Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. That is the point. In other words, all of life involves shortages. The Presiding Officer has worked for so many years, ever since I have been here, to help provide for dropout kids. And he has won approval on many amendments. But it does not do any good if this President does not fund those programs. It does not do any good when we pass an authorization for afterschool, and the President does not fund those programs. It does not do any good if we have money for rebuilding our schools, and the President does not fund the programs or fund Head Start or fund special education. The reason he cannot do it is because of the tax cut to the people earning over $1 million a year. That is the bottom line. I think if we go to the people earning $1 million a year--and I have a lot of those people in my State, I say to my friend, because we have 35 million people in my State, and we have people who do very well--they will tell me to do all I can to redirect their tax cut, that they do not need, to those things that the communities need: prescription drugs for our seniors; education for our children; a clean, healthy environment; beautiful parks that are maintained. I say to my friend, the majority whip, who holds such a high position here, I am so proud he is on this floor day after day, bringing us back to the reality of why we are here, which is to help the people do the best they can do: live long, healthy, productive lives, being well educated, and able to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and not have kids get in trouble by dropping out of school where then their future is destroyed. So I thank my friend. The more the administration says, shame on you, saying something against what we believe, the more I have decided that is why I am here, and that is why I came here. I promised the people when I walked up those steps and those doors opened up, and I came in this magnificent Chamber, that I would never forget those who cannot put on the Gucci suits and shoes and beautiful ties and come up here and lobby. I think about them. And the more the administration fights against them, and fights for those who have so much more--whether it is Enron executives or anyone else; and that is a whole other story we can't get into--the more I will speak up for them. And I know my friend will be there with me.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. I withhold my suggestion.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and I ask unanimous consent that two amendments be called up which I will explain: Amendment No. 3431, the Boxer-Kerry- Murray amendment, and amendment No. 3432.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take to the floor this morning to talk about an issue that is very near and dear to the hearts of the American people. It is very near and dear to the hearts of Californians and very near and dear to my heart. That is a clean and healthy environment for our people. I know the Presiding Officer shares my view on this very important issue. When I was a little girl, my mother would say you can have everything, but if you don't have your health, you really don't have anything. She was right about that. The older I get, the more I realize that is true. You can have a wonderful home, wonderful family, but if someone is ill, someone has chronic problems, it takes over. That is what a clean and healthy environment means. It means clean air; it means clean water, safe drinking water; it means beautiful places to take your family. In the old days, people used to say only the elitists were environmentalists. In other words, it was a movement about people who had everything. The truth is, it is quite the contrary because the people who have a lot of resources and a lot of money can buy their own environment. They can buy a big piece of property. It can have a lake on it, beautiful trees, and mountains. They can enjoy it forever, as long as they live. But ordinary families cannot do that. They need to rely on the environment that we all share. Most of our people live in urban areas or near urban areas. In California, about 90 percent of our people live close to urban areas. In the rest in the country as a whole, it is almost 80 percent. The fact is, most of us live near businesses, and some pollute. We live in a shared environment. Sometimes it is an environment that is not as healthy as it should be. We know now what causes the pollution. It is no great surprise. What brings me here? To say that I am distressed at the record of this administration on the environment. Almost every day we have something else to which we can say: Oh my God, what are they doing? We believe it is time to call attention to it. We think when we call attention to it, they may well change their ways. We have proof of that in one particular issue that I will discuss. But, also, the American people need to know the values of this administration compared to their own values. When so many of our children have asthma, this is not a time to turn away from the Clean Air Act and put up some phony proposal that you say is better but is worse. We have a leader on that issue, Senator Jeffords, very clearly saying that is the direction in which this administration is going. When we have children who are suffering from too much lead in their blood and we know that leads to disability, sometimes coma, blindness, sometimes even death--certainly learning disabilities and mental retardation--it is not a time to float a proposal that says we should stop testing poor kids for lead in their blood. What has happened as a result of this attack on the environment--and, by the way, I will go through more issues--is that our majority leader, Tom Daschle, has appointed what I call the E team, the environmental team. That team comprises several Senators: Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Clinton, Reid, Wyden, Lieberman, Torricelli, and myself. We are examining on a daily basis what this administration is doing to us on the environment. We have created a Toxic Trophy Award to go to those particular agencies that are doing the most damage. Two weeks ago, we gave that award to the Department of Health and Human Services for their proposal to consider not testing poor kids for lead in their blood. We pounded away pretty hard and we presented our Toxic Award in a ceremony. They were not there, but in absentia we presented the award. Guess what happened. Yesterday we read in the paper that they decided they are going to back away. We are really glad. We see this happening all over. My friend is very involved in education issues. Senator Kennedy and I know that the Presiding Officer, Senator Reed, and others were there to point out the administration is going to make it more difficult for our young people to pay back college loans. You pounded on this administration, and guess what happened. They backed away. We think this administration functions in a very interesting way. They do a lot of things in the dead of night. They hope nobody notices. The newspapers may write a couple of articles, but then they figure the publicity will die down. And the American people, frankly, are worse for it. The E team and the other teams Senator Daschle has set up, be it for prescription drugs or Social Security, the many issues we are looking at, are not going to allow these policy changes to go unnoticed. Today I want to put on record and share with you, Mr. President, since I see you are the one with whom I can share it, what has happened since this administration took over in terms of the environment. We think the place to start is an organization called the Natural Resources Defense Council, the NRDC. This is a great organization. They are nonprofit and nonpartisan. They employ about 200-plus lawyers and scientists to follow what various administrations are doing with regard to the environment. As I say, they are very nonpartisan. They did not like a couple of things the Clinton administration did, and they went pretty heavily for it on a few issues. They are unrelenting in their pursuit of a clean environment for our families. Most of the time they agreed with the Clinton administration because the Clinton administration, I would say, was probably the most pro- environmental administration we have seen in many years. But even then, when they believed the administration was wrong, they went after them. They have kept a record of this administration's decisions on the environment. That is what I want to talk about. What they have found is that there are more than 90 separate actions this administration has taken that are bad for public health and the environment. Let me repeat that. They have not been in office that long--it seems like yesterday-- and already 90 separate actions that this administration has taken are bad for public health and the environment. I do not have time to put this entire list in, but let me show you the report. It is called ``Rewriting The Rules, The Bush Administration's Assault On The Environment.'' It has a picture of some beautiful land with a used tire in the middle. Everyone should get a copy of this. You can go on their Web site, nrdc.org, and find out what is happening. I am glad one of the members of my E team is here, Senator Nelson of Florida. I am opening, and when I get to the Superfund, I would like to get into a colloquy with him, if he can. Does the Senator have time to stay for about 15 minutes?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague. We are not talking about theory. We are not talking about an academic proposition. We are talking about sites with horrible pollutants and toxins in them, close to people, that have to be cleaned up. This is the first time I have taken to the floor on this subject. I intend to come back. Other members of the team include Hillary Clinton and Ron Wyden and Joe Lieberman, and we think Bob Torricelli may join us. This is a big issue to the people of this country. We are all pulling together on the challenge that was handed to us on 9-11. We will pull together on that. To me, the most important thing is to understand that there is a balance. On domestic issues, when we see this administration going the wrong way, repealing laws that reflect values of the American people, the value of a healthy environment, the value of a beautiful environment, we are going to be here. Today we will with Senator Schumer give out another Toxic Trophy Award. Senator Cantwell is also on the E team. I think I have covered then all of the members. I know how strongly we believe in these issues. If we continue to shine the light on some of these outrageous proposals, we won't stop every one of them, but we will stop some of them. At a minimum, the American people will know what this administration is doing, sometimes in the dead of night when they are not watching. We intend to be here and call attention to these matters in the hope of winning this battle, when we consider that there has been a war waged on the environment. We will be here as soldiers in that war. We intend to win it. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Let's start from the beginning. The administration took over in 2001. One of the first things they did was to hold up proposed rules announced by EPA in December of 2000 that were designed to minimize raw sewage discharges and to require public notification of sewage overflows. There is nothing more ugly than sewage overflows--without going into any detail. Why on Earth would they reverse the decision to minimize sewage overflows? You will have to ask them. Last year alone, there were some 40,000 discharges of untreated sewage carrying bacteria, viruses and, frankly, fecal matter into basements, streams, playgrounds, and waterways across the country. That rule is still delayed today. On March 13, 2001, President Bush broke the promise he made during the campaign and he announced he would not regulate carbon dioxide, the chief contributor to global warming. He is not going to go after the powerplants. This is where Senator Jeffords is taking this administration on, and I am right by his side, as is the E team. On May 22, the administration suspended the new standard for arsenic in drinking water. My friend Senator Nelson and I just went wild on that point. When we took to the floor and shined the light on this subject, they changed their mind and they decided to let the Clinton rule go into place: 10 parts per billion. We know the old standard that they seemed to want to have, because they delayed the new standard, causes cancer in 1 in 100 people. So we had to fight very hard on arsenic. By the way, the fight isn't over because now we are learning from scientists that 10 is too high, 10 parts per billion; we need to go down to 3. So we have a fight there. On May 3, the administration reversed a 25-year-old Clean Water Act rule that restricted the disposal of mining and other industrial solid wastes in our waterways. The EPA then issued a new rule, making it illegal for coal companies to dump ``fill material,'' which includes waste material from mountaintop mining, into our rivers, our streams, our lakes and our wetlands.'' I don't know whether the President really listens to the words: O beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain, For purple mountain majesties Above the fruited plain! America! America! God shed his grace on thee. He doesn't seem to understand beauty that we have been given by God, to be honest. I don't see it. Either that or he has not taken an interest. But, either way, the decisions of this administration--I have just shared a few. There are 90 of them. Go up on the NRDC site and get the rest of them--would make you shudder. That is why Senator Daschle set up this E team--to take a light and shine it on what is happening. I am going to get to the issue I know Senator Nelson is very upset about, and that is the Superfund. Before I yield to him in a colloquy, let me show, in a chart form, what is actually happening. I want to show how many strip mine sites there are across this great land of ours. This is the EPA's own Web site, and this is the NPL sites, which are the priority sites, the worst sites. You don't see much yellow here. Yellow indicates the places that have no Superfund sites. Purple represents the ones that have the sites. So we are talking about an issue that impacts our entire Nation. The health effects of these sites are very real. What are they? When we say Superfund, it means these are the most toxic sites. When you live near a Superfund site, studies show there are increased birth defects, low birth weights, changes in pulmonary function--that is breathing--neurological damaging--that is the brain--and leukemia. If you live near one of these sites, you have a better chance of getting really sick, and particularly your children because--what have we said here so many times--children are the most vulnerable when it comes to being exposed to toxins and pollution. Why is that? Their bodies are changing and growing in the midst of these toxins. And they are small, so when they breathe in the air in proportion to their body weight, it is much more of an important factor. Now, I often say, children are not little adults. I am a little adult. I am stronger. If I lived near one of these sites, I could get sick because I am not as strong as a big 155-pound male, which is always the standard on which we measure progress. But little kids, they are the ones who get hurt. So there are 1,200 national priority list Superfund sites, NPL sites. And nearly 70 million Americans, including 4 million children, live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. Let me reiterate: 70 million Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. And we know if you live near a site, you are at greater risk of getting very ill. We know 4 million children live near Superfund sites.

Mrs. BOXER. My friend has now hit on the very two issues that we are going to talk about in the next few minutes. The first one is the importance of cleaning up the sites and what it means when you do that. The second point is the importance of ``polluter pays'' as a concept that is now being threatened. So what is happening under this administration, I say to my friends, is this: This administration is going to cut in half the number of sites to be cleaned up. I should not say they are going to; they have so stated. So we are going from the Clinton administration, where the last cleanups reflected in the year 2000 were 87 sites cleaned up, to now, under this administration, they are talking about cleaning up 47. They did 47 last year. So that means it has already been cut in half. And they want to continue to go down, down, down. So we see here a walking away from the Superfund Program. I say to my friend from Florida, what is so stunning about this is the only way we found this out was by digging and digging through EPA documents. We have asked in the Environment Committee--I am the chair of the Superfund Subcommittee--for a list of which sites are not going to be cleaned up. They first promised to do 75, and they did 47. Then they said they would do 65, and now they have said they are going to do 40. So they are down, from a high of 88 to 40. We cannot get the list of what sites they will not clean up. I have a chart in the Chamber showing NPL sites. We do not know where the sites are. Mr. President, they could be in your State. They could be in Florida. They could be in my State. I have over 100 sites--100 sites--in my State, and 40 percent of my people--and that is a big number; we have 35 million people--live within 5 miles of a Superfund site. So we are all in this together. There is only one State that has no sites, and that is North Dakota. Lucky North Dakota. Well, there are not that many people there. But the people who are there do not live near a Superfund site. Every other State has a site in it, and no one knows where the sites are because the administration will not tell us. By October, they have to expend the money, and the administration says they don't have the list ready. I believe at some point we are going to have to subpoena this information because how would you feel, Mr. President, if you were a property owner, and you anticipated a site near you was going to be cleaned, and suddenly you were told it would not be? You would want to have some advance notice so you could protest, so you could call your Senator and say to him or her: Fight for me. This isn't right. We have a site in New Jersey where, honestly, the rabbits there have turned a horrible color of green because of the Agent Orange on the site, arsenic on the site.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator, that is the point. If we can clean up these sites, the Senator is so right--the same way with brownfields--they are then safe, productive land, good for the community. The reason we are on the floor of the Senate today--and the Senator is part of my E team, and he will understand this--this wonderful story occurred because the site was cleaned. If the site sat there, people would have been fearful, and should have been fearful. And that is why I want to get to this next point.

Mrs. BOXER. I will yield to my friend some time to ask me some questions. But I will say this: We are in a mess. Half of the sites that we thought were going to be cleaned up will not be cleaned up. The last point is the point on ``polluter pays.'' I have a chart I will show you, and then I will yield. ``Polluter pays'' has been a theory and a practice. Now what the administration is doing--we always had a situation where taxpayer funds only paid for about 18 percent of the cleanup, and 82 percent was paid by the responsible parties and other funds. Now, under this administration, in 2003, because there is no Superfund fee in place anymore, 54 percent of the program is going to be paid by taxpayers. So I ask a rhetorical question to this administration: Where have you been, when we have made a point that polluter pays is basic? I yield to my friend for questions or comments, but I also ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes on our side.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do so.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask to be advised when 5 minutes remain on our time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues today to reflect on the rich life and legacy of Bernice Layne Brown. Mrs. Brown was the matriarch of a remarkable California family, one that has had a profound and positive effect on my State for the past 60 years. Bernice Brown was the wife of the late Governor of California Pat Brown, and mother of another former Governor, Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown; as well as mother to former California State Treasurer Kathleen Brown; Cynthia Brown Kelly and Barbara Casey Siggins. A true treasure to the Brown family and to all Californians, Bernice Brown, at the age of 93, died of natural causes on May 8, 2002 at her home in Beverly Hills. Mrs. Brown was the daughter of San Francisco Police Captain Arthur Layne. In her high school years, she met Pat Brown, and eloped with him in 1930 after making her living as a teacher. They were married for an impressive 65 years. During the beginning of her husband's political career, she focused her time on raising their children. Although liking to avoid the spotlight, she was a wonderful asset to her family's campaigns and political careers and represented her family with dignity, respect and grace. While famous for her elegance and decorum, she was also an experienced campaigner who never shied away from giving frank advice to the various members of her political brood. Bernice Brown will be missed not only by her loving family, but by the people of California, who grew to respect her quiet ways in the fray of politics. California has lost a remarkable matriarch, and we will never forget the legacy she has left us.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there are areas of the California desert near the Salton Sea that can best be described as dry, desolate and forlorn. Indeed, there are those who describe the area around Niland off Highway 111 as godforsaken. But rising out of this sere, super-heated desert is the multi-colored and textured Salvation Mountain, a unique and visionary sculpture encompassing five acres. Salvation Mountain is Leonard Knight's personal statement on the love and the glory of God. Leonard Knight, a one-time snow shoveler from Vermont, came to Salvation Mountain from the sky. His hot-air balloon crashed into the site and he decided to stay, believing the experience to be a sign from God. Here he produces his unique creation, using adobe, straw, and thousands of gallons of paint to color and reshape the desert landscape. Seen from afar, Salvation Mountain is an unlikely mass of technicolor shapes and textures. Up close, it is an iridescent fusion of doves, clouds, flags, flowers, hearts, streams, biblical messages and countless other images. In the last 16 years, Knight's creation has been visited by thousands of people from all over the world, artists and art lovers, journalists, students on field trips, retirees, newlyweds and just plain curious people come by the mountain each day. The Folk Art Society of America has declared Salvation Mountain a national folk art shrine. The American Visionary Art Museum has embraced Leonard Knight and his mountain monument. Salvation Mountain is the product of the vision and non-stop labor of one dedicated man. Leonard lives alone at the base of the mountain, sleeping in a converted school bus that is as colorful as his desert creation. He uses paint constantly supplied by visitors, local residents and others willing to be a part of this stunning work-in- progress. He figures that he has used close to 60,000 gallons of donated paint over the years. American folk art is found in all corners of our nation. Perhaps one of the least likely locations would be the desert where Salvation Mountain is found. Leonard Knight's artwork is a national treasure, a singular sculpture wrought from the desert by a modest, single-minded man. It is a sculpture for the ages--profoundly strange and beautifully accessible, and worthy of the international acclaim it receives.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that, after several years of preparation, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians is ready to construct a major cultural museum. The Agua Caliente Cultural Museum will be built at the Indian Canyons near Palm Springs, California. The Agua Caliente Cultural Museum will pay tribute to the Agua Caliente Band's rich heritage and at the same time educate the community and visitors about the tribe's history of tribulation and triumph. This museum will truly be a bridge to the tribe's past and a platform for celebrating its future and potential. A greatly expanded facility from the temporary museum built in 1995, this new 100,000 square-foot museum will house an auditorium, provide space for traveling exhibits, and allow for the expansion of the current museum's education programs in language, singing and crafts. Visitors to the museum will learn about the tribe's history through exhibits of photographs, videotaped testimonies and other historical artifacts. The facility will also feature exhibits on current issues like land and water rights, as well as sovereignty issues. When completed, the cultural museum will be a fitting tribute to the Agua Caliente Band, its proud traditions and history. The tribe, part of the Cahuilla Nation, survived the arrival of the Spanish in 1776, and through the centuries has become a strong and enduring people despite many challenges. The tribe is an important economic force in Southern California, has endowed an extremely generous and ambitious philanthropic program, and is a visionary steward of the land. This museum will ensure that the great heritage and spirit of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians are never forgotten and are accessible to all. I commend all those who have made the dream of an Agua Caliente Cultural Musuem a reality.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Durbin amendment. It is just what we need to get this fast track on the right track because right now it is not. The reason it is not is because we are giving up our rights under the underlying bill to amend to take care of our people, to make sure these agreements are fair to our workers, to our families, to our environment. When I got elected to the Senate, I did not say: I want to come here and fight for you, but there is one area I am going to give up all of my views and allow the President to address. I am not going to do it. It does not make sense. The Durbin amendment understands that we are here to do a job. He makes sure we are putting into place environmental checks. He makes sure working standards are looked at. It is very important. I did not give fast-track authority to a President of my own party because I did not want to give up my rights. I agreed with that President so much of the time. I think it is a matter of how we view ourselves here: Do we come here to whimp out on important issues that have an impact on the daily lives of people? I did not come here to go home and face workers and say: Gee, I am really sorry, we could not fight for you. We gave that authority to President Bush. Especially when President Bush was Governor, he supported a minimum wage of $3.35 cents an hour in Texas, and he is trying to roll back environmental standards in our own country. Talk to Jim Jeffords about it. Talk about how this President said he was going to do something about global warming and not only backed out of Kyoto but now does not want to do anything about CO2. Why on Earth would we give over our authority and our vote to someone who has not fought for the rights of workers? As a matter of fact, he fights ergonomics standards. He fights when we try to pass a minimum wage. He is fighting us on this. Why would we give up our rights to that kind of President? It does not make sense. In closing, I want to read a letter I found in the New York Times in the Metropolitan Diary: Dear diary: Got out of bed: Took off my pajamas--made in Guatemala. Put on my shorts--Brooks Brothers imported fabric. T-shirt--Dominican Republic. Terry robe--Pakistan. Slippers--China. Drank my coffee--Colombia. Put on my pants--China. Golf shirt--Peru. Socks--Korea. Belt--Uruguay. Zipper jacket--Korea. Drove to the mall. Which countries will I discover today? Good morning, America. It is signed Henry Karig. If all these nations treated their workers fairly, had good environmental standards, up to our standards, I would not be here today because I would give fast-track authority for a treaty where we are negotiating with someone who is our equal. But we are giving this President the broad authority to walk in and, frankly, negotiate the rights of our workers, our families, and our environment. I hope we adopt the Durbin amendment. I think it is a solid amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the farm bill has been the subject of a lengthy debate among many diverse interests. This bill is the product of compromise and like any compromise, it is an effort to satisfy a wide range of viewpoints. California agriculture is itself very diverse, and I have heard from many groups in the State on this Farm bill. What I have heard from California constituents overall is that on balance, this farm bill is a net positive for the State. I have a stack of letters from Californians on this bill--and I have listened carefully to what they have had to say. I have been asked to support the bill by a long list of California groups, including: the California Farm Bureau; Western United Dairymen; the Alliance of Western Milk Producers; California Citrus Mutual; California Apple Commission; California Walnut Commission; Diamond of California; California Dried Plum Board; California Strawberry Commission; Sunsweet Growers, Inc.; California Rice Commission; Farmer's Rice Cooperative; Sacramento Central Labor Council/AFL-CIO; International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 17; Calcot, Ltd. representing 1700 grower members; Dunavant of California--California Cotton Farmers; Anderson Clayton Corp.--Serving the California Cotton industry; California Food Policy Advocates--representing food banks throughout the State; Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness; Health Access; National Council of La Raza; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles; National Immigration Forum; Jack Fleming Ranches; Big Valley Packers; and Meyers Farming. These groups represent many different interests--from California dairy to specialty crops, cotton and rice farmers, labor unions, advocates for food banks, advocates for humane treatment of legal immigrants on food stamp policy, just to name a few. These groups have one thing in common. Each has asked for my support on final passage of the Farm Bill Conference Report. Some wish California could do better in the farm bill. I do not disagree. I am particularly disappointed that the farm bill conference report includes $4.2 billion less for agriculture conservation programs than the Senate passed bill. The Senate version of the bill set aside a record $21.3 billion for conservation. Unfortunately, the House did not maintain this level of support. However, the conference report contains an 80 percent increase in conservation funding over previous farm bills. This represents an important step in the right direction. The conferees also decided to drop a provision that I authored to deal with Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. This syndrome has already killed many of California's beloved oak trees and has hurt our wood product and nursery industries. It is my understanding that the Sudden Oak Death language was the victim of a broader controversy over other provisions of the forestry title. I hope I can count on my colleagues to move this desperately needed and non-controversial legislation as a stand-alone bill. I also remain concerned about the equity in the distribution of resources in this bill. California specialty crops, in particular, should get a greater share of Federal resources. There are improvements in several programs available to specialty crop growers, but the bill does not go nearly as far as it should to ensure an equitable distribution of Federal dollars to California. At the same time, there are many good things about the bill for California, and on the whole, I believe the strengths of the conference report outweigh the weaknesses. Let me take a few minutes to explain why. The California dairy industry benefits from a price support program that assures an important safety net in difficult times. California dairy farms will also benefit from a new formula that will provide additional access to environmental improvements funding through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Specialty Crop producers in California--such as walnuts, dried plums, and pears also benefit from a number of programs in this bill, including a minimum of $200 million per year authorized for purchases of surplus commodities for school lunch and other programs. The Market Access Program has been substantially increased in the conference report from the current $90 million per year increasing to $200 million over 6 years. This program helps California agriculture market its products abroad, including our dairy, specialty crops and our wine industry. I have worked for years to save this program and increase its funding. The substantial increase authorized in this bill is a real victory for California farmers. Rice and cotton farmers and the communities they live and work in have suffered difficult economic times. The commodity payments in this bill give these farmers a light at the end of the tunnel. An important reform included in the bill are new limitations on payments to multi- millionaire farmers. This is a reform I strongly supported and I am pleased that it is included in the final conference report. I am also particularly grateful that the House and Senate conferees set aside $50 million to be used specifically for water conservation efforts in the Klamath region. I would have preferred the $175 million in the Senate bill, but the $50 million provided will make a significant contribution to the needs of the people and the wildlife in the Klamath basin. The Nutrition title of the farm bill will also provide substantial benefits to my State. In California, the nutrition title has the potential to deliver more than $1.7 billion in new assistance to more than 3.5 million people. According to the California Food Policy Advocates, an organization that works with food banks throughout the State, ``this is one of the most important pieces of Food Stamp legislation since the landmark 1977 Act.'' The conference report also restores eligibility for participation in the Federal food stamp program for many legal immigrants who lost those privileges in 1996 as a result of welfare reform. Legal immigrants pay taxes, are eligible for the draft, and many proudly serve in the Armed Forces. Yet, 1 in 10 immigrant families with a citizen child report not eating for at least one day during the past 6 months. One in four is forced to cut the size of their children's meals due to lack of resources. This bill will provide critical assistance to the neediest members of our immigrant communities. Along with Senator Graham, I also sponsored an amendment that is in the final bill authorizing $10 million over 10 years for farm worker training. Training farm workers to upgrade and expand their skills leads to added value for agricultural crops and increased worker productivity. It also improves worker pay, thereby helping to alleviate poverty in farm communities. On balance, this farm bill includes key provisions that are important to the agriculture economy in California. After carefully considering the pros and cons on this important legislation, I have decided to support final passage of the Farm Bill Conference Report.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Oxnard Harbor District's Annual National Maritime Day Celebration will be particularly special this year, as the event will also recognize the district's 65th Anniversary on May 10, 2002. Created in 1937, the Oxnard Harbor District owns and operates the Port of Hueneme, located in Ventura County, CA. The port greatly contributes to the economic success of California and the Nation. More than $4 billion worth of cargo moves through the port each year. In addition, the Port of Hueneme is the Nation's number one seaport for exporting citrus products and conducts business with countries including Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Germany and Japan. The Oxnard Harbor District has every reason to be proud of its outstanding accomplishments and contributions to our nation's great maritime heritage. To help recognize the district's long history, this year's event will feature the SS Lane Victory, one of America's last remaining World War II Victory ships, and a National Historic Landmark. It loaded its first cargo consignment in Port Hueneme in July 1945. To conclude, I would like to add a special word of commendation to the International Mariners Center, whose unwavering and unparalleled support has been instrumental to the Oxnard Harbor District's success. I thank the Oxnard Harbor District for their many contributions to the community, state and Nation, and wish the staff many more years of prosperity.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I have a brief statement. It has to do with part of this amendment that I think is so crucial. I thank my friend for offering it so carefully. It calls on Arab States to condemn the suicide bombing.

Mrs. BOXER. I am going to ask a question in about 15 seconds, if my friend allows me to pose it. I am stunned that we have heard few voices from the Arab States. I ask my friend this, as he voted, as did all my colleagues in the Senate, for a resolution expressing our horror at the women suicide bombers. I wonder if the Senator is struck by this deafening silence and how he felt when Mrs. Arafat said if she had a son, in fact, it would be an honor for that son to die. It is a stunning statement.

Mrs. BOXER. I wonder if the Senator feels the same?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Oxnard Harbor District's Annual National Maritime Day Celebration will be particularly special this year, as the event will also recognize the district's 65th Anniversary on May 10, 2002. Created in 1937, the Oxnard Harbor District owns and operates the Port of Hueneme, located in Ventura County, CA. The port greatly contributes to the economic success of California and the nation. More than $4 million worth of cargo moves through the port each year. In addition, the Port of Hueneme is the nation's number one seaport for exporting citrus products and conducts business with countries including Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Germany and Japan. The Oxnard Harbor District has every reason to be proud of its outstanding accomplishments and contributions to our nation's great maritime heritage. To help recognize the district's long history, this year's event will feature the SS Lane Victory, one of America's last remaining World War II Victory ships, and a National Historic Landmark. It loaded its first cargo consignment in Port Hueneme in July 1945. To conclude, I would like to add a special word of commendation to the International Mariners Center, whose unwavering and unparalleled support has been instrumental to the Oxnard Harbor District's success. I thank the Oxnard Harbor District for their many contributions to the community, State and Nation, and wish the staff many more years of prosperity.