Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to my friend for as long as he would like.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to make truckers eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA. A similar provision was in the original Finance Committee package of trade legislation that we recently considered in the Senate. Unfortunately, this provision was removed in last minute negotiations. Currently, Mexican trucks bring goods into the United States must transfer those goods to an American truck at the border. On June 30, 2002, that will change. Mexican trucks will be allowed into the country, and as a result, hard-working Americans will lose their jobs. Future trade agreements may make the problem even greater. However, these laid-off truckers will not be eligible for TAA. TAA exists out of recognition that our decision on trade in Washington cause very specific groups of American workers to lose jobs. TAA provides those workers with the assistance they need to successfully transition to new jobs. New trade rules that allow foreign truckers to operate in the United States beginning June 30, 2002 will cause an American trucker to lose his or her job just as much as new trade rules cause a textile worker to lose his or her job. Providing TAA assistance to both of these groups of workers is right because neither lost their job through any fault of their own--both will have lost their job as a result of new rules we create in Washington. American union truck drivers are some of the hardest working and finest paid in the world. They make about $50,000 a year as a starting salary and receive great benefits. And nonunion drivers make $35,000 to $40,000 a year plus benefits. Compare these figures with the salaries of foreign truckers that will now operate in the United States or going to operate in the United States in the near future. Mexican drivers make dramatically less than American truckers, about $18,000 a year at best and few benefits. They are also allowed to drive recklessly long hours at that low pay. American truckers cannot compete with that. Those who lose their jobs as a result of this new competition allowed for by trade law should have access to TAA assistance. The legislation I am introducing will direct the Secretary of Labor to establish a program to provide TAA assistance to any domestic operator of a motor carrier who is adversely affected by competition from any foreign owned or operated motor carrier. The act also directs the Secretary of labor to report to Congress within 2 years on adversely affected service workers and recommend legislation that the Secretary considers appropriate for extending TAA to service workers as well. The TAA program will remain inadequate as long as any workers are losing jobs directly as a result of trade agreements and not getting the help they need to participate in the new economy. The trade debate has not adequately considered the fate of those who lose from trade. It is our responsibility to make sure that these hard-working Americans have a voice in this debate and that they and their families are able to reap the rewards of trade instead of just suffer its consequences. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to make truckers eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA. A similar provision was in the original Finance Committee package of trade legislation that we recently considered in the Senate. Unfortunately, this provision was removed in last minute negotiations. Currently, Mexican trucks bring goods into the United States must transfer those goods to an American truck at the border. On June 30, 2002, that will change. Mexican trucks will be allowed into the country, and as a result, hard-working Americans will lose their jobs. Future trade agreements may make the problem even greater. However, these laid-off truckers will not be eligible for TAA. TAA exists out of recognition that our decision on trade in Washington cause very specific groups of American workers to lose jobs. TAA provides those workers with the assistance they need to successfully transition to new jobs. New trade rules that allow foreign truckers to operate in the United States beginning June 30, 2002 will cause an American trucker to lose his or her job just as much as new trade rules cause a textile worker to lose his or her job. Providing TAA assistance to both of these groups of workers is right because neither lost their job through any fault of their own--both will have lost their job as a result of new rules we create in Washington. American union truck drivers are some of the hardest working and finest paid in the world. They make about $50,000 a year as a starting salary and receive great benefits. And nonunion drivers make $35,000 to $40,000 a year plus benefits. Compare these figures with the salaries of foreign truckers that will now operate in the United States or going to operate in the United States in the near future. Mexican drivers make dramatically less than American truckers, about $18,000 a year at best and few benefits. They are also allowed to drive recklessly long hours at that low pay. American truckers cannot compete with that. Those who lose their jobs as a result of this new competition allowed for by trade law should have access to TAA assistance. The legislation I am introducing will direct the Secretary of Labor to establish a program to provide TAA assistance to any domestic operator of a motor carrier who is adversely affected by competition from any foreign owned or operated motor carrier. The act also directs the Secretary of labor to report to Congress within 2 years on adversely affected service workers and recommend legislation that the Secretary considers appropriate for extending TAA to service workers as well. The TAA program will remain inadequate as long as any workers are losing jobs directly as a result of trade agreements and not getting the help they need to participate in the new economy. The trade debate has not adequately considered the fate of those who lose from trade. It is our responsibility to make sure that these hard-working Americans have a voice in this debate and that they and their families are able to reap the rewards of trade instead of just suffer its consequences. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 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 the fees on oil, chemical and other industries to ensure that the Superfund trust fund is solvent, and that polluters, not the American Taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up sites that pose a threat to the health and safety of our communities. I am also pleased to be joined in this effort by the ranking member of the Superfund Subcommittee, Senator Chafee as well as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords. As Chair of the Superfund Subcommittee, I thank them for joining me in this effort. Senators Torricelli, Corizine, and Biden are also cosponsers. 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, including 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 than 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 has worked. Great progress was made. Since the creation of this program over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four years of the Clinton Administration, there was an average of 87 final cleanups a 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. The number is projected to drop further, to just 40 sites, this year. 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 addresses. 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. Why? Because these fees expired in 1995. The result is that a greater and greater share of the cost of Superfund cleanups is being borne by taxpayers instead of polluters. In fact, in 1995, taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the Superfund trust fund. But by next year, American taxpayers will pay 54 percent of the Superfund budget. This trend must be reversed. We must return to the principle of ``polluter pays.'' That is what the Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act would do. It would reinstate the two Superfund fees, the excise tax on oil and chemical companies as well as the corporate environmental income tax, as they existed from 1986 to 1995. These fees are not large in scope. For example, for every barrel of oil, the excise tax is only 9.7 cents. Chemical manufacturers pay $4.45 for every ton of arsenic or mercury they produce. This fee varies based on the frequency and toxicity of the chemical. With regard to the corporate environmental income tax, corporations that have over $2 million in taxable income pay only 0.12 percent on taxable income above $2 million dollars. That means that a company that has $2,010,000 in taxable income would pay only $12. These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small price to pay for a healthy, safe environment. And, while the fees themselves are relatively small, the preliminary estimates indicate that they would generate $15 billion to $16 billion over the next 10 years for the Superfund Trust Fund. And that is $16 billion that the American taxpayer would not have to pay. After the Superfund fees expired in 1995, President Clinton repeatedly tried to have them reinstated. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is not supporting returning to the important principle of polluters pays. Polluters pays is fair. Polluters 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 its back on the health of the American people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before my colleague from Pennsylvania leaves, I wanted him to hear my comments. What he has done is shown that this is a national security issue. We know when people are sick and desperate there can be a void in a country and people can do desperate things. I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator. Madam President, we talk about many issues in the Senate. There are moments when we know there is a particularly important issue, sometimes more parochial to our State. I say tonight that I am very proud to stand with Senator Durbin and Senator Specter. This is a Durbin- Specter-Boxer amendment to provide $500 million for the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. I was very stunned when I heard what happened to this debate. For weeks, I was elated that Senators Helms and Frist were going to support a $500 million number. And then when I heard that Senators Durbin and Specter were going to say we have to do even more, I felt so good because I thought at the minimum we will get the $500 million that we so desperately need for these diseases. Then I find out the whole playing field has changed. We are in a situation now that is quite troubling. I will tell a story about a woman named Elizabeth Glaser whom I met more than a decade ago, a beautiful woman, a young woman, a new mother. She had a child, and in the hospital needed to have a blood transfusion. Those were the years when no one knew that you could pick up HIV through a blood transfusion. Lovingly nursing her daughter, Ariel, she was at a high point in her life. She then had another child, a son, still not knowing anything was wrong. Elizabeth, therefore, faced a situation with her husband, Paul. They had three family members HIV positive: The mother, the son, and the daughter. Elizabeth Glaser was a fighter. A lot of us knew her around here. She came here and begged us to do something. She focused on the whole issue of AIDS and, of course, on the transmission of the virus from mother to child. The Pediatric AIDS Foundation was formed and they became the leaders in finding a way to stop the transmission. My colleague, Senator Durbin has talked about it; Senator Frist has talked about it. Let me state how far we have come. We can really stop this epidemic in its tracks in most of these mother-to-child transmissions. The cost of this drug is a few dollars a dose. When Senator Frist says his alternative will make more money available to stop transmission, he is incorrect. I hope that the record has been corrected. Senator Durbin's amendment allows the funding to go in whatever way the administration wishes. If they want to take the entire $500 million, if that is their choice, they could spend it in that fashion. So do not stand up here and say: If you want to stop the mother-to-child transmission, support the Frist amendment. No, support the Durbin amendment. It is very important to do this. A lot of people did not know, and Senator Durbin talked about it, that AIDS and tuberculosis go hand in hand. If you look at the statistics, they are stunning. Tuberculosis is the leading cause of death among people who are HIV positive. Up to 50 percent of people with AIDS develop TB because HIV infection severely weakens the immune system. This is a very small world we live in. We are reminded of it every single day. We knew it when planes came over and smashed into the World Trade Center. As soon as we could respond, we were in Afghanistan. The fact is, it is a small world, and if anyone in this body thinks that having so many people impacted with tuberculosis doesn't impact the health of America, they are wrong. Therefore, what we are doing here by addressing these three diseases, is, yes, to help the people all over the world who have HIV and AIDS, and who have tuberculosis, but also to help those who get malaria, which kills around a million people every single year. TB is a disease we thought we had eliminated. In fact, in the Western World we largely did, with the development of antibiotics in the 1950s. But the disease made a comeback, and I saw it in my State of California, where local public health officials never thought they would ever have to worry about TB again. But they are worried. I say to my friends on the Appropriations Committee who have turned their back on this $500 million, think about these numbers. In the year 2000, there were 16,000 TB cases in the United States of America that were reported to the Centers for Disease Control. In my own State of California, 20 percent of those cases exist there. TB is an airborne disease. You can get it when someone coughs or sneezes. It is a small world. So don't think, if you vote against the Durbin amendment, it doesn't have an impact here at home, because it has an impact here at home. We are talking about tuberculosis, we are talking about AIDS/HIV, and we are talking about malaria. The good news is that TB can be cured. There is a treatment called DOTS, D-O-T-S. It has been shown it can produce cure rates of 95 percent, even in the poorest countries. That means if we can stop TB in these countries--and people who get on the planes sit next to our people on the planes who do not have TB--we will be a far healthier nation. I think there are times here when it makes sense to act incrementally. I have seen that. Sometimes there are problems, and you say there are 10 things we should do to solve a problem, let's do 2 of these every year and we will get there. Sometimes you have to act boldly. Certainly we have seen our country unite and do that in the face of what happened on 9-11. We did it militarily. We liberated a country. We made sure that, to the greatest extent possible, we got to the root cause of what happened to us. And we continue, every day, to act boldly, or we certainly should, whether it is taking a look at how we can make our intelligence agencies better or making sure airport security is as tight as it could be, making sure, as my friend in the chair wants to do, that we protect people from a chemical plant being attacked or a nuclear powerplant being attacked. We are acting boldly. At least I believe most of us are. Why would we shirk from acting boldly in the face of these epidemics? We spend a lot of time around here on things that make a difference around the edges. But when historians write about today, I think it will be written, if we do the right thing, that we made a decision that wound up saving millions of lives; that we made a decision as the leader of the free world to alleviate suffering, to alleviate disease, to stop children from having to be orphans. I will talk about my friend Elizabeth Glaser. She passed away from AIDS. Her daughter passed away. And we are all fighting to see that that is not going to be the fate of her son because he is getting the advantage of the wonderful treatments we have. How can we not act to make sure that every child and every woman and man gets that same chance? How can we do that when we have the ability to do it? It is either you pay now or you pay later. I thought Senator Specter was right when he said: What you do when you turn your back on a crisis such as this is you open the door for people to wreak havoc with countries to fill a void, where people are desperate. They cannot get involved. They are just trying to find out how to live, to survive, to make sure a child is not deprived of family. My daughter went to Uganda and got back about a week ago. She fell in love with the place and told me she did not meet one person in her travels who had not experienced a deep, tragic loss of a family member--not one person, and she spoke to many people. This is a test of our leadership. I did not expect to be here on the floor. I ask for 20 additional seconds.

Mrs. BOXER. I just believed we were going to have that $500 million. Senator Helms wrote from his heart and talked about it. Senator Frist talked about it. Suddenly, what has happened? What has happened is we are losing our boldness. I do not want to see it happen. I urge support for this very important amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 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 the fees on oil, chemical and other industries to ensure that the Superfund trust fund is solvent, and that polluters, not the American Taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up sites that pose a threat to the health and safety of our communities. I am also pleased to be joined in this effort by the ranking member of the Superfund Subcommittee, Senator Chafee as well as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords. As Chair of the Superfund Subcommittee, I thank them for joining me in this effort. Senators Torricelli, Corizine, and Biden are also cosponsers. 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, including 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 than 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 has worked. Great progress was made. Since the creation of this program over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four years of the Clinton Administration, there was an average of 87 final cleanups a 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. The number is projected to drop further, to just 40 sites, this year. 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 addresses. 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. Why? Because these fees expired in 1995. The result is that a greater and greater share of the cost of Superfund cleanups is being borne by taxpayers instead of polluters. In fact, in 1995, taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the Superfund trust fund. But by next year, American taxpayers will pay 54 percent of the Superfund budget. This trend must be reversed. We must return to the principle of ``polluter pays.'' That is what the Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act would do. It would reinstate the two Superfund fees, the excise tax on oil and chemical companies as well as the corporate environmental income tax, as they existed from 1986 to 1995. These fees are not large in scope. For example, for every barrel of oil, the excise tax is only 9.7 cents. Chemical manufacturers pay $4.45 for every ton of arsenic or mercury they produce. This fee varies based on the frequency and toxicity of the chemical. With regard to the corporate environmental income tax, corporations that have over $2 million in taxable income pay only 0.12 percent on taxable income above $2 million dollars. That means that a company that has $2,010,000 in taxable income would pay only $12. These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small price to pay for a healthy, safe environment. And, while the fees themselves are relatively small, the preliminary estimates indicate that they would generate $15 billion to $16 billion over the next 10 years for the Superfund Trust Fund. And that is $16 billion that the American taxpayer would not have to pay. After the Superfund fees expired in 1995, President Clinton repeatedly tried to have them reinstated. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is not supporting returning to the important principle of polluters pays. Polluters pays is fair. Polluters 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 its back on the health of the American people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very grateful to have 6 minutes to try to put into words my strongest support for this very important amendment which has been put forward by our leader on education, Senator Kennedy, with the strong endorsement of Senator Gordon Smith, making it a very bipartisan amendment. There is some confusion about what an emergency supplemental bill is. I have been in the Congress--hard to believe it--20 years, 10 in the House and 10 in the Senate, and we take up emergency supplementals all the time because there are unmet needs and we need to act. Senator Kennedy is pointing out a crucial unmet need. I was very delighted when he asked me to speak because I have worked hard with him, with the Presiding Officer, and others on afterschool programs for our children. The funding will go into the afterschool programs. We all think of afterschool programs as occurring at the end of the day when kids could go home to empty houses, and so on. That is the usual way to think of it. But Senator Kennedy is doing something interesting. What he is basically saying is afterschool ends and for some kids there is no summer school. That is afterschool in the broadest sense. So I support these funds going through the 21st Century Learning Centers. When President Bush speaks about education, he talks about leaving no child behind. As a mother, as a grandmother, as a Senator from the largest State in the Union, I know that when you leave a child home alone in the summertime, you are really giving a new meaning to ``left behind.'' We know during the regular school year what happens. The FBI has shown us the crime rate going dramatically upward after school hours. We know what happens when a child has all day to sit alone at home, without having the chance to have activities funneled into something positive, without having the chance to hone their skills for the rest of the year. As Senator Kennedy has stated so eloquently many times, we are putting much more of a burden on our youngsters to step up to the plate and achieve high standards. I support that. But at the same time, to deprive them of summer school this summer just as we are putting all these standards in place is a cruel hypocrisy. If we do not support this amendment, I think we are doing something very cruel indeed to those children. This amendment will benefit every single State in the Union. The way it is worded, it will go to States that have a shortfall, but it will also go to areas where there is an unmet need. In my home State of California, summer school is a very high priority. But even with that, and even with the fact that in our State you cannot cut it back, in terms of State funds, we have a tremendous unmet need. Many of our children are left behind; 6,000 California students who are eligible for summer school will go without. So I say to Senator Kennedy: Thank you very much on behalf of those 6,000 children. This is not some theoretical debate. This is a real emergency for many of our families who do not have the wherewithal, who do not have the ability to ensure their children are protected from being alone after the school year is over. I believe with this amendment we will be making a very strong statement. Again, it is important for colleagues to recognize that this is an emergency supplemental. Yes, it has much in it that deals with homeland security, and I support every dollar for that. But, again, as Senator Kennedy has stated, and as former President Dwight Eisenhower stated-- because he was the first one to call attention to this--if we do not educate our children, we are taking a national security risk. It is not a stretch in my mind to say that for kids home alone who should have an effective summer school program, that is, in fact, an emergency. That is, in fact, something we must address in this bill. It is an emergency. Again, I believe the definition of afterschool certainly should apply to this situation. After school is over, what happens to our children? Many of them will be fortunate, they will have summer school; their energies will be channeled; their talents will be invigorated. They will do better in the school year following. But many of them are left behind. If our President means what he says--and I know in his heart he means it--he ought to support this. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I recognize and pay tribute to Rosemary Bliss, fire chief for Tiburon Fire Protection District in my home county of Marin, CA, as she prepares to retire after 30 years in firefighting. Chief Bliss is truly a credit to firefighting. When highlighting the career of Chief Rosemary Bliss, the word ``first'' features prominently. Chief Bliss joined the Tiburon Fire Protection District as fire marshal in 1981. She was the first female fire marshal for Marin County. When she was promoted from fire marshal to fire chief in 1993, she became California's first woman career fire chief. And, notably, in 1973 when she began her career in firefighting, she was the first woman firefighter with the Chatauqua Volunteer Fire Department in New York. Chief Bliss set an example from the very beginning of her career that paved the way for many other women in firefighting. During her time with the Tiburon Fire Protection District, she worked to ensure the completion of the new fire headquarters on Tiburon Boulevard. Before the new headquarters, the firefighters worked out of an old gas station and an old railroad building. Chief Bliss' dedication and achievements are truly exceptional and worthy of recognition. I am honored to congratulate and pay tribute to her, and I invite my colleagues to join me in conveying best wishes to Fire Chief Rosemary Bliss as she closes one remarkable chapter of her life and embarks on a new path.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to share with the Senate the accomplishments of one of my constituents, Belinda Guadarrama, of Petaluma. It is my great pleasure to honor the tremendous contributions Ms. Gudarrama has made to our economy. She has been recognized by the Small Business Administration as the California Small Business Person of the Year for 2002. In 1986, Ms. Guadarrama started GC Micro with two employees, $20,000 and some money from a retirement account. Through her hard work, diligence and business acumen, the firm is now one of the Nation's leading suppliers of computer hardware and software products to the defense and aerospace industries. Today the company employs 28 people and sales last year topped $34 million. Building GC Micro from the ground up was not easy. When Ms. Guadarrama applied for a $5,000 loan for her company, a bank laughed at her lack of collateral. However, Ms. Guadarrama persevered. Through hard work and a passion for customer service, Belinda overcame the perception that a minority woman couldn't make it in the competitive field of technology and marketing to defense-related contractors. She never gave up and her success is a testament to her determination. Ms. Guadarrama has been a strong advocate for minority business development in America. In working with the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Hispanic Business CEO Roundtable, she effectively brings the concerns of the minority business community to the attention of the media and policy makers. Belinda's story has been an inspiration to many Latinas. Her enthusiasm and drive are evident to anyone who has had the pleasure of meeting her. I send my warmest congratulations to Belinda on her recognition by the Small Business Administration as the Small Business Person of the Year for 2002, representing California.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the rich life and memory of Richard Sylbert, an admired and talented production designer, whose work made a tremendous impact on the entertainment industry and on the lives of so many. At the age of 73, Richard Sylbert died on March 23, 2002 of cancer in Woodland Hills, CA. Richard, through his remarkable creativity and imagination, helped bring more than 40 stories to the screen, including ``Chinatown,'' ``Dick Tracy,'' ``The Graduate'' and ``Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.'' He was a true visionary. Born in Brooklyn in 1928, Sylbert served our country in Korea and attended the Tyler School of Art at Temple University before returning to his home state of New York. In 1954, he got a job painting scenery at NBC. He started working on films 2 years later, and collaborated with his twin brother Paul as an art director for ``Baby Doll.'' In 1975, he became the vice president in charge of production at Paramount, marking the first and only time a production designer headed production at a major motion picture studio. After he left Paramount, the two-time Academy Award winner continued to work in film and television, making each piece of work compelling and moving. I extend my deepest condolences to Richard's family, friends, and all those touched by his work. His career spanned four decades, and was extremely versatile and varied in scope. Although Richard is no longer with us, his lasting contributions to entertainment are forever documented in works we will enjoy for generations to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this moment to reflect on the life of Sharon Monsky. I feel proud and fortunate to have known Sharon, who was a wonderfully effective advocate for those who suffer from scleroderma. Scleroderma is an autoimmune disease that affects primarily women. As a strong supporter of her important mission, I was profoundly saddened to learn that, at the age of 48, Sharon Monsky died of complications from scleroderma on May 11 in Santa Barbara, CA. Her strong passion for finding a cure for scleroderma has helped raise awareness and has made a tremendous impact on the lives of many of those living with this devastating disease. Born in Omaha, NE, Sharon Monsky was a nationally ranked figure skater during her teenage years, and later graduated at the top of her class from Pitzer College in Claremont. After earning a BA in economics, she began a career at McKinsey & Co., an international management-consulting firm in San Francisco, and received an MBA from Stanford University. However, her career took a different path when Monsky developed scleroderma in 1981. Determined to win her battle with scleroderma and help others suffering from the disease, Sharon Monsky decided to devote her life to finding a cure. In 1986, she found the Scleroderma Research Foundation, which has raised more than $14 million and funds two research centers: the San Francisco Bay Area Scleroderma Center at the University of California at San Francisco and the East Coast Scleroderma Research Center at John Hopkins University. Monsky received many awards for her work, including Research America's National Volunteer Advocacy Award, the America's Award and the American Medical Association's International Health and Medical Film Award. Sharon Monsky's tragic death represents a great loss for California and the Nation. She served as a powerful voice for those stricken with scleroderma, and will be deeply missed by me and by all those who were privileged to have known her. Although Sharon Monsky ultimately lost her battle with this disease, she has helped make it possible to prevail against this disease. I will never forget her moving words, compassionate heart and enduring strength. Her spirit will continue to inspire us all for generations to come. I owe her a great debt for involving me in the fight against scleroderma. My heart goes out to her beautiful family.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very sorry that we can't vote on this issue because I believe truckdrivers, who are some of the hardest working people in this country, are going to be thrown out of work. It is very sad. Fortunately, I have talked to Majority Leader Daschle. He has assured me that we will have a vote on or in relation to this particular issue on the next bill that comes up that is not an appropriations bill. I am very pleased at that. I thank the majority leader and thank my friends.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am not surprised that my friend would object to this. I will simply make one more unanimous consent request, and then I will yield the floor. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside temporarily so I might call up amendment No. 3511. This would put my amendment that is germane on the list at the end of the list.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to do a unanimous consent request. I have an amendment that has been offered and is pending, amendment No. 3431. That amendment is not germane postcloture, but I do have a germane version of the amendment. The amendment deals with making sure that the truckdrivers who will lose their jobs when we start having trucks coming into this country driven by noncitizens through the NAFTA agreement would be eligible for help. I ask unanimous consent to substitute amendment No. 3511 for amendment No. 3431 and that it be considered in the same order as amendment No. 3431.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, history books written about California always comment on the natural beauty of the State because our natural treasures have always been one of the things that makes California unique. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I am introducing the California Wild Heritage Act of 2002, the first statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984. This legislation will protect more than 2.5 million acres of public lands in 81 different areas, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22 rivers. Every acre of wild land is treasure. But the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious, including: the old growth redwood forest near the Trinity Alps in Trinity and Humboldt Counties; 35 miles of pristine coastline in the King Range in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties; the Nation's sixth highest waterfall, Feather Falls, in Butte County; the ancient Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains in Inyo and Mono Counties; and the oak woodlands in the San Diego River area. The bill protects these treasures by designating these public lands as ``wilderness'' and by naming 22 rivers, including the Clavey in Tuolumne County, as ``wild and scenic'' rivers. These destinations mean no new logging, no new dams, no new construction, no new mining, no new drilling, and no motorized vehicles. Protection of the areas in this bill is necessary to ensure that these previous places will be there for future generations. Because much of our State's drinking water supply is made up of watersheds in our national forest, this bill also helps ensure California has safe, reliable supply of clean drinking water. This bill would also mean that the hundreds of plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas will continue to have a safe haven. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include: the bald eagle; Sierra Nevada Red Fox, and Spring Run Chinook Salmon among others. In short, this bill preserves, prevents, and it protects. It preserves our most important lands, it prevents pollution, and it protects our most endangered wildlife. That is why so many supporters are throwing their weight behind this bill. Thousands of diverse organizations, businesses, and others see the importance of this legislation and have given it their support. Additionally, hundreds of local elected officials have voiced support for the protection of their local areas. Unfortunately, despite the tremendous support of this bill, it is not without opponents. They will say this bill is too large and goes too far. Yet this bill is similar in size to other statewide wilderness bills that have already passed Congress. The 1984 California Wilderness Act protected approximately 2 million acres and 83 miles of the Tuolume River. The most recent Wilderness bill, the California Desert Protection Act, protected approximately 6 million acres. And this must be taken in context. Only 13 percent of California is currently protected as wilderness. This bill would raise that amount to 15 percent. The question is, how much wilderness is enough? For every Californian, there is currently less than half an acre of wilderness set aside. I think this is too little. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness, approximately the size of Yosemite National Park, lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people by the middle of the century, these development pressures are going to skyrocket. If we fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands or wild rivers left to protect. We must reverse this. Many of the areas in this bill would have been protected by the Clinton administration's Roadless Rule, but this rule has been gutted by the Bush Administration, leaving these lands with no guarantee of protection. That just makes the need for this bill even greater. The other big question that has been raised is whether this bill will limit public access to these areas. I do not believe this will be the case. While wilderness designation means the wilderness areas are closed to mountain bikers, they remain open to a myriad of recreational activities, including: horseback riding, fishing, hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, cross country skiing, and canoeing. Mountain bikers and motorized vehicles have 100,000 miles of road and trails in California that are not touched in my bill. Furthermore, numerous economic studies suggest wilderness areas are a big draw that attract outdoor recreation visitors, and tourism dollars, to areas that have received this special designation. Those of us who live in California have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur and Joshua Tree. These are places that Californians cannot imagine living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future generations, for our children's children, and their children. This bill is the place to start and the time to start is now.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, history books written about California always comment on the natural beauty of the State because our natural treasures have always been one of the things that makes California unique. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I am introducing the California Wild Heritage Act of 2002, the first statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984. This legislation will protect more than 2.5 million acres of public lands in 81 different areas, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22 rivers. Every acre of wild land is treasure. But the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious, including: the old growth redwood forest near the Trinity Alps in Trinity and Humboldt Counties; 35 miles of pristine coastline in the King Range in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties; the Nation's sixth highest waterfall, Feather Falls, in Butte County; the ancient Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains in Inyo and Mono Counties; and the oak woodlands in the San Diego River area. The bill protects these treasures by designating these public lands as ``wilderness'' and by naming 22 rivers, including the Clavey in Tuolumne County, as ``wild and scenic'' rivers. These destinations mean no new logging, no new dams, no new construction, no new mining, no new drilling, and no motorized vehicles. Protection of the areas in this bill is necessary to ensure that these previous places will be there for future generations. Because much of our State's drinking water supply is made up of watersheds in our national forest, this bill also helps ensure California has safe, reliable supply of clean drinking water. This bill would also mean that the hundreds of plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas will continue to have a safe haven. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include: the bald eagle; Sierra Nevada Red Fox, and Spring Run Chinook Salmon among others. In short, this bill preserves, prevents, and it protects. It preserves our most important lands, it prevents pollution, and it protects our most endangered wildlife. That is why so many supporters are throwing their weight behind this bill. Thousands of diverse organizations, businesses, and others see the importance of this legislation and have given it their support. Additionally, hundreds of local elected officials have voiced support for the protection of their local areas. Unfortunately, despite the tremendous support of this bill, it is not without opponents. They will say this bill is too large and goes too far. Yet this bill is similar in size to other statewide wilderness bills that have already passed Congress. The 1984 California Wilderness Act protected approximately 2 million acres and 83 miles of the Tuolume River. The most recent Wilderness bill, the California Desert Protection Act, protected approximately 6 million acres. And this must be taken in context. Only 13 percent of California is currently protected as wilderness. This bill would raise that amount to 15 percent. The question is, how much wilderness is enough? For every Californian, there is currently less than half an acre of wilderness set aside. I think this is too little. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness, approximately the size of Yosemite National Park, lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people by the middle of the century, these development pressures are going to skyrocket. If we fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands or wild rivers left to protect. We must reverse this. Many of the areas in this bill would have been protected by the Clinton administration's Roadless Rule, but this rule has been gutted by the Bush Administration, leaving these lands with no guarantee of protection. That just makes the need for this bill even greater. The other big question that has been raised is whether this bill will limit public access to these areas. I do not believe this will be the case. While wilderness designation means the wilderness areas are closed to mountain bikers, they remain open to a myriad of recreational activities, including: horseback riding, fishing, hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, cross country skiing, and canoeing. Mountain bikers and motorized vehicles have 100,000 miles of road and trails in California that are not touched in my bill. Furthermore, numerous economic studies suggest wilderness areas are a big draw that attract outdoor recreation visitors, and tourism dollars, to areas that have received this special designation. Those of us who live in California have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur and Joshua Tree. These are places that Californians cannot imagine living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future generations, for our children's children, and their children. This bill is the place to start and the time to start is now.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. It is good that my friend raises the point. Tax cuts for the middle class are one thing. Tax cuts for the people who earn a million dollars a year are another thing. People who are earning $1 million a year don't want to see this tax. They are going to get back $50,000 a year for every year. That is more than twice as much as a person earning minimum wage gets. A person earning $20,000 or $30,000 a year gets back $150 a year. I am all for focusing on the people who need it--people who tell me, I am doing fine. I want to make sure there is no crime. I want cops on the street--a program the administration has cut. I want to make sure children don't get in trouble after school, which my friend knows has been one of my priorities. The fact is, after the President signed the education bill with great flourish, he has flat-lined afterschool.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a number of problems with the fast- track legislation. It has only been confirmed as I read the Robert Caro book, ``Master of the Senate,'' which is a biography of Lyndon Johnson. The first 100 pages talk about the role of Senators. One of the very strong points made in the book is that our Founders wanted to make sure there was a check against executive power. This was, of course, the reason we have a Constitution and we have a balance of powers. The trade issue, and assuring Congress is part of that process, is mentioned over and over again in this biography as one of the issues on which the Founders focused. The underlying premise of fast track is to write Congress out of the equation, to pat us on the head and say: Be good boys and girls; just give the President the right to do whatever he wants, and then you give up your right to amend; you can vote up or down. There are some occasions where I can see it makes sense if we are talking about a specific treaty and we want to give the President some flexibility, this is really overarching authority to the President. I knew this President when he was the Governor of Texas, supporting a minimum wage of $3.35 an hour. I don't want to see that for our people. This is a very serious point. I have also seen this President attack the environment such as I have never seen before. All you have to do is get on the NRDC site, the National Resources Defense Council, and there are 90 times where this administration, under this President, has in the dead of night attacked the environment by weakening clean air, Superfund cleanup, trying to stop testing kids for lead poisoning, and on and on and on. Why on Earth would we, who care about our own people and their standard of living and our environment and the health and safety of our people, give away the store to this particular administration? I am sorry, I don't get it. I am also very concerned that there will be a cloture vote which means a lot of the amendments Members are putting forward will not get a chance for an up-or-down vote. I will talk briefly about two of those amendments. I will do everything I can to get a vote on these amendments. If I can't, there will be a lot of noise about it. One has to do with truckdrivers, the Boxer-Kerry-Murray amendment which I will talk about first, No. 3421. Amendment No. 3431 On June 30, trucks that do not meet U.S. safety standards will be allowed into the United States to deliver products from foreign countries. That affects your State and it affects my State. The safety issue is a problem in and of itself. We have talked about that quite extensively in our transportation bill. Trucks from Mexico simply do not have the same standards. We are letting those trucks in because of NAFTA. We also know, in addition to these safety issues and safety problems, American truckdrivers will lose their jobs. Why do I say that? Because under the law today, if there are goods being produced in Mexico and they come to the border, the trucks stop there and an American trucking company, with American drivers, will take the product and deliver it to the rest of the country. There is nothing in this bill as it stands now to protect those truckdrivers and any others in future trade agreements. Here is the situation. These workers deserve our help. If we are talking about trade adjustment assistance and we have a situation where in just a month from now we will have a lot of truckdrivers out of work, it seems cruel that we would not cover that issue in this trade adjustment assistance that is part and parcel of this bill. Now, originally, as Senator Daschle wrote this trade adjustment assistance, we had protections for our truckdrivers. My amendment reasserts that language, directing the Department of Labor to establish a program to provide TAA assistance to truckers who lose their jobs because we are opening the border to foreign truckers to operate in the United States of America. This was part of the bill of the Presiding Officer, the original Bingaman TAA bill, as well as the Daschle substitute amendment. Very sadly, it is no longer included because our friends on the other side of the aisle did not like it. They said: Get rid of it or we are not going to go forward with this bill. That is the kind of hard-ball tactics being played on the other side of the aisle with the lives of American workers and American truckdrivers. There is no reason on God's green Earth why such workers should not receive trade adjustment assistance. They are losing their jobs because of past trade agreements and perhaps future trade agreements. They should be covered. This is not some theoretical issue; these are real people. I recently received a letter from Carlos Cervantes, a trucker from California. He writes: I am worried if Mexican trucks are allowed to drive through the United States, I will lose my job. Mexican drivers make a lot less money than U.S. drivers do. And if U.S. trucking companies can use those drivers to move their loads then I will be out of work in no time. If that happens, I will have to take two jobs to provide for the income, health, and welfare of my family. It will be extremely helpful if the U.S. truckers were provided some sort of assistance if they lost their jobs. That is what our amendment tries to do. It tries to help people such as Carlos Cervantes who want to do nothing more than take care of their families. Where are our family values? We talk about them every single day. We are not doing anything to help truckers in this Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. That is wrong. Take the case of Guy Adams, a trucker in Kansas. He drives the I-35 corridor which stretches from the United States-Mexican border far into the interior of the United States. He is eligible to retire, but he has not done so because his wife is unable to work because of a heart condition, and the treatment and the prescription drug costs are too high to handle without the full insurance his job provides. We have the coming together of a lack of a prescription drug benefit, forcing a trucker to work past retirement age, and now he may well lose his job because of the competition from Mexican truckdrivers. He will not receive the TAA benefits under this bill. His wife's medical needs will not be met. So, again, this is not theory. This is reality. That is why your amendment originally did the right thing. I am heartsick that the folks on the other side said: Do you want to do this bill? Take this trade adjustment assistance out for truckers. U.S. truckdrivers are some of the hardest working people in the world. They make between $35,000 and $50,000 a year--that is their starting salary. Those fortunate enough to be represented by a union earn the higher end and get good benefits. Compare these figures with the salaries of Mexican drivers, and you will see a major difference. Mexican drivers make about $18,000 a year at best. They do not receive any benefits outside of their own Social Security Program. Here is the really incredible fact: There are no time limits on how long they can drive. The Mexican Government has no hours of service regulations, so theoretically a Mexican driver could drive 20 hours to the border and drive another 10 in the United States. A reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle recently rode with a Mexican driver on a 1,800-mile run. The 46-year-old driver drove 3 straight 21-hour days, sleeping only 7 hours in all. Another Mexican driver just quoted in the Kansas City Star said: U.S. truckers are lazy. In Mexico you can drive 24 hours straight. I do it all the time. Mr. President, you know if there are workers who are willing to work 24 hours straight and work at half the wages that our good people do, they are going to get hired as soon as the June 20 date has passed, and we are going to have our good people out of work. We know it is inevitable, and U.S. drivers cannot compete. So Senators Bingaman and Baucus, once again, recognized that when they drafted S. 1209, the original trade adjustment assistance bill that moved out of the Finance Committee. Again, Senator Daschle recognized it when he included this program in a substitute bill. But he was forced to delete it if he wanted to go ahead with this bill. Finally, my amendment will direct the Department of Labor to put in place a system to collect data on adversely affected service workers who work under contract with firms closed or downsized. These workers include the janitors at a plant that closes, the cafeteria workers there, and those who work at companies, which have contracts with the plants, who also lose their jobs. For example, there are plants that shut down that, instead of hiring the janitors themselves, contract out to another company. So because of that quirk, the service worker loses a job. We want a study to get to the bottom of this. We want to help these workers. We want to help truckers like Guy and Carlos. I am deeply disappointed that this important assistance was taken out of the bill. I am even more disappointed that we may not get a chance to vote on this issue if cloture is invoked, and I am going to fight against invoking cloture on this bill. Why should this not be voted upon? Because people are afraid to be seen voting the wrong way, to do the right thing? I do not think that ought to stand. So I am going to do everything I can. Amendment No. 3432 Mr. President, turning to my other amendment, amendment No. 3432, it would help the U.S. Trade Representative make trade work for women. What we mean by that is that women's organizations and labor groups have made a convincing case that increased trade and trade rules have different implications for women and men, and the U.S. Trade Representative is not taking these effects into account. For example, a little village in Mexico, Felicitas Villalobos, creates intricately woven needle baskets. On the export markets these baskets could fetch from 40 cents to $1.25, but trade rules require women to produce an official invoice and official identification in order to export. Since she lives in a poverty-stricken area of Mexico with little access to government services, she does not have an official identification and cannot export her goods. This situation is one that an advisory committee on gender and trade at the USTR could have foreseen and prevented. They could have produced recommendations to exempt women who are caught in this bind where they cannot export their products. In order to help the USTR take the needs of women in account in the agreements they negotiate, I am introducing this amendment with Senators Mikulski, Durbin, and Harry Reid. Our amendment would create an advisory committee on gender and trade at the USTR in order to help our negotiators understand and mitigate the negative consequences of trade for women and also help women share in the opportunities that trade creates. Now that I have talked about a woman in Mexico, let me talk about a woman, Joyce Ruthier, who is a garment worker in Maine. She will lose her job when the plant closes due to foreign competition, as so many others have over the last decade. She has worked at the plant for 23 years. We know the USTR is not doing a good enough job in looking at the impact of trade on Joyce. It is exceedingly clear that trade affects women and men differently, creating opportunities for some and causing others to lose their jobs. The GAO found that, nationally, 66 percent of the workers qualifying for NAFTA trade adjustment assistance were women. That kind of job loss concentration has implications for how we design job training and assistance programs and can help us predict which communities will suffer job losses as a result of trade. The advisory committee I and my colleagues are proposing would include representatives from the private sector, nonprofits, academia, and the public sector. Their viewpoints, focused on the interests of women and trade, would add a much needed perspective to trade negotiations. So it is very important that we look at the facts. Of the 134-member country delegations to the World Trade Organization, only 9 member countries have delegations led by women. Yet women make up 45 percent of the world's workforce and make up 70 percent of the world's poor. Let's make sure these women have a place at the table on trade. The AFL/CIO, Women's Edge, the Feminist Majority, and other fair trade organizations strongly support this amendment. We want a place at the table for women when it comes to trade. When I was in the House of Representatives we took a look at what was happening with health issues in the Congress. We found that women were not being used in clinical trials. Whenever the NIH or CDC made a recommendation, that was based on studies where only men were included. They pointed out this is so unfair to the women of our country who make up a majority of the population. We changed things. On trade, we have a parallel situation. Where the people making decisions are predominantly male, overwhelmingly women in foreign countries and women in this country are disproportionately hurt. My understanding is there is no objection to this amendment on the Democratic side of the aisle, but there is objection on the other side. I am very distressed, again. We have to admit that in this kind of trade agreement there are winners and losers. One time or another, we have to stand up and say we are going to look at who is losing out and what we can do to better understand what is happening. Why the other side of the aisle cannot accept a simple amendment that sets up a commission to look at this is beyond me. I, frankly, think the result of this is going to be a more mean-spirited bill than it has to be. On both of these issues, on both of these amendments, I hope we can get some strong support from colleagues. We know truckers are going to suffer. We know women are going to suffer. The least we can do is stand up and fight for the people in our country who are going to be adversely impacted. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to respond.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend so much. As my friend knows, the majority leader, Senator Daschle, and Senator Reid, the majority whip, have set up the task forces in the Senate to look at different issues. We know that, for example, Senator Lieberman is working on pension reform and pension protection. I was given the assignment to look at the environment. I really thank my friend because I think we are finding out that when we shine the light of truth on an issue, the country is better for it. Senator Kennedy headed up an education team on a proposal that would make it very difficult for students in this country to pay back their loans. This President was about to put that policy in place. Senator Kennedy roared like a lion on the point. He came here and roared like a lion on the point. Guess what. They backed off and the people won. We came down and said, for years we had been testing poor children for lead in their blood. We know that if there is so much lead in their blood--as a baby, or as a child--they are going to have mental difficulties. They could even go into a coma and even die; they could go blind; they could have kidney failure. We pointed it out and, by God, a couple of weeks after they backed off. I want to pick up on what my friend said. We are speaking the truth as we believe it. That is why we are in the Senate. My friend compliments me. I am so grateful. To me, it is why we are here. It isn't our job to come here and button up our lips and not talk because we are afraid the administration will attack us. I know my friend is reading a Robert Caro book, ``Master of the Senate.'' I mentioned it to the President of the Senate before. The first 100 pages deal with what Senators do and how we were sent here not just for fun but to make sure there is a check and balance on whatever the executive power is being asserted here. It is not politics. It is our job. It is not partisan. I opposed President Clinton on a number of issues dealing with what I considered to be unfair trade. It is our job. So I thank my friend. I hope he takes to the floor time and time again pointing out to the American people what our job is. If we don't do it, if we don't speak the truth as we see it, if we don't challenge the executive, if we believe perhaps they can do more, or if they are leading us down the wrong path, then we don't deserve to be here. I thank my friend.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. What is the pending business?

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