of once a week, coming up with an anti- environmental rule, rolling back a pro-environmental, prohealth rule. This record is shameful. I think it is only because we have been so focused, as we have to be, on other issues, that we have not, as Americans, stood up to say this is a terrible circumstance. I will show the Superfund. I will leave with that one more time, to show the number of sites they are cutting back on the Superfund. Remember, in California 40 percent of Californians live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. I am sure, Madam President, if you examine the Superfund sites in your State--you have many, as unfortunately many of us do, and we will give the exact number later--you will see what is happening. There is a walking away from the responsibility to clean up these sites, which means these sites will remain very dangerous. We have a site in New Jersey that has become infamous because the wildlife there is turning bright colors from the dioxin that is in the soil, the arsenic that is in the soil, the dangerous chemicals that are in the soil. The EPA will not tell us, Madam President, from which of your sites they are walking away. We are trying desperately to get the information. Senator Jeffords, who is a man of tremendous patience, I can tell you, started trying to get the information in March. We sent a letter and said that we now see you promised to clean up 75 sites. Now you say it is only 47. That is down from 87 sites under the last administration. Tell us, pray tell, which sites are you abandoning? Our people have a right to know. It impacts their lives; it impacts the lives of their children; it impacts the property values in the community. Just tell us which sites you are not going to clean up. We found in the hearing we held that, in fact, a message went out to all the employees at EPA not to talk to anyone. Don't tell Senators which sites are off the list; don't tell newspapers; refer all the calls to our communications people. The penchant for secrecy in this administration is growing to be alarming. We couldn't find out who sat in on Vice President Cheney's meeting when they drew up this energy bill. We had to go to court to find out. Now we know. It was the special interests that wrote that. We know what happens then. That is not the kind of America we want. We want an America where everyone sits around the table--people from the environmental community, people from the business community, people from the labor community, people from the management community. That is the way we are going to have an America that works for everyone--not when we leave out people with whom we don't agree. I represent a State which is very diverse in thinking. We go from very liberal to very conservative and everything in between. If I just sat with the people who voted for me, that would be a huge mistake for me; plus, it would be unfair and wrong. We need to sit with people with whom we don't always agree. That is why this Norquist blacklist is so upsetting, as Senator Durbin said. If we put a little X on the forehead of people who do not agree with us, and we put them on a blacklist and we never talk to them, what kind of America is this going to be? It is going to be an extremist America--an America that doesn't reflect the values of the American people. One of the values of the American people is a clean and healthy environment. I hope people will educate themselves to the fact that we cannot find out which Superfund sites are not going to be cleaned. I hope people will understand the danger they face if this continues. I pledge today to continue to come to the Chamber to talk about this environmental issue, to fight for the Superfund Program, and to fight for clean air and clean water. We are going to take this case to the American people. I thank the Chair very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. There is no doubt about it. They are embarrassed by what has happened--the corporate executives who take home millions and millions of dollars and then do not pay their taxes, corporate executives who do not care about their employees and destroy not only their employees' jobs but their pensions. It is a moment in our history where they are looking to us for leadership. The way I tie it into the environment and health and safety is this: I showed on the floor the environmental record for 2001. This is the record for 2002. Each week, there is another plan to weaken environmental laws and protect the people. It is a terrible message to corporate America. This chart shows the EPA budget. They eliminated the budget for graduate student research in the environmental sciences. Look at enforcement. Good businesses welcome enforcement. If you are doing it right and the enforcers come in, you are in good shape. They cut it back, and the bad apples do not get caught. Look at air quality, nuclear waste, endangered species, mining public lands, something my colleague is involved in, oil and gas drilling, urban sprawl. This administration zeroed out the funding for urban parks. I would love my friend to comment on this point: 70 percent of our people live within reach of an urban park. Unbelievably, 2 weeks ago the administration sent out a press release bragging about all the grants they made from last year's money, not mentioning in this press release they have now zeroed out the funding for urban parks. This lack of caring for the people of this country, as I see it, in terms of the environment and this kind of a record set a poor example for everyone, for business leaders. If business leaders see this administration does not really care, when it comes to the environment, about the health and safety of the people, what is the subtle message to a corporate executive? I guess: I don't have to care. I guess the bottom line is my profit.

Mrs. BOXER. The point is the message it is sending, subtle or not so subtle, to corporate America, about what is important. There is a relationship between the two. This chart shows the clean water rule. The administration reverses a 25-year-old Clean Water Act rule that flatly prohibits disposal of mining and other industrial wastes into the Nation's waters. The EPA issued new regulations making it legal for coal companies to dump fill material--dirt, rock, and waste--from mountaintops, moving mining into rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. My point is, if this administration that is charged with protecting the environment, as we are, is so callous about the quality of the water for the people of this country, the not so subtle message to corporate America is: People don't matter that much; just make your profit because we really don't care. It is stunning. That is why I am glad my friend was here. This connection between this record, which I think is so unmindful of the needs of the American people, does translate over to short-term thinking in corporate America, to thinking that it really is not important to care about the environment, your people, or their health and their welfare reform.

Mrs. BOXER. No, we do not find it. As a matter of fact, I am waiting for some indictments on the Enron case, to be honest.

Mrs. BOXER. Not one so far. We now know because other whistleblowers are telling us that they set the pace for the energy industry. This was the biggest transfer of wealth from ordinary American families to the pockets of these people. It is extraordinary. Overlay the whole Enron scandal and anyone can see that California was used as a cash cow to keep Enron afloat while the insiders sold their stock. I have seen videotapes of the highest executives at Enron telling the poor employees--as these top executives were unloading their stock--buy more stock. They wanted to see that the stock was artificially held up and have more people and more employees buying so they could sell out. I look at the word ``patriotism'' perhaps in a different way than others. Patriotism extends to a very broad range. When I say this, I mean if you are truly patriotic and love this country, yes, you stand with this President in the war against terror. But it extends to the way you treat people in your life, Americans who get up in the morning and work hard, single moms, people with illness who want prescription drugs. To make this the greatest country is making sure we have a strong middle class to buy the products that business makes, to be able to educate their children so this country continues to be the greatest in the world. When you put greed ahead of the American families in this country and their rights and forget your responsibilities, where is the patriotism there?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have come to the Chamber today to talk about an issue about which I have spoken before and will continue to do so until we turn around the current climate we are facing, which is a rollback of environmental protections for the American people. It is stunning to see what has happened to environmental regulations since administrations have changed. We have, fortunately, a group called the NRDC. I have a list of all the actions that have been taken by this administration since they took over. We have seen the average of one anti-environmental action every week since this administration took over. This chart is way too small for people to read, but it gives a sense of the situation. I have two charts like this. These are 100 rollbacks. Our Nation certainly is in a situation where we are so focused on meeting the challenges that hit us on September 11--and it is very understandable; we are so united on that--but what has happened in the course of that time is that without very much publicity, a lot of these regulations have moved forward. We face the circumstance where if we in the Senate and those in the House who care about the environment do not speak out, I fear for the future of our country. Why do I say that? Because when one says the word ``environment,'' it means many things, and one meaning is health and safety. For example, when this administration believed it was not so important that arsenic was in the water, finally the people woke up to what they were doing. Then when they said it was not so important to test poor kids for lead in their blood--even though we know if a child has elevated levels of lead in his or her blood, there is going to be a serious learning problem and illness problem, even problems of death--they went too far. It does not seem to stop them. In my State, they are against us as we are trying to protect the coastline. They are against us. They said to Florida: We will help you. But as to California, it is unbelievable. Interior Secretary Norton said people in California do not care about their coasts. Mr. President, I am here to say that is an insane statement if you look at the record. Since the seventies, when under the Carter administration they thought they would drill, we convinced Carter not to drill. We thought that problem was over. The State has a moratorium on drilling off our shores. The fact is, we have set up sanctuaries all along the ocean. This is a terrible statement and an example of how the Bush administration is so blinded by this idea that the environment does not matter, they will say things that do not make sense. My colleague from Illinois is in the Chamber, and I know he wants to add to this debate. First, I want to cover one more issue before I yield to him. I want to talk about one issue. It is called the Superfund. I think it is very interesting that the Presiding Officer, as well as Senator Torricelli, are two leading proponents for doing something about Superfund sites. The word ``super'' is a good word: You look super fine. The word ``Superfund'' is not a good word because what it means is that we have sites all over this country that are filled with poison and toxins, and we need to clean up these sites. This chart shows there are national priority list sites in every single State but one. North Dakota is the only State. New Jersey happens to have the most. Pennsylvania is third. My own State has about 104 sites, and we are second on the list. What I want to show my colleagues--and I hope the Senator from Illinois will pick up on this--is what is happening specifically to the Superfund program, which is such a popular program in this country. It cleans up these toxic sites. A lot of people live near these sites. Children live near these sites. It makes the sites safe, and it goes after the responsible parties, the polluters, and says the polluter pays, which is the basic premise of the Superfund program. Under Bill Clinton's administration, we saw a ratcheting up of the cleanup: 88, 87, 85, 87 sites in the last 4 years. We were all set to continue. We were a little disheartened when President Bush said he is only going to clean up 75 sites, but worse than that happened. Now they are saying they are only going to clean up 47 sites, and then 40. We are going back down. We are going back down to a level, frankly, that we have not seen in more than a decade. This is a horrible situation. I am proud that Senator Chafee has joined us, and we have bipartisan legislation to reinstate the Superfund fee so polluters will pay. I am going to show one last chart because this is so important. This idea of ``polluter pays to clean up their mess'' has been basic to this country for many years, since Superfund was set up in the 1980s, and it led us to a situation where the industry and the polluters were paying 82 percent of the cleanup and taxpayers only 18 percent. That was where we could not find a party or we did not have enough funds in the Superfund trust fund. This is where we are headed under President Bush. I consider this administration the most anti-environmental that I have ever seen, frankly. I have been in Congress since 1982, with Senator Durbin, who is about to speak. In 2003, 54 percent of the cleanup in Superfund will be paid for by taxpayers; 46 percent by the industry that polluted. This is not a good trend for the American people, for the taxpayers, and that is why we have so much support for turning this around. I am proud to be the chair of the environmental team that Senator Daschle has appointed to point out the environmental record of this administration and how it is hurting the health, safety, and well-being of the American people.

Mrs. BOXER. I am really pleased my friend has tied this into the bigger picture, because this particular chart shows it all. The Bush administration is moving away from corporate responsibility when it comes to cleaning up the worst toxic sites in America. They are cleaning up half the number of sites. We do not know. We cannot tell. I am the chair of the Superfund Committee and the Environment Committee. The bottom line is, I cannot even tell whether the sites of the Senator from Illinois are going to be cleaned up because this administration is keeping that information secret. To get to the point about corporate responsibility, having faced the Enron scandal, and continuing to face it in California, let me state what this means. It means corporations could care less about the people they serve. They tell their own employees to buy Enron stock while the insiders sell out. The shareholders were the last people they thought about. It is a lack of a corporate ethics. When this administration writes an energy plan, they talk to these very same corporations that essentially turn their back on the American people. As my friend, Senator Mikulski, brought up at a meeting we both attended today, some of these corporate executives renounced their citizenship in order to get away with not paying any taxes. They leave the greatest country in the world, which gave them every opportunity to fulfill the American dream, and they throw it all away for dollars and cents. There is little corporate ethic in America. There are some very good corporations. Why not say to those good corporations: We appreciate what you are doing; join with us. Let us get back a corporate ethic. On the Norquist black list that my colleague referred to, I thought it was interesting when Ari Fleischer was asked about it in his press conference. He said: I have no comment because we have nothing to do with it. I found that amazing. Does he have no comment on terrorism? He has nothing to do with that. Does he have no comment when something horrible happens around the world that we have nothing to do with? Since when is it that there is suddenly silence when it comes to a black list? I think it is a political embarrassment to them. More than that, what worries me is they are not distancing themselves from this issue. I hope in America there is room for all kinds of views. When Vice President Cheney put together the energy plan, they did not want any views from people who had what I would call the public interest versus the special interest. I worry about this small circle around this President that does not hear from people who may have a different view.

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

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains?